Chapter VII: The Election of Lincoln--Secession (2)

The secession movement, then, dates back several years. It
received an impetus in 1850; another in 1854; and in 1860, by
the connivance and the assistance of the Government itself, it
acquired the strength which it now has. What has been the
policy of the expiring administration? Its Cabinet officers
boasting of their complicity with the men who were plotting the
destruction of the Government; openly proclaiming in the face
of the world that they had used their official power, while
members of the Cabinet, and sworn to protect and preserve the
Government, to furnish the means for its destruction; openly
acknowledging before the world that they had used the power
which their positions gave them to discredit the Government,
and also to furnish arms and munitions of war to the men who
were conspiring together to assault its fortifications, and
seize its property; openly boasting that they had taken care,
during their public service, to see that the arms of the
Federal Government were placed in convenient positions for the
use of those who designed to employ them for its destruction.
More than this, members, while serving in the other branch of
Congress, go to the Executive of the United States, and tell
him, "Sir, we are taking steps in South Carolina to break up
this Government; you have forts and fortifications there; they
are but poorly manned; now if you will leave them in the
condition they are until the state of South Carolina gets ready
to take possession, we will wait until that time before we
seize them"; and the Executive of the nation asks that the
treasonable proposition be put in writing, and files it away.
Why, sir, is there another capital on the face of the globe, to
which men could come from state or province, and inform the
executive head that they were about to take steps to seize the
public property belonging to the Government, and warn the
Executive to leave it in its insecure and undefended state
until they should be prepared to take possession, and they be
permitted to depart? Is there another capital on the face of
the globe where commissioners coming to the Executive under
these circumstances would not have been arrested on the spot
for treason? But your Government, if it did not directly
promise not to arm its forts, certainly took no steps to
protect its public property; and this went on, until a gallant
officer who was in command of less than a hundred men in the
harbor of Charleston, acting upon his own responsibility,
thought proper to throw his little force into a fort where he
could protect himself; and then it was that these insurgents,
rebelling against the Government, demanded that he should be
withdrawn, and the Executive then was forced to take position.
Then his Cabinet officers who had been in conspiracy with the
plotters of treason, then the Chief Magistrate himself was
forced to take position. He must openly withdraw his forces,
and surrender the public property he was sworn to protect,
openly violate the oath he had taken to support the
Constitution of the United States, and execute the laws, and
take side with traitors; or else he must leave Major Anderson
where he was. Exposed to public view, brought to this dilemma,
I am glad to say that even then, at that late day, the
President of the United States concluded to take sides for the
Union; that even he came out, though feebly it was, on the part
of the United States, and his Secretary of War retired from his
Cabinet, not in disgrace, so far as its executive head was
concerned, for he parted pleasantly with the President of the
United States, but he retired because the President would not
carry out the policy which he understood to have been agreed
upon, which was to leave the fortifications in a position that
Carolina might take them whenever she thought proper.

But, sir, notwithstanding this, the Executive of the nation,
disregarding the advice of the Lieutenant-General who commands
the armies of the United States, and who had warned him months
before of the movements which were taking place to seize the
public property at the South, still leaves the property
unprotected; and the insurgents go on in some of the states,
before even passing ordinances of secession, and continue to
seize the public property; to capture the troops of the United
States; to take possession of the forts; to fire into its
vessels; to take down its flag; until they have at this time in
their possession fortifications which have cost the Government
more than $5,000,000, and which mount more than a thousand
guns.

All this has been done without any effort on the part of the
Government to protect the public property; and this is the
reason that secession has made the head it has. Why, sir, let
me ask, is it that the United States to-day has possession of
Fort Sumter? Can you tell me why is Fort Sumter in possession
of the United States? Because there are a hundred soldiers in
it--for no other reason. Why is Fort Moultrie in possession of
the insurgents? Because there were no men there to protect it;
and it is now matter of history that, had the Executive done
his duty, and placed a hundred men in Fort Moultrie, a hundred
in Castle Pinckney, and a hundred in Fort Sumter, Charleston
Harbor to-day would have been open, and your revenues would
have been collected there, as elsewhere throughout the United
States.

Will it be said that Carolina would have attacked those forts,
thus garrisoned? She does not attack a hundred men in Fort
Sumter. It is a wonder that she does not. The little, feeble
garrison there is well calculated to invite attack; but this
thing of secession, under the policy of the Administration, has
been made a holiday affair in the South. This great Government,
one of the most powerful on the face of the globe, is falling
to pieces just from its own imbecility.

MR. WIGFALL. Mr. President--

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (MR. BRIGHT). Does the Senator from
Illinois yield the floor?

MR. TRUMBULL. I have some further observations to make. I will
yield for a single question; not for a speech.

MR. WIGFALL. For a single question. I do not wish to interrupt
the Senator if it is not agreeable to him. I desire to ask a
single question.

MR. TRUMBULL. I have no objection to the question.

MR. WIGFALL. I understand the Senator to object to the course
that the present outgoing Administration has pursued in
reference to the forts. I know the Senator's candor, directness
of purpose, fairness, and boldness of statement; and I desire
to know whether the succeeding Administration will pursue the
same peace policy of leaving the forts in the possession of the
seceding states, or whether they will attempt to recapture
them?

MR. TRUMBULL. The Senator will find out my opinions on this
subject before I conclude. The opinions of the incoming
Administration, I trust, he will learn to-morrow from the
eastern front of the capitol.

MR. WIGFALL. I trust we shall, sir.

MR. TRUMBULL. I speak for myself, without knowing what may be
said in the inaugural of to-morrow; but I apprehend that the
Senator will learn to-morrow that we have a Government; and
that will be the beginning of the maintenance of the Union.

MR. WIGFALL. I hope we may.

MR. TRUMBULL. While the forts in the South were left thus
unprotected, and to be seized by the first comers, where was
your army? Scattered beyond reach, and sent to the frontiers,
so as not to be made available when it was wanted. And where
was your navy? The navy of the United States, when it was known
that the secession movement was on foot, was sent to distant
seas, until there was not at the command of the Secretary of
the Navy a single vessel, except one carrying two guns, that
could enter Charleston Harbor--a small vessel destined, I
believe, to take supplies to the African squadron, which
carried two guns. Does anybody suppose this was accidental? If
it were a question of fact to be tried before an intelligent
jury in any part of Christendom, does any one doubt that the
Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy would both be
convicted of having purposely, and by design, removed the army
and navy out of reach, in order that the forts might be seized,
and that the secession movement might progress? And how has it
been from that day to this? Irresolution and indecision on the
part of the Executive--one day sending a vessel with troops to
Charleston, and the next countermanding the order; and the
Senator from Texas, with a taste which I cannot admire, spoke
in terms of derision of his country's flag, when it returned in
disgrace--"struck in the face," I think, was his
expression--from Charleston Harbor. I admit it was disgraceful;
but I am sorry it should have afforded the Senator from Texas,
a member of the Senate of the United States, as the eloquent
Senator from Kentucky said he was, any pleasure that such a
transaction should have occurred.

This, then, briefly, is the reason that this secession movement
has acquired the strength it has. It is because this Government
has either favored it, or refused to do anything to check it.
Notwithstanding the mistake of 1854, the country would have
survived it all, had we had a Government to take care of and
preserve it.

Now, sir, what are the remedies that are proposed for the
present condition of things, and what have they been from the
beginning? They have been propositions of compromise; and
Senators have spoken of peace, and of the horrors of civil war;
and gentlemen who have contended for the right of the people of
the territories to regulate their own affairs, and who have
been horrified at the idea of a geographical line dividing free
states from slave states, free territory from slave territory,
and who have proclaimed that the great principle upon which the
Revolution was fought was that of the right of the people to
govern themselves, and that it was monstrous doctrine for
Congress to interfere in any way with its own territories, come
forward here with propositions to divide the country on a
geographical line; and not only that, but to establish slavery
south of the line; and they call this the Missouri Compromise!
The proposition known as the "Crittenden Proposition" is no
more like the Missouri Compromise than is the Government of
Turkey like that of the United States. The Missouri Compromise
was a law declaring that in all the territory which we had
acquired from Louisiana, north of a certain line of latitude,
slavery or involuntary servitude should never exist. But it
said nothing about the establishment of slavery south of that
line. It was a compromise made in order to admit Missouri into
the Union as a slave state, in 1820. That was the consideration
for the exclusion of slavery from all the country north of 36 deg.
30'. Now, sir, I have no objection to the restoration of the
Missouri Compromise as it stood in 1854, when the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed; and I have drawn up--and I intend
to offer it at the proper time as an amendment to some of these
propositions--a clause declaring that so much of the fourteenth
section of the act to organize the territories of Nebraska and
Kansas, approved the 30th of May, 1854, as repeals the Missouri
Compromise, and contains the little stump speech, shall be
repealed, and that we may hear no more of it, I trust, forever.

Since its authors have repudiated it, and have come forward
with a proposition to establish not the Missouri Compromise,
but to establish a geographical line running through the
territory which we now have, establishing slavery south of it,
and prohibiting it north, and providing that, in the territory
we may hereafter acquire, slavery shall be established south of
that line, I suppose we shall hear no more about leaving the
people "perfectly free to regulate their own affairs in their
own way"! The proposition known as the "Crittenden Compromise"
declares not only that, "in the territory south of the said
line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby
recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by
Congress"; but it provides further, that, in the territory we
shall hereafter acquire south of that line, slavery shall be
recognized, and not interfered with by Congress; but "shall be
protected as property by all the departments of the territorial
government during its continuance"; so that, if we make
acquisitions on the south of territories now free, and where,
by the laws of the land, the footsteps of slavery have never
been, the moment we acquire jurisdiction over them, the moment
the stars and stripes of the Republic float over those free
territories, they carry with them African slavery, established
beyond the power of Congress, and beyond the power of any
territorial legislature, or of the people, to keep it out; and
we are told that this is the Missouri Compromise! We are told
that slavery now exists in New Mexico; and I was sorry to find
even my friend from Oregon [Mr. Baker] ready to vote for this
proposition, which establishes slavery. Why, sir, suppose
slavery does exist in New Mexico; are you for putting a clause
into your Constitution that the people of New Mexico shall not
drive it out?

* * * * *

But, sir, unlike the Senator from Oregon, I will never agree to
put into the Constitution of the country a clause establishing
or making perpetual slavery anywhere. No, sir; no human being
shall ever be made a slave by my vote. No foot of God's soil
shall ever be dedicated to African slavery by my act--never,
sir. I will not interfere with it where I have no authority by
the Constitution to interfere; but I never will consent, the
people of the great Northwest, numbering more in white
population than all your Southern States together, never will
consent by their act to establish African slavery anywhere.
Why, sir, the seven free states of the Northwest, at the late
presidential election, cast three hundred thousand more votes
than all the fifteen Southern States together. Senators talk
about the North and the South, and speak of having two
Presidents, a Northern President and a Southern President, as
if we had no such country as the Northwest, more populous with
freemen than all the South. The people of the South and the
people of the East both will, by and by, learn, if they have
not already learned, that we have a country, and a great and
growing country, in the Northwest; a free country--made free,
too, by the act of Virginia herself. I do not propose to
discuss the House Resolution. I have said on any and all proper
occasions, and am willing to say at any time, to our brethren
of the South, we have no disposition, and never had any, and
have no power, if we had the disposition, to interfere with
your domestic institutions.

I think, then, sir, that none of these compromises will amount
to anything; but still I am willing to do this, and I think if
there is any difficulty it may be settled in this way: three of
the states of this Union, the state of Kentucky, the state of
New Jersey, and the State of Illinois, have called upon
Congress to call a convention of all the states for the purpose
of proposing amendments to the Constitution. I do not think the
Constitution needs amendment. In my judgment, the Constitution
as it is, is worthy to be lived up to and supported. I doubt if
we shall better it; but out of deference to those states, one
of which is my own state, I am willing to vote for the
resolution which has been introduced into this body
recommending to the various states to take into consideration
this proposition of calling a convention, in order to make such
amendments as may be deemed necessary by the states themselves
to this instrument. So far, I am willing to go. Would it not
have been better for the seceding states to have done that? Why
did they not propose, instead of attempting hastily to break up
the Government and seizing its public property, to call a
convention, in the constitutional form, of the various states,
and if the Federal Constitution needed amendment, amend it in
that way. No such proposition came from them; but Kentucky has
made the proposition for a convention, and I am willing to meet
her in the spirit in which it is made, and am ready, for one,
and would be glad if we could all unitedly pass the resolution
suggesting to the states to call a convention to make any and
all amendments to the Constitution which the exigencies of the
times may require.

The Senator from Texas wants to know how we are going to
preserve the Union; how we are going to stop the states from
seceding? And our Southern friends sometimes ask us to give
them something to stand upon in the South. The best political
foundation ever laid by mortal man upon which to plant your
foot is the Constitution. Take the old Constitution as your
fathers made it, and go to the people on that; rally them
around it, and not suffer it to be kicked about, rolled in the
dust, spit upon, and their efforts to be wasted in vain efforts
to amend it. Why, sir, has that old instrument ceased to be of
any value? These gentlemen who are talking about amending it,
and talking about guarantees as a condition to remain in the
Union, claim to be _par excellence_ the Union men. Why, sir, I
conceive I am a much better Union man than they. I am for the
Union under the Constitution as it is. I am willing, however,
that a convention should be called out of deference to those
who may wish to alter it; but I am not one of those who declare
that unless this provision is made, and unless this guarantee
is given, I will unite to destroy the Union, and cease to
observe the Constitution as it is.

Sir, the Southern States have been arming. The Senator from
Virginia [Mr. Mason] told us the other day that his state had
appropriated $1,500,000 to arm its citizens. For what? To arm
its citizens to fight against this Government; and then tell us
that, to a man, they will fight against this Government, if it
undertakes to enforce its laws, which they call coercion, the
coercion of a State! Why, sir, a government that has not the
power of coercing obedience to its laws is no government at
all. The very idea of a law without a sanction is an absurdity.
A government is not worth having that has not power to enforce
its laws. If the Senator from Texas wants to know my opinion, I
tell him yes, I am for enforcing the laws. Do you mean by that
you are going to march an army to coerce a state? No, sir; and
I do not mean the people of this country to be misled by this
confusion of terms about coercing a state. The Constitution of
the United States operates upon individuals; the laws operate
upon individuals; and whenever individuals make themselves
amenable to the laws, I would punish them according to the
laws. We may not always be able to do this. Why, sir, we have a
criminal code, and laws punishing larceny and murder and arson
and robbery and all these crimes; and yet murder is committed,
larcenies and robberies are committed, and the culprits are not
always punished and brought to justice. We may not be able, in
all instances, to punish those who conspire against the
Government. So far as it can be done, I am for executing the
laws; and I am for coercion. I am for settling, in the first
place, the question whether we have a government before making
compromises which leave us as powerless as before.

Sir, if my friend from Kentucky would employ some of that
eloquence of his which he uses in appealing to Republicans--and
talking about compromise--in defense of the Constitution as it
is, and in favor of maintaining the laws and the Government, we
should see a very different state of things in the country. If,
instead of coming forward with compromises, instead of asking
guarantees, he had put the fault where it belongs; if he called
upon the Government to do its duty; if, instead of blaming the
North for not making concessions where there is nothing to
concede, and not making compromises where there was nothing to
compromise about, he had appealed to the South, which was in
rebellion against the Government, and painted before them, as
only he could do it, the hideousness of the crimes they were
committing, and called upon them to return to their allegiance,
and upon the Government to enforce its authority, we would have
a very different state of things in this country to-day from
what now exists.

This, in my judgment, is the way to preserve the Union; and I
do not expect civil war to follow from it. You have only to put
the Government in a position to make itself respected, and it
will command respect. As I said before, five hundred troops in
Charleston would unquestionably have kept that port open; and
if you will arm the Government with sufficient authority to
maintain its laws and give us an honest Executive, I think you
will find the spread of secession soon checked; it will no
longer be a holiday affair. But while we submit to the disgrace
which is heaped upon us by those seceding states, while the
President of the United States says, "You have no right to
secede; but if you want to, you may, we cannot help it," you
may expect secession to spread.

Why, sir, the resolutions of the legislature of the state of
New York, which were passed early in the session, tendering to
the Federal Government all the resources of the state in money
and men to maintain the Government, had a most salutary effect
when it was heard here. I saw the effect of it at once. It was
the first blow at secession. Let the people of the North
understand that their services are required to maintain this
Union, and let them make known to the people of the South, to
the Government, and to the country, that the Union shall be
maintained; and the object is accomplished. Then you will find
Union men in the South. But while this secession fever was
spreading, and the Union men of the South had no support from
their Government, it is no wonder that state after state
undertook to withdraw from a confederacy which manifested no
disposition to maintain itself.

My remedy for existing difficulties is, to clothe the
Government with sufficient power to maintain itself; and when
that is done, and you have an Executive with the disposition to
maintain the authority of the Government, I do not believe that
a gun need be fired to stop the further spread of secession. I
believe, sir, after the new Administration goes into operation,
and the people of the South see, by its acts, that it is
resolved to maintain its authority, and, at the same time, to
make no encroachments whatever upon the rights of the people of
the South, the desire to secede will subside. When the people
of the Southern States, on the 5th of March, this year, and on
the 5th of March, 1862, shall find that, after a year has
transpired under a Republican administration, they are just as
safe in all their rights, just as little interfered with in
regard to their domestic institutions, as under any former
Administration, they will have no disposition to inaugurate
civil war and commence an attack upon the Federal Government.

Why, sir, some Senators talk about the Federal Government
making war. Who proposes it? The Southern people affect to
abhor civil war, when they, themselves, have commenced it.
Inhabitants of the six seceding states have begun the war. What
is war? Is firing into your vessels war? Is investing your
forts war? Is seizing your arsenals war? They have done it all,
and more; and then have the effrontery to say to the United
States, "Do not defend yourselves; do not protect your
Government; let it fall to pieces; let us do as we please, or
else you will have war." The highwayman meets you on the
street, demands your purse, and tells you to deliver it up, or
you will have a fight. You can always escape a fight by
submission. If in the right--and which is far better than to
submit to degradation--you can often escape collision by being
prepared to meet it. The moment the highwayman discovers your
preparation and ability to meet him, he flees away. Let the
Government be prepared, and we shall have no collision.

I cannot think the people of this country in the loyal states
would causelessly inaugurate civil war by attacking the
Government; and I regard all the states as loyal, which have
not undertaken to secede. I regard Kentucky and Tennessee and
Missouri as loyal states, just as much so as Illinois. Why,
sir, I live right upon the borders of Missouri, and I know that
the people across the river were, last fall, just as good Union
men as they were in Illinois. They never thought of secession
until the thing was started in South Carolina, and until some
persons here in Congress began to talk about guarantees,
instead of coming out for the Constitution and the Union as
they are. When Senators began to introduce propositions
demanding guarantees as a condition of continuing in the Union,
the real true Union men, in many instances, took sides with
them, and thus became, in fact, only conditional Unionists. I
am happy to say that they are getting over it, not only in
Missouri, but they are already cured of it in Tennessee, and I
trust in all the other states save those which, in their hurry,
and with inconsiderate zeal, have already taken measures, as
far as they could, to dissolve their connection with the
Government. Sir, I cannot think it possible that this great
Government is to go out without a struggle--a Government which
has been blessed so highly, and prospered so greatly. What
occasion is there for breaking it up? Are we not the happiest
people in the world? Do we not enjoy personal liberty and
religious freedom? What is it that the people of these Southern
States would have? Does anybody propose to interfere with their
domestic institutions? Nobody. Does anybody deny their equal
rights in the territories? Nobody. Why, sir, look at our
condition. We are one of the great nations of the world. At the
peace of 1783, we had, I think, something like three million
population; we have now more than thirty million. At that time
we had thirteen states; now we have thirty-four states; and our
territories have spread out until they extend across the
continent. The boundaries of the Republic embrace to-day a
greater extent of country than was contained within the Roman
Empire in the days of its greatest extent, or within the
empire of Alexander when he was said to have conquered the
world.

Sir, I cannot believe that this mad and insane attempt to break
up such a Government is to succeed. If my voice could reach
them, I would call upon my Southern brethren to pause, to
reflect, to consider if this Republican party has yet done them
any wrong. What complaints have they to make against us? We
have never wielded the power of Government--not for a day. Have
you of the South suffered any wrong at the hands of the Federal
Government? If you have, you inflicted it yourselves. We have
not done it. Is it the apprehension that you are going to
suffer wrong at our hands? We tell you that we intend no such
thing. Will you, then, break up such a government as this, on
the apprehension that we are all hypocrites and deceivers, and
do not mean what we say? Wait, I beseech you, until the
Government is put into operation under this new administration;
wait until you hear the inaugural from the President-elect;
and, I doubt not, it will breathe as well a spirit of
conciliation and kindness towards the South as towards the
North. While I trust it will disclose a resolute purpose to
maintain the Government, I doubt not it will also declare, in
unequivocal terms, that no encroachments shall be made upon the
constitutional rights of any state while he who delivers it
remains in power.

FOOTNOTES:

[38] Presumably Judge Read, of Pennsylvania.

[39] MS. in the collection of the late Major W. H. Lambert, Philadelphia.

[40] _Cong. Globe_, 1860-61, p. 30.

[41] Trumbull's speech on the Crittenden Compromise, which was impromptu and was delivered about midnight, is printed as an appendix to this chapter.

[42] Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.

[43] "Old Public Functionary"--a name that Buchanan in one of his messages had given to himself.

[44] Jefferson Davis says, in his _Rise and Fall of the Confederate States_, that Buchanan told him that "he thought it not impossible that his homeward route would be lighted by burning effigies of himself and that on reaching his home he would find it a heap of ashes."