Views of Ex-President Tyler on the National Crisis.
To the Editor of the
Whig:
I have been often urged to give my views to the public on
the present great crisis of American affairs. I have abstained from doing so
for reasons entirely satisfactory to myself—one of the most controlling of
which was, that I could not regard with becoming composure the dissolution of
that Confederacy in the service of which so great a portion of my life had been
passed, and which I had been accustomed to contemplate in a spirit of the
truest devotion. Nor did I believe that any thing that I could say would
produce the slightest effect upon the public mind. My public life had long
since terminated, and the shadow which, sooner or later, falls on all men, and
shuts them out from sight had settled upon me. To the younger Athlete, who were
in charge of the public trusts and enjoyed its confidence, I was well inclined
to leave the task of adjusting existing difficulties, in the hope and trust
that a Union so full of glories and so copious in blessings, would survive the
trials which threaten it. In the meantime the high toned and gallant State of
South Carolina, one of the Old Thirteen, has seen cause to withdraw from the
Union, and it is said that her example is to be followed unless sectional
differences are adjusted by the cotton States first, and sooner or later by all
the slaveholding States. In view of this state of things, and seeing also that
all efforts at adjustment have so far failed, I no longer withhold the
expression of my opinions on the leading topics of the day.
The enquiry which presents itself, in advance of all others,
is as to the effects which follow upon the withdrawal of so many states from
the Union as those constituting an entire section of the country. In what
condition does that withdrawal leave the remaining States and even the
government itself? This enquiry is of the greatest interest and should
therefore be made with all possible deliberation. It can do no less than
resolve itself into the question as to the nature and character of the
government itself. If it be a consolidated government, and the States merely
its provinces, then those provinces or States or by whatever other name thy may
be called, can make no resistance to its authority, however despotic, which
would not be considered rebellious and treasonable. The States would occupy the
same position, and none other, to the government of the United States, that
each county or town occupies to the government of a state. The uprising of a
county against the State would be unqualified rebellion and all concerned in it
would be guilty of high treason. These are the inevitable results which arise
out of a consolidated government. No matter what the magnitude of the evil
complained of, no redress is left but out and out rebellion, and each and all
engaged in such rebellion have entered into it with halters round their necks,
to be used, unless the rebellion prove successful, by the consolidated
government at its will and pleasure. It is idle, in this view of the question,
to attempt to draw a distinction between a State in rebellion and any portion
of the people of that State. The reasoning applies quite as forcibly to the
whole community as to a part of it. No organized condition of the community can
justify or excuse the revolt, and war may be made on all alike. Nor will it do
to attempt a distinction between a Government like ours, where powers are
granted and powers reserved, and an absolute despotism.—The same supreme
domination would exist in the enforcement of the granted powers, as where
nothing had been reserved and all given.—Whatever the obstruction interposed
the authority would be given to remove it—if by individuals, they might be put
to the sword—if by a State, it might be crushed. Is there no softening down the
asperity of these conclusions? I am asked. I see no mode of doing so. Again, I
may be asked, does not the constitution provide within itself some mode by
which grievances, when too heavy to be borne, may be redressed? The
Constitution professes to do so; but what chance is there of the remedies being
available against an immovable sectional
majority? Even now, an appeal to that mode of redress has been made in vain.—Every
expedient has been resorted to, to obtain constitutional amendment in redress
of grievances, through the action of Congress; but there stands that sectional
majority, immovable or fixed, or only moving to make matters worse by
suggestion the mere pretence of amendments which pass away in the moment of
utterance.
No, if the Government be consolidated to the extent of the
powers, it is supreme, and resistance to its mandates is treason. But, it is
asked, cannot the Supreme Court, the sworn interpreter of the Constitution,
give redress for violated rights? That august tribunal should ever be entitled
to all respect; but in a sectional
conflict, such as that which exists, its decisions, however solemnly delivered,
carry no force along with them. Who, of the Northern sectional party,
acknowledges the binding force of its decision recently pronounced in the Dred
Scott case?—The venerable men who compose that Court, are of advanced age—as
they drop off the state of actions. Mr. Lincoln will take care to supply their
place, with men who would stand ready to reverse their decisions, and mock at
them as of no binding authority. No, if the Government be a consolidated one,
if its edicts, uttered by a sectional majority, are to be regarded as supreme,
then those edicts are the decrees of fate, and submission of States and people
is all that is left. From being considered the proudest and noblest structure
of human liberty, it degenerates into the vilest instrument of tyranny and
oppression. As indispensably necessary to arrive at the above conclusions as to
the nature of the government, its advocates contend that it arose out of the
popular will, and not from separate State action. It is only necessary to say
that that position was entirely over-ruled, as long ago as 1800, by the decided
voice of the American people, and only momentarily revived by Gen. Jackson’s
proclamation, (a paper which contradicted all the expressed opinions of his
previous and subsequent life,) avowedly written by one who still lingered among
the ruins and fragments of antiquated ideas. It is contradicted by the name
given the Government in baptism. The Federal
Government it was called then, and as the Federal Government it is known to
the world; and any dictionary will tell us that the name pertains only to a
league—to a compact or political partnership among States. The Federal
Legislature is known as a Congress, a
term only used to indicate an assemblage of sovereigns; and that Federal
Legislature is composed, especially in the Senate, of the representatives of
the States equal in rights, and equal in power. There, the smallest State has a
voice as potential as the largest. When the
articles of confederation ceased to exist, they were succeeded by the
present confederation—an improvement, as it was thought, upon the old one. But
I abstain from going any further into this subject. I find the whole argument
already perfected in the preamble to the resolutions recently adopted by thepeople of Botetourt, drawn by as clear a judicial intellect as is to be found
either in the State of Virginia or out of it. In that preamble Judge Allen
presents a synopsis of the history of the origin of our institutions, so
briefly, yet so lucidly, as to have concluded the argument. It challenges an
answer from any quarter. I wish it could be printed, and circulated until it
was to be found in the hands of every man in the country.
The facts of history cannot be overcome, and those facts all
bespeak the Confederative Republic, founded in a compact to which States were
parties. No State thought, that in adopting it, it was imposing fetters upon
its limbs, which, however galling, could never be broken. Some States, Virginia
one of them, more cautions than the rest, accompanied their ratification with a
declaration of the right to resume the powers granted for the peace of all and
happiness of all, upon their being abused; and the pregnant fact that General
Washington, the President of the General Convention, in his valedictory to the
people, admonished them to avoid sectional divisions as the bane of the Union,
bespeaks on his part a serious apprehension that the Union would fall asunder,
not by any treasonable conduct on the part of his contrymen, surely, but the
withdrawal of the States, legitimately and properly. Nor is there sufficient
force to countervail the inductions drawn by Judge Allen in the Botetourt
preamble, from the too great facility which would exist in overthrowing the
Government. The right to secede should rather be regarded as a means of giving
it perpetuity; as the acknowledged existence of such right would operate to
restrain the conduct of majorities and officials. Secession would never be
resorted to for the slight and insufficient causes, nor until after a long
course of forbearance. Nothing is more difficult that to bring about a
revolution or change of government. Take, in illustration, the calamity which
is now impending over us. For thirty years some of the evils complained of by
the South, have been existing, and have been increasing in magnitude, until
they have culminated from abuse of the most rancorous kind, in Congress and out
of Congress, in the pulpit and out of the pulpit, in short, everywhere, and in
every conceivable shape, into a systematic sectional form and overruling
organization. In the meantime, the Southern people have reasoned, expostulated
and protested. So did they in the days preceding the revolution, but their expostulations
had quite as well not have been uttered. So, in these latter days. In 1836, I
remember to have received, through the Governor of the States of Virginia, a
series of resolutions, which had been adopted by the Legislature, addressed to
the Northern States, complaining of wrongs perpetrated towards her and her
sisters of the South, by people of those States. I presented them, in due time,
to the Senate; but, although those resolutions emanated from a State that had
never inflicted intentional wrong on any co State, and which had laid down an
empire as a rich offering on the alter of Union, they were wholly disregarded.
So far from arresting the evils complained of, those evils have been
continually increasing, until she and her sister States of the South are not
only denounced in the most opprobrious terms, but participation in the benefits
of the common territories are denied her and them, and the now-to-be-regarded
as authoritative declarations is thundered in their ears, that an
“irrepressible conflict” exists between the free and the slave States, which
can only be quieted by “making all free, or all slave.” Can the bonds of that
Union be so easily broken which have stood such assaults for so many years? Oh!
no, there is no danger that any State will too promptly assert its rights and
liberties, and privileges. The danger is the other way—the failure promptly to
vindicate them may lead to their loss forever. In short, which is most to be
desired, a government liable to no peaceful change, under the control of an
arbitrary and despotic sectional majority, which proposes to accomplish, by an
act of Congress, what others accomplish by sword, or one held in check by an
efficient popular veto? The lover of justice and liberty can have no difficulty
in deciding. Nor is there the least force in the arguments drawn from the case
of the secession of a State recently acquired, either by purchase of conquest.
If Texas, for example, seeks admission into the union, she does so to enjoy the
blessings of its liberty in security, upon an equal footing with the original
States. A few years only elapse, and, instead of equality, she finds herself,
by a sectional majority, trampled upon, and in place of enjoying the equal
privileges which lead her to desire annexation, she is put under ban along with
the entire section to which she belongs. If she seceded singly, the Government
might possible insist upon an enumeration for outlays and expenditures; but in
justice, that would be all that should be done. Let the Southern States be
treated as they were for the first half century of the existence of the Union,
and, my life upon it, there would be no secession or talk of secession; nay,
let the majority section furnish now sufficient guarantees—guarantees rendered
more urgently necessary by reason of the out-spoken words of the leaders, and
the danger which threatens our institutions will pass away, and a brighter and
more propitious sun than we have yet seen will shine above the horizon. To deny
such guarantees may serve very well to advance the wickedly ambitions purposes
of political libertines, but augur to all others of us naught by the deepest
woe. What then are the consequences resulting from the act of secession—first,
to the seceding States—secondly, to the remaining States and Government?
1. Most assuredly it would be better that the full
adjustment of the responsibilities to which each member of the political
partnership is liable, as well as all the rights and interests of each
resulting therefrom, should be adjusted,
prior to the act of separation. No State can justly avoid the assumption of its
portion of the public debt, or of its fair share of all the responsibilities
which have been contracted by the Government during its continuance in the
Union; while, on the other hand, its title to its fair share in the public
property, in whatever it may consist, would be equally clear. But as this
cannot be done in the present state of Public opinion, the State can do no more
that express its readiness fairly and honestly to act upon all its obligations.
The act of withdrawal re-invests it with all the powers which it conferred on
the agent. Government restores to it all the grants of land made by itself for
public purposes; in a word, clothes it with all the powers and attributes and
rights of sovereignty which can attach to a sovereign and independent power.
Its trade and commerce are under its exclusive control, and revenues collected
in its ports are subject to its own orders.
How would the remaining members and the Government itself be
affected? If the union of States under a political compact may be likened to
that of a mercantile partnership, the question would readily enough be
answered. The withdrawal of a single member would break up the concern, and
call for a settlement of all its affairs. If the remaining members chose to
continue the business, it would be as a new firm, although they might still
preserve the original name. The dissolution of the old firm would be quite as
complete, although its re-establishment would not be so difficult, by the
withdrawal of one member, as if dissolved by united consent. If it undertook to
contract in the name of the old partnership, its efforts would be of no avail;
if it drew a check on any bank, the check would not be honored. In a word, the
functions of the association would have entirely—except so far as would be
necessary to wind up the concern—ceased to exist. By a parity of reasoning,
similar results would transpire in regard to the compact of Union. Sound policy
would dictate to the remaining States an immediate re-construction of the
Government. This might be done by tacit consent, or by more formal action, and only
a moment of time might elapse between the dissolution of the old, and the
re-establishment of the new, advancing from the secession of one member to that
of all members of an entire section and still advancing to the secession or
withdrawal of an additional number, until only one or two remained attached to
the old order of things in a legal point of view. The case finds its
illustration, not inaptly, in the establishment of the Constitution under
which, thus far, we of the States that have not yet seceded, by tacit consent,
since the withdrawal of South Carolina agree still to live. In that case this
Constitution was adopted by eleven States, while North Carolina and Rhode
Island rejected it, and clung to the old articles of confederation which has
been declared perpetual, in plain and
unmistakable characters upon its face.
No one doubts but that North Carolina and Rhode Island might
have continued the perpetual Union
established, or more properly proclaimed, by that first compact; and that they
had just cause to complain of the co States for having dissolved it without
their consent. But we are enquiring into legal rights and responsibilities of
seceding and non seceding members. What if North Carolina and Rhode Island had
set up a claim to the Government and all its appendages? What if they had gone
on with Congress, established the Treasury board, called upon the eleven
seceding States to pay up their installments as required under the perpetual
articles of Confederation, which were not to be altered but by unanimous
consent; and if disobeyed, had issued their orders to the army, and navy to
seize upon the forts and attack those towns and cities of the rebellious
seceders—what would the anti-secessionists of this day have said of it?—Would
the soldiers have manned the forts?—Would the officers of the navy have laid in
ashes the cities? If the non secession of two States could not preserve the Government
of the first Constitution, what number is necessary to preserve that
Constitution which was engrafted on it? Will a majority do so?—and why? Less
than a majority would scarcely attempt it; and why not as well as a majority,
in point of right? The secession of one State paralyses the finances—what will
that of eight do? What of fifteen, with the sure prospect of other changes
threatened and in embryo?—What capitalists will make venture of the earnings of
a life-time in so rickety a concern? A re-constructed Confederation, based on
ample guarantees, would, on the contrary, command public confidence after being
one in motion.—The best way is for these who have the power to act like
rational men, and to resolve that the Constitution shall be carried out in good
faith; that the emissaries from Exeter Hall, and their confreres in the United
States shall be silenced and justice be done to all, and equality be measured
out to all. No American citizen but should feel indignant at this insolent
interference of Englishmen in our affairs.—If the scheme of Southern
emancipation is to be concocted, if a new constitution is to be formed for the
South it must be drawn upon foreign soil. If a raid takes place in Virginia,
under a lunatic leader, an Englishman, in some way or other must have his hand
in it. I submit to the people of the North, whether they have so far parted
with all their Americanism, as to tolerate such interference with their
unoffending brethren? But I return to the train of my reflections.
It is to be regretted that there should exist so great an
instability of public opinion, in regard to the origin and character of the
government. If, for example, Massachusetts as in the time of non-intercourse
and embargo, or at a still later period, when Texas annexation was the leading
topic of the day—take umbrage at the proceeding—no state evinces more fiery
zeal in favor of the idea of a Federal league.—She hesitates not to take the
strongest position in regard to her own sovereignty. In the case of Texas she
set the example of action secession—not by proclamation, it is true, issued by
a convention of her people; but by legislative resolution, which announced, as
a fact accomplished, her withdrawal from the Union. In the event of the
consummation of that measure. Now she is so full of indignation at the
withdrawal of South Carolina, if the newspapers speak truly, that she is overflowing
with passion, and promises to contribute from 7,000 to 100,000 men to punish
South Carolina, for having follower her own example. It is high time that Judge
Allen’s preamble should be in the hands of the people. Today it is your bull
that gores my ox—to-morrow the thing is reversed. Conquer the south! Suppose
such as thing accomplished, and the Northern States invested with supreme rule.
What great good will they have achieved for themselves? Instead of looking with
delight on fields under industrious culture—on a country teaming with abundance—on
ships freighted with the rich productions which regulated the exchanges of the
world, and pour into the Northern lap almost fabulous wealth—they would gaze
only on burning embers and smoking columns—and the wreaths which would encircle
their brows would not be the evergreens that patriot heroes wear, but parched
and withered leaves which would burn into their brains. All this, too, would
have had its origin in a busy-bodiness—an interference with those people’s
affairs which, in private or public life, never fails to produce disturbance
and ill-will. If Virginia undertook to control and regulate the domestic
affairs of Massachusetts, a day would not pass before the thunders, as in the
days of yore, would begin to roll and the lightnings to flash from Faneuil Hall.
Can Massachusetts expect anything less from Virginia? Let the states adopt the
truly wise rule of attending to their own business and letting their neighbors
alone—of fulfilling all their political obligations, and of doing equal justice
to all their compeers—and future generations will rise up and call them
blessed. Did it ever enter into the head of any man who voted for the adoption
of the Constitution that one section of the country would assume the task of
supervisors over the laws and morals of another? and, its domestic institutions
being precisely the same as when the compact of Union was entered into, that a
later day the dominant section would make them the pretext for excluding the
minority of section from an equal participation in the Territories which might
at any time be acquired? Pretty business, truly, that the men of this day shall
esteem themselves more moral than their father; that Seward should be set up as
a purer and better man than George Washington, and that Mr. Lincoln would be
regarded as the only truly immaculate President of the U. States.
It would, indeed, be a retrograde movement if any State
should be constrained by force to remain in a Union which it abhorred. In this
matter, one might take a lesson from what is passing in the world. Italy, after
the enthrallment of ages, is admitted to the ballot box, and her States claim
and exercise the privilege of selecting the condition of their own future. And,
while this is passing and that, too, with the approbation of all Europe, we are
to take a step backward into the dark ages, and carry into practice the
exploded doctrine of absolutism in Government. If we cannot live together, let
us part in peace. By doing so we shall at least save something of the old
feeling. It is true, the South will be under the necessity of adopting a rigid
system of passports and police, which may prevent the perfect freedom of
intercourse which, except in notorious cases now exists. But that is no more
than other countries have to do, and is entirely protective in its character
without being hostile. If necessary, a treaty, offensive and defensive, may be
received, and much that now exists may be preserved. Pursue a different course,
and all may be lost. Strange, indeed that odious discriminations should be drawn
between equals in a common concern. Such was my opinion in 1820, in the
discussion on the Missouri question, and such will it ever remain. The talented
editors of the “National Intelligencer,” gave me an enviable position in
certain able articles, written by them in the Summer of Fall of 1859. They
speak of me as being the only member of Congress, at that day, who in debate,
denied to Congress the right to prohibit slavery in the Territories. I stood
there then, and I stand there now, not as in my early life alone in debate—but now
in my age, sustained as I believe, by the concurrent opinions of a majority of
the people of the United States, and leaning on the decision of the Supreme
Court as on a staff which no rage of faction can weaken, no convulsion, however
serious, can break. Could the able editors have deciphered the thoughts of my
inmost heart, they would have found me opposed to congressional interference in
this behalf with the Territories, for other reasons. Even passing over the
impolicy of such interference, it was in its best view useless, God’s own law
of climate had regulated the matter; and let the children of earthly wisdom act
as they may. It will still continue to do it. The man who would talk of
cultivating the rice and cotton fields, and sugar plantations of the South with
free labor, denies to himself the light of observation and experience. Look to
the West India Islands—no part of the Globe makes a louder outcry for labor, or
offers higher wages than they do, and yet the tide of immigration from Europe
sweeps by them in a vast current, which is arrested in its course only by a
more Northern and healthy clime. Asia and Africa have to be resorted to for
laborers, while the Caucasian of Europe flees as from a pestilence, the rays of
a burning sun, and becomes the cultivator of the cereals, or turns to herdsman
amid the snows of the North. There is but one element that can change, and that
but to a limited degree, this law of climate, and that is the price of labor. I
need not, therefore draw the picture of what would be the condition of the
slave States, looking to the regular increase of the black population in forty
years, under the edict formally announced by the leaders of the Northern
dominant party of “no more slave States!” It cannot be contemplated by any
Southern man with absolute composure.
I will not despair of the good sense of my countrymen. The
hope will linger with me to the last that there is enough wisdom and patriotism
among us to adjust these difficulties, although I frankly confess my doubts and
fears. The minority States can do but little more than suggest—the majority
States hold in their hands the fate of the Union. I would by no means, have
Virginia to linger by the wayside. On the Contrary, I would have her prompt and
decisive in her action—she cannot be too prompt or decisive. Before her
Convention can meet full developments of one sort or the other will have been
made. She should place herself in position—her destiny, for good or for ill, is
with the South. She was the flagship of the Revolution; and borrowing an
expression from a recent production of one of her most gifted sons, she should
have “Springs upon her cables and her broad-side to.”
If I may be permitted to make a suggestion, it would be,
that the Legislature, without delay, and without the interference with its call
of convention, might inaugurate a meeting of the border States of Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, slave states; and New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, free States, through
two Commissioners from each, to arrange, if possible, a programme of
adjustment, to be submitted to the other States as conclusive of the whole
matter.
Should they agree, I think their recommendation would be
followed by the other States, and incorporated into the Constitution and placed
on the footing of an unalterable compact. Surely no States can be more deeply
interested in the work of restoring the country to quiet and harmony. If they cannot agree, then it may safely be
concluded that the restoration of peace and concord has become impossible. I
would have an early day appointed for the meeting of the commissioners; so that
Virginia, when she holds her convention, may be in full possession of the
result.
Even if a failure to agree should occur, I would still have
the Southern States, as a dernier
resort, upon assembling in Convention, and after having incorporated in the
present Constitution, guarantees going not one iota beyond that strict justice
and the security of the South requires, adopt the Constitution of the United
States as it now is, and give a broad invitation to the other States to enter
our Union with the old flag flying over one and all. When this is done, I would
say, in conclusion, to all my countrymen, rally back to the Constitution, thus
invigorated and strengthened; and let there, for all time to come, be written
on every heart, as a motto—that under all circumstances, and every condition of
things, there is but one post of safety, and that is to stand by the
Constitution.
JOHN TYLER.
SOURCES: “Views of Ex-President Tyler on the
National Crisis,” Richmond Daily Whig,
Richmond, Virginia, Wednesday Morning,
January 16, 1861, p. 1. This letter was also published under the title “Letter From
Ex-President Tyler,” Richmond Enquirer,
Richmond, Virginia, Friday, January 18, 1861, p. 1
