Chapter CDLXXXVII: Section 10: And be it further enacted, That when any person (4)

"The General Assembly of Virginia, on the 19th of January,
adopted resolutions inviting representatives of the several
States to assemble in a Peace Convention at Washington, which
met on the 4th of February. It was composed of 133
Commissioners, many from the border States, and the object of
these was to prevail upon their associates from the North to
unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would
prevent their own States from seceding and enable them to
bring back six of the cotton States which had already
seceded." On the 15th of February a committee of the
Convention reported certain proposed amendments to the
Constitution which "were substantially the same with the
Crittenden Compromise;

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
VAIN CONCESSIONS;

but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms
of the first and by far the most important section were
restricted to the present Territories of the United States. On
motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was
further amended, but not materially changed, by the adoption
of the substitute offered by him. Nearly in this form it was
afterwards adopted by the Convention. The following is a copy:

'In all the present territory of the United States north of
the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north
latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of
crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of
that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service
or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall
any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature
to prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States
of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights
arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to
judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the
course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of
said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe,
shall contain a population equal to that required for a member
of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be
republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing
with the original States, with or without involuntary
servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.'…

More than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting
upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners.
The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th
February, when it was taken on the first vitally important
section, as amended. This section, on which all the rest
depended, was negatived by a vote of eight States to eleven.
Those which voted in its favor were Delaware, Kentucky,
Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Tennessee. And those in the negative were Connecticut,
Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York,
North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia." A
reconsideration of the vote was moved, however, and on the day
following (February 27), "the first section was adopted, but
only by a majority of nine to eight States, nine being less
than a majority of the States represented. … From the nature
of this vote, it was manifestly impossible that two-thirds of
both Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment,
even if the delay had not already rendered such action
impracticable before the close of the session. The remaining
sections of the amendment were carried by small majorities,"
and the proposed amendment of the Constitution was reported to
Congress, with a request that it be submitted to the
Legislatures of the States, but no action upon it was taken.

_T. V. Cooper,
American Politics,
pages 106-108._

"Most of the Southerners thought these propositions worse than
nothing. Hunter preferred the present position under the
constitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition.
Mason, the other Senator from the state that had issued the
call for the Peace Convention, said that he would consider
himself a traitor if he should recommend such propositions.
Wigfall of Texas, however, bore off the palm by saying: 'If
those resolutions were adopted, and ratified by three-fourths
of the states of this Union, and no other cause ever existed,
I make the assertion that the seven states now out of the
Union would go out upon that.' Many of the Republicans were
equally strong in their opposition to them. Chandler of
Michigan spoke the substance of the opinions of several on his
side of the Senate when he expressed himself in the language
of the 'stump' by saying: 'No concession, no compromise,—ay,
give us strife, even to blood,—before a yielding to the
demands of traitorous insolence.' … John Tyler, the president
of the convention that passed them, and Seddon returned to
their state and denounced the recommendations of the Peace
Convention as a delusion, a sham and an insult to the South. …
Hawkins of Florida told the House, when the question was first
touched upon, that the day of compromise was past and that he
and his state were opposed to all and every compromise. Pugh
and Clopton of Alabama both spoke boldly for secession and
against any temporizing policy. Congress had been in session
but ten days, and neither of the committees on compromise had
had time to report, when a large number of the members of
Congress from the extreme Southern States issued a manifesto
declaring that 'argument was exhausted' and that 'the sole and
primary aim of each slaveholding state ought to be its speedy
and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union.'
… The boldness of these facts is startling, even when viewed
at this distance. They make it perfectly evident that it was
not the constitution which the South was desirous of saving,
but the institution of slavery which she was determined to
preserve. Likewise on the Northern side we find that those who
were courageous, logical, and intellectually vigorous in
political speculation considered the constitution of less
importance than the development of their ideas of freedom.
These people were called Abolitionists. Although their
political strength was not great, some one of their many ideas
found sympathy in the mind of almost every Northerner of
education or of clear moral intentions. This explains how John
A. Andrew could be elected governor of Massachusetts, although
known to have presided over a John Brown meeting.
{3415}
The purpose of the Abolitionists was 'the utter extermination
of slavery wheresoever it may exist.' Wendell Phillips
surprised very few Abolitionists when, knowing that the
Confederacy was forming, he rejoiced that 'the covenant with
death' was annulled and 'the agreement with hell' was broken
in pieces, and exclaimed: 'Union or no Union, constitution or
no constitution, freedom for every man between the oceans, and
from the hot Gulf to the frozen pole! You may as well dam up
Niagara with bulrushes as bind our anti-slavery purpose with
Congressional compromise.' Congress had to consider such facts
as these, as well as the compromises which were proposed.
Stephen A. Douglas felt compelled to say, as early as January,
1861, that there were Democrats in the Senate who did not want
a settlement. And it was plain to all that most of the
Republicans discouraged further concessions. Nor would a
constitutional amendment have been possible unless the
Northern members had first recognized the seven states as
being out of the Union, for it would otherwise have required
the support of all but one of the states that were still
active. That the 'personal liberty' laws were a violation of
the constitution, and that the execution of the fugitive slave
law of 1850 had been unconstitutionally obstructed, were
unquestioned facts, directly or indirectly recognized by many
of the Republican leaders. Nevertheless, the North was much
more inclined to continue in this unconstitutional position
than to yield to the demands of the South."

_F. Bancroft,
The Final Efforts at Compromise
(Political Science Quarterly, September, 1891)._

ALSO IN:
_H. A. Wise,
Seven Decades of the Union,
chapter 15._

_L. G. Tyler,
Letters and Times of the Tylers,
volume 2, chapter 20._

_L. E. Chittenden,
Report of Debates and Proceedings in Secret Session
of the Conference Convention, Washington, 1861._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
Adoption of a Constitution for
"The Confederate States of America."
Election of a President and Vice President.

"Early in February, 1861, a convention of six seceding states,
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Florida, was held at Montgomery, Alabama. They were
represented by 42 persons. Measures were taken for the
formation of a provisional government. After the vote on the
provisional Constitution was taken, Jefferson Davis was
elected President, and Alexander H. Stephens Vice-President of
the Confederacy for the current year. The inauguration of Mr.
Davis took place on February 18th. Both were shortly after
re-elected permanently for six years. … The permanent
Constitution adopted for 'The Confederate States of America,'
the title now assumed, was modeled substantially on that of
the United States. It was remarked that, after all, the old
Constitution was the most suitable basis for the new
Confederacy. Among points of difference must be noticed that
the new instrument broadly recognized, even in its preamble,
the contested doctrine of state-rights. … Inducements and
threats were applied to draw Virginia and the other Border
States into the Confederacy. … With an ominous monition, the
second article reads, 'Congress shall … have power to prohibit
the introduction of slaves from any state not a member of this
Confederacy.' At this time Virginia was receiving an annual
income of $12,000,000 from the sale of slaves. In 1860 12,000
slaves were sent over her railroads to the South and
Southwest. One thousand dollars for each was considered a low
estimate. Notwithstanding this, the Ordinance of Secession did
not pass the Virginia Convention until some weeks subsequently
(April 17)."

_J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapter 32 (volume 1)._

The preamble of the Constitution declared that "the people of
the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and
independent character, invoking the favor and guidance of
Almighty God, ordained a Constitution to form a permanent
Federal Government and for other purposes. The change in
phraseology was obviously to assert the derivative character
of the Federal Government and to exclude the conclusion which
Webster and others had sought to draw from the phrase, 'We,
the people of the United States.' In the Executive department,
the Constitution provided, in accordance with the early
agreement of the Convention of 1787, that the President should
be elected for six years and be ineligible. A seat upon the
floor of either House of Congress might be granted to the
principal officer in each of the Executive departments with
the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his
department. The President was empowered to remove at pleasure
the principal officer in each of the Executive departments and
all persons connected with the diplomatic service. To give
entire control of Cabinet officers and of foreign ministers
was considered to be necessary for the proper discharge of the
President's duties and for the independence of his department.
All other civil officers could be removed when their services
were unnecessary, or for dishonesty, inefficiency, misconduct,
or neglect of duty, but the removals in such cases, with the
reasons therefor, were to be reported to the Senate, and no
person rejected by the Senate could be reappointed to the same
office during the recess of the Senate. The President was
empowered, while approving portions of an appropriation bill,
to disapprove particular items, as in other like cases of
veto, the object being to defeat log-rolling combinations
against the Treasury. Admitting members of the Cabinet to
seats upon the floor of Congress with right of discussion
(which worked well during the brief life of the Confederacy),
was intended to secure greater facility of communication
betwixt the Executive and the Legislative departments and
enforce upon the heads of the departments more direct personal
responsibility. By ineligibility of the President and
restriction of the power of removal, the Congress, acting as a
convention, sought to secure greater devotion to public
interests, freedom from the corrupting influences of Executive
patronage, and to break up the iniquitous spoils system which
is such a peril to the purity and perpetuity of our
Government. The Judicial department was permitted to remain
substantially as it was in the old Government. The only
changes were to authorize a tribunal for the investigation of
claims against the Government, the withholding from the
Federal Courts jurisdiction of suits between citizens of
different States, and the enactment of a wise provision that
any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting
solely within the limits of any State, might be impeached by a
vote of two thirds of both branches of the Legislature
thereof.

{3416}

The provisions in reference to the election of Senators and
Representatives and the powers and duties of each House were
unaltered except that the electors of each State were required
to be citizens, and the Senators were to be chosen by the
Legislatures of the State at the session next immediately
preceding the beginning of the term of service. In reference
to the general powers of Congress, some of the changes were
more vital. The general welfare clause was omitted from the
taxing grant. Bounties from the Treasury and extra
compensation to contractors, officers, and agents were
prohibited. 'A Protective Tariff' was so far forbidden that no
duties or taxes on importations could be laid to promote or
foster any branch of industry. Export duties were allowed with
the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses. Congress was
forbidden to make internal improvements except to furnish
lights, beacons, buoys, to improve harbors, and to remove
obstructions in river navigation, and the cost of these was to
be paid by duties levied on the navigation facilitated. That
the objects might be better attained, States, with the consent
of Congress and under certain other restrictions, were allowed
to lay a duty on the sea-going tonnage participating in the
trades of the river or harbor improved. States, divided by
rivers, or through which rivers flowed, could enter into
compacts for improving their navigation. Uniform laws of
naturalization and bankruptcy were authorized, but bankruptcy
could not affect debts contracted prior to the passage of the
law. A two-thirds vote was made requisite to appropriate money
unless asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of the
departments. Every law must relate but to one subject, and
that was to be expressed in the title. To admit new States
required a vote of two thirds of each House, the Senate voting
by States. Upon the demand of any three States, legally
assembled in their several conventions, Congress could summon
a convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, but
the convention was confined in its action to propositions
suggested by the States making the call. … 'The importation of
negroes of the African race was forbidden, and Congress was
required to pass laws effectually to prevent it.' The right of
transit or sojourn with slaves in any State was secured and
fugitive slaves—called 'slaves' without the euphemism of the
old instrument—were to be delivered up on the claim of the
party to whom they belonged. Congress could prohibit the
introduction of slaves from States and Territories not
included in the Confederacy, and laws impairing the right of
property in negro slaves were prohibited. Slaves could be
carried into any Territory of the Confederacy by citizens of
the Confederate States and be protected as property. This
clause was intended to forbid 'squatter sovereignty,' and to
prevent adverse action against property in slaves, until the
Territory should emerge from a condition of pupilage and
dependence into the dignity, equality, and sovereignty of a
State, when its right to define 'property' would be beyond the
interference or control of Congress."

_J. L. M. Curry,
The Southern States of the American Union,
chapter 13._

Alexander H. Stephens, in his "Constitutional view of the late
War between the States," expresses the opinion that the
selection of Jefferson Davis for the Presidency of the
Confederacy was due to a misunderstanding. He says that a
majority of the states were looking to Georgia for the
President, and the Georgia delegation had unanimously agreed
to present Mr. Toombs, who would have been acceptable. But a
rumor got currency that Georgia would put forward Howell Cobb,
whereupon the other states took up Davis, and united upon him.
It was generally understood, says Mr. Stephens, that Davis
"did not desire the office of President. He preferred a
military position, and the one he desired above all others was
the chief command of the army."

_A. H. Stephens,
Constitutional View of the War between the States,
volume 2, page 328-333._

ALSO IN:
_R. B. Rhett,
The Confederate Government at Montgomery
(Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
volume 1, pages 99-111)._

_Jefferson Davis,
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
part 3, chapter. 5, and appendix K (volume 1)._

The text of both the Provisional and the Permanent
Constitution of the Confederate States is given in the
appendix referred to.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
Urgency of South Carolina for the reduction of Fort Sumter
before the inauguration of President Lincoln.

"I am perfectly satisfied," wrote Governor Pickens of South
Carolina to Howell Cobb, "President of the Provisional
Congress" of the Confederacy, in a letter dated February 13,
1861,—"I am perfectly satisfied that the welfare of the new
confederation and the necessities of the State require that
Fort Sumter should be reduced before the close of the present
administration at Washington. If an attack is delayed until
after the inauguration of the incoming President of the United
States, the troops now gathered in the capital may then be
employed in attempting that which, previous to that time, they
could not be spared to do. They dare not leave Washington now
and do that which then will be a measure too inviting to be
resisted. Mr. Lincoln cannot do more for this State than Mr.
Buchanan has done. Mr. Lincoln will not concede what Mr.
Buchanan has refused. Mr. Buchanan has placed his refusal upon
grounds which determine his reply to six States, as completely
as to the same demand if made by a single State. If peace can
be secured, it will be by the prompt use of the occasion, when
the forces of the United States are withheld from our harbor.
If war can be averted, it will be by making the capture of
Fort Sumter a fact accomplished during the continuance of the
present administration, and leaving to the incoming
administration the question of an open declaration of war.
Such a declaration, separated, as it will be, from any present
act of hostilities during Mr. Lincoln's administration, may
become to him a matter requiring consideration. That
consideration will not be expected of him, if the attack on
the fort is made during his administration, and becomes,
therefore, as to him, an act of present hostility. Mr.
Buchanan cannot resist, because he has not the power. Mr.
Lincoln may not attack, because the cause of the quarrel will
have been, or may be, considered by him as past. Upon this
line of policy I have acted, and upon the adherence to it may
be found, I think, the most rational expectation of seeing
that fort, which is even now a source of danger to the State,
restored to the possession of the State without those
consequences which I should most deeply deplore."

_Official Records,
volume 1, page 256._

{3417}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February-March).
The inauguration and the
inaugural address of President Lincoln.

"On the 11th of February, with his family and some personal
friends, Lincoln left his home at Springfield for Washington.
… On his way to Washington, he passed through the great states
of Indiana, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and
was everywhere received with demonstrations of loyalty, as the
representative of the national government. He addressed the
people at the capitals of these states, and at many of their
chief towns and cities. The city of Washington was surrounded
by slave territory, and was really within the lines of the
insurgents. Baltimore was not only a slaveholding city, but
nowhere was the spirit of rebellion more hot and ferocious
than among a large class of its people. The lower classes, the
material of which mobs are made, were reckless, and ready for
any outrage. From the date of his election to the time of his
start for Washington, there had often appeared in the press
and elsewhere, vulgar threats and menaces that he should never
be inaugurated, nor reach the capital alive. Little attention
was paid to these threats, yet some of the President's
personal friends, without his knowledge, employed a detective,
who sent agents to Baltimore and Washington to investigate. …
The detectives ascertained the existence of a plot to
assassinate the President elect, as he passed through
Baltimore. The first intelligence of this conspiracy was
communicated to Lincoln at Philadelphia. On the facts being
laid before him, he was urged to take the train that night
(the 21st of February), by which he would reach Washington the
next morning, passing through Baltimore earlier than the
conspirators expected, and thus avoid the danger. Having
already made appointments to meet the citizens of Philadelphia
at, and raise the United States flag over, Independence Hall,
on Washington's birthday, the 22nd, and also to meet the
Legislature of Pennsylvania at Harrisburgh, he declined
starting for Washington that night. Finally his friends
persuaded him to allow the detectives and the officers of the
railways to arrange for him to return from Harrisburgh, and,
by special train, to go to Washington the night following the
ceremonies at Harrisburgh. … He went to Harrisburgh according
to arrangement, met the Legislature, and retired to his room.
In the meanwhile, General Scott and Mr. Seward had learned,
through other sources, of the existence of the plot to
assassinate him, and had despatched Mr. F. W. Seward, a son of
Senator Seward, to apprise him of the danger. Information
coming to him from both of these sources, each independent of
the other, induced him to yield to the wishes of his friends,
and anticipate his journey to Washington. Besides, there had
reached him from Baltimore no committee, either of the
municipal authorities or of citizens, to tender him the
hospitalities, and to extend to him the courtesies of that
city, as had been done by every other city through which he
had passed. He was persuaded to permit the detective to
arrange for his going to Washington that night. The telegraph
wires to Baltimore were cut, Harrisburgh was isolated, and,
taking a special train, he reached Philadelphia, and driving
to the Baltimore depot, found the Washington train waiting his
arrival, stepped on board, and passed on without interruption
through Baltimore to the national capital. … He afterwards
declared: 'I did not then, nor do I now believe I should have
been assassinated, had I gone through Baltimore as first
contemplated, but I thought it wise to run no risk where no
risk was necessary.' … On the 4th of March, 1861, he was
inaugurated President of the United States. … In the open air,
and with a voice so clear and distinct that he could be heard
by thrice ten thousand men, he read his inaugural address, and
on the very verge of civil war, he made a most earnest appeal
for peace."

_I. N. Arnold,
Life of Abraham Lincoln,
chapters 11-12._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 1, chapter 13._

_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 3, chapters 19-21. _

_H. J. Raymond,
Life of Abraham Lincoln,
chapters 5-6._

The following is the full text of the inaugural address, from
Lincoln's "Complete Works."

"Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a
custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to
address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath
prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be
taken by the President 'before he enters on the execution of
his office.' I do not consider it necessary, at present, for
me to discuss those matters of administration about which
there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems
to exist among the people of the southern states, that, by the
accession of a republican administration, their property and
their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There
has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.
Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the
while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found
in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses
you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, when I declare
that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.
I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no
inclination to do so.' Those who nominated and elected me did
so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar
declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than
this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a
law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution
which I now read: 'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of
the rights of the states, and especially the right of each
state to order and control its own domestic institutions
according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to
that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of
our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless
invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory,
no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.'
I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so I only press
upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of
which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and
security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the
now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the
protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the
laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states
when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to
one section as to another.
{3418}
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives
from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly
written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
'No person held to service or labor in one state under the
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of
any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service
or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due.' It is scarcely
questioned that this provision was intended by those who made
it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the
intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress
swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this
provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then,
that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause
'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if
they would make the effort in good temper, could they not,
with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of
which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some
difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced
by national or by state authority; but surely that difference
is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered,
it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by
which authority it is done. And should anyone, in any case, be
content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely
unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again,
in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of
liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be
introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case,
surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same
time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in
the Constitution which guarantees that 'the citizens of each
state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several states'? I take the official oath
today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to
construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules.
And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of
Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will
be much safer for all, both in official and private stations,
to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand
unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find
impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is
seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President
under our National Constitution. During that period, fifteen
different and greatly distinguished citizens have in
succession administered the executive branch of the
Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and
generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of
precedent, I now enter upon the same task, for the brief
constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar
difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only
menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in the
contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the
union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if
not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper
ever had a provision in its organic law for its own
termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of
our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever,
it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not
provided for in the instrument itself. Again, if the United
States be not a government proper, but an association of
states in the nature of a contract merely, can it, as a
contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who
made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so
to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these genera] principles, we find the
proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is
perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The
Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in
fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured
and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It
was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen
states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be
perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation, in 1778. And
finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining
and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect
Union.' But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a
part only of the states be lawfully possible, the Union is
less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the
vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that
no state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of
the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are
legally void; and that acts of violence within any state or
states against the authority of the United States are
insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the
laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability,
I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly
enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully
executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a
simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as
practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people,
shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative
manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded
as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union
that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In
doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and
there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national
authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold,
occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the
Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond
what may be necessary for these objects there will be no
invasion, no using of force against or among the people
anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior
locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent
competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices,
there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among
the people for that object. While the strict legal right may
exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these
offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so
nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego,
for the time, the uses of such offices. The mails, unless
repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the
Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have
that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm
thought and reflection.
{3419}
The course here indicated will be followed, unless current
events and experience shall show a modification or change to
be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion
will be exercised according to circumstances actually
existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of
the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal
sympathies and affections. That there are persons, in one
section or another, who seek to destroy the Union at all
events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither
affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word
to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I
not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the
destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its
memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain
precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step,
while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills
you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the
certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you
fly from—will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional
rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right,
plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think
not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party
can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of
a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the
Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of
numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly
written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of
view, justify revolution—certainly would if such a right were
a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them
by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions in
the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning
them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision
specifically applicable to every question which may occur in
practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any
document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for
all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be
surrendered by national or by state authority? The
Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not
expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the
Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From
questions of this class spring all our constitutional
controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and
minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority
must, or the Government must cease. There is no other
alternative; for continuing the Government is acquiescence on
one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede
rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn,
will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will
secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled
by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a
new Confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede
again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to
secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now
being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there
such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose
a new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed
secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the
essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by
constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing
easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and
sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.
Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to
despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as
a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that,
rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in
some form, is all that is left. I do not forget the position
assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decide
by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must
he binding in any case upon the parties to a suit, as to the
object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high
respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other
departments of the Government; and while it is obviously
possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given
case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to
that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled
and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be
borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the
same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy
of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole
people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation
between parties in personal actions, the people will have
ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent
practically resigned their Government into the hands of that
eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon
the Court or the Judges. It is a duty from which they may not
shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them, and it
is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions
to political purposes. One section of our country believes
slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other
believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the
only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the
Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign
slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law
can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people
imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the
people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a
few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly
cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the
separation of the sections than before. The foreign
slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately
revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive
slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be
surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we
cannot separate; we cannot remove our respective sections from
each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A
husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence
and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of
our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to
face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must
continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that
intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after
separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than
friends can make laws?
{3420}
Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than
laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot
fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no
gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old
questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. This
country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or
overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many
worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the
National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation
of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the
people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of
the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should,
under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a
fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I
will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems
preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the
people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or
reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen
for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they
would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed
amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have
not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal
Government shall never interfere with the domestic
institutions of the states, including that of persons held to
service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I
depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments,
so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be
implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being
made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all
his authority from the people, and they have conferred none
upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The
people themselves can do this also if they choose, but the
Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to
administer the present government as it came to his hands, and
to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should
there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of
the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In
our present differences is either party without faith of being
in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his
eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on
yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely
prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American
people. By the frame of the Government under which we live,
this same people have wisely given their public servants but
little power for mischief; and have with equal wisdom provided
for the return of that little to their own hands at very short
intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance,
no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can
very seriously injure the Government in the short space of
four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well
upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by
taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot
haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that
object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object
can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied
still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the
sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while
the new administration will have no immediate power, if it
would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are
dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still
is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence,
patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has
never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to
adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your
hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is
the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not
assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves
the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to
destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one
to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' I am loth to close. W
are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though
passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of
affection. The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every
battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and
hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the
chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will
be, by the better angels of our nature."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
President Lincoln and his Cabinet.
Secretary Seward.

President Lincoln, "in selecting his cabinet, which he did
substantially before he left Springfield for Washington, …
thought it wise to call to his assistance the strong men of
his party, especially those who had given evidence of the
support they commanded as his competitors in the Chicago
convention. … This was sound policy under the circumstances.
It might indeed have been foreseen that among the members of a
cabinet so composed, troublesome disagreements and rivalries
would break out. But it was better for the President to have
these strong and ambitious men near him as his coöperators
than to have them as his critics in Congress, where their
differences might have been composed in a common opposition to
him. As members of his cabinet he could hope to control them,
and to keep them busily employed in the service of a common
purpose, if he had the strength to do so. Whether he did
possess this strength was soon tested by a singularly rude
trial. There can be no doubt that the foremost members of his
cabinet, Seward and Chase, the most eminent Republican
statesmen, had felt themselves wronged by their party when in
its national convention it preferred to them for the
presidency a man whom, not unnaturally, they thought greatly
their inferior in ability and experience as well as in
service. … Seward, who, as Secretary of State, considered
himself next to the Chief Executive, and who quickly
accustomed himself to giving orders and making arrangements
upon his own motion, thought it necessary that he should
rescue the direction of public affairs from hands so
unskilled, and take full charge of them himself. At the end of
the first month of the administration he submitted a
'memorandum' to President Lincoln, which has been first
brought to light by Nicolay and Hay, and is one of their most
valuable contributions to the history of those days.

{3421}

In that paper Seward actually told the President that, at the
end of a month's administration, the government was still
without a policy, either domestic or foreign; that the slavery
question should be eliminated from the struggle about the
Union; that the matter of the maintenance of the forts and
other possessions in the South should be decided with that
view; that explanations should be demanded categorically from
the governments of Spain and France, which were then
preparing, one for the annexation of San Domingo, and both for
the invasion of Mexico; that if no satisfactory explanations
were received war should be declared against Spain and France
by the United States; that explanations should also be sought
from Russia and Great Britain, and a vigorous continental
spirit of independence against European intervention be
aroused all over the American continent; that this policy
should be incessantly pursued and directed by somebody; that
either the President should devote himself entirely to it, or
devolve the direction on some member of his cabinet, whereupon
all debate on this policy must end. This could be understood
only as a formal demand that the President should acknowledge
his own incompetency to perform his duties, content himself
with the amusement of distributing post offices, and resign
his power as to all important affairs into the hands of his
Secretary of State. … Had Lincoln, as most Presidents would
have done, instantly dismissed Seward, and published the true
reason for that dismissal, it would inevitably have been the
end of Seward's career. But Lincoln did what not many of the
noblest and greatest men in history would have been noble and
great enough to do. He considered that Seward was still
capable of rendering great service to his country in the place
in which he was, if rightly controlled. He ignored the insult,
but firmly established his superiority. In his reply, which he
forthwith dispatched, he told Seward that the administration
had a domestic policy as laid down in the inaugural address
with Seward's approval; that it had a foreign policy as traced
in Seward's dispatches with the President's approval; that if
any policy was to be maintained or changed, he, the President,
was to direct that on his responsibility; and that in
performing that duty the President had a right to the advice
of his secretaries. Seward's fantastic schemes of foreign war
and continental policies Lincoln brushed aside by passing them
over in silence. Nothing more was said. Seward must have felt
that he was at the mercy of a superior man."

_Carl Schurz,
Abraham Lincoln,
pages 67-73._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln: a History,
volume 3, chapters 22 and 26._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
Surrender of Alexander H. Stephens to Secession.
His "Corner-stone" speech at Savannah.

The following is from a speech made by Alexander H. Stephens
at Savannah, on the evening after the secession of Georgia,
which he had opposed, but to which he now yielded himself
without reserve. It is a speech that became famous on account
of its bold declaration that Slavery formed the "corner-stone"
of the New Confederacy. "The new constitution," said Mr.
Stephens, "has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery
as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our
form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late
rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast,
had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union
would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is
now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the
great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be
doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of
the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in
violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in
principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil
they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion
of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order
of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass
away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution,
was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is
true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution
while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly
urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured,
because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas,
however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the
assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was
a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when
the 'storm came and the wind blew.' Our new government is
founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are
laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the
negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery
—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal
condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the
history of the world, based upon this great physical,
philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in
the process of its development, like all other truths in the
various departments of science. It has been so even amongst
us."

_A. H. Stephens,
Speech in Savannah, March 21, 1861
(in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private;
by H. Cleveland")._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March-April).
The breaking of rebellion into open war
by the attack on Fort Sumter.
President Lincoln's statement of the circumstances.
His first difficulties.
Attitude of the Border States.