Diary of Gideon Welles: January 30, 1866

I had another long talk with Senator Sumner, who called on me on Saturday. It was of much the same purport as heretofore. He is pleased with a speech of Secretary Harlan, made the preceding evening, which I had not then read, and said it came up to the full measure of his requirements. "Then," said I, "he probably is that member of the Cabinet who has been urging you to bring in a bill to counteract the President's policy." "No," said Sumner, "it was not Harlan but another member. There are," continued he, "four members of the Cabinet who are with us and against the President." "Then," replied I, "you must include Seward." This he promptly disclaimed. I told him he must not count Dennison. He was taken aback. "If you know from D.'s own mouth,—have it from himself, I will not dispute the point," said Sumner. I told him I knew D.'s views, that last spring he had, at the first suggestion, expressed himself for negro suffrage, but that he had on reflection and examination come fully into the President's views. He replied that he had known

D.'s original position and had supposed it remained unchanged. Sumner told me he should make a very thorough speech this week on the great question—the treatment of the States and people of the South—but should avoid any attack on the President; would not be personal. Tells me that Governor Hamilton of Texas has written him imploring him to persevere.

I am afraid the President has not always been fortunate in his selection of men. Either Hamilton is a hypocrite or there is a bad condition of things in Texas. The entire South seem to be stupid and vindictive, know not their friends, and are pursuing just the course which their opponents, the Radicals, desire. I fear a terrible ordeal awaits them in the future. Misfortune and adversity have not impressed them.

Have had much canvassing and discussion of Semmes's case with Solicitor Bolles, Mr. Eames, Fox, and others, and to-day took the papers to the Cabinet. When I mentioned the purport of the documents, which were somewhat voluminous, the President proposed that he and I should examine them together before submitting them to the Cabinet and thus save time. After going over the papers with him, he expressed a desire to leave the whole subject in my hands to dispose of as I saw proper. I remarked that the questions involved were so important that I preferred the course taken should be strictly administrative, and I wished to have the best authority, and careful and deliberate consideration and conclusion. The offenses charged being violation of the laws of war, I thought our action should be intelligent and certain. The President said he had confidence in my judgment and discretion, inquired why a purely naval court martial could not dispose of the subject. He exhibited a strong disinclination to commit the case to the military, and was more pointed and direct on that subject than I have before witnessed. He requested me to take the papers and consult such persons as I pleased and report in due time.

We had some general conversation on the tone and temper of Congress and the country. The President is satisfied that his policy is correct, and is, I think, very firm in his convictions and intentions to maintain it. The Radicals who are active and violent are just as determined to resent it.

I took occasion to repeat what I have several times urged, the public enunciation of his purpose, and at the proper time, and as early as convenient or as there was an opportunity, to show by some distinct and emphatic act his intention to maintain and carry into effect his administrative policy. That while a conflict or division was not sought but avoided, there should be no uncertainty, yet a demonstration which should leave no doubt as to his determination. On this we concurred.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 419-21

Congressman Robert Toombs to Senator John J. Crittenden, April 25, 1850

WASHINGTON, April 25, 1850.

DEAR CRITTENDEN,—I have been thinking for several months that I would write to you, but as I did not wish to annoy you with disagreeable intelligence, I deferred it, hoping that events would open up a better prospect for the future. That expectation has not yet been realized. "It were a tale too long" to detail all the blunders of the cabinet, which have brought the Whig party to the brink of ruin; but of the special question upon which their policy has nearly estranged the whole Whig party of the South it is proper to give you some brief hints, that you may understand our position. During the last summer, the government, with the consent of the whole cabinet, except Crawford, threw the entire patronage of the North into the hands of Seward and his party. This was done under some foolish idea of Preston's, that they would get rid of a Northern competition for 1852, as Seward stood for 1856. The effect of this was to enable Seward to take the entire control of the New York organization, and force the whole Northern Whig party into the extreme anti-slavery position of Seward, which, of course, sacked the South. I knew the effect of this policy would certainly destroy the Whig party, and perhaps endanger the Union. When I came to Washington, I found the whole Whig party expecting to pass the proviso, and that Taylor would not veto it, that thereby the Whig party of the North were to be built up at the expense of the Northern Democracy, who, from political and party considerations, had stood quasi opposed to the proviso. I saw General Taylor, and talked fully with him, and while he stated he had given and would give no pledges either way about the proviso, he gave me clearly to understand that if it was passed he would sign it. My course became instantly fixed. I would not hesitate to oppose the proviso, even to the extent of a dissolution of the Union. I could not for a moment regard any party considerations on the treatment of the question. I therefore determined to put the test to the Whig party and abandon its organization upon its refusal. Both events happened to defeat this policy; it was of the first importance to prevent the organization of the House going into the hands of the Northern Whig party. I should have gone to any extent to effect that object, they foolishly did it themselves. Without fatiguing you with details, my whole subsequent course has been governed by this line of policy. I have determined to settle the question honorably to my own section of country, if possible, at any and every hazard, totally indifferent to what might be its effect upon General Taylor or his administration. In the course of events, the policy of the cabinet has vacillated to and fro, but has finally settled upon the ground of admitting California, and non-action as to the rest of the territories. Seward and his party have struck hands with them on this policy, but Stanly is the only Southern Whig who will stand by them. I think it likely the course of events may throw the whole of the Southern Whigs into opposition,-such a result will not deter us from our course. We are willing to admit California and pass territorial governments on the principle of McClernand's bill; we will never take less. The government, in furtherance of their stupid and treacherous bargain with the North, are endeavoring to defeat it; with their aid we could carry it, as more than twenty-five Northern Democrats are pledged to it. They may embarrass us, possibly may defeat us, but our defeat will be their ruin. The cabinet have intense hostility to Mr. Clay, and I think it likely we, and the country, will be greatly benefited by the feud, inasmuch as it makes Clay the more anxious to conform to the interests of his own section and of the Southern Whigs, and this the rather because the government has the whip hand of him (through Seward) with the Northern Whigs. The Senate's committee will, I think, agree upon propositions which will pass; this can only be defeated by the want of common sense and common prudence on the part of Mason, Butler, and others of that "ilk" in both houses of Congress, and the efforts of the administration. But as to the latter it is but candid to say that they have little power, either for good or evil. For some reason, wholly unaccountable to me, the Northern members of the cabinet are universally odious, even to the Northern Whigs. Clayton is a dead body tied to the concern. Johnson is honorable and clever, but without wisdom. Preston is speculative, and, what is worse, has no sentiment in common with the section which he represents. Crawford alone is true and faithful to the honor and interest of our section, and the late scene about the Galphin claim is an effort of men in the service of government to drive him out. He is the last link that binds a majority of the Southern Whigs to the government, and I have no doubt but they will soon make it inconsistent with his own honor to remain there. I have thus given you a brief outline of men and parties in the government. I have said nothing of General Taylor; my opinion is that he is an honest, well-meaning man, but that he is in very bad hands, and his inexperience in public affairs, and want of knowledge of men, is daily practiced upon, and renders him peculiarly liable to imposition. I think there has been a studied effort to alienate him from his original friends, and that it has been eminently successful; time will show that he and not they will suffer most by that alienation. Morehead is now making a good speech at my back, and has perhaps, to some extent, destroyed the continuity of my narrative. Let me hear from you.

I am truly your friend,

R. TOOMBS.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 364-6

Elwood Fisher to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, October 22, 1850

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], October 22, 1850.

DEAR SIR: Yours is received and I herewith send the letter of Mr. Tazewell. You will see how it was mutilated while in the hands of the printer and against my orders, but I have saved every article of the precious paper.

As to Georgia the indications are unfavourable. The tone of the resistance press is not so good as it has been. Elsewhere there is no change, unless in Charlestown, V[irgini]a and in Rockingham [County, Virginia] where by the way you were expected. I got a letter from Bedinger last night who says that Mason made a capital speech at Charlestown, and that it was well received, and that all the Democrats are with us, and the Whigs opposed. The proceedings however have not yet reached here.

By the way that truest test of the state of affairs, the subscriptions to the Press are not coming in so rapidly as immediately after the session closed. The members have either done nothing—or done it in vain. My opinion is they have done about nothing, that is so very customary with them.

You see Filmore has surrendered to Seward, submission is the order of the day.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 119-20

John Tyler to the Editor of the Richmond Daily Whig, published January 16, 1861

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

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, January 1, 1866

Made complimentary call with my family on the President at 11 A.M. By special request I went some fifteen minutes before the time specified, but there were sixty or eighty carriages in advance of us. The persons who got up the programme were evidently wholly unfit for the business. Instead of giving the first half-hour to the Cabinet and the several legations, and then to Army and Navy officers, Members of Congress, etc., in succession, numbers, including Members of Congress, and they embrace everybody, all the members of their respective boarding-houses, all their acquaintances, immediate and remote, who were in Washington, were there at an early hour. Consequently there was neither order nor system. After a delay of about twenty minutes we were landed in the Executive Mansion, which was already filled to overflowing in the hall and anterooms. While moving in the crowd, near the entrance to the Red Room, some of the officials signed to us and threw open the door to the Blue Room, or reception-room, which we entered, much relieved; but on turning, we found the President and his family immediately behind us. The affair passed off very well. A great want of order and system prevails on these occasions, owing to the ignorance and want of order of the marshal. No one having any conception of discipline or forethought directs or counsels those in charge. We left in a very short time, and the company began to flock in upon us at our house before twelve, and until past four a pretty steady stream came and went, naval and army officers, foreign ministers, Senators and Representatives, bureau officers and clerks, civilians and strangers. Pleasant but fatiguing, and the day was murky and the roads intolerable.

Mr. Seward left on Saturday. The rest of the members received, as did many other officials.

Henry Winter Davis, a conspicuous Member of the last Congress and a Maryland politician of notoriety, died on Saturday. He was eloquent, possessed genius, had acquirements, was eccentric, ambitious, unreliable, and greatly given to intrigue. In politics he was a centralist, regardless of constitutional limitations. I do not consider his death a great public loss. He was restless and active, but not useful. Still there will be a class of extreme Radicals who will deplore his death as a calamity and eulogize his memory.

When at the Executive Mansion the memory of the late President crowded upon my mind. He would have enjoyed the day, which was so much in contrast with all those he had experienced during his presidency.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 408-9

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, January 2, 1866

Neither Seward nor Stanton was at Cabinet council. Seward is on his way to the West Indies, Gulf, etc. He wishes to be absent until the issues are fully made up and the way is clear for him what course to take. There may be other objects, but this is the chief. The talk about his health is ridiculous. He is as well as he has been at any time for five years. Stanton had no occasion to be present. Some discussion as to whether the State of Louisiana is entitled to cotton bought by the Rebel organization or government. Dennison and myself had a free talk with the President after the others left. Although usually reticent, he at times speaks out, and he expressed himself emphatically to-day. The manner in which things had been got up by the Radicals before the session he commented upon. "This little fellow [Colfax] shoved in here to make a speech in advance of the message, and to give out that the principle enunciated in his speech was the true policy of the country," were matters alluded to with sharpness, as were the whole preconcerted measures of the Radicals. "I do not hear that the colored people called or were invited to visit Sumner or Wilson," said the President, "but they came here and were civilly treated."

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 409-10

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, January 5, 1866

I submitted the two cases, one of Judge Wayne for money due his granddaughter, and one of Mallory for a cylinder, to the Cabinet. The parties claim the first money due, and the last property seized by the Rebels and recaptured by the Union forces. All seemed united in the opinion that no action could be taken in behalf of these and similar claims at present.

Mr. Seward being absent, Mr. Hunter, who is Acting Secretary of State, stated that there was some embarrassment in regard to the Shenandoah. Both the State and the Treasury Departments appear to have been anxious to get possession of this vessel, but they are much more anxious to get rid of her. Dudley, consul at Liverpool, undertook to send her to the United States by a captain and picked-up crew, but after proceeding about six hundred miles and encountering rough weather she returned. Seward sent me word, a few hours before he left, with Dudley's dispatch that the vessel was on his (D.'s) hands, that he had sent to Admiral Goldsborough for an officer and crew to navigate her, but if the Admiral declined, he desired that I should send out the necessary force to England. This I did not feel inclined to do, but told him we would receive her here when delivered. Hunter now brings up the question in Cabinet, and advises that the vessel remain in Liverpool until after the vernal equinox, unless the Navy Department would receive her in Liverpool. Stanton thought this the proper course, and that I should send out for her. This suggestion I was satisfied came from Seward, who had turned the subject over to him before leaving. I incline to think she had best be sold for what she will bring in Liverpool.

An effort to procure the pardon of K, a swindler now in Sing Sing, was made through McCulloch. But on learning the nature of the case he at once dropped it. The President sends, making inquiry concerning Hale, prisoner in Philadelphia, and Wetmore in Boston. The first is one of a nest of swindlers and thieves, of whom Pasco, just pardoned by the President, was chief; the second swindled men under him, or was guilty of a breach of trust like Marston, whom the President also pardoned.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 411-2

Diary of Gideon Welles: January 8, 1866

The Members of Congress since their return appear more disposed to avoid open war with the President, but yet are under the discipline of party, which is cunningly kept up with almost despotic power. I am confident that many of those who are claimed as Republicans, and who are such, are voting against their convictions, but they have not the courage and independence to shake off the tyranny of party and maintain what they know to be right. The President and the Radical leaders are not yet in direct conflict, but I see not how it is to be avoided. When the encounter takes place there will be those who have voted with the Radicals, who will then probably go with the President, or wish to do so. This the leaders understand, and it is their policy to get as many committed as possible, and to get them repeatedly committed by test votes. Williams of Pittsburg, a revolutionary and whiskey-drinking leader, introduced a resolution to-day that the military should not be withdrawn, but retained until Congress, not the President, should order their discharge. This usurpation of the Executive prerogative by Congress is purposely offensive, known to be such, yet almost every Republican voted for it in the House. The Representatives who doubted and were opposed dare not vote against it. While thus infringing on the rights of the Executive, the Radical leaders studiously claim that they are supporting the President, and actually have most of his appointees with them. Were the President to assert his power and to exercise it, many of those who now follow Sumner and Stevens would hesitate, for the home officials are necessary to their own party standing. The President will sooner or later have to meet this question squarely, and have a square and probably a fierce fight with these men. Seward expects but deprecates it, and has fled to escape responsibility.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 412-3

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, January 13, 1866

I had this P.M. quite an animated talk with Senator Sumner. He called on me in relation to Semmes. Wished him to be tried on various important points which would bring out the legal status, not only of the Rebels, but their cause. He thinks that many of the important points which we have from time to time discussed, and on which we have generally agreed, might be passed upon by a commission. I am not, however, inclined to make the trial so broad.

Passing from this, we got on to the question of Reconstruction. I was anxious to get an inside view of the movements and purposes of the Radicals, and in order to do this, it would not do to put questions direct to Sumner, for then he would put himself on his guard, and be close-mouthed. I therefore entered into a discussion, and soon got him much interested, not to call it excited. We went over the ground of the status of the States, — their political condition. He, condemning unqualifiedly the policy of the President, said, while he would not denounce it as the greatest crime ever committed by a responsible ruler, he did proclaim and declare it the greatest mistake which history has ever recorded. The President, he said, was the greatest enemy of the South that she had ever had, worse than Jeff Davis; and the evil which he had inflicted upon the country was incalculable. All was to be done over again, and done right. Congress, he says, is becoming more firm and united every day. Only three of the Republican Senators —Doolittle, Dixon, and Cowan — had given way, and he understood about a like proportion in the House. Asked if I had read Howe's¹ speech, which Foot and Fessenden indorsed. Understood Fessenden was as decided as Foot, but, not being on speaking terms, had not himself heard Fessenden. All Congress was becoming of one mind, and while they would commence no war upon the President, he must change his course, abandon his policy. The President had violated the Constitution in appointing provisional governors, in putting Rebels in office who could not take the test oath, in reëstablishing rebellion, odious, flagrant rebellion. Said he had three pages from one general in Arkansas, thanking him for his speech, denouncing the President's "whitewashing" message.

I told him the Executive had rights and duties as well as Congress, and that they must not be overlooked or omitted. That the Rebel States had an existence and would be recognized and sustained although their functions were for a time suspended by violence. That under military necessity, martial law existing and the President being commander-in-chief, provisional governors had been temporarily appointed, but the necessity which impelled their appointment was passing away, the States were resuming their position in the Union, and I did not see how, without abandoning our system of constitutional government, they were to be disorganized, or unorganized, and deprived of their local civil government and the voice of the people suppressed. That he spoke of them as a "conquered people," subject to terms which it was our duty to impose. Were his assumption true, and they a foreign conquered people, instead of our own countrymen, still they had their rights, were amenable to our laws and entitled to their protection; modern civilization would not permit of their enslavement. That were we to conquer Canada and bring it within our jurisdiction, the people would retain their laws and usages when they were not inconsistent with our own, until at least we should make a change. That I thought our countrymen were entitled to as much consideration as the laws of nations and the practice of our own government had and did recognize as belonging to a conquered people who were aliens. That this was the policy of the President. He had enjoined upon them, it was true, the necessity of making their constitutions and laws conform to the existing condition of affairs and the changes which war had brought about. They had done so, and were each exercising all the functions of a State. Had their governors, legislatures, judges, local municipal authorities, etc. We were collecting taxes of them, appointing collectors, assessors, marshals, postmasters, etc.

I saw I had touched on some views that impressed him, and our interview and discussion became exceedingly animated.

"The President, in his atrocious wrong," said Sumner, "is sustained by three of his Cabinet. Seward is as thick-and-thin a supporter of the whole monstrous error as you or McCulloch."

I asked him if he supposed the Cabinet was not a unit on the President's policy. He said he knew it was not. Three of the members concurred with him (Sumner) fully, entirely.

I expressed doubts. "Why," said he, "one of them has advised and urged me to prepare and bring in a bill which should control the action of the President and wipe out his policy. It has got to be done. Half of the Cabinet, as well as an overwhelming majority of the two houses of Congress, are for it, and the President must change his whole course." If he did not do it, Congress would.

_______________

¹ Timothy Otis Howe, Senator from Wisconsin.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 414-7

Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech in the House of Representatives, on Slavery, and on the action of the Administration in relation to California and New Mexico, January 30, 1850

GENTLEMEN say they deprecate discussion on the subject of slavery. My judgment approves it. We have gone too far to recede without an adjustment of our difficulties. Better far that this agitation should never have commenced. But when wrong has been perpetrated on one side and resented on the other, an adjustment in some form is indispensable. It is better so than to leave the thorn of discord thus planted, to rankle and fester, and finally to produce a never-healing sore. We need attempt no such useless task as that of disguising from ourselves, our constituents, and in truth the world at large, that ill blood has been engendered, that we are losing our mutual attachment, that we are daily becoming more and more estranged, that the fibres of the great cord which unites us as one people are giving way, and that we are fast verging to ultimate and final disruption. I hold no communion with the spurious patriotism which closes its eyes to the dangers which visit us, and with a loud voice, sing hosannas to the Union; such patriotism will not save the Union, it is destructive of the Union. Open wide your eyes and look these dangers full in the face, and with strong arms and stout hearts assault them, vanquish them, and on the field of your triumph erect an altar sacred to the cause of liberty, and on that altar offer as a willing sacrifice this accursed demon of discord. Do this, and we are safe; refuse, and these dangers will thicken, these misty elements will grow darker and blacker as days roll on. The storm which now lingers will burst, and the genius of dissolution will preside where the Union now is.

I am for discussion, for an interchange of sentiments. Let there be no wrangling about small grievances, but with an elevated patriotism—a patriotism high as our noble mountains, and broad as the Union itself—let us come to the consideration of the difficulties and dangers which beset us.

In all matters of dispute it is important to consider who committed the first wrong; until this is done, no satisfactory basis of an adjustment can be established.

The Union is divided in sentiment upon a great question, by a geographical line. The North is opposed to slavery, and the South is in favor of it. The North is for abolishing it, the South is for maintaining it. The North is for confining it within it in its present limits, where they fancy it will languish, and languishing, will die. The South is for leaving it unrestrained to go wherever (within our limits) it may be invited by soil, climate, and population. These issues and their necessary incidents have brought the two ends of the Union into their present perilous position—a position from which one or the other must recede, or a conflict, dangerous to liberty and fatal to the Union, will certainly ensue.

Who is at fault, or rather who was first in fault in this fraternal quarrel? We were the owners of slaves; we bought them from your fathers. We never sought to make slaveholders of you, nor to force slavery upon you. When you emancipated the remnant of your slaves, we did not interpose. Content to enjoy the fruits of our industry at home, within our own limits, we never sought to intrude upon your domestic quiet. Not so with you. For twenty years or more, you have not ceased to disturb our peace. We have appealed in vain to your forbearance. Not only have you disregarded these appeals, but every appeal has been followed by some new act of outrage and aggression. We have in vain pointed to our domicils, and begged that you would respect the feelings of their inmates. You have threatened them with conflagration. When we have pointed to our wives and our sleeping infants, and in their names besought your forbearance, you have spurned our entreaties and mocked the fears of these sacred pledges of our love. Long years of outrage upon our feelings and disregard of our rights have awakened in every southern heart a feeling of stern resistance. Think what you will, say what you will, perpetrate again and again if you will, these acts of lawless tyranny; the day and the hour is at hand when every southern son will rise in rebellion, when every tongue will say, Give us justice or give us death.

I repeat, we have never sought to disturb your quiet. We have forborne to retaliate your wrongs. Content to await a returning sense of justice, we have submitted. That sense of justice, we fear, never will return, and submission is no longer a virtue. We owe it to you, to ourselves, to our common country, to the friends of freedom throughout the world, to warn you that we intend to submit no longer.

Gentlemen tell us they do not believe the South is in earnest. They believe we will still submit. Let me warn them to put away that delusion. It is fatal to the cause of peace. If the North embrace it the Union is gone. It is treason to encourage a hope of submission. Tell the truth, speak out boldly, go home and tell your people the issue is made up; they must now choose between non-interference with southern rights on the one side, and a dissolution of the Union on the other. Tell them the South asks nothing from their bounty, but only asks their forbearance.

The specious arguments by which you cover up your unauthorized attempts to drive us from the territories may deceive the unwary, but an enlightened public sentiment will not fail to detect its fallacy, and posterity will award you the credit of destroying the Union in a lawless effort to seize the spoils of a victory won by other hearts and hands than yours. Territory now free must remain free, say you. Who gave you the right to speak thus oracularly? Is this an acquisition of your own, or is it a thing obtained by the joint effort of us all? I have been told that the United States acquired the territory from Mexico, and that the Congress, speaking for the United States, must dispose of it. Technically speaking, the United States did make the acquisition; but what is the United States? a mere agent for the states, holding for them certain political powers in trust, to be exercised for their mutual benefit, and among these is the power to declare war and make peace. In the exercise of these powers the territory was acquired, and for whom? Not certainly for the agent, but for the principal. Not for the United States, but the states.

Who fought the battles, who won the victories which resulted in the acquisition? The people of the United States? Certainly not. There is no such thing as the people of the United States. They can perform no act—have in fact no political existence. Do the people of the United States elect this Congress? No; we are elected by states—most of us by districts in states. The states elect senators, and the President is himself elected by state electoral colleges, and not by the people of the United States. There is no such political body as the people of the United States; they can do nothing, have done nothing, have in fact no existence. When the war with Mexico began, on whom did the President call? Not, certainly, on the people of the United States, but on the people of the states by states, and by states they responded, by states they made their contributions to the grand army; and whatever was acquired, was of necessity acquired for the states, each having an equal interest; and the United States, as agent, trustee, or general repository of the common fund, is bound to do equal and exact justice to all the parties interested.

The army was created and supported by thirty sovereignties allied together. These sovereignties acted through a common head for the common defence and general welfare of all. But it does not follow that such head may rightfully appropriate the award of the conflict to fifteen of the allies, leaving nothing to the remaining fifteen. Sovereigns are equal; there is no such thing as great or small sovereigns, or, to speak more correctly, sovereigns of great and small degree. They are equals, except when by conventional agreement that equality is destroyed. No such agreement has been made between the sovereigns composing our confederacy. Hence, Delaware is equal to New York, and the fifteen southern states are equal to the fifteen northern states. It follows that the fifteen sovereignties of the North cannot exclude the fifteen sovereignties of the South from an equal participation in, and control over, the joint acquisition or property of all. Nor can the common agent, the United States, hearken to the voice of the fifteen northern in preference to those of the fifteen southern allies. So long as one of the sovereigns in alliance protests against a common disposition of what belongs to all and to each one in an equal degree, no disposition can be rightfully made. The strong may take by force from the weak, but in such case power gives the right. The North may take from the South in this way, unless perchance it should turn out in the course of the conflict that the South is the stronger party, in which case it would be our right to take from you.

Without pursuing this course of reasoning, unprofitable as I feel it must be, I come at once to the conclusion, that we of Mississippi have the same right to go into the territories with our slave property as you of New York have to go there with your personal estate of whatever kind. And if you deny us this right, we will resist your authority, and to the last extremity. You affect to think us not in earnest in this declaration. Look at the attitude of the South; hear her voice as it comes up from her bench, her bar, her legislative halls, and, above all, from her people. Sir, there is not a hamlet in the South from which you will not hear the voice of stern resistance to your lawless mandate. Our men will write it on their shields, our women will teach little children to lisp it with their earliest breath. I invoke your forbearance on this question. Ask yourselves if it is right to exasperate eight millions of people upon an abstraction; a matter to us of substance and of life, but to you the merest shadow of an abstraction. Is it likely, let me ask, that the Union can survive the shock which must ensue if you drive eight millions of people to madness and desperation? Look, sir, to the position of Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and the glorious old state of South Carolina; listen to the warning voice of these, and all the Southern States, as they come to us upon every breeze that sweeps from the South, and tell me if we are not sporting above a volcano. Oh! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, will not, DARE not submit to your demand. The consequences to her are terrible beyond description; to you forbearance would be a virtue—virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, and patriotism. To some men I can make no appeal. I appeal not to the gentleman from Ohio. He, like Peter the Hermit, feels himself under some religious obligation to lead on this crusade. I make no appeal to the putative father of the Wilmot proviso; like Ephraim, he is joined to his idols—I will let him alone. But to sound men, to patriotic and just men, I do make a solemn appeal that they array themselves on the side of the Constitution, and save the Union. When the fatal step is taken it will be too late to repent the folly of this hour. When the deed is done, and the fatal consequences have fallen upon us, it will be vain, idle, worse than folly to deprecate the evil councils which now prevail. Now, now is the time for good men to do their duty. Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the Union come out from among the wicked and array themselves on the side of justice. And here in this hall, erected by our fathers and dedicated to liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and fight the demon of discord until death shall summon us to another and better world.

You think that slavery is a great evil. Very well, think so; but keep your thoughts to yourselves. If it be an evil, it is our evil; if it be a curse, it is our curse. We are not seeking to force it upon you; we intend to keep it ourselves. If you do not wish to come in contact with this crying evil, stay where you are, it will never pursue you.

For myself, I regard slavery as a great moral, social, political, and religious blessing—a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master. This is my opinion. I do not seek to propagate it. It does not concern me whether you think so or not. I have seen more of slavery than you, know more about it; and my opinions are, I think, worth more than yours. Slavery, African slavery, was, as I religiously believe, planted in this country through the providence of God; and he, in his own good time, will take it away. Civilization dawned in Africa. The Christian religion was preached to the African race before its votaries carried it to other lands. Africa had the glad tidings of the Saviour long before his divine mission was revealed to us. And where is she now? Centuries have passed away, and all traces of Christianity, every vestige of civilization, have departed from that degraded and benighted land—a race of cannibals, roasting, eating men as we do swine and cattle. Resisting with fire and sword all efforts of Christian ministers to lift them from the deep degradation, they perseveringly worship idols and graven images, and run continually after false gods. Look at the condition of this people, and contrast it with the worst condition of the same race in this country, and tell me if the eye of fancy, in its utmost stretch, can measure the elevation at which the Southern slave stands above the African in his native jungle? And yet philanthropy, double distilled, extra refined philanthropy, bewails in piteous accents the fallen condition of the poor slave. The negro race in the South have been civilized; many of them evangelized. Some are pure Christians; all have been improved in their moral, social, and religious condition. And who shall undertake to say it was not within the providence of their Creator to transplant them to our soil for wise, beneficent, and holy purposes?

It is no part of my purpose to discuss this proposition. The subject, in this view of it, belongs rather to the pulpit than to the halls of legislation.

It may seem to those not familiar with the state of public sentiment North and South, and the dangerous issues to which it is conducting us, out of time and out of place for us to discuss the value of the Union. I am not afraid of the consequences of such a discussion. It is a discussion not to be coveted, but one which the times and tempers of men have forced upon us. It is useless to deny that the Union is in danger. To discuss its value is to ascertain its worth. When we shall have done this, we can better decide how great a sacrifice we can afford to make to secure its perpetuity.

We of the South have ever been the fast friends of the Union. We have been so from an earnest attachment to its founders, and from a feeling of elevated patriotism, a patriotism which rises above all grovelling thoughts, and entwines itself about our country, and our whole country. We have made, and are now making day by day, greater sacrifices to uphold and maintain the Union in all its purity and dignity, than all the other parts of the country. Drop for a moment the sacrifice of feeling; forget the galling insults you are habitually heaping upon us, and let us look to other sacrifices. We export annually, in rice, cotton, and tobacco, the peculiar products of our soil, more than seventy-five millions of dollars in value. Your whole national exports do but a little exceed one hundred and forty millions of dollars. These articles of southern export are the support of your immense carrying trade, and of all your flourishing and profitable commerce; and these do not include the sugar of Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, nor do I estimate the cotton, rice, and tobacco consumed in the United States. If all these were embraced, our exports could not fall short of one hundred and twenty millions of dollars. I need not add, that as a separate, independent confederacy we should have the heaviest agricultural export of any people on the face of the earth; and that our wealth would in a short time be commensurate with our immense exports, no reasonable man can doubt. In the Union, our exports become the common trading fund of the nation, and the profits go into the general coffers. We know all this; and more, we know how much we contribute to the support of the Government, and we know too how little we get back. It gives me no pleasure to discuss questions like this, but a solemn duty I will not forego, from any mawkish, sentimental devotion to the Union. It is right that we fully understand one another. You think the South is not in earnest. Now, this opinion is based upon one of two hypotheses, either that we are too much devoted to the Union to run the hazard of its dissolution by a manly vindication of our rights; or else that we are afraid to encounter the perils of a dissolution. That we have loved the Union is most true. That our affections entwine themselves about it, and are reluctant to give it up, is also true. But our affection is no ordinary plant. Nourish it, and it will grow in the poorest soil. Neglect it, or trample upon it, and it will perish in the richest fields. I will not recount the story of our wrongs. I but ask you, can such wrongs ever be the handmaids of love, of that mutual and earnest, devoted love, which stood godfather when the infant Union was baptized, and without whose fostering care it cannot, will not, must not survive? Throw an impartial eye over the history of the last twenty years, and answer me if there is anything there which challenges our devotion? Who does not know that time after time we have turned away in sorrow from your oppressions, and yet have come back clinging to the Union, and proclaiming that "with all her faults we loved her still." And you expect us to do so now again and again; you expect us to return, and, on bended knees, crave your forbearance. No, you do not; you cannot think so meanly of us. There is nothing in our past history which justifies the conclusion that we will thus abase ourselves. You know how much a high-toned people ought to bear; and you know full well that we have borne to the last extremity. You know that we ought not to submit any longer. There is not a man of lofty soul among you all, who in his secret heart does not feel that we ought not to submit. If you fancy that our devotion to the Union will keep us in the Union, you are mistaken. Our love for the Union ceases with the justice of the Union. We cannot love oppression, nor hug tyranny to our bosoms.

Have we any reason to fear a dissolution of the Union? Look at the question dispassionately, and answer to yourselves the important inquiry, Can anything be expected from the fears of the southern people? Do not deceive yourselves—look at things as they really are. For myself, I can say with a clear conscience, we do not fear it; we are not appalled at the prospect before us; we deprecate disunion, but we do not fear it; we know our position too well for that. Whilst you have been heaping outrage upon outrage, adding insult to insult, our people have been calmly calculating the value of the Union. The question has been considered in all its bearings, and our minds are made up. The point has been designated beyond which we will not submit. We will not, because submission beyond that point involves consequences to us more terrible than disunion. It involves the fearful consequences of sectional degradation. We have not been slow in manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism. Our money has gone freely. The lives of our people have been freely given up. Their blood has washed many a blot from the national escutcheon. We have loved the Union, and we love it yet; but not for this, or a thousand such Unions, will we suffer dishonor at your hands.

I tell you candidly, we have calculated the value of the Union. Your injustice has driven us to it. Your oppression justifies me to-day in discussing the value of the Union, and I do so freely and fearlessly. Your press, your people, and your pulpit, may denounce this as treason; be it so. You may sing hosannas to the Union—it is well. British lords called it treason in our fathers when they resisted British tyranny. British orators were eloquent in their eulogiums on the British crown[.] Our fathers felt the oppression, they saw the hand that aimed the blow, and they resolved to resist. The result is before the world. We will resist, and trust to God and our own stout hearts for the consequences.

The South afraid of dissolving the Union?—why should we fear? What is there to alarm us or awaken our apprehensions? Are we not able to maintain ourselves? Shall eight millions of freemen, with more than one hundred millions of annual exports, fear to take their position among the nations of the earth? With our cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco, products of a southern soil, yielding us annually more than a hundred millions of dollars, need we fear the frowns of the world? You tell us all the world is against us on the slavery question. We know more of this than you; fanaticism in the Old World, like fanaticism at home, assails our domestic relations, but we know how much British commerce and British labor depend for subsistence on our cotton, to feel at all startled by your threats of British power. Massachusetts looms will yield a smaller profit, and British looms will stop when you stop the supply of southern cotton. When the looms stop, labor will stop, ships will stop, commerce will stop, bread will stop. Build yourselves no castles in the air. Picture to your minds no such halcyon visions as that Great Britain will meddle with our slaves. She made an experiment in the West Indies in freeing negroes. It cost her one hundred millions of pounds sterling, and crippled her commerce to more than three times that amount, and now her emancipated blacks are relapsing into a state of barbarism. By the united verdict of every British statesman the experiment was a signal failure, injurious to the negro and detrimental to the kingdom. England will not interfere with southern slaves. Our cotton bags are our bonds of peace.

Have we anything to fear from you in the event of dissolution? A little gasconade, and sometimes a threat or two, altogether out of place on so grave an issue as this, are resorted to on your part. As to there being any conflict of arms growing out of a dissolution, I have not thought it at all probable. You complain of your association with slaves in the Union. We propose to take them out of the Union—to dissolve the unpleasant association. Will you seek a battle-field to renew, amid blood and carnage, this loathsome association? I take it for granted that you will not. But if you should, we point you to the record of the past, and warn you, by its blood-stained pages, that we shall be ready to meet you. When you leave your homes in New England, or in the great West, on this mission of love—this crusade against the South; when you come to take slavery to your bosoms, and to subdue eight millions of southern people, I warn you to make all things ready. Kiss your wives, bid your children a long farewell, make peace with your God; for I warn you that you may never return.

I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution—reverencing the Union—holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestry—there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once, go to that point and give us peace. But we know full well, that when all is obtained that you now ask, the cormorant appetite for power and plunder will not be satisfied. The tiger may be driven from his prey, but when once he dips his tongue in blood, he will not relinquish his victim without a struggle.

I warn gentlemen, if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of disunion is on their heads—not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self-defence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as to jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you attempt to force upon us sectional desolation and—what to us is infinitely worse—sectional degradation, we will resist you; and if in the conflict of resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges me with harboring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does me no more than justice.

Does any man desire to know at what time and for what cause I would dissolve the Union, I will tell him: At the first moment after you consummate your first act of aggression upon slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved; and for this reason: such an act, perpetrated after the warning we have given you, would evince a settled purpose to interpose your authority in the management of our domestic affairs, thug degrading us from our rightful position as equals to a state of dependence and subordination. Do not mistake me; I do not say that such an act would, per se, justify disunion; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would alone justify it; I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one, nor two, nor all of these combined would justify disunion. These are but the initiative steps—they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps. The man must have studied the history of our revolt against the power of Britain to but little purpose who supposes that the throwing a few boxes of tea into the water in Boston harbor produced, or had any material influence in producing, the mighty conflict of arms which ensued. Does any man suppose that the stamp act and its kindred measures produced the revolution? They produced a solemn conviction on the minds of our fathers that Britain was determined to oppress and degrade the colonies. This conviction prepared a heroic people for resistance; and the otherwise trivial incident of throwing the tea overboard supplied the occasion for manifesting that state of public sentiment. I warn gentlemen by the history of these transactions, not to outrage the patience of a patriotic people, nor yet, like the British king and parliament, to spurn our entreaties, and turn a deaf ear to our prayers for justice.

Before the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which we cannot relinquish; rights which it were better to die with than live without. The direct pecuniary interest involved in this issue is not less than twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this will be the least of the calamities which you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate. We are to be driven from our homes—the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of family and friends. We are to be sent, like a people accursed of God, to wander through the land, homeless, houseless, and friendless; or, what is ten thousand times worse than these, than all, remain in a country now prosperous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and children, degraded to a social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible consequences you would entail upon us. Picture to yourselves Hungary, resisting the powers of Austria and Russia; and if Hungary, which had never tasted liberty, could make such stout resistance, what may you not anticipate from eight millions of southrons made desperate by your aggression? I tell you, sir, sooner than submit we would dissolve a thousand such unions as this. Sooner than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable graves.

You tell us, sir, there is no intention of pushing us to extremities like these. I do not doubt the sincerity of gentlemen who make this avowal. If there was fixedness in their positions I would believe them, I would trust them. If members of Congress were to the political what stars are to the planetary system, I would take their solemn—and, I hope, sincere—declarations, and be satisfied. I should feel secure. But a few days, a brief space, and you will pass away, and your places will be filled by men more hostile than you, as you are more hostile than your predecessors, and the next who come after your successors will be more hostile than they. Look to the Senate—the conservative branch of the government. Already there are senators from the mighty states of New York and Ohio, who repudiate the Constitution. One [Mr. Chase, of Ohio] says the Constitution is a nullity as regards slavery, and another [Mr. Seward, of New York] declares that slavery can and will be abolished, and that you and he will do it. He tells us how this to be done. He, too, repudiates the constitutional obligation, and says that slavery rests for its security on public sentiment, and that public sentiment must and will destroy it. These are fearful declarations, coming from that quarter. They evince a settled purpose to pursue these aggressive movements to the last terrible extremity; and yet, sir, we are asked to fold our arms and listen to the syren song that all your ills will soon be o'er.

And now, Mr. Chairman, before the sands of my brief hour have quite run out, let me turn for a moment to the late recent and extraordinary movements in the territory of California,—movements fraught with incalculable mischief, and, if not arrested, destined to entail calamities the most terrible upon this country. I am told that the late administration is in some degree responsible for these movements. I know not if this be true. I hope it is not. Indeed, I have authority for saying it is not. Certainly no evidence has been advanced that the statement is true. But I care not who prompted the anomalous state of things now existing in California. At whatever time, and by whomsoever done, it has been without precedent, against the voice of the people's representatives, in derogation of the Constitution of the United States, and intended to rob the Southern States of their just and rightful possessions. Viewing the transaction in this light, and without stopping to inquire whose it was, I denounce it as unwise, unpatriotic, sectional in its tendencies, insulting to the South, and in the last degree despicable.

Twelve short months ago it was thought necessary to invoke the authority of Congress for the people of California to form a state constitution. The present Secretary of the Navy, then a member of this House, did, on the 7th day of February, 1849, introduce a bill for that purpose. The first section declared "that the Congress doth consent that a new state may be erected out of the territory ceded to the United States," &c. (See Congressional Globe, 2 Sess. 30 Con. p. 477.)

Whether the honorable Secretary, as a member of the cabinet, advised and consented to the late extraordinary proceedings in California, I pretend not to know. I do know that he bitterly inveighed against General Cass, in 1848, for a supposed intimation that the people of the territories might settle the slavery question for themselves, and chiefly on the ground that it was a monstrous outrage to allow aliens and foreigners to snatch from the South territory won by the valor of her troops. I know that he introduced the bill to which I have adverted, and urged its passage in a speech which was said to have given him his position in the cabinet. He certainly thought at that time, that the consent of Congress was necessary to the formation of a state government in California. The bill itself, to say nothing of the speech, assigned one pregnant reason for this thought, for by its second section it declared "that the foregoing consent is given upon the following reservations and conditions: First, that the United States hereby unconditionally reserves to the federal government all right of property in the public lands."

It was then thought a matter of some moment to reserve to the parties in interest, their right of property in the soil. But the progressive spirit of the President and cabinet has gone far beyond such idle whims, and "the introduction of California into the Union as a sovereign state is earnestly recommended," without reservation of any kind, save alone that her constitution shall conform to the Constitution of the United States. If any one here knows the secrets of the cabinet councils, he can best inform us whether Mr. Secretary Preston thought it worth his while to intimate to the President and his associates that the formation of an independent government in California would of necessity vest in such government the right of property in the soil, and that her incorporation into the Union without reservation, would be to surrender the right of eminent domain. It would disclose an interesting piece of cabinet history to ascertain whether so trivial a matter ever engrossed the thoughts of that most august body-the President and his constitutional advisers.

It is amusing to see with how much cunning the author of the late special message endeavors to divide the responsibility of this nefarious proceeding with the late administration. Several times in the message it is broadly hinted that President Polk took the initiative in this business. This may be so. I have seen no evidence of it, and do not believe it; but whether true or false, it does not render the transaction less odious or more worthy of support. The President himself seems to think it too much for one administration to bear, and, therefore, strives to divide its responsibility with his distinguished Democratic predecessor. I commend his discretion, more than his generosity. It is discreet in him to shake off as much of the odium of this thing as possible. If it had been a worthy action, I doubt if he would not have appropriated the honors of it entirely to himself.

The President sees, as well as you or I, that there is a fearful accountability ahead, and he cries out in time, "Polk was to blame—I only followed up what he began." I would to God he were as willing to carry out all of Polk's unfinished plans.

Is there nothing wrong, let me ask the friends of the President, in this thing of the Executive of his own volition, and upon his own responsibility—establishing a state government over the territory of the United States, and that too after Congress had been invoked and had refused her consent to the establishment of such a government? I have seen the time when if this thing had been done, the nation would have reverberated with the eloquent burst of patriotic indignation from gentlemen on the other side. General Jackson was charged with taking the responsibility, but he never assumed responsibility like this.

The manner of doing this thing is still more extraordinary than the thing itself. General Riley, a military commander, charged with the execution of certain necessary civil functions, is made the man of power in this business. That officer, on the 3d day of June, 1849, issued his proclamation, a paper at once novel and bold. His object is to make a new state, and he commences thus:

"Congress having failed at its recent session to provide a new government for this country, the undersigned would call attention to the means which he deems best," &c., &c.

Yes, sir, there it is. Congress having failed to give government to California, General Riley notifies the inhabitants that he has taken matters into his own hands; that he will give them a government, and that HE will authorize them to make a state for themselves. He does this, too, because Congress had refused.

I must do General Riley the justice to say he is not wholly an usurper in this business. He declares to the world in this same proclamation (a document by the way drawn up with acumen and legal precision), that the course indicated by him "is advised by the President and the Secretaries of State and of War," and he (General Riley) solemnly affirms that his acts are "fully authorized by law." I hope the General did not understand that Mr. Secretary Preston's bill was the law that "fully authorized" his acts. There might be a difficulty in sustaining the opinion on that basis, inasmuch as the bill did not pass Congress.

There are stranger things than these in this Riley proclamation "advised by the President, and Secretaries Clayton and Crawford." The General not only sets forth circumstantially what is to be done, but he designates the persons who are to do the things which he bids to be done. Hear him:

"Every free male citizen of the United States and of Upper California, 21 years of age, will be entitled to the right of suffrage. All citizens of Lower California who have been forced to come into this territory on account of having rendered assistance to the American troops during the recent war with Mexico, should also be allowed to vote in the district where they actually reside," &c.

Now, sir, I humbly ask who gave the President and his cabinet the right to "advise" this military commander by one sweeping proclamation to admit the "free male citizens of Upper California," and "ALL the citizens of Lower California," (then in the country, under certain circumstances,) to the right of voting? In so important a matter as forming a state constitution, which was to affect important interests within the territory, and still more important interests without the territory, it would have been at least respectful to his southern constituents, if the President had confined the voting to white people; but all free males of Upper California, and ALL from Lower California, whether bond or free, were fully authorized to vote. Shame, shame upon the man who, in the midst of our struggles for blood-bought rights, thus coolly submits them to the arbitrament of such a people.

I have been speaking of what the President expressly authorized. He, by his agent, General Riley, in terms, authorized these people of whom I have been speaking to vote. They did vote; they were voted for; some of them had seats in the so-called California Convention. But the gross wrong—the palpable outrage—did not stop here. We all know the President knows that everybody voted. The whole heterogeneous mass of Mexicans, and foreign adventurers, and interlopers voted; and yet, the President, without one word of comment or caution touching these strange events, calmly recommends the progeny of this strange convention to the favorable consideration of Congress. If I had not ceased to be amazed at the conduct of the present President of the United States, I should indeed wonder what singular infatuation had possessed the old man's brain when he made that recommendation. Can it be that he has not read the treaty with Mexico, or the laws of his own country on the subject of naturalizing foreigners, that he thus recommends the admission of a state into the Union, with a constitution formed mainly by persons who were strangers to our laws, and who, by our laws and by the treaty, were not citizens, and consequently had no right of suffrage? Look you, sir, to the treaty with Mexico. In its 8th article it is declared: "That Mexicans who shall prefer to remain in the territory may either retain the rights and title of Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of the United States." They shall make their election in one year after the treaty is ratified. "And those who shall remain in the territory after the expiration of that year without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have ELECTED to become citizens of the United States."

Mexicans remaining in the territory after twelve months "shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States;" but who shall make them citizens? This question is fully answered by the ninth article of this treaty. We have seen that Mexicans may acquire the rights of citizens of the United States, and that under certain circumstances they are deemed to have elected to become citizens, &c. Read the ninth article of the treaty: "Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be ADMITTED at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Constitution."

Here we have it. They are "to be incorporated into the Union, and be admitted at the proper time, to be judged of by Congress, to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States." Where did the President get his authority to dispense with these articles, these solemn stipulations of the treaty? By what right does he extend to these people that dearest privilege of an American freeman, the right of suffrage? By what authority does he confer the power to hold office, to sit in a convention, and to trample under foot the rights of the southern people? The late Administration had something to do with making this treaty, and they provided that these people, at a proper time, to be judged of by Congress, should enjoy all these rights. Congress has not judged in the matter. Congress has done nothing. Congress has refused to act, and the President tells these people to vote, to accept office, to make a state constitution, to elect governors, secretaries, auditors, members of Congress, &c., &c. And when they have done as he bid them, he "earnestly recommends their acts to the favorable consideration of Congress." And this is the President who was going to act according to the laws and the Constitution, and abstain from all interference with the duties of Congress. O tempora! O mores!

[Here the hammer fell, and Mr. BROWN gave notice that he would append the unfinished remarks to his printed speech.]

The present President of the United States delights in doing in all things like Washington. In his annual message he alludes no less than three times, with evident self-complacency, to supposed similitudes between his acts and those of the illustrious Father of his Country.

In the earlier history of the republic, and in the time of Washington's presidency, a case bearing close resemblance to the one under discussion was presented for his consideration. How closely the second Washington copies the precedent of the first may be gathered from the history of the transaction. That history has been briefly sketched by a distinguished, eloquent, and aged friend of President Taylor. I read from a pamphlet by George Poindexter:

Shortly after the cession by North Carolina of the south-western territory, certain influential individuals, anxious to hasten the formation of an independent state government within the ceded territory, induced the inhabitants to call a convention and frame a state constitution, to which they gave the name of the State of Franklin. This proceeding met the unhesitating frowns and disapprobation of the Father of his Country—the illustrious Washington—who caused it to be instantly suppressed, and in lieu of this factitious state government, a territorial government was extended to the inhabitants by Congress, under which they lived and prospered for many years."

If the first President, the great, the good, the illustrious Washington, would not listen to the proposition of the Franklanders, citizens as they were of the United States, for admission into the Union, under the circumstances attending their application, I ask how the present President shall justify his proceeding, in first prompting the free male citizens of Upper California, all the people of Lower California, and in fact the interlopers and adventurers from all the nations of the earth, now upon our territory, to form a state constitution, and ask admission into our Union? And now when this constitution, the creation of such a conglomerate mass, is about to be presented, let the friends of the President justify, if they can, his "earnest recommendation that it may receive the favorable consideration of Congress."

Frankland was not admitted as a state, but a territorial government was given to the country under the name of Tennessee. As a territory these people again applied for admission, and again their application was rejected. I read from Poindexter's pamphlet the history of this second application:

"Subsequent to these transactions, the inhabitants of the south-western territory having increased, as it was believed, to a sufficient number to entitle them to become one of the states of the Union, the territorial legislature directed a census to be taken under the authority of an act passed by that body. This census having been so taken, exhibited a number of free inhabitants exceeding 60,000—being a greater number than was required by the ordinance of 1787 to admit them into the Union; and on the 28th of November, 1795, the governor being authorized thereto by law, issued his proclamation requiring the inhabitants of the several counties of the territory to choose persons to represent them in convention, for the purpose of forming a constitution or permanent form of government. This body so chosen, met in convention on the 11th January, 1796, and adopted a constitution, in which they declared the people of that part of said territory which was ceded by North Carolina, to be a free and independent state, by the name of the State of Tennessee. Without entering into minute details of all the proceedings which took place in relation to this constitution, it will be sufficient for my present purpose to refer to the Senate Journal of the first session of the fourth Congress, to which that constitution was submitted for the reception and approbation of Congress. In the report of the committee of the Senate, to whom this constitution was referred, it will be seen that this act of the territorial authorities was deemed premature and irregular; that the census ordered to be taken of the inhabitants was in many respects deficient in detail, and more especially that the enumeration of the inhabitants must, by the Constitution, be made by Congress; that this rule applied to the original states of the Union, and as their rights as members of the Union are affected by the admission of new states, the same principle which enjoins the census of their inhabitants to be taken under the authority of Congress, equally requires the enumeration of the inhabitants of any new state, laid out by Congress in like manner, should be made under their authority. This rule, the committee are of opinion, left Congress without discretion on this point. The committee therefore reported, that the inhabitants of that part of the territory south of Ohio, ceded by North Carolina, are not at this time entitled to be received as a new state into the Union. This example is drawn from the action of Congress during the administration of Washington, and will serve to show you, sir, the great caution with which, under the administration of that illustrious individual, the state was admitted into the Union."

In the purer and better days of the republic it was thought necessary to consult Congress as to the disposition to be made of the territory belonging to the United States, and our fathers thought it necessary to show a decent regard to the demands of the Constitution, in admitting new states into the Union. But in these latter days, when soldiers become statesmen, without study, and men intuitively understand the Constitution, the old-fashioned notions of Washington and his compatriots are treated with scorn, and we are given to understand that the soldier-President can make new states without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the Constitution. Whether the people will submit to this highhanded proceeding I do not know; but for my single self I am prepared to say, that "live or die, sink or swim, survive or perish," I will oppose it "at all hazards and to the last extremity."

What, Mr. Chairman, is to be the effect of admitting California into the Union as a state? Independent, sir, of all the objections I have been pointing out, it will effectually unhinge that sectional balance which has so long and happily existed between the two ends of the Union, and at once give to the North that dangerous preponderance in the Senate, which ambitious polititions have so earnestly desired. The admission of one such state as California, opens the way for, and renders easy the admission of another. The President already prompts New Mexico to a like course. The two will reach out their hands to a third, and they to a fourth, fifth, and sixth. Thus precedent follows. precedent, with locomotive velocity and power, until the North has the two-thirds required to change the Constitution. WHEN THIS IS DONE THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE CHANGED. That public opinion, to which Senator SEWARD so significantly alludes, will be seen, and its power will be felt—universal emancipation will become your rallying cry. We see this. It is clearly set forth in all your movements. The sun at noonday is not more visible than is this startling danger. Its presence does arouse our fears and set our thoughts in motion. It comes with giant strides and under the auspices of a southern President, but we will meet it, and we will vanquish it. The time for action is almost come. It is well for us to arrange the order of battle. I have listened, and will again listen with patience and pleasure, to the plans of our southern friends. My own opinion is this: that we should resist the introduction of California as a state, and resist it successfully; resist it by our votes first, and lastly by other means. We can, at least, force an adjournment without her admission. This being done, we are safe. The Southern States, in convention at Nashville, will devise means for vindicating their rights. I do not know what these means will be, but I know what they may be, and with propriety and safety. They may be to carry slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign states, and there hold them, as we have a right to do; and if molested, defend them, as is both our right and duty.

We ask you to give us our rights by NON-INTERVENTION; if you refuse, I am for taking them by ARMED OCCUPATION.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 162-76