Chapter IV: Introduction (4)

_Resolved_, That the rules of this Convention be so far
modified as to require the Secretary to employ a competent
stenographer, who shall write down and preserve accurate
notes of the debates and other proceedings of this body,
which notes shall not be communicated to any person, nor
shall copies thereof be taken, nor shall the same be made
public until after the final adjournment of this Convention,
except in pursuance of a vote authorizing their publication.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I have no desire to occupy time in debating this resolution, much less to waste it in a fruitless attempt to oppose what seems to be the settled purpose of a majority of this Convention. But if this body will consider the purpose which the resolution seeks to attain, it may, perhaps, be found less objectionable than other similar ones which have been defeated. The objection heretofore made is, that a publication of what transpires here would lead to an excited criticism in the country, which would be unfavorable to the calmness and ultimate success which should attend our deliberations. While I entertain no such apprehensions, permit me to observe that this resolution contemplates no present publication of our debates, but a publication at such a time, and in such a manner, as will be unobjectionable. That time may not come till after our adjournment. I am free to say, that when we are dealing with the important issues now before us, I prefer to have our action, our words, our whole conduct, all that we do and say, open and public. We should fear no criticism when we are right; we ought to be held to account when we are wrong. But if gentlemen will not consent to this, at least let the daily record of each of us be made up now: let it be full and perfect. When a question comes up hereafter which concerns the sentiments or the action of a member, let its decision depend upon no uncertain recollection, a recollection which must fade and grow dim with each one of us, as the time of this Convention recedes into the past. Such a record can injure no one; it may be of infinite service hereafter. I could not justify myself to my conscience, or to those who have a right to hold me responsible for my acts here, if I failed to do all that lays in my power to have the true history of this Convention laid before the country. A naked journal amounts to nothing. It is a skeleton. Our discussions alone will give it form and comeliness. I have prepared this resolution upon consultation with many members, whose ideas of what should be done here agree with mine. They concur with me in the propriety of offering it. If it fails, the responsibility of keeping our discussions from the people will not rest with us.

Mr. POLLOCK:--I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--Let the vote be taken by States.

The vote was so taken, and the following States voted in the affirmative: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania--11.

The following States voted in the negative: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and New York--8.

So the motion to lay on the table prevailed.

When the State of Ohio was called, a member of her delegation stated that it was equally divided.

Mr. TUCK:--I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to introduce a proposition in the form of an address to the people of the United States. I do so after having consulted a considerable number of members; and having found that it meets their approval, I desire to read it, and will then move that it be laid on the table and printed.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--Is the gentleman's motion in order?

Mr. EWING:--I object to the reading.

Mr. CLAY:--Certainly; I object also.

Mr. TUCK:--I will acquiesce with a single word. I certainly hoped no curt objection would be made to the reading of _any_ proposition which any member might deem it his duty to offer. As gentlemen differ from me in this respect, I will hand the paper to the Chair. I hope at least it may be permitted to lay on the table.

The PRESIDENT:--I hold it the gentleman's undoubted right to read the paper if he chooses.

Mr. TUCK:--Very well.

He commenced reading when he was interrupted by

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I hope Mr. TUCK will withdraw this paper. If the Convention agrees to any result, I shall favor its submission to the people with an address. I will pledge myself to suggest the gentleman's name as one of a committee to prepare the address at the proper time.

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from New Hampshire has the floor.

Mr. TUCK then completed the reading of the paper, as follows:

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES:

This Convention of Conference, composed in part of
Commissioners appointed in accordance with the legislative
action of sundry States, and in part of Commissioners
appointed by the Governors of sundry other States, in
compliance with an invitation by the General Assembly of
Virginia, met in Washington on the 4th of February, 1861.
Although constituting a body unknown to the Constitution and
laws, yet being delegated for the purpose, and having
carefully considered the existing dangers and dissensions,
and having brought their proceedings to a close, publish
this address, and the accompanying resolutions, as the
result of their deliberations.

We recognize and deplore the divisions and distractions
which now afflict our country, interrupt its prosperity,
disturb its peace, and endanger the Union of the States; but
we repel the conclusion, that any alienations or dissensions
exist which are irreconcilable, which justify attempts at
revolution, or which the patriotism and fraternal sentiments
of the people, and the interests and honor of the whole
nation, will not overcome.

In a country embracing the central and most important
portion of a continent, among a people now numbering over
thirty millions, diversities of opinion inevitably exist;
and rivalries, intensified at times by local interests and
sectional attachments, must often occur; yet we do not doubt
that the theory of our Government is the best which is
possible for this nation, that the Union of the States is of
vital importance, and that the Constitution, which
expresses the combined wisdom of the illustrious founders of
the Government, is still the palladium of our liberties,
adequate to every emergency, and justly entitled to the
support of every good citizen.

It embraces, in its provisions and spirit, all the defence
and protection which any section of the country can
rightfully demand, or honorably concede.

Adopted with primary reference to the wants of five millions
of people, but with the wisest reference to future expansion
and development, it has carried us onward with a rapid
increase of numbers, an accumulation of wealth, and a degree
of happiness and general prosperity never attained by any
nation.

Whatever branch of industry, or whatever staple production,
shall become, in the possible changes of the future, the
leading interest of the country, thereby creating unforeseen
complications or new conflicts of opinion and interest, the
Constitution of the United States, properly understood and
fairly enforced, is equal to every exigency, a shield and
defence to all, in every time of need. If, however, by
reason of a change in circumstances, or for any cause, a
portion of the people believe they ought to have their
rights more exactly defined or more fully explained in the
Constitution, it is their duty, in accordance with its
provisions, to seek a remedy by way of amendment to that
instrument; and it is the duty of all the States to concur
in such amendments as may be found necessary to insure equal
and exact justice to all.

In order, therefore, to announce to the country the
sentiments of this Convention, respecting not only the
remedy which should be sought for existing discontents, but
also to communicate to the public what we believe to be the
patriotic sentiment of the country, we adopt the following
resolutions:

1st. _Resolved_, That this Convention recognize the
well-understood proposition that the Constitution of the
United States gives no power to Congress, or any branch of
the Federal Government, to interfere in any manner with
slavery in any of the States; and we are assured by abundant
testimony, that neither of the great political organizations
existing in the country contemplates a violation of the
spirit of the Constitution in this regard, or the procuring
of any amendment thereof, by which Congress, or any
department of the General Government, shall ever have
jurisdiction over slavery in any of the States.

2d. _Resolved_, That the Constitution was ordained and
established, as set forth in the preamble, by the people of
the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for
the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity;
and when the people of any State are not in full enjoyment
of all the benefits intended to be secured to them by the
Constitution, or their rights under it are disregarded,
their tranquillity disturbed, their prosperity retarded, or
their liberty imperilled by the people of any State, full
and adequate redress can and ought to be provided for such
grievances.

3d. _Resolved_, That this Convention recommend to the
Legislatures of the States of the Union to follow the
example of the Legislatures of the States of Kentucky and of
Illinois, in applying to Congress to call a Convention for
the proposing of amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, pursuant to the fifth article thereof.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I object to printing this paper. If that course is taken, every member may offer his disquisitions on the Constitution, and they will be printed at our expense.

Mr. TUCK:--Unanimous consent was given that it be read, laid on the table, and printed.

The PRESIDENT:--There were three motions involved in one. Now the question is upon laying the paper on the table and printing it.

Mr. ALEXANDER:--I call for a division of the question.

The PRESIDENT:--The question will be on the motion to lay it on the table.

Mr. TUCK:--Are we not entitled to have the question taken on the motion to print? I supposed all these questions would be taken in a spirit of conciliation. But if not, I will withdraw the motion to lay on the table, and move that the paper be printed.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I came here in a spirit of conciliation, and I shall act in that spirit. Let us all do so. I disagree entirely with Mr. TUCK and his proposition, but I am in favor of receiving every proposition that is offered, of printing them all, and at the proper time of considering them all. I trust that unanimous consent will be given to printing this paper.

The PRESIDENT then put the motion upon printing the address, and it was carried upon a division.

Mr. GUTHRIE offered the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:

_Resolved_, That if the President shall choose to speak on
any question, he may, for the occasion, call any member to
preside.

Mr. MEREDITH:--I wish to offer a proposition, and hope for the present it may lie on the table, and be considered hereafter. I do not desire to move it as an amendment to the report of the committee, but think it better to present it as a direct and independent proposition. I present it now only for the purpose of having it before the Convention. It is as follows:

ARTICLE.--That Congress shall divide all the territory of
the United States into convenient portions, each containing
not less than sixty thousand square miles, and shall
establish in each a territorial government; the several
territorial legislatures, whether heretofore constituted, or
hereafter to be constituted, shall have all the legislative
powers now vested in the respective States of this Union;
and whenever any territory having a population sufficient,
according to the ratio existing at the time, to entitle it
to one member of Congress, shall form a republican
constitution, and apply to Congress for admission as a
State, Congress shall admit the same as a State accordingly.

The proposition of Mr. MEREDITH was laid on the table without objection.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--There appears to be a misunderstanding between the Secretary and myself upon the question of printing the Journal. To avoid question, I move that the Journal be printed up to and including to-day.

Mr. GOODRICH:--I move to amend by adding "and from day to day during the session."

The amendment and the motion were adopted without objection.

Mr. ALEXANDER, of New Jersey, took the chair.

The PRESIDENT:--The Convention will now proceed to the order of the day--the consideration of the report of the committee.

Mr. REID, of North Carolina:--I wish to move an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON. It is to add to his the words "and future." If adopted, the language will be "present and future territory."

Mr. EWING:--This will render a division of the question necessary. The gentleman had better withdraw his amendment for the time.

Mr. REID:--I am instructed by the Legislature of North Carolina to offer it, and I think best to do so in this regular manner.

Mr. CLEVELAND:--I think the motion of Mr. REID is out of order. I suggest that if adopted, with Mr. JOHNSON'S amendment, the sense of the proposition as it now stands will not be changed.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I rise merely to make a suggestion to my colleague. This motion must be made at some time, by some one, so that we may have a regular vote upon it. Now, as it is not certain how the report of the majority of the committee is to be construed, I propose at a suitable time to move an amendment which will make the proposition applicable to territory hereafter acquired. If this will suit my colleague, I hope he will withdraw his motion.

Mr. REID:--I came here not to deceive the North or the South. I intend to be plain and unambiguous. Why should we send forth a proposition that is uncertain, vague, and, as gentlemen admit, open to different constructions? If we are to pour oil upon the troubled waters, let us do so to some purpose; above all, let us be definite, plain, and certain. I cannot consent to withdraw my motion. I must insist upon its consideration.

Mr. LOGAN:--I had hoped the question on Mr. JOHNSON'S amendments would have been taken on Saturday. It is an important one, and one which must be met. I would suggest that it would be best to let the question be taken on Mr. JOHNSON'S amendments now. The subject presents itself to my mind in this way: The proposition of the majority, as it now stands, is uncertain. The friends of the proposition ought to be allowed to perfect it, to make it satisfactory to themselves. If there is a doubt about it, let us make it clear that it applies only to the present territory. Then we can have a clear and decisive vote upon it. The substance of the proposition is what I wish to arrive at, and it will be more in order if the vote is not taken till we know what that substance is. I shall not object to its application to future territory. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina will withdraw his amendment, and let the question be taken on that of Mr. JOHNSON.

Mr. SEDDON:--One word only. I fear we are being placed in an awkward position. I am desirous to have the language of the proposition clear and not delusive. The amendment of Mr. JOHNSON embarrasses me; I hardly know how to vote upon it. If I vote for Mr. JOHNSON'S motion, I shall have the semblance of favoring the limitation of the proposition to present territory. Mr. RUFFIN and myself both want the same thing, but on Mr. JOHNSON'S motion he will vote one way and I the other.

Mr. RUFFIN:--Will the gentleman allow me to explain? I voted against the proposition in committee because, as it now stands, it applies only to existing territory. I wish to carry this proposition, but not by the vote of the South alone. I want Northern votes, and assurances that the people of the North will vote for the proposition and adopt it.

Mr. SEDDON:--I shall feel disposed to vote against Mr. JOHNSON'S motion.

The question was here stated by the President as follows:

The vote will be taken upon the motion of Mr. REID to amend the amendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON.

Mr. REID:--It strikes me that the question is this: My proposition is to add the words "and future," but Mr. JOHNSON'S amendment is to add the word "present." Can this be treated as an amendment to his motion? I must say that my duty to my country and State will prevent my voting for the proposition as he proposes to limit it.

Mr. COALTER:--I think the committee ought to be permitted to amend and complete their report. Let us, by general consent, agree to have the word "present" inserted.

Mr. REID:--I object to that all the time.

Mr. TURNER:--I move that the report be recommitted for amendment.

Mr. COALTER:--Shall we adjourn over simply for this? That will use up another day.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope it will not be recommitted. We can settle the question here in a moment.

The PRESIDENT:--The vote will now be taken.

Mr. McCURDY:--I call for the individual names of members voting.

The PRESIDENT:--The call is not in order.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. REID, and resulted as follows:

AYES--New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee,
North Carolina, Missouri, and Virginia--8.

NAYS--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa--12.

So the amendment failed.

The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. JOHNSON:--I trust that I shall not trespass upon the time of the Conference, but the subject now before it is one of great importance, and it involves the consideration of many important questions. The amendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the proposition of the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a construction might be placed upon it different from that which the committee intended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here, that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There ought to be no ambiguity in a constitutional provision. Some of the most important constitutional questions decided by the Supreme Court have been questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about the construction to be given the committee's proposition. I think the Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here, which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scott case. There the question was upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the _territories_ or other property belonging to the United States." The Court in that case decided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in that case, because the power given by that provision, whatever it might be, was confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which, upon the adoption of the Constitution, belonged to or was claimed by the United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by the treaty with Great Britain. With this clause in the Constitution, therefore, it could have no influence upon the territory afterward acquired from a foreign government. I think this decision conclusive, and that the proposition, if incorporated into the Constitution, would refer only to the territory now owned by the United States.

It was the wish of the representatives of some States in the committee that the word "future" should be inserted in the report. I was opposed to it: it was so odious to me to put words into the Constitution, or to propose to do so, which should go forth to the world as an indication that this Government proposes to acquire new territory in any way. I have said that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case decided that the words "the territories" in the Constitution only applied to the then existing territory. I think they decided wrong in this respect, though I agree to the correctness of the decision in that case in the main; but such as it is, the decision is binding upon this Conference and the people.

Mr. JOHNSON here read a portion of the opinion of Judge TANEY delivered in the Dred Scott case, and continued:

You perceive that Judge TANEY turns the question upon the construction of the word "the." Had the word "any" been used in its place, he must have held that the provision applied to future, as well as the then existing territory.

Knowing that it was the purpose of the majority of the committee to exclude future territory from the operation of this proposition, and that it was due to the committee and the Convention that their purposes should be carried out, I offer my amendment as applicable to the sixth line of the proposition as well as the first.

In discussing the merits of this report, in its application to the existing condition of the country, I have to say a word to my Southern friends. You have sought to extend this provision to territory which shall be hereafter acquired. You have had a decisive vote and have been beaten in this Conference. The fight has been a fair one; the question has been thoroughly understood. We ought to acquiesce in the decision of the majority. We cannot change this decision if we would; and if we could change it, the proposition amended as you would prefer to have it, would never pass Congress. The repeated action of that body, during its present session, shows this conclusively. Accepting this decision then, as definitive, can we not settle the question with reference to existing territory? Shall we settle it? Settle it fairly--recognizing and acknowledging the rights of all, and remain brethren forever with the Free States! From my very heart, I say yes. (Applause.) The proposition as it now stands covers all the territory we have. The whole ground, the whole trouble, which has brought this country into its present lamentable condition--has arisen over this question. I believe if it had been disposed of or settled in some way before, many States would have been kept in the Union that have now gone out. And why should we not settle it?

We have now a territory extensive enough to sustain two hundred millions of people--embracing almost every climate, fruitful in almost every species of production--rich in all the elements of national wealth, and governed by a Constitution that has raised us to an elevation of grandeur that the world has never before witnessed. That we should separate to the destruction of such a Government, on account of territory we have not got, and territory that we do not want, is not, I believe, the patriotic sense of the South.

But this proposition does not stand by itself alone. It is connected, and must be construed, with the provision relating to the acquisition of future territory. The second section of the committee's proposition provides that territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty, nor, with unimportant exceptions, unless such treaty shall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. Is not that guaranty enough for us? Should we not act unreasonably if we required further guaranty in this respect? For myself, I should have preferred that the consent of two-thirds of the Senate only should be required, and that that two-thirds should comprise a majority both from the free and slave States.

Mr. RUFFIN:--At the proper time I shall move such an amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON:--If such an amendment is proposed I shall vote for it. I know there will be objections raised to it, but they will be far outweighed by the advantages it will give to the South.

But the objection of Mr. BALDWIN is opposed here, and it is one which must be answered. He says this is the wrong way to propose amendments to the Constitution--that our action is inconsistent with that instrument. He does not claim that it is prohibited by the letter, but by the spirit of the Constitution. Where does he get the spirit but from the letter? There are two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution provided by that instrument. Let us see what they are.

Mr. JOHNSON here read the article of the Constitution providing for amendments, and continued:

One is where two-thirds of Congress deem it advisable to propose amendments; the other is where the States themselves propose them. My learned brother would have us believe that the members of Congress, acting under their official oaths, must each be satisfied that each amendment proposed is proper to be incorporated in the instrument, before they should propose them; and he maintains that there is a difference, in fact, in the two methods prescribed. What right has this body, if there is any force in this objection, to submit _his_ proposition to the States? If what we propose is revolutionary, then what he proposes is revolutionary. I reply to him, with all respect for his legal ability, and with all the humility which becomes me, and insist that he is wrong. He refers to the opinion of Judge COLLAMER. I hold Judge COLLAMER in much respect, and his opinion in great honor here, but his statements are at war with the objections made by the gentleman from Connecticut. Judge COLLAMER maintains that it is the duty of Congress _to propose_ amendments, not to _recommend_ them. It would be entirely proper, according to his opinion, for Congress to propose amendments which they would not adopt themselves. I go somewhat farther, and insist that it is the duty of Congress to propose amendments whenever desired by any State or any considerable section of the Union. If we have no right to suggest a line of action to Congress, no right to petition Congress, no right to ask Congress to propose amendments, as the gentleman insists, we had better go home, or rather, I should say, we should never have come here.

There are twenty States represented in this Conference. I have no doubt other States would have been here, but for the shortness of the time. But how and why are we here? We have come here on the invitation of Virginia; her resolutions are our constitution. We have come here at her instance. For what purpose did she ask us to come here? under what circumstances did she pass these resolutions? Virginia saw that the country was going to ruin--that one State had already seceded, and several others were about to follow. She saw there were circumstances affecting the condition of the South which aroused her to frenzy--not madness, but the frenzy which falls on every patriotic mind when it witnesses a country going to destruction. She saw the country was going to ruin with rapid steps, and that its ruin must be accomplished unless her friends in the free States would come forward, and consent to put into the Constitution additional guarantees which would satisfy the people of the slave States that their rights were secure. See what she did--what she said. She expresses it as her deliberate opinion, "that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable; and the General Assembly, representing the wishes of the people of the Commonwealth, is desirous of employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity, and determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the Constitution, in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic."

Therefore she invites all States, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, who were willing to unite with her in an earnest effort to adjust the unhappy controversies in the spirit of the Constitution, to come together to secure that adjustment. She asks us to agree to some suitable adjustment. She does not leave us to suggest what that adjustment shall be. She tells us herself. She requests us to adopt it, and to submit it to Congress. She does not ask that Congress should call a convention, for Congress could not. Try, if we can, says Virginia, to come to some settlement of these unhappy controversies, and send that settlement to Congress, that Congress may submit it to the country.

Virginia invited you here. She told you just what she wanted. She says if you cannot consent to that, then let her commissioners come home and report the result. If this cannot be done, if the mode of adjustment indicated by her cannot be substantially carried out, then our whole authority is at an end.

This matter of amending the Constitution is not as intricate and difficult a work as gentlemen imagine. Are there not twelve amendments to the Constitution already? Were they submitted to the people by each member of Congress acting under his official oath? Or were they submitted in the very way the gentleman would avoid? Were they not brought into the Constitution by outside pressure?

The Constitution has been amended. I wish to mark how it was done, and then note why it was done.

There was a time when fears were entertained that wrongs might be done to different sections of the Union under the Constitution as it then stood. Congress listened to those fears, and did not hesitate to propose amendments suggested from outside its own body--to submit them to the people for adoption. It was necessary, in the judgment of Congress, to do this, in order to restore confidence. It was done, and confidence was restored. Is not that precisely our case now? Is not confidence lost in the North and in the South?--not exactly lost, perhaps, but shaken. The credit of the Government is gone. Even our naval commanders are unable to negotiate Government bills abroad--are reduced to the degrading alternative of asking the endorsement of foreign States, in order to such negotiation. Some brilliant individuals have suggested that we have already become so poor that our widows and wives must bring out their stockings.

Our last loan was negotiated at twelve per cent. discount. The present loan is not to be taken at any rate, unless the Government descends to the humiliating alternative of securing State endorsements. Our credit is going lower and lower every day, and it will soon come to the point where our bonds will be worth no more than Continental money was.

Suppose we do nothing here. Are gentlemen blind to the consequences? Gentlemen, honest and patriotic as I know you are, have you no love for this Union?--have you no care for the preservation of this Government? God forbid that I should say you have none! I know you too well. My relations have been too intimate with you, and have existed too long, for me to suppose it. You do love the Union. I speak for the South and to the South. I know that we can still labor to keep this Government together. If we follow the plain dictates of our judgment, any other course would be impossible.

The Virginia Convention is even now in session, and what a convention it is! Disguise as we may, deceive ourselves as we will, it is a convention which proposes to consider the question of withdrawing the State from the Union. Kentucky and Missouri, if we do nothing, will soon follow. If there ever was a time in the history of the Government for conciliation, for patriotic concession, that time is now. The time has come when parties must be forgotten. Let not the word party be mentioned here. It is not worthy of us. Representatives of the States, you are above party--high above. The cords that bind you together are a hundred times as strong as those which ever bound any party. Unless we do something, and something very quickly, before the incoming President is inaugurated, in all human probability he will have only the States north of Mason and Dixon to govern--that is, if he is to govern them in peace.

I think there is no right of secession; such is my individual opinion. But there is a right higher than all these--the right of self-defence, the right of revolution. It is recognized by the Constitution itself. The Constitution was adopted by nine of the States only. What right had those nine States to separate from the other four?

Mr. SEDDON:--The right of secession.

Mr. JOHNSON:--I won't dispute about terms. In all such discussions, Heaven save me from a Virginia politician!

The opinions of Mr. MADISON upon the Constitution are certainly entitled to value. He had more to do with making it than any other statesman of the time. I desire to read an opinion of his, which will be found in number forty-two of the Federalist:

"Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves
on this occasion:--1. On what principle the Confederation,
which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the
States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of
the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between
the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the
remaining few who do not become parties to it?

"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the
absolute necessity of the case, to the great principle of
self-preservation, to the transcendent law of nature and of
nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness
of society are the objects at which all political
institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be
sacrificed."

Now, apply these principles to the present condition of the country. The cases are exactly parallel. Mr. MADISON says in substance, that if one section of the Union refuses to recognize and protect the rights of another--in other words, if the free States now refuse to guarantee the rights of the South, that there is a right of self-preservation, a law of nature and nature's God, which is above all Constitutions. I am not here to inquire whether the South has a right to go out if these guarantees are not given. That is a question which I will not argue. Some of the States have already gone. I hold that to be a fact established.

Now, I put it to my friends of the North: Do you want us to go out? You are a great people, a great country--a powerful people, a rich country. No threat or intimidation shall ever come from me to such a people. I ask you in all sadness whether, in the light of all our glory, of all our happiness and prosperity, whether you will, by withholding a thing that it will not harm you to grant, suffer us, compel us to depart? Let me read what was said by the same great man of Virginia, in anticipation of the existence of the present state of things:

"I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these considerations,
in full confidence that the good sense which has so often
marked your decisions will allow them their due weight and
effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however
formidable in appearance, or however fashionable the error
on which they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy
and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion
would conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice, which
tells you that the people of America, knit together as they
are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live
together as members of the same family; can no longer
continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can
no longer be fellow-citizens of one great, respectable, and
flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice which
petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended
for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that
it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest
projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to
accomplish. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this
unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison
which it conveys. The kindred blood which flows in the veins
of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed
in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union,
and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens,
rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe
me, the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all
projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rending
us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties, and
promote our happiness."

Grant us then, gentlemen of the North, what we are willing to stand upon--what we will try to stand upon, and what we believe we can. At least, this will save the rest of the States to yourselves and to us. The States that are now in the Union will continue there.

What is it we ask you to do? It is to settle this question as to our present territory. To settle it--how? By dividing it. And how by dividing it? By the line of 36° 30´. Apparently, you think we are asking the North to yield something. I tell you it is we who are yielding. By the decision of the Supreme Court we have the right to go North of this line with our slaves. Now, all we ask you to give us here is the territory south of that line; and even as to that, we give you the right to destroy slavery there whenever a State organized out of it chooses to do so. We are, in fact, yielding to you. We abandon our rights North. Will you not let us retain what is already ours, South?

Is it quite certain that the territory south of the line will be slave territory? Those who repealed the Missouri Compromise, believed that Kansas would be a slave State. It did not turn out so. All we ask is, that you should leave the territory south of the line where it has been left by the decision of the Supreme Court. We freely yield you all the rest.

I do not propose to discuss all the amendments proposed. I confine myself to the single one which, if satisfactorily disposed of, will settle all our troubles.

In conclusion, I ask, oppressed by a consciousness which almost overmasters me--which renders me unfit to do any thing but feel--will you not settle this question here? I feel, and I cannot escape the feeling, that on your decision hangs the question, whether we shall be preserved an united people, or be broken to atoms. The States now remaining in the Union may possibly get on for a few years with something like prosperity; but if this question is not settled in some way, man must change his nature or _war_ in the end will come. War! What a word to be used here! War between whom? There is not a family at the South which has not its associations with the North--not a Northern family which has not its Southern ties! War in the midst of such a people! God grant that the future, that the events which must inevitably follow dissension here, may at least spare this agony to ourselves, our families, and our posterity.

Mr. SEDDON:--It is very clear to me that I ought not to make a prolonged address upon a question which I favor. The only question now before us is: Shall this amendment be made plain? We should deal honestly among ourselves; there should be no cheat--no uncertainty--no delusion here. Our language should be so clear that it will breed no new nests of trouble.

But the address of the gentleman from Maryland requires a brief notice from me. I listened with sadness to many parts of it. I bemoan that tones so patriotic could not rise to the level of the high ground of equality and right upon which we all ought to stand.

I appeal not to forbearance--I ask not for pity. I feel proud to represent the grand old commonwealth of Virginia here, and prouder still that I only come here to demand right and justice in her behalf. Aye! and it is more complimentary to you to have it so. I ask for such guarantees only as Virginia needs, and as she has the right to demand. It is far more complimentary to you to appeal to your sense of justice, to your sense of right, than to your forbearance or pity.

Virginia comes forward in a great national crisis. When support after support of this glorious temple of our Government has been torn away, she comes--proud of her memories of the past--happy in the part she had in the construction of this great system--she comes to present to you, calmly and plainly, the question, whether new and additional guarantees are not needed for her rights; and she tells you what those guarantees ought to be.

Nor does she stand alone. She is supported by all her border sisters. The propositions she makes are familiar to the country. They were made by a patriot of the olden time, a time near to that of the foundation of our Government. They were such as he thought suited to the exigencies of his time. They have since then received a larger meed of approval, north and south, than any other plan of arrangement.

My State offers these resolutions of her Legislature as a basis for our action here, with certain modifications acceptable to her people. One of these modifications has since been accepted by the mover of these resolutions himself. Most important among them is the provision as to future territory. The gentleman seems to think that Virginia would not insist on this provision as applicable to territory we may never have. It behooves not me to answer such a momentous question. I am only the mouthpiece of Virginia. She insists on the provision for future territory. She and her sister States plant themselves upon it. What right have I to strike out a clause which she makes specific? What right have I to esteem it of so little weight that it may be thrown aside and disregarded? I do not propose to give my reasons, though they would not be troublesome to give. It was an element in the Missouri Compromise that it should apply to future as well as to existing territory.

Does not the gentleman assert that under the laws as they now stand, we have the right to go north of the compromise line with our slaves? What, then, is our position? Under the decision of the Supreme Court we are entitled to participate in _all_ the territory of the United States. We are offering to give up the great part and the best part of it, and in payment we are to take the naked chance of getting a little piece of the worthless territory south of the proposed line! Such an idea was never entertained by those who made the Compromise. The idea which governed their action was, beyond all doubt, not that present territory alone should be thus divided, but that the question should be removed from doubt and difficulty for all time, and to give us at the South a chance whatever change might come.

Shall we be rewarded for all we give up, and find full compensation in a clause which itself prevents the acquisition of future territory? The statement is in itself a sufficient answer to the question.

But there was another element in the propositions of the Legislature of Virginia. That, was security against the principles of the North, and her great and now dominant party; it was intended to put an end to the discussions that have convulsed the country and jeopardized our institutions.

It was the policy of our fathers to settle these questions. They determined to make a final and decisive line of demarkation, and to let that be conclusive. But this young people could not be restrained, and when new territory was acquired the same question arose again. It now comes up once more. Virginia early saw the seeds of trouble in it, because she saw that the tide of emigration would continue to press toward the fertile lands of the South. She saw and she acted. In consequence of her action we are here. Would it not be wise and well as statesmen and as patriots, that you should do what you can for adjustment? do what you can to bring back your sisters of the South who have departed? It is the part of wisdom to settle. Virginia was wise to ask it.

There is another thing. A great and mighty party has arisen at the North that is determined to exclude the institution of slavery, not only from all future, but from all _present_ territory. We know that in all ways this party has declared that it would not consent to let slavery go where it does not now exist. More heated zealots, also animated and sustained by this same party, have determined that this natural and patriarchal institution of the South should be surrounded by a cordon of free States, and in the end be extinguished altogether.

Is it not wise in Virginia, that she should see that this project of surrounding the South with free States should be guarded against--most effectually guarded against now and in time to come, and so preserve her dignity and power?

This amendment adopted, and the proposition to Virginia will be a farce. Gentlemen, we hold that as the soul is to man, so is honor to a nation. Honor is the soul of nations. Without it, no nation can have a place in history or among the nations. We of Virginia must have in this Confederation the position of an equal. Equal in dignity--equal in right. In the Congress of the States of this Union, we insist on this as our right. We must have the same protection as the States of the North. Otherwise we are a dishonored people. We might live for a time otherwise, but we should be unworthy a place among the nations. We hold _property_, yes, _our property in slaves_, as rightful and as honorable as any property to be found in the broad expanse between ocean and ocean.

We feel that in the existence, the perpetuity, the protection of the African race, we have a mission to perform, and not a mission only, but a right and a duty.

Upon this subject I have a word to say in all seriousness. Think not, gentlemen of the North, that we propose to deceive or mislead you. We of the South are earnest in what we say. This is a question which we answer to ourselves. We hold that these colored barbarians have been withdrawn from a country of native barbarism, and under the benignant influence of a Christian rule, of a Christian civilization, have been elevated, yes, _elevated_ to a standing and position which they could never have otherwise secured. In respect to the colored race we challenge comparison with San Domingo, with the freed regions of Jamaica, with those who have been transferred to the coast of Africa. Ask the travellers who have visited those distant shores to contrast the condition of the colored people there with that of those on our Southern plantations, and they will give you but one answer--they will say, we have redeemed and kept well our high and our holy trust.

But this is a matter with our own consciences, not with yours. We appeal to you to leave it where it is, to leave the colored people where they are. Why should you undertake to interfere with the policy of a neighboring State concerning a people about which you know nothing? We feel, we know that we have done that race no wrong. Deep into the Southern heart has this feeling penetrated. For scores of years we have been laboring earnestly in our mission. In all this time we have contributed far more to the greatness of the North than to our own. Yet all this time we have been assailed, attacked, vilified and defamed, by the people of the North, from the cradle to the grave, and you have educated your children to believe us monsters of brutality, lust and iniquity.

I tell you, that from the time the abolition societies aroused the latent anti-slavery spirit of the North until now, nothing but evil has come of the excitement and discussion. It has spread a horrid influence far and wide; it has for years distilled, and is now distilling its poison and venom all over the land.

It was under English, yes, British, Anglo-Saxon instigation that it first commenced. By this instigation it has been fed, been given life, continuity and power. Think you the English authors of this instigation had any purpose but to disrupt this Republic? They professed to regard slavery as an evil and a sin. The fruits of their action were first manifested in religious societies--first in the largest churches in New England, in the Presbyterian or Congregational churches, next the Methodist, then the Baptist, and finally, the venom spread so widely, its influence separated other churches. What has the moral influence of this power done? It has made the abstraction of our slaves a virtue. Societies have been formed for that very purpose, inciting their members and others, by the vilest motives, to steal our slaves, to destroy our property.

Nor have they been sufficiently modest to cloak their designs under the veil of secrecy. These people advocated their pernicious doctrines openly in your leading cities, even within the consecrated walls of Fanueil Hall.

Openly among your people, in the very light of day, these efforts were carried on for the destruction of your sister States. There has not been an effort of the law nor an exertion of public opinion to put them down.

These efforts culminated in the actual invasion of my own old honored State, and your people thought they were doing GOD service in signing a petition to our authorities for mercy to John Brown and his ruffian invaders of our soil. And when these men met the just reward of their crime, there was, throughout the North, in your meetings and your public prints, expressions of sympathy for these robbers and murderers. They were looked upon as the victims of oppression, as martyrs to a holy and righteous cause. Gentlemen, consider these things, and tell me, is there not to-day reason for suspicion; on the part of the South for grave apprehension?

But the half is yet to be told; I have looked only at the moral aspect of the question. Dangerous enough hitherto, it becomes far more dangerous when it culminates on the arena of politics, and asks, with the powerful aid of a majority, the interference and the aid of the Government.

As soon as it became the party of one idea it began to draw to it, first the support of one, then another political party. It went on securing the assistance of one after another until it demoralized, until it brought each to ruin. It destroyed the grand old Whig party. Fanatic enough before, when it had brought that party to its grave, it thrust upon the arena of politics this question of slavery in the territories. Then for the first time it raised the cry of "Free Soil," and brought to its support the hearts of a majority of the people of the northern States.

The people of the North and Northwest have long been noted for their acquisitive disposition, especially for the acquisition of lands. This has been manifested in every form. Carried into effect it has made them powerful, until, not long since, they thought they might get entire dominion at no distant day. Then arose in their hearts a desire greater than the greed of land--the greed of office and power. They then saw that perhaps the North alone might control the national government, and with it the South. Then, too, the great class of protected interests at the North--always greater at the North than at the South--joined with them. All these protected classes, whose advantages had been diverted from other classes to which they belonged, joined with landseekers to secure power. Influence after influence of this sort combined, until it produced your great Republican party; in other words, your great Sectional party, which has at length come to majority and power.

I do not wish to dwell upon the principles of that party, or to discuss them; I simply assert that their principles involve all the sentiments of abolitionism. They may be summed up in this: you determine to oppose the admission of slave States in the future.

You say that the whole power of the country, the whole power of the administration, shall be used in future for the final extinction of slavery.