I HAVE, Senators, believed from the first that the agitation
of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective
measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper
occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which
divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but
without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no
attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be
disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon
you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your
consideration—How can the Union be preserved ?
To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is
indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the
character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge
it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, by what measure it can be
saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce, in the case
of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could
be saved, without similar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause
which produced it. The first question, then, presented for consideration, in
the investigation I propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is—What
is it that has endangered the Union?
To this question there can be but one answer,—that the
immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the
States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely-extended
discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the
slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. The next question, going
one step further back, is—What has caused this widely diffused and almost
universal discontent?
It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it
originated with demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of
aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain
politicians, who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On
the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed
against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The
great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section,
into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the
South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because
it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if
not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties
in the other section. Those who know the strength of party ties will readily
appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation, and in
favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to
prevent the wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. No; some
cause, far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed, must exist, to
account for discontent so wide and deep. The question then recurs—What is the
cause of this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the
Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot
remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union.
The next question to be considered is—What has caused this belief??
One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the
long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and
the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the
time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its
proper place.
There is another lying back of it—with which this is
intimately connected—that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This
is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections, in
the Government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Government
put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect
equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect
itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section
has the exclusive power of controlling the Government, which leaves the other
without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and
oppression. To place this subject distinctly before you, I have, Senators,
prepared a brief statistical statement, showing the relative weight of the two
sections in the Government under the first census of 1790 and the last census
of 1840.
According to the former, the population of the United
States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their incipient
condition of becoming States, but were not actually admitted, amounted to
3,929,827. Of this number the Northern States had 1,997,899, and the Southern
1,952,072, making a difference of only 45,827 in favor of the former States.
The number of States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, were sixteen;
of which eight, including Vermont, belonged to the Northern section, and eight,
including Kentucky and Tennessee, to the Southern,—making an equal division of
the States between the two sections under the first census. There was a small
preponderance in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College, in
favor of the Northern, owing to the fact that, according to the provisions of
the constitution, in estimating federal numbers five slaves count but three;
but it was too small to affect sensibly the perfect equilibrium which, with
that exception, existed at the time. Such was the equality of the two sections
when the States composing them agreed to enter into a Federal Union. Since then
the equilibrium between them has been greatly disturbed.
According to the last census the aggregate population of the
United States amounted to 17,063,357, of which the Northern section contained
9,728,920, and the Southern 7,334,437, making a difference, in round numbers,
of 2,400,000. The number of States had increased from sixteen to twenty-six,
making an addition of ten States. In the mean time the position of Delaware had
become doubtful as to which section she properly belonged. Considering her as neutral,
the Northern States will have thirteen and the Southern States twelve, making a
difference in the Senate of two Senators in favor of the former. According to
the apportionment under the census of 1840, there were two hundred and
twenty-three members of the House of Representatives, of which the Northern
States had one hundred and thirty-five, and the Southern States (considering
Delaware as neutral) eighty-seven, making a difference in favor of the former
in the House of Representatives of forty-eight. The difference in the Senate of
two members, added to this, gives to the North, in the electoral college, a
majority of fifty. Since the census of 1840, four States have been added to the
Union—Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas. They leave the difference in the
Senate as it stood when the census was taken; but add two to the side of the
North in the House, making the present majority in the House in its favor
fifty, and in the electoral college fifty-two.
The result of the whole is to give the Northern section a
predominance in every department of the Government, and thereby concentrate in
it the two elements which constitute the Federal Government,—majority of
States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers.
Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses
the control of the entire Government.
But we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the
commencement of the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which must
add greatly to the decided preponderance of the North in the House of
Representatives and in the electoral college. The prospect is, also, that a
great increase will be added to its present preponderance in the Senate, during
the period of the decade, by the addition of new States. Two territories,
Oregon and Minnesota, are already in progress, and strenuous efforts are making
to bring in three additional States from the territory recently conquered from
Mexico; which, if successful, will add three other States in a short time to the
Northern section, making five States; and increasing the present number of its
States from fifteen to twenty, and of its Senators from thirty to forty. On the
contrary, there is not a single territory in progress in the Southern section,
and no certainty that any additional State will be added to it during the
decade. The prospect then is, that the two sections in the Senate, should the
efforts now made to exclude the South from the newly acquired territories
succeed, will stand, before the end of the decade, twenty Northern States to
fourteen Southern (considering Delaware as neutral), and forty Northern
Senators to twenty-eight Southern. This great increase of Senators, added to
the great increase of members of the House of Representatives and the electoral
college on the part of the North, which must take place under the next decade,
will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when
the Government commenced.
Had this destruction been the operation of time, without the
interference of Government, the South would have had no reason to complain; but
such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this Government,
which was appointed, as the common agent of all, and charged with the protection
of the interests and security of all. The legislation by which it has been
effected, may be classed under three heads. The first is, that series of acts
by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all
the States as members of the Federal Union which have had the effect of
extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting
within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting
a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue proportion of the
burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of
its proceeds appropriated to the North; and the last is a system of political
measures, by which the original character of the Government has been radically
changed. I propose to bestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few
remarks, with the view of showing that it is owing to the action of this
Government, that the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed,
and the whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority.
The first of the series of acts by which the South was
deprived of its due share of the territories, originated with the confederacy
which preceded the existence of this Government. It is to be found in the
provision of the ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude the South
entirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the Ohio and the
Mississippi rivers, now embracing five States and one territory. The next of
the series is the Missouri compromise, which excluded the South from that large
portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36° 30', excepting what is included in
the State of Missouri. The last of the series excluded the South from the whole
of the Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of the day, were what are
called slave territories, and not free soil; that is, territories belonging to
slaveholding powers and open to the emigration of masters with their slaves. By
these several acts, the South was excluded from 1,238,025 square miles—an
extent of country considerably exceeding the entire valley of the Mississippi.
To the South was left the portion of the Territory of Louisiana lying south of
36° 30', and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri, with
the portion lying south of 36° 30', including the States of Louisiana and
Arkansas, and the territory lying west of the latter, and south of 36° 30',
called the Indian country. These, with the Territory of Florida, now the State,
make, in the whole, 283,503 square miles. To this must be added the territory
acquired with Texas. If the whole should be added to the Southern section, it
would make an increase of 325,520, which would make the whole left to the
South, 609,023. But a large part of Texas is still in contest between the two
sections, which leaves it uncertain what will be the real extent of the portion
of territory that may be left to the South.
I have not included the territory recently acquired by the
treaty with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to
appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it.
If she should succeed, it will add to that from which the South has already
been excluded, 526,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the
North has appropriated to herself, to 1,764,023, not including the portion that
she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United
States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square
miles of territory, from which the North will have excluded the South, if she
should succeed in monopolizing the newly acquired territories, about three-fourths
of the whole, leaving to the South but about one-fourth.
Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the
equilibrium between the two sections in the Government.
The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which
has been adopted by the Government. It is well known that the Government has
derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to
show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and
that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality
paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because I deem it
unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor
shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of
the revenue has been disbursed at the North, than its due share; and that the
joint effect of these causes has been, to transfer a vast amount from South to
North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not
have been lost to her. If to this be added, that many of the duties were
imposed, not for revenue, but for protection,—that is, intended to put money,
not in the treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers, some
conception may be formed of the immense amount which, in the long course of
sixty years, has been transferred from South to North. There are no data by
which it can be estimated with any certainty; but it is safe to say, that it
amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most moderate estimate,
it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealth of the North, and thus
greatly increase her population by attracting emigration from all quarters to
that section.
This, combined with the great primary cause, amply explains
why the North has acquired a preponderance in every department of the
Government by its disproportionate increase of population and States. The
former, as has been shown, has increased, in fifty years, 2,400,000 over that
of the South. This increase of population, during so long a period, is
satisfactorily accounted for, by the number of emigrants, and the increase of
their descendants, which have been attracted to the Northern section from
Europe and the South, in consequence of the advantages derived from the causes
assigned. If they had not existed—if the South had retained all the capital
which has been extracted from her by the fiscal action of the Government; and,
if it had not been excluded by the ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri compromise,
from the region lying between the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, and between
the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains north of 36° 30'—it scarcely admits of
a doubt, that it would have divided the emigration with the North, and by
retaining her own people, would have at least equalled the North in population
under the census of 1840, and probably under that about to be taken. She would
also, if she had retained her equal rights in those territories, have
maintained an equality in the number of States with the North, and have
preserved the equilibrium between the two sections that existed at the
commencement of the Government. The loss, then, of the equilibrium is to be
attributed to the action of this Government.
But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium
between the two sections, the action of the Government was leading to a radical
change in its character, by concentrating all the power of the system in
itself. The occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by which this
great change has been consummated. If it did, it would not be difficult to show
that the process commenced at an early period of the Government; and that it
proceeded, almost without interruption, step by step, until it absorbed
virtually its entire powers; but without going through the whole process to
establish the fact, it may be done satisfactorily by a very short statement.
That the Government claims, and practically maintains the
right to decide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will
scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political history of the
country. That it also claims the right to resort to force to maintain whatever
power it claims, against all opposition, is equally certain. Indeed it is
apparent, from what we daily hear, that this has become the prevailing and
fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. Now, I ask, what limitation
can possibly be placed upon the powers of a government claiming and exercising
such rights? And, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the
States maintain and protect the powers reserved to them by the constitution—or
the people of the several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and
among others, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, not
only their separate State Constitutions and Governments, but also the
Constitution and Government of the United States? But, if they have no
constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this
Government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at its pleasure and
discretion, and that all the powers of the system are in reality concentrated
in it. It also follows, that the character of the Government has been changed
in consequence, from a federal republic, as it originally came from the hands
of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy. It has indeed, at
present, all the characteristics of the latter, and not one of the former,
although it still retains its outward form.
The result of the whole of these causes combined is—that the
North has acquired a decided ascendency over every department of this
Government, and through it a control over all the powers of the system. A
single section governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, in
fact, the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. What
was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted, in reality, into
one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency
as any absolute government that ever existed.
As, then, the North has the absolute control over the
Government, it is manifest, that on all questions between it and the South,
where there is a diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be
sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effects may be; as the South
possesses no means by which it can resist, through the action of the
Government. But if there was no question of vital importance to the South, in
reference to which there was a diversity of views between the two sections,
this state of things might be endured, without the hazard of destruction to the
South. But such is not the fact. There is a question of vital importance to the
Southern section, in reference to which the views and feelings of the two
sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be.
I refer to the relation between the two races in the
Southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization.
Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile
to it. Those most opposed and hostile, regard it as a sin, and consider
themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it.
Indeed, to the extent that they conceive they have power, they regard
themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by
the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile, regard it as a
crime—an offence against humanity, as they call it; and, although not so
fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object;
while those who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain
on the character of what they call the Nation, and feel themselves accordingly
bound to give it no countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern
section regards the relation as one which cannot be destroyed without
subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty,
desolation, and wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound, by every
consideration of interest and safety, to defend it.
This hostile feeling on the part of the North towards the social
organization of the South long lay dormant, but it only required some cause to
act on those who felt most intensely that they were responsible for its
continuance, to call it into action. The increasing power of this Government,
and of the control of the Northern section over all its departments, furnished
the cause. It was this which made an impression on the minds of many, that
there was little or no restraint to prevent the Government from doing whatever it
might choose to do. This was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical
portion of the North in action, for the purpose of destroying the existing
relation between the two races in the South.
The first organized movement towards it commenced in 1835.
Then, for the first time, societies were organized, presses established,
lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the North, and incendiary
publications scattered over the whole South, through the mail. The South was
thoroughly aroused. Meetings were held every where, and resolutions adopted,
calling upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest the threatened evil, and
pledging themselves to adopt measures for their own protection, if it was not
arrested. At the meeting of Congress, petitions poured in from the North,
calling upon Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and to
prohibit, what they called, the internal slave trade between the States—announcing
at the same time, that their ultimate object was to abolish slavery, not only
in the District, but in the States and throughout the Union. At this period,
the number engaged in the agitation was small, and possessed little or no
personal influence.
Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympathy
with them or their cause. The members of each party presented their petitions
with great reluctance. Nevertheless, small and contemptible as the party then
was, both of the great parties of the North dreaded them. They felt, that
though small, they were organized in reference to a subject which had a great
and a commanding influence over the Northern mind. Each party, on that account,
feared to oppose their petitions, lest the opposite party should take advantage
of the one who might do so, by favoring them. The effect was, that both united
in insisting that the petitions should be received, and that Congress should
take jurisdiction over the subject. To justify their course, they took the
extraordinary ground, that Congress was bound to receive petitions on every
subject, however objectionable they might be, and whether they had, or had not,
jurisdiction over the subject. These views prevailed in the House of
Representatives, and partially in the Senate; and thus the party succeeded in
their first movements, in gaining what they proposed a position in Congress,
from which agitation could be extended over the whole Union. This was the
commencement of the agitation, which has ever since continued, and which, as is
now acknowledged, has endangered the Union itself.
As for myself, I believed at that early period, if the party
who got up the petitions should succeed in getting Congress to take
jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and that it would in the end, if not
arrested, destroy the Union. I then so expressed myself in debate, and called
upon both parties to take grounds against assuming jurisdiction; but in vain.
Had my voice been heeded, and had Congress refused to take jurisdiction, by the
united votes of all parties, the agitation which followed would have been
prevented, and the fanatical zeal that gives impulse to the agitation, and
which has brought us to our present perilous condition, would have become
extinguished, from the want of fuel to feed the flame. That was the time for
the North to have shown her devotion to the Union; but, unfortunately, both of
the great parties of that section were so intent on obtaining or retaining
party ascendency, that all other considerations were overlooked or forgotten.
What has since followed are but natural consequences. With
the success of their first movement, this small fanatical party began to
acquire strength; and with that, to become an object of courtship to both the
great parties. The necessary consequence was, a further increase of power, and
a gradual tainting of the opinions of both of the other parties with their
doctrines, until the infection has extended over both; and the great mass of
the population of the North, who, whatever may be their opinion of the original
abolition party, which still preserves its distinctive organization, hardly
ever fail, when it comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out their
measures. With the increase of their influence, they extended the sphere of
their action. In a short time after the commencement of their first movement,
they had acquired sufficient influence to induce the legislatures of most of
the Northern States to pass acts, which in effect abrogated the clause of the
constitution that provides for the delivery up of fugitive slaves. Not long
after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, magazines, and
dockyards, and all other places where Congress had exclusive power of
legislation. This was followed by petitions and resolutions of legislatures of
the Northern States, and popular meetings, to exclude the Southern States from
all territories acquired, or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission of
any State hereafter into the Union, which, by its constitution, does not
prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked to do all this, expressly with the
view to the final abolition of slavery in the States. That has been avowed to
be the ultimate object from the beginning of the agitation until the present
time; and yet the great body of both parties of the North, with the full
knowledge of the fact, although disavowing the abolitionists, have co-operated
with them in almost all their measures.
Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has
yet advanced. Now I ask, Senators, what is there to prevent its further
progress, until it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, unless some decisive
measure should be adopted to prevent it? Has any one of the causes, which has
added to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginning until
it has attained its present magnitude, diminished in force? Is the original
cause of the movement—that slavery is a sin, and ought to be suppressed—weaker
now than at the commencement? Or is the abolition party less numerous or
influential, or have they less influence with, or control over the two great
parties of the North in elections? Or has the South greater means of
influencing or controlling the movements of this Government now, than it had
when the agitation commenced? To all these questions but one answer can be given:
No—no—no. The very reverse is true. Instead of being weaker, all the elements
in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first
commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the South are
weaker. Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, what is to stop this
agitation, before the great and final object at which it aims—the abolition of
slavery in the States-is consummated? Is it, then, not certain, that if
something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between
abolition and secession? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require
the South to secede, in order to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself
effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof—as I shall next
proceed to show.
It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be
effected by a single blow. The cords which bound these States together in one
common Union, are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the
work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the
cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls asunder.
Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped
some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall
proceed to show.
The cords that bind the States together are not only many,
but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political;
others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, and others
to the feeling of duty and obligation.
The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical
nature, consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of
which originally embraced the whole Union. All these denominations, with the
exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the
principle of our political institutions. Beginning with smaller meetings,
corresponding with the political divisions of the country, their organization
terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the
character of Congress. At these meetings the principal clergymen and lay
members of the respective denominations, from all parts of the Union, met to
transact business relating to their common concerns. It was not confined to
what appertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective
denominations, but extended to plans for disseminating the Bible—establishing
missions, distributing tracts—and of establishing presses for the publication
of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious
information-and for the support of their respective doctrines and creeds. All
this combined contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The
ties which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to hold the
whole Union together; but, powerful as they were, they have not been able to
resist the explosive effect of slavery agitation.
The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive
force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. The numerous and
strong ties which held it together, are all broken, and its unity gone. They
now form separate churches; and, instead of that feeling of attachment and
devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerly felt, they are
now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was
formerly their common property.
The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists—one of
the largest and most respectable of the denominations. That of the Presbyterian
is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. That of the
Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations
which remains unbroken and entire.
The strongest cord, of a political character, consists of
the many and powerful ties that have held together the two great parties which
have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the Government.
They both extended to every portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to
hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than
the spiritual. It resisted, for a long time, the explosive tendency of the
agitation, but has finally snapped under its force—if not entirely, in a great
measure. Nor is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly
weakened. To this extent the Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in
the only way it can be, by sundering and weakening the cords which bind it
together.
If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with
increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when
nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. But, surely,
that can, with no propriety of language, be called a Union, when the only means
by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It
may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of
the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than
the union of free, independent, and sovereign States, in one confederation, as
they stood in the early stages of the Government, and which only is worthy of
the sacred name of Union.
Having now, Senators, explained what it is that endangers
the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character,
the question again recurs—How can the Union be saved? To this I answer, there
is but one way by which it can be—and that is—by adopting such measures as will
satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section, that they can remain in
the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. There is, again, only
one way by which this can be effected, and that is—by removing the causes by
which this belief has been produced. Do this, and discontent will cease-harmony
and kind feelings between the sections be restored-and every apprehension of
danger to the Union removed. The question, then, is—How can this be done? But,
before I undertake to answer this question, I propose to show by what the Union
cannot be saved.
It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the Union, however
splendid or numerous. The cry of "Union, Union the glorious Union!"
can no more prevent disunion than the cry of "Health, health—glorious
health!" on the part of the physician, can save a patient lying
dangerously ill. So long as the Union, instead of being regarded as a
protector, is regarded in the opposite character, by not much less than a
majority of the States, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by
pronouncing eulogies on it.
Besides this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we
cannot believe to be sincere. It usually comes from our assailants. But we cannot
believe them to be sincere; for, if they loved the Union, they would
necessarily be devoted to the constitution. It made the Union,—and to destroy
the constitution would be to destroy the Union. But the only reliable and
certain evidence of devotion to the constitution is, to abstain, on the one
hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the other, all attempts to violate
it. It is only by faithfully performing these high duties that the constitution
can be preserved, and with it the Union.
But how stands the profession of devotion to the Union by
our assailants, when brought to this test? Have they abstained from violating
the constitution? Let the many acts passed by the Northern States to set aside
and annul the clause of the constitution providing for the delivery up of
fugitive slaves answer. I cite this, not that it is the only instance (for
there are many others), but because the violation in this particular is too
notorious and palpable to be denied. Again: have they stood forth faithfully to
repel violations of the constitution? Let their course in reference to the
agitation of the slavery question, which was commenced and has been carried on
for fifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the States—an
object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional—answer. Let them show a single
instance, during this long period, in which they have denounced the agitators
or their attempts to effect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, or a
single measure which they have brought forward for that purpose. How can we,
with all these facts before us, believe that they are sincere in their
profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid believing their profession is but
intended to increase the vigor of their assaults and to weaken the force of our
resistance?
Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union,
on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they
pronounce eulogies upon the Union, evidently with the intent of charging us
with disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our
assailants. If friends of the Union, their course should be to unite with us in
repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union.
Why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for them to explain.
Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the
illustrious Southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the
Potomac. He was one of us—a slaveholder and a planter. We have studied his
history, and find nothing in it to justify submission to wrong. On the
contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation, that, while he was
careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and decided in repelling
wrong. I trust that, in this respect, we profited by his example.
Nor can we find any thing in his history to deter us from
seceding from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was
instituted, by being permanently and hopelessly converted into the means of
oppressing instead of protecting us. On the contrary, we find much in his
example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of deciding
between submission and disunion.
There existed then, as well as now, a union—that between the
parent country and her then colonies. It was a union that had much to endear it
to the people of the colonies. Under its protecting and superintending care,
the colonies were planted and grew up and prospered, through a long course of
years, until they became populous and wealthy. Its benefits were not limited to
them. Their extensive agricultural and other productions, gave birth to a
flourishing commerce, which richly rewarded the parent country for the trouble
and expense of establishing and protecting them. Washington was born and grew
up to manhood under that union. He acquired his early distinction in its
service, and there is every reason to believe that he was devotedly attached to
it. But his devotion was a rational one. He was attached to it, not as an end,
but as a means to an end. When it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of
affording protection, was converted into the means of oppressing the colonies,
he did not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the great movement by which
that union was for ever severed, and the independence of these States
established. This was the great and crowning glory of his life, which has
spread his fame over the whole globe, and will transmit it to the latest
posterity.
Nor can the plan proposed by the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky, nor that of the administration save the Union. I shall pass by,
without remark, the plan proposed by the Senator, and proceed directly to the
consideration of that of the administration. I however assure the distinguished
and able Senator, that, in taking this course, no disrespect whatever is
intended to him or his plan. I have adopted it, because so many Senators of
distinguished abilities, who were present when he delivered his speech, and
explained his plan, and who were fully capable to do justice to the side they
support, have replied to him.
The plan of the administration cannot save the Union,
because it can have no effect whatever, towards satisfying the States composing
the southern section of the Union, that they can, consistently with safety and
honor, remain in the Union. It is, in fact, but a modification of the Wilmot Proviso.
It proposes to effect the same object,—to exclude the South from all territory
acquired by the Mexican treaty. It is well known that the South is united
against the Wilmot Proviso, and has committed itself by solemn resolutions, to
resist, should it be adopted. Its opposition is not to the name, but that which
it proposes to effect. That, the Southern States hold to be unconstitutional,
unjust, inconsistent with their equality as members of the common Union, and
calculated to destroy irretrievably the equilibrium between the two sections.
These objections equally apply to what, for brevity, I will call the Executive
Proviso. There is no difference between it and the Wilmot, except in the mode
of effecting the object; and in that respect, I must say, that the latter is
much the least objectionable. It goes to its object openly, boldly, and
distinctly. It claims for Congress unlimited power over the territories, and
proposes to assert it over the territories acquired from Mexico, by a positive
prohibition of slavery. Not so the Executive Proviso. It takes an indirect
course, and in order to elude the Wilmot Proviso, and thereby avoid
encountering the united and determined resistance of the South, it denies, by
implication, the authority of Congress to legislate for the territories, and claims
the right as belonging exclusively to the inhabitants of the territories. But
to effect the object of excluding the South, it takes care, in the mean time,
to let in emigrants freely from the Northern States and all other quarters,
except from the South, which it takes special care to exclude by holding up to
them the danger of having their slaves liberated under the Mexican laws. The
necessary consequence is to exclude the South from the territory, just as
effectually as would the Wilmot Proviso. The only difference in this respect
is, that what one proposes to effect directly and openly, the other proposes to
effect indirectly and covertly.
But the Executive Proviso is more objectionable than the
Wilmot, in another and more important particular. The latter, to effect its
object, inflicts a dangerous wound upon the constitution, by depriving the
Southern States, as joint partners and owners of the territories, of their
rights in them; but it inflicts no greater wound than is absolutely necessary
to effect its object. The former, on the contrary, while it inflicts the same
wound, inflicts others equally great, and, if possible, greater, as I shall
next proceed to explain.
In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of
Congress, to legislate for the territories, the Executive Proviso, assumes that
the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the former or to express it
in the language used in a resolution offered by one of the Senators from Texas
(General Houston, now absent), they have "the same inherent right of
self-government as the people in the States." The assumption is utterly
unfounded, unconstitutional, without example, and contrary to the entire
practice of the Government, from its commencement to the present time, as I
shall proceed to show.
The recent movement of individuals in California to form a
constitution and a State government, and to appoint Senators and
Representatives, is the first fruit of this monstrous assumption. If the
individuals who made this movement had gone into California as adventurers, and
if, as such, they had conquered the territory and established their
independence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested in them, as
a separate and independent community. In that case, they would have had the right
to form a constitution, and to establish a government for themselves; and if,
afterwards, they thought proper to apply to Congress for admission into the
Union as a sovereign and independent State, all this would have been regular,
and according to established principles. But such is not the case. It was the
United States who conquered California and finally acquired it by treaty. The
sovereignty, of course, is vested in them, and not in the individuals who have
attempted to form a constitution and a State without their consent. All this is
clear, beyond controversy unless it can be shown that they have since lost or
been divested of their sovereignty.
Nor is it less clear, that the power of legislating over the
acquired territory is vested in Congress, and not, as is assumed, in the
inhabitants of the territories. None can deny that the Government of the United
States has the power to acquire territories, either by war or treaty; but if
the power to acquire exists, it belongs to Congress to carry it into execution.
On this point there can be no doubt, for the constitution expressly provides,
that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers" (those vested in Congress),"
and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any department or officer thereof." It matters not,
then, where the power is vested; for, if vested at all in the Government of the
United States, or any of its departments, or officers, the power of carrying it
into execution is clearly vested in Congress. But this important provision,
while it gives to Congress the power of legislating over territories, imposes
important limitations on its exercise, by restricting Congress to passing laws
necessary and proper for carrying the power into execution. The prohibition
extends, not only to all laws not suitable or appropriate to the object of the
power, but also to all that are unjust, unequal, or unfair,—for all such laws
would be unnecessary and improper, and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Having now established, beyond controversy, that the
sovereignty over the territories is vested in the United States,—that is, in
the several States composing the Union,—and that the power of legislating over
them is expressly vested in Congress, it follows, that the individuals in
California who have undertaken to form a constitution and a State, and to
exercise the power of legislating without the consent of Congress, have usurped
the sovereignty of the State and the authority of Congress, and have acted in
open defiance of both. In other words, what they have done is revolutionary and
rebellious in its character, anarchical in its tendency, and calculated to lead
to the most dangerous consequences. Had they acted from premeditation and
design, it would have been, in fact, actual rebellion; but such is not the
case. The blame lies much less upon them than upon those who have induced them
to take a course so unconstitutional and dangerous. They have been led into it
by language held here, and the course pursued by the Executive branch of the Government.
I have not seen the answer of the Executive to the calls
made by the two Houses of Congress for information as to the course which it
took, or the part which it acted, in reference to what was done in California.
I understand the answers have not yet been printed. But there is enough known
to justify the assertion, that those who profess to represent and act under the
authority of the Executive, have advised, aided, and encouraged the movement,
which terminated in forming, what they call a constitution and a State. General
Riley, who professed to act as civil Governor, called the convention—determined
on the number, and distribution of the delegates—appointed the time and place
of its meeting-was present during the session-and gave its proceedings his
approbation and sanction. If he acted without authority, he ought to have been
tried, or at least reprimanded, and his course disavowed. Neither having been
done, the presumption is, that his course has been approved. This, of itself,
is sufficient to identify the Executive with his acts, and to make it
responsible for them. I touch not the question, whether General Riley was
appointed, or received the instructions under which he professed to act from
the present Executive, or its predecessor. If from the former, it would
implicate the preceding, as well as the present administration. If not, the
responsibility rests exclusively on the present.
It is manifest from this statement, that the Executive
Department has undertaken to perform acts preparatory to the meeting of the
individuals to form their so called constitution and government, which
appertain exclusively to Congress. Indeed, they are identical, in many
respects, with the provisions adopted by Congress, when it gives permission to
a territory to form a constitution and government, in order to be admitted as a
State into the Union.
Having now shown that the assumption upon which the
Executive, and the individuals in California, acted throughout this whole
affair, is unfounded, unconstitutional, and dangerous; it remains to make a few
remarks, in order to show that what has been done, is contrary to the entire practice
of the Government, from the commencement to the present time.
From its commencement until the time that Michigan was
admitted, the practice was uniform. Territorial governments were first
organized by Congress. The Government of the United States appointed the
governors, judges, secretaries, marshals, and other officers; and the
inhabitants of the territory were represented by legislative bodies, whose acts
were subject to the revision of Congress. This state of things continued until
the government of a territory applied to Congress to permit its inhabitants to
form a constitution and government, preparatory to admission into the Union. The
act preliminary to giving permission was, to ascertain whether the inhabitants
were sufficiently numerous to authorize them to be formed into a State. This
was done by taking a census. That being done, and the number proving
sufficient, permission was granted. The act granting it, fixed all the
preliminaries—the time and place of holding the convention; the qualification
of the voters; establishment of its boundaries, and all other measures
necessary to be settled previous to admission. The act giving permission
necessarily withdraws the sovereignty of the United States, and leaves the
inhabitants of the incipient State as free to form their constitution and
government as were the original States of the Union after they had declared
their independence. At this stage, the inhabitants of the territory became, for
the first time, a people, in legal and constitutional language. Prior to this,
they were, by the old acts of Congress, called inhabitants, and not people. All
this is perfectly consistent with the sovereignty of the United States, with
the powers of Congress, and with the right of a people to self-government.
Michigan was the first case in which there was any departure
from the uniform rule of acting. Hers was a very slight departure from
established usage. The ordinance of 1787 secured to her the right of becoming a
State, when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Owing to some neglect, Congress
delayed taking the census. In the mean time her population increased, until it
clearly exceeded more than twice the number which entitled her to admission. At
this stage, she formed a constitution and government, without a census being
taken by the United States, and Congress waived the omission, as there was no
doubt she had more than a sufficient number to entitle her to admission. She
was not admitted at the first session she applied, owing to some difficulty
respecting the boundary between her and Ohio. The great irregularity, as to her
admission, took place at the next session—but on a point which can have no
possible connection with the case of California.
The irregularities in all other cases that have since
occurred, are of a similar nature. In all, there existed territorial
governments established by Congress, with officers appointed by the United
States. In all, the territorial government took the lead in calling conventions,
and fixing the preliminaries preparatory to the formation of a constitution and
admission into the Union. They all recognized the sovereignty of the United
States, and the authority of Congress over the territories; and wherever there
was any departure from established usage, it was done on the presumed consent
of Congress, and not in defiance of its authority, or the sovereignty of the
United States over the territories. In this respect California stands alone,
without usage or a single example to cover her case.
It belongs now, Senators, to you to decide what part you
will act in reference to this unprecedented transaction. The Executive has laid
the paper purporting to be the Constitution of California before you, and asks
you to admit her into the Union as a State; and the question is, will you or
will you not admit her? It is a grave question, and there rests upon you a
heavy responsibility. Much, very much, will depend upon your decision. If you
admit her, you indorse and give your sanction to all that has been done. Are you
prepared to do so? Are you prepared to surrender your power of legislation for
the territories—a power expressly vested in Congress by the constitution, as
has been fully established? Can you, consistently with your oath to support the
constitution, surrender the power? Are you prepared to admit that the
inhabitants of the territories possess the sovereignty over them, and that any
number, more or less, may claim any extent of territory they please; may form a
constitution and government, and erect it into a State, without asking your
permission? Are you prepared to surrender the sovereignty of the United States
over whatever territory may be hereafter acquired to the first adventurers who
may rush into it? Are you prepared to surrender virtually to the Executive
Department all the powers which you have heretofore exercised over the
territories? If not, how can you, consistently with your duty and your oaths to
support the constitution, give your assent to the admission of California as a
State, under a pretended constitution and government? Again, can you believe
that the project of a constitution which they have adopted has the least
validity? Can you believe that there is such a State in reality as the State of
California? No; there is no such State. It has no legal or constitutional
existence. It has no validity, and can have none, without your sanction. How,
then, can you admit it as a State, when, according to the provision of the
constitution, your power is limited to admitting new States. To be admitted, it
must be a State,—and an existing State, independent of your sanction, before
you can admit it. When you give your permission to the inhabitants of a
territory to form a constitution and a State, the constitution and State they
form, derive their authority from the people, and not from you. The State,
before it is admitted is actually a State, and does not become so by the act of
admission, as would be the case with California, should you admit her contrary
to the constitutional provisions and established usage heretofore.
The Senators on the other side of the Chamber must permit me
to make a few remarks in this connection particularly applicable to them,—with
the exception of a few Senators from the South, sitting on the other side of
the Chamber.—When the Oregon question was before this body, not two years
since, you took (if I mistake not) universally the ground, that Congress had
the sole and absolute power of legislating for the territories. How, then, can
you now, after the short interval which has elapsed, abandon the ground which
you took, and thereby virtually admit that the power of legislating, instead of
being in Congress, is in the inhabitants of the territories? How can you
justify and sanction by your votes the acts of the Executive, which are in
direct derogation of what you then contended for? But to approach still nearer
to the present time, how can you, after condemning, little more than a year
since, the grounds taken by the party which you defeated at the last election,
wheel round and support by your votes the grounds which, as explained recently
on this floor by the candidate of the party in the last election, are identical
with those on which the Executive has acted in reference to California? What
are we to understand by all this? Must we conclude that there is no sincerity,
no faith in the acts and declarations of public men, and that all is mere
acting or hollow profession? Or are we to conclude that the exclusion of the
South from the territory acquired from Mexico is an object of so paramount a
character in your estimation, that right, justice, constitution and consistency
must all yield, when they stand in the way of our exclusion?
But, it may be asked, what is to be done with California,
should she not be admitted? I answer, remand her back to the territorial
condition, as was done in the case of Tennessee, in the early stage of the
Government. Congress, in her case, had established a territorial government in
the usual form, with a governor, judges, and other officers, appointed by the
United States. She was entitled, under the deed of cession, to be admitted into
the Union as a State as soon as she had sixty thousand inhabitants. The
territorial government, believing it had that number, took a census, by which
it appeared it exceeded it. She then formed a constitution, and applied for
admission. Congress refused to admit her, on the ground that the census should
be taken by the United States, and that Congress had not determined whether the
territory should be formed into one or two States, as it was authorized to do
under the cession. She returned quietly to her territorial condition. An act
was passed to take a census by the United States, containing a provision that
the territory should form one State. All afterwards was regularly conducted,
and the territory admitted as a State in due form. The irregularities in the
case of California are immeasurably greater, and offer much stronger reasons
for pursuing the same course. But, it may be said, California may not submit.
That is not probable; but if she should not, when she refuses, it will then be
time for us to decide what is to be done.
Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the
question with which I commenced, How can the Union be saved? There is but one
way by which it can with any certainty; and that is, by a full and final
settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between
the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she
ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer, but the constitution; and no
concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she
has little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the
evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South, she could
remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and
fraternal feelings between the sections, which existed anterior to the Missouri
agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and for ever settle
the questions at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.
But can this be done? Yes, easily; not by the weaker party,
for it can of itself do nothing—not even protect itself but by the stronger.
The North has only to will it to accomplish it—to do justice by conceding to
the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by
causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully
fulfilled-to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the
insertion of a provision in the constitution, by an amendment, which will
restore to the South, in substance, the power she possessed of protecting
herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the
action of this Government. There will be no difficulty in devising such a
provision—one that will protect the South, and which, at the same time, will
improve and strengthen the Government, instead of impairing and weakening it.
But will the North agree to this? It is for her to answer
the question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love of
the Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to
the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her
love of the Union. At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests
on the North, and not on the South. The South cannot save it by any act of
hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do
justice, and to perform her duties under the constitution, should be regarded
by her as a sacrifice.
It is time, Senators, that there should be an open and manly
avowal on all sides, as to what is intended to be done. If the question is not
now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the
representatives of the States of this Union, regarded as governments, should
come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in order to
ascertain whether the great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you,
who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle them on the broad
principle of justice and duty, say so; and let the States we both represent
agree to separate and part in peace. If you are unwilling we should part in
peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do, when you reduce the question
to submission or resistance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to infer
by your acts what you intend. In that case, California will become the test
question. If you admit her, under all the difficulties that oppose her
admission, you compel us to infer that you intend to exclude us from the whole
of the acquired territories, with the intention of destroying, irretrievably,
the equilibrium between the two sections. We would be blind not to perceive in
that case, that your real objects are power and aggrandizement, and infatuated
not to act accordingly.
I have now, Senators, done my duty in expressing my opinions
fully, freely, and candidly, on this solemn occasion. In doing so, I have been
governed by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of the
agitation of the slavery question since its commencement. I have exerted
myself, during the whole period, to arrest it, with the intention of saving the
Union, if it could be done; and if it could not, to save the section where it
has pleased Providence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely believe has
justice and the constitution on its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the
best of my ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout this
agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will come, that I am free
from all responsibility.
SOURCE: Richard K. Crallé, Editor, The Works of John C. Calhoun: Speeches of
John C. Calhoun, Delivered in the House of
Representatives, and in the Senate of the United States, 542-73
