THE UNION.

The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burthens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was roused by the assertion that a submission to those laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably—might be constitutionally made; that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union, and bear none of its burthens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, toyour native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask, which concealed the hideous features of disunion, should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which, not long since, you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have brought you to this state—look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to what was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you, that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive; it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive, with too much confidence, the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow citizens, that, by the admission of your leaders, the unconstitutionality must bepalpable, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification! What is the meaning of the wordpalpable, in the sense in which it is here used? that which is apparent to every one; that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principle of protective duties, answer the question; and let them choose whether they will be considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence, and endeavoring to mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty emulating the fame of our revolutionary fathers; nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage.

You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have indeed felt the unequal operation of laws which may have beenunwisely, not unconstitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion had commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consumption in your State. The importance of this change was underrated, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burthens were to be expected at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as if apprehensive of the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves.

I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences it will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part. Consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States—giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of American citizens, protecting their commerce, securing their literature and their arts; facilitating their intercommunication; defending their frontiers; and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth. Consider the extent of its territory; its increasing and happy population; its advance in arts, which render life agreeable; and the sciences, which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States? Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say—we, too, are citizens of America!Carolina is one of these proud States—her arms have defended—her best blood has cemented this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse, this happy Union we will dissolve; this pictureof peace and prosperity we will deface; this free intercourse we will interrupt; these fertile fields we will deluge with blood; the protection of that glorious flag we renounce; the very name of Americans we discard. And for what, mistaken men—for what do you throw away these inestimable blessings? for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of separate independence—a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home—are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution, or contending with some new insurrection—do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty obliges me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject—my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you—they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion; but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, istreason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences—on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment; on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims—its First Magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty; the consequences must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal—it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph ofmalignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union, to support which so many of them fought, and bled, and died.

I adjure you, as you honor their memory—as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives—as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its Convention—bid its members to re-assemble, and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor. Tell them that, compared to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all. Declare that you will never take the field unless the star spangled banner of your country shall float over you; that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country. Its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace—you may interrupt the course of its prosperity—you may cloud its reputation for stability, but its tranquility will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred, and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.

Fellow citizens of the United States! The threat of unhallowed disunion—the names of those once respected, by whom it is uttered—the array of military force to support it—denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action; and the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction Igive to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties, which has been expressed, I rely, with equal confidence, on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws—to preserve the Union by all constitutional means—to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven, that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother’s blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.

Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessings it secures to us as one people, shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with which that decision will be expressed, will be such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which it will bring to their defence, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to our children.

May the great Ruler of Nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours, may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost; and may His wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see their folly, before they feel the misery of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration for that Union, which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand.

Done at the city of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.

ANDREW JACKSON.

By the President:EDW. LIVINGSTON,Secretary of State.

Comment upon the imperishable document just quoted is entirely unnecessary. It speaks for itself in thundering tones that strikes terror to the traitor’s heart. Mark the clear and lucid reasoning,[3]the kind, paternal advice, the bold and manly warning that pervades this production, of the true, noble, honored patriot of the Hermitage.

For the purpose of contrasting the administration of Andrew Jackson, during the convulsion of 1832-’33, with that of James Buchanan, during our present similar condition, we will give a brief summary of the course pursued by the former:

On the 24th day of November, previous to the issuing of President Jackson’s proclamation, South Carolina had, through her convention, effectually declared herself out of the Union, by an ordinance that was to take effect on the first day of February, 1833. The President, being apprehensive of trouble in collecting the duties imposed by congress in the various ports of South Carolina, and more especially at Charleston, dispatched, through his secretary of the treasury, Louis McLean, confidential orders of the most strict and positive character, to the collectors at the several ports of entry.

He writes to James K. Prinkle, Esq., collector at Charleston, ordering him to use the utmost firmness and vigilence in seeing the laws promptly executed in every particular. Heordered the revenue cutter Alert to proceed to Charleston, and, in writing to Mr. Prinkle, he says, you will, moreover, cause the officers of the cutter (showing that there were others at hand), under your direction, to board all vessels departing from the port of Charleston, and in case any shall be found without having been regularly entered and cleared in the manner required by law, to seize and detain the same, to be prosecuted according to law. The number of assistants and employees were greatly increased, and every precaution taken to prevent a surprise. But as time rolled around South Carolina, not having penetrated the purposes of President Jackson sufficiently to understand his position, felt confident in her final success, and was defiant in her attitude. She began to collect her army that was to defeat the government of the United States. She had appealed to her sister States to aid her in sustaining her position. Dissatisfaction had already began to show itself in various other sections of the country. The President beheld the dangers and felt the responsibility resting upon him, and on the 10th day of December he issued his Proclamation, declaring his unalterable purpose to enforce the laws and collect the duties, and above all to stand by the Constitution and the Union to the last, and warning those who were precipitating their country into a civil war to beware of the consequences and fearful responsibility they would incur by a continuance in their reckless course.

But South Carolina had gone too far to be silenced by any ordinary means. She continued her preparations, still hoping that she could spread disaffection into other portions of the country sufficient to frighten the government into granting her demands, and many of the true friends of the Union trembled for its safety, so wide-spread was the sympathy South Carolina had enlisted. Many members of Congress were ready with their measures of pacification, each anxious to become the instrument of settling the difficulty, and perhaps immortalize his name. The horrors of civil war were as freely discussed as at the present day. Numerous were those who were ready and willing to sacrifice everything, even the dignity of the nation, to avert the dreadful calamity. But where was the brave Jackson? He was at the helm of thegreat ship of State, and although the storm was raging, and the billows threatening to engulf her or dash her to fragments on the inhospitable shore of anarchy, yet the brave old hero, with the Constitution for his guide and the God of liberty for his counselor, bid defiance to the mutineers who were threateningly assembled around him.

On the 16th day of December he sent a special message to Congress asking for additional legislation for the purpose of meeting the exigency, he reminding them of their sworn duty to protect the Constitution from every encroachment, and appealed to their patriotism, and urged them, as true Americans, to stand firmly by their country. Congress promptly responded to the call, and the President thus prepared continued the collection of customs uninterruptedly, and preserved the honor and dignity of the nation.

South Carolina, after much blustering and threatening, quieted down, and it is to be hoped that many of the leaders of the rebellion lived to see the folly of their acts and the wisdom of the President.

But let us look for a moment at the course James Buchanan has pursued. It is now over a year since men occupying high places in the government began to publicly avow their determination to destroy this government and involve all in one common ruin. Public speeches and the press of the country have all proclaimed the determination of certain partain parties to break up this Union. Conventions have been held and resolutions passed declaring certain States out of the Union. Arsenals have been seized, forts have been taken by bodies of armed men, public property confiscated, and an unarmed steamer, bearing the flag of the nation, has been fired into for attempting to comply with government orders—collectors of customs are arrested and tried for treason for performing their duty. The free navigation of the Mississippi is prevented; American citizens are driven out of several of the States while peaceably attending to their legitimate business, and some of the more unfortunate have suffered tarring and feathering, whipping, scourging and even death at the hands of those acting under authority, or at least within the knowledge of the authorities of the severalStates; and yet, after all the enumerated outrages, sufficient to disgrace even the half-civilized nation of Morocco, not one word of unqualified rebuke has James Buchanan uttered against those committing these outrages, not only against our government but the very name of humanity. Surrounded by treason in his own cabinet,[4]he has looked quietly on while his Secretary of War supplied the insurgents with government arms. Open and defiant traitors have been his daily counselors, while his imbecile, undecided course gives no one confidence in his future policy. Treason is now openly and boldly perpetrated throughout at least one-third of the entire country without the least restraint from any source whatever.

If there is to be found within the pages of history where the government of a great, powerful and prosperous nation suffered treason to spread over one-third of the entire country, coupled with the open and revolting acts of violence that have characterized this rebellion, without the first attempt to check its destructive progress, it is not within the range of my knowledge.

Although the grounds for argument to show that this government was established by the people collectively of the whole country, (and not by the several States, as claimed by some,) and that it can only be rightfully altered or abolished by a constitutional majority of the same power that established it, would seem to have been entirely gone over, nevertheless we propose to introduce the additional evidence of that noble, honored statesman, and able constitutional expounder, Daniel Webster.

On the 21st day of January, 1830, Mr. Hayne delivered in the Senate of the United States a very able speech advocating the right of the various States to nullify the laws of Congress in certain contingencies, or what might be more properly called the South Carolina doctrine, embracing the right to nullify the laws of Congress, or declare herself out of the Union at pleasure. His speech was considered a completesuccces by the advocates of his sentiments, and was thought by them an unanswerable vindication of those principles, and when Mr. Webster undertook the task of replying to Mr. Hayne, he was met with jeers by the friends of nullication; but as the volume of his reasoning began to unfold itself, all eyes were attentively turned toward the speaker. After proceeding to state the grounds upon which was founded the pretended right to nullify the acts of Congress, Mr. Webster said:

“This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the State legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the State governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it is the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify or reform it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the States, but that it is the creature of each of the States severally; so that each may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. It is the servant of four and twenty masters, of different wills and purposes; and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government, and its true character. It is, sir, the people’s constitution, the people’s government; made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The States are unquestionably sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. The State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the Stategovernments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary; though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary.“The national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people have restrained State sovereignty by the expression of their will, in the constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled further. The sentiment to which I have referred propounds that State sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own ‘feelings of justice;’ that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all; for one who is to follow his feelings, is under no legal control. Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen to impose control on State sovereignties. The constitution has ordered the matter differently from what this opinion announces. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no State shall make war. To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the constitution says, that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other States, which does not arise ‘from feelings of honorable justice.’ Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the constitution.”

“The national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people have restrained State sovereignty by the expression of their will, in the constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled further. The sentiment to which I have referred propounds that State sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own ‘feelings of justice;’ that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all; for one who is to follow his feelings, is under no legal control. Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen to impose control on State sovereignties. The constitution has ordered the matter differently from what this opinion announces. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no State shall make war. To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the constitution says, that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other States, which does not arise ‘from feelings of honorable justice.’ Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the constitution.”

Mr. Webster proceeded to investigate the South Carolina doctrine as it was then termed; he referred to the resolutions of Pennsylvania and Kentucky declaring the tariff laws constitutional, while in South Carolina the same laws were declared to be a palpable, deliberate usurpation of power by Congress; and in speaking of the absurdity of allowing each State to decide in such cases, he said:

“If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again precisely upon the old confederation?“It is too plain to be argued. Four and twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! What is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the praseology of the times,during feeling? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people who established the constitution, but the feeling of the State governments.”

“If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again precisely upon the old confederation?

“It is too plain to be argued. Four and twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! What is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the praseology of the times,during feeling? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people who established the constitution, but the feeling of the State governments.”

In referring to remarks made by Mr. Hayne, concerning what Mr. Hillhouse should have said about not being bound to obey an unconstitutional law, Mr. Webster says:

“He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that in his judgment the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it.“That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. As unconstitutional law is not binding;but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a State legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or be not constitutional. An unconstitutional act of congress would not bind the people of this District although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the citizens of every State, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it, by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practiced and experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments. He believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? Who did he suppose was to decide that question? The State legislature? Certainly not. No such sentiment ever escaped his lips.”

“He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that in his judgment the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it.

“That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. As unconstitutional law is not binding;but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a State legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or be not constitutional. An unconstitutional act of congress would not bind the people of this District although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the citizens of every State, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it, by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practiced and experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments. He believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? Who did he suppose was to decide that question? The State legislature? Certainly not. No such sentiment ever escaped his lips.”

Mr. Webster went on to ask from whence this supposed right of the States came? Where did they get the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? He contended that the notion was founded in a misapprehension of the origin of this government and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold, said he, this to be a popular government, erected by the people, those who administer it responsible to the people, and itself capable of being amended and modified just as the people may choose it should be.

“It is as popular, just as truly emenating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of congress, than with congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a constitution emenating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State governments. It is of no moment to the argument that certain acts of the State legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. That is not one of their original State powers, a part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on the State legislatures, and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left the choice of president with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that this whole government—president, senate and house of representatives—is a popular government. It leaves it still all its popular character. The governor of a State (in some of the States) is chosen not directly by the people for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a governor. Is the government of the State on that account not a popular government? This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties.The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this constitution, sir, be the creature of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volition of its creators.”

Mr. Webster then proceeded to show that when the people erected this government they gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they enumerated the powers which they bestowed on it. That they had made it a limited government, and defined its authority and restrained it to the exercise of such powers as were granted, and all others were reserved to the States or the people. But they did not stop there, being aware that no Constitution could be so plainly written but what there would be a difference of opinion on the construction of some points, consequently they (the people) in order to avoid a recurrence of the difficulties experienced under the old confederacy and render the laws of Congress effective and binding upon all parties without applying to State authority, thus rendering the government complete within itself, declared the Constitution and the laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof, should be the supreme law of the land. In referring to the tribunal in which to decide questions arising under the Constitution, Mr. Webster said:

“But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. There are, in the constitution, grants of powers to congress, and restrictions on those powers. There are also prohibitions on the States. Some authority must therefore necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, sir, that ‘the constitution and the laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supremelaw of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.’“This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution or any law of the United States. But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring ‘that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.’ These two provisions, sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch. With these it is a government; without them it is a confederacy. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. It then, sir, became a government. It then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are passed. Having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide—subject always like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people. And now, sir, I repeat, how is it that a State legislature acquires any right to interfere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people, ‘We, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them?’ The reply would be, I think, not impertinent, ‘Who made you a judge over another’s servants. To their own masters they stand or fall.’”

“This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution or any law of the United States. But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring ‘that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.’ These two provisions, sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch. With these it is a government; without them it is a confederacy. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. It then, sir, became a government. It then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are passed. Having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide—subject always like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people. And now, sir, I repeat, how is it that a State legislature acquires any right to interfere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people, ‘We, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them?’ The reply would be, I think, not impertinent, ‘Who made you a judge over another’s servants. To their own masters they stand or fall.’”

He then went on to show that a State could not make treason against the United States legal, and, says he, when I maintain these sentiments, I am but asserting the rights of the people; I state what they have declared and insisted onas their right to declare it. They have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and I think it my duty to support it like other Constitutional powers.

In referring to the importance of having but one tribunal, whose decisions should be final—Sir, said he:

“If we look to the general nature of the case, could any thing have been more preposterous than to have made a government for the whole Union, and yet left its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? Instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four and twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others; and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction, on every new election of its own members? Would any thing, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a government? No, sir. It should not be denominated a constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. It would not be a government. It would not be adequate to any practical good, nor fit for any people to live under.”

Mr. Hayne, already overborne with the overwhelming and unanswerable arguments, was yet destined to receive the most cutting rebuke from his vanquisher. Mr. Webster said:

“And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman’s doctrine a little into its practical application. Let us look at his probablemodus operandi. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tellhowit is to be done. Now, I wish to be informedhowthis State interference is to be put in practice. We will take the existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it, (as probably we shall not,) she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring theseveral acts of congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws—he, therefore, must be stopped. The collector will sieze the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. The State authorities will undertake their rescue: the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector’s aid; and here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. They will march, sir, under a very gallant leader; for I believe the honorable member himself commands the militia of that part of the State. He will raise thenullifying acton his standard, and spread it out as his banner. It will have a preamble, bearing that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution. He will proceed, with his banner flying, to the custom house in Charleston—“all the whileSonorous metal blowing martial sounds.”Arrived at the custom house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But, sir, the collector would, probably, not desist at his bidding. Here would ensue a pause; for they say, that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. Before this military array should fall on custom house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they have doubtless a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone and the constitution, as well as Turenne and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. They would inquire whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array,resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it should turn out, after all, that the lawwas constitutional. He would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give any other reason. John Fries,[5]he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. How do you propose to defend us? ‘Look at my floating banner,’ he would reply; ‘see there thenullifying law!’ Is it your opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted for treason, that some floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar? ‘South Carolina is a sovereign State,’ he would reply. That is true; but would the judge admit our plea? ‘These tariff laws,’ he would repeat, ‘are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously.’ That all may be so; but if the tribunals should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground. After all, this is a sort ofhemp-tax, worse than any part of the tariff.“Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma like that of another great general. He would have a knot before him which he could not untie. He must cut it with his sword. He must say to his followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is war—civil war.”

“all the whileSonorous metal blowing martial sounds.”

Arrived at the custom house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But, sir, the collector would, probably, not desist at his bidding. Here would ensue a pause; for they say, that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. Before this military array should fall on custom house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they have doubtless a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone and the constitution, as well as Turenne and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. They would inquire whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array,resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it should turn out, after all, that the lawwas constitutional. He would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give any other reason. John Fries,[5]he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. How do you propose to defend us? ‘Look at my floating banner,’ he would reply; ‘see there thenullifying law!’ Is it your opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted for treason, that some floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar? ‘South Carolina is a sovereign State,’ he would reply. That is true; but would the judge admit our plea? ‘These tariff laws,’ he would repeat, ‘are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously.’ That all may be so; but if the tribunals should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground. After all, this is a sort ofhemp-tax, worse than any part of the tariff.

“Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma like that of another great general. He would have a knot before him which he could not untie. He must cut it with his sword. He must say to his followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is war—civil war.”

Mr. Webster continued to show that to resist by force the execution of a law of the United States was treason, and that the Courts of the United States could take no notice of a State law to authorize persons to commit that grave crime. Said he, the common saying that a State cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can it authorize others to do so? If John Fries[5]had produced an act of Pennsylvaniaannulling the law of Congress, would it have helped his case? Talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the whole length of revolution. They are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the government. They lead directly to disunion and civil commotion, and therefore it is, that at the commencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, that I enter my protest against them all. Mr Webster proceeded to show that the people of the United States have not chosen the State authorities as their guardians against encroachments from the general government. Said he:

“Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general constitution, to these hands. They have required other security, and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves, first to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the government, itself, in doubtful cases, should put on its own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them; just as the people of a State trust their own State governments with a similar power. Secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents, whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as practicable. Fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to alter or amend the constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections. And finally, the people of the United States haveat no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any State legislature to construe or interprettheirinstrument of government; much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and operation.“If, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they have done their constitution could neither have been preserved nor would it have been worth preserving. And if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a being as enemies, whether early or more recent, could possibly desire. It will exist, in every State, but as a poor dependent on State permission. It must borrow leave to be, and will be no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion sees fit to grant the indulgence and to prolong its poor existence.“But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The people have preserved this their own chosen Constitution for forty years, and seen their happiness, prosperity and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. They are now generally strongly attached to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined,nullifiedit will not be, if we and those who succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the people shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust faithfully to preserve and wisely to administer it.”

“If, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they have done their constitution could neither have been preserved nor would it have been worth preserving. And if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a being as enemies, whether early or more recent, could possibly desire. It will exist, in every State, but as a poor dependent on State permission. It must borrow leave to be, and will be no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion sees fit to grant the indulgence and to prolong its poor existence.

“But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The people have preserved this their own chosen Constitution for forty years, and seen their happiness, prosperity and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. They are now generally strongly attached to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined,nullifiedit will not be, if we and those who succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the people shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust faithfully to preserve and wisely to administer it.”

We believe that after perusing the evidence already advanced, every reasonable, unprejudiced person must come to the conclusion that the fathers of our country established the government of the United States with the full understanding and intent that it should be supreme, so far as its delegated authority extended. That it was a unit and capable of sustaining itself by force, if necessary. Mr. Madison’s views are repeatedly expressed on this point, explaining the advantages of conferring sufficient powers upon the general government to enable it to suppress internal violence and insurrection, thus providing against the civil commotion that had overthrown other republics of a weaker and less bindingobligation on the part of the members composing them. See pages 24, 25 and 26 of this book. The papers here referred to are the more important on account of being written while the question of adoption or rejection of the Constitution was being discussed before the people. Again, on pages 30 to 32, the defects and imperfections of the old confederation in relation to the principles of legislation for the States in their collective capacities, showing more fully that the intention was to create agovernment for the people of the United Statesthat should be binding on all persons, or combination of persons, for all time to come. And again, on page 34, is another quotation from the joint production of Madison, Jay and Hamilton, showing that the government was expected to reach individuals without the aid, and independent of, State authority. And still another quotation, on pages 35 and 36, goes to show that there was a full understanding that the people were conferring certain powers upon the general government, and of course taking them from the States for the purpose of forming one great, inseparable and indissoluble nation. There is not a particle of evidence to prove that the people contemplated reserving or recognizing any State distinction or State sovereignty, so far as the powers of the general government were concerned; but the whole drift of evidence goes to show that they were conscious of the necessity of uniting themselves under one grand government, making themselves one people, reserving only to the States or themselves such powers as were thought necessary to regulate their local affairs, leaving the States in nearly the same relation to the general government that a city municipality is to the government of the State in which it is located; but all must owe obedience to the government of the United States.

But this is not all the evidence we have on this subject. As we review the history of the government, we find that Washington, Jackson, Webster, Clay, and in fact nearly every statesman of any prominence in our political history have either by their acts or words committed themselves to this same policy. The proclamation of General Jackson, and the extracts given of Mr. Webster’s arguments, are the key-stoneto the arch; they are both conclusive in themselves, and comment by me would be but a weak advocate of their masterly and unanswerable arguments, hence I close the subject, conscious of having proven to the satisfaction of myself at least, and, I trust, to some of my doubting Democratic friends and weak-hearted Republican brethren, that we at least have a government, established by our forefathers, constituting us one nation, one people, with one common country and destiny. Whether we shall be found brave enough to defend it and perpetuate it is a question which the God of nations only knows, and time alone will reveal to man.

Shall this Union he maintained, or shall it be dissolved? are questions that are the all absorbing topics of conversation amongst all classes of people, through the length and breadth of our entire country. There seems to be a great lack of firmness and decision at this time, in relation to the proper course to be pursued in view of the momentous question now about to be presented, discussed and decided upon by the American people.

While true men are thus dumfounded and amazed; I might say silenced with almost a paralyzing astonishment at the daring and rapid movements of the internal enemies to our country; the eyes of the civilized world are turned towards us, and every true friend of liberty and human progression is awaiting our decision upon this grave question, with an almost breathless suspense. In view of this state of things, what course shall we pursue in order to acquit ourselves honarably and preserve our nation from the ruin that seems threatening to blot out the only guarantee that there is such a government as “The United States?” There can be but one answer to this from every true American patriot, and that is, that every attempt to break up this government, let it come from few or many, will be met, be the consequences what they may. Theintegrityof this Union must and shall be maintained, should be the watch-word of every man, woman and child that values the blessing of liberty under which we have prospered as individuals and as a nation. It is contended by some that it is better to allow those States that choose to secede to go in peace than to enter into a civil war, the end of which no man can foretell. This would look very plausible were it not that there is a principle at stake which is at the very foundation of everyDemocratic government, and without the maintenance of this vital principle self-government is but a farce and a deception. And what is this principle? Why it is nothing more nor less than compelling the minority to submit to the constitutional acts of the majority. Now, who will pretend that a Democratic government can be sustained without this principle is both recognized and, if necessary, enforced?

I am not one of those who think that the question of slavery is the great and only cause of our present troubles; far from it, you may banish every vestige of slavery from our country, and other differences of opinion will rise up, and cause other disputes equally as difficult to settle. Nor is the extent of our country, or the variety of the climate to be charged with our difficulties, for even in our city and State elections we find there is a wide difference of opinion, which results in crimination and recrimination. The same will be found in the various school districts and in many of the churches. Where ever there is a government there must and will be a difference of opinion. It is not to be expected that we will all agree in relation to the various schemes that are presented from time to time for our consideration. But shall we revolt and overthrow the government because our pet scheme is defeated? If not, then should we allow others to involve us in one common ruin because of their defeat? There would be no end to this rebellious spirit if the obligation to submit to a constitutional election was removed. What would be the result of giving way to those who are now threatening our peace? Would not every other community have the same right; and we having once granted the right by allowing a portion of the nation to set up an independent government, how could we in justice punish those who choose to go and do likewise? State governments will have the same difficulty to contend against that the United States have now, and instead of strength and prosperity we will be weak and divided and without honor at home or abroad.

I think that every sane man will agree with me when I say that it is much better to meet on one grand battle field and settle this question at once than to dodge the responsibility for the present, only to allow dissention to spread broad castover the land. When this great nation has been torn into fragments by this ranting, ungovernable spirit, we, or our children, will have to enforce this great principle, that some of our best meaning friends are willing to abandon for the sake of peace.

THE EFFECT OF A WAR TO SUSTAIN OUR GOVERNMENT.

The effect of a war to sustain our government would be to plant the seed of true patriotism in the breast of every law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen of America. We should be able to contrast the two extremes of our unheard of prosperity and the miseries and horrors of civil war—which of itself would do much towards insuring peace for centuries to come. Let those who expect that we love peace so well, or dread war so much as to allow them to bid defiance to all laws, learn that they are mistaken; that we are not the degenerate sons of a noble ancestry, but knowing our rights and loving our country, we are determined to defend them against every encroachment, and we will hear no more threats about disunion or rebellion in consequence of a political defeat. We shall then have established beyond a controversy that the minority must and shall submit to the constitutional acts of the majority. We will then have established in the minds of the civilized world that our government is not one of straw, but that it is not only capable of vindicating its honor in defiance of foreign foes, but it is equally able to chastise those who rebel against its authority at home. War would be to our political system, what the thunderstorm is to the atmosphere. Its purifying influences would be manifested by inspiring new life, vigor and purity into everything that surrounds us. Political demagogues will be cast aside as unfit for public confidence, and better and more patriotic men will spring up from among the masses who will have before them the history of the troubles through which their country has passed as lesson and a warning to shun a like calamity.

We have heretofore shown ourselves to be equal to our undertakings, and now when the great crisis in our national affairs is at hand, and the eyes of the friends of libertythroughout the civilized world are gazing upon us with the deepest anxiety, shall we be found unworthy of the liberties we enjoy? Should we be found unfaithful to the trust imposed on us by our forefathers? We would be the just object of scorn and contempt, and the historian who shall undertake the task of writing the true history of the rise and fall of the American government, will have the painful duty of drawing the contrast between the noble and patriotic heroes who established it, and the cowardly, selfish and unprincipled traitors who became its destroyers.

SHALL THE PEOPLE RULE?

This question is frequently asked by those who are encouraging the Southern rebellion. I answer, most emphatically, in the affirmative. But let us see who the people are. It is plain that the people of a State are not those of one or more of the counties, unless the people of those counties are a majority of all the people in the State. Now the Constitution of the United States comes from the people of all the States, consequently it will be perceived that they alone and not the people of one State have the right to alter or abolish it. As well might the people of Indianapolis declare the Constitution of the State of Indiana null and void, as for the people of one State to declare this Union dissolved. It is true that men talk about “States’ rights,” “the equality of the States,” and in fact invent every manner of argument for the purpose of shielding those who are committing treason against the government of the United States, but where is the clause of the constitution that discloses any such sentiments? There is none, but on the other hand we find the most positive proof that the framers of that article intended that we should be one great nation, and to secure us against the liability of sudden and unnecessary changes they provided that in order to amend the constitution the consent of three-fourths of all the States were necessary, hence it will be perceived that a simple majority of the people of the United States could not amend the constitution, much less declare it null and void.

In view of this wise provision so necessary to secure stability to our government, how rediculous it is to talk about a single State declaring this Union dissolved against the well-known wish of four-fifths of all the people of our entire country. The thing is absurd in the extreme and should not be entertained for a moment, for such a principle once established would be the end of all constitutional governments. But suppose we grant the independence of such States as choose to withdraw from the Union. In order to do this we must amend the constitution so as to empower Congress to act upon the matter, and until then, every member of Congress is bound to stand by the constitution as it is, for there is no power granted them to treat with a portion of this nation as an independent sovereign power. The framers of the Constitution did not grant Congress any more than a State the right to dismember or dissolve the Union. And who would for a moment consent to the assumption of such extraordinary and important authority by those who were sent to Washington to support the very constitution which they are now called upon to disregard and destroy.

WHAT SHOULD THE PEOPLE DO TO AVERT THE THREATENING STORM?

In my opinion, the best way to stop this disunion and treasonable clamor, is for all friends of the Union to come out and call meetings, and pass resolutions such as are appropriate for the times, telling our enemies that it was for this Union our fathers fought, bled and died, and we will do (if necessary) as our fathers did. Let there be but one sentiment, and the unbroken ranks of eighteen millions of freemen will do more to silence treason than all the constitutional amendments that could be prepared by twice the number of pacificators that are now offering their services to induce the government to meet the traitors on what is termed “middle ground.” It is this continued wavering and uncertain position of the people that give those who are plotting our destruction such full and perfect confidence in their final success. Few men could be found who would enter the enemies ranks, if the certainty of being dealt with according to thelaws of our country was before them. The boasted bravery of those chivalrous gentlemen who are now firing the hearts of the ignorant with bitter hatred against the noblest government on earth, would hesitate, reflect, and recoil at the sight of the hangman and the gallows. I question not their bravery, neither do I doubt their determination, but with the certainty of defeat before them, would they strike the fatal blow? Every sane man is apt to count the chances of success when he enters upon any very important undertaking, and if there is nothing before him but humiliation and defeat, where is the man who would be found fool hardy enough to risk his life in such a hopeless enterprise? They are few and far between. We are told that unless the nation gives way to these traitors, that the war that will ensue will be the most bloody and desperate ever known to civilized man. There is no doubt but they will fight, but will they be found any more brave and determined in destroying than we will be in maintaining our glorious country? I presume not. Then we can easily discover the character of the war by deciding upon the course we would pursue in such a contingency. This talk about such a war being any worse than other wars, is a mere bugbear, sent out to frighten the timid into submission, and the less notice there is taken of it, the more unfrequent will it be referred to. It is a noticeable fact, that those who are bringing about this great calamity are the very ones who are picturing to our visions the horrible consequences that would result from an effort to stop their career. Can impudence go further? Could Arnold have done more to have accomplished his base and ignoble purpose?

Then let the friends of our country rally under its banner, and then and there resolve anew to stand by this Union as the only safety for our peace, our prosperity, and our liberties. There should be no partizan prejudice, for it is not the question who shall rule the country, but whether we shall have a country to rule. We all have a common interest in preserving this government, and none should wait for this or that politician, for they are all waiting to see the determination of the people before they will take a very decided stand.Nor can the politicians alone save our country. Far from it. They are the parties who aided in bringing about our present political troubles which are threatening to involve us in a deadly contest to save our country from dissolution. As well might you prescribe arsenic and expect it to cure a patient who was threatened with death from the excessive use of that poisonous drug, as to look to the politicians to restore peace and prosperity to our distracted country.

Since it is the people that must save our country, if saved at all, let there be unanimity, firmness and decision upon the all important question of preserving the Union; not if we can carry out our pet scheme; not if South Carolina is willing. Neither should we make any other condition, but resolve unalterably to stand by the constitution and the laws to the end, and never for one moment think of abandoning our undertaking, until this noble object shall have been accomplished. It is a duty that we owe to ourselves, to our homes and firesides, to the friends of freedom throughout the civilized world, to those who are plotting treason against our government, and to the God of liberty, that we should speak out plainly and to the point, and warn those who are expecting such an easy victory, that they are sadly and seriously mistaken; that we are not, as has been represented to them, divided, but we are as one man for our country, unconditionally and unalterably, and though we may differ in relation to the policy of conducting the great ship of state, yet we will not abandon her, nor allow others to commit depredations against her. The people of this great nation will never consent to a peaceable distruction of this noble fabric. Never! never! no, never! Then should we not warn those who are expecting an easy victory, against the awful consequences of a persistence in their destructive policy? By our silence we encourage them, by our inactivity we strengthen them, and by our indecision we give them confidence. The policy to be pursued should be distinctly laid down and presented to them. They have been deceived and encouraged with the prospect of success by the course we have pursued, and should war become necessary in order to enforce the laws, we are culpable, in a measure, for not showingmore firmness at an earlier period. There is no room to doubt their determination to bid defiance to the constitution and the laws of the land, and nothing short of a show of the ability and the determination to stand by our country, will induce them to desist. It may now be too late to avoid bloodshed, but the sooner the remedy the less severe will be the calamity.

We are told that to stir this matter up at the north will only excite and spread the feeling of dissatisfaction more swiftly over the land, but the time has come when, to my mind, we must prepare to decide between our national existence or non-existence. And should we be afraid of offending the enemies of our country? Those who would turn against the government, provided their peculiar notions in relation to some particular question is rejected, are against the whole spirit of a democratic government, and will be found against us in the end, and we may as well count them there first as last. A submission to their dictation would be to yield the reins of government into the hands of those who are determined to either rule or ruin, which must evidently result in the latter.

Let us examine the bearing of this rule or ruin policy, and see where it would end, provided we give way to those who choose to adopt it. I know of no better example, to test its destructiveness, than the one presented to us in the present unsettled condition of our country. The people have elected a President and Vice President in strict conformity with the provisions of the constitution, made and provided for that purpose. Of this there is no dispute. There is no use in talking about the issue being sectional, for every person who was legally entitled to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, and who concurred with the sentiments of the party, was invited to take part in the election. There was no distinction between North and South in this matter, and the plea set forth that there was no support from one-half of the country, does not alter the case, especially since it is well known that the political opponents of Mr. Lincoln would not allow the free discussion of the various issues presented to the people for their consideration. Had this coursebeen pursued in the North, there would not have been a Breckenridge party in many of the Northern States. It will be perceived, that owing to this intolerant spirit exhibited in some portions of the South, Mr. Lincoln’s views were not, and could not be presented to the people for their consideration, which is in itself entirely inconsistent with the spirit of a free government, as well as a violation of the constitution and laws of our country. But who was to blame for this spirit of mobocracy? Was it Mr. Lincoln or his friends? Nothing but a bigoted blindness could lead any reasonable and well informed man to an affirmative conclusion. The simple fact that Mr. Yancey, the leader of the most ultra opponents of the Republicans, was allowed to advocate his views all over the North without molestation or even insult, proves to the contrary. But we are told that the Republican principles are contrary to Southern interests. What if they are? Is that a reason why the right of free discussion should be blotted out of existence? The principles of Mr. Yancey are thought by a large majority of the people of the free States, to bedecidedlyagainst the interest of the whole country.

But did they propose to destroy this government if Mr. Breckenridge was elected? Did they insult him, or drive him from the country as a felon? No, he was kindly treated and listened to. The people, however, did not conclude to vote his principles, and for this they are treated as criminals of the deepest dye.Comment is unnecessary.But supposing Mr. Breckenridge had been elected, and Massachusetts had placed herself in the unenviable position that South Carolina has assumed, where is the statesman who would have advocated the justice of her position, or her right to secede, and thereby break up this government, unless Mr. Breckenridge would renounce his doctrine, and propose a change in the constitution recognizing the Republican principles, and who would be found willing to compromise the honor and dignity of the government by conceding to such demands? If any there be who would lend their aid to such a scheme, they are mere political demagogues without honor, and are not entitled to the confidence of the people. In this, I presume, nearly every person will agree with me. Still, when we turnto the South, there seems to be some diversity of opinion in relation to what course should be pursued. Now, why this difference? Can it be charged to anything but political prejudices? True patriotism never begets such inconsistencies.

Now it is plain that if any party make it a condition that they must be allowed to control this government, in order to allow us to live in peace, then that party, above all things, should not be allowed such control. The mere demand shows the incompetency of such party to occupy such an important position in our national affairs. Suppose we should grant the present request. Are we prepared to grant the next that may be made at any future time? If so, tell me, if you please, when and where you will be willing to make a stand for the vindication of our constitutional rights? Are we to give way to one demand after another until we have transferred all the rights which we now possess to this rule or ruin party?

It is contended by some that, by allowing those States which desire to secede from this Union, to go without opposition, it will insure us peace, and at the same time remove the slave question from congress, and, thereby, our political troubles are at an end. Happy man is he who can imagine such a political millennium so near at hand, and so easily to be obtained. I would ask whether other questions may not come up that will divide the people, and cause the same bitter feeling that now distracts the whole country when another section will demand a separation from the remaining States; and whether they will not have the same right that we are now called upon to grant to the Cotton States? It is plain to me that if this policy, of allowing any State to secede that can raise a pretext for doing so, is to be adopted, we will soon have no government at all; but in the place of this law-abiding and liberty loving community, where peace, plenty and prosperity has smiled upon us so many happy years, anarchy will reign, with all its blasting and withering influences, laying waste our brightest hopes, and casting a gloom and dispair over everything that has heretofore been the pride of every true American citizen. We are now called upon to consent to divide this nation under the penalty ofcivil war; the horrors of which we all deeply deplore, and are willing to prevent by all reasonable measures. But, can we grant what is asked without establishing a precedent that will lead to further demands, and a consequent sub-division, and, in fact, division after division until this glorious and prosperous country shall be (instead of one great, powerful and honored nation,) thirty-three petty contending States, each striving to get the advantage of the other? It is contended by some that, by making concessions, both war and dissolution can be prevented. But, let us look at their character, and the circumstances under which they are demanded, and see whether such results, under existing circumstances, are likely to be realized.

The people of the United States have just cast their votes in accordance with the usages and customs heretofore adopted, as well as in perfect conformity with their constitutional rights, and, as usual in such cases, there has been more than one party. The result has been that one party elected their choice, while the others were necessarily unsuccessful; and instead of submitting, like true patriots, peaceably to the constitutional acts of the people, a portion of the defeated party demand of those who have, by their numbers, carried the election, the surrender of their principles. This is the basis of the compromise that the freemen of this nation are unblushingly asked to make. But, upon inquiry as to whether said conditional rebels (for they are nothing else) are willing to aid in suppressing the more ultra and unconditional rebels of such States that have already declared themselves out of the Union, we find them bitterly opposed to everything that tends to show the supremacy of the laws over this traitorous secession dogma; and our candid opinion is, that every individual who places himself upon this platform, is contemplating a deep laid scheme for the purpose of obtaining all the public territory they possibly can for the institution of slavery, and then withdraw from the Union with their booty. Ask them if they are willing to submit in case the people reject their demands, and the answer is, no, they will die first. Thus the ultimatum is presented to us to eithersurrender our principles, our country, or fight to sustain it. Fellow-countrymen we need not ask you which you will do.

Let us sift this unparalleled scheme of impudence and see whether it is going to be productive of permanent good to any one except to those who are desirous of involving us in anarchy and ruin.

Supposing the Republicans should abandon their principles, which seem to be the terms upon which peace is offered, and, in 1864, the Democrats should succeed in electing the President upon the slave-extension platform, and the Republicans, feeling that their interests were likely to be trampled upon by the dominant party, should say to the Democracy that, unless said Democrats would abandon the principles of their party, and secure the Republicans against the exercise of their principles in the future, by an amendment to the constitution itself, they (the Republicans) would dissolve this Union? It will be observed that, if one party has the right to demand concessions, the other party has the same right, consequently it would not be the majority that would rule, but the minority. Neither have we any guarantee that, by granting the present demands, that other and still more absurd and threatening demands will not be made. We are now called upon to incorporate into the constitution certain additional rights and privileges for slavery; and what is the threatened penalty that is offered to the freemen of this nation if they fail to grant what is demanded? Why it is nothing less than a complete overthrow and destruction of this government—and yet the Republicans are taunted with the charge of being the cause of all the consequences of the great calamity that seems awaiting our destruction. I call especial attention to this subject, more particularly in consequence of the probable effort that will be made to force what is called the “Crittenden Amendment,” upon the people. It should be remembered that Mr. Crittenden proposes, not only to give all the territory south of 36° 30′ to the slave interests, but all the territory hereafter acquired.

The restoration of the Missouri Compromise sounds very smooth and pleasant to the ear, but is it the Missouri Compromise that Mr. Crittenden proposes to restore? Far fromit. Let us look at the broad difference between the two measures, and see whether there is not something that looks as though there was deception, of the deepest dye, about to be practiced upon those who are desirous of preserving the territories free from the blighting curse of slavery. We have heard much about the Missouri Compromise, also about Mr. Crittenden’s amendment, and, for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the two measures, we will give them both in full. The following is all that relates to the institution of slavery in what is called the Missouri Compromise:

Back to Index Next