diff options
Diffstat (limited to '24561-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 24561-h/24561-h.htm | 29909 |
1 files changed, 29909 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/24561-h/24561-h.htm b/24561-h/24561-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bbc2297 --- /dev/null +++ b/24561-h/24561-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,29909 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention, by L.E. Chittenden. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 65%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + hr.med { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + hr.short { width: 15%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + div.centered {text-align: center;} /* work around for IE centering with CSS problem part 1 */ + div.centered table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;} /* work around for IE centering with CSS problem part 2 */ + + body{margin-left: 15%; + margin-right: 15%; + } + + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; + font-size: 75%; text-indent: 0em; + border-top: solid gray 1px; border-bottom: solid gray 1px; + background-color: inherit; font-weight: normal; + font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; + text-decoration: none;} + + .blockquot {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .dblblock {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;} + + .bbox {border: solid black 1px; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .right {text-align: right;} + .hang {text-indent: -2em; margin-left: 2em;} + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .gesperrt {letter-spacing: .3em;} + .xxsm {font-size: 35%;} + .xsm {font-size: 50%;} + .sm {font-size: 75%;} + .lg {font-size: 125%;} + .xlg {font-size: 150%;} + .xxlg {font-size: 200%;} + + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: baseline; + position: relative; bottom: 0.4em; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + + .cpoem {width: 54%; margin: 0 auto;} + + .notes {background-color: #eeeeee; color: #000; + padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em; + padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; + margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} + + .err {border-bottom: thin dotted red;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in +the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention, by Lucius Eugene Chittenden + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention + For Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United + States, Held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861 + +Author: Lucius Eugene Chittenden + +Release Date: February 9, 2008 [EBook #24561] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPORT OF THE DEBATES *** + + + + +Produced by Curtis Weyant, Linda Cantoni, and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from scans of public domain works at the +University of Michigan's Making of America collection.) + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + +<p class="notes" style="text-align: center"><i>Transcriber's Note:</i> A <a href="#CONTENTS">table of contents</a> has been +provided for the reader's convenience.</p> + +<p><br /></p> + +<div class="bbox"> +<h1><span class="gesperrt">A REPORT</span><br /> +<br /> +<span class="xxsm">OF THE</span><br /> +<br /> +DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS<br /> +<br /> +<span class="xxsm">IN THE</span><br /> +<br /> +<span class="sm"><span class="gesperrt">SECRET SESSIONS</span></span><br /> +<br /> +<span class="xxsm">OF THE</span><br /> +<br /> +CONFERENCE CONVENTION,<br /> +<br /> +<span class="xxsm">FOR PROPOSING</span><br /> +<span class="xsm">AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,</span><br /> +<span class="xxsm">HELD AT</span><br /> +<span class="xsm">WASHINGTON, D.C., IN FEBRUARY, A.D. 1861.</span> +</h1> + +<p><br /></p> + +<h2><span class="xsm">BY</span><br /> +L.E. CHITTENDEN,<br /> +<span class="xsm">ONE OF THE DELEGATES.</span> +</h2> + +<p><br /></p> + +<p class="center"> +NEW YORK:<br /> +<span class="gesperrt">D. APPLETON & COMPANY,</span><br /> +<span class="sm">443 & 445 BROADWAY.</span><br /> +1864.<br /> +</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p class="center"> +<span class="sm"><span class="smcap">Entered</span>, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by<br /> +D. APPLETON & CO.,<br /> +In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.</span> +<br /><br /></p> +</div> + +<p><br /></p> + +<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS.</h2> + +<p class="center"> +<a href="#INTRODUCTION"><b>INTRODUCTION.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#PROCEEDINGS_OF_THE_CONFERENCE"><b>PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#SECOND_DAY"><b>SECOND DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#THIRD_DAY"><b>THIRD DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#FOURTH_DAY"><b>FOURTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#FIFTH_DAY"><b>FIFTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#SIXTH_DAY"><b>SIXTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#SEVENTH_DAY"><b>SEVENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#EIGHTH_DAY"><b>EIGHTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#NINTH_DAY"><b>NINTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#TENTH_DAY"><b>TENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#ELEVENTH_DAY"><b>ELEVENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#TWELFTH_DAY"><b>TWELFTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#THIRTEENTH_DAY"><b>THIRTEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#FOURTEENTH_DAY"><b>FOURTEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#FIFTEENTH_DAY"><b>FIFTEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#SIXTEENTH_DAY"><b>SIXTEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#SEVENTEENTH_DAY"><b>SEVENTEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#EIGHTEENTH_DAY"><b>EIGHTEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#NINETEENTH_DAY"><b>NINETEENTH DAY.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX"><b>APPENDIX.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#INDEX"><b>INDEX.</b></a><br /> +<a href="#INDEX_TO_THE_APPENDIX"><b>INDEX TO THE APPENDIX.</b></a><br /> +</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a><span class="gesperrt">INTRODUCTION.</span></h2> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p><span class="smcap">If</span> I had been guided by my judgment alone it is not probable that +these notes of the debates in the Conference, held upon the invitation +of Virginia, at Washington, in the month of February, 1861, would have +been made public. From the commencement of its sessions, a portion of +the members were in favor of the daily publication of the proceedings. +I was disposed to go farther and have the sessions open to the public; +but this proposition was opposed by a large majority. Strong reasons +were urged for excluding the multitude which in the excitement of the +time would have thronged the hall wherein the Conference held its +sessions. But these reasons did not apply to the publication of the +debates, and a considerable minority were strongly of opinion that the +people should be informed daily, of the votes and remarks of their +representatives in that body.</p> + +<p>I commenced taking notes on the first day of the session. For the +first few days, and until the reports were presented from the general +committee, there was but little discussion, and that related to +questions incidental to the general subject. On the 15th of February, +and before the committee reported, Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span> offered a resolution +authorizing the admission of reporters, which, after some discussion, +by a close vote was laid upon the table. On the 18th, finding the +labor of taking notes greater than I had anticipated, and desiring +that a com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">4</a></span>plete record should be preserved; I introduced a resolution +providing for the appointment of an official stenographer, who should +report the proceedings and hold them subject to the order of the +Conference. I urged the adoption of this resolution as strenuously as +was proper, but the feeling of the majority appeared to be still +adverse to its passage, and it shared the fate of its predecessor. I +then revised the notes already taken, and finding them more complete +than I had anticipated, determined to make as accurate a report as I +was able of the general discussion. I could not then anticipate +whether such a report would be useful to the country or not; but I +thought if the Conference should propose amendments to the +Constitution, and these should be ultimately submitted to the States +for adoption, a knowledge of the motives and reasons which influenced +the action of the Conference as well as the construction which the +members gave to the propositions themselves, might become of as great +importance as the same subjects were in the convention which framed +the present Constitution. I attended every session of the Conference, +and, so far as my strength would permit, made as full and accurate +notes as I could, both of the action of the Conference and the +observations of its members.</p> + +<p>These notes were carefully examined and revised immediately after the +close of each daily session. After the passage of the resolution +introduced by Mr. <span class="smcap">Barringer</span>, removing the injunction of secrecy and +authorizing their publication, I determined to write them out for the +press. I was engaged in this work when the rebellion commenced, and +was shortly after called to the performance of the duties of an +official position, which for many months left me no leisure for other +employments.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">5</a></span></p> + +<p>My notes were then laid aside. As it was known by every member of the +Conference that I had taken them, I was often pressed to permit +selections from them to be made. These requests I invariably declined, +as I desired the publication, if made at all, to be entire, as well as +accurate. As time passed, these appeals became more frequent and +pressing, and claims were made in relation to the course of several of +the members which could only be sustained or refuted by a publication +of their remarks. At length I was earnestly requested to write out one +of these speeches, and after some weeks of delay consented to do so.</p> + +<p>After the publication of this speech, which took place about the time +of the fall elections of 1863, previous to which the action of the +Conference had been much discussed, the desire to see a full report of +the proceedings of that body appeared to be excited anew. Letters and +personal interviews upon this subject became very numerous. I finally +determined to take the advice of a number of gentlemen who were +prominent in the convention and the country, as to the propriety of +yielding to this desire, and to be guided by it. I did so, and found +among them a remarkable unanimity of expression in favor of making the +history of the Conference public.</p> + +<p>When this question was settled, I desired to avail myself of every +opportunity to secure the highest degree of accuracy and fidelity. I +addressed notes to such of the members as were accessible, asking them +to transmit to me such memoranda of the proceedings of the Conference +as they had preserved. The response to these letters was very +gratifying; not because the materials furnished were very full, but +because so general a purpose was shown by all the members thus +addressed, to furnish me every facility and aid in their power.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">6</a></span></p> + +<p>I have found much difficulty in determining what control each member +ought to be permitted to exercise over his own remarks. The most +agreeable course to me would have been, to have written out each +speech and submitted it to its author for correction or revision; but +to this there was a decisive objection. It would have depreciated, if +not destroyed, the accuracy of the report. Although I do not believe +that any gentleman would have been tempted to change the tenor of his +remarks by subsequent events, the view of the public might not have +been so charitable.</p> + +<p>I have therefore made my own notes the standard of authority, and have +admitted nothing into the report which has not been justified by them +aided by my own recollection. The manuscript has not been changed or +added to, except by my own hands. The few instances in which I have +availed myself of the materials furnished by others, are distinctly +stated either in the notes or the <a href="#APPENDIX">appendix</a>.</p> + +<p>During the sessions of the Conference I was able to secure but little +practical assistance from the members. Although many of them desired +that my purpose should be accomplished, and some were taking brief and +general notes, I soon discovered that an accurate report of a speech +required an amount of labor and a degree of attention to the subject, +which few gentlemen were inclined to give. The work, therefore, was +thrown almost exclusively upon myself. Some idea of its amount and +severity may be formed when it is stated, that the sessions usually +commenced at about ten o'clock in the morning, and with a brief +intermission were continued late in the evening, in one instance as +late as the hour of two o'clock, <span class="smcap">a.m.</span> The necessity of these long +daily sessions, arose from the fact, that the Congress then in +exist<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">7</a></span>ence terminated on the fourth of March, and but few days +remained in which to discuss and perfect the report, and to submit it +to that body for its action.</p> + +<p>I do not claim to have furnished a <i>verbatim</i> report of the speeches +delivered in the Conference of 1861, but I insist that I have given an +accurate account of all its official proceedings, and the substance of +the remarks made in the course of those proceedings. I think, also, +that I have preserved nearly all the propositions made in the course +of the debate, and generally have presented the ideas in the very +language used. The gentlemen who have critically examined the report, +all concur upon the question of its general accuracy, and I am content +in this respect to rely upon their testimony.</p> + +<p>I have suggested these considerations simply by way of explanation, +and not for the purpose of avoiding criticism. I have endeavored to +follow, so far as was in my power, the example of the illustrious +Reporter of the Constitutional Convention of 1787; and while my notes +lack the beauty and felicity which characterize his, I trust they are +not less full and accurate. I submit them to the country as the best +contribution which I can make to its history, at a most important and +interesting period of our national existence.</p> + +<p>The three short years which have passed since the Conference of 1861, +have witnessed singular vicissitudes among its members. Many of them +have entered into the military or civil service of the country, or of +the rebellion which it was the avowed purpose of some members of that +Conference to nourish into vigorous life. Death, also, has been busy +with the roll. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>, <span class="smcap">Bronson</span>, <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span>, <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, are +no more. <span class="smcap">Zollicoffer</span> fell at the head of a rebel army. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span> +sealed with his blood his devotion to the prin<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">8</a></span>ciples he advocated +upon the field of Corinth, and now, while I am writing these pages in +a morning of beautiful spring, when tree, and shrub, and grass, and +flower, are bursting into life and beauty; from the roar of cannon, +the rattle of musketry, and the deadly storm of lead and iron, which +bearing destruction upon its wings is waking the echoes of the +"Wilderness," comes the mournful tidings that WADSWORTH has fallen. In +that Conference or in the world, there was never a purer or a more +ardent patriot. Those of us who were associated with him politically, +had learned to love and respect him. His opponents admired his +unflinching devotion to his country, and his manly frankness and +candor. He was the type of a true American, able, unselfish, prudent, +unambitious, and good. Other pens will do justice to his memory, but I +thought as I heard the last account of him alive, as he lay within the +rebel lines, his face wearing that calm serenity which grew more +beautiful the nearer death approached, after having given so +abundantly of his goods, now yielding his life to his country in the +hour of her trial, that hereafter the good and true men of the nation +would emulate the illustrious example of his patriotism, and would +prize the blessings of a free government the more highly, as they +remembered that it could only be maintained and perpetuated by such +expensive sacrifices.</p> + +<p class="right">L.E.C.</p> + +<p><i>May, 1864.</i></p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">9</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="PROCEEDINGS_OF_THE_CONFERENCE" id="PROCEEDINGS_OF_THE_CONFERENCE"></a>PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE,</h2> + +<h3>Washington, D.C.</h3> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Monday</span>, <i>February 4th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">Commissioners</span> representing a number of the States, assembled at +Willard's Hall, in the City of Washington, D.C., on the fourth day of +February, <span class="smcap">a.d.</span> 1861, at 12 o'clock <span class="smcap">m.</span>, in pursuance of the following +preamble and resolutions, adopted by the General Assembly of the State +of Virginia, on the nineteenth day of January, <span class="smcap">a.d.</span> 1861:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Whereas</i>, It is the deliberate opinion of the General +Assembly of Virginia, that unless the unhappy controversy +which now divides the States of this confederacy, shall be +satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of Union is +inevitable; and the General Assembly, representing the +wishes of the people of the commonwealth, is desirous of +employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a +calamity, and determined to make a final effort to restore +the Union and the Constitution, in the spirit in which they +were established by the fathers of the Republic: Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That on behalf of the commonwealth of Virginia, +an invitation is hereby extended to all such States, whether +slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite +with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present +unhappy controversies, in the spirit in which the +Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with +its principles, so as to afford to the people of the +slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of +their rights, to appoint commissioners to meet on the fourth +day of February next, in the City of Washington, similar +commissioners appointed by Virginia, to consider, and if +practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That ex-President <span class="smcap">John Tyler</span>, <span class="smcap">William C. Rives</span>, +Judge <span class="smcap">John W. Brockenbrough</span>, <span class="smcap">George W. Summers</span>, and <span class="smcap">James A. +Seddon</span> are hereby ap<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">10</a></span>pointed commissioners, whose duty it +shall be to repair to the City of Washington, on the day +designated in the foregoing resolution, to meet such +commissioners as may be appointed by any of said States, in +accordance with the foregoing resolution.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That if said commissioners, after full and free +conference, shall agree upon any plan of adjustment +requiring amendments to the Federal Constitution, for the +further security of the rights of the people of the +slaveholding States, they be requested to communicate the +proposed amendments to Congress, for the purpose of having +the same submitted by that body, according to the forms of +the Constitution, to the several States for ratification.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That if said commissioners cannot agree on such +adjustment, or if agreeing, Congress shall refuse to submit +for ratification, such amendments as may be proposed, then +the commissioners of this State shall immediately +communicate the result to the executive of this +commonwealth, to be by him laid before the convention of the +people of Virginia and the General Assembly: <i>Provided</i>, +That the said commissioners be subject at all times to the +control of the General Assembly, or if in session, to that +of the State convention.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of +Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions +presented to the Senate of the United States by the Hon. +<span class="smcap">John J. Crittenden</span>, so modified as that the first article +proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United +States, shall apply to all the territory of the United +States now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude +thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, and provide that +slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected +as property therein during the continuance of the +territorial government, and the fourth article shall secure +to the owners of slaves the right of transit with their +slaves between and through the non-slaveholding States and +territories, constitute the basis of such an adjustment of +the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this +confederacy, as would be accepted by the people of this +commonwealth.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That ex-President <span class="smcap">John Tyler</span> is hereby +appointed, by the concurrent vote of each branch of the +General Assembly, a commissioner to the President of the +United States, and Judge <span class="smcap">John Robertson</span> is hereby appointed, +by a like vote, a commissioner to the State of South +Carolina, and the other States that have seceded or shall +secede, with instructions respectfully to request the +President of the United States and authorities of such +States to agree to abstain, pending the proceedings +contemplated by the action of this General Assembly, from +any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms +between the States and the Government of the United States.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That copies of the foregoing resolutions be +forthwith telegraphed to the executives of the several +States, and also to the President of the United States, and +the Governor be requested to inform, without delay, the +commissioners of their appointment by the foregoing +resolutions.</p> + +<p>[A copy from the rolls.]</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span style="margin-right: 1em">WM. F. GORDON, <span class="smcap">Jr.</span>,</span><br /> +<i>C.H.D. and K.R. of Va.</i></p> +</div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">11</a></span></p> + +<p>The Conference was called to order by Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of Kentucky, who +proposed the name of the honorable <span class="smcap">John C. Wright</span>, of Ohio, as +temporary Chairman.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span> was unanimously adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. WRIGHT was conducted to the Chair by Mr. <span class="smcap">Meredith</span>, of +Pennsylvania, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, of Ohio, and proceeded to address the +Conference as follows:</p> + +<p>My warmest thanks are due to you, Gentlemen, for the undeserved honor +which you have conferred upon me, in selecting me for the purpose of +temporarily presiding over your deliberations. We have come together +to secure a common and at the same time a most important object—to +agree if we can upon some plan for adjusting the unhappy differences +which distract the country, which will be satisfactory to ourselves +and those we represent. We have assembled as friends, as brothers, +each, I doubt not, animated by the most friendly sentiments.</p> + +<p>If we enter upon, and with these sentiments carry through, a patient +examination of the difficulties which now surround the Government, the +result will be, it must be, a success, earnestly hoped for by every +lover of his country; a result which will establish the Union +according to the spirit of the Constitution.</p> + +<p>For myself, I may say that I have come here with the earnest purpose +of doing justice to all sections of the Union. I will hear with a +patient and impartial mind all that may be said in favor of, or +against such amendments of the Constitution as may be proposed. Such +of them as will give to the Government permanence, strength, and +stability, as will tend to secure to any State, or any number of +States, the quiet and unmolested enjoyment of their rights under it, +shall receive my cordial support. My confidence in republican +institutions, in the capacity of the people for self-government, has +been increased with every year of a life which has been protracted +beyond the term usually allotted to man. That life is now drawing to a +close, and I hope, when it ends, I may leave the Government more +firmly established in the affections of my countrymen than it ever was +before. To this end I have always labored, and shall continue to labor +while I live. I pray GOD that He will be with us during our +deliberations, and that He may guide them to a happy and wise +conclusion.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">12</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Benjamin C. Howard</span>, a commissioner from the State of Maryland, was +unanimously appointed temporary Secretary.</p> + +<p>The Roll of the States was then called over, and commissioners +representing the following were found to be present:</p> + +<div class="centered"> +<table style="width: 60%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="states"> +<tr><td>New Hampshire,</td><td>Delaware,</td><td>Kentucky,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Rhode Island,</td><td>Maryland,</td><td>Ohio,</td></tr> +<tr><td>New Jersey,</td><td>Virginia,</td><td>Indiana.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Pennsylvania,</td><td>North Carolina,</td><td> </td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<p>Mr. PRICE, of New Jersey:—I am informed that a number of Reporters +for the press are at the door of the hall, desiring admittance to this +Conference, for the purpose of reporting our proceedings. Whatever may +be the ultimate action of the Conference in this respect, I can see no +objection to the admission of reporters to-day, for our business will +relate wholly to organization. I hope we shall admit them, and I make +that motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON, of Virginia:—I hope this motion will not prevail. I do +not see that any good can possibly come of giving publicity now, to +our proceedings. On the contrary, in the present excited condition of +the country, I can see how much harm might result from that publicity. +It is not unlikely that wide differences of opinion will be found to +exist among us at the outset. These we shall attempt to harmonize, and +if we succeed, it will only be by mutual concessions and compromises. +Every one should be left free to make these concessions, and not +subject himself to unfavorable public criticism by doing so. If our +deliberations are to attain the successful conclusion we so much +desire, it certainly is the course of wisdom that we should follow the +illustrious example of the framers of the present Constitution, and +sit with closed doors.</p> + +<p>The motion was thereupon, by <i>viva voce</i> vote, decided in the +negative.</p> + +<p>Mr. MEREDITH:—I move the appointment of a committee to consist of one +member from each delegation present, to be named by the delegation and +appointed by the President, who shall recommend permanent officers of +this, body, and also report rules for its government.</p> + +<p>Which motion was agreed to.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">13</a></span></p> + +<p>The following gentlemen were then appointed such Committee on Rules +and Organization:</p> + +<p>Kentucky, Charles A. Wickliffe, <i>Chairman</i>; New Hampshire, Amos Tuck; +Rhode Island, William W. Hoppin; New Jersey, Joseph F. Randolph; +Pennsylvania, Thomas E. Franklin; Delaware, George B. Rodney; +Maryland, John W. Crisfield; Virginia, William C. Rives; North +Carolina, Thomas Ruffin; Ohio, Reuben Hitchcock; Indiana, Godlove S. +Orth.</p> + +<p>The Conference then adjourned to meet at 12 o'clock <span class="smcap">m.</span> to-morrow.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="SECOND_DAY" id="SECOND_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">SECOND DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Tuesday</span>, <i>February 5th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by the Chairman <i>pro tem.</i>, +pursuant to adjournment, and the journal of the proceedings of the +first day was read and approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN, of Pennsylvania:—It is usual in bodies of this +description to take measures to ascertain who are and who are not duly +accredited members. We should have the names of all the Commissioners +present brought on to our records. I therefore move that a Committee +of five be appointed by the Chairman, to whom all credentials of +members shall be referred for examination and report.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span> was adopted unanimously, and the Chairman +announced as such Committee Mr. Summers, of Virginia; Mr. Franklin, of +Pennsylvania; Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky; Mr. Morehead, of North +Carolina, and Mr. Smith, of Indiana.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE, of Kentucky:—I rise at this time for the purpose of +making the report of the Committee on Organization. I am instructed to +report that we recommend that the permanent officers of the Convention +be a President and Secretary, and that the Secretary have leave to +appoint assistants, not exceeding two in number, to assist him in the +discharge of his duties; and that the President of this Convention be +<span class="smcap">John Tyler</span>, of Virginia, and that <span class="smcap">Crafts J. Wright</span>, of Ohio, be its +Secretary.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">14</a></span> The committee also report a series of rules for the +government of the Convention.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY, of Kentucky:—I move that the question upon accepting the +report be divided, and that it be first taken on that part of the +report which relates to the officers of the Convention.</p> + +<p>Which was agreed to without objection.</p> + +<p>It was then moved, and unanimously voted, that the part of the report +relating to officers, be accepted, and the officers designated be +appointed.</p> + +<p>The President <i>pro tem.</i> then appointed Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span>, of Ohio, and Mr. +<span class="smcap">Meredith</span>, of Pennsylvania, to conduct the President elect to the +chair.</p> + +<p>President TYLER upon taking his seat proceeded to address the +Convention as follows:</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, I fear you have committed a great error in appointing me to +the honorable position you have assigned me. A long separation from +all deliberative bodies has rendered the rules of their proceedings +unfamiliar to me, while I should find, in my own state of health, +variable and fickle as it is, sufficient reason to decline the honor +of being your presiding officer. But, in times like these, one has but +little option left him. Personal considerations should weigh but +lightly in the balance. The country is in danger; it is enough; one +must take the place assigned him in the great work of reconciliation +and adjustment. The voice of Virginia has invited her co-States to +meet her in council. In the initiation of this Government, that same +voice was heard and complied with, and the results of seventy-odd +years have fully attested the wisdom of the decisions then adopted. Is +the urgency of her call now less great than it was then? Our godlike +fathers created, we have to preserve. They built up, through their +wisdom and patriotism, monuments which have eternized their names. You +have before you, gentlemen, a task equally grand, equally sublime, +quite as full of glory and immortality. You have to snatch from ruin a +great and glorious Confederation, to preserve the Government, and to +renew and invigorate the Constitution. If you reach the height of this +great occasion, your children's children will rise up and call you +blessed. I confess myself to be ambitious of sharing in the glory of +accomplishing this grand and magnificent result.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">15</a></span> To have our names +enrolled in the Capitol, to be repeated by future generations with +grateful applause—this is an honor higher than the mountains, more +enduring than the monumental alabaster. Yes, Virginia's voice, as in +the olden time, has been heard. Her sister States meet her this day at +the council board. Vermont is here, bringing with her the memories of +the past, and reviving in the memories of all, her Ethan Allen and his +demand for the surrender of Ticonderoga, in the name of the Great +Jehovah and the American Congress. New Hampshire is here, her fame +illustrated by memorable annals, and still more lately as the +birthplace of him who won for himself the name of defender of the +Constitution, and who wrote that letter to John Taylor which has been +enshrined in the hearts of his countrymen. Massachusetts is not here. +(Some member said "She is coming.") I hope so, said Mr. <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and +that she will bring with her her daughter Maine. I did not believe it +could well be that the voice which in other times was so familiar to +her ears had been addressed to her in vain. Connecticut is here, and +she comes, I doubt not, in the spirit of <span class="smcap">Roger Sherman</span>, whose name +with our very children has become a household word, and who was in +life the embodiment of that sound practical sense which befits the +great lawgiver and constructer of governments. Rhode Island, the land +of <span class="smcap">Roger Williams</span>, is here, one of the two last States, in her +jealousy of the public liberty, to give in her adhesion to the +Constitution, and among the earliest to hasten to its rescue. The +great Empire State of New York, represented thus far but by one +delegate, is expected daily in fuller force to join in the great work +of healing the discontents of the times and restoring the reign of +fraternal feeling. New Jersey is also here, with the memories of the +past covering her all over. Trenton and Princeton live immortal in +story, the plains of the last incrimsoned with the hearts blood of +Virginia's sons. Among her delegation I rejoice to recognize a gallant +son of a signer of the immortal Declaration which announced to the +world that thirteen Provinces had become thirteen independent and +sovereign States. And here, too, is Delaware, the land of the <span class="smcap">Bayards</span> +and the <span class="smcap">Rodneys</span>, whose soil at Brandywine was moistened by the blood +of Virginia's youthful <span class="smcap">Monroe</span>. Here is Maryland, whose massive columns +wheeled into line with those<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">16</a></span> of Virginia in the contest for glory, +and whose state house at Annapolis was the theatre of the spectacle of +a successful Commander, who, after liberating his country, gladly +ungirthed his sword, and laid it down upon the altar of that country. +Then comes Pennsylvania, rich in revolutionary lore, bringing with her +the deathless names of <span class="smcap">Franklin</span> and <span class="smcap">Morris</span>, and, I trust, ready to +renew from the belfry of Independence Hall the chimes of the old bell, +which announced <i>Freedom</i> and <i>Independence</i> in former days. All hail +to North Carolina! with her Mecklenberg Declaration in her hand, +standing erect on the ground of her own probity and firmness in the +cause of public liberty, and represented in her attributes by her +<span class="smcap">Macon</span>, and in this assembly by her distinguished son at no great +distance from me. Four daughters of Virginia also cluster around the +council board on the invitation of their ancient mother—the eldest, +Kentucky, whose sons, under the intrepid warrior <span class="smcap">Anthony Wayne</span>, gave +freedom of settlement to the territory of her sister, Ohio. She +extends her hand daily and hourly across <i>la belle riviere</i>, to grasp +the hand of some one of kindred blood of the noble states of Indiana, +and Illinois, and Ohio, who have grown up into powerful States, +already grand, potent, and almost imperial. Tennessee is not here, but +is coming—prevented only from being here by the floods which have +swollen her rivers. When she arrives, she will wear the badges on her +warrior crest of victories won in company with the Great West on many +an ensanguined plain, and standards torn from the hands of the +conquerors at Waterloo. Missouri, and Iowa, and Michigan, Wisconsin, +and Minnesota, still linger behind, but it may be hoped that their +hearts are with us in the great work we have to do.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, the eyes of the whole country are turned to this assembly, +in expectation and hope. I trust that you may prove yourselves worthy +of the great occasion. Our ancestors, probably, committed a blunder in +not having fixed upon every fifth decade for a call of a general +convention to amend and reform the Constitution. On the contrary, they +have made the difficulties next to insurmountable to accomplish +amendments to an instrument which was perfect for five millions of +people, but not wholly so as to thirty millions. Your patriotism will +surmount the difficulties, however great, if you will but accomplish +one<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">17</a></span> triumph in advance, and that is, a triumph over <i>party</i>. And what +is party, when compared to the work of rescuing one's country from +danger? Do that, and one long, loud shout of joy and gladness will +resound throughout the land.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I move that the remaining portion of the report of the +Committee on Organization be postponed until to-morrow.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span> was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE. I offer the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Conference shall be opened with prayer, +and that the clergymen of the city of Washington be +requested to perform that service.</p></div> + +<p>The resolution offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> was adopted, and prayer was +then offered by the Rev. Dr. P.D. <span class="smcap">Gurley</span>, of Washington.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I have received a communication from the Messrs. +Willard, placing the Hall in which the Conference is now sitting at +the service of the Conference, while its sessions may continue; also, +a communication from the Mayor and Common Council of the City of +Washington, offering police officers to attend our sittings.</p> + +<p>It was moved, and agreed to, that these offers be severally accepted.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:—I move that the President of the Conference +be requested to furnish a copy of his address to the Conference upon +taking the Chair, that it be entered upon the journal as a part of +this day's proceedings, and that the same be published.</p> + +<p>Which motion was unanimously agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRIMES, of Iowa:—I have received from the Governor of the State +of Iowa a communication, requesting myself and my colleague in the +Senate of the United States, and also the members representing that +State in the House of Representatives, to represent the State of Iowa +here. I desire to present his communication, that it may be referred +to the Committee on Credentials.</p> + +<p>The communication was so referred, and on motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wright</span>, of +Ohio, the Conference adjourned.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">18</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="THIRD_DAY" id="THIRD_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">THIRD DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Wednesday</span>, <i>February 6th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference met at twelve o'clock, at noon, and was called to order +by the <span class="smcap">President</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal of yesterday was read, and after amendment, was approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I am instructed by the Committee on Credentials to make +a report. That committee has examined the credentials which have been +submitted to it, and finds the following-named gentlemen duly +accredited as members of this Conference:</p> + +<p><i>New Hampshire.</i>—Amos Tuck, Levi Chamberlain, Asa Fowler.</p> + +<p><i>Vermont.</i>—Hiland Hall, Lucius E. Chittenden, Levi Underwood, H. +Henry Baxter, B.D. Harris.</p> + +<p><i>Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.</i>—Samuel Ames, Alexander +Duncan, William W. Hoppin, George H. Browne, Samuel G. Arnold.</p> + +<p><i>Connecticut.</i>—Roger S. Baldwin, Chauncey F. Cleveland, Charles J. +McCurdy, James T. Pratt, Robbins Battell, Amos S. Treat.</p> + +<p><i>New Jersey.</i>—Charles S. Olden, Peter D. Vroom, Robert F. Stockton, +Benjamin Williamson, Joseph F. Randolph, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, +Rodman M. Price, William C. Alexander, Thomas J. Stryker.</p> + +<p><i>Pennsylvania.</i>—Thomas White, James Pollock, William M. Meredith, +David Wilmot, A.W. Loomis, Thomas E. Franklin, William McKennan.</p> + +<p><i>Delaware.</i>—George B. Rodney, Daniel M. Bates, Henry Ridgely, John W. +Houston, William Cannon.</p> + +<p><i>Maryland.</i>—John F. Dent, Reverdy Johnson, John W. Crisfield, +Augustus W. Bradford, William T. Goldsborough, J. Dixon Roman, +Benjamin C. Howard.</p> + +<p><i>Virginia.</i>—John Tyler, William C. Rives, John W. Brockenbrough, +George W. Summers, James A. Seddon.</p> + +<p><i>North Carolina.</i>—George Davis, Thomas Ruffin, David S. Reid, Daniel +M. Barringer, J.M. Morehead.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">19</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Kentucky.</i>—William O. Butler, James B. Clay, Joshua F. Bell, Charles +S. Morehead, James Guthrie, Charles A. Wickliffe.</p> + +<p><i>Ohio.</i>—John C. Wright, Salmon P. Chase, William S. Groesbeck, +Franklin C. Backus, Reuben Hitchcock, Thomas Ewing, Valentine B. +Horton.</p> + +<p><i>Indiana.</i>—Caleb B. Smith, Pleasant A. Hackleman, Godlove S. Orth, +E.W.H. Ellis, Thomas C. Slaughter.</p> + +<p><i>Iowa.</i>—James W. Grimes, Samuel H. Curtis, William Vandever.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I move that the Secretary be authorized to employ one +or more assistants. I am advised that the Secretary cannot perform his +duties without assistance, and I see no objection to giving him this +authority.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I now desire to call up the remaining portion of the +report of the Committee on Rules and Organization, and to move its +adoption at the present time. These Rules are substantially the same +as those which were adopted by the convention which proposed our +present Constitution. The rule which we have reported securing +secrecy, so far as our proceedings are concerned, has been made the +subject of much discussion in the committee; and it was at first +thought best to recommend a modification of it. But upon reflection +and consideration, and in view of the fact that, while the rule +reported requires that secrecy should be preserved in regard to all +that is said or done in this Conference, it does not prevent any +member from expressing his own hopes or predictions upon the final +result of our deliberations, we have thought best to let it remain as +it is.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I desire to offer an amendment to this portion of the +report of the committee, which I will read for the information of the +Conference. It is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That no part of the Journal be published +without the order or leave of the Conference, and that no +copies of the whole or any part be furnished or allowed, +except to members, who shall be privileged to communicate +the same to the authorities or deliberative assemblies of +their respective States, when deemed judicious or +appropriate, under their instructions, and that nothing +spoken in the House be printed or otherwise published; but +private communications respecting the proceedings and +debates, while recommended to be with caution and reserve, +are allowed at the discretion of each member."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">20</a></span></p> + +<p>It may be thought, that in offering this resolution, I am seeking a +different end from the one I proposed yesterday, when I advocated the +proposition of excluding reporters from our sessions, and insisted +that our proceedings should be at all times under the seal of secrecy. +Such, however, is not my purpose. But some discretion must be allowed +us, in order that we may conform to and carry out the spirit of the +resolutions under which we respectively act. This is especially true +in relation to myself and my colleagues. The resolutions under which +we are acting, require that we should from time to time communicate to +the legislature of Virginia the proceedings of this body, and to +express our own opinions of the prospect which may exist of the +settlement of existing difficulties. The Commissioners from Virginia +would be placed in a delicate, not to say an awkward position, by the +adoption of a rule here which would absolutely prohibit such +communications. I hope my amendment may be adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—Would not the purpose of the gentleman from Virginia be +answered by giving any delegation leave to communicate any action +actually taken by the Conference, with their own opinions as to the +probable result of our deliberations?</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Those opinions would possess no value, unless the facts +and circumstances are communicated upon which they are founded. It is +very clear to me, that the best course will be to entrust to the +discretion of each member the privilege of making these +communications, trusting that he will not abuse the confidence thus +given.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I hope we have all come here with an earnest desire to +harmonize our conflicting opinions, and to unite upon some plan which +will settle our troubles and save the union of the States. The South +has spoken of the North in very severe terms, and the North has not +been slow in returning the compliment. If we come finally, to any +definite result satisfactory to either side, it must be by mutual +concessions, by confessing our sins to each other, and endeavoring to +live harmoniously together in future. In my judgment, secrecy is +absolutely indispensable to successful action here. I do not wish to +be precluded from abandoning a position to-morrow, if I see cause for +it, which I have taken to-day. If the proceedings, and especially<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">21</a></span> the +debates of this Conference, are made public from day to day, they will +go into the newspapers and be made the subject of comment, favorable +or otherwise. The necessary result will be, that when a member is +understood to have committed himself to a particular proposition, or +any special course of policy, that pride of opinion, which we all +possess, will render any change of policy on his part difficult, if +not impossible. I should sincerely regret the adoption of the +resolution of the gentleman from Virginia.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I move that the portion of the committee's report under +consideration, together with the resolution of Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>, be +recommitted to the Committee on Rules and Organization.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span> was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I have an idea relating to the plan which should be +adopted to carry into effect the purpose of this Conference. I wish to +propose it. We have come together upon the invitation of the glorious +old commonwealth of Virginia, the mother of States and Statesmen. We +have come from the North and the South, from the East and the West, to +see whether our wisdom can devise some means to avert the dangers +which threaten to destroy this noble Republic, founded by the wisdom +and patriotism of our ancestors. I hope we are animated by a common +purpose. The storm is threatening. The horizon is covered with dark +and portentous clouds. Section is arrayed against section, and already +<i>seven</i> of our sister States have separated from us and are proceeding +to establish an independent Confederation. War! Civil War! is +impending over us. It must be averted! Who does not know that such a +war, among such a people, must be, if it comes, a war of +extermination.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I move the adoption of the resolution which I now send +to the chair.</p> + +<p>The resolution of Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> was read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a committee of one from each State be +appointed by the Commissioners thereof, to be nominated to +the President, and to be appointed by him, to whom shall be +referred the resolutions of the State of Virginia, and the +other States represented, and all propositions for the +adjustment of existing difficulties between States, with +authority to report what they may deem right, necessary, and +proper to restore harmony and preserve the Union, and that +they report on or before Friday next.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">22</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—It appears to me that the mode pointed out by the +resolution introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky, is neither the +one most appropriate nor expeditious for accomplishing the result +desired. We are convened under the invitation of the State of +Virginia; and the same invitation that brings us here, proposes the +basis for our deliberation and action. Virginia has stated what will +be satisfactory to her; not as an <i>ultimatum</i>, but as a basis of +adjustment. It appears to me that the proper course would be, to take +up the propositions of Virginia—propose amendments to them—discuss +them, and in the end determine how far they shall be adopted. The +adoption of the resolution proposed, transfers the labors of this +Conference, not in itself too large for convenient deliberation, to a +committee. That committee is to discuss the various propositions +offered and report the result. What, in the mean time, is this +Conference to do? Nothing whatever! We are to meet here from day to +day and adjourn, no one knows how long, until this committee reports, +and then the discussion will commence which ought to commence now. Mr. +<span class="smcap">President</span>, if any thing is accomplished, it must be accomplished +speedily. Events are on the wing. Already in my State the delegates +are elected to a Convention, which is to meet next week, to consider +the subject which now engrosses the minds of the American people. I +hope my suggestion may meet with favor in the Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I cannot agree with the gentleman from Virginia, for +reasons which must be obvious to all. I do not think Virginia intended +to dictate the terms upon which we were to act. I am in favor of the +resolution, but would make one suggestion in relation to it. By its +terms the committee is to report on Friday, if it can properly do so. +I suggest that the committee should have leave to sit during the +sessions of the Conference. In this way our business may be greatly +expedited.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—It gives me pleasure to accept the modification proposed +by the gentleman from Ohio. I should have incorporated it into my +resolution.</p> + +<p>The resolution as modified was then adopted by the Conference without +a division.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I will take this occasion to announce a committee to +carry into effect the determination of the Confer<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">23</a></span>ence relating to the +obtaining of the services of clergymen to open the proceedings of the +Conference daily with prayer. The Chair appoints as such committee, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span>, of New Jersey, Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>, of Kentucky, and Mr. +<span class="smcap">Johnson</span>, of Maryland.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—It appears to me very appropriate, in view of the +occasion which has brought us together, that the members of this +Conference should pay their respects in a body to the President of the +United States. I therefore move that we call upon him in a body at +such a time as will be most agreeable to him; such time to be +ascertained by the President of this Conference.</p> + +<p>Which motion was unanimously agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I move the reconsideration of the vote by which the portion +of the report of the Committee on Rules and Organization not yet +adopted was recommitted to that committee. I do this in order that the +Conference may now proceed to the consideration of those rules which +may be adopted without much difference of opinion.</p> + +<p>The vote was thereupon reconsidered, and the following rules were +severally read and adopted. The remaining rules recommended were +recommitted to the committee:</p> + + +<h3>RULES.</h3> + +<p>I. A Convention to do business, shall consist of the Commissioners of +not less than seven States; and all questions shall be decided by the +greater number of those which be fully represented. But a less number +than seven may adjourn from day to day.</p> + +<p>II. Immediately after the President shall have taken the chair, and +the members their seats, the minutes of the preceding day shall be +read by the Secretary.</p> + +<p>III. Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; and +while he shall be speaking none shall pass between them, or hold +discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet, or paper, printed or +manuscript; and of two members rising to speak at the same time, the +President shall name him who shall first be heard.</p> + +<p>IV. A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">24</a></span> special +leave upon the same question; and not a second time before every other +who had been silent shall have been heard, if he choose to speak upon +the subject.</p> + +<p>V. A motion made and seconded, shall be repeated; and if written, as +it shall be when any member shall so require, read aloud by the +Secretary before it shall be debated; and may be withdrawn at any time +before the vote upon it shall have been declared.</p> + +<p>VI. Orders of the day shall be read next after the minutes, and either +discussed or postponed, before any other business shall be introduced.</p> + +<p>VII. When a debate shall arise upon a question, no motion, other than +to amend the question, to commit it, or to postpone the debate, shall +be received.</p> + +<p>VIII. A question which is complicated, shall, at the request of any +member, be divided and put separately upon the propositions of which +it is compounded.</p> + +<p>IX. A writing which contains any matter brought on to be considered, +shall be read once, throughout, for information; then by paragraphs, +to be debated, and again with the amendments, if any, made on the +second reading, and afterwards the question shall be put upon the +whole, as amended or approved in the original form, as the case may +be.</p> + +<p>X. Committees shall be appointed by the President, unless otherwise +ordered by the Convention.</p> + +<p>XI. A member may be called to order by another member, as well as by +the President, and may be allowed to explain his conduct or +expressions supposed to be reprehensible. And all questions of order +shall be decided by the President, without appeal or debate.</p> + +<p>XII. Upon a question to adjourn for the day, which may be made at any +time, if it be seconded, the question shall be put without debate.</p> + +<p>XIII. When the Convention shall adjourn, every member shall stand in +his place until the President pass him.</p> + +<p>XIV. That no member be absent from the Convention, so as to interrupt +the representation of the State, without leave.</p> + +<p>XV. That Committees do not sit while the Convention shall be, or ought +to be sitting, without leave of the Convention.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">25</a></span></p> + +<p>XVI. That no copy be taken of any entry on the Journal, during the +sitting of the Convention, without leave of the Convention.</p> + +<p>XVII. That members only be permitted to inspect the Journal.</p> + +<p>XVIII. <i>Mode of Voting.</i> All votes shall be taken by States, and each +State to give one vote. The yeas and nays of the members shall not be +given or published—only the decision by States.</p> + +<p>After the adoption of the foregoing Rules, the Conference adjourned +until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="FOURTH_DAY" id="FOURTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">FOURTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Thursday</span>, <i>February 7th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference convened, pursuant to the adjournment yesterday, at 10 +o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span></p> + +<p>It was called to order by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and prayer was offered by +Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Pyne</span>, of Washington.</p> + +<p>The Journal of yesterday was read, and after sundry amendments, was +approved.</p> + +<p>Messrs. J.H. <span class="smcap">Puleston</span>, <span class="smcap">John Stryker</span>, W.W. <span class="smcap">Hoppin</span>, Jr., and —— +Olcott, took their places as Assistant Secretaries.</p> + +<p>President TYLER:—Gentlemen of the Conference, as directed by the +resolution which you adopted yesterday, I addressed a note to the +President of the United States, asking at what hour it would be +agreeable to him that this Conference should call on him in a body. To +this note I have received a reply which will be read by the Secretary.</p> + +<p>The Secretary then read the following note from the President:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Executive Mansion</span>, <i>February 6th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>My <span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>:—I shall feel greatly honored to receive the +gentlemen composing the Convention of Commissioners from the +several States, on any day and at any hour most convenient +to themselves. I shall name to-morrow<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">26</a></span> (Thursday) at 11 or 3 +o'clock, though any other time would be equally agreeable to +me. I shall at all times be prepared to give them a cordial +welcome.</p> + +<p class="center">Yours, very respectfully,</p> + +<p class="right">JAMES BUCHANAN.</p> + +<p>His Excellency, <span class="smcap">John Tyler</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—What order will the Conference take upon the subject?</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move that the members of this Conference call in a +body upon the President of the United States this morning, at 11 +o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie's</span> motion was adopted unanimously.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I am instructed by the Committee on Credentials further +to report, that the committee have examined the credentials of the +following gentlemen, and find them duly accredited as members of this +body:</p> + +<p><i>New York.</i>—William E. Dodge.</p> + +<p><i>Tennessee.</i>—Samuel Milligan, Josiah M. Anderson, Robert L. +Carruthers, Thomas Martin, Isaac R. Hawkins, R.J. McKinney, Alvin +Cullom, William P. Hickerson, George W. Jones, F.K. Zollicoffer, +William H. Stephens, A.W.O. Totten.</p> + +<p><i>Illinois.</i>—John Wood, Stephen T. Logan, John M. Palmer, Burton C. +Cook, Thomas J. Turner.</p> + +<p>Which report was accepted, and the names of the Commissioners were +entered upon the record.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Certain printing has been ordered, but no provision +has been made for paying for it. The Committee on Rules have therefore +requested me to report the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Secretary procure for the use of the +Convention the necessary stationery, and also provide for +such printing as may be ordered. That the Journal, up to and +including this day's proceeding, as well as the Rules, be +printed for the use of the members.</p></div> + +<p>The resolution of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> was agreed to.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The respective delegations have recommended, and the +Chair announces the names of the following gentlemen to compose the +committee ordered to be raised under the resolution of Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>, +which was adopted yesterday:—New Hampshire, Asa Fowler; Vermont, +Hiland Hall; Rhode<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">27</a></span> Island and Providence Plantations, Samuel Ames; +Connecticut, Roger S. Baldwin; New Jersey, Joseph F. Randolph; +Pennsylvania, Thomas White; Delaware, Daniel M. Bates; North Carolina, +Thomas Ruffin; Kentucky, James Guthrie; Ohio, Thomas Ewing; Indiana, +Caleb B. Smith; Illinois, Stephen T. Logan; Iowa, James Harlan; +Maryland, Reverdy Johnson; Virginia, James A. Seddon.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—The Committee on Rules have further considered the +rule relating to the secrecy of the debates and proceedings of this +body, and their convictions as to the necessity and propriety of its +adoption remain unchanged. The prospect of an ultimate agreement among +the Commissioners composing this body, in the opinion of the +committee, would be materially lessened if all or any of its debates +should be made public, for reasons which have already been stated. If +any gentleman should desire to communicate with the Executive or +Legislative authorities of his State any facts, during the progress of +our business, I apprehend little difficulty would be experienced in +obtaining the leave of the Convention. We therefore recommend the +following Rule:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>XIX. That nothing spoken in the Convention be printed, or otherwise +published or communicated, without leave.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I do not desire to discuss the adoption of the rule under +consideration any further than I have already. The Commissioners from +the State of Virginia are appointed under resolutions which make it +their duty to communicate from time to time with her deliberative +assemblies. We do not wish to have our right to do so subject to the +action of this or any other body. It is no answer to this to say, that +there is no doubt that the leave to make the necessary communications +will be accorded to us when we ask it. We do not wish to ask it. We +insist upon our rights in this respect, as it is our duty to the State +that sent us here to do.</p> + +<p>The rule was adopted upon a count of the members voting.</p> + +<p>On motion, the Convention adjourned.</p> + +<p>After the adjournment, the Convention in a body called upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">28</a></span> the +<span class="smcap">President</span> of the <span class="smcap">United States</span>, when the several delegations were +introduced by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and the several Commissioners were +presented by the chairmen of the several delegations.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="FIFTH_DAY" id="FIFTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">FIFTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Friday</span>, <i>February 8th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was called to order at 12 o'clock by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>. +Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Butler</span>. After sundry amendments, the +Journal was approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I am directed by the Committee on Credentials to report +that they find the following gentlemen duly accredited as members of +the Convention:</p> + +<p><i>New York.</i>—David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. +Wadsworth, Erastus Corning, Amaziah B. James, James C. Smith, Addison +Gardner, Greene C. Bronson, John A. King, John E. Wool.</p> + +<p><i>Massachusetts.</i>—John Z. Goodrich, John M. Forbes, Richard P. Waters, +Theophilus P. Chandler, Francis B. Crowninshield, George S. Boutwell, +Charles Allen.</p> + +<p><i>Missouri.</i>—John D. Coalter, Alexander W. Doniphan, Waldo P. Johnson, +Aylett H. Buckner, Harrison Hough.</p> + +<p>On motion of the respective delegations the following gentlemen were +added to the committee raised on the resolution of Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>:</p> + +<p> +<i>New York.</i>—Mr. Field.<br /> +<i>Missouri.</i>—Mr. Doniphan.<br /> +<i>Tennessee.</i>—Mr. Zollicoffer.<br /> +</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am instructed by the committee raised upon the +resolution introduced by myself, to inform the Convention that that +body is not able to report to-day, agreeable to the suggestion made at +the time they were appointed. Several States are yet unrepresented on +the committee, and delegations from some of them have only arrived +this morning. I am therefore directed to ask for further time to make +a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">29</a></span> report, assuring the Convention, at the same time, that a report +will be made at soon as a proper regard to the interests of all +sections will permit it to be done.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I move that the time for the report of the committee be +extended until Monday next. As in the mean time there will be little +business for the Convention to do, and that of a formal character, it +might be as well to adjourn from this time until Monday; and I move +further, that if delegates arrive from States now unrepresented, they +may present their credentials to the committee, and if no question +arises on them, they may then select a member of the committee on Mr. +<span class="smcap">Guthrie's</span> resolution, and report his name to the Secretary of that +committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I object to an adjournment until Monday. We can meet here +to-morrow and do any business which may come before us.</p> + +<p>The several motions of Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, with the alteration suggested by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Seddon</span>, were then agreed to without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. ELLIS:—I move that the President be requested to issue cards of +admission to the members and officers of this Convention.</p> + +<p>Which motion was adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I would like to understand whether we all construe the +rule referring to the secrecy of our transactions alike. I am told +that different constructions are placed upon it by different members, +and would suggest the propriety of the <span class="smcap">President's</span> giving his views of +the meaning of the rule.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I understand, by the correct interpretation of the +rule, that nothing which is said or done in the Convention having +reference to any subject of business in it, can be spoken of or +disclosed to any but members.</p> + +<p>The Convention then adjourned.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="SIXTH_DAY" id="SIXTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">SIXTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Saturday</span>, <i>February 9th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was called to order by the <span class="smcap">President</span>. Prayer was +offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Bullock</span>. The Journal was read, corrected, and +approved.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">30</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I am directed by the Committee on Credentials to report +as members of this Convention the names of the following gentlemen +from the State of Maine:—William P. Fessenden, Lot M. Morrill, Daniel +E. Somes, John J. Perry, Ezra B. French, Freeman H. Morse, Stephen +Coburn, Stephen C. Foster.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>, of Maine, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Crowninshield</span>, of Massachusetts, were +announced as members of the committee under the resolution of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I offer certain resolutions, which I desire to have printed +and referred to the Committee on Resolutions.</p> + +<p>The resolutions of Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuck</span> were read, ordered to be printed, and +referred. (These resolutions will be found on a subsequent page.)</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I hold in my hand the proceedings of a very large +Democratic meeting recently held at New Haven, in the State of +Connecticut. Among them are certain resolutions, breathing a spirit of +fervent devotion to the Union, and expressing an anxious desire for +the settlement of the difficult questions now before the country. They +have been sent to me with a request that I should lay them before this +Convention. Why I was selected by them for the performance of this +duty, I do not know, unless it was because, from my name and +associations, they thought an assurance might be found that I +participated in the sentiments expressed in the resolutions. I present +them with great pleasure, and ask that they may be referred to the +Committee on Resolutions.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I move that the Secretary be requested to furnish for +the use of the members a printed list of the delegates to and officers +of this Convention.</p> + +<p>Which motion was adopted, and the Convention adjourned.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">31</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="SEVENTH_DAY" id="SEVENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">SEVENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Monday</span>, <i>February 11th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was called to order by the <span class="smcap">President</span>. Prayer was +offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Gurley</span>.</p> + +<p>After the reading and amendment of the Journal, Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>, from the +Committee on Resolutions, asked for further time to make a general +report of the matters submitted to them, which was given; and +thereupon Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>, from the same Committee, made the following +report upon the resolutions of a meeting in the State of Connecticut, +which were referred to that committee on motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The committee to whom were referred certain resolutions of +the Democratic party of the State of Connecticut, report +that in the opinion of the committee it is inexpedient for +this Convention to act upon any resolution purporting to +emanate from any political party whatever; and that the +member of the Convention by whom they were presented have +leave to withdraw the same.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I take this opportunity to announce to the Convention +that the Door-keeper of the House of Representatives has transmitted +to the Chair cards admitting members of this body on to the floor of +the House. These cards will be delivered by the Secretary to such +members as call for them.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I move that any propositions or resolutions which members +of this Convention desire to have considered by the Committee on +Resolutions and Propositions, may be presented to the committee +through the Secretary, without being presented in Convention.</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to, and on motion the Convention adjourned until +Wednesday the 13th instant, at 12 o'clock <span class="smcap">m.</span></p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">32</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="EIGHTH_DAY" id="EIGHTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">EIGHTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Wednesday</span>, <i>February 13th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was called to order by the <span class="smcap">President</span>, and prayer was +offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Edwards</span>. The Journal, after sundry amendments, was +approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—The Committee on Resolutions, &c., have labored +diligently, and held protracted sessions, in the hope of being able to +make their report to-day. This they find themselves unable to do. They +are fully impressed with the necessity of immediate action, in view of +the short time that will remain for Congress to consider the action of +this Convention, if it shall become necessary to submit any +proposition of this body to be acted upon by that. I have no doubt we +shall be able to report on Friday, and I ask that we may have until +that time to make a report.</p> + +<p>The request of Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> was acceded to.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The time has now arrived when, as one of the +Commissioners from the State of Virginia, I find it necessary to ask +the leave of the Convention to communicate to the Legislative +authorities of Virginia, and to her Convention now in session, the +state of the proceedings before this body, and the committee. I ask +for liberty to do so, and believe that a proper regard to the +instructions of the Legislature of the State under which my +appointment is made, requires that my request should be granted.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER offered the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Commissioners of any State represented +in this Convention, upon their joint application, have leave +to communicate to the Legislature, Governor, or Convention +of said State, the proceedings of this body, or so much +thereof as they may deem expedient.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The passage of this resolution is all I ask.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I move to amend the resolution by adding thereto: +"But not to communicate what has transpired in the committee, before +said committee has reported to the Convention."</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I do not deem the passage of the resolution at this +moment as very important. At the suggestion of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">33</a></span> several gentlemen, I +will move to lay it on the table, subject to be called up after +Friday.</p> + +<p>The Convention then adjourned to Friday at 12 o'clock.</p> + +<p>On the evening of February 13th, the members of the Conference were +informed of the death of Hon. <span class="smcap">John C. Wright</span>, of Ohio, who officiated +as temporary chairman previous to the permanent organization. In view +of the anxious desire of all the members to recognize their +appreciation of this act of Divine Providence, in removing from the +sphere of his earthly labors one of the most valued Commissioners in +attendance, President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span> was requested to summon a special meeting +of the Conference. In pursuance of his invitation, all the members +attended on the morning of February 14th, when the following +proceedings were had:</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><span class="smcap">Thursday, Washington City</span>, <i>February 14th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>The Convention met in special session, pursuant to the call of the +President.</p> + +<p>The proceedings were opened with prayer by the Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span>.</p> + +<p>The following letter from the Secretary, <span class="smcap">Crafts J. Wright</span>, was read, +and ordered to be entered upon the minutes:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<table style="float: right" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="letter"> +<tr><td class="center"><span class="smcap">Willard's Hotel</span>,</td><td rowspan="2"><span class="xxlg">}</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="right"><span class="smcap">Washington City</span>, <i>February 13th, 1861.</i></td></tr> +</table> + +<p><br /><br /><br /><i>Hon.</i> <span class="smcap">John Tyler</span>, <i>President of Conference Convention.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>:—I grieve to communicate to you the fact, that the +delegate from Ohio to this Conference Convention, the Hon. +<span class="smcap">John C. Wright</span>, departed this life this day, the 13th +February, at half-past one o'clock.</p> + +<p>Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span> came to this Convention with a heart filled +with fear for the safety of the Union. Though at an advanced +age and nearly blind, he was filled with an earnest desire +to add his efforts to that of others of the Convention +called by the State of Virginia, and seek to agree on some +measures honorable to each and all, to effect the object. +Since the arrival of my father in Washington, he has been +constant in his efforts to effect the end in view, and he +has had his heart cheered with the belief that the object +would be accomplished. Almost the last words that he uttered +were, that he believed the Union would be preserved. He +desired me to say, if the Union were preserved, he would die +content. He called me to read to him, at 12 o'clock, the +sections in the Constitution in regard to counting the +votes, and this request, and this reading, terminated his +knowledge on earth. In this desire of my father to do what +he could, he pressed me to accompany him<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">34</a></span> on account of his +blindness. Since the Convention honored me with the +appointment of Secretary, he required of me a promise that I +would not leave the position. When I read the section of the +Constitution to him, he required me then to leave him for +the Convention. Whatever my personal feelings may be, I deem +the pledge made sacred. I therefore ask that I may have +leave of absence, until I carry the remains home to Ohio, +and return to my duty.</p> + +<p class="center">Respectfully,</p> + +<p class="right">CRAFTS J. WRIGHT.</p> + +<p>P.S.—J. <span class="smcap">Henry Puleston</span> will act for me in my absence.</p></div> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> informed the Convention that the request of the +Secretary had been complied with. The <span class="smcap">President</span> asked what action the +Convention proposed to take on the subject for which they had been +specially assembled.</p> + +<p>The Hon. SALMON P. CHASE, of Ohio, then said:—Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, since we +assembled yesterday in this Hall, it has pleased God to remove one of +our number from all participation in the concerns of earth. It is my +painful duty to announce to the Convention that <span class="smcap">John C. Wright</span>, one of +the Commissioners from Ohio, is no more. Full of years, honored by the +confidence of the people, rich in large experience and ripened wisdom, +and devoted in all his affections and all his powers to his country, +and his whole country, he has been called from our midst at the very +moment when the prudence and patriotism of his counsels seemed most +needed. Such are the mysterious ways of Divine Providence. Judge +<span class="smcap">Wright</span> was born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, on the 10th of August, +1784. The death of his parents made him an orphan in infancy; and he +had little to depend upon in youth and early manhood, save his own +energies and God's blessing. He was married, while young, to a +daughter of Thomas Collier, of Litchfield, and for several years after +resided at Troy, New York. When about twenty-six years old he removed +to Steubenville, in Ohio, where he commenced the practice of the law, +and rapidly rose to distinction in the profession. In 1822 he was +elected a representative in Congress, where he became the associate +and friend of Clay and Webster, and proved himself, on many occasions, +worthy of their association and friendship.</p> + +<p>After serving several terms in Congress, he was elected a Judge of the +Supreme Court of Ohio, and, in 1834, removed from Steubenville to the +city of Cincinnati. Resigning his seat<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">35</a></span> soon afterwards, he resumed +the labors of the bar, and, ever zealous for the improvement and +elevation of the profession, established, in association with others, +the Cincinnati law school.</p> + +<p>In 1840, upon the dying request of <span class="smcap">Charles Hammond</span>, the veteran editor +of the "Cincinnati Gazette," Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span> assumed the editorial +control of that Journal, and retained that position until impaired +vision, in 1853, admonished him of the necessity of withdrawing from +labors too severe.</p> + +<p>Thenceforward engaged in moderate labors, surrounded by affectionate +relatives, enjoying the respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens, +and manifesting always the liveliest concern in whatever related to +the welfare and honor of his State and his country, he lived in +tranquil retirement, until called by the Governor of Ohio, with the +approbation of the Senate, to take part in the deliberations of this +Conference Convention.</p> + +<p>It was but a just tribute, sir, to his honored age, illustrated by +abilities, by virtues, and by services, that he was unanimously +selected as its temporary President. His interest in the great purpose +of our assembling was profound and earnest. His labors to promote an +auspicious result of its deliberations were active and constant. And +when fatal disease assailed his life, and his enfeebled powers yielded +to its virulence, his last utterances were of the Constitution and the +Union.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span> was my friend. His approval cheered and +encouraged my own humble labors in the service of the State. Pardon me +if I mingle private with public grief. He has gone from his last great +labor. He was not permitted to witness upon earth the result of the +mission upon which he and his associates, who here mourn his loss, +were sent. God grant that the clouds which now darken over us may +speedily disperse, and that through generous counsels and patriotic +labors, guided by that good Providence which directed our fathers in +its original formation, the Union of our States may be more than ever +firmly cemented and established.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I offer the following resolutions:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the death of our late venerable +colleague, the Hon. <span class="smcap">John C. Wright</span>, we mourn the loss to the +State of Ohio, and to the nation at large, of one of our +most sagacious statesmen and distinguished patriots; and to +the cause of Union and conciliation, one of its most +illustrious supporters.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">36</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we deplore with saddened hearts the +affliction with which an All-wise Providence has visited us, +we know that no transition from life to immortality could +have been more grateful to him who has fallen than this, in +which his life has been offered a willing sacrifice in an +effort to restore harmony to his distracted country.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the members of this Convention tender their +heartfelt sympathies to the family of the deceased in this +their great affliction.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That these resolutions be spread upon the +records of this body, and a copy of the same be transmitted +to the family of the deceased.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles A. Wickliffe</span>, of Kentucky, moved the adoption of the +resolutions, and said:</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I rise to tender my most cordial sanction and second to +the resolutions which have just been read.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wright</span> and myself entered the councils of this nation thirty-seven +years ago. We served together during a period when party excitement +ran high upon questions more of a personal than a constitutional +character. I can bear witness not only to his ability, but to his +personal integrity, and his purity of political action through our +term of service in the House of Representatives. I have seldom met him +since we separated at the termination of his service and mine in that +body, which occurred at pretty near the same period; but whenever I +have met him, I have found him the same stern advocate of the Union +and of constitutional liberty. I rejoiced, therefore, when I found him +in this hall on the day we first assembled here. I knew his +conservative disposition and principles, and I promised myself that +with his aid I could be more useful to my country and to my State than +without him. In conversing with him upon the difficulties which now +divide and distract our common country, I found him ready and willing, +conscientiously and patriotically, to do that which I thought that +portion of the country which I represent has a right to demand and +expect of those who represent a different portion of our Union. And if +my friend from Ohio (Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>) and his colleagues will permit me to +mingle my sorrow at the public loss, I will say nothing of the private +bereavement of the family of our deceased colleague. I leave him to +his country, and to you, with this testimony which I leave to his +memory, his honesty of purpose and his patriotic love of country.</p> + +<p>The Hon. A.W. <span class="smcap">Loomis</span>, of Pennsylvania, said:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">37</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I desire to mingle my sincere regrets with those of the +members of this assemblage at the sad and unexpected occurrence which +deprived us of an able, experienced, and patriotic associate. My +relations with the deceased were, for many years, probably more +intimate than those which existed between him and any other member of +this Convention. Forty years have elapsed since I first made his +acquaintance. He was then in full, active, and extensive practice; a +learned lawyer, an accomplished, skilful, and successful advocate. +During the succeeding year I came to the bar, and resided and +practiced in the same judicial circuit with our departed friend. For +many years the most kind and intimate relations existed between +us—sometimes colleagues, but usually opponents. So kind and genial +was his nature, so fair and liberal his practice, that during our +entire intercourse not an unkind word was uttered, and, so far as I +know or believe, not an unpleasant feeling existed in the bosom of +either.</p> + +<p>Though not gifted with the highest order of eloquence, he was clear, +distinct, and persuasive. His style of speaking resembled not the +babbling brook or the dashing cataract, but usually the limpid stream, +gliding gracefully amid fields and fruits and flowers, though +sometimes assuming the power and proportions of the majestic river, +cutting its sure and certain way to the mighty ocean.</p> + +<p>His professional position, his kindness of heart, and genial humor, +made him an object of high respect and warm regard among his +professional brethren. And now, sir, as memory passes in review the +pleasant incidents which marked our social and professional +intercourse, the smitten heart shrinks in sadness and sorrow from the +contemplation of our bereavement. He adorned, sir, the bar, the bench, +and the halls of Legislation. He discharged, in all the relations of +life, his obligations with fidelity. Of him it might be truly said:</p> + +<p class="cpoem"> +His life hath flowed a sacred stream, in whose calm depths<br /> +The beautiful and pure alone are mirrored;<br /> +Which, though shapes of ill may hover o'er the surface,<br /> +Glides in light, and takes no shadows from them.<br /> +</p> + +<p>But, sir, the great crowning virtue and glory of his life was his +acceptance of the mission which brought him here. Though<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">38</a></span> whitened by +the frosts of nearly eighty winters, neither lofty mountains nor +intervening space could restrain his patriotic heart from a prompt +response to the call of his country to mingle his influence in a +sincere and sacred effort to save the Constitution and perpetuate the +Union. He accepted the great trust; he mingled in our deliberations, +and has fallen in the discharge of his duty. He has justly earned a +title to the gratitude and respect of his country. May we not, sir, +fondly hope that he, who was called from the discharge of such duties +to the presence of his God, has passed from the sorrows of earth to +the happiness of Heaven, and to the full fruition of joys pure, +perfect, and eternal?</p> + +<p>The Hon. THOMAS EWING, of Ohio, said:—I rise to bear my tribute of +respect to the memory of the deceased. I have known him long. On my +first entrance into active life, at the bar, I found him an able and +distinguished member. Since that time down to the present day, he has +been largely associated, in mind and person, with all the acts and +progress, professional and political, of my life. I feel his loss +intensely; and I feel it with more regret, because I know that on this +occasion his voice would have been potential in our counsels, and +would have been united with all of us who labor most earnestly for the +preservation of the Union.</p> + +<p>I tender my sympathies to the family of the deceased. I unite with +them in their regrets and in their hopes of the happy future to which +he may have attained.</p> + +<p>The Hon. WILLIAM C. RIVES, of Virginia, said:—Though wholly +unprepared to say any thing worthy of the solemnity of this occasion, +I feel that I should be wanting, sir, in that sentiment of respect +which is due to the character of a distinguished citizen, if I were +not to add to what has been so eloquently spoken by others, a few +words of personal recollection in regard to our deceased friend Judge +<span class="smcap">Wright</span>. It so happened that we entered the public councils of the +country at the same moment, and continued in them for the same period +of time. It is now just thirty-seven years since I had the pleasure of +meeting Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span>, for the first time, in the House of +Representatives of the United States. I may be permitted to say, that +there were giants in those days. My honorable friend from Kentucky +(Gov<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">39</a></span>ernor <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>), who has already so feelingly addressed the +Convention, will recollect that on the roll of the House of +Representatives at that time stood the names of <span class="smcap">Webster</span> and <span class="smcap">Everett</span>, +of <span class="smcap">Oakley</span> and <span class="smcap">Storrs</span>, of <span class="smcap">Sargeant</span> and of <span class="smcap">Hemphill</span>, of <span class="smcap">Lewis McLane</span>, of +the immortal <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, and <span class="smcap">Barbour</span> and <span class="smcap">Randall</span>, and other gentlemen known +to fame from the State which I have the honor to represent in this +body, and <span class="smcap">Livingston</span> of Louisiana, <span class="smcap">McDuffie</span> and <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> of South +Carolina, and other gentlemen who, on the spur of the occasion, I am +not now able to recall, but whose names will forever shine upon the +rolls of their country's glory. And yet in that body Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span>, +then in the maturity of his powers, though not previously known to the +nation, vindicated an equal rank in debate with those gentlemen whose +names I have mentioned. Sir, I shall never forget with what +earnestness, with what manliness, with what integrity, with what +ability, he ever uttered his convictions of public duty, whatever they +were, in that consecrated hall.</p> + +<p>After remaining here, I think, for six years, he retired to his own +State for the purpose of assuming the duties of a highly-important and +dignified office, which was soon followed by his retirement into the +bosom of private life, where he met a rich and ample solace for the +storms of his public career. He was followed there by the respect of +his fellow-citizens throughout the country, and the confidence of his +own State, as we have recently seen, by his being called from that +honorable retirement to take part in the grave and solemn duties of +this assembly. Sir, he came among us in obedience to the solemn call +of patriotic duty, at a most exigent and distressing period in our +national annals. He came here on an errand of peace, in the spirit of +peace and conciliation. Such was the feeling entertained toward him by +the whole of this assembly, that without the slightest preconcert, so +far as I know, he was invited by general consent to preside during the +preliminary stages of the organization of this Convention. I had an +opportunity, from time to time, of private conversation with the aged +statesman. I found no member of the assembly I met here, and, indeed, +I have found nowhere any citizen of this wide Republic of ours, whose +heart was more deeply imbued with the spirit of conciliation and of +peace—of that spirit which was so solemnly and impressively uttered +in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">40</a></span> his last prayer, "May the Union be preserved." Sir, it is not +given to mortal man to choose the manner of his death; but if such +were the privilege accorded to any human being, what more glorious end +could he, appreciating a true fame, covet, than that which has been +the lot of our departed friend? Sir, I speak what I feel, and I dare +say I express a sentiment which has impressed itself upon many other +bosoms in this assembly, when I say that his sudden death in the midst +of our deliberations, seems to me to exalt—in some degree to +canonize—our labors. This manifestation of the visible hand of God +among us, brings us in the immediate presence of those solemn +responsibilities which attach themselves to the discharge of our +duties here. I doubt not that every member of this assembly is already +deeply impressed with the solemnity of those duties, and I feel +convinced that there are few, if any, in this assembly, who would not +lay down their fleeting and feverish existence, and follow our +deceased brother to his final account, if by doing so they could +restore peace and harmony to this glorious Republic of ours.</p> + +<p>It does not become me to make any professions of devotion to my +country—to my whole country—but this I will say, in the spirit of +the last prayer of my friend, that I should regard my poor life, such +as it is, a cheap purchase—the cheapest imaginable purchase—for that +great boon to our country, the restoration of its peace, of its +harmony, of its unity, of its ancient confederated strength and glory.</p> + +<p>The question was taken, and the resolutions were unanimously adopted.</p> + +<p>The body of Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span> was then brought into the hall, preceded by +Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span>, who read the impressive service of the Episcopal +Church. A number of the members of the family, and of the friends of +the deceased, were present during the services.</p> + +<p>The funeral cortege proceeded from the hall to the depot of the +Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen were designated to act as pall-bearers on the +occasion:</p> + +<div class="centered"> +<table style="width: 50%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="pallbearers"> +<tr><td>Mr. Ewing,</td><td>Mr. Chase,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Mr. Hitchcock,</td><td>Mr. Loomis,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">41</a></span></td></tr> +<tr><td>Mr. Backus,</td><td>Mr. Groesbeck,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Mr. Wolcott,</td><td>Mr. Stanton,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Mr. Sherman,</td><td>Mr. Harlan,</td></tr> +<tr><td>Mr. Vinton,</td><td>Mr. Gurley.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<p>The proceedings upon the death of Judge <span class="smcap">Wright</span> were, by the +Conference, ordered to be published, and the special session closed.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="NINTH_DAY" id="NINTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">NINTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Friday</span>, <i>February 15th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was called to order by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and prayer was +offered by Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Renner</span>. The Journals of the 13th and 14th were +read and approved.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I have this morning received several communications +from different persons, which will be laid before the Convention. One +is an invitation from <span class="smcap">Horatio Stone</span>, inviting the members of the +Convention to visit his studio; also, a resolution of the House of +Representatives, authorizing the admission of members of this +Convention to the floor of the House. Also, a letter from <span class="smcap">J.E. Sands</span>, +offering to the Convention certain flags which possess historical +interest, from the fact that they were used in the convention which +adopted the present Constitution of the United States. Also, a +communication from <span class="smcap">Horatio G. Warner</span>.</p> + +<p>The communications were severally read and laid upon the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I am instructed by the Committee on Credentials to +inform the Convention that the committee has received satisfactory +evidence of the appointment by the Executive of Ohio of <span class="smcap">C.P. Wolcott</span>, +as a delegate to this Convention, in the place of <span class="smcap">John C. Wright</span>, +deceased.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I desire to offer the following resolutions, which I ask to +have read for the information of the Convention. I have no purpose to +admit spectators to seats on this floor, but in my judgment it is the +right of the country to know what we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">42</a></span> are doing here. My constituents +will not be satisfied with my course, unless I take means to give the +public knowledge of all our transactions. I am aware that this is an +invasion of the rule already adopted, requiring secrecy, but in my +opinion no possible harm can come from the daily publication of our +debates. It is far better that true reports of these debates should be +made, than that the distorted and perverted accounts which we see +daily in the New York papers should be continued.</p> + +<p>The resolutions were read, and are as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That Rules Sixteen (16) and Eighteen (18) of +this Convention be, and the same hereby are, rescinded.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the President is hereby authorized to grant +cards of admission to reporters of the press, not exceeding +—— in number, which shall entitle them to seats on the +floor of the Convention, for the purpose of reporting its +proceedings.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That no person be admitted to the floor of the +Convention, except the members, officers, or reporters.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I do not wish to prolong this discussion myself, nor +to cause it to be prolonged by others. I am sure that if we permit our +debates to be reported, we shall never reach a conclusion which will +in the slightest degree benefit the country. Every member will in that +event wish to make a set speech, some of them three or four. I wish to +have our time used in consultation and in action, not consumed in +political speech-making. I do not care what the newspapers say of us. +I know their accounts are distorted; but they would be distorted if we +admitted reporters. Some of them assail us as a convention of +compromisers—as belonging to the sandstone stratum of politics.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—That is the formation which supports all others.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I know it, and I hope this Convention will prove to be +the stratum which supports and preserves the Union and the country. +Let us go on as we have begun, preserving secrecy; keeping our own +counsels; making no speeches for outside consumption or personal +reputation. Let us all keep steadily in mind the accomplishment of the +great and good purpose which brought us here, and nothing else.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—New Jersey does not wish to have time consumed in +making speeches. I think we should proceed at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">43</a></span> once to hear the report +of the committee. I move that the resolutions offered be laid upon the +table.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I suppose this motion cuts off debate. I should much have +preferred to discuss the resolutions. I hope the motion will not +prevail.</p> + +<p>The motion to lay on the table passed in the affirmative by a <i>viva +voce</i> vote.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—Is the General Committee upon Propositions prepared to +report? If it is, their report is now in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—That committee has given earnest and careful +consideration to the subjects and propositions which have from time to +time been presented to it. It has held numerous and protracted +sessions, and the differences of opinion naturally existing between +the members have been discussed in a spirit of candor and +conciliation. The committee have not been so fortunate as to arrive at +an unanimous conclusion. A majority of its members, however, have +agreed upon a report which we think ought to be satisfactory to all +sections of the Union, one which if adopted will, we believe, +accomplish the purpose so much desired by every patriotic citizen. We +think it will give peace to the country. In their behalf I have now +the honor to submit, for the consideration of the Conference, the +following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4>PROPOSALS OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION<br /> +OF THE UNITED STATES.</h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 1. In all the territory of the United States not +embraced within the limits of the Cherokee treaty grant, +north of a line from east to west on the parallel of 36 +degrees 30 minutes north latitude, involuntary servitude, +except in punishment of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall +be under a Territorial government; and in all the territory +south of said line, the status of persons owing service or +labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed by law while +such territory shall be under a Territorial government; and +neither Congress nor the Territorial government shall have +power to hinder or prevent the taking to said territory of +persons held to labor or involuntary service, within the +United States, according to the laws or usages of the State +from which such persons may be taken, nor to impair the +rights arising out of said relations, which shall be subject +to judicial cognizance in the federal courts, according to +the common law; and when any territory north or south of +said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, +shall contain a population required for a member of +Congress, according to the then federal ratio of +representation, it shall, if its form of government be +republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">44</a></span> +with the original States, with or without involuntary +service or labor, as the Constitution of such new State may +provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United +States, unless by treaty; nor, except for naval and +commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be +ratified by four-fifths of all members of the Senate.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 3. Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment +thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to +regulate, abolish, or control within any State or Territory +of the United States, the relation established or recognized +by the laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or +involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or +abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia +without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of +the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just +compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit +representatives and others from bringing with them to the +City of Washington, retaining, and taking away, persons so +bound to labor; nor the power to interfere with or abolish +involuntary service in places under the exclusive +jurisdiction of the United States within those States and +Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor +the power to prohibit the removal or transportation, by +land, sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary +service in any State or Territory of the United States to +any other State or Territory thereof where it is established +or recognized by law or usage; and the right during +transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings, +and of landing in case of distress, shall exist. Nor shall +Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation +on persons bound to labor than on land.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the +fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to +prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and +through the action of their judicial and ministerial +officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from +labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 5. The foreign slave-trade and the importation of +slaves into the United States and their Territories, from +places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever +prohibited.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 6. The first, second, third, and fifth articles, +together with this article of these amendments, and the +third paragraph of the second section of the first article +of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second +section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended +or abolished without the consent of all the States.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United +States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive +from labor, in all cases where the marshal or other officer, +whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented +from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after +arrest,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">45</a></span> such fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner +thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his +remedy for the recovery of such fugitive.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I have not been able to concur in opinion with those +members of the committee who have presented the propositions just +submitted. I do not deem them fair or equitable to the Free States, +nor do I think they are likely to secure approval in those States. As +one member of the minority, I have drawn up a report embodying my own +views and perhaps those of some of my colleagues, which I now present +for the consideration of the Conference:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4>MR. BALDWIN'S MINORITY REPORT.</h4> + +<p>The undersigned, one of the minority of the committee of one +from each State, to whom was referred the consideration of +the resolutions of the State of Virginia, and the other +States represented, and all propositions for the adjustment +of existing differences between the States, with authority +to report what they deem right, necessary, and proper to +restore harmony and preserve the Union, and report thereon, +entered upon the duties of the committee with an anxious +desire that they might be able to unite in the +recommendation of some plan which, on due deliberation, +should seem best adapted to maintain the dignity and +authority of the Government of the United States, and at the +same time secure to the people of every section that perfect +equality of right to which they are entitled.</p> + +<p>Convened, as we are, on the invitation of the Governor of +Virginia, in pursuance of the resolutions of the General +Assembly of that State, with an accompanying expression of +the deliberate opinion of that body that, unless the unhappy +controversy which now divides the States shall be +satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the +Union is inevitable; and, being earnestly desirous of an +adjustment thereof, in concurrence with Virginia, in the +spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and +consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the +people of all the States adequate security for all their +rights, the attention of the undersigned was necessarily led +to the consideration of the extent and equality of our +powers, and to the propriety and expediency, under existing +circumstances, of a recommendation by this Conference +Convention of any specific action by Congress, whether of +ordinary legislation, or in reference to constitutional +amendments to be proposed by Congress on its own +responsibility to the States.</p> + +<p>A portion of the members of this Convention are delegated by +the Legislatures of their respective States, and are +required to act under their supervision and control, while +others are the representatives only of the Executives of +their States, and, having no opportunity of consulting the +immediate representatives of the people, can only act on +their individual responsibility.</p> + +<p>Among the resolutions and propositions suggesting modes of +adjustment appropriate to this occasion which were brought +to the notice of the com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">46</a></span>mittee, were the resolutions of the +State of Kentucky recommending to her sister States to unite +with her in an application to Congress for the calling of a +Convention in the mode prescribed by the Constitution for +proposing amendments thereto.</p> + +<p>The undersigned, for the reasons set forth in the +accompanying resolution, and others which have been herein +indicated, is of opinion that the mode of adjustment by a +General Convention, as proposed by Kentucky, is the one +which affords the best assurance of an adjustment acceptable +to the people of every section, as it will afford to all the +States which may desire amendments, an opportunity of +preparing them with care and deliberation, and in such form +as they may deem it expedient to prescribe, to be submitted +to the consideration and deliberate action of delegates duly +chosen and invested with equal powers from all the States.</p> + +<p>The undersigned did not, therefore, deem it expedient that +any of the measures of adjustment proposed by the majority +of the committee, should be reported to this body to be +discussed or acted upon by them, and he respectfully submits +as a substitute for the articles of amendment to the +Constitution, reported by the majority of the committee, the +following preamble and resolution, and respectfully +recommends the adoption thereof.</p> + +<p class="right">ROGER S. BALDWIN.</p> + +<p><i>Whereas</i>, unhappy differences exist which have alienated +from each other portions of the people of the United States +to such an extent as seriously to disturb the peace of the +nation, and impair the regular and efficient action of the +Government within the sphere of its constitutional powers +and duties;</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, the Legislature of the State of Kentucky has +made application to Congress to call a Convention for +proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United +States;</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, it is believed to be the opinion of the +people of other States that amendments to the Constitution +are or may become necessary to secure to the people of the +United States, of every section, the full and equal +enjoyment of their rights and liberties, so far as the same +may depend for their security and protection on the powers +granted to or withheld from the General Government, in +pursuance of the national purposes for which it was ordained +and established;</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, it may be expedient that such amendments as +any of the States may desire to have proposed, should be +presented to the Convention in such form as the respective +States desiring the same may deem proper;</p> + +<p>This Convention does, therefore, recommend to the several +States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress +to call a convention for proposing amendments to the +Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the +Legislatures of the several States, or to conventions +therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of +ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with +the provision in the fifth article of the Constitution.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">47</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I do not concur in the conclusions to which the majority +of the committee have arrived. I may say that I wholly dissent from +them. I have not deemed it necessary to make a separate report. At a +suitable time I shall endeavor to make known to the Conference my +views upon the topics which have occupied the attention of the +committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:—I occupy substantially the same position as Mr. +<span class="smcap">Field</span>, and shall make my views known at a proper time.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The report presented by the majority, I think, is a wide +departure from the course we should have adopted. Virginia has +prepared and presented a plan, and has invited this Conference to +consider it. I think we ought to take up her propositions, amend and +perfect them, if need be, and then adopt or reject them. To avoid all +misconstruction as to my individual opinions or position, I have +reduced my views to writing, which, with the leave of the Conference, +I will now read.</p> + +<p>No objection being made, Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> proceeded to read the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4>REPORT OF MR. SEDDON.</h4> + +<p>The undersigned, acting on the recommendation of the +Commissioners from the State of Virginia, as a member of the +committee appointed by this Convention to consider and +recommend propositions of adjustment, has not been so happy +as to accord with the report submitted by the majority; and +as he more widely dissents from the opinions entertained by +the other dissenting members, he feels constrained, in +vindication of his position and opinions, to present on his +part this brief report, recommending, as a substitute for +the report of the majority, a proposition subjoined. To this +course he feels the more impelled, by deference to the +resolutions of the General Assembly of his State, inviting +the assemblage of this Convention, and suggesting a basis of +adjustment.</p> + +<p>These resolutions declare, that "in the opinion of the +General Assembly of Virginia the propositions embraced in +the resolutions presented to the Senate of the United States +by the Hon. <span class="smcap">John J. Crittenden</span>, so modified as that the +first article proposed as an amendment to the Constitution +of the United States shall apply to all the territory of the +United States now held or hereafter acquired south of +latitude 36° 30´, and provided that slavery of the African +race shall be effectually protected as property therein +during the continuance of the territorial government, and +the fourth article shall secure to the owners of slaves the +right of transit with their slaves between and through the +non-slaveholding States or Territories, constitute the basis +of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which now +divides the States<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">48</a></span> of this Confederacy, as would be +accepted by the people of this Commonwealth."</p> + +<p>From this resolution, it is clear that the General Assembly, +in its declared opinion of what would be acceptable to the +people of Virginia, not only required the Crittenden +propositions as a basis, but also held the modifications +suggested in addition essential. In this the undersigned +fully concurs. But, in his opinion, the propositions +reported by the majority do not give, but materially weaken +the Crittenden propositions themselves, and fail to accord +the modifications suggested. The undersigned therefore, +feels it his duty to submit and recommend, as a substitute, +the resolutions referred to, as proposed by the Hon. <span class="smcap">John J. +Crittenden</span>, with the incorporation of the modifications +suggested by Virginia explicitly expressed, and with some +alterations on points which, he is assured, would make them +more acceptable to that State, and, as he hopes, to the +whole Union. The propositions submitted are appended, marked +No. 1.</p> + +<p>The undersigned, while contenting himself, in the spirit of +the action taken by the General Assembly of his State, with +the proposal of that substitute for the majority report, +would be untrue to his own convictions, shared, as he +believes, by the majority of the commissioners from +Virginia, and to his sense of duty, if he did not +emphatically declare, as his settled and deliberate +judgment, that for permanent safety in this Union, to the +slaveholding States, and the restoration of integrity to the +Union and harmony and peace to the country, a guarantee of +actual power in the Constitution and in the working of the +Government to the slaveholding and minority section is +<i>indispensable</i>. How such guarantee might be most wisely +contrived and judiciously adjusted to the frame of the +Government, the undersigned forbears now to inquire. He is +not exclusively addicted to any special plan, but believing +that such guarantee might be adequately afforded by a +partition of power in the Senate between the two sections, +and by a recognition that <i>ours</i> is a Union of freedom and +consent, not constraint and force, he respectfully submits, +for consideration by members of the Convention, the plan +hereto appended, marked No. 2.</p> + +<p>Whether he shall feel bound to invoke the action of the +Convention upon it, may depend on the future manifestations +of sentiment in this body.</p> + +<p>All which is respectfully submitted,</p> + +<p class="right">JAMES A. SEDDON.<br /> +<i>Commissioner from Virginia.</i></p> + +<p><i>February 15th, 1861.</i></p> +</div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4>No. 1.<br /> +<br /> +<i>Joint Resolutions proposing certain amendments to the Constitution<br /> +of the United States.</i></h4> + +<p><i>Whereas</i>, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen +between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the +rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding +States, and especially their rights in the common territory +of the United States; and <i>whereas</i>, it is eminently +desirable and proper that those<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">49</a></span> dissensions, which now +threaten the very existence of this Union, should be +permanently quieted and settled by constitutional +provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, +and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will +which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the +United States: Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, by this Convention, that the following articles +are hereby approved and submitted to the Congress of the +United States, with the request that they may, by the +requisite constitutional majority of two-thirds, be +recommended to the respective States of the Union, to be, +when ratified by Conventions of three-fourths of the States, +valid and operative as amendments of the Constitution of the +Union.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 1. In all the territory of the United States, now +held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude +thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, slavery or +involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is +prohibited, while such territory shall remain under +territorial government. In all the territory south of said +line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby +recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by +Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the +departments of the territorial government during its +continuance; and, when any territory, north or south of said +line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, +shall contain the population requisite for a member of +Congress, according to the then federal ratio of +representation of the people of the United States, it shall, +if its form of government be republican, be admitted into +the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with +or without slavery, as the Constitution of such new State +may provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 2. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery +in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate +within the limits of States that permit the holding of +slaves.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery +within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the +adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor +without the consent of the free white inhabitants, nor +without just compensation first made to such owners of +slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall +Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal +Government, or members of Congress, whose duties require +them to be in said District, from bringing with them their +slaves, and holding them as such during the time their +duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards +taking them from the District.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 4. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or +hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to +another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law +permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by +land, navigable rivers, or by the sea. And if such +transportation be by sea, the slaves shall be protected as +property by the Federal Government. And the right of transit +by the owners with their slaves, in passing to or from one +slaveholding State or Territory to another, between and +through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, shall +be protected. And in imposing direct taxes pursuant to the +Constitution, Congress shall have no power to impose on +slaves a higher rate of tax than on land, according to their +just value.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">50</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 5. That, in addition to the provisions of the third +paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the +Constitution of the United States, Congress shall provide by +law, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall +apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in all +cases, when the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was +to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by +violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said +fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby +prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for +the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of +the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And +in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such +fugitive, they shall reimburse themselves by imposing and +collecting a tax on the county or city in which said +violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, equal in +amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition of +interest and the costs of collection; and the said county or +city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, +may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the +wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was prevented +from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as +the owner himself might have sued and recovered.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 6. No future amendment of the Constitution shall +affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph +of the second section of the first article of the +Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section +of the fourth article of said Constitution, and no amendment +shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or +give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with +slavery in any of the States, by whose laws it is or may be +allowed or permitted.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 7, Sec. 1. The elective franchise and the right to +hold office, whether federal, State, territorial, or +municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in +whole or in part, of the African race.</p> + +<p>And <i>whereas</i>, also, besides those causes of dissension +embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the +Constitution of the United States, there are others which +come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be +remedied by its legislative power: and <i>whereas</i> it is the +desire of this Convention, as far its influence may extend, +to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and +agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and +threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore,</p> + +<p>1. <i>Resolved</i>, That the laws now in force for the recovery +of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and +mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been +sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of +the Supreme Court of the United States; that the +slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance +and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be +repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their +efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the +punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or +other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution +of said laws.</p> + +<p>2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive +slave acts, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or +which in their operation impede,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">51</a></span> hinder, or delay the free +course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and +void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the +United States. Yet those State laws, void as they are, have +given color to practices, and led to consequences which have +obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of +Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of +fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the +discord and commotion now prevailing. This Convention, +therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem +it improper, respectfully and earnestly to recommend the +repeal of those laws to the several States which have +enacted them, or such legislative corrections or +explanations of them as may prevent their being used or +perverted to such mischievous purposes.</p> + +<p>3. That the act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly +called the Fugitive Slave Law, ought to be so amended as to +make the fee of the Commissioner, mentioned in the eighth +section of the act, equal in amount, in the cases decided by +him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the +claimant. And to avoid misconstructions, the last clause of +the fifth section, of said act, which authorizes the person +holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive +slave, to summon to his aid the <i>posse comitatus</i>, and which +declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist +him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly +limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall +be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue.</p> + +<p>4. That the laws for the suppression of the African +slave-trade, and especially those prohibiting the +importation of slaves into the United States, ought to be +made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed, and all +further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be +promptly made.</p> + + +<h4>No. 2.<br /> +<br /> +<i>Proposed Amendments by Mr. Seddon.</i></h4> + +<p>To secure concert and promote harmony between the +slaveholding and non-slaveholding sections of the Union, the +assent of the majority of the Senators from the slaveholding +States, and of the majority of the Senators from the +non-slaveholding States, shall be requisite to the validity +of all action of the Senate, on which the ayes and noes may +be called by five Senators.</p> + +<p>And on a written declaration, signed and presented for +record on the Journal of the Senate by a majority of +Senators from either the non-slaveholding or slaveholding +States, of their want of confidence in any officer or +appointee of the Executive, exercising functions exclusively +or continuously within the class of States, or any of them, +which the signers represent, then such officer shall be +removed by the Executive; and if not removed at the +expiration of ten days from the presentation of such +declaration, the office shall be deemed vacant and open to +new appointment.</p> + +<p>The connection of every State with the Union is recognized +as depending on the continuing assent of its people, and +compulsion shall in no case, nor under any form, be +attempted by the Government of the Union against a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">52</a></span> State +acting in its collective or organic capacity. Any State, by +the action of a convention of its people, assembled pursuant +to a law of its Legislature, is held entitled to dissolve +its relation to the Federal Government, and withdraw from +the Union; and, on due notice given of such withdrawal to +the Executive of the Union, he shall appoint two +Commissioners, to meet two Commissioners to be appointed by +the Governor of the State, who, with the aid, if needed from +the disagreement of the Commissioners, of an umpire, to be +selected by a majority of them, shall equitably adjudicate +and determine finally a partition of the rights and +obligations of the withdrawing State; and such adjudication +and partition being accomplished, the withdrawal of such +State shall be recognized by the Executive, and announced by +public proclamation to the world.</p> + +<p>But such withdrawing State shall not afterwards be +readmitted into the Union without the assent of two-thirds +of the States constituting the Union at the time of the +proposed readmission.</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—It is proper that I should say a word in relation to the +position of Missouri in this Conference. It is expressly referred to +in the resolution under which we hold our appointment, passed by the +Senate and House of Representatives. It is believed by the people of +Missouri that the rights and privileges of the slaveholding States are +in danger, and that the time has arrived when they should be secured +by additional guarantees. Those guarantees must be such as will secure +the honor and equal rights of the slaveholding States.</p> + +<p>I wish to say, further, that we, as Commissioners, must act at all +times under the control of the General Assembly or the State +Convention of our State. Before we can act definitely upon either of +the propositions submitted, I think it will be our duty to transmit +them to the General Assembly for instructions.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—The several reports are now before the Conference. I +presume it will be the desire of every member to give them a careful +examination. In order to prevent all unnecessary delay, I move that +the several reports be laid upon the table, that they be printed at +once and distributed to the members, and made the special order of the +Conference for 12 o'clock to-morrow.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I have drawn up a preamble and a resolution which I +wish to offer for the consideration of the Conference. I shall not +press action upon them to-day, but desire to have them laid on the +table and printed. I shall call them up<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">53</a></span> after the report of the +General Committee is disposed of. It would gratify me much, and I +think greatly tend to the peace and harmony of the country, if they +could be adopted at once, and published. It is well known to most of +you that there is nothing in all the legislation or action of the Free +States, which has created so much excitement and alarm among the +people of the slaveholding States, as the passage of the so called +"personal liberty" acts. They are regarded as deliberate infractions +and breaches of the Constitution, and as attempts to nullify the +operation of a constitutional enactment of Congress. But I do not wish +to invite discussion upon the subject now; I hope my motion will not +meet with objection.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> was adopted, and the preamble and +resolution were presented as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4>MR. WICKLIFFE'S PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION.</h4> + +<p><i>Whereas</i>, the second section of the fourth article of the +Constitution of the United States declares, "that no person +held to service or labor in one State, under the laws +thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any +law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service +or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to +whom such service or labor may be due."</p> + +<p>This clause is one of the compromises without which no +Constitution would have been adopted. It was a guarantee to +the States in which such labor and service existed by law, +that their rights should be respected and regarded by all +the States; and it is not within the competency of any State +to disregard the obligation it imposes, or to render it +valueless by legislative enactments. And <i>whereas</i>, the +House of Representatives of the United States did, on the +—— day of February, by unanimous vote, declare that +neither the Congress of the United States nor the people or +government of any non-slaveholding State, has the +constitutional right to legislate upon, or to interfere with +slavery in any slaveholding State in the Union.</p> + +<p>This declaration is regarded by this Convention as an +admission that the statutes of those States, passed for the +purpose of defeating the provision of the Constitution +aforesaid, and the laws of Congress made to enforce the just +and proper execution of this constitutional guarantee, are +in violation of the supreme law of the land.</p> + +<p>The provisions of the statutes in many of the +non-slaveholding States, commonly known and called "personal +liberty bills," amount in their consequences to a practical +nullification of the acts of Congress of February 12th, +1793, and September 18th, 1850, and are in violation of the +second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, as +before stated. That the spirit of those statutes appears to +be repugnant to the principles of compromise and mutual and +liberal concessions which dictated the section of the +Constitution<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">54</a></span> in question, and which pervades every part of +that instrument. It is, therefore, respectfully requested by +this Convention that the several States abrogate all such +obnoxious enactments.</p> + +<p>That the spirit of comity between the States, and the spirit +of unity and fraternity which should actuate all the people +of these United States, require that complete right and +security of transit with all persons who owe them service or +labor should be allowed to the citizens of each State by the +laws of every other State.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That a copy of the foregoing be sent by the +President of this Convention to the Governors of each of the +free States, as the deliberate judgment and opinion of this +Convention, and that he request the same be laid before +their respective Legislatures.</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I move that all the resolutions, of the States, under +which Commissioners have been appointed, or relating to subjects to +come before this Conference, be printed. I think this course +convenient and necessary, and one reason that I may assign is this: +The opinion of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, as expressed in +one of the resolutions adopted by that body, is, that it would have +been wiser and better if the time for holding this Conference had been +deferred until a later period. Ohio has expressly said in her +resolutions that she is not prepared to assent to the terms of +settlement proposed by Virginia, and has expressed the opinion that +the Constitution as it now stands, if fairly interpreted and obeyed, +contains ample provision for the correction of all the evils which are +claimed to exist. Nevertheless she is willing to meet in a friendly +spirit and consult with her sister States. But the opinion extensively +prevails that this Conference ought not to have been called upon so +short a notice and before the inauguration of the incoming +administration. We, the Commissioners from that State, are instructed +in the resolutions, to which I have referred, to use our influence to +procure an adjournment of this Conference, before final action is +taken, to the 4th of April next. I shall feel it my duty, at some +future time, to make a motion to that effect. The extent to which I +shall urge its adoption will depend in some measure upon the course of +events and the opinions of my colleagues. In the mean time I wish to +see all the resolutions printed.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> was agreed to. The resolutions as printed will +be found in the <a href="#APPENDIX">appendix</a>.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts:—Before the adjournment to-day I desire +to know what will be the order of business when<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">55</a></span> these various reports +come up for discussion. By the general rules governing parliamentary +proceedings, to which I suppose we are subject, I understand the first +question will be upon the substitution of the minority report +presented by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>) for the +report of the majority; and that, upon that question, amendments may +be offered, and either accepted or rejected, both to the reports of +the majority and the minority. I think it would be well to have this +matter understood. Am I right in this?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Chair understands that the gentleman from +Massachusetts has correctly pointed out the manner of proceeding.</p> + +<p>On motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span>, the Conference then adjourned until 12 +o'clock to-morrow.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">56</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="TENTH_DAY" id="TENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">TENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Saturday</span>, <i>February 16th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by the <span class="smcap">President</span> at 12 o'clock <span class="smcap">m</span>.</p> + +<p>Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Sunderland</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal was read by the Assistant Secretary, Mr. <span class="smcap">Puleston</span>, and, +being corrected, was approved.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I have received a communication from Mr. <span class="smcap">W.C. Jewett</span>, +which I am requested to lay before the Conference. Should any member +desire to have it read, it will be presented upon motion. I am not +inclined to occupy the time of the Conference by reading it, unless +some member specially requests that it be read.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Let it be laid on the table without reading.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—That disposition will be made of it.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I am instructed, by the Committee on Rules and +Organization, to propose an amendment to the Eleventh Rule which has +been adopted. As the Rule now stands, no appeal is allowed from the +decision of the Chair upon questions of order. It is not probable that +either the Chair or the Conference would wish to be bound in that way. +The purpose of the resolution is to assimilate the Rule in this +respect to the practice in parliamentary bodies, and to allow an +appeal from the decision of the Chair to the Conference itself. I +offer the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Eleventh Rule of this Convention be so +amended as to allow an appeal from the decision of the +<span class="smcap">President</span>, which appeal shall be decided without debate."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">57</a></span></p> + +<p>On the passage of this resolution a division was called for, and upon +a count by the Secretaries, the <span class="smcap">President</span> declared it adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I now offer another resolution—the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That in the discussions which may take place in +this Convention, no member shall be allowed to speak longer +than thirty minutes."</p></div> + +<p>We must all by this time be impressed with the necessity of prompt, +immediate, and efficient action. I do not charge any member of the +body with any purpose unnecessarily to consume the time of the +Convention in making speeches. I have no reason to believe that any +such purpose exists. But the present Congress is rapidly drawing to a +close. If any plan is adopted it will be nugatory, unless recommended +by Congress. If we are to sit here until each member of the Conference +has spoken upon each question presented, as many times and as long as +he pleases, I fear the Congress will close its labors before we do +ours.</p> + +<p>Mr. DAVIS:—I think thirty minutes quite too long. Our opinions are +formed. Before this time probably every member has determined his +course of action, and it will not be changed by debate. I move to +strike out the word "thirty," and insert the word "ten."</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I am altogether opposed to this attempt in advance to +cut off or limit debate. I am sure it cannot meet with favor from the +Conference, for reasons so obvious that I will not occupy time in +stating them. I move to lay the resolution on the table.</p> + +<p>Several gentlemen here interposed and appealed to Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span> to +withdraw his motion, as it would cut off all debate upon the merits of +the resolution. Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span> accordingly withdrew it.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—We have one rule already which prohibits any member from +speaking more than twice upon any question without special leave, and +a member cannot speak a second time until every other, who desires to +speak, has spoken. This was the rule, I believe, in the Convention +that formed our present Constitution, and no one complained of its +operation there. I am as much<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">58</a></span> impressed with the necessity of +expediting our action as any one can be, and should be among the last +to protract our sessions. But this resolution looks too much like +suppressing discussion—like cutting off debate. I desire at the +proper time to be heard upon the report which I have submitted. It +will be impossible to discuss the grave questions involved in it in +the space of a brief half hour.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I hope Governor <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> will consent to a postponement +of his resolution for the present. It is anticipating a necessity that +may not arise. As yet no one has abused the privileges of debate. It +is not well to assume in advance that any one will do so.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I have no wish to press this resolution upon the +Convention, and it may be as well to postpone it for the present. I +will move its postponement until Tuesday morning next.</p> + +<p>The motion to postpone was unanimously agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I move that the hour of meeting hereafter be ten +o'clock in the morning.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:—I am sure that we shall all agree that this +hour is quite too early. I wish to make all reasonable progress, but I +think we shall find it difficult to secure a quorum at that hour. I +move to amend by inserting <i>eleven</i> o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I think we had better let the hour of meeting remain where +our rules leave it. We shall find our labors severe enough if we +commence at twelve o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I will accept the amendment of my colleague. Let the +time of meeting be eleven o'clock.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Crisfield</span> as amended was agreed to without a +division.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I have a motion which I desire to make, and as I do not +wish to press it to a vote at the present time, I will move to lay it +on the table. But I wish to have it before the Conference. It is +apparent to me that we ought to pass it at some time, in order to give +members who may belong to delegations in which differences of opinion +exist, an opportunity of appearing on the record as they personally +wish to vote. I move to amend the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">59</a></span> first rule by inserting after the +word "representing," the words, "The yeas and nays of the delegates +from each State, on any question, shall be entered on the Journal when +it is desired by any delegate."</p> + +<p>On motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, the amendment was laid upon the table.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the order of the +day, the question being upon the several reports presented by the +General Committee of one from each State.</p> + +<p>The chair was taken, at the request of the <span class="smcap">President</span>, by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Alexander</span>, of New Jersey.</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I move to substitute the report presented by myself for +the report of the majority of the Committee. I will consent to strike +out that part of it which relates to—</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—Before the gentleman from Connecticut proceeds with his +argument I trust he will give way for the introduction of a +resolution. I am sure the time has come when we ought to pass such a +resolution as I now offer. I am unwilling to sit here longer unless +some means are taken to secure a report of our proceedings.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—A resolution is not now in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I ask that the resolution may be read for the information +of the Conference, and also ask the leave of the Conference for its +introduction.</p> + +<p>The resolution was read. It provided for the appointment of a +stenographer.</p> + +<p>The question was taken, and upon a division the leave to introduce it +was refused.</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I rise for the purpose of supporting my motion to +substitute the report presented by myself for that presented by the +majority of the committee. As I was about to remark, when the +resolution just disposed of was introduced, I will consent to strike +out all that portion of my report which precedes the words "whereas +unhappy differences," &c., in order that the substitute offered may +conform more nearly in substance to the proposition of the majority. +It seems desirable on all hands that whatever we adopt here should be +presented to Congress; and if<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">60</a></span> it receives the sanction of that body, +should be by it presented to the States for their approval. My report +when thus amended will be in a proper form for such a disposition.</p> + +<p>My report, it will be noticed, is based mainly upon the action of the +Legislature of Kentucky. I have adopted those resolutions of Kentucky +as the basis of my recommendation, on account of the short time which +remains for any action at all, and because it appears to me that the +kind of proceeding indicated in them is best calculated to meet with +favor in the States which must approve any action taken here before it +can be made effectual.</p> + +<p>The resolutions of Virginia, under which this Convention is called, +were adopted on the 19th of January last. The resolutions of Kentucky +to which I have referred were adopted on the 25th of the same month. +It is not only the necessary presumption that the latter were passed +with a full knowledge of the action of Virginia, but I understand from +their reading that they were adopted in consequence of the proposition +of the latter State. I am disposed to favor the line of policy +initiated in the resolutions of the State of Kentucky.</p> + +<p>There are two ways of presenting amendments to the Constitution +provided in that instrument. By the first, by Congress whenever +two-thirds of both Houses shall deem such amendments necessary: or by +the second, the same body, upon the application of the Legislatures of +two-thirds of the States, may call a convention for the purpose of +proposing amendments. These two are the <i>only</i> modes in which, under +that instrument, amendments can be proposed to the Constitution. +Either of these is adequate, and it was the manifest intention of its +framers to secure due consideration of any changes which might be +proposed to the fundamental law of our Government.</p> + +<p>It is conceded on all hands that our action here will amount to +nothing, unless it meets the approval of Congress, and such proposals +of amendment as we shall agree upon are recommended by that body to +the States for adoption. The session of the present Congress is +drawing to a close. There remain only fifteen or sixteen days during +which it can transact business. Can any one suppose that in the +present state of the country, with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">61</a></span> the large number of important +measures before Congress and awaiting its action, any proposition of +real importance emanating from this Conference could be properly +considered by either House in this short time? I am assuming just now +that this is a Convention which has the right, under the Constitution +or by precedent, to make such propositions. But if we do not remember, +most certainly Congress will, that however respectable this body may +be, however large may be the constituency which it represents, it is, +after all, one which has no existence under, and is not recognized by +the Constitution. In a recent speech in the Senate, Judge <span class="smcap">Collamer</span>, of +Vermont, one of the ablest lawyers in that body, has more than +intimated a doubt whether Congress could, under the Constitution, +entertain proposals of amendment presented to it by such a body as +this. But, waiving all technicalities, the substantial objection which +influences my mind is, that the course of action proposed by the +majority of the committee is contrary to the spirit of the +Constitution. When the people adopted that instrument and subjected +themselves to its operation, they intended and had a right to +understand that it should be amended only in the manner provided by +the Constitution itself. They did not intend that amendments should be +proposed under, or the existence of the Constitution endangered by any +extraneous pressure whatever. They wisely provided a way in which +amendments might be proposed, or rather two ways. Under either of +them, due examination and consideration was secured. They would not +have consented to any other way of proposing amendments. The General +Government, on the adoption of the Constitution, for all national +purposes, took the place of the State Governments. The people of the +United States from that time, in the language of a distinguished +Senator from Kentucky, owed a paramount allegiance to the General +Government, and a subordinate allegiance only to the State +Governments. Changes in the Constitution, then, can only be <i>properly</i> +made in the manner provided by the Constitution. Propositions for +changes in it must come from the people, or their representatives in +Congress. Any attempt to coerce Congress, or to influence its action +in a manner not provided by the Constitution, is a disregard of the +rights of the people.</p> + +<p>Why are we assembled here to urge these amendments upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">62</a></span> Congress? to +induce Congress to recommend them to the people for adoption? Are we +the representatives of the people of the United States? Are we acting +for them, and as their authorized agents, in this endeavor to press +amendments upon the attention of Congress? Because, if our action is +to have any effect at all, it must be to induce Congress to conform to +our wishes—to propose the very amendments which we prepare.</p> + +<p>The members of the House of Representatives were elected by the +people. They were selected to perform, and they do perform, their +duties and functions under the obligations of their official oaths. +There is no question about their agency, or their right to act in the +premises. The Constitution makes them the agents of the people. The +Legislature of the State of Kentucky, well understanding and +appreciating the only true method in which constitutional amendments +should be proposed, with all the formality of a legislative act +approved by the Executive of that State, has applied to Congress for +the call of a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution +of the United States, and has requested the President to lay those +resolutions immediately before Congress. She wishes other States to +unite with her in the preparing and proposing of amendments to the +Constitution. This is the correct, the legal, the patriotic course. +This was what Kentucky had the right to ask, and this is all she has +asked.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span> here read the Kentucky resolutions, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4><i>Resolutions recommending a call for a Convention of the +United States.</i></h4> + +<p><i>Whereas</i>, The people of some of the States feel themselves +deeply aggrieved by the policy and measures which have been +adopted by some of the people of the other States; and +<i>whereas</i> an amendment of the Constitution of the United +States is deemed indispensably necessary to secure them +against similar grievances in the future: Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of +Kentucky, that application to Congress to call a Convention +for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United +States, pursuant to the fifth article thereof, be, and the +same is hereby, now made by this General Assembly of +Kentucky; and we hereby invite our sister States to unite +with us, without delay, in a similar application to +Congress.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor of this State forthwith +communicate the foregoing resolution to the President of the +United States, with the request<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">63</a></span> that he immediately place +the same before Congress and the Executives of the several +States, with a request that they lay them before their +respective Legislatures.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, If the Convention be called in accordance with +the provisions of the foregoing resolutions, the Legislature +of the Commonwealth of Kentucky suggest for the +consideration of that Convention, as a basis for settling +existing difficulties, the adoption, by way of amendments to +the Constitution, of the resolutions offered in the Senate +of the United States by the Hon. <span class="smcap">John J. Crittenden</span>.</p> + +<p class="right">DAVID MERIWETHER,<br /> +<i>Speaker of the House of Representatives.</i></p> + +<p class="right">THOMAS P. PORTER,<br /> +<i>Speaker of the Senate.</i></p> + +<p>Approved January 25, 1861.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em">B. MAGOFFIN.</span></p> + +<p>By the Governor:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em">THOMAS B. MONROE, <span class="smcap">Jr.</span>,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em"><i>Secretary of State.</i></span></p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN continued:—Now, what are we asked to do by the majority +of the committee? It is not to unite with Kentucky or to accede to her +wishes for a convention of the States, under the Constitution, but to +thwart the wishes of Kentucky, and to induce Congress itself to +originate and propose amendments, or to propose those which we may +originate. Kentucky asks that the people of the States themselves +might elect delegates to a convention, who should carefully consider +the whole subject. The Kentucky resolutions were transmitted to the +President, who sent them to Congress, as he said, with great pleasure. +Kentucky stated that she was in favor of the so-called Crittenden +resolutions, but she did not request Congress to propose them as +amendments to the Constitution.</p> + +<p>How is this body constituted? Do we, its members, represent the people +of the several States? Have they had an opportunity to elect +delegates, to select those in whom they had confidence and whom they +could trust? Not at all. Why should we assemble here and express our +wishes to Congress in reference to the Constitution without permitting +California, Oregon, or many other States not here represented, to +unite in our deliberations? I cannot assent to such an unfair +proceeding toward other States.</p> + +<p>Suppose one-half the States should request Congress to propose +amendments, will Congress agree to it? No, sir. The Constitu<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">64</a></span>tion +provides that Congress shall not propose amendments without the +consent of two-thirds of the States. Congress has not deemed any +amendments necessary, so far as we know, and yet a majority of the +committee of this body ask Congress to propose the amendments on our +responsibility alone. It appears to me, then, that this proceeding +must be regarded not as one known to the Constitution, but as a +revolutionary proceeding. All the States are not represented here, nor +have all had an opportunity to be so represented. Some of us are +acting under the appointment of the Legislatures of our States; other +delegates are simply appointed by the Executives of their States and +are acting without any legal authority. We are not standing upon equal +ground; some are only acting upon their own judgment; others are +acting under instructions from their several Legislatures. If the +Virginia Legislature itself were here, its action would differ +materially from the present views of the delegates from that State.</p> + +<p>But how is this? The Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia make +the statement that unless these questions are settled, and settled +soon, there is danger of the disruption of the Union. Admit this to be +so, and it furnishes no reason for changing the mode of proposing +constitutional amendments. The Constitution knows no such danger. It +is a self-sustaining Constitution, and was supposed to contain within +itself the power to secure its own preservation. The Constitution +ought not to be amended without the deliberate action of the people +themselves. I cannot and I will not disregard their rights. I cannot +recognize the claim that the secession of a State, by an ordinance of +its Convention, can carry either the State or its people out of the +Union. There is no such thing as <i>legal</i> secession, for there is no +power anywhere to take the people out of the protecting care of the +Government, or to relieve them from their obligations to it.</p> + +<p>And where is the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the call +upon Congress to do what Congress is asked to do here? The +Constitution was adopted "to form a more perfect Union." The people +were not to be allowed to alter it, except in the two modes prescribed +in it. The Convention which adopted it did not propose that changes +should be made in it without ample time for deliberation and +discussion. We are here, then, simply as conferees from States +expressing our individual opinions. We<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">65</a></span> are now asked to recommend to +Congress amendments to our fundamental law; we have no more right to +do so than members of the so-called Southern Confederacy. We, a mere +fraction of the people, propose to unite in bringing a pressure upon +Congress, which shall induce it to propose these amendments. This was +not one of the modes contemplated or provided by the framers of that +sacred instrument.</p> + +<p>General <span class="smcap">Washington</span> presided over the Convention which prepared our +Constitution. None knew better than he the reasons which made its +adoption necessary to the preservation of the Government—none knew +better the dangers which would probably surround it in after years. In +that last counsel of his to the American people—his Farewell +Address—a paper drawn up with the greatest deliberation, embodying +opinions which he entertained as the result of a long life of active +study and reflection, he warns us against all such proceedings as +those contemplated by the majority of the committee. I am sure the +delegates from Virginia will not now refuse to listen to the words of +that illustrious man, uttered upon the most solemn and momentous +occasion of his life. Hear his words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your +welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the +apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me +on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn +contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, +some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of +no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me +all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a +people. These will be offered to you with more freedom, as +you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a +parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to +bias his counsel."</p></div> + +<p>Again:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes +and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many +artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction +of this truth; as this is the point in your political +fortress, against which the batteries of internal and +external enemies will be most constantly and actively +(though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of +infinite moment that you should properly estimate the +immense value of your national union to your collective and +individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, +habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming +yourselves to think and speak of it as the Palladium of your +political safety and prosperity; watching for its +preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever +may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">66</a></span> +abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning +of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from +the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link +together the various parts."</p></div> + +<p>Are not these admonitions at the present moment peculiarly worthy of +our attention? And with them before us, can we invoke the action of +Congress for the alteration of the fundamental law of the Government +in any other ways than those provided in the Constitution? I earnestly +hope not. If we act at all, let us act in that regular method which +gives time for consultation, for consideration, and for action among +the people of all the States. It appears to me, that in adopting the +line of policy proposed by the majority of the committee, we are doing +the very thing which <span class="smcap">Washington</span> warned us not to do.</p> + +<p>He said further:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government +for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however +strict, between the parts, can be an adequate substitute; +they must inevitably experience the infractions and +interruptions which all alliances in all times have +experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have +improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a +Constitution of Government better calculated than your +former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious +management of your common concerns. This Government, the +offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unmoved, +adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, +completely free in its principles, in the distribution of +its powers, uniting security with energy, and <i>containing +within itself a provision for its own amendment</i>, has a just +claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its +authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its +measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of +true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the +right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions +of Government. But the Constitution which at any time +exists, <i>till changed by an explicit and authentic act of +the whole</i> people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."</p></div> + +<p>And again:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Toward the preservation of your Government, and the +permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not +only that you should steadily discountenance irregular +oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you +resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its +principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of +assault may be to affect in the forms of the Constitution +alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and +thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all +the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time +and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true +character of governments, as of other human institutions."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">67</a></span></p> + +<p>And still further:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or +modification of the constitutional powers be in any +particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the +way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no +change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be +the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which +free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always +greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or +transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."</p></div> + +<p>If we adopt the majority report here, we attempt to correct the +Constitution by an amendment in a way which, the Constitution does +<i>not</i> designate. <span class="smcap">Washington</span> says if there is any thing wrong, let it +be corrected in a constitutional way; and that, sir, is just what +Kentucky has said, and that is what every loyal State will say. +Kentucky has inaugurated this proceeding, and it is one eminently +worthy of her—true as she has always been to the Union. I cannot +disregard this action of her Legislature. I do not think any exigency +exists which requires us to disregard it. I am ready, and my State is +ready, to confer with other States in reference to the Constitution, +when asked to do so in any of the modes pointed out by that +instrument.</p> + +<p>Entertaining these opinions, and with these convictions, I should be +untrue to my sense of duty to the Government and the State I +represent, and to the people of the United States, if I should consent +to disregard the Constitution and my obligations to it.</p> + +<p>I have stated these considerations because they are powerful enough to +influence and control my course. Others must act upon their own +convictions. I have come to the conclusion that I ought to submit this +minority report with distrust, and with distrust only, because so many +of the able statesmen composing the majority of the committee have +seen fit to adopt different views. My report leaves every thing to the +people, where I think every such question should be left. When they +consult together and decide in the constitutional way I shall bow to +their decision, whatever it may be.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I do not propose to follow the gentleman (Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>) +through all the ramifications of his speech. I have made the +Constitution my study for many years, and I have looked at the causes +which give it strength and the causes which give it weakness. I +believe that our fathers organized this<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">68</a></span> Government in great wisdom. +Its strength was in the affections of the people. It never had any +other strength, and it was never intended it should have. It was not +intended to be sustained by standing armies. Its strength was intended +to be placed in the affections of the people, and I had hoped it would +endure forever. Without the affections of the people it is the weakest +Government ever established. The people! What a spectacle do we +witness now! One portion of the people has lost confidence in the +Government, and now seven States have left it. The Government cannot +realize that they are gone. We have established the right of +revolution, and that right gave to the world this splendid Government. +This was the first precedent; it will stand for all time. It will +always be acted upon when the people have lost confidence in the +Government. I <i>hate</i> that word secession, because it is a cheat! Call +things by their right names! The Southern States have framed another +Government; they have originated a <i>revolution</i>. There is no warrant +for it in the Constitution, but it is like the right of self-defence, +which every man may exercise. The gentleman from Connecticut has +forgotten that the Government made Congress the recipient of +petitions. Why was this? It was that Congress might be influenced by +the wishes of the people and act upon them.</p> + +<p>We are twenty States assembled here. Congress has been in session more +than two months. The Government is falling to pieces. Congress has not +had the sagacity to give the necessary guarantees, the proper +assurances to the slaveholding States. This session will make a +shameful chapter in the history of this Government, to be hereafter +written. Why should this Congress refuse to give the people +guarantees? The proudest Governments in the world have been compelled +to give their people guarantees.</p> + +<p>We are assembled here to consult, and see what can be done; to consult +as representatives of the States. Is there any impropriety in our +stating what would restore confidence, to our putting this in writing, +and to our proposing the plan of restoration we think should be +adopted to Congress, and asking Congress to submit that plan to the +people? Are we not the representatives of the people, sent here to do +what we think ought to be done, and to ask Congress by way of petition +to repair the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">69</a></span> foundations of the Government? It is all legitimate, +and legitimate in the most technical sense.</p> + +<p>Suppose we ask Congress to act on this proposition. We come directly +from the people. We ask Congress to submit a plan which we think will +save the Government, to the people. Is this taking any advantage of +the States? <i>They</i> can take all the time they wish for deliberation, +and we can bring no pressure to bear on them. In these times of great +peril and trouble, we ask Congress, backed by the moral force of the +States we represent, to act and save the country.</p> + +<p>Two or three years hence will not answer. The foundations of the +Government are undermined and growing weaker every day, and if the +people who may give to it the necessary repair and strength do not do +so, they will be called to a fearful account. When the building is on +fire, it is no time to inquire who set it on fire. The North say the +South did it, and the South say the North did it.</p> + +<p>We are all interested in this Government; we love the Constitution; we +love the Union; we want to repair it—we want to lay the foundation +for bringing back the States who have left us, by reason and not by +the sword. The delay which the gentleman proposes is too long; the +Constitution has provided a shorter way. In adopting that we are only +recognizing the right of petition.</p> + +<p>I, sir, will answer to Kentucky; I don't want the gentleman to come +between me and the people of Kentucky. He has no right to speak for +the people of that State—her representatives here have that right and +will exercise it. Why were these resolutions passed? Because Congress +had failed to provide the means needful to our safety. The resolutions +under which the Kentucky delegation came here were passed on the 29th, +not the 25th of January. They were passed after the resolutions to +which the gentleman refers. They ought to be regarded, as they are in +fact, as the deliberate expression of the Legislature of Kentucky in +favor of this Conference. In them it is stated that Kentucky heartily +accepts the invitation of her old mother Virginia. She acts in no +unwilling spirit, she hastens to avail herself of any opportunity to +save the Government. She believes a favorable opportunity is offered +by this Conference. I repeat<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">70</a></span> again: Adopt the report of the majority +of the committee and I will answer to Kentucky. I will go farther. I +will answer that Kentucky herself will adopt the very proposals of +amendment to the Constitution contained in the committee's report.</p> + +<p>But the gentleman insists that the action proposed is not only +improper but that it is <i>revolutionary</i>. I deny that it is +revolutionary. It is no more revolutionary than any other form of +petition. It is a petition sustained by the moral force of twenty +States—a petition which Congress will not disregard.</p> + +<p>But if the report of the majority is revolutionary, what of the +gentleman's report? Is that provided for by the Constitution? Is that +according to the forms of the Constitution? No, sir. Every argument he +has brought against the report of the majority, applies with equal +force to his own. His views will answer for those who are willing to +stand by and see this Government drift toward destruction—to see this +country involved in civil war. It will answer for those who will +oppose all action, and who wish to do nothing at all. His report is a +new excuse for inaction. It will not answer for us.</p> + +<p>Sir, we are acting under a fearful responsibility. The eyes of every +true patriot in the nation are turned toward this body. The people are +awaiting our action, with anxious and painful solicitude. They know +and we know that, unless the wisdom of this Conference shall devise +some plan to satisfy the people of the slaveholding States—to quiet +their apprehensions, a disruption of the Government is inevitable. If +we adopt the gentleman's views, go home and do nothing, we take the +responsibility of breaking up the Government.</p> + +<p>I do not propose to discuss the merits of the majority report at the +present time. I have only sought to answer the arguments of the +gentleman against our acting at all. But I claim that this way of +proceeding is entirely irregular. The report of the gentleman is not +in order. The report of the majority was first presented, and should +be first acted upon. I move to lay the report of the gentleman from +Connecticut upon the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I would ask Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> to withdraw his motion. If the +motion were adopted it would prevent discussion. It was expected that +we were to discuss the subject to-day. It is not of much consequence +which report is first acted upon. They<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">71</a></span> are all before the Conference, +and the merits of all of them are under discussion.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> withdrew the motion to lay on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of Kentucky, took the chair.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I am a member of the present Congress; I have faithfully +attended its deliberations, and have anxiously watched its course. Mr. +<span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> will find that there are other and different objections to the +line of policy he proposes, to which he has not alluded, and which he +does not understand. But they are objections which have determined, +and will determine, the action of Congress. I would ask Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> if +the adoption of his propositions, previous to their action, would have +prevented the States which have already seceded from going out.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I think it would have prevented them; all but South +Carolina. I did not intend to assail Congress, or any member of it, +personally.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I do not agree with the gentleman. We know, and the +gentleman knows, that there has been for a long time a purpose, a +great conspiracy in this country, to begin and carry out a revolution. +That has been avowed over and over again in the halls of Congress. Can +you expect a member of Congress to do more than reflect the will of +his constituents, the will of his people? Would you have him do any +thing different? There were forty or fifty different propositions +before the Congressional Committee of Thirty-three. There are many +here. There are many difficulties attending the solution of this +question in every respect. But we may as well speak plainly. I cannot +go for the majority report of the committee, and among other reasons, +for this reason: Their proposition makes all territory we may +hereafter acquire slave territory.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—No; such is not the fact.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I have read it, and such is my construction.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—Such is not the intention.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—Any future territory which we acquire must be from the +south; we have extended as far as we can to the north and the +northwest.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Will you agree to divide all future territory?</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I will do almost any thing to save the Union.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">72</a></span> I will +reflect the will of my constituents. I think it ought not to be +divided equally, but the South ought to have its share. There is +another trouble. Look at the difficulty of getting any proposition +through Congress. Congress has only fifteen days of life. I ask you, +even with general unanimity, if you can hope to pass at this session +any new proposals of amendments? If you do, you will get along faster +than is generally the case. There is one proposition before Congress +that I believe can pass. It is the Adams proposition, to admit all the +territories south at once. It is already slave territory. It is now +applying for admission. If this is acceptable to the South, I will go +for it. We are bound to admit it under the ordinance of 1789.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—Do I understand my friend to claim that the ordinance +of 1789 involves a proposition to divide the territory?</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I understand that in connection with the subsequent +legislation it does.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—The concession of territory from North Carolina +contains a prohibition from acting on the subject of slavery in the +territory ceded.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I agree entirely with the gentleman. I am opposed to +slavery, but we must divide the territory. Let us leave slavery where +it is, and admit the territory for the purpose of settling the +question. I do not agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> that this Government depends +on the will of the people. It is a self-supporting government; it will +support itself. There is no justification for the action of the +seceded States, and I cannot agree that Congress is responsible for +their action. The secession plot was formed before Congress assembled. +There <i>was</i> a power to check it. If our President had acted as Jackson +did, there would have been an end of it. The day for hanging for +treason has gone by. We must look at things as they are. Even in +battle the white flag must be respected. Let this subject be frankly +discussed in a conciliatory manner. If any State has the right to go +out of the Union at its own volition, then this Government, in my +opinion, is not worth the trouble of preserving. The President is +sworn to protect and uphold the Government. So long as there is a +navy, an army, and a militia, it is his sworn duty to uphold it—to +uphold it as well against an attack from States as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">73</a></span> from individuals. +The Government is one of love and affection, it is true, but it is +also one of strength, and power. Where was there ever a more indulgent +people than ours? Our forts have been taken, our flag has been fired +upon, our property seized, and as yet nothing has been done. But they +will not be indulgent forever. Beware, gentlemen, how you force them +further. Gentlemen talk about the inefficiency of Congress; I wish +there was some efficiency in the Executive. If there was, or had been, +our present troubles would have been avoided.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I do not understand that the report of the majority is +applicable to future territory. I move the recommitment of the report, +to have that question settled.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—It is true there are different constructions which may +be placed on the report. I think if it had been understood to apply to +future territory, it could not have received the support of a majority +of the committee. Mr. <span class="smcap">Crittenden's</span> proposition applies to future +territory. I submitted a proposition to the committee also intended to +apply to future territory. A majority of the committee was opposed to +it. Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span> drew this part of the amendment, and there is some +difference of opinion about it. In my opinion the amendment would not +apply to future territory, and I intended at the proper time to offer +an amendment which should make it plain, and not leave it open to +construction. Personally, I should be glad to apply it to future +territory, but I shall yield. I think if we can settle the question +now, there will be no further trouble. I do not believe any territory +will be acquired hereafter without great unanimity. It is not quite +true, although it may be probable, that the future territory will be +south of the line proposed.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I am still more confirmed that it was the intention of +the committee to have the amendment only apply to existing territory. +If this is settled now, it will shorten the debate. If the gentleman +will move to amend now, I will withdraw my motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—I move to amend by inserting the word <i>present</i> before +the word <i>territory</i> in the first line of Section I., with such other +verbal amendments as may make the sense conform, and to adopt that +amendment now. This covers the whole ground. I wish to discuss these +amendments, but am physically<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">74</a></span> unable to speak to-day, and would +prefer to have the discussion deferred.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON then moved an adjournment, which was carried on a +division, and the Convention adjourned at two o'clock and fifty +minutes.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">75</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="ELEVENTH_DAY" id="ELEVENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">ELEVENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Monday</span>, <i>February 18th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was opened with prayer by Rev. P.D. <span class="smcap">Gurley</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chittenden</span> offered the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the rules of this Convention be so far +modified as to require the Secretary to employ a competent +stenographer, who shall write down and preserve accurate +notes of the debates and other proceedings of this body, +which notes shall not be communicated to any person, nor +shall copies thereof be taken, nor shall the same be made +public until after the final adjournment of this Convention, +except in pursuance of a vote authorizing their publication.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I have no desire to occupy time in debating this +resolution, much less to waste it in a fruitless attempt to oppose +what seems to be the settled purpose of a majority of this Convention. +But if this body will consider the purpose which the resolution seeks +to attain, it may, perhaps, be found less objectionable than other +similar ones which have been defeated. The objection heretofore made +is, that a publication of what transpires here would lead to an +excited criticism in the country, which would be unfavorable to the +calmness and ultimate success which should attend our deliberations. +While I entertain no such apprehensions, permit me to observe that +this resolution contemplates no present publication of our debates, +but a publication at such a time, and in such a manner, as will be +unobjectionable. That time may not come till after our adjournment. I +am free to say, that when we are dealing with the important issues now +before us, I prefer to have our action, our words, our whole conduct, +all that we do and say, open and public. We should<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">76</a></span> fear no criticism +when we are right; we ought to be held to account when we are wrong. +But if gentlemen will not consent to this, at least let the daily +record of each of us be made up now: let it be full and perfect. When +a question comes up hereafter which concerns the sentiments or the +action of a member, let its decision depend upon no uncertain +recollection, a recollection which must fade and grow dim with each +one of us, as the time of this Convention recedes into the past. Such +a record can injure no one; it may be of infinite service hereafter. I +could not justify myself to my conscience, or to those who have a +right to hold me responsible for my acts here, if I failed to do all +that lays in my power to have the true history of this Convention laid +before the country. A naked journal amounts to nothing. It is a +skeleton. Our discussions alone will give it form and comeliness. I +have prepared this resolution upon consultation with many members, +whose ideas of what should be done here agree with mine. They concur +with me in the propriety of offering it. If it fails, the +responsibility of keeping our discussions from the people will not +rest with us.</p> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—I move to lay the resolution on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—Let the vote be taken by States.</p> + +<p>The vote was so taken, and the following States voted in the +affirmative: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, +Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Virginia, and +Pennsylvania—11.</p> + +<p>The following States voted in the negative: Maine, Vermont, New +Hampshire, Massachusetts, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and New York—8.</p> + +<p>So the motion to lay on the table prevailed.</p> + +<p>When the State of Ohio was called, a member of her delegation stated +that it was equally divided.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to introduce +a proposition in the form of an address to the people of the United +States. I do so after having consulted a considerable number of +members; and having found that it meets their approval, I desire to +read it, and will then move that it be laid on the table and printed.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—Is the gentleman's motion in order?</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I object to the reading.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">77</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—Certainly; I object also.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I will acquiesce with a single word. I certainly hoped no +curt objection would be made to the reading of <i>any</i> proposition which +any member might deem it his duty to offer. As gentlemen differ from +me in this respect, I will hand the paper to the Chair. I hope at +least it may be permitted to lay on the table.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I hold it the gentleman's undoubted right to read the +paper if he chooses.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—Very well.</p> + +<p>He commenced reading when he was interrupted by</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I hope Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuck</span> will withdraw this paper. If the +Convention agrees to any result, I shall favor its submission to the +people with an address. I will pledge myself to suggest the +gentleman's name as one of a committee to prepare the address at the +proper time.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman from New Hampshire has the floor.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuck</span> then completed the reading of the paper, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">To the People of the United States:</span></p> + +<p>This Convention of Conference, composed in part of +Commissioners appointed in accordance with the legislative +action of sundry States, and in part of Commissioners +appointed by the Governors of sundry other States, in +compliance with an invitation by the General Assembly of +Virginia, met in Washington on the 4th of February, 1861. +Although constituting a body unknown to the Constitution and +laws, yet being delegated for the purpose, and having +carefully considered the existing dangers and dissensions, +and having brought their proceedings to a close, publish +this address, and the accompanying resolutions, as the +result of their deliberations.</p> + +<p>We recognize and deplore the divisions and distractions +which now afflict our country, interrupt its prosperity, +disturb its peace, and endanger the Union of the States; but +we repel the conclusion, that any alienations or dissensions +exist which are irreconcilable, which justify attempts at +revolution, or which the patriotism and fraternal sentiments +of the people, and the interests and honor of the whole +nation, will not overcome.</p> + +<p>In a country embracing the central and most important +portion of a continent, among a people now numbering over +thirty millions, diversities of opinion inevitably exist; +and rivalries, intensified at times by local interests and +sectional attachments, must often occur; yet we do not doubt +that the theory of our Government is the best which is +possible for this nation, that the Union of the States is of +vital importance, and that the Constitution,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">78</a></span> which +expresses the combined wisdom of the illustrious founders of +the Government, is still the palladium of our liberties, +adequate to every emergency, and justly entitled to the +support of every good citizen.</p> + +<p>It embraces, in its provisions and spirit, all the defence +and protection which any section of the country can +rightfully demand, or honorably concede.</p> + +<p>Adopted with primary reference to the wants of five millions +of people, but with the wisest reference to future expansion +and development, it has carried us onward with a rapid +increase of numbers, an accumulation of wealth, and a degree +of happiness and general prosperity never attained by any +nation.</p> + +<p>Whatever branch of industry, or whatever staple production, +shall become, in the possible changes of the future, the +leading interest of the country, thereby creating unforeseen +complications or new conflicts of opinion and interest, the +Constitution of the United States, properly understood and +fairly enforced, is equal to every exigency, a shield and +defence to all, in every time of need. If, however, by +reason of a change in circumstances, or for any cause, a +portion of the people believe they ought to have their +rights more exactly defined or more fully explained in the +Constitution, it is their duty, in accordance with its +provisions, to seek a remedy by way of amendment to that +instrument; and it is the duty of all the States to concur +in such amendments as may be found necessary to insure equal +and exact justice to all.</p> + +<p>In order, therefore, to announce to the country the +sentiments of this Convention, respecting not only the +remedy which should be sought for existing discontents, but +also to communicate to the public what we believe to be the +patriotic sentiment of the country, we adopt the following +resolutions:</p> + +<p>1st. <i>Resolved</i>, That this Convention recognize the +well-understood proposition that the Constitution of the +United States gives no power to Congress, or any branch of +the Federal Government, to interfere in any manner with +slavery in any of the States; and we are assured by abundant +testimony, that neither of the great political organizations +existing in the country contemplates a violation of the +spirit of the Constitution in this regard, or the procuring +of any amendment thereof, by which Congress, or any +department of the General Government, shall ever have +jurisdiction over slavery in any of the States.</p> + +<p>2d. <i>Resolved</i>, That the Constitution was ordained and +established, as set forth in the preamble, by the people of +the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, +establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for +the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure +the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity; +and when the people of any State are not in full enjoyment +of all the benefits intended to be secured to them by the +Constitution, or their rights under it are disregarded, +their tranquillity disturbed, their prosperity retarded, or +their liberty imperilled by the people of any State, full +and adequate redress can and ought to be provided for such +grievances.</p> + +<p>3d. <i>Resolved</i>, That this Convention recommend to the +Legislatures of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">79</a></span> States of the Union to follow the +example of the Legislatures of the States of Kentucky and of +Illinois, in applying to Congress to call a Convention for +the proposing of amendments to the Constitution of the +United States, pursuant to the fifth article thereof.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I object to printing this paper. If that course is +taken, every member may offer his disquisitions on the Constitution, +and they will be printed at our expense.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—Unanimous consent was given that it be read, laid on the +table, and printed.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—There were three motions involved in one. Now the +question is upon laying the paper on the table and printing it.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALEXANDER:—I call for a division of the question.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question will be on the motion to lay it on the +table.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—Are we not entitled to have the question taken on the +motion to print? I supposed all these questions would be taken in a +spirit of conciliation. But if not, I will withdraw the motion to lay +on the table, and move that the paper be printed.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I came here in a spirit of conciliation, +and I shall act in that spirit. Let us all do so. I disagree entirely +with Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuck</span> and his proposition, but I am in favor of receiving +every proposition that is offered, of printing them all, and at the +proper time of considering them all. I trust that unanimous consent +will be given to printing this paper.</p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> then put the motion upon printing the address, and it +was carried upon a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> offered the following resolution, which was adopted +unanimously:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That if the President shall choose to speak on +any question, he may, for the occasion, call any member to +preside.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. MEREDITH:—I wish to offer a proposition, and hope for the present +it may lie on the table, and be considered hereafter. I do not desire +to move it as an amendment to the report of the committee, but think +it better to present it as a direct and independent proposition. I +present it now only for the purpose of having it before the +Convention. It is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Article.</span>—That Congress shall divide all the territory of +the United States into convenient portions, each containing +not less than sixty thousand square<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">80</a></span> miles, and shall +establish in each a territorial government; the several +territorial legislatures, whether heretofore constituted, or +hereafter to be constituted, shall have all the legislative +powers now vested in the respective States of this Union; +and whenever any territory having a population sufficient, +according to the ratio existing at the time, to entitle it +to one member of Congress, shall form a republican +constitution, and apply to Congress for admission as a +State, Congress shall admit the same as a State accordingly.</p></div> + +<p>The proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Meredith</span> was laid on the table without +objection.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—There appears to be a misunderstanding between the +Secretary and myself upon the question of printing the Journal. To +avoid question, I move that the Journal be printed up to and including +to-day.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I move to amend by adding "and from day to day during +the session."</p> + +<p>The amendment and the motion were adopted without objection.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span>, of New Jersey, took the chair.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Convention will now proceed to the order of the +day—the consideration of the report of the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID, of North Carolina:—I wish to move an amendment to the +amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>. It is to add to his the words "and +future." If adopted, the language will be "present and future +territory."</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—This will render a division of the question necessary. The +gentleman had better withdraw his amendment for the time.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I am instructed by the Legislature of North Carolina to +offer it, and I think best to do so in this regular manner.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—I think the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Reid</span> is out of order. I +suggest that if adopted, with Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> amendment, the sense of +the proposition as it now stands will not be changed.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I rise merely to make a suggestion to my colleague. This +motion must be made at some time, by some one, so that we may have a +regular vote upon it. Now, as it is not certain how the report of the +majority of the committee is to be construed, I propose at a suitable +time to move an amendment<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">81</a></span> which will make the proposition applicable +to territory hereafter acquired. If this will suit my colleague, I +hope he will withdraw his motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I came here not to deceive the North or the South. I intend +to be plain and unambiguous. Why should we send forth a proposition +that is uncertain, vague, and, as gentlemen admit, open to different +constructions? If we are to pour oil upon the troubled waters, let us +do so to some purpose; above all, let us be definite, plain, and +certain. I cannot consent to withdraw my motion. I must insist upon +its consideration.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I had hoped the question on Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> amendments would +have been taken on Saturday. It is an important one, and one which +must be met. I would suggest that it would be best to let the question +be taken on Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> amendments now. The subject presents itself +to my mind in this way: The proposition of the majority, as it now +stands, is uncertain. The friends of the proposition ought to be +allowed to perfect it, to make it satisfactory to themselves. If there +is a doubt about it, let us make it clear that it applies only to the +present territory. Then we can have a clear and decisive vote upon it. +The substance of the proposition is what I wish to arrive at, and it +will be more in order if the vote is not taken till we know what that +substance is. I shall not object to its application to future +territory. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina will withdraw his +amendment, and let the question be taken on that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—One word only. I fear we are being placed in an awkward +position. I am desirous to have the language of the proposition clear +and not delusive. The amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span> embarrasses me; I +hardly know how to vote upon it. If I vote for Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> motion, I +shall have the semblance of favoring the limitation of the proposition +to present territory. Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> and myself both want the same thing, +but on Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> motion he will vote one way and I the other.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—Will the gentleman allow me to explain? I voted against +the proposition in committee because, as it now stands, it applies +only to existing territory. I wish to carry this proposition, but not +by the vote of the South alone. I want<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">82</a></span> Northern votes, and assurances +that the people of the North will vote for the proposition and adopt +it.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I shall feel disposed to vote against Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> +motion.</p> + +<p>The question was here stated by the President as follows:</p> + +<p>The vote will be taken upon the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Reid</span> to amend the +amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—It strikes me that the question is this: My proposition is +to add the words "and future," but Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson's</span> amendment is to add +the word "present." Can this be treated as an amendment to his motion? +I must say that my duty to my country and State will prevent my voting +for the proposition as he proposes to limit it.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—I think the committee ought to be permitted to amend and +complete their report. Let us, by general consent, agree to have the +word "present" inserted.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I object to that all the time.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I move that the report be recommitted for amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—Shall we adjourn over simply for this? That will use up +another day.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope it will not be recommitted. We can settle the +question here in a moment.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The vote will now be taken.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I call for the individual names of members voting.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The call is not in order.</p> + +<p>The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Reid</span>, and resulted +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes</span>—New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, +North Carolina, Missouri, and Virginia—8.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays</span>—Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, +Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa—12.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment failed.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman +from Maryland.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—I trust that I shall not trespass upon the time of the +Conference, but the subject now before it is one of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">83</a></span> great importance, +and it involves the consideration of many important questions. The +amendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the proposition +of the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a construction +might be placed upon it different from that which the committee +intended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here, +that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There ought +to be no ambiguity in a constitutional provision. Some of the most +important constitutional questions decided by the Supreme Court have +been questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about the +construction to be given the committee's proposition. I think the +Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here, +which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scott +case. There the question was upon that article in the Constitution +which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make all +needful rules and regulations respecting the <i>territories</i> or other +property belonging to the United States." The Court in that case +decided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in that +case, because the power given by that provision, whatever it might be, +was confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which, +upon the adoption of the Constitution, belonged to or was claimed by +the United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by the +treaty with Great Britain. With this clause in the Constitution, +therefore, it could have no influence upon the territory afterward +acquired from a foreign government. I think this decision conclusive, +and that the proposition, if incorporated into the Constitution, would +refer only to the territory now owned by the United States.</p> + +<p>It was the wish of the representatives of some States in the committee +that the word "future" should be inserted in the report. I was opposed +to it: it was so odious to me to put words into the Constitution, or +to propose to do so, which should go forth to the world as an +indication that this Government proposes to acquire new territory in +any way. I have said that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case +decided that the words "the territories" in the Constitution only +applied to the then existing territory. I think they decided wrong in +this respect, though I agree to the correctness of the decision in +that case in the main;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">84</a></span> but such as it is, the decision is binding +upon this Conference and the people.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span> here read a portion of the opinion of Judge <span class="smcap">Taney</span> +delivered in the Dred Scott case, and continued:</p> + +<p>You perceive that Judge <span class="smcap">Taney</span> turns the question upon the construction +of the word "the." Had the word "any" been used in its place, he must +have held that the provision applied to future, as well as the then +existing territory.</p> + +<p>Knowing that it was the purpose of the majority of the committee to +exclude future territory from the operation of this proposition, and +that it was due to the committee and the Convention that their +purposes should be carried out, I offer my amendment as applicable to +the sixth line of the proposition as well as the first.</p> + +<p>In discussing the merits of this report, in its application to the +existing condition of the country, I have to say a word to my Southern +friends. You have sought to extend this provision to territory which +shall be hereafter acquired. You have had a decisive vote and have +been beaten in this Conference. The fight has been a fair one; the +question has been thoroughly understood. We ought to acquiesce in the +decision of the majority. We cannot change this decision if we would; +and if we could change it, the proposition amended as you would prefer +to have it, would never pass Congress. The repeated action of that +body, during its present session, shows this conclusively. Accepting +this decision then, as definitive, can we not settle the question with +reference to existing territory? Shall we settle it? Settle it +fairly—recognizing and acknowledging the rights of all, and remain +brethren forever with the Free States! From my very heart, I say yes. +(Applause.) The proposition as it now stands covers all the territory +we have. The whole ground, the whole trouble, which has brought this +country into its present lamentable condition—has arisen over this +question. I believe if it had been disposed of or settled in some way +before, many States would have been kept in the Union that have now +gone out. And why should we not settle it?</p> + +<p>We have now a territory extensive enough to sustain two hundred +millions of people—embracing almost every climate, fruitful in almost +every species of production—rich in all the elements of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">85</a></span> national +wealth, and governed by a Constitution that has raised us to an +elevation of grandeur that the world has never before witnessed. That +we should separate to the destruction of such a Government, on account +of territory we have not got, and territory that we do not want, is +not, I believe, the patriotic sense of the South.</p> + +<p>But this proposition does not stand by itself alone. It is connected, +and must be construed, with the provision relating to the acquisition +of future territory. The second section of the committee's proposition +provides that territory shall not be acquired by the United States, +unless by treaty, nor, with unimportant exceptions, unless such treaty +shall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. Is +not that guaranty enough for us? Should we not act unreasonably if we +required further guaranty in this respect? For myself, I should have +preferred that the consent of two-thirds of the Senate only should be +required, and that that two-thirds should comprise a majority both +from the free and slave States.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—At the proper time I shall move such an amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—If such an amendment is proposed I shall vote for it. I +know there will be objections raised to it, but they will be far +outweighed by the advantages it will give to the South.</p> + +<p>But the objection of Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span> is opposed here, and it is one which +must be answered. He says this is the wrong way to propose amendments +to the Constitution—that our action is inconsistent with that +instrument. He does not claim that it is prohibited by the letter, but +by the spirit of the Constitution. Where does he get the spirit but +from the letter? There are two methods of proposing amendments to the +Constitution provided by that instrument. Let us see what they are.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span> here read the article of the Constitution providing for +amendments, and continued:</p> + +<p>One is where two-thirds of Congress deem it advisable to propose +amendments; the other is where the States themselves propose them. My +learned brother would have us believe that the members of Congress, +acting under their official oaths, must each be satisfied that each +amendment proposed is proper to be incorporated in the instrument, +before they should propose them; and he maintains that there is a +difference, in fact, in the two meth<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">86</a></span>ods prescribed. What right has +this body, if there is any force in this objection, to submit <i>his</i> +proposition to the States? If what we propose is revolutionary, then +what he proposes is revolutionary. I reply to him, with all respect +for his legal ability, and with all the humility which becomes me, and +insist that he is wrong. He refers to the opinion of Judge <span class="smcap">Collamer</span>. I +hold Judge <span class="smcap">Collamer</span> in much respect, and his opinion in great honor +here, but his statements are at war with the objections made by the +gentleman from Connecticut. Judge <span class="smcap">Collamer</span> maintains that it is the +duty of Congress <i>to propose</i> amendments, not to <i>recommend</i> them. It +would be entirely proper, according to his opinion, for Congress to +propose amendments which they would not adopt themselves. I go +somewhat farther, and insist that it is the duty of Congress to +propose amendments whenever desired by any State or any considerable +section of the Union. If we have no right to suggest a line of action +to Congress, no right to petition Congress, no right to ask Congress +to propose amendments, as the gentleman insists, we had better go +home, or rather, I should say, we should never have come here.</p> + +<p>There are twenty States represented in this Conference. I have no +doubt other States would have been here, but for the shortness of the +time. But how and why are we here? We have come here on the invitation +of Virginia; her resolutions are our constitution. We have come here +at her instance. For what purpose did she ask us to come here? under +what circumstances did she pass these resolutions? Virginia saw that +the country was going to ruin—that one State had already seceded, and +several others were about to follow. She saw there were circumstances +affecting the condition of the South which aroused her to frenzy—not +madness, but the frenzy which falls on every patriotic mind when it +witnesses a country going to destruction. She saw the country was +going to ruin with rapid steps, and that its ruin must be accomplished +unless her friends in the free States would come forward, and consent +to put into the Constitution additional guarantees which would satisfy +the people of the slave States that their rights were secure. See what +she did—what she said. She expresses it as her deliberate opinion, +"that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of +this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent +dissolu<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">87</a></span>tion of the Union is inevitable; and the General Assembly, +representing the wishes of the people of the Commonwealth, is desirous +of employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity, and +determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the +Constitution, in the spirit in which they were established by the +fathers of the Republic."</p> + +<p>Therefore she invites all States, whether slaveholding or +non-slaveholding, who were willing to unite with her in an earnest +effort to adjust the unhappy controversies in the spirit of the +Constitution, to come together to secure that adjustment. She asks us +to agree to some suitable adjustment. She does not leave us to suggest +what that adjustment shall be. She tells us herself. She requests us +to adopt it, and to submit it to Congress. She does not ask that +Congress should call a convention, for Congress could not. Try, if we +can, says Virginia, to come to some settlement of these unhappy +controversies, and send that settlement to Congress, that Congress may +submit it to the country.</p> + +<p>Virginia invited you here. She told you just what she wanted. She says +if you cannot consent to that, then let her commissioners come home +and report the result. If this cannot be done, if the mode of +adjustment indicated by her cannot be substantially carried out, then +our whole authority is at an end.</p> + +<p>This matter of amending the Constitution is not as intricate and +difficult a work as gentlemen imagine. Are there not twelve amendments +to the Constitution already? Were they submitted to the people by each +member of Congress acting under his official oath? Or were they +submitted in the very way the gentleman would avoid? Were they not +brought into the Constitution by outside pressure?</p> + +<p>The Constitution has been amended. I wish to mark how it was done, and +then note why it was done.</p> + +<p>There was a time when fears were entertained that wrongs might be done +to different sections of the Union under the Constitution as it then +stood. Congress listened to those fears, and did not hesitate to +propose amendments suggested from outside its own body—to submit them +to the people for adoption. It was necessary, in the judgment of +Congress, to do this, in order to restore confidence. It was done, and +confidence was restored. Is not that precisely our case now? Is not +confidence lost in the North and in the South?—not exactly lost, +perhaps, but shaken. The credit<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">88</a></span> of the Government is gone. Even our +naval commanders are unable to negotiate Government bills abroad—are +reduced to the degrading alternative of asking the endorsement of +foreign States, in order to such negotiation. Some brilliant +individuals have suggested that we have already become so poor that +our widows and wives must bring out their stockings.</p> + +<p>Our last loan was negotiated at twelve per cent. discount. The present +loan is not to be taken at any rate, unless the Government descends to +the humiliating alternative of securing State endorsements. Our credit +is going lower and lower every day, and it will soon come to the point +where our bonds will be worth no more than Continental money was.</p> + +<p>Suppose we do nothing here. Are gentlemen blind to the consequences? +Gentlemen, honest and patriotic as I know you are, have you no love +for this Union?—have you no care for the preservation of this +Government? God forbid that I should say you have none! I know you too +well. My relations have been too intimate with you, and have existed +too long, for me to suppose it. You do love the Union. I speak for the +South and to the South. I know that we can still labor to keep this +Government together. If we follow the plain dictates of our judgment, +any other course would be impossible.</p> + +<p>The Virginia Convention is even now in session, and what a convention +it is! Disguise as we may, deceive ourselves as we will, it is a +convention which proposes to consider the question of withdrawing the +State from the Union. Kentucky and Missouri, if we do nothing, will +soon follow. If there ever was a time in the history of the Government +for conciliation, for patriotic concession, that time is now. The time +has come when parties must be forgotten. Let not the word party be +mentioned here. It is not worthy of us. Representatives of the States, +you are above party—high above. The cords that bind you together are +a hundred times as strong as those which ever bound any party. Unless +we do something, and something very quickly, before the incoming +President is inaugurated, in all human probability he will have only +the States north of Mason and Dixon to govern—that is, if he is to +govern them in peace.</p> + +<p>I think there is no right of secession; such is my individual opinion. +But there is a right higher than all these—the right of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">89</a></span> +self-defence, the right of revolution. It is recognized by the +Constitution itself. The Constitution was adopted by nine of the +States only. What right had those nine States to separate from the +other four?</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The right of secession.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—I won't dispute about terms. In all such discussions, +Heaven save me from a Virginia politician!</p> + +<p>The opinions of Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> upon the Constitution are certainly +entitled to value. He had more to do with making it than any other +statesman of the time. I desire to read an opinion of his, which will +be found in number forty-two of the Federalist:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves +on this occasion:—1. On what principle the Confederation, +which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the +States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of +the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between +the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the +remaining few who do not become parties to it?</p> + +<p>"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the +absolute necessity of the case, to the great principle of +self-preservation, to the transcendent law of nature and of +nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness +of society are the objects at which all political +institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be +sacrificed."</p></div> + +<p>Now, apply these principles to the present condition of the country. +The cases are exactly parallel. Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> says in substance, that if +one section of the Union refuses to recognize and protect the rights +of another—in other words, if the free States now refuse to guarantee +the rights of the South, that there is a right of self-preservation, a +law of nature and nature's God, which is above all Constitutions. I am +not here to inquire whether the South has a right to go out if these +guarantees are not given. That is a question which I will not argue. +Some of the States have already gone. I hold that to be a fact +established.</p> + +<p>Now, I put it to my friends of the North: Do you want us to go out? +You are a great people, a great country—a powerful people, a rich +country. No threat or intimidation shall ever come from me to such a +people. I ask you in all sadness whether, in the light of all our +glory, of all our happiness and prosperity, whether you will, by +withholding a thing that it will not harm you to grant, suffer us, +compel us to depart? Let me read what was said by the same great man +of Virginia, in anticipation of the existence of the present state of +things:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">90</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these considerations, +in full confidence that the good sense which has so often +marked your decisions will allow them their due weight and +effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however +formidable in appearance, or however fashionable the error +on which they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy +and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion +would conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice, which +tells you that the people of America, knit together as they +are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live +together as members of the same family; can no longer +continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can +no longer be fellow-citizens of one great, respectable, and +flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice which +petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended +for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that +it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest +projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to +accomplish. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this +unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison +which it conveys. The kindred blood which flows in the veins +of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed +in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, +and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, +rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe +me, the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all +projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rending +us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties, and +promote our happiness."</p></div> + +<p>Grant us then, gentlemen of the North, what we are willing to stand +upon—what we will try to stand upon, and what we believe we can. At +least, this will save the rest of the States to yourselves and to us. +The States that are now in the Union will continue there.</p> + +<p>What is it we ask you to do? It is to settle this question as to our +present territory. To settle it—how? By dividing it. And how by +dividing it? By the line of 36° 30´. Apparently, you think we are +asking the North to yield something. I tell you it is we who are +yielding. By the decision of the Supreme Court we have the right to go +North of this line with our slaves. Now, all we ask you to give us +here is the territory south of that line; and even as to that, we give +you the right to destroy slavery there whenever a State organized out +of it chooses to do so. We are, in fact, yielding to you. We abandon +our rights North. Will you not let us retain what is already ours, +South?</p> + +<p>Is it quite certain that the territory south of the line will be slave +territory? Those who repealed the Missouri Compromise, believed that +Kansas would be a slave State. It did not turn out so. All we ask is, +that you should leave the territory south of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">91</a></span> the line where it has +been left by the decision of the Supreme Court. We freely yield you +all the rest.</p> + +<p>I do not propose to discuss all the amendments proposed. I confine +myself to the single one which, if satisfactorily disposed of, will +settle all our troubles.</p> + +<p>In conclusion, I ask, oppressed by a consciousness which almost +overmasters me—which renders me unfit to do any thing but feel—will +you not settle this question here? I feel, and I cannot escape the +feeling, that on your decision hangs the question, whether we shall be +preserved an united people, or be broken to atoms. The States now +remaining in the Union may possibly get on for a few years with +something like prosperity; but if this question is not settled in some +way, man must change his nature or <i>war</i> in the end will come. War! +What a word to be used here! War between whom? There is not a family +at the South which has not its associations with the North—not a +Northern family which has not its Southern ties! War in the midst of +such a people! God grant that the future, that the events which must +inevitably follow dissension here, may at least spare this agony to +ourselves, our families, and our posterity.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—It is very clear to me that I ought not to make a +prolonged address upon a question which I favor. The only question now +before us is: Shall this amendment be made plain? We should deal +honestly among ourselves; there should be no cheat—no uncertainty—no +delusion here. Our language should be so clear that it will breed no +new nests of trouble.</p> + +<p>But the address of the gentleman from Maryland requires a brief notice +from me. I listened with sadness to many parts of it. I bemoan that +tones so patriotic could not rise to the level of the high ground of +equality and right upon which we all ought to stand.</p> + +<p>I appeal not to forbearance—I ask not for pity. I feel proud to +represent the grand old commonwealth of Virginia here, and prouder +still that I only come here to demand right and justice in her behalf. +Aye! and it is more complimentary to you to have it so. I ask for such +guarantees only as Virginia needs, and as she has the right to demand. +It is far more complimentary to you to appeal to your sense of +justice, to your sense of right, than to your forbearance or pity.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">92</a></span></p> + +<p>Virginia comes forward in a great national crisis. When support after +support of this glorious temple of our Government has been torn away, +she comes—proud of her memories of the past—happy in the part she +had in the construction of this great system—she comes to present to +you, calmly and plainly, the question, whether new and additional +guarantees are not needed for her rights; and she tells you what those +guarantees ought to be.</p> + +<p>Nor does she stand alone. She is supported by all her border sisters. +The propositions she makes are familiar to the country. They were made +by a patriot of the olden time, a time near to that of the foundation +of our Government. They were such as he thought suited to the +exigencies of his time. They have since then received a larger meed of +approval, north and south, than any other plan of arrangement.</p> + +<p>My State offers these resolutions of her Legislature as a basis for +our action here, with certain modifications acceptable to her people. +One of these modifications has since been accepted by the mover of +these resolutions himself. Most important among them is the provision +as to future territory. The gentleman seems to think that Virginia +would not insist on this provision as applicable to territory we may +never have. It behooves not me to answer such a momentous question. I +am only the mouthpiece of Virginia. She insists on the provision for +future territory. She and her sister States plant themselves upon it. +What right have I to strike out a clause which she makes specific? +What right have I to esteem it of so little weight that it may be +thrown aside and disregarded? I do not propose to give my reasons, +though they would not be troublesome to give. It was an element in the +Missouri Compromise that it should apply to future as well as to +existing territory.</p> + +<p>Does not the gentleman assert that under the laws as they now stand, +we have the right to go north of the compromise line with our slaves? +What, then, is our position? Under the decision of the Supreme Court +we are entitled to participate in <i>all</i> the territory of the United +States. We are offering to give up the great part and the best part of +it, and in payment we are to take the naked chance of getting a little +piece of the worthless territory south of the proposed line! Such an +idea was never entertained by those who made the Compromise. The idea +which governed<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">93</a></span> their action was, beyond all doubt, not that present +territory alone should be thus divided, but that the question should +be removed from doubt and difficulty for all time, and to give us at +the South a chance whatever change might come.</p> + +<p>Shall we be rewarded for all we give up, and find full compensation in +a clause which itself prevents the acquisition of future territory? +The statement is in itself a sufficient answer to the question.</p> + +<p>But there was another element in the propositions of the Legislature +of Virginia. That, was security against the principles of the North, +and her great and now dominant party; it was intended to put an end to +the discussions that have convulsed the country and jeopardized our +institutions.</p> + +<p>It was the policy of our fathers to settle these questions. They +determined to make a final and decisive line of demarkation, and to +let that be conclusive. But this young people could not be restrained, +and when new territory was acquired the same question arose again. It +now comes up once more. Virginia early saw the seeds of trouble in it, +because she saw that the tide of emigration would continue to press +toward the fertile lands of the South. She saw and she acted. In +consequence of her action we are here. Would it not be wise and well +as statesmen and as patriots, that you should do what you can for +adjustment? do what you can to bring back your sisters of the South +who have departed? It is the part of wisdom to settle. Virginia was +wise to ask it.</p> + +<p>There is another thing. A great and mighty party has arisen at the +North that is determined to exclude the institution of slavery, not +only from all future, but from all <i>present</i> territory. We know that +in all ways this party has declared that it would not consent to let +slavery go where it does not now exist. More heated zealots, also +animated and sustained by this same party, have determined that this +natural and patriarchal institution of the South should be surrounded +by a cordon of free States, and in the end be extinguished altogether.</p> + +<p>Is it not wise in Virginia, that she should see that this project of +surrounding the South with free States should be guarded against—most +effectually guarded against now and in time to come, and so preserve +her dignity and power?</p> + +<p>This amendment adopted, and the proposition to Virginia will<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">94</a></span> be a +farce. Gentlemen, we hold that as the soul is to man, so is honor to a +nation. Honor is the soul of nations. Without it, no nation can have a +place in history or among the nations. We of Virginia must have in +this Confederation the position of an equal. Equal in dignity—equal +in right. In the Congress of the States of this Union, we insist on +this as our right. We must have the same protection as the States of +the North. Otherwise we are a dishonored people. We might live for a +time otherwise, but we should be unworthy a place among the nations. +We hold <i>property</i>, yes, <i>our property in slaves</i>, as rightful and as +honorable as any property to be found in the broad expanse between +ocean and ocean.</p> + +<p>We feel that in the existence, the perpetuity, the protection of the +African race, we have a mission to perform, and not a mission only, +but a right and a duty.</p> + +<p>Upon this subject I have a word to say in all seriousness. Think not, +gentlemen of the North, that we propose to deceive or mislead you. We +of the South are earnest in what we say. This is a question which we +answer to ourselves. We hold that these colored barbarians have been +withdrawn from a country of native barbarism, and under the benignant +influence of a Christian rule, of a Christian civilization, have been +elevated, yes, <i>elevated</i> to a standing and position which they could +never have otherwise secured. In respect to the colored race we +challenge comparison with San Domingo, with the freed regions of +Jamaica, with those who have been transferred to the coast of Africa. +Ask the travellers who have visited those distant shores to contrast +the condition of the colored people there with that of those on our +Southern plantations, and they will give you but one answer—they will +say, we have redeemed and kept well our high and our holy trust.</p> + +<p>But this is a matter with our own consciences, not with yours. We +appeal to you to leave it where it is, to leave the colored people +where they are. Why should you undertake to interfere with the policy +of a neighboring State concerning a people about which you know +nothing? We feel, we know that we have done that race no wrong. Deep +into the Southern heart has this feeling penetrated. For scores of +years we have been laboring earnestly in our mission. In all this time +we have contributed far more to the greatness of the North than to our +own. Yet all this<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">95</a></span> time we have been assailed, attacked, vilified and +defamed, by the people of the North, from the cradle to the grave, and +you have educated your children to believe us monsters of brutality, +lust and iniquity.</p> + +<p>I tell you, that from the time the abolition societies aroused the +latent anti-slavery spirit of the North until now, nothing but evil +has come of the excitement and discussion. It has spread a horrid +influence far and wide; it has for years distilled, and is now +distilling its poison and venom all over the land.</p> + +<p>It was under English, yes, British, Anglo-Saxon instigation that it +first commenced. By this instigation it has been fed, been given life, +continuity and power. Think you the English authors of this +instigation had any purpose but to disrupt this Republic? They +professed to regard slavery as an evil and a sin. The fruits of their +action were first manifested in religious societies—first in the +largest churches in New England, in the Presbyterian or Congregational +churches, next the Methodist, then the Baptist, and finally, the venom +spread so widely, its influence separated other churches. What has the +moral influence of this power done? It has made the abstraction of our +slaves a virtue. Societies have been formed for that very purpose, +inciting their members and others, by the vilest motives, to steal our +slaves, to destroy our property.</p> + +<p>Nor have they been sufficiently modest to cloak their designs under +the veil of secrecy. These people advocated their pernicious doctrines +openly in your leading cities, even within the consecrated walls of +Fanueil Hall.</p> + +<p>Openly among your people, in the very light of day, these efforts were +carried on for the destruction of your sister States. There has not +been an effort of the law nor an exertion of public opinion to put +them down.</p> + +<p>These efforts culminated in the actual invasion of my own old honored +State, and your people thought they were doing GOD service in signing +a petition to our authorities for mercy to John Brown and his ruffian +invaders of our soil. And when these men met the just reward of their +crime, there was, throughout the North, in your meetings and your +public prints, expressions of sympathy for these robbers and +murderers. They were looked upon as the victims of oppression, as +martyrs to a holy and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">96</a></span> righteous cause. Gentlemen, consider these +things, and tell me, is there not to-day reason for suspicion; on the +part of the South for grave apprehension?</p> + +<p>But the half is yet to be told; I have looked only at the moral aspect +of the question. Dangerous enough hitherto, it becomes far more +dangerous when it culminates on the arena of politics, and asks, with +the powerful aid of a majority, the interference and the aid of the +Government.</p> + +<p>As soon as it became the party of one idea it began to draw to it, +first the support of one, then another political party. It went on +securing the assistance of one after another until it demoralized, +until it brought each to ruin. It destroyed the grand old Whig party. +Fanatic enough before, when it had brought that party to its grave, it +thrust upon the arena of politics this question of slavery in the +territories. Then for the first time it raised the cry of "Free Soil," +and brought to its support the hearts of a majority of the people of +the northern States.</p> + +<p>The people of the North and Northwest have long been noted for their +acquisitive disposition, especially for the acquisition of lands. This +has been manifested in every form. Carried into effect it has made +them powerful, until, not long since, they thought they might get +entire dominion at no distant day. Then arose in their hearts a desire +greater than the greed of land—the greed of office and power. They +then saw that perhaps the North alone might control the national +government, and with it the South. Then, too, the great class of +protected interests at the North—always greater at the North than at +the South—joined with them. All these protected classes, whose +advantages had been diverted from other classes to which they +belonged, joined with landseekers to secure power. Influence after +influence of this sort combined, until it produced your great +Republican party; in other words, your great Sectional party, which +has at length come to majority and power.</p> + +<p>I do not wish to dwell upon the principles of that party, or to +discuss them; I simply assert that their principles involve all the +sentiments of abolitionism. They may be summed up in this: you +determine to oppose the admission of slave States in the future.</p> + +<p>You say that the whole power of the country, the whole<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">97</a></span> power of the +administration, shall be used in future for the final extinction of +slavery.</p> + +<p>This, now, is the ruling idea of your great sectional party. It is +simply the rule of one portion of the country over another. There is +no difference between attacking slavery in the States and keeping it +out of the territories. It is only drawing a parallel around the +citadel at a more remote point.</p> + +<p>Now, see how the South is placed. The South has forborne as long as it +can, just as long as party organization existed, and as long as the +South could keep it in existence. It was only when we saw that the +whole united Government was to be turned against us, that we began to +think of taking the subject into our own hands.</p> + +<p>What are we to expect now, when the power, direct and indirect, of +this great Government is to be used in the most effective manner +against us? A power which claims that we shall not exercise the rights +of States even, a power which seeks to coerce us, when we propose to +protect ourselves against this lowering and impending danger. You of +the North are descended from men who honored the scaffold for the very +rights we now seek to exercise. So are we. You would deserve to be +spurned by the maids and matrons among you, if you refused to protect +yourselves against the dangers thus drawing around you. Can you expect +less of us?</p> + +<p>Do you tell me that this is an artificial crisis? Would seven States +have abandoned all the grand interest they possessed in a glorious and +happy Confederacy like ours, but for more serious and vital interests, +the interests of safety, security, and honor? Think well of these +things, gentlemen!</p> + +<p>I have hastily endeavored to show you where I conceive we of the South +stand. The feelings which I express are entertained likewise by the +border States, by all the citizens of the South, by every householder +of my State in a greater or less degree.</p> + +<p>The State to which I refer, Virginia, is now met in solemn convocation +to consider whether she shall remain in the Union or go out of it; and +with the most earnest desire to secure to herself a longer connection +with the American Union, a Union of so much honor and pride, and with +an equally earnest desire to bring back the wandering States of the +South which have already left us, she,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">98</a></span> my own, my native State, comes +here to ask for these guarantees. In my deliberate judgment, the Union +and the Constitution, as they now stand, are unsafe for the people of +the South, unsafe without other guarantees which will give them actual +power instead of mere paper rights. Her stake in this controversy is +too deep. In my judgment she has asked too little; I think fuller and +greater guarantees ought to be required, and that this Convention +should not stand upon ceremony, but in a free and liberal spirit of +concession should yield to us all that we ask. Be assured we shall ask +none but adequate guarantees.</p> + +<p>But I am told that Virginia is content with the Crittenden +Resolutions—I say this because I am instructed to say so—that is, if +we are to treat these resolutions, not as the principles of the man +who offers them, but as the principles of the great party just come +into power.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, remember that we of the South are already stripped of +one-half our sister States; our system is dislocated; the Union is +disrupted.</p> + +<p>How can you expect now to retain Virginia, to retain the border +States, when they stand in the face of such a great, such an immense +party? How can you expect Virginia to remain in the Union without +these added guarantees?</p> + +<p>I told you I would make no appeals to your pity. If we are not +entitled to the guarantees we ask, according to the principles of +sound philosophy, of right and justice, then we do not ask them at +all.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOUTWELL:—I have not been at all clear in my own mind as to when, +and to what extent, Massachusetts should raise her voice in this +Convention. She heard the voice of Virginia, expressed through her +resolutions in this crisis of our country's history. Massachusetts +hesitated, not because she was unwilling to respond to the call of +Virginia, but because she thought her honor touched by the manner of +that call and the circumstances attending it. She had taken part in +the election of the sixth of November. She knew the result. It +accorded well with her wishes. She knew that the Government whose +political head for the next four years was then chosen, was based upon +a Constitution which she supposed still had an existence. She saw that +State after State had left that Government—seceded is the word<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">99</a></span> used; +had gone out from this great Confederacy, and were defying the +Constitution and the Union.</p> + +<p>Charge after charge has been vaguely made against the North. It is +attempted here to put the North on trial. I have listened with grave +attention to the gentleman from Virginia to-day, but I have heard no +specification of these charges. Massachusetts hesitated I say; she has +her own opinions of the Government and the Union. I know +Massachusetts; I have been into every one of her more than three +hundred towns. I have seen and conversed with her men and her women, +and I know there is not a man within her borders who would not to-day +gladly lay down his life for the preservation of the Union.</p> + +<p>Massachusetts has made war upon slavery wherever she had the right to +do it; but much as she <i>abhors</i> the institution, she would sacrifice +everything rather than assail it where she has not the right to assail +it.</p> + +<p>Can it be denied, gentlemen, that we have elected a President in a +legal and constitutional way? It cannot; and yet you tell us in tones +that cannot be misunderstood, that as a precedent condition of his +inauguration we must give you these guarantees.</p> + +<p>Massachusetts hesitated, not because her blood was not stirred, but +because she insisted that the Government and the inauguration should +go on, in the same manner they would have done had Mr. Lincoln been +defeated. She felt that she was touched in a tender point when invited +here under such circumstances.</p> + +<p>It is true, and I confess it frankly, that there are a few men at the +North who have not yielded that support to the grand idea upon which +this confederated Union stands, that they should have done; who have +been disposed to infringe upon, to attack certain rights which the +entire North, with these exceptions, accords to you. But are you of +the South free from the like imputations? The John Brown invasion was +never justified at the North. If, in the excitement of the time, there +were those to be found who did not denounce it as gentlemen think they +should, it was because they knew it was a matter wholly outside the +Constitution—that it was a crime to which Virginia would give +adequate punishment.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, I believe, yes, I know, that the people of the North are as +true to the Government and the Union of the States<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">100</a></span> now, as our +fathers were when they stood shoulder to shoulder upon the field, +fighting for the principles upon which that Union rests. If I thought +the time had come when it would be fit or proper to consider +amendments to the Constitution at all, I should believe that we would +have no trouble with you except upon this question of slavery in the +territories. You cannot demand of us at the North any thing that we +will not grant, unless it involves a sacrifice of our principles. +These we shall not sacrifice—these you must not ask us to abandon. I +believe further, and I speak in all frankness, for I wish to delude no +one, that if the Constitution and the Union cannot be preserved and +effectually maintained without these new guarantees for slavery, that +the Union is not worth preserving.</p> + +<p>The people of the North have always submitted to the decisions of the +proper constituted powers. This obedience has been unpleasant enough +when they thought these powers were exercised for sectional purposes; +but it has always been implicitly yielded. I am ready, even now, to go +home and say that, by the decision of the Supreme Court, slavery +exists in all the territories of the United States. We submit to the +decision and accept its consequences. But in view of all the +circumstances attending that decision, was it quite fair—was it quite +generous for the gentleman from Maryland to say that, under it, by the +adoption of these propositions, the South was giving up every thing, +the North giving up nothing? Does he suppose the South is yielding the +point in relation to any territory, which by any probability would +become slave territory? Something more than the decision of the +Supreme Court is necessary to establish slavery anywhere. The decision +may give the <i>right</i> to establish it, other influences must control +the question of its actual establishment.</p> + +<p>I am opposed, further, to any restrictions on the acquisition of +territory. They are unnecessary. The time may come when they would be +troublesome. We may want the Canadas. The time may come when the +Canadas may wish to unite with us. Shall we tie up our hands so that +we cannot receive them, or make it forever your interest to oppose +their annexation? Such a restriction would be, by the common consent +of the people, disregarded.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">101</a></span></p> + +<p>There are seven States out of the Union already. They have organized +what they claim is an independent Government. They are not to be +coerced back, you say. Are the prospects very favorable that they will +return of their own accord? But <i>they</i> will annex territory. They are +already looking to Mexico. If left to themselves they would annex her +and all her neighbors, and we should lose our highway to the Pacific +coast. They would acquire it, and to us it would be lost forever.</p> + +<p>The North will consider well before she consents to this—before she +even permits it. Ever since 1820 we have pursued, in this respect, a +uniform policy. The North will hesitate long before, by accepting the +condition you propose, she deprives the nation of the valuable +privilege, the unquestionable right, of acquiring new territory in an +honorable way.</p> + +<p>I have tried to look upon these propositions of the majority of the +committee, as true measures of pacification. I have listened patiently +to all that has been said in their favor. But I am still unconvinced, +or rather I am convinced that they will do nothing for the Union. They +will prove totally inadequate; may, perhaps, be positively +mischievous. The North, the free States, will not adopt them—will not +consent to these new endorsements of an institution which they do not +like, which they believe to be injurious to the best interests of the +Republic; and if they did adopt them, as they could only do by a +sacrifice of principles which you should not expect, the South would +not be satisfied; she would not fail to find pretexts for a course of +action upon which I think she has already determined. I see in these +propositions any thing but true measures of pacification.</p> + +<p>But the North will never consent to the separation of the States. If +the South persists in the course on which she has entered we shall +march our armies to the Gulf of Mexico, or you will march yours to the +Great Lakes. There can be no peaceful separation. There is one way by +which war may be avoided and the Union preserved. It is a plain and a +constitutional way. If the slave States will abandon the design, which +we must infer from the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia they +have already formed, will faithfully abide by their constitutional +obligations, and remain in the Union until their rights are in <i>fact</i> +invaded, all will be well. But if they take the responsibility of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">102</a></span> +involving the country in a civil war; of breaking up the Government +which our fathers founded and our people love, but one course remains +to those who are true to that Government. They must and will defend it +at every sacrifice—if necessary, to the sacrifice of their lives.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I came here with my colleagues representing a Southern +State. I have had full and free communication with the people of all +portions of the South, before, during, and since the election of the +sixth of November, and I state here, that I have never dreamed that +there was the slightest objection anywhere to the inauguration of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>. To-day is the first time I ever heard the question raised, +and yet I do not believe that any such objection now exists.</p> + +<p>It is said that this is not a fit time to hold such a conference—not +a suitable time to consider the questions now before us. Is there any +reason why we should not consider the rights of any section of the +country, whether a President is going out or coming in? As one +delegate I will not consent to postpone the action necessary to secure +our rights for any such reason as this.</p> + +<p>Now, as to this question of slavery in the Territories. It is true +that the Supreme Court has decided it in favor of the South. It is +equally true that parties have repudiated that decision both in +platforms and on the stump.</p> + +<p>When territory has been acquired by the blood and treasure of the +common Union, you cannot exclude one portion of the <i>cestuis que +trust</i> from its rights. The Supreme Court so decided, and its decision +was just and equitable.</p> + +<p>At the South, we ask for our rights <i>under the Constitution</i>. We say, +let all questions which affect or concern them be decided. The +gentleman from Massachusetts says he will not give them up, that his +State will not yield. Well, if this is so, let us go to the ballot +box. If the question is decided in the gentleman's favor there, <i>we +know how to take care of ourselves</i>.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Massachusetts does not understand this question. He +does not understand why we of the South want it—why we must have it +settled. There <i>was</i> a time when the embargo law threw our slaves out +of employment. The North then contemplated a dissolution of the Union. +Why? Because she thought the Government wanted power—was +inefficient.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">103</a></span> Now, there is a sense of insecurity felt throughout the +South. Our property is depreciating, going down every day. We feel +this want of security very deeply, this want of faith in the +Government under which we live. The South is in agitation.</p> + +<p>Suppose some event should in some way strike down the value of your +property at the North. Would you not wish to have its security +restored? Would you not call for guarantees? If you would not, you are +not men. This is all we want; all we ask for, is security. There is +nothing in the territorial question that we may not settle by a fair +compromise.</p> + +<p>The commonwealth of Virginia called this Conference in high +patriotism. I have an earnest faith in her sincerity and her purity in +doing so. She hoped to meet her sisters animated by the same +patriotism—that they would join with her in granting the assurances, +in giving the securities we need. Gentlemen, you can give us these +securities—these assurances. We shall then go home and tell our +people that we can still live on together, in security. Will it do to +say that this cannot be done before the inauguration of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>? +No! No such answer should go to the people of any of the States—no +such answer will satisfy them. Give us the guarantees <i>here</i>. We will +satisfy the people of the whole nation as to the appropriateness of +the time.</p> + +<p>There is no truth in the assertions of the gentleman from +Massachusetts. We are willing to go before the old commonwealth of +Massachusetts with all her glorious memories, willing to go before New +York with her half million of voters, confident that both will do us +justice. Why stand between us and the people? At least, let us ask +their judgment upon our propositions.</p> + +<p>We come here to confer, to propitiate, not to awaken old troubles and +differences. If there are such existing and which must be settled, why +should we not settle them here? We all wish to bring back the seven +States which have left us; we have a common interest in them. I think +they should not have deserted us; that they should have consulted us +first, and then there would have been no necessity. If they were here, +their presence surely would not have weakened us, nor would their +presence have disturbed the North. We come not here to widen<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">104</a></span> our +separation—to drive them further off. We come to consult together, to +give and receive justice.</p> + +<p>I confess I am not much in favor of the second proposition of +amendment. We must regard this as a progressive country. From four +millions of people we have risen to thirty millions! Where will we be +in eighty years more? There will be in that time a great population in +our now unsettled territory—perhaps greater than all our present +population. I thought the amendment unwise, but I consented to it, for +if we would agree we must all yield something.</p> + +<p>And now I hope, and hope most earnestly, that without crimination or +recrimination we shall vote in good temper and in good time, so that +our proposals may in due time go before Congress and before the +people.</p> + +<p>Do not let us give up to revolution anywhere, in any section of the +Union! Do not you of the North impose upon us the necessity of fleeing +our country! God knows this same necessity may come to you of the +North, and sooner than you expect it. If disruption—if war must come, +one-half your merchants, one-half your mechanics will become bankrupt. +You are marching that way with hasty steps. Not one man, North or +South, but must suffer if the sad conclusion comes. Our products will +depreciate. Next year not one-half the fields now whitened by the rich +growth of cotton will be cultivated if this unhappy contest goes on.</p> + +<p>The people of my section, the people of the South, are restless and +impatient. They are already in the way of revolution—all these +influences are leading them on. Can they remain quiet when the +fortunes of one-half of them are struck down? Can you at the North +remain quiet under like provocations? And yet harmony may even yet be +restored. All these differences may be settled harmoniously. We +believe they may be settled now.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—If we should agree to all your propositions, and Congress +still should not act upon them, would not these difficulties be still +more complicated?</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—No, sir! No! We would then tell our people that this +Conference would, but Congress would not do any thing to save the +country. In such an event we would wait for the ballot box and a new +Congress.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">105</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—Permit me one question to the gentleman from Kentucky. +Would this Convention, in his opinion, have been called by Virginia, +if either Mr. <span class="smcap">Douglas</span> or Mr. <span class="smcap">Breckenridge</span> had been elected?</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I do not think it would have been called in that event. +Let me say, however, one thing which escaped me. It is not a divided +Democracy—not the existence of a Whig party, but it is the union of +all discordant elements combined, which have brought the abolitionists +into power, which has produced this sense of insecurity in the South. +It is their combined power which the people of the South feel, and +which they wish to guard against.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—I feel bound to say to all here present, that unless +this debate stops now, we might as well go home. I have pondered much +upon the remark of my worthy friend from Kentucky, that if we could +not do good here, at least we ought not to do harm. Why should we do +any thing to aggravate these unhappy circumstances? Let us not widen +our dissensions; let us do nothing to postpone or destroy the only +hope we have for the settlement of our troubles.</p> + +<p>Let us be gentle and pleasant. Let us love one another. Let us not try +to find out who is the smartest or the keenest. Let us vote soon, and +without any feeling or any quarrelling.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I fear from some remarks that have been made during this +discussion, that not only my motives, but the terms in which I have +expressed them, have been misapprehended. I have been untrue to every +purpose of my mind, if I have spoken with any bitterness or acrimony. +I thought it was my duty to be plain—at the same time temperate +though emphatic. I thought I had been so. Nothing is farther from my +purpose than the irritation of any section, much less of any member +here. Most assuredly I did not intend to create dissension or to give +the slightest occasion for personal feeling or recrimination.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT finding it necessary to leave the Conference, now called +Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span> to the chair.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—I did not mean to stir up anybody. I want to settle +these unhappy points of difference here. I want to settle them to-day, +now, this very hour. Suppose we do not settle them! Does not border +war follow? does not civil war<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">106</a></span> come? I speak to all of you, both +North and South. What becomes of your property in such a case? Who +wants to stake it all on such a hazard? We settled this question once +fairly, and, as everybody thought, finally. That was in 1850. Why was +not that settlement permitted to stand? Nothing but the ambition that +has sent so many angels down to hell could have ever brought it up +again.</p> + +<p>It is too late to bring charges against either section now—too late +to bring charges against individuals. The question now before us +is,—Which is the way to lead the country out of her present danger? +We want faith and good works—these alone will do it. If these fail, +we have no hope elsewhere. I am in favor of the propositions of +amendment submitted. These we can stand upon throughout the land. The +people will adopt them. In the name of all that is good and holy let +us settle these differences here.</p> + +<p>Why talk about territory to be acquired hereafter? We have just the +same title to it that the devil had to the territory he offered our +Saviour on a certain remarkable occasion—just the same title, at all +events, no better. For Heaven's sake, gentlemen, let us act for the +good of the country! let us give to every section its rights—to every +man his rights, and let this be remembered through all time as the +Convention of Patriots which sacrificed every selfish and personal +consideration to save the country!</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I wish to make one remark to the Conference, and +especially to the gentleman from Kentucky. Much is said here about +equal rights. We have always believed in that doctrine. We believe +this to be a country of equals. We went into the last Presidential +contest as equals—and as such we elected Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>. Now, when we +have the right to do so, we wish to come into power as equals—with +that superiority only which our majority gives us. When we are in +power and disturb or threaten to disturb the rights of any portion of +the Union, then ask us for security, for guarantees, and if need be +you shall have both. How would you have treated us if we had come to +you with such a request at the commencement of any Democratic +administration?</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I want to refer the report of the majority,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">107</a></span> and the +substitute proposed by the minority, back to the committee. I believe +that it is better to have action upon all these questions at the +earliest possible moment. The question now is, not which section of +the Union is suffering most—all sections are suffering; all are +feeling the influence of this agitation; all look with fear and +trembling to the future; all desire a speedy and a peaceful conclusion +of our differences. If we cannot settle them here—if we cannot induce +Congress to submit our propositions of amendment to the people, then I +pray from my heart, I hope and believe, that our friends in every +section will wait patiently until these propositions can go before the +State Legislatures and receive proper consideration there.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT here stated the proposition, to refer the reports of the +majority and the minority of the committee back to the committee, with +instructions.</p> + +<p>Several members objected to the motion, declaring it not in order.</p> + +<p>The motion was thereupon withdrawn.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question recurs upon the amendment offered by the +gentleman from Maryland, to insert the word "present" before the word +territories, in the first line and the fifth line of the propositions +of the amendment to the Constitution submitted by the majority of the +committee.</p> + +<p>The amendment was adopted without a count of the yeas and nays, and +the first section of the majority report, after the adoption of the +amendment, is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>ARTICLE 1. In all the present territory of the United +States, not embraced within the limits of the Cherokee +treaty grant, north of a line from east to west on the +parallel of 36° 30´ north latitude, involuntary servitude, +except in punishment of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall +be under a Territorial Government; and in all the present +territory south of said line, the status of persons owing +service or labor as it now exists, shall not be changed by +law while such territory shall be under a Territorial +Government; and neither Congress nor the Territorial +Government shall have power to hinder or prevent the taking +to said territory of persons held to labor or involuntary +service, within the United States, according to the laws or +usages of the State from which such persons may be taken, +nor to impair the rights arising out of said relations, +which shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal +Courts, according to the common law; and when any territory +north or south of said line, within such boundary as +Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population required +for a member of Congress, according to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">108</a></span> the then Federal +ratio of representation, it shall, if its form of government +be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal +footing with the original States, with or without +involuntary service or labor, as the Constitution of such +new State may provide.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. ROMAN:—I move that when this Conference adjourn, it adjourn to +meet at seven o'clock this evening.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I move an adjournment of the Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. ROMAN:—Is not my motion first in order?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question is on the motion of the gentleman from +Vermont.</p> + +<p>The motion to adjourn was put and carried.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">109</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="TWELFTH_DAY" id="TWELFTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">TWELFTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Tuesday</span>, <i>February 19th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by the <span class="smcap">President</span> at eleven o'clock.</p> + +<p>The proceedings were opened with prayer.</p> + +<p>The Journal was read by Assistant Secretary <span class="smcap">Puleston</span>, and, after +sundry amendments, was approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—The Committee on Credentials have received and +considered the credentials of Mr. <span class="smcap">Francis Granger</span>, of New York, +appointed to fill a vacancy in the delegation from that State, +occasioned by the resignation of Mr. <span class="smcap">Addison Gardiner</span>. They are +satisfactory, and if no objection is made, the list of delegates from +New York will be altered accordingly.</p> + +<p>No objection was made, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger's</span> name was added to the list of +delegates from New York.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I ask now that the resolution limiting the time to be +occupied by each member in debate be taken up. I have become satisfied +that unless we place some restrictions, in this respect, upon the +discussions, we shall occupy much more time than we wish to have +expended in that way. The session of the present Congress will soon +terminate. Our labors will be useless, unless we submit the result of +them to Congress in time to secure the approval of that body. The +propositions will be debated there, and that debate must necessarily +occupy time. I am sure no gentleman wishes to defeat the main purpose +of the Conference by delay. The resolution is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the discussions which may take place in +this Convention upon any question, no member shall be +allowed to speak more than thirty minutes.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. DAVIS:—I move to amend the resolution by inserting <i>ten</i> minutes +instead of <i>thirty</i> minutes.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">110</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—Is it seriously contemplated now, after gentlemen upon one +side have spoken two or three times, and at great length—after the +questions involved in the committee's reports have been thoroughly and +exhaustively discussed on the part of the South—and when only one +gentleman from the North has been heard upon the general subject, to +cut us off from all opportunity of expressing our views? Such a course +will not help your propositions.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOUTWELL:—Massachusetts will never consent to this.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—If we cannot get Massachusetts to help us, we will +help ourselves. We got along without her in the war of 1812; we can +get on without her again. The disease exists in the nation now. It is +of no use, or rather it is too late to talk about the cause, we had +much better try to cure the disease.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—New York has not occupied the time of the Conference for +three minutes. Kentucky has been heard twice, her representative +speaking as long as he wished. I insist upon the same right for New +York. I insist upon the discussion of these questions without +restriction or limitation.</p> + +<p>Mr. DODGE:—I wish to speak for the commercial interests of the +country. I cannot do them justice in ten minutes.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I am very desirous to reach an early +decision, and yet I do not quite like to restrict debate in this way. +Suppose, after holding one morning session, we have another commencing +at half-past seven in the evening?</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—We have come here for the purpose of <i>acting</i>; not to +hear speeches. There is no use in talking over these things; our minds +are all made up, and talking will not change them. I want to make an +end of these discussions. I move that all debate shall close at three +o'clock to-day, and that the Conference then proceed to vote upon the +propositions before it.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALLEN:—The object which brought us together I presume we shall +not disagree about. We came here for the purpose of consultation over +the condition of the country. If this is true, nothing but harm can +come from these limitations upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">111</a></span> the liberty of speech. The questions +before us are the most important that could possibly arise. Before our +present Constitution was adopted it was discussed and examined in +Convention for more than three months. We are now practically making a +new Constitution. Though we as members differed widely when we came +here, I think progress has been made toward our ultimate agreement. I +think the general effect of our discussions is to bring us nearer +together. I think our acquaintance and our association as members lead +to the same end.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Kentucky says that we have come here to heal +disease. I don't quite agree with him as to the disease. I differ +widely from him as to the proper method of treating it. He seems +disposed to apply a plaster to the foot, to cure a disease in the +head. If these debates should continue for a week, the time would not +be lost, the effect would be favorable. We should have more faith in +each other, a more kindly feeling would be produced. Do not let us +hurry. You may <i>force</i> a vote to-day, but the result will satisfy +none. Such a course will give good ground for dissatisfaction. You may +even carry your propositions by a majority, but what weight will such +a vote have in Congress or with the people?</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—We who represent smaller States intend to be very +modest here, but you will need our votes when you seek to place new +and important limitations upon a Constitution with which we are now +satisfied. I will answer for one State, and tell you that she will not +listen to a proposition that comes to her with a taint of suspicion +about it. If you will not allow her representatives to participate in +the examination and discussion of these propositions here, her people +will reject them without discussion, if they are ever called to act on +them. She has not occupied the time of this Conference for one minute +upon the general subject. She may not wish to do so. I submit whether +it is wise for you to cut off her right to be heard here, if she +chooses to exercise it.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee, that we came +here to act and not to talk. We have had talking enough, perhaps too +much already. I have drawn up a resolution which I think covers the +whole subject, I move its adoption. The resolution was read as +follows:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">112</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That this Convention will hold two sessions +daily, viz., from ten o'clock, <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, to four o'clock, <span class="smcap">p.m.</span>; +and from eight to ten o'clock, <span class="smcap">p.m.</span>; and that no motion to +adjourn prior to said hours of four and ten, <span class="smcap">p.m.</span>, shall be +in order, if objection be made; and that on Thursday next, +at twelve o'clock, noon, all debate shall cease, and the +Convention proceed to vote upon the questions or +propositions before them in their order.</p></div> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> commenced a statement of the various propositions +relating to the subject now pending, when Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span> moved to lay +the whole subject on the table.</p> + +<p>The motion to lay on the table was negatived by the following +vote:—ayes, 48; nays, 54.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I call for the division of the question.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—So many motions have been made that it is somewhat +difficult to decide, by the rules of Parliamentary law, which is in +order.</p> + +<p>I will divide the questions as follows:</p> + +<p>1st. Will the Conference hold two sessions daily?</p> + +<p>2d. Shall the debate be closed on Thursday at twelve o'clock?</p> + +<p>3d. Shall each member be limited to ten minutes in the discussion?</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I hope the questions will be decided +affirmatively.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—It appears to me that we can arrange this whole subject +without serious difficulty. If Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> will adhere to his +resolution, and the other proposals are withdrawn, we can then +proceed. If any gentleman finds it necessary to ask for an extension +of his time, it will no doubt be granted to him. Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph's</span> +proposition exacts too much labor. I think the Conference had better +limit the time of each member. I am opposed to fixing a time for +terminating the discussion. It will not be agreeable to many who may +be cut off. It is contrary to the spirit of the rules we have already +adopted. I hope we shall not be compelled to vote on the questions one +by one, and I will suggest to Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span> whether it would not be +better that his resolution should be withdrawn.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOPPIN:—I hope the resolution will pass as it is. We have come +here to act. We are all ready to take the vote now. The sooner we vote +the better. There is every necessity for prompt action.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">113</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—If the proposition had emanated from another quarter, I +should feel at liberty to urge its adoption. As it is, I would pay the +highest respect to it. I regret extremely to hear the talk about +<i>sides</i> in this Conference. I came here to act for the Union—the +whole Union. I recognize no sides—no party. If any come here for a +different purpose I do not wish to act with them; they are wrong. I +hope from my heart that we can all yet live together in peace; but if +we are to do so we must act, and act speedily.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> again stated his proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—If I understand rightly, the question should be on +striking out the latter clause of the resolution, so as to perfect it +and make it meet the case. I make the point and—</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I think the gentleman from Maryland is right.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALEXANDER:—I desire to ask whether a resolution to supersede the +motion to adjourn is in order?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the question should first be taken on the +motion to strike out the last clause in the resolution.</p> + +<p>Mr. STOCKTON:—If the Conference felt as I do, it would at once +establish such peremptory orders as would bring a speedy termination +to this whole business. Upon what, let me ask gentlemen, does the +salvation of the Union depend at this moment? What is it alone that +prevents civil war now? I answer, it is the session of this +Convention—this august Convention! We stand in the presence of an +awful danger! We feel the throes of an earthquake which threatens to +bring down ruin on the whole magnificent fabric of our Government! Is +it possible that we should suffer this ruin to take place? Would it +not impeach the wisdom and good sense of our day and generation to +permit the edifice which our fathers constructed—to crumble to +pieces? No! fellow countrymen, it is necessary that we, by trusting in +God, who guided our ancestors through the stormy vicissitudes of the +Revolution, should this day resolve that the Union shall be preserved!</p> + +<p>In the execution of that resolve let us unfold a new leaf in our +national history, and write thereon words of peace. Peace<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">114</a></span> or war is +in our hands—an awful alternative! Peace alone is the object of our +mission; to restore peace to a distracted country. I have spent my +whole life in the service of my country. I love the people of every +State in it. They have been under my command and I have been under +theirs. I know them, and I know that this Union can never be dissolved +without a struggle. Will you hasten the time when we shall begin to +shed each other's blood? No! gentlemen, no!</p> + +<p>There seems to be but one question which gives us any difficulty in +adjusting. That is, about the right of the South to take their slaves +into the territories. Is it possible that we can permit this Union to +be broken up because of any difference on such a question as this? +Better that the territories were buried in the deep sea beyond the +plummet's reach, than that they should be the cause of such a +deplorable result.</p> + +<p>But it is not the value of the territories which is in dispute; it is +not whether the North or the South shall colonize them, because, as +the gentleman from New York has said, that though the territory south +of 36° 30´ had been ten years open to Southern colonization, only +twenty-four slaves had been introduced into it. No, the real question +is, whether pride of opinion shall succumb to the necessities of the +crisis.</p> + +<p>The Premier of the incoming administration has declared that parties +and platforms are subordinate to, and must disappear in the presence +of the great question of the Union. This gives me hope. Let him and +his friends act upon that, and this Conference can in six hours, in +conjunction with a committee of his political friends, adjust such +terms of settlement as will save the Union.</p> + +<p>The Roman Curtius offered himself as a sacrifice to save Rome, when +informed by the oracle that the loss of his life would save his +country. We are now in greater danger than Rome was then; but is there +no Curtius for our salvation? We are not called upon to give up life, +property, or honor, but to concede justice and equal rights to our +Southern brethren. We only want the courage to yield extreme opinions. +What power, after victory, refuses to lower the lofty terms which were +asserted on the eve of the battle for the sake of peace? But the +Republicans say, shall we surrender the fruits of victory to the +vanquish<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">115</a></span>ed? I answer, how are you to enjoy your fruits without +pacification? You expected to govern the whole country. You aspired to +the control of the whole empire. Without peace you will not succeed in +establishing possession of that magnificent country which your +predecessors governed, but you will govern a little more than half of +it, and with that you have to provide for war.</p> + +<p>It is easy to dispose of the threatening attitude of the South by +denouncing it as a rebellion—as treason. It is idle to disguise the +danger. The revolt of a whole people, covering a territory equal to +half of Europe, is a revolution. You cannot dwarf the movement by +stigmatizing it as treason. Its magnitude and proportions make the +sword, and not the law, its arbiter. Is it possible that people can be +so infatuated as to contemplate the use of the sword to conquer +secession? Will you hasten the time when we shall begin to shed each +other's blood? Coerce! force fifteen States! Why, you cannot force New +Jersey alone! Force the South? They won't stop to count +forces—neither side can be frightened. Don't think of it. You cannot +frighten either, no more than the hero could be frightened whom the +Roman poet has immortalized. Suppose after the expenditure of a +thousand millions you shall have stopped dismemberment and subjugated +the South, what is to become of the country then? what is to become of +the army and its chiefs who have conquered? When the Long Parliament +had murdered Charles, subdued Ireland and Scotland, and compelled the +deference of all Europe, they supposed they would enjoy the fruits of +their victories. They began to discuss the expenses of the army, and +the expediency of its reduction. They had hardly commenced when +Cromwell entered Westminster Hall and turned out the Republican party +of that day. The whole country, tired of war, crouched under the iron +heel of the Puritan soldier. The Republican party of England +succumbed; Cromwell died; his son resigned the Protectorate, and the +Republican party of England rose to the surface and made its last +struggle for its power. General Monk and his army approached London, +and Parliament with servility waited the pleasure of the army. The +army declared for the King, and the King was restored.</p> + +<p>When men meet to save the country, they must be prepared to give up +every thing—to give their lives if necessary. How<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">116</a></span> can men stop for +party platforms when their country is in danger? But will the country +consent to be dragged into civil war to maintain the Chicago Platform? +It will not. That Platform was erected upon a perishable foundation. +In the language of the New York Senator, it must "disappear."</p> + +<p>I appeal to the brotherhood, to the fraternity of the North. My +friends, peace or war is in your hands. You hold the keys of peace or +war. You tell us not to hasten in this matter. But you do not realize +the facts—no one does. It is said that the South challenges and +invites war. No such thing. The mad action of South Carolina does not +truly represent the South. There are disunionists South as well as +North. It is the duty of patriotic men to checkmate the disunionists +of both sections. By a proclamation of war, we shall effectually play +into the hands and gratify the disunionists of both extremes. Civil +war consolidates the South as a unit for disunion. The gallant +southern men who have so nobly battled for the Union against great +odds, will then be overpowered and forced into the ranks of the +defenders of the South. While the South will thus be undivided and +stand in solid phalanx, what will be our condition here at the North?</p> + +<p>Can it be supposed that the Union men of the Democracy of of the North +will stand by and see the country plunged into civil war to maintain +the Chicago Platform? Will they acquiesce in the demolition of this +Union by these means, when it can be preserved by peace? No, sir! Do +you talk here about regiments for invasion, for coercion—you, +gentlemen of the North? You know better; I know better. For every +regiment raised there for coercion, there will be another raised for +resistance to coercion. If no other State will raise them, remember +New Jersey. The Republican leaders of the North, with hot haste, have +worked through the Legislatures of the several States resolutions of a +belligerent character, offering the military power of those States to +the Government to subdue the South. Did the people of the North +authorize those Legislatures to make any such tenders? Would the +people of the North sanction any such nefarious policy? I know well +the enormous bribe with which the Republican leaders would seduce the +North into fratricidal war. The expenditure of uncounted millions, the +distribution of epaulets and military commissions for an army of half +a million of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">117</a></span> men, the immense patronage involved in the letting of +army contracts, the inflation of prices and the rise of property which +would follow the excessive issue of paper money, made necessary by the +lavish expenditure;—these, indeed, are the enormous bribes which the +Republican party offers.</p> + +<p>How arrogant it is for the Republican leaders to tender the military +power of their States! Who gave them or their States authority to +raise armies? For national purposes the whole militia of the Union is +subject to Congress. Congress alone has power to declare war and to +call out the militia, and Congress can only call upon the militia to +suppress insurrection or repel invasion. Pause, gentlemen! Stop where +you are! You will bring strife to your own doors, to your very +hearthstones—bloody, disheartening strife. War will be in your own +homes, among your own families. Under ordinary circumstances you would +hesitate. If the question was about tariff, you would hesitate and +look at the awful consequences. That there is a diversity between us +is very true. What of it? It lies in a nutshell. We can fix it in a +minute, if you will be calm and act like brothers.</p> + +<p>The only question, as I understand it, for I have thought and studied +upon it, is this: You of the North will not yield to the South the +small privilege of taking their slaves into the territories of the +common Union. You will not give them a fair chance with you, even in +the Government property—the territories. When the territories become +States they will have to take care of themselves. You cannot theorize +slave soil into free soil, nor <i>vice versâ</i>. Am I not right? Does the +South ask any control or power over these territories after they have +become States? No, gentlemen; the South demands no such thing. It is +not demanded by her, and never will be. All I ask for the South, and +all she asks for herself, is this: Let us be free to come with our +slaves into all your territories, and hold them there until the +territory is made up into States.</p> + +<p>I have shown that if peace be not secured, the uprising of the South +would be a revolution, and cannot be treated as mere insurrection. The +bravado, therefore, of offering armies to the Government, can only +have the effect, at this crisis, of preventing a peaceful adjustment. +Against all such demonstrations we must fix our faces like flint. +Peace we must have. The Union can<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">118</a></span> only be preserved by peace. The +South asks no more than the North will concede, if the people of the +North can express their sentiments. The South only asks for equal +rights, and to be let alone. For thirty years she has asked no more. +The South will soon present its cause in an authoritative shape. Their +conventions will soon declare their propositions. Let the North be +prepared to consider them in conventions representing their people +fairly. If this is done, there is no doubt the present crisis will +pass without danger. Until time for these results can be taken, let +warlike demonstrations be resisted. Let the Government abstain from +collision, even with South Carolina. There is as much of loyalty to +the Union at the South as anywhere. It has only disappeared in the +presence of danger which threatened their domestic tranquillity, their +safety, and their honor. Let the hostile attitude which the North +assumed at Chicago give place to the recognition of the rights of the +South, and we shall see an outburst of loyalty to the Union throughout +the entire South, like that which welcomed to old England its +constitutional sovereign after a long and bloody civil war, forced +upon the English people by the Puritans. It is the spirit of the same +fanatic intolerance which has caused our present troubles.</p> + +<p>Intelligent citizens should abandon platforms and stand up for peace. +Peace with all nations has been the master policy. It has elevated our +country to its present condition of power and prosperity. Do not let +us sacrifice peace, and suffer violence and discord to usurp its +reign. We have a magnificent future if we can only preserve the Union +as our fathers constructed it. While it lasts there is a great light +in the firmament in which all may walk in security, hope, and +happiness. It is a light reaching far down the depths of futurity +cheering and guiding the steps of our children. It is a light shining +to the remotest corner of the earth—raising up the down-trodden and +illuminating the homes of the victims of oppression. But let that +light be now eclipsed, go out in blood and darkness, and the hopes of +mankind are forever blasted.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, will you not consider? Shall we not settle the question +here, and not trouble the rest of the Union with it? We will settle it +fairly and squarely. It is too small a matter to get mad about—to set +about destroying the Union. Why<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">119</a></span> quarrel over such a simple question? +No, gentlemen, you shall not do it. I am going to talk to you as +individuals—as men—as patriots. I know too many of you and too much +about you. You love your country too well to destroy her for such a +cause. You are too patriotic. The North will never dissolve this Union +on any such pretexts. You cannot destroy your country for that. You +love it too much. I call on you, <span class="smcap">Wadsworth</span> and <span class="smcap">King</span>, <span class="smcap">Field</span> and <span class="smcap">Chase</span> +and <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>—as able men, as brothers—as good patriots—to give up +every thing else if it is necessary, to save your country. But we +don't ask you to give up any thing in the way of principles.</p> + +<p>Now that Chicago Platform of yours is a nice paper. It has many good +things in it. But it must not control this question. You can keep that +platform and save your country: but you must save your country. Shall +we go into war upon this little question about the Territories. No! +No!!</p> + +<p>Under the most favorable circumstances possible for the experiment of +self-government, with every possible inducement to preserve our +country, we must not give it up. The years of civil war which will +succeed dismemberment of the Union will cause true men to seek refuge +and security, from military despotism, in some other country. Some +Cæsar or Napoleon will spring from the vortex of revolution and war, +and with his sword cleave his way to supreme command. If all history +is not a failure, and if mankind are now what they have always been, +such will be the fate of free government in the United States, in the +event of war. Shall we bring such a catastrophe upon us to vindicate +the Chicago Platform? No! the American people will rise in their +omnipotence and trample into dust the man who dared to put in jeopardy +this Union, in order to maintain such demagogism. Away with parties +and platforms and every thing else which would obstruct the free and +patriotic efforts now making for the salvation of the Union. It shall +not be destroyed. I tell you, friends, I am going to stand right in +the way. You shall not go home; you shall never see your wives and +families again, until you have settled these matters, and saved your +good old country, if I can help it. Spread aloft the banner of stripes +and stars, let the whole country rally beneath its glorious folds,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">120</a></span> +with no other slogan on their lips but the unanimous cry, <span class="smcap">The Union, +it must be Preserved</span>!</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—New Jersey has addressed New York as though she supposed +the delegation from that State to be united in its opinions, and its +action. Let me set the gentleman himself and the Conference right on +that point at the commencement. The members composing that delegation +do not agree; very far from it. The vote of that delegation hitherto +has been determined by a majority only; a majority reduced to the very +smallest point possible now, since the delegation is full. It may be +said that New York voted at the last Presidential election against us +by a majority of fifty thousand; but let me assure you that if the +noble propositions of the majority of your committee, which I read for +the first time yesterday, could be submitted to them, the people of +New York would adopt them by even a larger majority.</p> + +<p>These <i>are</i> noble propositions; they are worthy the eminent and +patriotic committee from which they have emanated. They present a fair +and equitable basis for the adjustment of our difficulties; they are a +shield and a sure defence against the dangers which threaten us. They +are such as the people expect and such as they want. They know that +the politicians who have brought the country to the verge of ruin can +be trusted no longer. The time has come when they must act for +themselves. Be assured, gentlemen, they will do so.</p> + +<p>I wish to say a few words about the last election in New York, for it +has been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. How did we go into +that canvass? Upon what principles was it conducted? What +representations were made? I am one of the men who have struggled to +meet and oppose this Republican party from the outset—to avert, if +possible, the adoption of its pernicious principles by the people of +New York. I took my stand upon the Compromise of 1850, and separated +myself politically from all men who could not stand with me on that +platform. We struggled on until that Compromise was adopted by the +Baltimore Convention.</p> + +<p>The Kansas bill was introduced at a most fatal hour. It was +distasteful to the whole country; satisfactory nowhere. In due<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">121</a></span> time +the Charleston Convention was assembled, and the Democratic party was +broken up forever.</p> + +<p>What next? Next came the Chicago Convention. It may have been +conducted with dignity, and it nominated a candidate. I differ widely +from that candidate in my principles and my policy. And yet I believe +in him although I opposed his election. I would trust his Kentucky +blood to the end, if all else failed. I think he is honest. I have no +idea that he will permit the policy of his administration to be +controlled by the hotheaded zealots who have been so conspicuous in +the last canvass. I expect to see him call to his council board, cool, +dispassionate, and conservative men; not men who are driven to the +verge of insanity upon this question of slavery.</p> + +<p>What next? The Baltimore Convention was held. The tragedy was +consummated; the contest was ended. The mere scuffle to secure the +control of the Convention which ended in its division, has brought the +country into all its present difficulties. If that Convention had +presented to the people a good conservative Democrat, there were +seventy-five thousand good old line Whigs who would have buckled on +their armor and would have won the battle for him.</p> + +<p>When the Southern papers began to threaten disunion because <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> +did not suit the South, I was not one who abused or denounced them. I +knew the temper of some of the politicians in the free States. I knew +the action of the South was not impulsive. I knew there was a reason +for it. They said their capital was to be rendered worthless—their +property to be destroyed, and their country made desolate. God forbid +that I should chide them for thinking so!</p> + +<p>The Northern mind is in some respects very different from the +Southern. It is not started by slight scratches, but strike the rowel +deep, and there is a purpose in it that nothing can conquer or +restrain. The people of the North will carry that purpose into +execution, with a power as fierce as that of the maddest chivalry of +South Carolina. The rowel <i>was</i> struck deep and the consequences were +not considered.</p> + +<p>Subjects have been introduced into this discussion which I should have +been glad to have avoided, which it would have been better every way +to have avoided. The gentleman from<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">122</a></span> Virginia has referred to the <span class="smcap">John +Brown</span> invasion. That is one of those subjects. He spoke of the feeling +at the North regarding insurrections. I assure you that the North +regarded the invader in that case as a foe in your homes—uncurbed and +unrestrained—a terrible enemy. I would say to the gentleman from +Virginia, that although too many instances among extreme men may have +been found of attempts to justify that invasion, such was not the +general feeling at the North. Those instances were rare exceptions; +and because they were so few and so exceptional, acquired a degree of +notoriety and received a degree of attention to which they were never +entitled. Such instances as these have always served to prejudice the +South improperly against the North. Men are too much given to forming +opinions of us from the intemperate acts of a few meddling men.</p> + +<p>How do we stand at the present moment in this respect. You will find a +few men among us, even now, rash enough to say, "Let these Southern +slaveholders go. The 'nigger' will rise upon them and cut their +throats!" The action of such men, I admit, gives some color and +justification to your charges and prejudices against the whole +Northern people.</p> + +<p>I agree with you, gentlemen, that this is now a question of peace or +war. I believe it to be so from my very soul. The North has been much +to blame in bringing it upon us. What has been the language used at +the North? Men have used such expressions as this, "The South secede? +Why, you can't kick out the South." And men who knew no better +believed the statement to be true. I appeal to northern men to say +whether this has not been so. I myself thought four States would go, +but I believed secession would stop there. We had more to hope from +Louisiana than from any other Gulf State. She has gone, and has now +taken up a most offensive and threatening position. Virginia to-day is +in more danger of immediate secession than Louisiana was a few short +months ago.</p> + +<p>My friend from New Jersey says that if this Convention does not +prevent it, there must be war. I agree with him. War! what a fearful +alternative to contemplate? War is a fearful calamity at best, +sometimes necessary I admit, but always terrible. It cannot come to +this country without a fearful expenditure of blood and treasure. It +will leave us, if it leaves us a nation at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">123</a></span> all, with an awful legacy +of widows' tears—of the blighted hopes of orphans—with a catalogue +of suffering, misery, and woe, too long to be enumerated and too +painful to be contemplated. For God's sake! let such a fate be averted +at any cost, from the country. If it comes at all, it will be such a +war as the world never saw. War is commonly, and almost universally, +between nations foreign to each other—whose individuals are strangers +to each other, and whose interests are widely separated. But we are a +nation of brothers, of a common ancestry, and bound together by a +thousand memories of the past—a thousand ties of interest and blood. +It will be a war between brothers—between you who come to us in +summer, and we who visit you in winter. It will be a war between those +who have been connected in business—associated in pleasures, and who +have met as brothers in the halls of legislation and the marts of +commerce. Save us from such a war! Let not the mad anger of such a +people be aroused. And, gentlemen, if war comes it must be long and +terrible. You will see both parties rise in their majesty at both ends +of the line. They will slough off every other consideration and devote +themselves, with terrible energy, to the work of death. Oh ye! who +bring such a calamity as this upon this once happy country! Pause, +gentlemen, before you do it, and think of the fearful accountability +that awaits you in time and in eternity.</p> + +<p>But I am here to answer for the State of New York; the Empire State +and the people of the Empire State. I have never been classed with the +rash men of that State who have aided in bringing about this condition +of things. I will not be classed with those who now thrust themselves +between the Empire State and those glorious propositions of your +committee. They are in the smallest possible majority even in our +delegation. All I ask is, that we may have the judgment of the people +upon these propositions, and I will be answerable for the rest; and +these gentlemen who rely upon the fifty thousand (50,000) majority of +last November, will have a fearful waiting for of judgment. Fifty +thousand majority! Who does not know how that majority was made up? It +was not a majority upon the question of slavery at all. It came in +this wise: The opposite party was divided and distracted. The +Republican party united all sorts of discordant elements; men voted +for Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> from a great variety<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">124</a></span> of motives. Some, because they +wanted the Homestead law; some because they wanted a change in the +Tariff; and, gentlemen, let me assure you, there were more men who +voted for Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>—solely on account of the Tariff—than would +have made up this fifty thousand majority. I know the people of New +York, and I know I can answer for them when I say, Give us these fair +and noble propositions and we will accept them with an unanimity that +will gratefully surprise the nation.</p> + +<p>How does the nation stand to-day? Look at Kansas! She is a State and +yet in beggary. She is stretching out her hands to us for relief. We +have relieved her for the time, but she will need more aid again. The +whole country is excited and agitated. The press, North and South, is +full of misrepresentation and vituperation. Sections are arrayed +against each other. Men fear to trust each other. The very air is full +of anxiety and apprehension. Such, gentlemen, is the miserable +condition of the country. The nation is in great peril. Its interests, +its institutions, its property, are all in great and common peril. +Paralysis has seized upon the whole country. In vain now shall we +argue about causes. The effect is upon us. Business is stagnated. +Those who have capital do not dare to move it. But we here must do +something. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> is coming, and all along the route the people +are doing him honor. But that triumphal march is insignificant +compared with the anxiety felt throughout the country that this +Convention should agree upon some plan that will save the Government +and the Union.</p> + +<p>In one thing, under other circumstances, I would agree with the +gentleman (Mr. <span class="smcap">Boutwell</span>) from Massachusetts. Had the border States +elected their members of Congress, I would wait. But the elections in +the border States are yet to be held. And upon what idea? Why, sir, +upon the idea that their whole interests and their whole property are +in danger. Aspiring and dangerous men will go before an excited people +full of anxiety and uncertainty for the future, and by them be elected +instead of the sound, wise, and conservative gentlemen usually +selected to represent those States. Those elections would be a mad +scene of aspersion and vituperation. I cannot, I will not trust them. +Rather give me in those States the glorious results of years gone by.</p> + +<p>I say, and I am proud to declare here, that I had no associa<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">125</a></span>tion with +the dominant party in the old Empire State at the last election. I +struck every other name from the ticket, except those who voted for +Bell and Everett. Glorious names! which received the triumphant +endorsement of the mother of Presidents—the grand old commonwealth of +Virginia.</p> + +<p>Sometimes I meet with men who tell me what is going to be done. They +talk of retaking forts now held by seceded States by force, of +restoring things to their former condition, as they would about +sending a vessel for a cargo of oranges to Havana. But they forget +that the next administration, like the philosopher who would move the +world with a lever, has no holding spot—no place whereon to stand. It +is one thing to hold a fort where you have it, but quite another thing +to take it when held by the enemy.</p> + +<p>Who can magnify the importance of this Conference to all the nation? +It is the most important ever held in this country. It holds the key +of peace or war. The eyes of the whole people are turned hopefully +upon it. By every consideration that should move a patriot, let us +agree. Let us act for the salvation of our common country. I came here +very unexpectedly to myself. Long withdrawn from political circles, +living in comparative retirement, at peace with the world and myself, +I would have preferred to remain there; but when I heard of my +appointment as a delegate to this Conference, I felt it my duty to +come here and say these few things to you.</p> + +<p>And now let me close by again assuring you, that if all you ask of New +York is the adoption of the propositions which I heard here yesterday +as the propositions of a majority of your committee, New York will do +you justice. She will answer "<span class="smcap">Yes</span>" by a most triumphant majority—a +majority compared with which any heretofore given will seem +insignificant! I will occupy time no farther. There is much which I +would add, but this is a time for action and not for words.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—There are few members of this Conference who attend its +sessions with greater interest than myself. I presume that we have +come together influenced by various considerations. There are some, I +have no doubt, who do not desire the preservation of the Union—who do +not care for the safety of the Government which our fathers founded. +They may not avow<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">126</a></span> their purposes, they may even conceal them under +specious words, but their purpose will be disclosed when we see them +arrayed against all projects of settlement—all measures to quiet the +existing excitement. Others may think there is no necessity for any +action at all, may think so honestly. But let me assure them they are +mistaken—sadly mistaken.</p> + +<p>Now, I do not care what motives influence others. It is of no +consequence to me what their designs or purposes may be, I have no +concealment and no deception. I came here for a purpose which I openly +and distinctly avow. I proclaim it here and everywhere. I will labor +to carry it into execution with all the strength and ability which my +advanced years and enfeebled health have left me. <i>I came to maintain +and preserve this glorious Government! I came here for Union and +peace!</i> (Applause.)</p> + +<p>My health is such that if I could avoid it, I would not mingle in this +discussion. I would not say one word, if I did not know perfectly well +that life or death to my part of the country was involved in the +action of this Conference. If gentlemen felt as as deeply as I do, +they would deprecate as I do the introduction of party or politics +into this discussion, or the slightest reference to them. Of what +importance is party, compared with the great questions involved here? +Parties or men may go up or down, and yet our country is safe. But +such Conferences as this, in such emergencies as the present, must +act, if our country is to be saved. Let us discard politics and +party—let us be brethren and friends.</p> + +<p>A gentlemen asked yesterday whether the Convention would have been +called, if a Democrat had been elected President. Certainly not. But +considerations of a party character would not have prevented it. The +true necessity that called us here, is that a President has been +elected by a large majority, and a new and strong party is coming into +power, which our people believe entertain views and designs hostile to +our institutions. Do not understand me as charging the fact upon the +new Government. Perhaps I might say that I do not believe it myself.</p> + +<p>But that will not answer. Our people are agitated and excited, and we +have come here to tell you all, with sorrow in our hearts, that if you +will not do something to restore a confidence<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">127</a></span> that is shaken, we are +ruined, and we must see this noble Government go down.</p> + +<p>We ask you for new constitutional guarantees; and what are the +propositions we make? Is there any thing in them which you cannot +grant? Is there any thing which it would be dishonorable for you to +yield? You reply to us, that you will consent to call a convention to +discuss and adjust matters. That will not do. We must act on the +existing state of facts. Seven States are already in rebellion—in +revolution! I don't care which you call it; either word is bad enough. +Tennessee and North Carolina already form fourteen hundred miles of +what is virtually a frontier. We are now the border States; we are to +be the theatre of war, if it comes. The slave property we speak of +will be in still greater peril than it is now. Now think of these +things, and tell us whether we can wait for all this complicated +machinery of a convention to be put into operation. At the very +shortest, it will take three or four years to accomplish any thing.</p> + +<p>But my friend from Massachusetts says he does not wish to do any thing +at all; that the North is under duress, and her people would despise +themselves if they acted under duress. No! no! This is not true in any +sense. We respect the people of the North too much to attempt to drive +them, or to secure what we need by threats or intimidation. We want +the aid of the people of Massachusetts, and we will appeal to their +sense of right and justice.</p> + +<p>I believe that these propositions, if adopted, will not only satisfy +and quiet the loyal States of the South, but that they will bring back +the seven States which have gone out. I must be frank and outspoken +here. We cannot answer for these States. We cannot say whether they +will be satisfied. But we can even stand their absence. We can get on +without them, if you will give us what will quiet our people, and what +at the same time will not injure you.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, we of North Carolina are not hostile to you; we are your +friends—brothers in a common cause—citizens of a common country. We +are loyal to our country and to our Constitution. We lose both of +them, unless you will aid us now.</p> + +<p>As for me, I am an old man. My heart is very full when I look upon the +present unhappy and distracted condition of our<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">128</a></span> affairs. I was born +before the present Constitution was adopted. May God grant that I do +not outlive it. I cannot address you on this subject without +manifesting a feeling which fills my heart. Let me assure you, in +terms as strong as I can make them, that we cannot stand as we are; +that unless you will do something for us, our people will be drawn +into that mad career of open defiance, which is now opening so widely +against the Government. All I ask of you is to let these propositions +go to the people—to submit them at once to their conventions, and not +wait the action of the Legislatures of all the States. We want the +popular voice—the decision of the people, and the whole people; and +if it is to avail us at all, we must have it at once and speedily.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—I did not design to trespass upon the time of the +Conference at this stage of the debate. But statements have been made +upon this floor to-day which I cannot permit for a single hour to +remain unanswered. I should be recreant to my conscience, and +especially to my State, if I did not answer them here and now.</p> + +<p>I came here for peace, prepared to do that justice to every section of +the Union which would secure peace—prepared to go to the farthest +limit which propriety and principle, and my obligations to the +Constitution, would permit me, to satisfy our southern friends. I did +not wish to commit myself to any thing, until I had patiently seen and +heard all that was to be said and proposed. Even now I regret that +this incidental discussion upon a subject entirely collateral has +arisen. How thoroughly it shows the idleness and folly of attempting +to limit, or trammel, or hamper discussion upon the general questions +which are presented for our action!</p> + +<p>Sir, I speak for New York! Not New York of a time gone by! Not New +York of an old fossiliferous era, remembered only in some chapter of +her ancient history, but young, breathing, living New York, as she +exists to-day. Full of enterprise, patriotism, energy—her living +self, with her four millions of people, among whom there is scarcely +to be found a heart not beating with loyalty to the Constitution and +the Government.</p> + +<p>In behalf of that New York, the one and only one alive now, I propose +to reply to some of the statements made here by one of her +representatives.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">129</a></span></p> + +<p>In the name of the popular voice of that State, recently uttered in +tones that I supposed any one could understand, I tell you, gentlemen +of this Convention, beware of false prophets. <i>This day</i>, the +Scripture is fulfilled among you. [Pointing to Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger</span>.] "A +prophet is not without honor save in his own country, and in his own +house!"</p> + +<p>New York must stand upon this floor, and upon every other floor, as +the peer of every other State. Her representatives must have the same +rights as any other—and they must be treated like any other. If, in +her judgment, New York ought not to give her assent to these +propositions, that assent shall not be given; it can never be secured +by threats or intimidations. She must have the same rights as any +other State, certainly the same rights as New Jersey.</p> + +<p>Mr. STOCKTON:—I am sure the gentleman is mistaken; I said nothing +intended as a threat or an intimidation.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—Well, let me say it once for all, New York will yield +nothing to intimidation.</p> + +<p>Now, what is the question which has led to this most extraordinary +discussion? It is simply whether debate shall be hampered, or +practically cut off, by short limitations as to time, after one +section has had an opportunity of expressing its views.</p> + +<p>Virginia has called this Conference together. We thought she had no +right to do so, and that no possible good could come from her doing +it. But we waived all considerations of that kind, and upon her +invitation we came here.</p> + +<p>She asks us to consider new and important amendments to the +Constitution, alterations of our fundamental law; and in the same +breath we are told that we must not discuss them—that we must take +them as they are offered to us, without change or alteration.</p> + +<p>We take time to make treaties. We do not even enter into private +contracts without taking time for consideration and reflection. We +have been here a little more than a week. The greater part of that +time has been occupied by the committee in preparing these +propositions. The discussion has scarcely commenced. I submit to the +Conference, is it kind, is it generous, is it proper to stop here? Is +it <i>best</i> to do so?</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—The gentleman seems to think my resolution was aimed +at the delegation from New York. That<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">130</a></span> is not true in any sense. I did +not wish to cut off debate at all. I thought we might economize time +and still have debate enough to satisfy everybody.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—I believe I perfectly understand your proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I have agreed to support the resolution, and must adhere +to my agreement.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—Personally I might be in favor of the adoption of the +half-hour rule, for I think I could say all I desire to say in +relation to these propositions within that time. I have certainly no +desire that this discussion should be unreasonably protracted. But +such limitations are always embarrassing. Other gentlemen do not wish +to have them imposed. Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> objects to them; and if gentlemen +really think they need more time, I think it ungenerous not to yield +to their wishes. And I insist that such a course is least calculated +to promote conciliation. The more free and full you make this +discussion, the more will your results find favor elsewhere. It has +been my belief from the beginning, that by careful comparison of our +views, by a discussion of all our points of difference, we should, in +the end, come to an agreement. I had hoped that such sentiments would +have universally prevailed, and that no desire would be shown to force +the action of any delegation. I am willing to say for myself that if +the thirty minute rule be adopted I will give way at once.</p> + +<p>But I must proceed to notice some statements which have been urged +here as reasons why we must adopt—</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—Will my colleague yield to me for one moment? I have a +communication to make which I think will make every lover of his +country in this Conference rejoice. It is news from a slaveholding +State. It shows that her heart beats true to the Union.</p> + +<p>Missouri has just elected delegates to a convention to consider the +questions now agitating the Country. I hold in my hands a telegram, +stating that a very large proportion of the delegates elected are +<i>true Union men</i>.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I will assume it to be the pleasure of the Conference +that the telegram be read.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD then read the telegram announcing that Union<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">131</a></span> delegates to +the Convention in Missouri had been elected by heavy majorities. The +announcement was received with much applause.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—This news is indeed cheering. It is an additional evidence +of the depth to which love for our country has struck into the hearts +of its people—another inducement to make us agree—another reason why +we should not be led off upon false issues.</p> + +<p>The Constitution has provided the only proper way in which amendments +may be made to it. If these methods are followed, amendments will be +thoroughly discussed and considered, and they will not be adopted +unless the interests of the nation shall be found to require their +adoption.</p> + +<p>The State of Virginia seeks to precipitate action; to secure these +vital changes in our fundamental law in a manner unknown to it, and in +a manner which, in my judgment, it is not advisable to adopt. I make +no complaint of Virginia. It is the right and privilege of any State +to make such a request, but it is none the less unconstitutional.</p> + +<p>Shall we be told that Virginia cannot wait, that her people are so +impatient that they will not give the country time to consider these +important changes in its form of Government? Why should there be such +indecent haste? Why not wait a week—month, and even six months, if +that time is necessary? Be assured, gentlemen, that no substantial +alteration of the fundamental law of this Government will ever be made +until it has been discussed and considered by the Press and the people +in all its details. The thing is impossible!</p> + +<p>I have a few words to say for New York, as I said in the +commencement—for the New York of the present day. Where, I ask, is +the gentleman's (Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger</span>) warrant of attorney to speak for the +people of that State? Where is the evidence upon which he founds the +assertion which he makes on this floor that New York will adopt the +propositions to which he refers? Let me assure you, gentlemen, that +the political principles of the people of New York do not sit thus +lightly upon their consciences. They gave a heavy republican majority +at the last Presidential election, not because they were carried away +upon collateral issues, but because the principles of the Chicago +Platform met<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">132</a></span> their approval—because they thought the time had come +when the destinies of this nation should no longer be left in the +hands of men who would use them only to promote the interests of one +section of the Union. Do not mistake, sir, the effect of that great +demonstration! The people of New York were in earnest; they went into +the election with a strong, determined purpose, and it is too late now +to misconstrue or misunderstand that purpose. They were not influenced +by collateral issues. Their action was upon the great principles +involved. They believed that the platform of the Republican party +embodied the true principles upon which the Government should be +conducted, and they said so. You will find that their minds are to-day +unchanged.</p> + +<p>But the gentleman says, the result of recent elections shows that a +change in their minds has taken place; that it indicates a strong wish +on their part for conciliation and peace. Sir, I deny that such a +change has taken place. There may have been slight changes in a few +cities where the whole power and strength of the Democratic party has +been put forth. But the country, upon the great issues before it, is +unchanged. The county of St. Lawrence has just elected every +Republican candidate for supervisor. In other counties, nearly the +same unanimity prevails. The great heart of the country is still loyal +and Republican.</p> + +<p>And, sir, these threats of dissolution will all react against you. +They operated in the Presidential election only in one way. I have no +doubt that these threats gave Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> five thousand votes in New +York City alone. The people are sick of them. They know that if they +once yielded to them, they would be forced to do so again. They do not +like these insinuations against the Government involved in the +propositions made here. If you wish them to be considered favorably by +the people of New York, you must send them out free from all suspicion +of duress or intimidation; you must permit them to be examined, +discussed, and dissected here, by the representatives of New York and +of every other State. I am opposed decidedly to cutting off or +limiting these discussions. Let all parties be heard; give them time, +and time enough, to deliberate, and the result will be peace and +harmony to the country.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">133</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—I rise for the purpose of answering some of the +observations of the gentleman from New York; and first of all I wish +to say a word about the motives and purposes of Virginia in calling +this Convention. She has called this Convention together because she +believed it would exert a powerful influence for the safety and honor +of the country, and the perpetuity of its institutions. She is met <i>in +limine</i> with the reproach that her action is unconstitutional. How +unconstitutional?</p> + +<p>Is not our Government based upon the sovereignty of the people? Is not +that the idea upon which this Government rests? And when the people +act, are they to be told that their action is unconstitutional or +improper? Cannot Virginia and her people, acting through their +representatives, suggest the means of amendment or improvement in our +Constitution to Congress?—the Congress which represents the people, +and whose members are servants only of the people? Can she not call +together a convention of this kind and suggest measures to be +considered by it for the purpose of saving an imperilled country? +Virginia knew well that this was to be an advisory Conference merely. +She invited commissioners from all the States to come here and present +their views, to compare and discuss them, to devise measures for the +benefit of the country, in the same way that any assemblage of the +people may lawfully do. Has the gentleman looked into the history of +our present Constitution? Virginia did the same thing previous to the +adoption of that Constitution, which she is doing now.</p> + +<p>Some State must invite a Conference, if one is to be had. If it was +proper that Virginia should do it before the adoption of our present +Constitution, it is eminently proper that she should do it now. There +are occasions, sir, in the history of nations, when men should rise +far above the rules of special pleading. This is one of them. Let the +gentleman look into the history of the old articles of Confederation; +let him read the debates which arose upon their adoption. Virginia +originated measures then, far more important than any before us now; +and there were gentlemen then, who took the same ground that gentlemen +do now, who sought by the use of dilatory pleas, by interposing +objections, temporary in their nature, to prevent and delay action +upon the great national questions then under consideration. Now, in a +time of great peril, when the whole country is convulsed, when<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">134</a></span> the +existence and perpetuity of the Government is in danger, Virginia has +invoked her sister States to come here and see whether they cannot +devise some method to avoid the danger and save the country.</p> + +<p>In the preamble to the first ten articles of Confederation, there is +to be found an express reference to the action of the State +Legislatures in initiating proposals of amendment. Every amendment +that has hitherto been made to our Constitution originated with the +people, and directly or indirectly through the action of State +Legislatures. What purpose can gentlemen have in interposing these +dilatory pleas, objections merely for delay, when we all know that +Congress is now waiting for—actually inviting the action of this +Conference?</p> + +<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Collamer</span>, in his speech already referred to, makes the +distinct proposition, that when any considerable portion of the people +(certainly a much smaller portion than is here represented) desire to +have amendments submitted, it is the duty of Congress to propose them, +and to do so without committing that body either for or against them. +Governor <span class="smcap">Corwin</span>, also of the Congressional Committee of Thirty-three, +having this subject in charge, is understood to have stated that the +committee desire to consider the propositions which may here be +adopted.</p> + +<p>Now, as I said, these dilatory objections were interposed previous to +the adoption of our present Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—Are we to understand that Virginia then asked for a +General Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution?</p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—No! The Annapolis Convention met. The invitation under +which that body was convened was addressed to all the States. Five +only responded, and they proposed a General Convention of all the +States, to meet at Philadelphia. Virginia was the first to act and to +appoint her delegates. I repeat, that the same objection was then +urged, that Congress <i>or</i> the States should propose the amendments. +The first Convention was just as unconstitutional as this. The two +cases were perfectly alike. The crisis is infinitely more important +now than it was then. Then, there was no disintegration of the States. +They still held firmly together. How are we now? Seven States are out +of the Union. <i>The Union is dissolved!</i> Virginia loves the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">135</a></span> Union. She +cherishes all its glorious memories. She is proud of its history and +of her own connection with it. But Virginia has no apprehension as to +her future destiny. She can live in the Union or out of it. She can +stand in her own strength and power if necessary. Her delegates come +here in no spirit of supplication, nor do they propose to offer any +intimidation. She has called you here as brothers, as friends, as +patriots. If the future has suffering in store for Virginia, be +assured all her sister States must suffer equally.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, the position of Virginia must be understood and +appreciated. She is just now the neutral ground between two embattled +legions, between two angry, excited, and hostile portions of the +Union. To expect that her people are not to participate in the +excitement by which they are surrounded; to expect that they should +not share in the apprehensions which pervade the country; to expect +that they should not begin to look after the safety of their interests +and their institutions, were to expect something superhuman. Something +must be done to save the country, to allay these apprehensions, to +restore a broken confidence. Virginia steps in to arrest the progress +of the country on its road to ruin. She steps in to save the country. +I am here in part to represent her. I utter no menace; intimidation +would be unworthy of Virginia, but if I perform my duty I must speak +freely. The danger is imminent, <i>very</i> imminent.</p> + +<p>Our national affairs cannot longer remain in their present condition; +it is impossible, absolutely impossible that they should. My +Republican friends, will you not take warning? Were there not +pretended prophets of old, who cried, "Peace! Peace! when there was no +peace"? Political prophets to-day say there is no danger. Have their +counsels been wise heretofore? Can you not see that there is danger, +and imminent danger in them, now?</p> + +<p>Look, sir, at our position! I mean the position of the loyal South. By +the secession of these States we are reduced to an utterly helpless +minority; a minority of seven or eight States to stand in your +national councils against an united North! It is not in the nature of +the Anglo-Saxon race thus to stand in the face of a dominant and +opposition party. Were the case reversed, you would not do it +yourselves. We cannot hold our rights by mere sufferance, and we will +not; we do not ask you to hold yours<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">136</a></span> in that way. If the other States +had kept on with us—had remained in the Union—we might have secured +our rights in a fair contest. Now other paths are open to us, and one +of these we must follow.</p> + +<p>I desire to say a word in answer to the propositions of my honorable +friend from Connecticut. What did he tell us? He said that this was a +self-sustaining Government; a Government that possessed the power of +securing its own perpetuity, and one that must not yield or make +concessions. Sir, let me say that ideas, that principles, that +statements of that kind have led to the downfall of every Government +on earth which has ever fallen. What but ideas and language of this +kind, forced our colonies into rebellion, and lost America to the +British crown?</p> + +<p>Sir, I have had some experience in revolutions in another +hemisphere—in revolutions produced by the same causes that are now +operating among us. What causes but these led to the two revolutions +in France? One of them I saw myself, where interest was arrayed +against interest, friend against friend, brother against brother. I +have seen the pavements of Paris covered, and her gutters running with +fraternal blood! God forbid that I should see this horrid picture +repeated in my own country; and yet it will be, sir, if we listen to +the counsels urged here!</p> + +<p>It is too late to theorize, too late to differ theoretically. I do not +believe in the constitutional right of secession. I proclaimed <i>that</i>, +thirty years ago in Congress. I have always adhered to my opinions +since. But we are not now discussing theories; we are in the presence +of a great fact. The South is in danger; her institutions are in +danger. If other excuses were necessary, she might justify her action +in the eyes of the world upon the ground of self-defence alone.</p> + +<p>I condemn the secession of States. I am not here to justify it. I +detest it. But the great fact is still before us. Seven States have +gone out from among us, and a President is actually inaugurated to +govern the new Confederation.</p> + +<p>With this fact the nation must deal. Right or wrong, it exists. The +country is divided. Wide dissensions exist. A people have separated +from another people. Force will never bring them together. Coercion is +not a word to be used in this connection. There must be negotiation. +Virginia presents herself as a mediator to bring back those who have +left us.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">137</a></span></p> + +<p>The border States are not in revolt; and by border States I mean +States on both sides of the border. They are here, and they came here +to unite with you in measures that will reunite the country, and save +it from irredeemable ruin.</p> + +<p>There was one observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts that +surprised me. He complained of Virginia for thrusting herself between +the Republican party and its victory. It is not so.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOUTWELL:—I said that Massachusetts thought her action had that +appearance.</p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—Let me say to you, Republican gentlemen, we wish to make +your victory worthy of you. We wish to inaugurate your power and your +administration over the <i>whole</i> Union. We wish to give you a nation +worth governing. Do us at least the justice of supposing we are in +earnest in this. We are laboring to relieve you from the difficulties +that hang over you. War is impending. Do you wish to govern a country +convulsed by civil war? The country is divided. Do you wish to govern +a fraction of the country? Behold the difficulties that you must +encounter. You cannot carry on your Government without money. Where is +the capitalist who will advance you money under existing +circumstances?</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, believe me, as one who has given no small amount of time +and careful reflection to this subject, when I tell you that you +cannot coerce sovereign States. It is impossible. Mr. <span class="smcap">Hamilton's</span> great +foresight made him assert that our strength lay in the Government of +the States—of the undivided States. Look at New York. She herself is +a match for the whole army of the United States. Look at the South. +She stands now almost upon an equality with you. You may spend +millions of treasure, you may shed oceans of blood, but you cannot +conquer any five or seven States of this Union. The proposition is an +utter absurdity. You must find some other way to deal with them. In +the wisdom of the country some other way must be found.</p> + +<p>Several gentlemen have referred to our army and our navy. As a citizen +of the United States, I am proud of both. I am proud of the country +they serve. I have enjoyed at times her honors, at others endured her +chastisements. I respect the power<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">138</a></span> which our army and our navy give +to our nation, but our army and navy are impotent in such a crisis as +this.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, even England herself has been shaken to her centre by +rebellions in her North with which she has been forced to contend. In +Paris, too, I have myself seen regiment after regiment throw down +their arms and rush into the arms of the people, of their +fellow-citizens, and thus oppose, by military strength, the government +under which their organization was formed. Will you repeat such +occurrences here? Will you 'destroy the imperishable renown of this +nation'? No! I answer for you all—you will not. Now, we, +representatives of the South and of Virginia, ask of this Convention, +the only body under heaven that can do it, to interpose and save us +from a repetition of the scenes of blood which some of us have +witnessed.</p> + +<p>Our patriotic committee have labored for two weeks—have labored +earnestly and zealously. Their report, though not satisfactory to +Virginia in all respects, will yet receive her sanction, and the +sanction of the border States. The representatives of Virginia know +they are yielding much, when they tell you that they will support +these propositions. We will do it because they will give peace to the +country. Now, sir, when we are just in sight of land, when we are just +entering a safe harbor, shall we turn about and circumnavigate the +ocean to find an unknown shore? No, sir! no! Let us enter the harbor +of safety now opened before us.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I know Massachusetts well. She is a powerful +Commonwealth. She has added largely to the wealth, the power, and +glory of this Union. I respect the gentleman who has addressed this +Convention in her behalf; but when he went out of his way and stated +that he abhorred slavery, the statement grated harshly on my ears. We +of the South, we of Virginia, may not and do not like many of the +institutions of Massachusetts, but we cannot and we will not say that +we abhor them.</p> + +<p>Let me recall to the gentleman from Massachusetts who has addressed +us, a fact from history. Let me show him that his own State was +powerful in colonial times in extending the time for the importation +of slaves! Let me tell him that his State has helped to fasten the +institution of slavery upon a portion of this nation. Is it for a son +of Massachusetts now to complain of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">139</a></span> the result of the acts of his own +State? Is it for him to use these reproaches, which, if not +ungrateful, are at least wanting in charity? It was a representative +of Massachusetts, Mr. <span class="smcap">Gorham</span>, through whose motion and influence the +time for the importation of slaves was extended in that period of our +colonial history. Virginia ever, in every period of her colonial +existence, exerted herself to close her ports against the importation +of slaves. It was the veto of her Royal Master alone that rendered her +efforts nugatory. It was New England that fastened this institution +upon us. Shall she reproach us for its existence now?</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—At the time of the adoption of our present Constitution, +it was well understood that Georgia and South Carolina would not enter +the Union without slavery. The only question then was, should slavery +have an existence inside the Union or out of it.</p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—No, sir! The gentleman is mistaken. In the Constitution, +as first proposed to the Convention, an unlimited right was given to +import slaves. Mr. <span class="smcap">Ellsworth</span> declared that it would be an infraction +of <i>State rights</i> to prohibit this importation. New England, engaged +in commerce, found an advantage in the right of importation, and she +endeavored to force it upon the South.</p> + +<p>I regard the present course of New England as very unfair. She is +herself responsible for the existence of slavery—she is now our +fiercest opponent; and yet New Jersey and Pennsylvania, who have not +this responsibility, have always stood by the South, and I believe +they always will.</p> + +<p>It is not by <i>abhorring</i> slavery that you can put an end to the +institution. You must let it alone. We are responsible for it now, and +we are willing to stand responsible for it before the world. We +understand the subject better than you do. It has occupied the +attention of the wisest men of our time. In fact, it is not a question +of slavery at all. It is a question of race. We know that the very +best position for the African race to occupy is one of unmitigated +legal subjection. We have the negroes with us; you have not. We must +deal with them as our experience and wisdom dictate; with that you +have nothing to do. The gentleman from Massachusetts may congratulate +himself that there are no negroes in that Commonwealth. I ask him what +he<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">140</a></span> would do, if he had the race to deal with in Massachusetts as we +have it in Virginia?</p> + +<p>I said, twenty years ago, in the Senate of the United States, and my +whole experience since having confirmed the truth of the statement I +repeat it now, that candid minds cannot differ upon this proposition, +that the present position of the negroes of the United States is the +best one they could occupy, both for the superior and inferior race.</p> + +<p>And to the people of New England I have this to say: Your ancestors +were most powerful and influential in fastening slavery upon us. You +are the very last who ought to reproach us for its existence now. We +do not indulge reproaches toward you. It is unpleasant for us to +receive them from you. Their use by either can only serve to widen the +unhappy differences existing between us. Let us all drop them, and, so +far as we can, let us close up every avenue through which dissensions +may come. We call upon you to make no sacrifices for us. It will cost +you nothing to yield what we ask. Say, and let it be said in the +Constitution, that you will not interfere with slavery in the +District, or in the States, or in the Territories. Permit the free +transit of our slaves from one State to another, and in the language +of the patriarch, "let there be peace between you and me."</p> + +<p>Let us all agree that there shall be landmarks between us; the same +which our fathers erected. Let us say that they shall never be +removed. I think upon this point I can cite an authority that will +command universal respect. I discovered it in my researches into the +history of the very Constitution we are now considering.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rives</span> here read an extract from a letter written by Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> +after his retirement from public life. I have not a copy of this +letter, but the substance of the portion read by Mr. <span class="smcap">Rives</span> was a +statement by Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, that upon the passage of the Missouri +Compromise, President <span class="smcap">Monroe</span> was much embarrassed with the question of +the constitutionality of the prohibition clause; that he took counsel +with Mr. <span class="smcap">Martin</span>, who declared that, in his judgment, Congress had no +power over the subject of slavery in the territories.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—Will you leave that question just where the Constitution +leaves it, upon your construction of that instrument?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">141</a></span> If so, we will +agree to give you all necessary guarantees against interference.</p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—No! I will not leave it there, for it would always remain +a question of construction. I prefer to put the prohibition into the +Constitution.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Massachusetts speaks for the North. Massachusetts +does not constitute the North. I venerate the Commonwealth of +Massachusetts. I have many friends there. I look with pride upon her +connection with the Revolution; upon her public men, her manufactures, +her public institutions. Her people who have accomplished so much, +will not turn a deaf ear to our wants now. We wish to go to her people +and obtain their judgment upon our propositions. But Massachusetts is +not all the North. Rhode Island constitutes a part of it. She has +always spoken for us. She will speak for us to-day. What does New +Jersey say? What does the great State of Pennsylvania and the greater +Northwest say? Surely they do not echo the sentiments of the gentleman +from Massachusetts. They are with us, and we will trust to them.</p> + +<p>I dislike this way of answering for sections of the country. I have +heard similar language from Mr. <span class="smcap">Calhoun</span>. He was fond of saying, "The +South says—The South thinks—The South will do," this or that. I did +not like it then. It stirred up all the rebellious sentiments of my +nature; for I knew the statement was not true. I do not like such +language better now. Let the <i>people</i> of Massachusetts speak. I know +they will not refuse to fulfil the compact of their fathers.</p> + +<p>We are brothers. I feel we can settle this important question which +portends over us like an eclipse; we can leave this glorious country +to our posterity. Once more let me refer to the noble and eloquent +counsels of <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, and I am done. As children of the same family, as +fellow-citizens of a great, glorious, and proud Republic, he invoked +the kindred blood of our people to consecrate our common Union, and to +banish forever the thought of our becoming aliens.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I have never in any manner countenanced the discussions of +slavery and the questions connected with it, at the North. I have +always, so far as possible, discouraged those discussions. No good can +possibly come from them. Is the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">142</a></span> North the <i>censor morum</i> of the +South? We have faults enough ourselves; let us consider and try to +correct them, before we interest ourselves so much in those of our +neighbors.</p> + +<p>If there was any danger that slavery would be extended at the North, I +would oppose its extension there, and I would teach my sons to oppose +it. But this danger has never existed. Does any one fear that slavery +will go into New York or Massachusetts? No sane man thinks or ever +thought so.</p> + +<p>But it exists, and we must deal with it as it is. As one northern man, +I do not want the negroes distributed throughout the North. We have +got enough of them now. I have watched the operation of this +emigration of slaves to the North. Ten negroes will commit more petty +thefts than one thousand white men. We cannot permit them to come into +Ohio. Wherever they have been permitted to come, it has almost cost us +a rebellion. Before we begin to preach abolition I think we had better +see what is to be done with the negroes.</p> + +<p>Thirty years ago the subject of abolishing slavery was agitated in +Virginia. Some of the most eloquent speeches were made in favor of the +abolition movement that I ever read. The act providing for gradual +abolition, was, I believe, lost by a single vote. I thought then that +the result was an unfortunate one. But there is something to be said +on both sides of the question. Had the act passed, the negroes would +have been sent South, and we should have had plantation slavery, +instead of the humane form which now exists in Virginia. But Virginia +would have had one great, one powerful advantage. Her power would have +increased tenfold. Free labor would have come in to take the place of +slave labor, and the banks of the Potomac and the James would have +blossomed as the rose.</p> + +<p>The North has taken the business of abolition into its own hands, and +from the day she did so, we hear no more of abolition in Virginia. +This was but the natural effect of the cause. Now, we can never coerce +the Southern States into abolitionism. It is not the way to convert +them to our views by saying that we <i>abhor</i> their institutions. But +these northern men will not listen to reason. They keep on making +eloquent speeches—their pulpits thunder against the sin of +slaveholding. All grades of speech and thought are made use of, and +the sickening sentimentalism<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">143</a></span> of some of them is disgusting. They +repeat poetry. They say:</p> + +<p class="cpoem"> +"I would not have a slave to till my ground,<br /> +To watch me when I wake—to fan me when I sleep;"<br /> +</p> + +<p>and much more of the same stuff!</p> + +<p>In this way false ideas are inculcated throughout the North. The whole +scheme is full of falsehood. It would be far better for each man to +look for the beam in his own eyes before he troubles himself about the +mote in his neighbor's.</p> + +<p>England, also, has been very fierce in denouncing slavery in this +country, and yet we have no slavery or misery to be compared with that +existing in the India provinces. It is said that in a single season +two hundred thousand of her subjects were starved to death in one +province of Hindostan.</p> + +<p>I might say the same thing almost of Ireland. Two millions have died +there from famine, and God knows how many more would have perished but +for the relief sent from this country. I say, and I have abundant +reason for saying, that I never have, and I never will, favor any of +these denunciations of southern slaveholders and slavery.</p> + +<p>Let us rather look at this subject as members of a common family—let +us acknowledge our mutual faults. The slave trade was once fostered by +the North. That was when it was profitable, and when large fortunes +were made in that trade by northern men. When it became unprofitable +the North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now, we +fastened this institution upon the South, cannot we permit her to deal +with it as she chooses?</p> + +<p>I do not say that there is a necessary conflict between the white and +the black races, but I assert that they cannot unite—that they cannot +occupy the same country upon an equality. Our free laborers of the +North will not work with slaves or with blacks. I have had experience +in this matter, and I know I am right. The only way we can do, is to +divide the common territory—divide it fairly, honestly.</p> + +<p>Suppose there were two sons who succeeded to a joint inheritance of +lands. One says to the other, "Your family is not so moral as mine, +therefore your sons shall have none of the lands." Would this be right +or honest? Would any one attempt<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">144</a></span> to justify it? And yet this is what +extreme men of the North are practically saying to the citizens of the +South.</p> + +<p>The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the rights of the +respective sections in the territories. The line adopted was not +unfair to the North. The same line will answer now. I am for adopting +it and arranging this difficult subject finally.</p> + +<p>But one and another says, "Don't let us extend slavery." To that I +answer, that our action will not make one slave more or less. There is +no question of humanity involved in our propositions. I cannot see +what question is involved so far as the North is concerned. We need no +more territory. We do not want New Mexico. We have territory enough +now for one hundred and fifty millions of people, and enough for the +expansion of our people for one hundred and fifty years.</p> + +<p>If gentlemen are found here who wish to make trouble, who cannot see +the peril we are in, and how easily we can avoid the danger which +threatens us, I shall be much pained, but not half so much as I shall +be, to see this Union broken up and the Government destroyed.</p> + +<p>I was surprised to hear the assertion of the gentleman from +Connecticut, that this was an unconstitutional assembly. I hear to-day +the statement made that it is a revolutionary assembly. If these +assertions were true I would not be a member of it for one moment. If +revolutionary, it is either treasonable or seditious. But it is +neither. These gentlemen forget the constitutional right of petition. +We have the right to meet here. We have the right to do just what we +are proposing to do, and the right is to be found in the Constitution.</p> + +<p>I am surprised, too, at the assertion, that there is a wish here to +limit or cut off debate—that this resolution would cut off New York. +Would it not cut off Ohio? I have no intention of depriving any +gentleman or any State of any right. I do not believe such an +intention exists in the Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. MORRILL:—In my judgment many subjects have been considered here, +and many things said to the North especially, that are superfluous, +and much more that is useless. I have listened to the gentleman from +Ohio and to some gentlemen who have preceded him. They have all +referred, in terms which I do<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">145</a></span> not choose to characterize, to the +action and the opinions of the North.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Ohio refers in strong terms to what he calls the +sentimentalism of the North. He has recited poetry which he says is +popular there.</p> + +<p>Now, once for all, let me ask those gentlemen who are proposing +various methods of settling our differences: Do you propose to make +war upon the <i>sentiments</i>, the <i>principles</i> of the North? If you do, +we may as well drop the discussion here. Our people, and we, their +representatives, cannot meet you upon that ground. Our principles +cannot be interfered with; we carry them with us always. Our +consciences approve them. We can negotiate with you, and treat with +you upon subjects which do not involve their sacrifice. If it is your +purpose to attack them, you may abandon all other purposes so far as +this body is concerned. The people of the North will never sacrifice +their principles. It is useless for you to ask them to do so. It is +entirely useless for you to urge war upon the sentiments or opinions +of the North.</p> + +<p>Again; let me tell you there is no disloyalty in the free States. The +word dissolution has not been thought of there during the last half +century. In all your discussions, in all your action, remember that we +are loyal to the Constitution and the Union.</p> + +<p>Strong appeals are made here to the free States. You call them by the +general name of the Northern States. Gentlemen undertake to pledge +different sections to this or that policy. We are told that New +York—that Massachusetts—that Pennsylvania will adopt or will not +adopt various propositions that are made here.</p> + +<p>Sir, in my judgment all such questions are unworthy of our +consideration. We spend time to little purpose upon them. The true +question here is, "What will Virginia do? How does Virginia stand?" +She to-day holds the keys of peace or war. She stands in the gateway +threatening the progress of the Government in its attempts to assert +its legal authority. Evade it as you may—cover it as you will—the +true question is, "What will Virginia do?" She undertakes to dictate +the terms upon which the Union is to be preserved. What will satisfy +her?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">146</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—Has not Virginia spoken? Has she not already told us what +she wants?</p> + +<p>Mr. MORRILL:—I am coming to that point very soon. I assert again that +Virginia must not be misunderstood in this matter.</p> + +<p>The peril of the time is <i>Secession</i>. Six States are already in +revolution. A distinct confederacy, a new government, has been +organized within the limits of the United States.</p> + +<p>Does Virginia to-day, frown upon this atrocious proceeding? No! so far +from that she affirms that these States have a right to do what they +have done. She boasts that she has armed her people, that she has +raised five millions of money, and that she will use both to prevent +the interference of the National Government with these States, now in +revolution. Whether her course will conciliate the free +States—whether under such circumstances the free States will +negotiate with Virginia or others in her position, I leave for others +to consider. It is my opinion that the people of this country will +first of all <i>demand the recognition of the supremacy of the +Government</i>.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—No! I do not understand such to be the position of +Virginia. She appeals to both sides to refrain from violence while +these negotiations are pending.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—No! A little farther than that. Virginia <i>will not permit +coercion</i>. She has plainly declared she will not. But in the very +highest spirit of patriotism, she has asked for this Convention, and +she proposes to exhaust the very last means of restoring peace to the +Union. This is exactly her position. She hopes, and I hope, that this +Convention will interpose to preserve the peace and to save this +country from war.</p> + +<p>Mr. MORRILL:—I thought I did not misunderstand the position of +Virginia. She is armed to the teeth, and she now proposes to step in +between the Government and the States. I understand her attitude. It +is an attitude of menace. It gives aid and comfort to those who +trample upon the laws and defy the authority of this Government.</p> + +<p>No action of the Conference can be consummated for months: I might +almost say for years. Any propositions we may make must go to the +people. They must and will take time for consideration. Endeavor to +force their action and you will secure<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">147</a></span> the rejection of the terms +proposed. While the people are acting you will have a Government and +it must operate. It must operate not upon a section only, but upon the +whole country. During this time, does Virginia propose to maintain the +position she has assumed? To prevent by force of arms the execution of +the laws of the Union in the seceded States? Yes, and we are told that +her position is one exhibiting the highest patriotism. In my judgment +her position is one of menace, and not of pacification. If I rightly +understand her, nothing that is here proposed to be done will satisfy +her even if adopted.</p> + +<p>And now I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>) a plain +question, and I wish to receive a frank answer. If this Conference +agrees to the amendments proposed by the majority of the committee, +will Virginia sustain the Government and maintain its integrity, while +the people are considering and acting on the new proposals of +amendment to the Constitution? If she will not do this, if this +proposition does not meet the heart of Virginia, there is no use—</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I can let Virginia speak for herself. She has spoken for +herself in most emphatic language. She has told you what will satisfy +her in the resolutions under which this body is convened. I have no +right whatever to suppose that she will accept less. She is solemnly +pledged to resist coercion. She will resist it to the very last +extremity. She arrived at that conclusion after grave deliberation, +and it was attended with every manifestation of concurrence on the +part of the people. I have no reason to suppose there was any +hesitation at the time, or that there has been any change since, or +that there is any hesitation in her purpose now.</p> + +<p>Now, if the gentleman wants my private opinion, I will tell him that +whether the propositions of the majority of the committee or her own +be adopted here, or by the people, the purpose of Virginia to resist +coercion is <i>unchanged</i> and <i>unchangeable</i>.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I rise to a point of order. It appears to me that this +discussion is very foreign to the subject before the Conference. It is +so long since that subject has been named, that many have doubtless +forgotten it. The question is upon the adoption of the resolution +limiting the debate. I think we had better keep to the question.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">148</a></span></p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman is undoubtedly correct in his statement +of the question, but the discussion of the general subject has been +permitted to go on without objection by the Convention, and I do not +think it would be right to stop it now.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I said the position of Virginia was unchanged. She +considers this a Government of love and not of force. She thinks there +should be no force or coercion used toward any sovereign State acting +in its collective capacity. She does not propose to permit such +coercion to be used.</p> + +<p>And now, having answered the gentleman frankly, as he desired, I wish +to ask him a question, and I wish also an explicit and frank answer. +My question is this: Is it the purpose or is it the policy of the +incoming administration to attempt to execute the laws of the United +States in the seceded States by an armed force? The answer to this +question involves information of the utmost importance to my State and +others whose interests are involved with hers. It should be at once +communicated, and especially to my part of the country. I now ask the +gentleman, if he knows what the purpose of the incoming administration +is in this respect, to state it here, and now. His relations to some +of the officers elected will entitle his opinions to grave +consideration. I invite a full and frank answer to my question.</p> + +<p>Mr. MORRILL:—There is a point in the gentleman's answer which may as +well be met, but I will not be diverted from the question I was +discussing. I will show him in a moment why I cannot answer his +inquiry from any personal knowledge of my own.</p> + +<p>Sir, I was endeavoring to ascertain what was the present position of +Virginia; to find out what she would accept and be contented. I wanted +her to speak emphatically. She has done so. I now understand from Mr. +<span class="smcap">Seddon</span>, that he has no assurances to give that Virginia will accept +the propositions of the committee, and that while any propositions are +pending she will resist the enforcement of the laws in the seceded +States.</p> + +<p>Then let it be understood that Virginia <i>has</i> spoken. That she makes +the Crittenden resolutions her <i>ultimatum</i>, that she must have them +and all of them, that nothing less will satisfy her. As I said at the +beginning of my remarks, it is idle for us<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">149</a></span> to stay here, useless for +us to discuss the various propositions which are made here, unless we +expect to satisfy Virginia.</p> + +<p>It is important for us to understand her position. I do not +under-estimate her influence. When the propositions of this Conference +are presented to the people of the free States, the first question +they will ask is, "Will Virginia adopt them? Will she be satisfied +with them?" If she will not, there will be no action upon them. If she +will, her position will exercise a powerful influence upon the people +of the North in favor of their adoption.</p> + +<p>But if Virginia puts her ancient Commonwealth across the path of the +Government, if she stands between the administration and the +enforcement of the laws, the execution of its official duty, its +positive obligations—if this is the manner in which she proposes to +mediate, her mediation will be accepted nowhere. Such I understand to +be the position she assumes. It is a position of menace.</p> + +<p>Mr. STOCKTON:—If the gentleman from Maine wants to get up a row, we +are ready for him. He shall have enough of it right here! I should +like to know why he makes such charges against Virginia? They are +unfounded; we don't wish to hear them.</p> + +<p>(There was at this point considerable confusion in the Conference, +which was promptly suppressed by the <span class="smcap">President</span>.)</p> + +<p>Mr. MORRILL:—Gentlemen need not be disturbed or excited. I have +accomplished my object. I know now what to expect from Virginia; the +North will know what the course of Virginia is to be, and we can all +act understandingly. I do not propose to waste valuable time in idle +discussions in this hall, when we can come to the true point at once. +I do not propose to talk around this question, nor to deceive or +mislead the Conference. Other gentlemen may think differently, but I +now understand Virginia to say, that the Federal authority shall not +be reëstablished by the ordinary means, (where it is resisted) in +certain of the States comprised in the Federal Union.</p> + +<p>I will now answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia, in +relation to the proposed policy of the incoming administration. I have +no personal knowledge upon this subject. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> I never saw in my +life. I know nothing of his opinions,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">150</a></span> except from his speeches; but I +will say, that if he and his administration do not use every means +which the Constitution has given them to assert the authority of the +Government in all the States—to preserve the Union, and the Union in +all its integrity, the people will be disappointed. I have felt and +now feel the importance of the action of Virginia, and I have done +what I could to learn here what we may expect from her.</p> + +<p>In conclusion, let me say, that unless we can have the earnest +concurrence of the slave States in whatever we do, and especially +unless we have the heart of Virginia with us, our action will give no +peace to the country.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Zollicoffer</span> moved that the Conference adjourn. The motion was lost +by a <i>viva voce</i> vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROWNE:—I think we have debated these matters long enough. Let us +come back to the question before us. Personally I am in favor of +limiting debate to the shortest time, for I feel the necessity for +prompt action. I think if Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span> would strike out the latter +clause of his resolution, requiring the final vote to be taken on +Thursday next, we should have no difficulty in agreeing to it. Its +adoption in its present form might cut off some delegation or some +gentlemen from speaking at all. I would not do this. Let every one +speak, but let the speeches be short. I move to strike out the last +clause of the resolution.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I did not expect to raise such a storm by introducing +this resolution. I now ask to withdraw it and stop the debate.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—The gentleman cannot do that, as +several motions are involved. I object to his proposal to withdraw the +resolution. I move to lay the whole subject on the table, and to make +it the special order for ten o'clock to-morrow.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span> was carried.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I move that when the present session of the Conference +adjourn, its next meeting be at seven o'clock this evening.</p> + +<p>A <span class="smcap">Member</span>:—Say eight o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—Well, then, let it be eight o'clock. But let me ask you, +gentlemen, not to protract or unnecessarily delay our action here.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">151</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, my heart is full! I cannot approach the great issues +with which we are dealing with becoming coolness and deliberation! +Sir, I love this Union. The man does not live who entertains a higher +respect for this Government than I do. I know its history—I know how +it was established. There is not an incident in its history that is +not precious to me. I do not wish to survive its dissolution. My hand +or voice was never raised against it. They never will be. The Union is +as dear to me as to any living man; and it would be pleasant, indeed, +if my mind to-day could be as free from fear and anxiety about it, as +the minds of other gentlemen appear to be. But, Sir, I cannot shut my +eyes to events which are daily transpiring among a people who are +excited and anxious, who are apprehensive that their rights are in +danger—who are solicitous for—who will do as much to preserve their +rights as any people. They must be calmed and quieted. It is useless +now to tell them they have no cause for fear. They are looking to this +Conference. This Conference must act. If it does not, I almost fear to +contemplate the prospect that will open before us.</p> + +<p>Sir! this Conference has now been in session fifteen days. While I +have felt reluctant to do any thing which should have the appearance +of precipitating our action, of cutting off or limiting debate, I have +all the time been pressed with this conviction; that if we are to save +this country we must act speedily. I have been in constant +communication with the people of Virginia since I have been here. I +know that this feeling of apprehension which existed when I came away, +has been constantly increasing in my State since; and even last night +I received letters from members of the Convention now in session in +Richmond; gentlemen who are as true to this Union as the needle to the +pole, informing me that every hour of <i>delay</i> in this Conference was +an hour of <i>danger</i>.</p> + +<p>I do not agree with some of my colleagues in their construction of the +resolutions of the Virginia Legislature inviting this Conference. I +understand that she suggests the resolutions of Mr. <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> as +<i>one</i> acceptable way of settling our present difficulties. She says +that she will be satisfied with a settlement on the basis of those +resolutions. But she has not made them her <i>ultimatum</i>. She has not +said she will not consent to any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">152</a></span> other plan of arrangement. Her +purpose was not to draw up certain articles of pacification; to call +her sister States together, and say to them, "These or nothing! We +have dictated the terms upon which the matter between us may be +arranged. We will have these or we will not arrange at all!" I +understand her as offering no restrictions whatever. She invites a +conference—she asks the States to <i>confer</i> together. She expects +reasonable concessions, reasonable guarantees, and with these she will +be satisfied.</p> + +<p>Nor do I know why the gentleman from Maine places Virginia in the +position he described, nor upon what authority. I reply to him that he +makes a grave assumption when he attributes to Virginia a dictatorial +position. I have come here, and I trust my colleagues have also, +animated by a single purpose:—that purpose is to save the Union. +Virginia claims no greater rights than any other State. She would not +take them if they were offered.</p> + +<p>Let me say here, that it is my purpose to carry out the wishes of the +people of Virginia; that exercising the best judgment I have I shall +try to ascertain what that purpose is, and shall do all I can to +accomplish it. When the proper time comes I shall cast my vote for the +proposals of amendment offered by my colleague (Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>); I shall +do so for several reasons. The first and most important of them all is +this: The Union is our inheritance—it is our pride. To preserve it, +what sacrifice should we not make? Its preservation is the one single +desire that animates me. Can I not be understood by my Northern +friends? Will you not yield something to our necessities—to our +condition? Will you not do something which will enable us to go back +to our excited people and say to them, "The North is treating us +fairly. See what she will do to make our Union perpetual!"</p> + +<p>Again; I shall vote cheerfully for Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon's</span> propositions, because +the Legislature of my State has said that such amendments will satisfy +the people of Virginia. I think the Legislature is right. I think in +this respect it reflects the will of the people of Virginia. Remember, +sir, that these propositions have been for some time before the +country, that they have been discussed and commented upon by the +public Press—that they will probably settle our difficulties, now and +forever. They were intro<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">153</a></span>duced into Congress by a distinguished and an +able man—a statesman, whose integrity and fidelity no one has ever +questioned, and no one will question. It is my firm belief that the +States can adopt them without any material sacrifice, and that they +will adopt them if they have the opportunity.</p> + +<p>But if the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions—if the propositions of my colleague +cannot be recommended by this Conference—do not find favor with the +majority here? What then? Shall we dissolve this body, and go home? +Shall we risk all the fearful consequences which must follow? No, sir! +No! We came here for <i>peace</i>. Virginia came here for <i>peace</i>. We will +not be impracticable. You, representatives of the free States, will +not be impracticable. Therefore, I tell you that it is my firm belief +that the people of Virginia <span class="smcap">WILL</span> accept the proposals of amendment to +the Constitution as reported by the majority of the committee. I +believe these propositions would be acceptable to our people. I +believe if we should pass them here, that the Convention now in +session in Richmond would at once adopt them and recommend them to the +people of that honored member of the Federal Union. Can you not? Will +you not give us one chance to satisfy our people, and to save us from +that other alternative which I almost fear to contemplate?</p> + +<p>I feared when the result was announced, that the late election in +Virginia of the delegates to the Convention now in session, would be +misapprehended and misunderstood at the North: that the North would +regard it as a triumph of the Union sentiment in Virginia. In one +sense it was such a triumph. The advocates of immediate and +unconditional secession were defeated, were defeated by a heavy +majority.</p> + +<p>But the members comprising that Convention represent the true feeling +of the people who elected them, and they represent the present feeling +of Virginia. The people of that State are full of anxiety. They fear +that the new administration has designs which it will carry into +execution, fatal to their rights and interests. They are for the +Union, <i>provided</i> their rights can be secured; provided, they can have +proper and honorable guarantees. It is useless to discuss now whether +they are right or wrong. Such is the condition of affairs now, and it +is too late<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">154</a></span> to enter into the causes which produced it. We must deal +with things as they are.</p> + +<p>I have known many gentlemen who have represented the interests of New +England long and well. I know what sentiments filled their hearts +years ago, and I do not believe those sentiments are changed now. I +appeal to Vermont. Among her representatives here, I see a gentleman +with whom, for a long time, I was upon terms of peculiar intimacy. In +the whole course of that intimacy I cannot recall a single occurrence +which did not impress me with his integrity, his ability, his justice. +I appeal to him. I appeal to him by every consideration which can move +a friend, which can influence a patriot, which can govern the action +of a statesman. I appeal to Massachusetts, to all New England, which I +know possesses many like himself; and I ask you to consider our +circumstances, to consider our dangers, and not to refuse us the +little boon we ask, when the consequences of that refusal must be so +awful. Can you not afford to make a little sacrifice, when we make one +so great? Can you not yield to us what is a mere matter of opinion +with you, but what is so vital with us? Will you not put us in a +position where we can stand with our people, and let us and you stand +together in the Union? I have no delicacy here. The importance of our +action with me, transcends all other considerations. I do not hesitate +to appeal to New England for help in this crisis.</p> + +<p>If New England refuses to come to our aid, it will not alter my course +or change my conviction. In no possible contingency which can now be +foreseen shall these convictions be changed. <i>I will never give up the +Union!</i> Clouds may hang over it, storms and tempest may assail it, the +waves of dissolution may dash against it, but so far as my feeble hand +can support it, that support shall be given to it while I live!</p> + +<p>When the dark days come over this Republic, and there is nothing in +the future but gloom and despondency, I will do as <span class="smcap">Washington</span> once +said he would do in similar circumstances: I will gather the last +handful of faithful men, carry them to the mountains of Western +Virginia, and there set up the flag of the Union. It shall be defended +there against all assailants until the friends of freedom and liberty +from all parts of the civilized<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">155</a></span> world shall rally around it, and +again establish it in triumph and glory over every portion of a +restored and united country.</p> + +<p>Sir, the questions which now agitate and alarm the country do not +affect the interests of all sections of the Union, or if they do +affect all sections, certainly not in the same proportion. The farther +sections are removed from each other, the less do the interests and +the principles of their people assimilate. Maine and Louisiana, far +distant from each other, differ widely. Approaching the line between +the slave and free States all these differences grow less. This is +shown by the action of this Conference. The border States can settle +these questions. They will settle them if you will let them alone. +Pennsylvania and Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey, States along the +line, whose people are most vitally interested, can have no difficulty +in coming to an agreement. With all the possible political interests +which you may have, not only are the relations of society, of +business, and commerce, to be interrupted, but these States are to +form the long frontier between two foreign nations, if that fearful +contingency is to happen, so often and so confidently referred to +here.</p> + +<p>Why, then, should remote sections interfere to prevent this +adjustment? If they cannot aid us, why not let us alone? Let them look +along the valley of the Ohio River, one of the most fertile sections +of the continent, in itself great enough and fruitful enough to +support a nation. It has already a large population, and that +population is increasing every day. The people are attached to each +other by every tie that binds society together. They now live in +harmony and friendship; their property is secure. They are prosperous +and happy. Such a people <i>cannot be, must not be divided</i>.</p> + +<p>And therefore, I say, that if we are driven to that alternative; if +the representatives of the two extremes will not give us the benefit +of their counsel and assistance, the Central States, and the great +Northwest, must take the matter into their own hands. North Carolina, +Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and +other States near them, must unite with Ohio and the Northwest to save +the country. They have the power to do it—they must do it.</p> + +<p>Remember, sir, that I only refer to this as a last alternative. It is +one to which I hope and pray we may never be driven. I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">156</a></span> cannot yet +give up the hope, that all we need here is patient and thorough +discussion and examination of the subject; that when the true +condition is understood, we shall unite together to restore confidence +to the country. It must be so. The consequences of farther +disagreement are too great, the crisis is too important to permit mere +sectional differences, mere pride of opinion, party shackles or party +platforms to control the action of any gentleman here. The Republic +shall not be divided. The nation shall not be destroyed. The +patriotism of the people will yet save the country against all its +enemies.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> gave notice, that at the proper time he wished to offer two +amendments to the second section of the propositions reported by the +committee.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge</span> rose and made motions at the same time.</p> + +<p>The floor was given to Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge</span>, who moved, that when the Conference +adjourn, it adjourn to meet at ten o'clock to-morrow.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span> moved to amend, by inserting half-past ten o'clock.</p> + +<p>Several motions were made by different members, and much confusion +arose, which was suppressed.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—We all, no doubt, wish to economize time as much as +possible. The prevailing wish seems to be to meet about eleven o'clock +to-morrow. That can be accomplished by a simple motion to adjourn, +which I make, and which should take precedence of all others.</p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> put the motion to adjourn, and declared it not carried.</p> + +<p>A <span class="smcap">Member</span>:—I move to amend Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge's</span> motion, by inserting seven +o'clock this evening.</p> + +<p>This motion did not prevail, and the question was taken upon Mr. +<span class="smcap">Dodge's</span> motion, which was adopted, and the Conference then adjourned.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">157</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="THIRTEENTH_DAY" id="THIRTEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">THIRTEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Wednesday</span>, <i>February 20th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span> at ten o'clock, +and after prayer by the Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Sampson</span>, the Journal of yesterday was +read and approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. HARRIS:—I desire to call the attention of the Conference to the +fact, that the time has not yet arrived when the Conference, by its +rules, should commence business. The rule is, that the daily session +shall commence at eleven o'clock.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference, previous to its adjournment yesterday, +adopted the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge</span>, fixing this hour for the commencement +of the present session.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I wish to call attention to the 9th rule in the +printed list. It has not been adopted by the Conference. It is in here +by mistake. The Committee on Rules did not intend to recommend it. I +ask now that it be stricken from the record.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I rise to debate that motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Then I withdraw it.</p> + +<p>Mr. HARRIS:—I wish to offer a preamble and resolutions, and would +like to have them read for the information of the Conference. I ask to +have them printed and laid upon the table, so that I can move them as +an amendment at the proper time.</p> + +<p>The resolutions were laid upon the table and ordered to be printed, +and are as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Whereas</i>, The Federal Constitution and the laws made in +pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land, and +should command the willing obedience of all good citizens; +and <i>whereas</i> it is alleged that sundry States have enacted +laws repugnant thereto. Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved.</i> That this Convention respectfully requests the +several States to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">158</a></span> revise their respective enactments, and +to modify or repeal any laws which may be found to be in +conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United +States.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the President of this Convention is +requested to send a copy of the foregoing preamble and +resolutions to the Governor of each of the States, with the +request that the same be communicated to the Legislature +thereof.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I must now insist upon having my resolution, offered +yesterday, considered. Congress is about adjourning, and, if we do not +close our labors to-day, we cannot have our propositions acted upon +under the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. They can +be kept out on the objection of any member. I do not wish to debate +the resolution, and I hope the debate will not be continued in the +general manner it was yesterday.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—There seems to be a disposition to stop debate now, after +nearly the whole time has been occupied by the other side. Yesterday +the whole session was occupied by a general discussion of this +question. It is my right to debate it as generally as other gentlemen +have done. I shall avail myself of that right. I may not speak thirty +minutes, but I will not submit to the imposition of a different rule +upon me, if I can avoid it, from that which has been imposed upon +others. The first question is on striking out the last clause of the +resolution. On that I have nothing to say except that I ask for a vote +by States.</p> + +<p>A vote by States was then taken, and resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, +Pennsylvania, and Vermont—12.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, North +Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—8.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I move to lay the whole subject upon the table. It is +useless to attempt to stop discussion in this way.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I call for a vote by States.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> prevailed by the following vote.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts. New York, Vermont, Virginia, and New +Hampshire—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North +Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—9.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">159</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—There is really but one question that ought to engage +the attention of this Conference. All others may be settled in half an +hour. This question is a great one, and assumes a variety of forms. I +wish to vote upon it understandingly, and I want some information from +the committee which has had it in charge.</p> + +<p>I ask that committee whether they are not proposing a change in the +Constitution, which, if adopted, will operate as a direct and +effectual protection of slavery in all the territories of the United +States? This appears to me to be the true question for our +consideration. I wish to know what meaning is attached by its friends +to one part of the proposed article.</p> + +<p>It states that "the <i>status</i> of persons owing service or labor as it +now exists shall not be changed by law," &c.; and again, "that the +rights arising out of said relations shall be subject to judicial +cognizance in the Federal courts according to the <i>common law</i>." The +<i>status</i>, then, shall not be changed. By that term I suppose condition +is intended. I understand that perfectly. There shall be no law to +change the condition, to <i>impair</i> the rights of the slaveholder; but +shall there be no law to <i>protect</i> these rights? Now, what is intended +by this? Why not make this provision plain, and not leave it open to +any question of construction? The ghost of the old trouble rises here, +and will not down at the bidding of any man. I believe under this +article the institution of slavery is to be protected by a most +ingenious contrivance. The <i>common law</i>, administered according to the +pro-slavery view, is to be called in for its protection.</p> + +<p>Now I ask the chairman of the committee reporting these propositions +what he means by the <i>common law</i>? The common law, as we understand +it, is the law of freedom—not of slavery. But I do not here propose +to discuss that question. I wish to know how the truth really is. How +does the committee, how do the friends of this proposition understand +it?</p> + +<p>By the <i>common law</i> a slave is still a man: a person, and not a +personal chattel. He may owe service, as a child to its parent, an +apprentice to his master, but he is still a <i>person</i> owing service. He +is all the time recognized as a <i>man</i>. As such he may own and hold +property, take it by inheritance and dispose of it at pleasure, by +will or by contract. All these rights, all the principles on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">160</a></span> which +they are founded, are in direct antagonism to slavery. The argument +may be carried much farther, but this is far enough for my purpose. By +the slave law, all this is reversed. The master owns the <i>body</i> of the +slave, may sell or otherwise dispose of him, may make him the subject +of inheritance. The slave loses all the attributes of a person, and +becomes property as much as the horse or the ox that feeds at his +master's crib. These, in a condition of slavery are the rights of the +master over the slave. These rights the common law, under this +proposition, is to recognize, protect, and enforce. I believe I am not +mistaken in this. What other construction can you give the article? It +is a distinct proposal to engraft slavery upon the common law: to +declare in the Constitution that slavery is recognized and protected +by the common law.</p> + +<p>Now, the North has always protested against this. She will never +consent to it. She understands all the consequences as well as you. No +doubt it would be a great point gained for you, to have the +Constitution recognize the institution of slavery as part of the +common law. For then slavery goes wherever the common law goes. Its +rights under this provision are not confined to the territories. Once +established, these may be enforced in a free State just as well. It is +the old proposition over again, which has come before the American +people so many times under so many different guises. It makes slavery +national, freedom sectional. If this is so, if such is the +construction which it is intended this section shall receive, why not +state it openly? why leave it as a question of construction?</p> + +<p>This construction involves other considerations. This new kind of +common law is to be substituted for the old. The latter has been +understood for centuries almost. Its principles have been discussed +and settled. It is a system founded by experience, and adapted to the +wants of the people subject to it. Its very name implies that it was +not created by legislative authority. A strange common law indeed that +would be which is <i>created by the Constitution</i>.</p> + +<p>But this is not all. Other principles of the common law are subject to +change. They are adapted to the advance of civilization, to the wants +of communities. Change is the universal law of nature. This new kind +of common law is alone to be perpetual.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">161</a></span></p> + +<p>It is not my purpose to enter into a general discussion of the +subject. This point struck me as important, as needing elucidation. If +I am wrong in this construction, the committee will correct me.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—The proposition contained in the first article of the +proposed amendment, is copied from the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions in +substance. It is true that the language is somewhat changed, but the +legal effect is identical in both the propositions. The term +"<i>status</i>" &c., as there used is not applicable to all the territory +of the United States. It only extends to that portion of the territory +south of 36° 30´. It crushes out liberty nowhere. It changes +nothing—no rights whatever. Again, whatever may be the <i>status</i> of +the person in the State from which he comes, <i>that</i> is preserved in +the territory, and that alone. It is precisely similar to the case of +a contract to which the <i>lex loci</i> gives the construction, and the +<i>lex fori</i> its execution.</p> + +<p>I like the common law. I have made it my study. I like the use of this +term here. It was a good system when not as perfect as it is now. The +common law of England even tolerated slavery until it was abolished. +The colliers of the North of England were once, to all intents and +purposes, as much slaves as any negro on the Southern plantations, +except in the matter of separation of families. I can refer you to a +precedent on this subject, which you will find in a book of no very +high authority. I mean the novel, <i>Red Gauntlet</i>.</p> + +<p>The general principle applicable here is this: Whenever you establish +the right—no matter how, if you <i>establish</i> it—the common law +asserts the remedy. There is no crushing out about it. The simple +proposition is this: Slavery exists already in that little worthless +territory we own below the proposed line. Will we agree that it shall +remain there just as it is now, so long as the territorial condition +continues? That is all. There is no mystery or question of +construction about it.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—The questions now before the Conference I suppose arise +upon the report presented by the majority of the committee, and upon +the motion to substitute for that report the propositions of the +minority of the same committee.</p> + +<p>I propose to add to this report the three following propositions; and +I will read them for the information of the Conference.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">162</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>I. "Each State has the sole and exclusive right, according +to its own judgment, to order and direct its domestic +institutions, and to determine for itself what shall be the +relation to each other of all persons residing or being +within its limits.</p> + +<p>II. "Congress shall provide by law for securing to the +citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of +citizens in the several States.</p> + +<p>III. "The union of the States under the Constitution is +indissoluble; and no State can secede from the Union, or +nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from +their paramount obligations of obedience to the Constitution +and laws of the United States."</p></div> + +<p>These additions would render the majority report much more acceptable +to the northern people than it is in its present shape, though even +then, I am bound to declare, I could not support it. I prefer the +substitute. In what I have now to say, I shall not confine myself to a +discussion of these propositions, but availing myself of the latitude +of debate hitherto allowed to gentlemen who have addressed the +Conference in favor of the report of the majority of the committee, I +shall endeavor to bring to the notice of this body, more fully than I +have yet done, my views upon the general question presented for our +consideration.</p> + +<p>For myself, I state at the outset that I am indisposed to the +adoption, at the present time, of any amendment of the Constitution. +To change the organic law of thirty millions of people is a measure of +the greatest importance. Such a measure should never be undertaken in +any case, or under any circumstances, without great deliberation and +the highest moral certainty that the country will be benefited by the +change. In this case, as yet, there has been no deliberation; +certainly not so far as the delegates from New York are concerned. The +resolutions of Virginia were passed on the 19th of January. New York +(her Legislature being in session) appointed her delegates on the 5th +of February. We came here on the 8th. Our delegation was not full for +a week. The amendments proposed were submitted on the 15th. It is now +the 20th of the month. We are urged to act at once without further +deliberation or delay.</p> + +<p>To found an empire, or to make a constitution for a people, on which +so much of their happiness depends, requires the sublimest effort of +the human intellect, the greatest impartiality in weighing opposing +interests, the utmost calmness in judgment, the highest prudence in +decision. It is pro<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">163</a></span>posed that we shall proceed to amend in essential +particulars a Constitution which, since its adoption by the people of +this country, has answered all its needs; with a haste which to my +mind is unnecessary, not to say indecent.</p> + +<p>Have any defects been discovered in this Constitution? I have listened +most attentively to hear those defects mentioned, if any such have +been found to exist. I have heard none. No change in the Judicial +Department is suggested. The exercise of judicial powers under the +Constitution has been satisfactory enough to the South. The Judicial +Department is to be left untouched, as I think it should be. You +propose no change in the form of the Executive or Legislative +Departments. These you leave as they were before. What you do propose +is, to place certain limitations upon the Legislative power, to +prohibit legislation upon certain important subjects, to give new +guarantees to slavery, and this, as you admit, before any person has +been injured, before any right has been infringed.</p> + +<p>There is high authority which ought to be satisfactory to you, that of +the President of the United States, now in office, for the statement +that Congress never undertook to pass an unconstitutional law +affecting the interests of slavery except the Missouri Compromise. +Well, you have repealed that. You have also every assurance that can +be given, that the administration about coming into power proposes no +interference with your institutions within State limits. Can you not +be satisfied with that? No. You propose these amendments in advance. +You insist upon them, and you declare that you must and will have them +or certain consequences must follow. But, gentlemen of the South, what +reasons do you give for entering upon this hasty, this precipitate +action? You say it is the prevailing sense of insecurity, the anxiety, +the apprehension you feel lest something unlawful, something +unconstitutional, may be done. Yet the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. +<span class="smcap">Seddon</span>) tells us that Virginia is able to protect all who reside +within her limits, and that she will do so at all hazards. Why not +tell us the truth outright? It is not action under the Constitution or +in Congress that you would prevent. What is it, then? You are +determined to prevent the agitation of the subject. Let us understand +each other. You have called us here to prevent future discussion of +the subject of slavery. It is <i>that</i> you fear<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">164</a></span>—it is <i>that</i> you would +avoid—discussion in Congress—in the State Legislatures—in the +newspapers—in popular assemblies.</p> + +<p>But will the plan you propose, the course you have marked out, +accomplish your purpose? Will it stop discussion? Will it lessen it in +the slightest degree? Can you not profit by the experience of the +past? Can you prevent an agitation of this subject, or any other, by +any constitutional provisions? No! Look at the details of your scheme. +You propose through the Constitution to require payment for fugitive +slaves: to make the North pay for them. You are thus throwing a +lighted firebrand not only into Congress, but into every State +Legislature, into every county, city, and village in the land.</p> + +<p>This one proposition to pay for fugitive slaves, will prove a subject +for almost irrepressible agitation. You say to the State Legislatures, +you shall not obstruct the rendition of fugitives from service, but +you may legislate in aid of their rendition, thereby implying that the +latter kind of legislation will be their duty. You thus provide a new +subject of discussion and agitation for all these Legislatures. In the +Border States especially, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, you will find +this agitation fiercer than any you have hitherto witnessed; of which +you complain so much. You will add to the flame until it becomes a +consuming fire.</p> + +<p>You propose to stop the discussion of these questions by the press. Do +you really believe that in this age of the world you can accomplish +that? You know little of history if such is your belief. Free speech +is stronger than constitutions or dynasties. You might as well put +your hands over the crater of a burning volcano, and seek thus to +extinguish its flames, as to attempt to stop discussion by such an +amendment of the Constitution. Stop discussion of the great questions +affecting the policy, strength, and prosperity of the Government! You +cannot do it! You ought not to attempt to do it!</p> + +<p>I wish to speak kindly upon this subject. I entertain no unfriendly +feelings toward any section. But while you are thus complaining of us +in the free States, because we agitate and discuss the question of +slavery, are you not, in a great degree, responsible for this +agitation yourselves? Do you not discuss it, and agitate it? Do you +not make slavery the subject of your speeches in the South, and in the +presence of your slaves? Do you not make charges against us, which in +your cooler moments you know to be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">165</a></span> unfounded? Do you not charge us in +the hearing of your slaves with the design of interfering with slavery +in the States, with a design to free them if we succeed?</p> + +<p>You have done all this and more, and if discontent, anxiety, and +mistrust exist among your people, let me say that such discussion has +contributed more to produce them, than all the agitation of the +slavery question at the North. But your amendments are not pointed at +your discussions. That kind of agitation may go on as before. It is +only the discussion on the other side you would repress!</p> + +<p>If the condition of affairs among you is as you represent it, have you +no duties to perform; is there nothing for you to do? Should you not +tell your people what we have assured you upon every proper occasion, +that the Republican Party has always repudiated all intention of +interfering with slavery, or any other Southern institution within the +States? This you all know. Have you told your people this? If you +would explain it to them now, would they not be quieted? Do not reply +that they <i>believe</i> we have such a purpose. Who is responsible for +that belief? Have you not continually asserted before your people, +notwithstanding every assurance we could give you to the contrary, +that we are determined to interfere with your rights? It is thus the +responsibility rests with you.</p> + +<p>Although such is my conviction, supported, as I think, by all the +evidence, I am still for peace. Show me now any proposition that will +secure peace, and I will go for it if I can. We came here to take +each other by the hand, to compare views, explain, consult. We meet +you in the most reasonable spirit. Any thing that honorable men <i>may</i> +do, we <i>will</i> do.</p> + +<p>We will go back to 1845 when you admitted Texas; back to the Missouri +Compromise of 1820. You certainly can complain of nothing previous to +that time. If, since then, there has been any law of Congress passed +which is unjust toward you, which infringes upon your rights, which +operates unfairly upon your interests, we will join you in securing +its repeal. We will go farther. If you will point out any act of the +Republican Party which has given you just cause for apprehension, we +will give you all security against it. We will do any thing but amend +the fundamental law of Government. Before we do that we must be +convinced of its necessity.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">166</a></span></p> + +<p>When you propose essential changes in the Constitution you must expect +that they will be subjected to a critical examination; if not here, +certainly elsewhere. I object to those proposed by the majority of the +committee—</p> + +<p>1st. For what they <i>do</i> contain.</p> + +<p>2nd. For what they <i>do not</i> contain.</p> + +<p>I do not propose to criticize the language used in your propositions +of amendment. That would be trifling. I think the language very +infelicitous, and if I supposed those propositions were to become part +of the Constitution, I should think many verbal changes indispensable. +But I pass by all that, and come at once to the substance.</p> + +<p>I object to the propositions, sir, because they would put into the +Constitution new expressions relating to slavery, which were +sedulously kept out of it by the framers of that instrument; left out +of it, not accidentally, but because, as <span class="smcap">Madison</span> said, they did not +wish posterity to know from the Constitution that the institution +existed.</p> + +<p>But I object further, because the propositions contain guarantees for +slavery which our fathers did not and would not give. In 1787 the +convention was held at Philadelphia to establish our form of +Government. <span class="smcap">Washington</span> was its presiding officer, whose name was in +itself a bond of union. It was soon after the close of a long and +bloody war. Shoulder to shoulder—through winter snows and beneath +summer suns—through such sufferings and sacrifices as the world had +scarcely ever witnessed—the people of these States, under Providence, +had fought and achieved their independence. Fresh from the field, +their hearts full of patriotism, determined to perpetuate the +liberties they had achieved, the people sent their delegates into the +convention to frame a Constitution which would preserve to their +posterity the blessings they had won.</p> + +<p>These delegates, under the presidence of <span class="smcap">Washington</span>, aided by the +counsels of <span class="smcap">Madison</span> and <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, considered the very questions with +which we are now dealing, and they refused to put into the +Constitution which they were making, such guarantees to slavery as you +now ask from their descendants. That is my interpretation of their +action. Either these guarantees are in the Constitution, or they are +not. If they are there, let them remain there. If they are not there, +I can conceive of no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">167</a></span> possible state of circumstances under which I +would consent to admit them.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—Not to save the Union?</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—No, sir, no! That is my comprehensive answer.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—Then you will let the Union slide.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—No, never! I would let slavery slide, and save the Union. +Greater things than this have been done. This year has seen slavery +abolished in all the Russias.</p> + +<p>Mr. ROMAN:—Do you think it better to have the free and slave States +separated, and to have the Union dissolved?</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I would sacrifice all I have; lay down my life for the +Union. But I will not give these guarantees to slavery. If the Union +cannot be preserved without them, it cannot long be preserved with +them. Let me ask you, if you will recommend to the people of the +southern States, in case these guarantees are conceded, to accept +them, and abide by their obligations to the Union? You answer, Yes! Do +you suppose you can induce the seceded States to return? You answer: +We do not know! What will you yourselves do if, after all, they +refuse? Your answer is, "<i>We will go with them!</i>"</p> + +<p>We are to understand, then, that this is the language of the slave +States, which have not seceded, toward the free States: "If you will +support our amendments, we will try to induce the seceded States to +return to the Union. We rather think we can induce them to return; but +if we cannot, then we will go with them."</p> + +<p>What is to be done by the Government of the United States while you +are trying this experiment? The seceded States are organizing a +Government with all its departments. They are levying taxes, raising +military forces, and engaging in commerce with foreign nations, in +plain violation of the provisions of the Constitution. If this +condition of affairs lasts six months longer, France and England will +recognize theirs as a Government <i>de facto</i>. Do you suppose we will +submit to this, that we can submit to it?</p> + +<p>I speak only for myself. I undertake to commit no one but myself; but +I here assert, that an administration which fails to assert by force +its authority over the whole country will be a disgrace to the nation. +There is no middle ground; we must keep this country unbroken, or we +give it up to ruin!</p> + +<p>We are told that one State has an hundred thousand men ready<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">168</a></span> for the +field, and that if we do not assent to these propositions she will +fight us. If I believed this to be true, I would not consent to treat +on any terms.</p> + +<p>From the ports of these seceded States have sailed all the +fillibustering expeditions which have heretofore disgraced this land. +There, have those enterprises been conceived and fitted out. Their new +government will enter upon a new career of conquest unless prevented. +Even if these propositions of amendment are received and submitted to +the people, I see nothing but war in the future, unless those States +are quickly brought back to their allegiance.</p> + +<p>I do not propose to use harsh language. I will not stigmatize this +Convention as a political body, or assert that this is a movement +toward a revolution counter to a political revolution just +accomplished by the elections. Nor will I speak of personal liberty +bills, or of northern State legislation, about which so much complaint +has been made. If I went into those questions, much might be said on +both sides. We might ask you whether you had not thrown stones at us?</p> + +<p>Did not the Governor of Louisiana, in his message to the Legislature +of his State, recommend special legislation against the supporters of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>? Is there not on the statute books of Maryland a law which +prohibits a "black Republican" from holding certain offices in that +State?</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—There was a police bill before the Legislature of +Maryland, in which some provision of that kind was inserted by one who +wished to defeat it. Its friends were compelled to accept the +provision in order to save the bill. The courts at once held the +provision unconstitutional. All that is so.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I am answered. It is admitted that the Legislature of that +ancient State did place upon her statute book an act passed with all +the forms of law, containing a provision so insulting to millions of +American citizens.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD:—Will Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> permit me a single question? I ask it for +information, and because I am unable to answer it myself. I therefore +rely upon his superior judgment and better means of knowledge. It +appears to me that Massachusetts, Maine, and New York have gone much +farther. The charge is a serious one. Maryland has never refused to +submit to the decisions of the proper judicial tribunals. The +Constitution has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">169</a></span> provided for the erection of a tribunal which should +finally decide all questions of constitutional law. That tribunal has +decided that the people of the slave States have a legal right to go +into the territories with their property. The gentleman from New York +tells us he is in favor of free territory, and his people are also.</p> + +<p>Now, I wish to ask, where in the Constitution he finds the right to +appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to the popular voice? In +what clause of the Constitution is this power lodged? Where does he +find this right of appeal to the people, a right which he insists the +North will not give up?</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I am happy to answer the question of the gentleman from +Maryland, and I reply that when once the Supreme Court has decided a +question, I know of no way in which the decision can be reversed, +except through an amendment of the Constitution. I have the greatest +respect for the authority of the Supreme Court. I would take up arms, +if necessary, to execute its decisions. I say that States, as well as +persons, should respect and conform to its judgments, and I would say +they must. But I am bound in candor to add, that in my view the +Supreme Court has never adjudged the point to which the gentlemen +refers; it gave opinions, but no decision.</p> + +<p>I was about to state, when I was first interrupted, that the majority +report altogether omits those guarantees, which, if the Constitution +is to be amended, ought to be there before any others that have been +suggested. I mean those which will secure protection in the South to +the citizens of the free States, and those which will protect the +Union against future attempts at secession; guarantees which are +contained in the propositions that I have submitted as proper to be +added to the report of the majority.</p> + +<p>But, sir, I must insist, that if amendments to the Constitution are +required at all, it is better that they should be proposed and +considered in a General Convention. Although I do not regard this +Conference as exactly unconstitutional, it is certainly a bad +precedent. It is a body nominally composed of representatives of the +States, and is called to urge upon Congress propositions of amendment +to the Constitution. Its recommendations will have something of force +in them; it will undoubtedly be claimed for them in Congress that they +possess such force. I do not like to see an irregular body sitting by +the side of a legislative body and attempting to influence its +action.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">170</a></span></p> + +<p>Again, all the States are not here. Oregon and California—the great +Pacific dominions with all their wealth and power, present and +prospective—have not been consulted at all. Will it be replied that +all the States can vote upon the amendments? That is a very different +thing from proposing them. California and Oregon may have interests of +their own to protect, propositions of their own to make. Is it right +for us to act without consulting them? I will go for a convention, +because I believe it is the best way to avoid civil war.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—If a General Convention is held, what amendments will +you propose?</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I have already said that I have none to propose. I am +satisfied with the Constitution as it is.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Then, for God's sake, let us have no General +Convention.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I think the gentleman's observation is not logical. He +wants amendments, I do not. But I say if we are to have them, let us +have them through a General Convention.</p> + +<p>And I say farther, that this is the quickest way to secure them. If a +General Convention is to be called, let it be held at once, just as +soon as possible. If gentlemen from eight of the States in this +Conference represent truly the public sentiment of their people, as I +will assume they do, there is no other alternative. We must have +either the arbitrament of reason or the arbitrament of the sword. The +gloomy future alone can tell whether the latter is to be the one +adopted. I greatly fear it is. The conviction presses upon me in my +waking and my sleeping hours. Only last night I dreamed of marching +armies and news from the seat of war. [A laugh from the Kentucky and +Virginia benches.]</p> + +<p>The gentlemen laugh. I thought they, too, had fears of war. I thought +their threats and prophecies were sincere. God grant that I may not +hereafter have to say, "I had a dream that was not all a dream."</p> + +<p>Sir, I have but little more to trouble you with. In what I have said I +trust there has been no expression that will be taken in ill part. I +have spoken what I sincerely felt. If there has been an unkind word in +my remarks I did not intend it, and am sorry for having uttered it.</p> + +<p>For my own State and for the North I have only to say that they are +devoted to the Union. We have been reminded of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">171</a></span> <span class="smcap">Hamilton's</span> opinion, +that the States are stronger than the Union, and that when the +collision comes the Union must fall. This is a mistake. In the North +the love for the Union is the strongest of political affections. New +York will stand by the flag of the country while there is a star left +in its folds. If the Union should be reduced to thirteen States—if it +should be reduced to three States—if all should fall away but +herself, she will stand alone to bear and uphold that honored flag, +and recover the Union of which it is the pledge and symbol. God grant +that time may never come, but that New York may stand side by side +with Kentucky and Virginia to the end. That we may all stand by the +Union, negotiate for it, fight for it, if the necessity comes, is my +wish, my hope, my prayer. The Constitution made for us by <span class="smcap">Washington</span>, +<span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, and <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>, and the wise and patriotic men who +labored with them, is good enough for us. We stand for the country, +for the Union, for the Constitution.</p> + +<p>I found yesterday upon my table a pamphlet bearing the title of "The +Governing Race." It contains a sublime passage from <span class="smcap">Longfellow's</span> poem +of "The Ship," which, as it closes the pamphlet, shall also close my +observations:</p> + +<p class="cpoem"> +"Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!<br /> +Sail on, O UNION, strong and great!<br /> +Humanity with all its fears,<br /> +With all the hopes of future years,<br /> +Is hanging breathless on thy fate!<br /> +We know what Master laid thy keel,<br /> +What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,<br /> +Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,<br /> +What anvils rang, what hammers beat,<br /> +In what a forge and what a heat<br /> +Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!<br /> +Fear not each sudden sound and shock,<br /> +'Tis of the wave and not the rock;<br /> +'Tis but the flapping of the sail,<br /> +And not a rent made by the gale!<br /> +In spite of rock and tempest's roar,<br /> +In spite of false lights on the shore,<br /> +Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!<br /> +Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,<br /> +Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,<br /> +Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,<br /> +Are all with thee,—are all with thee."<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">172</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. WHITE:—I shall not occupy much of the time of the Conference. All +the speeches that have been made, and all the declamation that has +been uttered on this floor, have not made a single convert. Last of +all would I wish to follow the gentleman who has just taken his seat. +He proposes to postpone action, asserts that we are acting without +consideration, in haste, and without due deliberation. I look upon +this subject from a different point of view. I believe the motive of +Pennsylvania in first responding to the invitation of Virginia was to +induce the States to meet here in council, and remove that peril which +now threatens our common country.</p> + +<p>Pennsylvania had another reason. She is a border State; she has a +deeper and more vital interest in the present unhappy differences than +New York or the North. If there is to be war; civil, unnatural war, +whose country is to be devastated, whose fields laid waste and +trampled down? They are those of the border States—of Ohio, +Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, and possibly New Jersey. These are +the States that are to suffer. Gentlemen from New York and the North +East, in the bosom of their families, their towns and cities not in +the least danger, may be as impassive as the granite rocks that bind +their shores. We have a deeper, a more vital interest; therefore we +feel and speak. When Pennsylvania received the invitation of Virginia, +South Carolina, Georgia, and other States had seceded. Dangers were +accumulating. Then it was that the old conservative Keystone State +threw herself into the breach. She sent her delegation here to save +the country and not to change the Constitution—not to alter it, but +to explain it and to give our Southern sisters the guarantees they +once did not ask and did not need. We believed that the great majority +of the people of the Southern States were Union loving men, who choose +to sail under the flag of the Union, rather than under any piratical +and treasonable banner. We knew there were rebels within those States, +as there is a faction at the North composed of men as much rebels as +they are. We knew, also, that there was a large body of men at the +South, who, though loyal at heart, were in a state of great anxiety +and apprehension, and who might be stirred up by demagogues, through +appeals to their State pride and other influences, to take a stand +against the Union.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">173</a></span></p> + +<p>The Republicans denied that they wished to interfere in any manner +with the institution of slavery. We have come here to give the slave +States a declaratory exposition of our views. We have come bearing the +olive branch. We are met by the South in a spirit of conciliation. The +delegates tell us that they hope to be able to bring back their erring +sister States into the fold of the Union, if they can go to them +bearing satisfactory guarantees from us. Pennsylvania is willing that +we should give them that opportunity. We have lived in harmony with +them: we wish to live in peace with them. If the seceded States will +not come back, if the other Southern States cannot bring them back, +then, are we in any worse position? No, sir! we are not. We desire to +place ourselves right before the world. Then, if some States will not +stay in the Union, on their heads be the responsibility. Then, if any +wrong has been done, if any right has been violated, Pennsylvania will +not be responsible. We shall have done our duty, on them will the +responsibility rest. They must answer for it before the world and +before the judgment-seat.</p> + +<p>What will be the consequence of postponing action on this subject? We +are strengthening the position of the seceded States. We</p> + +<p class="cpoem"> +"Keep the word of promise to the ear,<br /> +And break it to the hope."<br /> +</p> + +<p>Every rebel will rejoice at our inaction.</p> + +<p>The continuance of Virginia in the Union depends upon the action of a +convention now in session in Richmond. If we send her commissioners +home to say to that convention, "The North will wait two years and +then consider your propositions," what will the convention say to +that? The seceded States have at this moment commissioners at Richmond +entreating Virginia to join their Confederacy, and to detach herself +from the free States. If we fail to act, who can fail to foresee the +consequences? Maryland is about calling a convention. She, too, will +act, and she will go where her associations and her interests carry +her.</p> + +<p>From this you can infer some of the reasons why Pennsylvania has sent +her commissioners here. Her object was not delay. Her wish was for +action—speedy action. She wishes to do all she can to accelerate +action. She wishes to have some plan laid before the country at +once—something fair to all sections—and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">174</a></span> then, with, the +alternatives before them, let the people decide. She wishes to pour +oil on the troubled waters.</p> + +<p>We are told by our friend from New York, that the amendments are badly +drawn. If so, let him help us to correct them. No one can do it +better. Surely there is talent enough in this Conference to remedy +such defects as are suggested by him.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen say they do not wish to convert free territory into slave +territory. Neither do I. We are not doing that. All the territory +south of the line proposed is slave territory already. The adoption of +these propositions does not extend slavery at all.</p> + +<p>The first advantage the Republican party ever obtained in +Pennsylvania, was on account of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, +followed by the decision of the Supreme Court, declaring that the +normal condition of the territory was a condition of slavery, and on +that ground holding the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Such +being the state of the matter, do we lose any thing by the prohibition +of slavery north of 36° 30´? No! All that vast territory north of the +line will be dedicated to freedom. The South asks that faith shall be +kept; that slavery in the territory south of the line shall not be +interfered with. This is the only material averment in the +declaration.</p> + +<p>The second article contains a modification of the Constitution which +was not intended. This I understand it is proper to amend.</p> + +<p>Another proposition is to put a barrier into the Constitution, which +will prevent the acquisition of territory in future by joint +resolution. To this I am sure the gentleman from New York will not +object.</p> + +<p>Sir, I have read and carefully considered all the proposed amendments. +To my mind they present no essential changes, or modifications, or +constructions, of that instrument. I can see no injury in them to the +interests of the North. I think they are rather to the advantage of +the North. I believe the people of the North will hasten cheerfully to +adopt them.</p> + +<p>Now, if we can adopt them—if we can make them a part of our organic +law, and thus settle these differences, who will not be glad? There is +still a deep and abiding love of the Union in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">175</a></span> the hearts of all the +people. They will hail with joy any action of yours which tends to +strengthen it.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I should not address the Conference at this time if I did +not discover early signs of closing the debate, and I prefer to be +clearly understood upon the subject of discussion before it closes.</p> + +<p>I well understand the appeals of the border slave States. They think +that one-half their number are already out of the Union. They deem +themselves weakened by their defection. I well understand the inquiry +of the eloquent gentleman from Virginia, when he asked, on the second +day of the session, "Can't you understand our position?"</p> + +<p>I have listened to appeals stronger and more eloquent than I ever +expect to hear again. The representatives from the South on this floor +are skilful in debate and eloquent in speech. Were there no view of +the case but the one they present, I might become a convert myself.</p> + +<p>They have seen half of the slave States, acting on the theory of right +claimed by the South, undertake to go out of the Union. If they love +the States they represent, and the Union of all the States, they +should be filled with apprehension and alarm. The venerable gentleman +from North Carolina (Judge <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span>) has appealed to us with an ardor, +patriotism, and eloquence which has produced an indelible impression +upon my mind, while the gentleman (Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>) from Virginia, in +describing parallels of attack which the North, as he said, were +constructing, in the course of events, about the institution of +slavery, commanded my undivided attention. Yet gentlemen greatly err +in assuming that we of the North are acting under some wizard +influence, and, out of pure malignity, are plotting the overthrow of +slavery. There is no plot or general concert in the action of the +North on this subject. We are, like the South, subject to general laws +affecting mind and morals, as well as pecuniary concerns, which laws +cannot be disregarded. We cannot act otherwise than we do. Ideas and +principles control, and we and those whom we represent will act in +accordance with them, whatever be the consequences.</p> + +<p>Much is said here about saving to the Union the slave States not yet +gone. All I have to say on this point is, I wish to save them,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">176</a></span> and I +trust we shall have less trouble with the seven than with the fifteen.</p> + +<p>The chair was here taken by Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span>.</p> + +<p>The people of this country, North and South alike, obey the laws of +interest and morality. There is no disposition at the North to destroy +slavery. Let these accusations and criminations be heard no more. What +I am about to say may weigh but little, but I know something of the +North, and a little of the South. I fully believe that the institution +of slavery within the States should be left with them +exclusively—that such is the prevailing sentiment of the North. I say +so because there is no disposition at the North to interfere with it. +Do we believe that we can manage slavery better than you? No, sir! I +believe that we could not manage it so well. If we had been reared on +your soil in the midst of slavery, we could manage it just as well. It +is a mistake and a pernicious error, for the South to believe that +either party at the North proposes to raise any question relating to +slavery within State limits. There is not a man at the North who could +stand up long enough to fall down, if he should take such a position.</p> + +<p>There are problems connected with slavery which we cannot solve; we do +not wish to undertake their solution. We will leave them with you.</p> + +<p>What, then, should we do? My answer is, live along as we have done +before. We will live with you in the Union, under a Constitution that +requires us to help you keep the peace. Where you dwell, we will +dwell. Your people shall be our people, and where you die, we will +die. Our Constitution is good enough for a people who are wise enough +to live under it. With such a Constitution, Virginia proposes to leave +the Union.</p> + +<p>Will you leave the Union because the Constitution has not been rightly +construed? No; for it has been construed to your entire satisfaction. +It has been made to speak your views. The judges of our Supreme Courts +represent your opinions. There has never been a construction of the +Constitution adverse to your interests. The Dred Scott decision +protects slavery in all the territories according to your desire, +though against our strong conviction of law and right. Will you leave +the Union because you have not had the Government your share of the +time? You<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">177</a></span> have had possession and control of it for fifty years out +of seventy-two; and during a large portion of the twenty-two years, +when we have had the President from the free States, the +administration has been under the control of southern sentiments, and +southern interests have been in the ascendency, through the servility +of northern men. Do you leave the Union in order to secure the +protection of a better Constitution? No; for they who have left us +have said that the Constitution was well enough, if the people were +sufficiently enlightened to live under it. Why is it, then, with all +these facts before you, that you propose to turn away from the +Government of our fathers, from all the glories of the past, the +blessings of the present, and the hopes of the future, to hunt for new +and better things under a new Government?</p> + +<p>You are going out of the Union because you say we propose to immolate +you—to turn you over to the mercies of a Government of slaves set +free. How unfounded is such a belief! Are we not brothers still? I +doubt whether there was a better feeling between the masses of the +North toward you ten or seventy years ago than there is to-day. Can +you find better fortunes elsewhere? Where do you propose to go? To the +doubtful fortunes of a Southern Confederacy? You certainly are not +acting with your accustomed prudence and forethought. You know what +the teachings of history are in relation to nations in that belt of +latitude. You know how they have always compared with northern +nations. Together the two sections may be prosperous and powerful; +separated you can judge where the advantage must fall. Had we not +better try and get along as we are?</p> + +<p>This Conference presents some singular scenes. Although made up, so +far as the North is concerned, of members of both political parties, +yet, by a majority, it supports southern views of southern interests +as earnestly and emphatically as any southern man has done. In all +conflicts of the past and present you have carried your points, and +you have reason to think you may do so in future. Yet you insist upon +separation. Be assured, you will experience as bitter feuds among +yourselves as you do in the fellowship of those you leave. You cannot +be reconciled to even the existence of a minority against you, but you +will find you cannot escape the minorities, and may fall into one +yourselves. You propose to join the fortunes of the Southern +Confederacy, in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">178</a></span> which, there is a contention already. You turn your +backs upon the Government of the Father of his Country, whose portrait +is before us, and join your fortunes to a mere southern nationality. +Beware of the act. Look back over the last two thousand years, and +contrast the stability of governments in southern latitudes with those +more northern, under latitudes which you leave. Mexico, Central +America, and South America, furnish valuable lessons on this +Continent, while the Eastern Hemisphere is, in this respect, full of +instruction. Will you leave a people whose character and habits are +like those which have produced the permanence and power of Russia, +France, and England, and ally yourselves to those more southern people +who have not hitherto enjoyed stability, power, or happiness? Is it +not wiser to stay where you are, to scorn the pernicious doctrines of +new teachers, and to live and die under the flag of our fathers?</p> + +<p>The annexation of Texas opened a Pandora's box of evil. Had not that +taken place, the Missouri Compromise would not have been repealed. Had +not that Compromise been repealed, the shadow of our present troubles +would not have arisen.</p> + +<p>You speak of the opposition of the North to slavery. Believe us or +not, it is true, nevertheless, that slavery is regarded at the North +as strictly a State institution; as such, we are content to let it +remain; we desire to let it remain such. But let not the North be +misunderstood in its position. The North is willing to let slavery +remain where it is—where our fathers left it; but against its +extension into the territories, the North is inflexibly and +unalterably opposed.</p> + +<p>If there is any thing to pacificate I am in favor of pacification, but +in favor of it according to the Constitution. The Constitution +embraces all that any State can reasonably ask or honorably concede. +But if from change of circumstances or other causes, the men of the +South are of the opinion that their interests are overlooked or +ill-defined, I, for one, will favor a call of a convention to consider +amendments to the Constitution, and I will vote for such amendments as +shall give as substantial protection to the South as the North ought +to ask for, in the change of circumstances.</p> + +<p>I submitted an address and resolutions a few days since for adoption +in this Convention, which I hope may be carefully read<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">179</a></span> before being +rejected. They contemplated a convention, and their design is to give +assurance of justice to the public. I oppose the proposition for an +address by the committee, to be issued to the public after our +adjournment. We wish to know beforehand what we adopt, and to weigh +every word. There is a northern sentiment to be regarded as well as a +southern sentiment.</p> + +<p>We of the North have heard much said in denunciation of us, and have +thought it political clap-trap and gasconade. But if we are made to +believe in your hostility to us and the Government, we may conclude it +is best to let you leave us. We have no fears in trusting ourselves, +if necessary, to our industry, our habits, and enterprise, separate +from the slaveholding States. Opinions are changing rapidly. I do not +like the idea of maintaining the Union by force of arms. It is not in +accordance with the theory of our Government.</p> + +<p>A Virginian stated only a few days ago, that there was nothing which +the South could ask or that the North could give, that was not found +in the Constitution. But you say that we do not understand it +alike—that the two sections differ in their construction of it. Well, +if that is so, we are willing to submit to the courts.</p> + +<p>You have always fared well enough there. If that is not enough we will +leave the whole subject, amendments and all, to a General Convention. +That we now propose. We propose it fairly, not for any purpose of +delay or postponement. Call the convention as early as it can be done. +We will aid you. We will go home and in good faith urge our people to +go into the convention, and there patiently and fairly consider all +your claims, all your complaints. We would urge them to concede all +they can without a sacrifice of principle. We will do this as a party, +and with all our strength. Now, this does not quite come up to what +you want, but is it best for you to insist upon breaking up the +Government on that ground? That is neither sensible nor safe. We are +like two lobes in the same skull; one cannot outlive the other. +Destroy one and you destroy the other. I do not believe this Republic +can stand without the Union which our fathers made. But it will +stand—it must stand. Wise counsels will yet prevail. You will yet +believe us sincere in our desires<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">180</a></span> to relieve you. The end of the +Union has not come—it is not coming. The Union will yet outlive us +and our posterity.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—In rising to express briefly my views, I feel +oppressed and embarrassed in view of the magnitude of the subjects we +are discussing, and in the presence of this distinguished auditory. I +cannot claim to represent an Empire State with its four millions of +people, nor a Bay State, which we are told, with its wealth, its +enterprise, and its commerce, can settle a new State every year. But +with my colleagues, I represent a State which performed her part in +the dark night of the Revolution—her share in that great struggle for +our priceless institutions—a State which has ever since been faithful +in the discharge of all her constitutional obligations. In that bloody +conflict, upon her own soil, New Jersey joined hands with the North +and South. There is scarcely a church spire within her borders beneath +whose shadows does not lay the remains of some of the entombed +patriots in that great conflict from both these sections, commingled +with those of her own sons!</p> + +<p>New Jersey was true to the Union in that great struggle—she has +always since been true; and under the favor of Providence she always +will be faithful to the Union and its memories, so inseparably +connected with the glory and honor of her sons. Other States may have +done as much, may have as good a record, may be entitled to equal +credit with her. But in all her past history, I can point to her +fidelity to the Union and her sister States with no blush of shame +upon my brow. Other States might be wanting! New Jersey never! She has +always been true to her constitutional obligations; she has always +kept—never sought to avoid them.</p> + +<p>With a narrow stream separating her from a slaveholding State, there +were never any underground railroads in New Jersey; she never rescued +a fugitive slave from the custody of the law; no <i>personal liberty</i> +bill ever disgraced the pages of her statutes, nor ever will disgrace +them. In 1793 she enacted a statute providing for the prompt return of +fugitive slaves found within her limits. She subjected any judge +required to act under it, to imprisonment, if he neglected to perform +his duties. That law has ever since been in force. It was reënacted in +1836, and again in 1846, when some of its defects were amended. +Courteous as just,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">181</a></span> she provided by another law, passed in 1820, that +any southern gentleman visiting her territory, might bring with him +his household slaves, travel in, through, and out of the State, or +even take up his temporary residence as securely in this respect as at +home. This law was reënacted in 1847, and again in 1855; one of my +worthy colleagues here was associated, upon the commission which +revised this act, with that distinguished New Jersey Republican, +<span class="smcap">William L. Dayton</span>.</p> + +<p>In the recent unhappy political contest, New Jersey, ever anxious to +do justice to all sections of the Union, and injustice to none, as if +hesitating and doubtful toward which of the two parties in that +struggle she ought to incline, extended her fraternal hands to North +and South, by giving one-half her electoral vote to each; thus showing +that she still retains her unselfish spirit, which leads her to +sacrifice her own preferences to her duty to the Union.</p> + +<p>In the same spirit to-day she bears her full share of the heavy sorrow +that rests, like a pall, over the people of the whole country as they +witness this glorious fabric, which our fathers erected and cemented +with their blood and their prayers—trembling, shattered, and +dismembered. In the conciliatory spirit of my State, I, as a +Jerseyman, proud of the title and every thing connected with it, wish +to say a word to the South in all frankness and candor. I freely tell +you that, in my opinion, you have a right to guarantees, and to +constitutional guarantees. It is no answer to say that the +Constitution has not been broken. That is not the question now. +Reference has been made to the fact that <span class="smcap">Washington</span> signed the present +Constitution. Yes, but when he did so we had a population of but three +millions, and now we have a population of upward of thirty millions. +Is it surprising that some change should be required in that +instrument with this great change in the nation? The balance of power +so long fluctuating between the free and the slaveholding States has +at length entirely changed. It has now come to us of the free States, +and therefore we are bound to respect the claims of the South, and +quiet the apprehensions of its people.</p> + +<p>It is of little use to make patriotic speeches here. The South demands +guarantees, and I feel under obligations to respond to that demand. I +assert as a general principle, that whoever has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">182</a></span> a right is entitled +to have it guaranteed. I believe there is not a gentleman here, who, +in his heart, does not think so. If it is right for them to have these +guarantees at all, they should have them to-day. I do not care whether +Virginia occupies a menacing attitude or not, my moral code is still +the same; it is not effected by any thing that has been done or can be +done by Virginia or any other State. It is my belief that +nineteen-twentieths of the people of the North to-day are in favor of +giving to the South all the guarantees it asks against all +interference with slavery in the territories. Some say, "We admit +this, but we will do nothing until the Republican President is +inaugurated on the 4th of March." I am ready to do it now; and my +obligations to do right will not be changed by the 4th of March +rolling over my head.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen have made eloquent and patriotic speeches asserting their +determination not to interfere with the rights of the South. That is +very pleasant and very proper. But those speeches are the expressions +of individuals, and they pass away. Where is the man who will consent +to hold any political right at the will of any man or class of men, no +matter how kindly disposed? We all require security. The highest and +grandest aim and object of government is not the stability and peace +of society, but a well-grounded confidence in the minds of the people +of the perpetuity of that stability and peace.</p> + +<p>The South asks the right to use and occupy a portion of the common +territory of the country. As a northern man I will accept the +compromise, and I believe a large majority of the people will agree +with me. You, gentlemen of the South, have asked that the arrangement +may be extended to territory hereafter to be acquired. New Jersey has +voted in this Convention against interference with slavery in the +territory, present or future, and she is the only northern State that +has cast her vote in favor of your demand. Her representatives have +been told somewhat sneeringly, that while slaveholding States voted +against this proposition, New Jersey was the only free State that +voted for it. Well, we accept the responsibility, and will bear it. +New Jersey has made up her record. There it stands, and there let it +stand forever. We are proud of it. If civil war is to come, if this +land is to be deluged with fraternal blood, when that time comes +there<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">183</a></span> will not be a northern State represented here that would not +give untold millions to be placed upon that record by the side of New +Jersey.</p> + +<p>The fact is, sir, we have acquired our liberties too cheaply. Had we +purchased them at the cost our fathers did, by coloring the snows of +winter by our blood tracks, and by passing the summers in the +unhealthy morass, we should have learned to prize them more highly; we +should be more patriotic and less proud, more sensible and less +sensitive.</p> + +<p>A word further on the subject of extending this provision to territory +hereafter acquired. Gentlemen, you do not want that provision; you do +not need any provision as to future acquisitions. You are better off +without it. No present rights are involved in it. You are providing +for a contingency which may never, and probably never will happen. +Would it not be inconsistent for a nation to commit suicide because a +constitution is not made to meet an improbable contingency? You have +territory enough for the next two hundred years. You say you require +it to maintain your honor, to preserve your fair equality, to maintain +your lawful rights. Permit me to say you have no rights in territory +which we never owned, and I hope never may. This is no question of +honor or equality. But if we should acquire territory and should then +exclude you from it, will it not then be time enough to resort to the +expedient of national suicide as a remedy for the wrong? Nor do you +require it for any particular purpose. You have within your States +room for all the increase of a century. Your interest is to retain +your sons at home and develop the wealth and advance the prosperity of +your States, and not to send them to the western wilderness where +one-half die in the process of acclimation. The fact that you are all +in favor of placing in the Constitution new <i>restrictions</i> as to the +<i>acquisition</i> of territory, proves you do not consider you need more +territory. I heard it said, the other day, by a gentleman from +Virginia, that the South wanted the provision for a finality, to end +forever this dispute about slavery. With all my heart I sympathize +with him in his desire to end this discussion forever. You think you +have suffered from these discussions at the South; so have we at the +North. It has separated families and neighborhoods; it has broken up +and scattered<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">184</a></span> Christian churches; it has severed every benevolent +society of the land; it has destroyed parties; it broke up the good +old Whig party, and more recently sapped the strength and vigor from +the Herculean Democracy. It now threatens the dissolution of the +Union. Let us crush the head of the monster forever. Let us do it by +restricting and defining its limits in existing territory.</p> + +<p>Suppose the word "future" had been inserted. You do not wish to +destroy all probability of the adoption of this proposition at the +North. These proposals could not pass Congress, with the word +"future," by the requisite vote; and if it passed Congress, there is +no hope that twenty-five out of twenty-eight States would have adopted +it. With it you would have given great strength to the opposition at +the North. It would have created a more powerful anti-slavery party +than ever before existed. No, you are better off by confining the +provisions of this compromise to present territory—you having, as +well as the North, in the contemplated amendment a veto on the +acquisition of territory.</p> + +<p>The North will want new territory before you will desire it. They will +demand Mexico and Cuba for the advantages of trade. You then, having +the veto power, can say to them—No, gentlemen, we will not agree to +it unless our particular institution is there respected; or, if you +please, you may go further and say, We will not acquiesce unless this +territory comes in as a slave State so as to restore measurably the +balance of power in the Government. With this veto power you would +have the North in your hands, and could make your own terms. You make +the provision more of a finality by letting it stand as it is.</p> + +<p>But gentlemen say, they want the amendment for another purpose, in +order that they may induce States that have gone out to return. Here, +again, I sympathize with you. I had rather bring back South Carolina +than to secure the annexation of both the Canadas. I would give more +for one American than for a regiment of John Bulls. Ungenerous as +South Carolina has been, I would receive her home again. I desire the +States to return. Let their place at the Federal Board remain vacant +for them. Let the stars of their sovereignty on our nation's ensign +remain unobliterated and without further dishonor. We are ready to +receive them. But this provision as to future territory is not +necessary for their return. The same considerations to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">185</a></span> which I have +alluded, and which, will satisfy you that such provision is not +requisite, will satisfy them. The guarantees which the North are ready +to give as to the representation, taxation, and return of property, +and the compromise as to the existing territory, will do much to +satisfy them. To effect a compromise, you of the South must demand as +little as you can render satisfactory to your people, and we of the +North must give as much as our people will approve, and both parties +must consent to avoid all objectionable phraseology.</p> + +<p>Now, a few words to my friends of the North. There is resting upon us +a grave responsibility. We are bound to settle this question finally +in this Convention. Talk about a convention of the people! We who have +no constitution, we who are tied up to no technicalities, must settle +it. We of the North may meet political death; but let political death +come, it is enough to have lived for, if we can settle this question.</p> + +<p>But one asks, Will you strike hands with treason, and enter into +compacts with rebels and traitors? Yes, sir! I will strike hands with +just such rebels and traitors as I see around me; and I would give +them what they ask as cheerfully and as freely as I would give a glass +of water to a soldier returning wounded and weary from the field of +battle.</p> + +<p>But it is said we must first see whether we have a Government. We must +try the strength of the Government. We must know whether the +Government can assert its supremacy and compel obedience to its laws. +Sir, that is just what I do not want to try. What, try the strength of +the Government! and do so at the end of an administration in which +corruption and treason and every evil principle have been contending +for the mastery, when our ships are all away beyond sea, when our arms +and our fortifications are out of our hands, when our treasury is +bankrupt, our people divided, insolvency and ruin threatening our +country, and all the Gulf States defying the authority of the +Government? No, sir! this is no time to try the strength of the +Government. When we do that, let us select some more auspicious +period.</p> + +<p>But another says these proposals of amendment contravene the Chicago +platform. What if they do? Is the Chicago platform a law to us? Is it +a law to any one? It was passed upon ten minutes' consideration in a +convention of five thousand people.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">186</a></span> If it was a law, the convention +should have been perpetual and never dissolved, in order that the law +might have been subject to requisite modifications without a change of +circumstances. A strange manner in which to enact such a law! But +things have changed since the Chicago Convention. In fifty days, fifty +years of history have transpired. This is enough to release us from +the obligation, if any existed. It is not a law; it is a doctrine, the +spirit, the policy of the party that it undertakes to enunciate. It is +not a law, because a majority of the people have never given it their +sanction. Mr. Lincoln was elected by less than a majority. And in his +vote how many old Whigs and Democrats may be counted who did not +support him <i>because</i> he stood upon the Chicago platform, but because +they preferred him to either of the opposing candidates. And even if +it is a law, I call upon the North to support the proposals of +amendment here submitted. Let us, as Republicans, be honest, and when +the opportunity offers are we not bound so to change the Constitution +that three-fourths of all our present territory, now open to slavery, +shall be consecrated to freedom? Yes, we are bound to relieve that +three-fourths from slavery. All we need to do to secure this, is not +to carry slavery where it is not, but to secure it where it is. I can +go home to the Republicans of New Jersey with a clear conscience and +say to them, that by our action here we have not carried slavery one +inch farther than it was before. If they are not satisfied with that, +they must be dissatisfied.</p> + +<p>But there is one plank in the Chicago platform to which I will call +the attention of my Republican friends. It must not be forgotten. I +read from a genuine copy which I brought from Chicago myself.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That to the Union of the States, this nation +owes its unprecedented increase in population, its +surpassing development of internal resources, its rapid +augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor +abroad, and we hold in abhorrence all schemes of disunion, +come from whatever source they may."</p></div> + +<p>It is a rule of construction, that all parts of an instrument must be +construed together; that due regard and effect must be given to all +parts of it, unless they are clearly repugnant. Will any gentleman +tell me how the Union can be more effectually preserved than by +controlling disunion? It is by granting what<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">187</a></span> is asked to those who +might disturb its tranquillity, when they ask nothing unreasonable. +This resolution every patriot can subscribe to; and I hold that it can +be as effectually violated by the neglect to do all we can to turn +aside disunion, as by affirmative action against the Government. And +let me say that the party in this country which goes between the +people and the preservation of the Union, will sink so low, +eventually, that a bubble will not return to mark the spot where it +went down. But I cannot understand how any one who is honestly opposed +to the extension of slavery, as a political institution, can refuse +the compromise proposed. The federal courts, to which we have +committed the power, have decided that slavery, of right, goes into +all the territories. The distinguished Republican from Massachusetts +has told us that the court cannot be so organized, even if we keep the +power, as to change that decision in twenty-five years. In that time +the whole question will be determined. Now we have an opportunity, at +once and forever, by constitutional enactment, to prohibit slavery +from going into three-fourths of the territory, by simply agreeing +that as to the other one-fourth, while it remains a territory, the +<i>status</i> of slavery shall not be changed. I confess I have not the +ingenuity to contrive how I should apologize to an audience of +Republicans for refusing such a contract.</p> + +<p>Now, what can we of the North, we Republicans, do? By a settlement +here we can retain the Border States, and, in my opinion, that is +equivalent to saving the Union. Retain the Border States and the +seceding States must come back. If the Border States go, I believe war +is inevitable. How can two sections exist with only an imaginary line +between them. I do not believe the South will ever consent to give up +the Capital, claimed to be within her borders, and the North could +never surrender it. Sir, I shrink from the prospect of civil war. The +picture of civil war has often been painted, and by abler hands than +mine. Its calamities and miseries, the sufferings that attend it, +strike a chill of horror to the soul. But such a picture as a civil +war in this country would be, has never been drawn. History would be +searched in vain for its parallel. A civil war between the members of +a family, between brother and brother, father and son, who have all +enjoyed the same blessings which their fathers made early and bloody +sacrifices to secure! Shall it be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">188</a></span> said that such a people, for such a +cause, risked their interests, their country, their all, and rushed +blindly into the calamities of a civil war? He has read history to +little account who has not learned that such a warfare is, in its +nature, not only cruel, but protracted. It is like letting loose the +hurricane. Passion and poverty, carnage and crime, desolation and +death, become the condition of a hitherto happy people. For thirty +years Germany was ravaged, and millions slain by a contest occasioned +by a difference in religious opinions. For more than thirty years the +war of the Roses devastated England. The French Revolution, including +the "Reign of Terror"—originating in a question of taxation and +terminating with the supremacy of Napoleon—lasted nearly ten years. +For a like decade civil war raged between England and Scotland, +originating in a question of authority between the King and Commons, +and ending in Cromwell's protectorate. Why, I ask, if we admit this +fiendish visitant to our borders, should we anticipate that our fate +would be more favorable? No! war is to be averted, and a nation still +covered with glory is to be preserved by holding the Border States in +the Union.</p> + +<p>If I am asked what I would do; I answer, Compromise—compromise! Two +gentlemen cannot live in a parlor together a single day without +reciprocal compromises. I would not be "stiff in the back and firm in +the knees." There is such a thing as too much "backbone." I say I +would "back down" to save the country. I am not ashamed of the +expression. Our Government itself was a compromise, and in nothing +more so than as to the slavery question. <span class="smcap">Henry Clay</span> was the great +compromiser. The Missouri Compromise was his. Resigning his office as +Speaker, on the floor of Congress by irresistible argument, and +eloquence unequalled—though twice defeated, he succeeded in +establishing the compromise line of 36° 30´—and thereby erected a +barrier which severed the angry currents of opinion on this +distracting theme, and which was as valuable to this nation as the +isthmus at the equator, holding in check the mighty ocean on either +side. The North has compromised before; let her do it again. Let our +friends at the South take as little as they can, and let the North +yield as little as she can, but let us come together. The party that +stands between the people and the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">189</a></span> preservation of the Government will +be crushed to atoms. It will be remembered in history only with curses +and indignation.</p> + +<p>We all love this Union, and we mean to preserve it. There is no one +here who, as he has witnessed the freedom, the comfort, the +prosperity, and the pure religion disseminated among the people, has +not hoped this nation was to accomplish great social and moral good +for our whole race. Yes, in fond conception we have seen her the +Liberator and Equalizer of the world—walking like an angel of light +in the dark portions of the earth. These sacred anticipations may not +be disappointed without a fearful accountability somewhere. And, sir, +suffer me to say that this whole people have a strong regard for each +other, notwithstanding the petulant differences which have arisen +between us. Kindred blood flows in our veins, and that of our fathers +mingles on the same field; and even now, in the day of our country's +peril, our affections meet at the hallowed grounds of Mt. Vernon, of +Marshfield, and of Ashland.</p> + +<p>We have our history. <span class="smcap">Washington</span> and <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, and <span class="smcap">Henry</span> and <span class="smcap">Sumter</span>, as +well as Bunker Hill, and Yorktown, and Trenton, are yours, and they +are all ours.</p> + +<p>We have our religion—and with every diurnal revolution of this +sphere, from North and South, through the efficacy of a common faith, +a goodly company are ascending to that realm of peace where their +harmonious union shall never more be severed. And to-day, from a +thousand hearthstones in the sunny South, and in the more rigid North, +the family prayer ascends to the Father of us all, for a blessing on +our common country and for the preservation of this Union. Those +prayers will be heard, and this priceless Union will be preserved.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I wish to call the attention of the Conference for a +moment to another subject, in order that members may give it their +consideration. I shall call up my motion to terminate the debate upon +the report of the committee early to-morrow, and ask to have the +discussion closed on the 21st instant. I am sure that I shall be +sustained in this by every member who wishes to have this body come to +any agreement. I wish to have the vote taken on the <i>twenty-second day +of February</i>, that we may see whether the same day that gave a +<span class="smcap">Washington</span> to our Fathers, may not give <span class="smcap">Peace</span> to their posterity.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">190</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. DODGE:—I have listened with intense interest to the addresses +which have recently been made to the Conference. I respect the ability +which they have exhibited—I honor the patriotism which has produced +them. They have presented the important principles involved in the +action of this Conference in a much more interesting and forcible +manner than I could; and I would not occupy the attention of this body +with a single observation, if I had the good fortune to be associated +with a delegation in which unanimity of opinion and feeling prevailed. +But I am not so fortunate. In that delegation I find many shades of +opinion. I respect the views of my brother delegates. It is not for me +to assume to sit in judgment upon them. I give each one of them credit +for the same honesty and integrity which I claim for myself; and if I +happen to differ from them, I claim that such difference honestly +arises from the different paths in life which we pursue, which may +lead us to take different views of the same subjects as they are here +presented.</p> + +<p>The Conference has heard the ideas of political and professional men +expressed upon the important questions now presented for its +consideration. These ideas have been well expressed, and we have all +been interested in hearing them. Will you now hear a few words from a +body of men who have hitherto been silent here, but who have a deep +and abiding interest in the happiness and prosperity of the country +and in the preservation and perpetuity of the American Union?</p> + +<p>Sir! I am here as a plain merchant, out of place, I very well know, in +such a Conference as this; but accident has brought me here, and I +will tell you how and why I came. Three weeks ago I left my +business—which in times like these certainly deserves all my +attention—to come to the city of Washington on business of a public +character. I came at the suggestion and request of the Chamber of +Commerce of New York, hoping, in my humble way, to serve the public +interests in this crisis. Inconvenient though it was, and involving +personal sacrifices of no ordinary character, when others thought my +country had need of my poor services, I did not hesitate to respond to +her call. And I hope I may never hesitate under such circumstances.</p> + +<p>I came here to visit Congress, as a member of a committee, bearing a +petition to that body signed by more than thirty-nine<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">191</a></span> thousand of my +fellow-citizens, all interested in the welfare and permanence of this +Government. This number included more than twenty thousand business +men and firms. This petition was earnest and emphatic. In it, we asked +and prayed that Congress would adopt some plan that would settle our +present sectional troubles; that would relieve the country from the +anxiety and apprehension which pervaded it, and permit business and +commerce to resume their accustomed channels, with assurances of +safety in the future. We knew that the time had arrived when patriotic +men must act; that commercial and financial ruin was impending. Our +petition set forth, that in the opinion of the signers, the plan +contained in what were called the "Border State Resolutions" was best +calculated to secure the end desired. We thought those resolutions +ought to be satisfactory to the reasonable and true Union men of the +South, and that they ought not to be obnoxious to the prejudices or +objections of the people of the free States. Still we were not +strenuous—we were not committed to any particular plan. All we +desired, was to secure such action on the part of Congress and the +Executive, as would satisfy the country; such action as would give the +country peace.</p> + +<p>When we came to Washington we met <i>seventy</i> republican members of the +Senate and House of Representatives. We had with them a most +satisfactory and delightful interview. It gave me renewed hope for my +country and her interests when I heard the expressions of conciliation +and good will which these gentlemen used; I felt my confidence +renewed.</p> + +<p>Besides these gentlemen, who met and heartily coöperated with us, +there were several members from the Border States whose expressions +were not less friendly, although they did not think it expedient to +act with us. Our committee made all the representations and +explanations which were deemed necessary; and having performed my duty +in that connection, in the earnest hope that we had influenced the +action of Congress in the right direction, I was about to return home +with my colleagues, when I received a telegraphic despatch requesting +me to attend the meeting of this Conference. I obeyed the summons; and +since I received it, I have been laboring with all the ability, +strength, and power with which GOD has blessed me, to secure the +adoption of some plan here, that would settle our difficulties and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">192</a></span> +avert from our beloved country the evils with which she is now +threatened.</p> + +<p>Sir, there has not one moment passed since I came here, during which I +have not felt a deep and overpowering sense of the grave +responsibility which rests upon myself and the other members of this +Conference. I am accustomed to the trials, vexations, cares, and +responsibilities of business; I know how to meet and grapple with them +calmly. But I do not feel so here. My days are anxious and excited—my +nights are wakeful and sleepless. In all the weary watches of last +night, I could not close my eyes in slumber. The reason was, because I +saw from a point of view which you do not, the certain and inevitable +ruin that is threatening the business, commercial interests of this +country, and which is sure to fall with crushing force upon those +interests, unless we come to some arrangement here.</p> + +<p>I speak to you now as a business man—as a merchant of New York, the +commercial metropolis of the nation. I am no politician, I have no +interest except such as is common to the people. But let me assure +you, that even I can scarcely realize, much less describe, the +stagnation which has now settled upon the business and commerce of +that great city, caused solely by the unsettled and uncertain +condition of the questions which we are endeavoring to arrange and +settle here.</p> + +<p>I tell you what I do not get from second hands, but what I know +myself, when I assure you that had not Divine Providence poured out +its blessings upon the great West in an abundant harvest, and at the +same time opened a new market for that harvest in foreign lands, +bringing it through New York in its transit, our city would now +present the silence and the quiet of the Sabbath day. Why is this? It +is because we, who have lived together in harmony with each other, a +powerful and a happy people, are breaking up—are preparing to +separate and go out from one another!</p> + +<p>The merchants of our great commercial cities of Baltimore, +Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, are not listless or unenterprising +men. They are accustomed to the interests, the bustle, the excitement +of business. They have heretofore seen their stores crowded with +buyers. During the day the interiors of their places of business were +like busy hives. Not unfrequently<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">193</a></span> have their clerks been obliged to +labor all through the night to secure and send off the goods which +they had sold to reliable customers during the day. When business is +good and driving throughout our commercial cities, wealth and comfort +are secured to merchants and agents engaged in commerce in those +cities, and it indicates general prosperity in the country to which +the goods purchased are transmitted. It shows a healthy condition of +affairs both in city and country.</p> + +<p>How stands the matter in those cities to-day? Now, just when the +spring trade should be commencing, go to the extensive and magnificent +establishments for the sale of goods in any of the cities I have +named, where goods are sold which in prosperous times found their way +into almost every family to a greater or less amount in this great +country. What will you see in those cities now? The heavy stocks of +goods imported last autumn, or laid in from our own manufactories, +remain undisturbed and untouched upon the shelves. The customers are +not there—they have not made their appearance. The few who have come +at all, come not as buyers, but as debtors who cannot pay, and whose +business is not to make purchases but to arrange for extensions. The +merchants, in despair, are poring over their ledgers; checking off the +names of their insolvent debtors, a new list of whom comes by each +day's mail. Their clerks sit around in idleness reading the +newspapers, or thinking mournfully of the wives and children at home, +who will go unclad and hungry if they are discharged from their +places, as they know they must be, if this condition of things shall +continue. All alike, employers and employed, with all dependent upon +them, are looking anxiously, and I wish I could say hopefully, to the +Congress of the United States, or to this Conference, as the only +sources from which help may come.</p> + +<p>There are thousands and tens of thousands belonging to these classes +all over the country who must have relief, or their ruin is +inevitable. And then look at that other class, numerically larger, +perhaps, certainly not less worthy of our regard, who are dependent +upon these; I mean the mechanics, the day laborers, and those in turn +dependent upon them. What are they to do? If some change does not +come, if something is not done again to start the wheels of commerce +and business, what is to become of them?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">194</a></span></p> + +<p>And look, too, at New England! She has latterly been the workshop of +the South and the West. She has furnished their people with her +manufactures—they have been her market. An excellent market, too, +have they furnished her; she has grown rich through their consumption. +How stands the matter with New England to-day? True, some of her shops +are running, but many more are still. The noise of the loom, the +rattle of the shuttle, have ceased in many of her factories, while +others are gradually discharging their operatives and closing their +business. But I will pursue this branch of the subject no farther. No +one acquainted with the facts, will deny that the whole country is +upon the eve of such a financial crisis as it has never seen—that +this crisis will come as sure as that the sun will rise, unless we do +something to avert it!</p> + +<p>What is it that has thus stopped the wheels of manufactures and +arrested the ordinary movements of commerce? What is it that has +produced this unusual and uncommon stagnation of business? What is it +that has driven away from the markets of the North those hitherto so +welcome to them? I do not propose to go into the history of these +questions. I will not attempt to enlarge upon the answers to them. I +can condense the answer into few words. It is because anxiety, +distrust, and apprehension, are universally prevailing. Confidence is +lost. The North misunderstands the South—the South misunderstands the +North. Neither will trust the other, and the consequences to which I +have adverted necessarily follow.</p> + +<p>I am a merchant. I am unused to public discussions or arguments, but I +am a business man, and I take a business view of this subject. I can +see as clearly as I can see the sun at noonday the causes of our +present embarrassment. I believe I can see equally clear how those +causes may be removed.</p> + +<p>We have come here for a grand and lofty purpose. What nobler work can +engage the mind of a true patriot than that of devising the means of +saving his country when it is in peril? That work is ours. In +performing it, are we not acting under a grave and solemn +responsibility? We are, sir! The <i>people</i> will hold us responsible for +the manner in which we perform this great trust. I know the people of +this country. They value this Union. They will make great sacrifices +to save it. They will<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">195</a></span> disregard politics and parties—they will cast +platforms to the winds of heaven, before they will place the Union in +peril.</p> + +<p>The delegates from New England in this Conference seem to be the most +obstinate and uncompromising. They aver that they cannot agree to +these propositions because their adoption involves a sacrifice of +principles—that New England is opposed to slavery, and will not +consent to put it into the Constitution, nor to its extension. They +say the people hate slavery, and will not for that reason accept these +proposals.</p> + +<p>I do not believe one word of this. I know the people of New England +well; they are true Yankees; they know how to get the dollars, and how +to hold on to them when they have got them. They are a shrewd and +calculating as well as an enterprising people; they understand their +interests and will protect them. They will not sit quietly by and see +their property sacrificed or reduced in value. Once show them that it +is necessary to adopt these propositions of amendment in order to +secure the permanence of the Government, and to keep up the property +and other material interests of the country, and they will adopt them +readily. You will hear no more said about slavery or platforms. They +will never permit this Government, which has contributed so much to +their wealth and prosperity, to be sacrificed to a technicality, a +chimera. The people of New England know how to take care of +themselves. Give them a chance, and they will settle all these points +of difference in some peaceful way.</p> + +<p>I am not here to argue or discuss constitutional questions. That duty +belongs to gentlemen of the legal profession. I have lived under the +Constitution. I venerate it and its authors as highly as any man here. +But I do not venerate it so highly as to induce me to witness the +destruction of the Government rather than see the Constitution amended +or improved.</p> + +<p>I regret that the gentlemen composing the committee did not approach +these questions more in the manner of merchants or commercial men. We +would not have sacrificed our principles, but we would have +agreed—have brought our minds together as far as we could; we would +have left open as few questions as possible. These we would have +arranged by mutual concessions.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I speak as a merchant; I have a deep and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">196</a></span> abiding +interest in my country and its Government. I love my country; my heart +is filled with sorrow as I witness the dangers by which it is +surrounded. But I came here for <i>peace</i>. The country longs for peace; +and if these proposals of amendment will give us peace, the prayer of +my heart is, that they may be adopted. Believing such will be their +effect, I will vote for them. I would like to say much more, but I +will not occupy time that is now so valuable. Let us approach these +questions in a spirit of conciliation. Above all, let us agree upon +something. Let us do the best we can, and then let us go home and ask +the people to approve our action. The people will approve it, and +their approval will give us <i>peace</i>!</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH, of New York:—I did not propose to take any part in this +debate. The Conference is made up of men, many of whose names are +historical, and are intimately connected with the history of the +country. I preferred to leave the whole discussion to them.</p> + +<p>But as we are all seeking a common end, there are some views which +have occurred to me that I thought should be presented, inasmuch as +they appear not to have engaged the attention of others. New York, I +am aware, has occupied considerable time, and I owe an apology on her +part for trespassing farther upon your time.</p> + +<p>We are here in a family meeting. On one side Virginia thought the +parent was so ill that the family ought to be called together. I +thought yesterday that we were undergoing some family discipline—that +New York had in some way disgraced herself, and needed correction. I +did not know what she had done; but I supposed the reproof was +administered to her in a kindly spirit, though it was uncalled for.</p> + +<p>The work proposed to us is, to be sure, a work of conciliation. But +call it by whatever name you may, nothing less is proposed than an +alteration of the Constitution. When we are asked to alter a +Constitution that was made by <span class="smcap">Washington</span> and <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, under which the +country has grown to wealth and happiness, we certainly ought to +approach the subject with the utmost deliberation. If we were settling +family differences only, we would deliberate. How much more should we +do so when we are dealing with the great principles which uphold our +Government!<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">197</a></span></p> + +<p>It is by great principles that nations are governed and their +destinies are shaped. The world is governed by ideas and not by +material interests. These facts must be kept distinctly in view by +those who take upon themselves the business of making constitutions.</p> + +<p>It is stated that we are called here to settle the terms upon which +certain sectional differences are to be arranged. We ought, then, +first to ascertain what is the extent—what the limit of these +differences.</p> + +<p>In the first place, it is agreed that no constitutional rights have +yet been invaded. The occasion for fear is not what <i>has been</i>, but +what <i>may be</i> done. I suppose we are all alike tenacious of our +rights, whether we derive them from the Constitution or from any other +source. The rights of the State are just as important to New York as +to Virginia. But it is said that appearances exist that indicate an +intention on our part to interfere with some of the institutions of +the South. We ask for the proof. None is forthcoming—nothing but the +most vague and indefinite suspicion.</p> + +<p>We propose to give the most satisfactory and absolute guarantees on +that subject—the subject of interference with Southern +institutions—even to put those guarantees into the Constitution. But +that is not satisfactory—we are told that we cannot be trusted. I +should hope that no Northern State could ever be truthfully required +to admit that it had given cause for such an apprehension. But it is +evident that this is not the real occasion of calling us together. +What, then, is the occasion?</p> + +<p>It is said, that certain sectional rights in the Territories must be +secured and guaranteed. In that view I desire to call the attention of +the Conference to two or three points in the plan of the proposed +security.</p> + +<p>As I understand the scheme, it is this: It is proposed to divide our +present territory by the line of 36° 30´, with a view to have +emigration from the free States go north, and from the slave States go +south of that line. This is made in connection with a limitation +preventing the acquisition of future territory. Now the first thing +that impresses me is the objection to placing any such restraints upon +emigration.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I think the gentleman misunderstands the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">198</a></span> report. I have +seen no proposition that proposes to confine or restrain emigration.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—I concede that there is no express provision restricting +emigration, but such I think will be the effect of the amendments.</p> + +<p>By the third section, Congress is prohibited, forever, from +interfering with the subject of slaves, and the sixth section makes +the others, with certain provisions of the Constitution as it now +stands, irrepealable and unchangeable. No matter how much the +condition of the country may change; no matter if all but the most +inconsiderable fraction of the people may desire to change them; these +propositions must stand as long as this country stands, a part of its +fundamental law.</p> + +<p>These are the general provisions which the scheme contains. It is +offered as a measure of peace; of conciliation; to calm and quiet the +existing excitement.</p> + +<p>I think I am right in saying that when you are making a constitution +you should consider all the conditions of the people who are to be +governed by it; that you should keep in view all sections and +opinions. It is my belief that instead of calming the excitement these +propositions will aggravate it—will arouse it to a pitch it has never +yet attained. I believe this, because the entire proposition goes +counter to the fundamental ideas upon which our Government is based.</p> + +<p>It proposes to <i>establish</i> slavery South. Is not this the first time +in the history of the Constitution that it has ever been proposed, by +affixing an article to that instrument, to <i>establish</i>—to <i>plant</i> +slavery in territory which was free when it was acquired? The +ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery from going into the territory +which was acquired by it.</p> + +<p>In similar language the article proposes to abolish slavery in the +territory north of the line. It is well to consider what is the legal +condition of that territory now. New Mexico and Arizona were free when +we first acquired them. Is not this provision wholly unnecessary? Mr. +<span class="smcap">Clay</span> left such language out of the Missouri Compromise, as he avowed, +on the ground that slavery could not legally go into territory free +when it was acquired, without the aid of affirmative legislation. +Previous and up to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">199</a></span> the year 1850, there was no difference of opinion +among lawyers on this question. All agreed with Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>.</p> + +<p>Now, slavery has gone into a portion of this territory; violently too; +without such legislation. Limits are prescribed to it, it is true, but +<i>it is there</i>, and in this way. <i>That</i> is the <i>status</i> which is to be +recognized, constitutionalized by these articles. I am aware that +there is a law of the territory that authorizes slavery, but slavery +went there without law, in spite of the opinions and opposition of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Clay</span>.</p> + +<p>This is shown by the debate of 1850. It is proposed now to convert the +territory south of the line of 36° 30´ into slave territory, and to +make that conversion irrevocable. Suppose these propositions had been +applied at the moment the territory was acquired. Then certainly +slavery would have been carried there by force of these articles +alone. The principle would have been the same; one case being no +stronger than the other.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, I shall not enter into any discussion of the merits or +demerits of the question in any other than its political aspects. I +have nothing to say respecting the morals of slavery. If there is +virtue in the institution, you have the credit of it; if there is sin, +you must answer for it. And here let me say that you discuss the moral +aspect of slavery much more than we do. We hold it to be strictly a +State institution. So long as it is kept there, we have nothing to do +with it. It is only when it thrusts itself outside of State limits, +and seeks to acquire power and strength by spreading itself over new +ground, that we insist upon our objections.</p> + +<p>Whatever the consequences may be, we should not conceal from each +other the true condition of public opinion in our respective sections. +A correct knowledge of this is essential and indispensable. It is in +view of this opinion that our proposals should be framed, if they are +ever to be adopted. The settled convictions of a people formed upon +mature examination and experience, cannot be easily changed. This +should be understood at the outset.</p> + +<p>Now, I respectfully submit that no sentiment, no opinion ever took a +firmer hold of the Northern mind—ever struck more deeply into +it—ever became more pervading, or was ever adopted after maturer +consideration, than this: That it is impolitic and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">200</a></span> wrong to convert +free territory into slave territory. With such convictions the North +will never consent to such conversion. Never! never!</p> + +<p>This was the view of Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>. His opinion always had great weight at +the North. Mr. <span class="smcap">Clayton</span>, of Delaware, declared to the same purpose, and +avowed that Northern men could not be expected to consent to this. We, +at least, know how this opinion is consecrated in the hearts of the +people of the North, and how idle it is for statesmen to run counter +to it.</p> + +<p>We are told by the gentleman from Maryland, that all the South wants +is to have the force of the decision of the Supreme Court acknowledged +as to that part of the territory south of the line, in consideration +of which the South will yield what she gains by that decision in the +territory north; and also that we must do this, or the slave States +will be driven to join those States that have seceded. Now, it is due +to frankness to say, that the North does not acquiesce in that +statement; that the point as made by the gentleman from Maryland, has +been <i>decided</i> by the Supreme Court. We know that the Chief Justice of +that court has expressed his own opinion that way; but we don't know +that it has been <i>decided</i> by that court. But if it has been so +decided, the very ground of the decision is a misapprehension. If I +rightly understand the language of Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Taney</span>, he insists +that the Constitution expressly affirms the right of property in +slaves. I think it does not. The North thinks it does not.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span> then proceeded to discuss the facts in the Dred +Scott case, and the various opinions declared by the judges, +showing that the decision did not extend so far as claimed +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>, and that the question of the <i>right</i> to hold +slaves in the Territories was not presented by the record in +that case.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—There were two questions involved in the Dred Scott +case. One was, the authority of Scott to sue; the other was, upon the +constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both these were decided +in that case, and both were decided by the Supreme Court years ago.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—I am aware of the views taken by the gentleman from +Kentucky. I am stating as a matter of fact how this decision is +regarded by a large portion of the people of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">201</a></span> North. I am aware +that the Southern construction of the decision is different, and some +at the North concur in it. I am trying to see how the majority +propositions will suit the people who agree with the Northern view.</p> + +<p>I understand it is claimed that the court decided that slaves were +property, and that the Constitution did not permit any restraint to be +laid upon the owners of that property in the Territories. Yes, the +court did decide that the owner had the right to take his slaves into +the Territory and hold them there; and to that extent they were +property. It is a prevalent idea at the North that the Southern +construction of this decision is not fair, and that it would be +dangerous to adopt it.</p> + +<p>We do not subscribe to the doctrine that the Constitution expressly +affirms the right of property in slaves. We may be wrong; it may be a +mere misapprehension. But with their present opinions, the people of +the North will hesitate long before they make this express affirmation +a part of the organic <i>law</i>.</p> + +<p>Again; if the Constitution affirms this right, and was understood to +do so by its framers, what was the need of the rendition clause? The +Constitution is the supreme law in the free States as well as in the +slave States. Under this construction the rights of the owner could +have been enforced like any other right of property in the courts of +law, without any provision for the rendition of slaves.</p> + +<p>These are some of the opinions that are entertained at the North. They +may be right or they may be wrong, but they have been deliberately +adopted, and they prevail extensively. They cannot be changed by our +action here. In all we do they must be respected. They are +<i>constitutionally</i> entertained.</p> + +<p>This proposition to carry slavery into the Territories, opens the +discussion of the merits of that institution. Gentlemen say they wish +to stop the discussion; that there has been too much of it already; +that such a discussion would be especially unfortunate now. I do not +propose to enter upon it here. But I desire to know in what manner you +could more effectually invite discussion than by placing your proposed +amendments before the people?</p> + +<p>You must not forget that the people of the North believe<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">202</a></span> slavery is +both a moral and a political evil. They recognize the right of the +States to have it, to regulate it as they please, without +interference, direct or indirect; but when it is proposed to extend it +into territory where it did not before exist, it becomes a political +question, in which they are interested, in which they have a right to +interfere, and in which they will interfere. Such an attempt they +consider it their duty to resist by all constitutional means.</p> + +<p>The establishing of slavery in the Territories is the practical +exclusion of free labor in them. True, there is no direct provision +for the exclusion of free labor in your propositions, but such will +certainly be their effect. I appeal to gentlemen from the South to say +from their own experience whether free labor <i>can</i> be employed side by +side with slave labor. This presents another consideration. You of the +South ask us to guarantee a right which you say is very important and +very dear to you. You ask that your children may enter into and +possess these new Territories. We know it. But the North asks the same +privilege. We want our children to go there, and live on the labor of +their own free hands. They are excluded if slavery goes there before +us.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">President</span>, the people of the North do understand, that we are in a +contest—a great and important contest. Yet it is one that can be +carried on without trampling upon each other's rights—without +attempting to secure any unfair advantage. That is the way the North +proposes to carry on this contest in relation to the <i>extension</i> of +slavery. This contest is between the owners of slaves on the one side, +and all the <i>free men</i> of this great nation on the other.</p> + +<p>There is another fact that should be kept in view. The Territories are +the property not of the individual States, but of the General +Government. They are held by the Government in trust, I grant. But in +trust for whom? For the whole <i>people</i> of the Union; not in trust for +thirty-four distinct States. The idea that these Territories are +subject to partition—that South Carolina has the right to demand her +thirty-fourth part of them in severalty, is one that by the North +cannot be entertained. It is this idea which has produced that other +more mischievous one—that an equilibrium must be maintained between +the free and the slave States; in other words, between freedom and +slavery.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">203</a></span> Where did this idea creep into the Constitution? It never +has found, and it never will find, favor with the people of the North.</p> + +<p>We may talk around this question—we may discuss its incidents, its +history, and its effects, as much and as long as we please. And after +all is said—disguise it as we may—it is a contest between the great +opposing elements of civilization—whether the country shall be +possessed and developed and ruled by the labor of slaves or of +freemen.</p> + +<p>Leave it where it is, and all is well. We can live in peace while it +is a State institution; extend it, and who can answer for the +consequences? Leave it where it is! I humbly suggest that in that +direction lays the only path of peace. So long as the Territories are +common property, so long will the people insist upon protecting their +interests in them. In a Government like ours, conflicts will ensue. +The Constitution provides the proper and peaceful way of settling +them; and it is not by a partition of every subject in which a mutual +interest exists.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Does the gentleman consider this a nation, or a federal +union of States?</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—If I did not consider this a nation I should certainly not +be here.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Is not the whole machinery of the Government federative? +Is not its whole action that of a confederation? Is not the recent +election of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> a proof of the fact? He was elected by less +than a majority of the people.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—In all the action of the Government with other +governments, we are a nation as much as France or England. In every +thing pertaining to the acquisition of territory we are a nation. The +rights of the States are preserved in the Constitution, I admit, but +their power is to be exercised subject to the powers reserved by the +Constitution to the General Government. In all that respects these +powers the Government is supreme.</p> + +<p>I have only sought to state some of the opinions which are +conscientiously entertained at the North upon subjects connected with +these propositions. They <i>are</i> entertained there, and they must be +respected by the Conference.</p> + +<p>This doctrine of the preservation of the balance of power is a new +doctrine. It was unknown to the framers of our Consti<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">204</a></span>tution. In my +opinion it is a most mischievous doctrine to the country, and can only +produce the most pernicious results. It is closely akin to the +doctrine once broached in the Senate of a <i>duality</i> of the Executive, +which, extended, would require a President for every sectional +interest. Such ideas were never popular at the North. I do not think +they would operate very well in practice at the South.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—Will the gentleman give way for a motion to adjourn?</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—Certainly.</p> + +<p>On motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Cleveland</span> the Conference adjourned to ten o'clock +to-morrow.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">205</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="FOURTEENTH_DAY" id="FOURTEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">FOURTEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Thursday</span>, <i>February 21st, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by the President, at ten o'clock +and fifteen minutes <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Stockton</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—As I stated yesterday, I now wish to call up my +resolutions relating to the termination of the debate, and to have a +vote taken upon them.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—Will Governor <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> permit me to make a formal motion, +which cannot give rise to discussion? It is this: The resolutions +passed by the Legislature of Ohio, under which myself and my +colleagues hold our seats, make it my duty to lay before the +Conference the resolves I now offer. I ask to have them read, laid +upon the table, and printed.</p> + +<p>The resolutions were read, and the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> concurred in.</p> + +<p>The resolutions are as follow:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is inexpedient to proceed to final +action on the grave and important matters involved in the +resolutions of the State of Virginia, in compliance with +which this Convention has assembled, and in the several +reports of the majority and minority of the committee to +which said resolutions were referred, until opportunity has +been given to all of the States to participate in +deliberation and action under them, and ample time has been +allowed for such deliberation and action.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved, therefore</i>, That this Convention adjourn to meet +in the city of Washington, on the 4th day of April next; and +that the President be requested to address a letter to the +Governors of the several States not now represented in this +body, urging the appointment and attendance of +Commissioners.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">206</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I wish to state here that I do not concur in these +resolutions.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I now offer two resolutions, one providing that debate +shall cease upon the report of the committee, at 10 o'clock to-morrow. +The other, that five minutes shall be allowed to the mover of an +amendment to explain it, with five minutes to the committee to reply. +Upon reflection, I will offer a third: That a motion to strike out and +insert shall not be divided. If desired, a vote may be taken on the +resolutions separately, as I wish to have each stand upon its own +merits. I will not discuss these resolutions, for I think all must be +impressed with the necessity for passing them now.</p> + +<p>The resolutions were as follow:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, 1st, That at 10 o'clock, the 22d February, 1861, +all debate upon the report of the Committee of one from each +State shall cease, and the Convention will proceed to vote, +and continue to vote until the whole subject shall have been +disposed of.</p> + +<p>2d. If an amendment be offered by the Commissioners of any +State, or the minority of such Commissioners, five minutes +is allowed for explanation, and the like time is allowed to +the committee to resist the amendment, if they desire to do +so; and the mover of the amendment, or any member of the +same State, may have five minutes for reply.</p> + +<p>3d. A motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I shall not debate these resolutions. As I am engaged +in taking notes of the discussion, I cannot enter into a contest for +the floor, and I would not if I could. My State has not occupied a +moment of time on the general subject, nor are her delegates very +anxious to address the Convention at all.</p> + +<p>Whether the Conference will give one of us a few minutes or not, is +simply a question of policy, of which I am not a disinterested judge. +It is possible that some suggestions might be made which would be +worthy of attention.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I move to amend by inserting Saturday, instead of +to-morrow, in the first resolution.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—There is force in the remark of the gentleman from +Vermont. No State should be cut off. I suggest that the States whose +delegates have not addressed the Conference, should have the +preference.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I represent a youthful State.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">207</a></span> She is not +the daughter of any particular State or section, but of the Union. We +Missourians love the Union, but we have fully arrived at the +conclusion that the time has come when something must be done to +prevent our entire separation. We have hitherto remained silent. We +came here to preserve the Union. Not that we love the Union less, but +we love our rights more. We love our rights more than the Union, our +property, or our lives. We desire to come to a speedy adjustment. Ten +days of Congress only remain. It will be difficult even to introduce +our propositions, still more to get them considered. I sustain the +motion of the gentleman from Kentucky; and Missouri will vote for it.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I will make the proposition as acceptable as possible. +I will insert one o'clock instead of ten.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Exclamations were heard from several members of, "Let us +agree," and the question being taken on the first resolution +as amended, it was adopted.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I move to insert in the second resolution, ten minutes +instead of five, wherever the word occurs. That time is none too long +to state the purpose of an amendment properly.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—Is this resolution designed to exclude all discussion upon +an amendment, except by the member moving it and the committee?</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—No! Such is not the intention. Any one can speak five +minutes. I rely on our sense of propriety not to abuse this +construction of the resolution.</p> + +<p>The amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Backus</span> was decided in the negative by a vote +<i>viva voce</i>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The resolution was then adopted, together with the +resolution relating to motions to strike out and insert.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BROWNE:—I move that when the Convention adjourn, it adjourn to +meet at half-past seven o'clock this evening.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I hope the Conference will not hold night sessions. Our +day sessions are protracted and very laborious. I agree with Commodore +<span class="smcap">Stockton</span>, that night sessions are dangerous.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I do not agree with Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>. I have +particularly observed the demeanor of all the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">208</a></span> gentlemen in the +Conference, and know that they are as well fitted for business at five +o'clock in the afternoon as at ten o'clock in the morning.</p> + +<p>A vote by the States was called for, which resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes</span>:—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—13.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes</span>:—Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +Ohio, and Vermont—7.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—In pursuance of the instructions of the Legislature of +Pennsylvania, I offer the following. I wish to have it laid on the +table, and printed, that I may move it as an amendment to the +committee's report at the proper time.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span> was agreed to, and the amendment is as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And Congress shall further provide by law, that the United +States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any +State, who in any other State shall suffer, by reason of +violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, +in his person or property, or in deprivation, by violence, +of his rights secured by this Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I ask that the following may be adopted as an additional +rule:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"When the vote on any question is taken by States, any +Commissioner dissenting from the vote of his State, may have +his dissent entered on the Journal."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I suggest whether it would not be better to call the yeas +and nays, on the motion of any Commissioner. I have heretofore +introduced a resolution to that effect, which, with the gentleman's +permission, I will now call up.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I won't insist.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase's</span> resolution was taken up as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The yeas and nays of the Commissioner of each State, upon +any question, shall be entered upon the Journal when it is +desired by any Commissioner, and the vote of each State +shall be determined by the majority of Commissioners present +from each State."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope the gentleman will waive the first part of the +resolution. I think it is the best way not to disclose our divisions +any farther than is indispensably necessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I copied the rule <i>verbatim</i> from the one<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">209</a></span> adopted by the +Congress of the Confederation. I think it right and fair. But I have +no objection to modifying it, so as to have the yeas and nays called +on the motion of any entire delegation.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I did not withdraw my motion. I think it will accomplish +all we need. It will be taken, of course, that those who do not +dissent vote with the delegation.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I think it is entirely too late to talk about saving time. +How long will it take to have the names of dissenting delegates +called? For one, I desire to exercise my rights under the authority of +the State I represent. I will not consent to waive them. When the vote +of my State is cast, I wish to have the record show who is responsible +for it.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The question was taken on the resolution offered by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Chase</span>, and it was rejected, and the additional rule proposed +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Dent</span> was adopted.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—I offer the following, which I shall move as an +amendment to the report. I ask that it be laid on the table, and +printed:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The term of office of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents of +the United States, hereafter elected, shall be six years; +and any person once elected to either of said offices, shall +ever after be ineligible to the same office."</p></div> + +<p>The above motion to lay on the table and print was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I also have an amendment, of which I ask to have the +same disposition made. It is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Congress shall have no power to legislate in respect to +persons held to service or labor in any case, except to +provide for the rendition of fugitives from such service or +labor, and to suppress the foreign slave trade; and the +existing <i>status</i> or condition of all the Territories of the +United States, in respect to persons held to service or +labor, shall remain unchanged during their territorial +condition; and whenever any Territory, with suitable +boundaries, shall contain the population requisite for a +representative in Congress, according to the then federal +ratio of representation, it shall be entitled to admission +into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, +with or without persons held to service or labor, as the +Constitution of such new State may prescribe."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bronson's</span> motion was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr GUTHRIE:—I call for the order of the day.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The order of the day is called for, and the gentleman +from New York has the floor.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—At the adjournment yesterday, I had pro<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">210</a></span>ceeded to state +two or three grounds upon which I think the proposals of amendment to +the Constitution reported by the majority of the committee would be +unacceptable to the North, and I had also stated some special +objections to action in this way and at the present time.</p> + +<p>The next consideration to which I would invite attention is this: Is +it necessary or wise for the Conference, composed as it is of friends +of the Union, or is it <i>expedient</i> thus to encounter the settled +sentiments and convictions of the people of so large a section of the +country? It is not necessary, for various reasons. This territorial +question is, after all, a question to be looked at in a prospective +view. Why is it necessary to disturb the Constitution by inserting +such a provision as you propose? Why is it necessary for gentlemen +from the South to have it in, in order to enable them to stand with +their people at home?</p> + +<p>Slavery is now in New Mexico. That must be acknowledged as a fact. The +South think it rightfully there—the North believe it is there +wrongfully. But its existence in the territories is a fact +nevertheless. President <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> cannot help it if he would. The +Supreme Court will affirm its rightful existence there, whenever the +question comes before that body. That Court cannot be changed before +these territories are admitted as States, if the disposition exists to +change it. You claim that the question is already decided. How, then, +can it be important to you to press the adoption of these sections as +a part of the Constitution? My judgment is, that it is best to leave +this subject alone—that that is the true way to save the Union.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen of the South, remember that if you must stand at home with +your people, so also must we. There is a <i>North</i> as well as a +<i>South</i>!—a northern people as well as southern people. You press us +hard on these subjects. But can men who are rational ask us to abandon +our own people, to go counter to their convictions and sentiments? We +cannot do it! You would not respect us if we did! I am very sure that +if this Conference is to attain any beneficial result, it must abandon +all idea of coercion or intimidation as applied to the friends of the +Union.</p> + +<p>It is said we are contending for a party platform—that we are letting +party stand between us and the Union. I could trample parties and +platforms under foot to preserve the Union,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">211</a></span> but I cannot understand +how honest men can abandon principles because a party has adopted them +into its platform. Do not tell us that by adhering to the Union and +the Constitution, we are simply adhering to a party platform. Our +principles are at least as dear to us, as yours are to you; you must +not expect us to sacrifice them either to promote our own material +interests or to promote yours.</p> + +<p>Let us then sink the question of slavery in the Territories. Let the +courts take care of it if need be, or let it be dealt with when it +properly comes up. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." In +that direction lays the path of peace.</p> + +<p>But perhaps it may be suggested that such a course would really leave +no plan to be adopted. Perhaps so. Is it, then, not true that we are +having all this trouble over a contingency that may or may not arise? +That the Constitution is sufficient for all purposes but this, you +aver; and yet you say in the same breath that the Court has settled +this question entirely and finally in your favor. Why not be +satisfied, then, with the settlement? Can you make it more of a +finality in the way you propose? No, gentlemen; believe me when I tell +you that the true remedy does not consist in endeavoring to humiliate +the people of one section for the benefit of another. Remember we are +dealing with the <i>American</i> people; I would not throw the Constitution +into the vortex of disunion that is opening before us; I would +preserve it rather as a rock on which we can all safely stand. Do not +throw away the compass by which alone we can safely be guided!</p> + +<p>If I were to suggest a suitable remedy, what I think a wise plan, it +would be the one adopted on a similar occasion, when one of the States +set itself up in opposition to the General Government, with such very +beneficial results; and that would be, to have the Government appeal +to the people for support—to throw itself into the arms of the +people. The result then has become historical. It is remembered with +pride and pleasure by all. I would have a similar course pursued now. +The result would be equally grand, equally gratifying. It would rally +every patriot, every friend of the Union from every section, to its +support. You, gentlemen of the South, now friends of the Union, still +give it the strength of your support, the favor of your countenance, +and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">212</a></span> you shall be supported and sustained as you can be in no other +way. You shall have the support of the power of the Government and of +every friend of the Union in the country.</p> + +<p>You remember how those patriotic statesmen, <span class="smcap">Clay</span> and +<span class="smcap">Webster</span>—differing from the Executive, opposing his election with all +the strength of their gigantic intellects—when the authority of the +Government was questioned, and South Carolina, under the lead of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Calhoun</span>, undertook to set herself up in opposition to it—how they +waived all former differences, and instead of encouraging secession by +their delay and timidity, without asking for new guarantees or for +amendments of the Constitution, came voluntarily and earnestly to the +support of the Executive and the administration, because the Executive +was right, and was the chosen instrument of the people to preserve the +integrity of the Union.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—If the gentleman will excuse me, I will state that the +course of the Executive against South Carolina was universally +acquiesced in except in that State. And yet the opinion that President +<span class="smcap">Jackson</span> far exceeded his powers, was equally unanimous. That precedent +has been greatly misinterpreted.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He entertains +his opinions, I do mine, as to what then saved the Union. I should not +probably be able to make him think with me; but I feel sure that the +idea prevails quite extensively, that South Carolina returned to the +path of duty then, because the power of the Government was wielded by +an honest and energetic Executive. She came to the conclusion that any +other course would probably be attended with danger.</p> + +<p>Our present differences had no very remote origin. They belong to our +own generation, and we ought to be compelled to deal with them. I +think the so-called compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our +troubles—that instead of saving the country it brought it into +greater danger than it ever was before.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I wish to make a suggestion on that point.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—I hope the gentleman will not forget that he will have a +full opportunity to answer me. I am nearly through, and generally no +good comes of interruptions. They only consume time.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">213</a></span></p> + +<p>I was about to say, that I do not propose to go into the question of +who was to blame for that repeal. I agree with gentlemen from the +South, that there is no profit now in discussing the origin of our +troubles—in inquiring who set the house on fire before we put on the +water.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—Does the gentleman do justice to Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, when at one +moment he says that Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> held up the arms of the administration, +strengthened the Executive, and aided the Government in putting down +secession, and in the next, states that the compromise of 1850 was the +cause of all our troubles, when it is well known that Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> +strongly favored that compromise?</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—When I speak of the unhappy effect of the compromise +measures of 1850, I ascribe no wrong motives to Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> or any one +else. If he approved that compromise, I have no doubt he did it in the +full belief that it would be beneficial to the country. Experience has +shown that he was mistaken. Saying this is doing no injustice to Mr. +<span class="smcap">Clay</span>. I spoke only of effects. I spoke of the zeal and the energy with +which the patriots and eminent statesmen of all parties of this +country have been accustomed to come forward and sustain the +administration when any necessity existed for doing so. Now let this +Conference—let all true friends of the Union everywhere, with one +voice, without attempting to place any section or any man in a false +or disagreeable position, unite in one determined effort in behalf of +the Union, and in an attempt to bring the rash and dangerous men who +would seek the destruction of the Government back to a sense of duty. +Let us address the country, let us show that we are devoted to the +Union, far beyond any considerations of party or self; let us invoke +the aid of all true and patriotic men; let us ask them to lay aside +for the time all other considerations, and give themselves for the +present to the country! The spirit of the old time is yet alive. We +can call it out in more than its old strength and vigor, and it will +save the country. Our private interests may suffer, but the great +interests of the Union will be strengthened and preserved, and the +Constitution, which has been our pride and strength, will not be +dragged down into the great whirlpool of disunion. I appeal to the +venerable and able men<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">214</a></span> around me, who bear historic names—who have +been themselves long connected with the Union and its Government, to +join us in our struggle to save the Constitution.</p> + +<p>The views I have expressed may be chimerical. I have advanced them +with no little diffidence, but I felt called upon to state them in the +discharge of a duty I owe to a people who love and will make great +sacrifices to save the Constitution and the Union.</p> + +<p>A majority vote, one way or the other here, would be of little +consequence. It would carry no weight with it. But if the members of +this Conference would all unite in such an appeal to the country, the +response would be instantaneous and effective. The heart of the +country is loyal; the heart of the South is loyal, I believe. We have +abundant evidence that it is not too late to rely upon the Union men +in Missouri and Tennessee!</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—The vote of Tennessee is entirely misunderstood.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—Perhaps so. I have no acquaintance with the people of +Tennessee. But I will not occupy the time of the Conference farther. I +have spoken plainly, but I have spoken what I believe to be the honest +convictions of a large majority of the people of this Union. Once more +I say, let us not destroy the Constitution!</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—I have not got up to make a speech. We have had too +much speech-making here. It may be very well for gentlemen to get up +and make long arguments and eloquent appeals, and show their abilities +and powers, but it all does no sort of good—nobody is benefited, and +no opinions are changed. I shall take no such course. I want to see +whether this little handful of men who meet every day in this hall, +cannot get together and fix up this matter which has been so much +talked about. Let us pay no attention to the great men or the +politicians. They have interests of their own. Some of them have +interests which are superior to those of their country.</p> + +<p>In the common affairs of life there are always a great many +differences of opinion. Some treat these differences one way—some +another. Foolish men go to law, and always come out worse off than +when they started. Sensible men get together, and talk matters over; +one gives up a little, the other gives up<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">215</a></span> a little, and finally they +get together. Now, friends, that is just what I want to see done here.</p> + +<p>We are all friends—friends of the Union and of each other. Nobody +wants to give up the Union, or hurt Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>. The South has got +frightened—not exactly frightened, but she thinks the Republicans, +since they have got the power, are going to trample upon her rights. +She wants the North to agree not to do so. Now I should like to know +what objection there was to that? Who is afraid to do that? If we +could go to work at this thing like sensible men, we could settle the +whole matter in two hours.</p> + +<p>Now about these propositions. I do not see any thing alarming in them. +I have not set to work to pick flaws in them. Leave that to the +lawyers. I don't care much about them, nor does the North care about +them. If the South will take them and be satisfied—if they will stop +this clamor about slavery and slavery extension, I think she had +better have them. For one, I am sick of the whole subject.</p> + +<p>Let us then go about the work like sensible men; let us stop making +long speeches and picking flaws in each other. It is a matter of +business, and pretty important business. Let us consider it as such, +and from this moment let us throw aside all feeling, and set about +coming to some understanding. We can do it to-day as well as next +week. I do not know that these propositions are the best that can be +made; but if they are not, let us talk the matter over like good Union +men, and see what is best. When we can find that out, let us agree. If +we stay here and make speeches until doomsday, we shall be no better +off. I am for action, and coming to an immediate decision.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—If the vote of Missouri is to be taken as an evidence of +her devotion to the Union, it must also be understood with this +qualification: Her interests and her sympathies unite her closely with +the South. She feels, in common with others, her share of anxiety for +the future. She is devoted to the Union, and at the same time she +insists that it is fair and right that these guarantees should be +given.</p> + +<p>It has been distinctly avowed on this floor that the people of certain +sections of the North <i>abhor</i> slavery. Ought we not to be distrustful +when a party entertaining such sentiments comes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">216</a></span> into supreme power? +If Massachusetts abhors <i>slavery</i>, how long will it be before she will +abhor <i>slaveholders?</i></p> + +<p>Ignorance is the source of all our difficulties. The people of the +North know little of the condition of the negro in a state of slavery. +We know that the four millions of blacks in the South are better off +in all respects than any similar number of laborers anywhere.</p> + +<p>But I rise only to correct a false impression in regard to Missouri. I +have only besides to express my full conviction that if the North will +not give us these guarantees, we are henceforth a divided people.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—Mr. President, the object of this Convention, assembled +on the call or invitation of Virginia, is, as set forth in the +preamble and resolutions of her General Assembly,</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"To restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in +which they were established by the fathers of the Republic;" +or, as otherwise expressed, "to adjust the present unhappy +controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was +originally made, and consistently with its principles."</p></div> + +<p>This agrees, in substance, with the purpose of the Republican party, +which, in the words of the Philadelphia platform, is declared to be +that of "restoring the action of the Federal Government to the +principles of <span class="smcap">Washington</span> and <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span>."</p> + +<p>Virginia announces to the other States that she "is desirous of +employing every reasonable means," and is "willing to unite" with them +"in an earnest effort" for the accomplishment of this common end and +object of that State and the Republican party; and she is moved to +make this her "final effort," by "the deliberate opinion of her +General Assembly, that unless the unhappy controversy which now +divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily +adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable," and by +a desire to "avert so dire a calamity."</p> + +<p>Massachusetts, equally willing to unite with the other States in an +earnest effort to further the same end, accepted the invitation of +Virginia, and sent Commissioners here to represent her.</p> + +<p>The honorable Chairman (Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>) of the committee to report a plan +of adjustment, in his opening speech, advocated with earnestness and +eloquence a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the +fathers. The distinguished gentleman<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">217</a></span> (Mr. <span class="smcap">Rives</span>) from Virginia +demands a "restoration of the Constitution to the landmarks of our +fathers," and his colleague (Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>) urges a return to the "policy +of our fathers in 1787."</p> + +<p>This assumes that we have departed from the principles and landmarks +of our fathers, and from the policy of 1787. The call of the +Convention assumes this; the platform of the Republican party assumes +it, and the gentlemen whose remarks I have quoted assume it, and it is +true.</p> + +<p>The particular object of a return to the principles and landmarks of +the policy of 1787, as stated in the preamble and resolutions of the +General Assembly of Virginia, is, "to afford to the people of the +slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their +rights." This implies that such a return will afford these adequate +guarantees. I agree that it will; and I am ready, and Massachusetts is +ready, to adjust this unhappy controversy, and to give the guarantees +demanded in exactly this way.</p> + +<p>Stated in these general terms, there is a perfect agreement between +us. But we find a wide difference when we go one step farther, and +learn precisely what Virginia claims would be a restoration of the +Constitution to the principles of the fathers, and a return to the +policy of 1787. This she has told us in one of the resolutions sent +out with the call for this Convention. That resolution is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of +Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions +presented to the Senate of the United States by Hon. <span class="smcap">John J. +Crittenden</span>, so modified as that the first article proposed +as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States +shall apply to all the territory of the United States, now +held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° 30´, and +provide that slavery of the African race shall be +effectually protected as property therein during the +continuance of the territorial government, and the fourth +article shall secure to the owners of slaves the right of +transit with their slaves between and through the +non-slaveholding States and territories, constitute the +basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which +now divides the States of this Confederacy, as would be +accepted by the people of this Commonwealth."</p></div> + +<p>It was in reference to these propositions that the gentleman (Mr. +<span class="smcap">Seddon</span>) from Virginia, has asked us the question, "Are we not entitled +to these added guarantees according to the spirit of the compact of +our fathers?"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">218</a></span></p> + +<p>The true answer to this question is the pivot on which this whole +controversy must turn. If the slave States are not entitled to these +added guarantees, "according to the spirit of the compact of our +fathers," then Virginia, as I understand her Commissioners, and the +resolutions of her General Assembly, does not claim them. She stands +upon her rights according to that compact. And all such rights +Massachusetts is ready to accord to her, fairly and fully.</p> + +<p>By the spirit of the compact of our fathers is meant, the Constitution +as they understood it, and as the people of that day understood it. +And this is what is meant by the "landmarks of the fathers." All admit +that the Federal Government should be administered now, as it was +administered by its framers. This is what gentlemen from the slave +States, in giving utterance to their intense devotion to the Union, +say.</p> + +<p>Then, what is the Constitution, as understood by those who framed it? +What does it mean when interpreted by the light of the policy of 1787? +and what is the spirit of the compact which they made? This is the +question we are called to consider. In my remarks I do not mean to +wander from it.</p> + +<p>So far as the Constitution touches the question out of which the +present unhappy controversy has arisen, I say it means this: That +slavery, as it existed or might exist within the limits of the +original States, should not be interfered with to the injury of the +lawful rights of slaveholders under State authority; on the contrary, +that it should have the right of recaption, and a qualified +protection; but that outside of those limits, otherwise than in this +right of recaption, it should never exist, neither in the territories +nor in the new States.</p> + +<p>And let me say here, that when I speak of the original States, I mean +the territory of those States as then bounded. Alabama and Mississippi +belonged to Georgia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Kentucky +belonged to Virginia, Vermont belonged to New York, and Maine belonged +to Massachusetts, and were parts of the thirteen original States, at +the time the Constitution was adopted. When, therefore, I speak of +territory outside the original States, I do not refer to territory +within any of the States named.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOUTWELL:—I trust my colleague does not claim to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">219</a></span> speak for +Massachusetts, when he denies the right of any State of this Union to +establish and maintain slavery within its jurisdiction, or to prohibit +it altogether, according to its discretion. This right was reserved to +the States; and States in this Union, whether original or new, stand +on a footing of perfect equality.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I certainly do not claim to speak for Massachusetts, +though I believe the opinion of the great majority of her people +agrees with my own on this subject. However, what I claim is, that +Ohio and the other States of the northwestern territory have no +constitutional power to legalize slavery within their limits; that +they were admitted into the Union without any such power, and that +every other new State formed from territory outside the limits of the +original States, according to the "spirit of the compact of our +fathers," should have been admitted without that power, or the right +to acquire it. This I will now proceed to show.</p> + +<p>On the first day of March, 1784, the northwest territory, constituting +the present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and +Wisconsin, was ceded by Virginia to the United States. The +jurisdiction of the United States was then exclusive and paramount, or +soon became so—such other States as had claimed any right of +jurisdiction having ceded it. The cession of Virginia was made by +<span class="smcap">Thomas Jefferson</span>, <span class="smcap">Samuel Hardy</span>, <span class="smcap">Arthur Lee</span>, and <span class="smcap">James Monroe</span>, who were +delegates in Congress from that State, and had been appointed +Commissioners for this purpose. On the same day the cession was made, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span>, in behalf of a committee, reported a plan for temporary +governments in the United States territory then and afterwards to be +ceded, and for forming therein permanent governments.</p> + +<p>That plan provided, "that so much of the territory ceded, or to be +ceded, by individual States to the United States, shall be divided +into distinct States." It is obvious that this plan contemplated the +possession of territory in no other way than by cession from the +States. It was expected that Georgia and North Carolina would cede +their western lands, now the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and +Tennessee, as they did some years later; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson's</span> plan was +intended to embrace those lands or territories to be ceded. +Consequently, the following provis<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">220</a></span>ions, which were part of the plan +reported, were intended by him to apply to Alabama, Mississippi, and +Tennessee, viz.:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"After the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be +neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said +States, otherwise that in the punishment of crimes."</p></div> + +<p>Here the States were evidently those to be formed in United States +territory. And farther on in the plan it is stated,</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"That the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter +of compact, and shall stand as fundamental Constitutions +between the thirteen original States, and each of the +several States now newly described, unalterable ... but by +the joint consent of the United States in Congress +assembled, and of the particular State within which such +alteration is proposed to be made."</p></div> + +<p>This was a proposition to exclude slavery forever after 1800, not only +from the territories which had been, and might afterwards be, ceded, +but from the States to be formed in them, and to make it a fundamental +Constitution between the original States and each new State. It +excited a short discussion, and was postponed from time to time to the +19th of April, when Mr. <span class="smcap">Speight</span>, of North Carolina, moved to strike it +out. The motion was seconded by Mr. <span class="smcap">Reed</span>, of South Carolina. The vote +by States, on the motion to strike out, was:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, +Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania—6.</p></div> + +<p>This was under the Confederation articles, which provided that the +vote on all questions should be taken by States, each State casting +one vote; that no proposition could be adopted without the vote of +seven States in favor of it, and that the vote of no State could be +counted unless two members, at least, were present. As there were but +six States in favor of the proposition to prohibit slavery after 1800, +it was stricken out.</p> + +<p>There was but one member present from New Jersey, and the vote of that +State was not counted. The member present voted for Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson's</span> +proposition. Another vote from that State would have made the required +number, and carried the measure.</p> + +<p>In North Carolina, <span class="smcap">Williamson</span> voted for prohibition, and <span class="smcap">Speight</span> +against it. One more vote from that State would have made seven States +for the proposition, and it would have been carried.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">221</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> voted for his own proposition to prohibit; and if one of the +other two members present from Virginia had voted with him, that, too, +would have made the required number of seven States.</p> + +<p>The vote North and South, by members, was in favor of prohibition: +North, 14; South, 2—total, 16. Against prohibition, South, 7.</p> + +<p>The majority was more than two-thirds; enough to carry it over an +executive veto under the present Constitution, and yet it was +defeated. And this vote was given in favor of absolute and +unconditional prohibition, and that alone, without the right of +reclaiming fugitive slaves, or any proposition, or any expectation to +confer it. Under the Confederation, no such right existed, nor was it +agreed to till more than three years afterwards, and then with the +greatest reluctance, and as a matter of compromise, as I will +presently show.</p> + +<p>Such was the action of the American Congress in 1784—a unanimous vote +from the North, and two in nine from the South—in favor of excluding +slavery forever after 1800, in all new States to be formed, in +territory ceded or to be ceded, embracing Tennessee, Alabama, and +Mississippi, in the extreme South. Nothing can be clearer than that +the interdiction was to apply to all such States, and to constitute a +fundamental Constitution between them and the original States, +unalterable without the consent of Congress. The new State was to be +deprived of all power to admit slavery. This proposition was made and +voted for by <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span>. But how many votes would such a proposition +receive in this Convention? Not many, I fear, even from the free +States. My friend and colleague, though strongly anti-slavery, and +earnestly devoted to freedom in the Territories, is afraid I shall +commit Massachusetts to this old Jeffersonian doctrine of no slavery, +and no right to establish it in the new States.</p> + +<p>From this time till July, 1787, the question of slavery in the +Territories and new States remained open and unsettled. In 1785, <span class="smcap">Rufus +King</span> renewed Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson's</span> proposition to prohibit, and it was +referred to a committee by the vote of eight States; but it never +became a law, a few from the South always preventing it.</p> + +<p>The Federal Convention to revise the old, or frame a new<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">222</a></span> +Constitution, assembled in Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, +1787. And here let me read a single paragraph from a lecture by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Toombs</span>, of Georgia, delivered in Boston in 1856. It is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The history of the times and the debates in the Convention +which framed the Constitution, show that the whole subject +of slavery was much considered by them, and perplexed them +in the extreme, and that those provisions which relate to it +were earnestly considered by the State Conventions which +adopted it. Incipient legislation providing for emancipation +had already been adopted by some of the States. +Massachusetts had declared that slavery was extinguished by +her Bill of Rights. The African slave trade had already been +legislated against in many of the States, including +Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, the largest +slaveholding States. The public mind was unquestionably +tending toward emancipation. This feeling displayed itself +in the South as well as in the North. Some of the present +slaveholding States thought that the power to abolish, not +only the African slave trade, but slavery in the States, +ought to be given to the Federal Government; and that the +Constitution did not take this shape, was made one of the +most prominent objections to it by <span class="smcap">Luther Martin</span>, a +distinguished member of the Convention from Maryland; and +Mr. <span class="smcap">Mason</span>, of Virginia, was not far behind him in his +emancipation principles. Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> sympathized to a great +extent. Anti-slavery feelings were extensively indulged in +by many members of the Convention, both from the +slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison's</span> testimony is important here. He was a member of the old +Congress in New York, until the assembling of the Constitutional +Convention, and took his seat as a member of that body.</p> + +<p>The History of the Ordinance of 1787, by Hon. <span class="smcap">Edward Coles</span>, contains +the following statement, as made to him by Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The old Congress held its sessions, in 1787, in New York, +while at the same time the Convention which framed the +Constitution of the United States held its sessions in +Philadelphia. Many individuals were members of both bodies, +and thus were enabled to know what was passing in each—both +sitting with closed doors and in secret sessions. The +distracting question of slavery was agitating and retarding +the labors of both, and led to conferences of +intercommunications of the members."</p></div> + +<p>I quote this testimony now, to show that Conferences were held between +the members of Congress and the Federal Convention, upon the subject +of slavery. I shall quote farther from it on another point, after +turning for a moment to the proceedings of Congress.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">223</a></span></p> + +<p>On the 9th July, 1787, the Convention having been in session about two +months, the ordinance for the government of the Western Territory, +which had been reported in a new draft on the 26th of the preceding +April, and ordered to a third reading on the 10th May, and then +postponed, was referred to a new committee, consisting of Messrs. +<span class="smcap">Carrington</span>, of Virginia; <span class="smcap">Dane</span>, of Massachusetts; <span class="smcap">R.H. Lee</span>, of +Virginia; <span class="smcap">Kean</span>, of North Carolina; and <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, of New York. Two days +afterwards, July 11th, Mr. <span class="smcap">Carrington</span> reported what has since been +known as the "Ordinance of 1787," with the exception of the 6th +article of compact, prohibiting slavery. When it came up the next day, +the 12th, for a second reading, Mr. <span class="smcap">Dane</span> rose and stated as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"In the committee, as ever before, since the day when +<span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> first introduced the proposal to prohibit slavery +in the territory, it was found impossible to come to any +arrangement; that the committee desired to report only so +far as they were unanimous; that they, therefore, had +omitted altogether the subject of slavery; but that it was +understood that any member of the committee might, +consistently with his having concurred in the report, move +in the house to amend it in the particular of slavery. He +therefore moved as an amendment, to add a prohibition of +slavery in the following words:</p> + +<p>"That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary +servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the +punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly +convicted."</p></div> + +<p>And as a compromise, Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> proposed to add the following proviso:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, +from whom labor-service is lawfully claimed in any one of +the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully retained +and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or +service as aforesaid."</p></div> + +<p>This was at once unanimously accepted by the slave States. The next +day, the 13th, the ordinance was passed, every slave State present, +viz.: Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, +and every member from those States voting for it. The same +prohibition—which a large majority of the South had resisted when +presented alone—was now, when accompanied with the proviso, +unanimously agreed to.</p> + +<p>Here was a sudden change. But the proviso giving the right of +reclamation in the said territory, only partially explains it. For a +full explanation we must turn again to the Convention.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">224</a></span> And the first +thing is a further extract from Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, respecting a letter, +before quoted, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The distracting question of slavery was agitating and +retarding the labors of both bodies—Congress and the +Convention; and led to conferences and intercommunications +of the members, which resulted in a Compromise, by which the +Northern, or anti-slavery portion of the country, agreed to +incorporate into the ordinance and Constitution, the +provision to restore fugitive slaves; and this mutual and +concurrent action was the cause of the similarity of the +provisions contained in both, and had its influence in +creating the great unanimity by which the ordinance passed, +and also in making the Constitution the more acceptable to +the slaveholders."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, also, in the Virginia Convention, urged the ratification +of the Constitution for the following among other reasons, viz.:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"At present, if any slave escape to any of those States +where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws; +for the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another +in this respect. This clause was expressly inserted to +enable owners of slaves to retain them. This is a better +security than any that now exists."</p></div> + +<p>General <span class="smcap">Pinckney</span>, one of the delegates in the Federal Convention, from +South Carolina, in a debate in the House of Representatives of that +State on the Constitution, said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"We have obtained a right to remove our slaves in whatever +part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we +had not before. In short, considering all the circumstances, +we have made the best terms we could, and on the whole I do +not think them bad."</p></div> + +<p>In the speech made by Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> on the 7th of March, 1850, he +remarked that:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"So far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence +of opinion between those respective bodies—the Congress and +the Constitution—and it resulted in this ordinance of +1787."</p></div> + +<p>When Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> had closed his speech, Mr. <span class="smcap">Calhoun</span> arose, and among +other things, said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"He, Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span>, states very correctly that the ordinance +commenced under the old confederation; that Congress was +sitting in New York at the time, while the Convention sat in +Philadelphia; and that there was concert of action.... When +the ordinance was passed, as I have good reason to believe, +it was upon a principle of compromise; first, that this +ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put +in the Constitution, with respect to fugitive slaves; and +next, that it should be inserted in the Constitution; and +this was the compromise upon which the prohibition was +inserted in the ordinance of 1787."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">225</a></span></p> + +<p>This agrees with Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>. The idea he conveys could scarcely have +been more identical with Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> if he had used <span class="smcap">Madison's</span> words. +When the Southern members of Congress voted unanimously for the 6th +Article, or anti-slavery clause in the ordinance, with the proviso in +respect to slaves escaping into the Territory, it was with the +understanding that the Convention would insert a similar provision in +the Constitution respecting slaves escaping from one State to another; +and this—its insertion in both—was the compromise upon which the +prohibition was inserted in the ordinance. Such is the concurrent +testimony of Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Calhoun</span>.</p> + +<p>We will now turn to the ordinance of 1787, and see whether it applies, +as the one proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> in 1784 did, to the new States as +well as to the Territories, and is the basis of State as well as +Territorial Governments, and was so intended. It declares as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"For extending the fundamental principles of civil and +religions liberty, which form the basis whereon these +republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix +and establish these principles as the basis of all laws, +constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter +shall be formed in the said Territory; to provide also for +the establishment of States and permanent governments +therein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal +councils, on an equal footing with the original States, at +as early periods as may be consistent with the general +interest.</p> + +<p>"It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority +aforesaid: That the following articles shall be considered +as articles of compact between the original States and the +people and States in the said Territory, and forever remain +unalterable, unless by the common consent."</p></div> + +<p>Then follows six articles of compact. Part of the fifth and the sixth +are in these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<span class="smcap">Art.</span> 5.... Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty +thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be +admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United +States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all +respects whatever; and shall be at liberty to form a +permanent Constitution and State Government; <i>provided</i> the +Constitutional Government, so to be formed, shall be +republican and in conformity to the principles contained in +these articles."</p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Art.</span> 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary +servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the +punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly +convicted; <i>Provided, always</i>, That any person escaping into +the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in +any one of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">226</a></span> the original States, such fugitive may be +lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his +or her labor or service as aforesaid."</p></div> + +<p>Such is so much of the ordinance as bears directly upon the point I am +discussing. And the Convention, as if for the very purpose of giving +the unequivocal sanction of the Constitution and of the country to +this compromise, and of establishing it as the permanent policy of the +Government, expressly provided that the "engagements entered into +before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the +United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."</p> + +<p>This ordinance, then, which was an unalterable compact, prohibiting +slavery, and fixing and establishing freedom as the basis of all laws, +constitutions, and governments in the Territory forever—State +Constitutions and Governments of course included—was made valid by +the Constitution itself. And on this point I refer to the highest +Southern authority, the late Judge <span class="smcap">Berrien</span>, who was thoroughly +pro-slavery in his views, and should certainly be ranked among the +ablest lawyers and statesmen Georgia has ever produced, who spoke to +this precise point during the compromise discussion in the United +States Senate in 1850, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Validity was given to their act by the clause in the +Constitution, which declares that contracts and engagements +entered into by the Government of the Confederation, should +be obligatory upon the Government of the United States +established by the Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>It is the "act" of Congress in passing the ordinance referred to here. +This being so, it was the same in effect as though the ordinance had +been written word for word in the Constitution itself. A contract can +be made valid, only by making it binding and obligatory upon the +parties to it, according to its terms and meaning. To make an +unalterable compact valid is to make it perpetually binding.</p> + +<p>Having shown that the articles of compact in the ordinance were +unalterable; that validity was given to them by the Constitution +itself; that in express terms they applied to States as well as to +Territories, and must, therefore, being made valid by the +Constitution, necessarily have been understood and intended by +Congress and the Convention to prohibit slavery as effectually in one +as the other, I will now show very briefly that they were also so +understood in all parts of the country.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">227</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span>, of Pennsylvania, a prominent member of the Federal +Convention, and also of the State Convention for ratifying the +Constitution, remarked in the latter as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"I consider this clause as laying the foundation for +banishing slavery out of the land.... The new States which +are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in +this particular, and slavery will never be introduced among +them."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> speaks of the clause authorizing the prohibition of the +African slave trade.</p> + +<p>In the Massachusetts Convention to adopt the Constitution, Gen. <span class="smcap">Heath</span> +said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Slavery cannot be extended. By their ordinance Congress has +declared that the new States shall be republican States, and +have no slavery."</p></div> + +<p>Colonel <span class="smcap">Bland</span>, a member of the Convention from Virginia, said he +"wished slavery had never been introduced into America," and that "he +was willing to join in any measure that would prevent its extending +farther." To allow it in new States would not prevent its extending +farther, and therefore it was prohibited in such States.</p> + +<p>Doctor <span class="smcap">Ramsay</span>, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in his +History of the United States, says:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Under these liberal principles, Congress, in organizing +colonies, bound themselves to impart to their inhabitants +all the privileges of coequal States.... These privileges +are not confined to any particular country or complexion. +They are communicable to the emancipated slave, for in the +new State of Ohio, slavery is altogether prohibited."</p></div> + +<p>This compact, then, applies to State as well as Territorial +governments, and was so understood in all sections of the +country—northern, central, and southern—when the Constitution was +ratified.</p> + +<p>Let me now call attention to the very significant proviso to the sixth +article. What does the word original mean, and what does the whole +article mean with that word in the proviso?</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in +the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of +crimes, &c.; <i>Provided, always</i>, That any person escaping +into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully +claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may +be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming +his or her labor or service as aforesaid."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">228</a></span></p> + +<p>This means that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary +servitude, except for the purpose of reclaiming such fugitives—and I +admit that slaves were intended—as are lawfully claimed in any one of +the original States. The very fact of the proviso implies that +Congress understood that the right of reclamation could not exist, +unless it was excepted.</p> + +<p>And of course it could only exist for the purpose excepted. The +intention was to grant the right to the original States, but to limit +it to them. It is impossible to conceive of a measure for framing the +proviso as it is, if that had not been the intention. As the ordinance +itself made provision for the formation of new States, such States +must have been in the minds of members when acting upon it. If the +object had been to authorize the reclamation of slaves escaping to +this territory from other States than original States, it is certain +the word "original" would have been omitted. It was intended for the +purpose of limiting the right.</p> + +<p>Now observe that this article, proviso and all, is part of an +unalterable compact to which the Constitution has given validity. +Nobody pretends Congress has ever had the power to alter it. Mr. +<span class="smcap">Toombs</span> denies any such power in express terms. A law which Congress +cannot alter has substantially the force and effect of a +constitutional proviso. This, then, is the only law for the +reclamation of fugitive slaves in the five States of the northwest +territory; and there can be no other, the Constitution having made it +perpetually valid.</p> + +<p>Such obviously is the meaning and legal effect of the fugitive slave +provision in the ordinance. And the meaning of that, derived as it is +not merely from the consent of the Federal and State conventions, but +from their concurrent action, necessarily fixes the meaning of the +provision on the same subject in the Constitution, and shows how it +must have been understood. As the two were parts of the same +compromise, of course neither was understood to be inconsistent with +the other. The provision in the Constitution is in these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the +laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence +of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such +service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the +party to whom such service or labor may be due."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">229</a></span></p> + +<p>So far as this describes, or was understood to describe, persons held +to service or labor as slaves, it necessarily must also have been +understood to apply only to the original States. This follows from +what has already been shown. And it must have been so understood for +another reason, because it was only "in" and "under" the laws of those +States that persons could be held to service or labor as slaves. Under +the laws of the Territories and new States, their being so held was +forever prohibited. Hence, none but those escaped from one of the +original States could ever be legally liable to reclamation, according +to the understanding and intention of the original parties to this +compact. This manifestly was the meaning of "the fathers," when the +ordinance and Constitution were framed and ratified.</p> + +<p>The two provisions must be construed together. That in the ordinance +was intended for the Territories and new States, and that in the +Constitution for the original States. If that in the Constitution had +been intended for the Territories, it would have read, "escaping into +another State or into the Territory," and that in the ordinance would +have been entirely omitted. The proviso to the prohibition in the +Missouri Compromise in 1820 is a striking confirmation of this. That +was copied, word for word, from the ordinance of 1787, or original +compromise, except substituting for the words "in any one of the +States," the words "in any State or Territory of the United States," +as follows:</p> + +<p>"<i>Provided, always</i>, That any person escaping into the same, from whom +labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original +States, such fugitive," &c. And in the compromise of 1820:</p> + +<p>"<i>Provided, always</i>, That any person escaping into the same from whom +labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the +United States, such fugitive," &c.</p> + +<p>Why say "in any State or Territory of the United States," instead of +"in any one of the original States," as in the ordinance of 1787, +unless the Congress of 1820 understood the latter to limit the right +of recovering fugitive slaves to the original States, and meant by the +Missouri bill to extend it to all the States and Territories? They did +extend it, but in palpable violation of the "spirit of the compact of +the fathers," and of the "policy of 1787."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">230</a></span></p> + +<p>Originally the Southern States committed themselves to the policy of +slavery restriction, by a compact in the nature of a contract for a +consideration. By their own votes, they relinquished all pretence of +right to any slaves beyond the jurisdiction of the original States. +Slaveholders, as such, voluntarily shut themselves out of the new +States, in consideration of the right of recovering their fugitive +slaves in whatever part of America they might take refuge. The object, +as I have clearly shown, was to secure to slavery in the original +States the right of recovering fugitives, whether their escape should +be from one of those States to another, or to the Territories and new +States; but to make that the limit, both of the right of recovery on +one side, and of the obligation to permit or allow it, on the other.</p> + +<p>It follows, then:</p> + +<p><i>First</i>: That as between the new States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, +Michigan, and Wisconsin, no right of reclamation exists, or can exist, +there being no power in Congress, as the South admit, to alter the +compact in the ordinance of 1787, which denies this right.</p> + +<p><i>Second</i>: That no person, escaping from those States into any other +State or Territory, can be reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because no +person can be held as a slave under their laws.</p> + +<p><i>Third</i>: That no slave escaping from the slave States of Missouri, +Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, or Florida, into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, +Michigan, or Missouri, can be lawfully reclaimed as a fugitive slave, +because Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida are not +<i>original</i> States.</p> + +<p><i>Fourth</i>: If slaves escape from any State or Territory other than the +original States, into the States of the northwestern territory, no +lawful power can touch them. The moment they reach those States they +become free, because labor or service cannot lawfully be claimed of +them in an original State.</p> + +<p><i>Fifth</i>: After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slaves escaping from +Arkansas and Missouri, for example to Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and +Minnesota, could be reclaimed, but escaping to Illinois, Wisconsin, +Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, they could not be. And the Congress of +1820 so understood it. The particular in which the Missouri proviso +was altered in copying from the ordinance of 1787, is proof enough of +this.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">231</a></span></p> + +<p>But did the framers of the Government intend to distinguish in this +manner between new and original slave States? Certainly not; and the +reason is, they did not mean to have any new slave States. Otherwise +they certainly did mean to make this distinction, for nothing can be +clearer than that Louisiana and Missouri cannot go to Ohio to recover +fugitive slaves within the meaning of this "compact of the fathers;" +while Georgia can. Manifestly we have departed from the system devised +by the fathers in allowing Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and +Florida to be admitted with slavery, which explains, and nothing else +can, this anomalous condition of things.</p> + +<p>There can be no escape from these conclusions, but to deny that the +ordinance has ever had any validity under the Constitution; which +would be scarcely less than to deny that the Constitution itself had +ever been a valid instrument. Having the like unequivocal sanction of +national authority, and expressing alike in the words of Mr. Toombs, +"the collective will of the whole," they must stand or fall together.</p> + +<p>Originally the territory was not divided by the line of 36° 30´, or by +any other line giving part to freedom and part to slavery. It was all +secured, and by consent of the South, to freedom. There is nothing, +therefore, in the original compromise, to justify the remark of the +Editor of the Boston <i>Courier</i> in a recent number of that paper, that +"below the line of 36° 30´, the South have the right of prescription." +Freedom has an older prescriptive right to all the Territories. The +line established by the compromise, between slavery permitted and +slavery prohibited, was the boundary line between the then existing +States and the Territory of the United States; or the line between +exclusive national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the States. It +is an erroneous assumption, therefore, that the free States, by the +introduction of slavery south of 36° 30´, as well as north of it, +would receive more than a fair share or moiety of rights and +privileges, as between States or parties entitled to equal privileges. +The idea that the extension of slavery under the Federal Government +can be claimed by anybody south or north as a right, is wholly +inadmissible. The <i>Courier</i> will hold the following declarations from +Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> to be good authority, if others do not:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">232</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from +becoming slave territory, I am ready to assert the principle +of excluding slavery." "We are to use the first and last, +and every occasion which offers, to oppose the extension of +slave power."</p> + +<p>"I have to say, that while I hold with as much integrity, I +trust, and faithfulness, as any citizen of this country, to +all the original amendments and compromises in which the +Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never +could, and never can persuade myself to be in favor of the +admission of other States into this Union as slave States +with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded to the +slaveholding States then in existence by the Constitution. I +do not think that the free States ever expected, or could +expect, that they would be called upon to admit further +slave States.... I think they have the clearest right to +require that the State coming into the Union, shall come in +upon an equality; and if the existence of slavery be an +impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State +proposing to come in should be required to remove that +inequality by abolishing slavery or take the alternative of +being excluded. I put my opposition on the political ground +that it deranges the balance of the Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>Wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from slavery! Every +occasion to be used to oppose the extension of the slave power! New +States to abolish the inequality of slavery, or be excluded! I suppose +Northern conservatives of the class referred to have endorsed those +doctrines and declarations of Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> a thousand times, as sound, +national, conservative, and constitutional. But no Republican, so far +as I know, has ever proposed to go an inch beyond the line of policy +they indicated. The Chicago, or Republican Platform, certainly does +not. And yet that same line of policy, when advocated by Republicans, +is denounced as unsound, sectional, radical, and unconstitutional.</p> + +<p>We have a great deal said about the equality of the States; of the new +with the original States. This is said to be a fundamental doctrine of +the Constitution.</p> + +<p>It is claimed that citizens of the slaveholding States have an equal +right in the Territories with the citizens of the non-slaveholding +States; and I admit they have. But it is also claimed that they have +the same right to the protection of property in slaves as property in +cotton. This I deny. There is no such doctrine of State equality in +the Constitution, nor was any thing like it contemplated by its +framers. On the contrary, the Constitution denied this doctrine by +clear implication, certainly for the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">233</a></span> first twenty years. It withheld +from Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves into the +"existing" States till 1808, while their importation into the +Territories and new States might be prohibited at once. Ohio was +admitted in 1802. Congress had power to prohibit the importation of +slaves into that State from that time, and did do it in effect by the +very terms and conditions of her admission, which required that her +Constitution and Government should not be repugnant to the ordinance +of the 13th of July, 1787, which interdicted slavery. But Congress had +no power to prohibit the importation of slaves into Georgia till after +1808. Georgia and Ohio, therefore, in this respect, were not political +equals from 1802 to 1808.</p> + +<p>Nor have the States been all political equals in the sense claimed, +since 1808. It will surprise many to be told that there is nothing in +the Constitution about State equality, and especially nothing that +affirms the equality of the new with the original States, even after +1808. And yet this is true. The only passages which refer to the new +States, except impliedly in the importation clause, are these: "New +States may be admitted by Congress into the Union; but no new State +shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other +State." There is nothing, certainly, in this language to show that the +new States were to be admitted on an equality, or an equal footing +with the original States.</p> + +<p>And yet provision was made, when the Constitution was framed, for the +admission of all the new States to be formed in United States +Territory then possessed, "on an equal footing with the original +States." But it was a footing of equality which was in nowise +inconsistent with an absolute denial of the right to establish the +inequality of slavery. And this is proved by the only compact in the +English language contemporaneous with the Constitution which touches +the subject, namely, that part of the fifth article of compact in the +ordinance of 1787 which I have already quoted. There can be no shadow +of claim that any thing else secured, or pretended to secure, the +right of new States to admission into the Union on an equal footing +with the original States. That, I admit, did. It is, to repeat it, in +these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Whenever any of said States shall have sixty thousand free +inhabitants<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">234</a></span> therein, such State shall be admitted, by its +delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an +equal footing with the original States in all respects +whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent +Constitution and State Government; <i>provided</i> the +Constitution and Government so to be formed, shall be +republican in conformity to the principles of these +articles," the 6th, which prohibited slavery, included.</p></div> + +<p>And this is all there is, contemporaneous with the Constitution, on +the subject of the equality of the States. The very instrument, then, +which secured the admission of new States, on an equal footing with +the original States, itself provided that they were never to tolerate +slavery.</p> + +<p>The new States, then, neither were to have, nor have they, any +political equality which the prohibition violates, as Southern +gentlemen contend. Certainly those formed and admitted under the plan +of Government devised by the fathers, have not. In this sense they are +not political equals. The original States were, from the beginning, +and have ever been, political equals in this and every sense. Not, +however, because the Constitution says they are, for it says nothing +on the subject; but because they were independent sovereignties, and +as such, made a compact which united them under one Federal +Government, with discriminating restrictions upon the subject of +slavery, or upon any other subject. But the fact that the evil and +inequality of slavery existed in the original States, and was +tolerated from necessity, was no reason why it should be allowed in +the Territories and new States, where it did not and need never exist. +So the power of the Territories and new States was sufficiently +restricted to secure equality in personal rights and freedom to all +the "inhabitants." Of course it cannot be pretended that the mere fact +that one or more States had established, and had power to perpetuate +slavery, secured to new States the right to establish and perpetuate +the same enormity, as a necessary result of State equality. That would +make the right or power of one State, resulting from State equality, +necessarily coextensive with tolerated evil in another. Manifestly +"the fathers" had no such idea as this. Theirs was the common sense +and rational idea that a moral and political evil which existed in the +old States, and could not be removed, need not for that reason be +tolerated in new States.</p> + +<p>The Constitution guarantees to each State a republican form<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">235</a></span> of +Government merely; but the ordinance of 1787 provides that the +"Constitution and Government of each new State shall be republican." +Why this difference? In the original States slavery existed, or in +most of them; and so far they were anti-republican in fact and +practice, though republican in form. The framers of the Constitution, +having no power to abolish this anti-republican institution of slavery +in those States, did nothing more than guarantee them Governments +republican in form. But having the power to exclude it from the new +States, they did exclude it, and provided that their constitutions and +governments should be republican. That this was the reason for the +difference may be inferred from the remark of <span class="smcap">Luther Martin</span>, a +distinguished member of the Federal Convention, that "slavery is +inconsistent with the genius of republicanism," and of General <span class="smcap">Heath</span> +in the Massachusetts Convention, that "Congress has declared that the +new States shall be republican and have no slavery." No other reason +can be given. Thus republicanism in fact, and not in form merely, was +made a condition of admitting new States. This is part of the +unalterable compact to which validity was given by the Constitution. +The Constitution, therefore, while it guarantees a republican form of +government, does in fact, by giving validity to the ordinance, +guarantee republican governments to the new States. This is another +very significant fact harmonizing perfectly with all the other facts +in the original plan for extending the Union by admitting States from +Territories.</p> + +<p>The States are all equals, or not, according to the terms of their +admission. The original States became members of the Union upon the +single condition of ratifying the Constitution, which left them at +liberty to tolerate slavery or not. But the States formed in the only +Territory which belonged to the United States at the time the +Constitution was framed, were admitted on condition that slavery +should be perpetually interdicted within their limits, and as parties +to an unalterable compact to that effect.</p> + +<p>Slavery was regarded, South as well as North, when the Constitution +was adopted, as a moral and political evil. This had been the general +sentiment of the country many years before, and continued to be long +after that period. The represent<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">236</a></span>atives of the extensive district of +Darien in Georgia, on the 12th of January, 1775, spoke of slavery as +"founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our +liberties." <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> pronounced it "an injustice and enormity." The +present Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. <span class="smcap">Taney</span>, who acted many +years ago as counsel of Rev. Mr. <span class="smcap">Gruber</span>, who was indicted in the State +of Maryland for preaching a sermon on the evils of slavery, spoke as +follows in his defence:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Mr. <span class="smcap">Gruber</span> did quote the language of our great act of +National Independence, and insisted on the principles +contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those +masters who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the call +of humanity, and he warned them of the evils they might +bring upon themselves. He did speak in abhorrence of those +who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by +tearing the husband from the wife, the infant from the bosom +of the mother, and this was the head and front of his +offending. So far is he from being the object of punishment +in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain +the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same +language here in the Temple of Justice, and in the presence +of those who are the ministers of the law."</p> + +<p>"A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evils of +slavery for a time. While it continues it is a blot on our +national character; and every real lover of freedom +confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it +must be gradually, wiped away, and earnestly looks for the +means by which the necessary object may be best obtained. +And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall +come when we can point, without a blush, to the language +held in the Declaration of Independence, every part of +humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, +and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched +condition of the slave."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:—Where did you get that?</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I got it from a printed sermon recently preached by Dr. +<span class="smcap">Orville Dewey</span>, of Boston.</p> + +<p>And Mr. <span class="smcap">Calhoun</span>, in the United States Senate, in 1838, said that "many +in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political +evil;" and Mr. <span class="smcap">Butler</span>, late a United States Senator from South +Carolina, said in the Senate in 1850, that he "remembered the time +when slavery was regarded as a moral evil, even in South Carolina."</p> + +<p>In such a state of public sentiment, it is certainly no marvel that +slavery was not allowed to extend into the Territories and new States. +It was not prohibited in the northwest territory, because it was +supposed to be, or would become, an evil in that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">237</a></span> territory +particularly, or a greater evil there than anywhere else; but because +it was regarded as an evil everywhere, and therefore wrong to permit +its extension anywhere, when there was power to prevent it. There can +be no doubt it would have been prohibited in the Territories and new +States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, if Georgia and North +Carolina, previous to the Federal Convention, had ceded them to the +United States upon the same conditions Virginia had ceded the +northwest territory. Proof of this is found in the fact that the plan +of territorial governments interdicting slavery forever after 1800, +embraced all territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States; and +still further proof is in the fact, that the cessions by Georgia and +North Carolina, after the adoption of the Constitution, were upon the +express condition that slavery should not be prohibited; thereby +showing that the policy of the Federal Government, as they understood +it, was restrictive of slavery in the far southern latitudes as well +as in the more northern, and that they expected the power to restrict +would be exercised, if not withheld in the deeds of cession. A +proposition was, in fact, made to apply the anti-slavery clause of +1787, to all the southern part of the Mississippi territory, now the +southern parts of Alabama and Mississippi, by the act of April 7th, +1798, it being supposed at one time that it belonged to the United +States; but the debate shows that the proposition was withdrawn +because the jurisdiction was in Georgia, or because not five members +of Congress, after the question was examined, believed otherwise. +Georgia claimed absolute title and right of jurisdiction, and denied +all right on the part of the United States to interfere with slavery. +Congress did, however, prohibit the importation of slaves into the +territory, and declare every slave so imported to be entitled to his +freedom. This was probably wholly unauthorized, as it was six years +before Georgia ceded it to the United States, and ten years before +Congress had power to prohibit the importation of slaves into that +State. But these facts show a strong disposition on the part of "the +fathers" to curtail and circumscribe slavery, even in the far south, +and at the hazard, too, of exercising doubtful power.</p> + +<p>Nothing can be clearer than that the original States had a right to +form a Federal Government on such terms as to them<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">238</a></span>selves as they +could mutually agree upon, and to fix the terms upon which they would +permit new members to be admitted. The Northern States were under no +obligation to protect slavery at all, not even by permitting fugitives +to be reclaimed within their limits. If, then, they were willing to +concede that right to the original States, only upon condition that +slavery should not be allowed to extend, who will say they had not a +right to make that condition, or that, if agreed to, it would not be +valid and binding? With their views of slavery, believing it to be a +moral and political evil, it was certainly their first and highest +duty to make effectual provision against its extension, before +undertaking, for any reason, to give the least protection to it. Such +provision they supposed they had made, and it was this that justified +them, if any thing could, in conceding the right of reclamation.</p> + +<p>The free, or northern States, in the exercise of their admitted right +in deciding upon the terms of Union, insisted on making it a +fundamental and ever-binding condition that no obligation to protect +slavery in Illinois should ever exist; and this was done for reasons +which render it morally certain that they would have insisted on the +same condition in reference to Missouri, if Missouri had been part of +the original territory. It would be preposterous to suppose that while +they would not consent to guarantee slavery in any manner in Illinois, +because they believed it to be a moral and political evil, they meant +at the same time to make a Government that could obligate them to +guarantee it in the adjoining Territory or State of Missouri, either +by the return of fugitive slaves, or in any other manner. They meant +no such thing, nor can an honest interpretation of the terms of union +bind them to such guarantee now. The right to recapture fugitive +slaves could not exist without the consent of the free States; and as +that consent was given upon conditions and with limitations, by +necessary implication and every sound principle of construction, they +reserved the right to say whether it should exist upon other +conditions and with other limitations, or without either condition or +limitation.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—No one from Kentucky or Virginia wishes to alter the +ordinance of 1787. For <span class="smcap">God's</span> sake spare us the argument.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">239</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I understand no alteration is proposed in the +ordinance; nor am I arguing against any such proposition. I am showing +what the policy of 1787 was, and what the compact of the fathers was. +And I am doing this because it is in the spirit of that policy and +compact that Kentucky and Virginia tell us they wish to have this +controversy adjusted. Massachusetts and the other Northern States +meant to fix, and supposed they had fixed, a limit to their connection +with, and responsibility for slavery. By consenting to the clause +which secured the right of reclamation, they did become responsible +for it to a certain extent. So far as it was supposed, when that +clause was agreed to, that its effect would be the recapture of +fugitive slaves, and their return to bondage, and so far as the +purpose was to make such recapture and return lawful, so far the +responsibility of adding to the security of slavery was voluntarily +assumed. But this was limited to the existing States by excluding +slavery from all United States territory. If any part of such +territory had been left for slavery—enough for a single slave +State—it might be said that its extension from a part was for reasons +applicable only to a part, and so could not be considered as +establishing the principle of non-extension. But now this cannot be +said. Not a foot was left for slavery.</p> + +<p>We thus see what the state of things would have been to-day if foreign +territory had not been acquired. Such acquisitions were not originally +contemplated, and of course not provided for. The +first—Louisiana—was deemed unconstitutional by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span>, and +yet it was made while he was President; but with no right, "according +to the spirit of the compact of the fathers," to place the Federal +Government or the States under any other relation to slavery in +subsequently acquired territory than that which they sustained to +it—the only one they would consent to sustain—in the Territories +possessed at the time that compact was made.</p> + +<p>A great deal is said about State rights. But the doctrine of State +rights proves too much. Massachusetts had a clear and undoubted right +originally to limit her obligations upon this subject. And she did +limit them. The original compromise was "better security" to slavery +in the original States, with no extension of it to the Territories and +new States. This better<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">240</a></span> security was the accepted consideration for +waiving the right to extend, and Massachusetts may rightfully insist +on this waived right to extend, so long as this "better security" is +demanded of her.</p> + +<p>Southern gentlemen in this Convention propose to be governed by the +principles of the founders of the Government, and by the Constitution, +or compact of union, as those founders understood it. By that they say +they are willing to do as the fathers did, and adjust the present +unhappy controversy by applying to new territory the same principles +which the fathers applied to the old. Let me assure gentlemen from the +slave States that if they are really in earnest in offering these +terms of adjustment, this unhappy controversy can be settled in less +than an hour's time. Having always claimed the right to recapture +fugitive slaves in territory acquired since, as well as in that +acquired before the adoption of the Constitution, the slave States +have ever been bound, upon every principle of honor and fair dealing, +to concede the original consideration for it, that is, prohibition. A +purpose secretly entertained when that compromise was made, to use the +Government in the manner it has actually been used, to enlarge the +area of slavery and the obligation to guarantee it, would have been +dishonest and fraudulent; but the fact that this purpose was conceived +afterward, as it doubtless was, does not alter the case a whit. No man +possessed of the facts can honestly claim that the bargain between the +North and South, interpreted according to the true interest and +meaning of both parties at the time of making it, can justify the +extension of slavery a rod beyond the original States, or a particle +of protection to it beyond the right to recover fugitives from such +States.</p> + +<p>Having thus shown, as I think I have, that an essential element in the +basis of the "more perfect Union" on the question of slavery, was the +principle of non-extension, we find the first failure to assert this +principle was in the omission to apply it to the Louisiana purchase. +The importation of slaves into that territory was immediately +prohibited. That probably cut off the only source of supply from which +danger of extension was then apprehended. The policy of the Government +was well understood, and no apprehension of a practical departure from +it exist<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">241</a></span>ed. There was nothing in the circumstance of the purchase, or +the reasons for making it, to excite such apprehension. But it was +seen on the application of Missouri for admission, that the ordinance +of 1787 should have been applied to it at the time of the purchase. If +it had been, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas would never have become +slave States (the few slaves in New Orleans and vicinity being +emancipated, as they should have been, upon some equitable principle), +and the Missouri Compromise, which was the second departure from the +original policy, would never have been made. The third was the +annexation of Texas as a slave State, and the argument to divide it +into three or four more. Annexation led to the war with Mexico, and +the acquisition of a large part of her territory, and to the +compromise of 1850, by which it was Congressionally agreed that the +States formed in that territory might be admitted with slavery, if +their Constitutions should so prescribe. This was the fourth departure +from the original policy of prohibition. The fifth was the repeal of +the Missouri Compromise in 1850, and the attempts to subjugate and +enslave Kansas. That repeal made the change from the original policy +radical and total. Certainly it is high time "to restore the Union and +Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the +fathers."</p> + +<p>And now, sir, I propose to begin the work of "restoring the policy of +1787," by applying the ordinance of 1787 to every foot of organized +and unorganized territory, wherever situated, which now belongs to the +United States, precisely as the fathers applied it to every foot of +such territory at the time the Constitution was made; and I ask, in +all earnestness and seriousness, what any member of the Convention can +have to say against this, who sincerely desires to "restore the Union +and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the +fathers of the Republic," and is "ready to adjust the present unhappy +controversy" in the same spirit? What, I beg to know, can be said +against this mode of adjustment by those who are in favor of a +"restoration of the Constitution to the principles and landmarks of +our fathers," and of a "return to the policy of 1787"? Can any man +doubt that that ordinance would have been extended over all these +territories in 1787, if they had belonged to the United States at that +time? Let slavery, then, be prohibited<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">242</a></span> now precisely as the fathers +prohibited it then. Copy that old ordinance word for word, and give it +legal force and effect, and make it the basis of all laws, and all +constitutions, and all governments in these Territories forever, +because the fathers gave it such force and effect, and made it the +basis of all laws, and all constitutions and all governments forever +in all the Territories of the Union, in 1787. If that would not be a +return to the "principles and landmarks of the fathers," and to the +"policy of 1787," then I beg to know what would be? How is it +possible—I put it to you, gentlemen of the South—how is it possible +to persuade yourselves that the principles and policy of 1787 can be +restored by adopting the resolutions of the General Assembly of +Virginia? By what process is it that the gentleman (Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>) from +Virginia, has come to believe that the South is entitled, according to +the spirit of the compact of the fathers, "to the added guarantees" of +which he speaks? According to the spirit of that compact it is +manifest the slave States are entitled to no added guarantees.</p> + +<p>But another of the Virginia Commissioners (Mr. <span class="smcap">Rives</span>) tells us that +this question of slavery in nowise concerns the free States. On this +point I will quote from a very high authority, which Virginia, +certainly, will respect. Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span> was a member of the first +Congress under the Constitution. A colleague of his, Mr. <span class="smcap">Parker</span>, +proposed a duty on the importation of slaves, and said he "hoped +Congress would do all that lay in their power to restore to human +nature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe off the stigma +under which America labors." Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, in remarking on that +proposition, among other things said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Every addition the States receive to their number of slaves +tends to weaken and render them less capable of +self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nations, +they will be the means of inviting attack instead of +repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the General +Government to protect every part of their confines against +danger, as well internal as external. Every thing, +therefore, which tends to increase danger, though it be a +local affair, yet, if it involve national expense and +safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and +is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged +with the general administration of the Government."</p></div> + +<p>And we hear, too, a great deal about war, civil war, if this unhappy +controversy is not satisfactorily adjusted, which means<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">243</a></span> upon the +terms proposed by the slave States. But do gentlemen mean that an +appeal will be made to the sword, unless the Constitution shall be so +amended as to "provide that slavery of the African race shall be +effectually protected as property in all the territory of the United +States, now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° +30´"?—which is the proposition of Virginia. If that is what is meant, +then let me, before I close, read an extract from one of the last +speeches made by <span class="smcap">Henry Clay</span> in the Senate of the United States. It is +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"If, unhappily, we should be involved in war, civil war, +between the two portions of this Confederacy, in which the +effort upon the one side should be to restrain the +introduction of slavery into the new Territories, and upon +the other side to force its introduction there, what a +spectacle should we present to the astonishment of mankind, +in an effort, not to propagate rights, but—I must say it, +though I trust it will be understood to be said with no +design to excite feeling—a war to propagate wrongs!"</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Howard</span> moved an adjournment.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bronson</span> objected, raising the question of order. He claimed that +the Conference, by adopting the resolutions of Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span>, had fixed +the limits of the sessions, from 10 o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, to 4 o'clock <span class="smcap">p.m.</span></p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Howard</span> was not concurred in.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOOMIS:—I feel that this is an important crisis in the affairs of +the country. Perhaps it is the most important that ever occurred in +American history. The first Convention of thirteen scattered States +was earnestly engaged in protecting the liberties which had been won +in the Revolution. It gave us a Constitution under which, for more +than seventy years, we have lived prosperously and happily. Now +political contests have taken place. New questions have arisen, and +one portion of the Union believes the Constitution inadequate to +protect its interests. The question which we are obliged to consider +is: How shall we save the country? Disguise it as we may, deceive +ourselves as we may, the country is in danger—in great and imminent +danger. A solemn duty is imposed upon each one of us. How shall we +save the country?</p> + +<p>Virginia has invited this conference of her sister States. +Pennsylvania responded to her call with all activity. Pennsylvania has +responded because she understood and appreciated Virginia. There is +great misapprehension in the North concerning<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">244</a></span> this venerated State, +as well in regard to her motives as in regard to the principles and +feelings that influence her people in their intercourse with and their +action toward other States of the Union. I know Virginia well. I have +associated with her people. I have practiced before her judicial +tribunals.</p> + +<p>Some years ago I was greatly pressed by an abolitionist who was +indicted in Virginia, to undertake his defence. He was very fearful +that he would not receive an impartial trial, that the court and jury +would participate in the public excitement. I told him that he need +indulge in no such misapprehensions. I knew Virginia too well for +that. I told him, however, that if he desired it, I would go; but it +was simply to defend him, and secure him a fair trial—to act as his +counsel. I could not represent his sentiments, for I am not and never +was an abolitionist. I assumed his defence. I told him I would go, and +I went. I did find great excitement there, but it did not surprise me. +Many valuable slaves had shortly before escaped, some of them through +the assistance and instrumentality of my client. Judge Fry was the +presiding judge of the court. His liberality, and that of all his +officers, was great—as great as I ever enjoyed in my own State. The +sheriff of the county drew thirty-six jurymen. Of these, twelve were +slaveholders, twelve were abolitionists, and twelve were +non-slaveholders. When the jury was finally empannelled it consisted +of nine abolitionists and three non-slaveholders.</p> + +<p>I never saw in my whole professional life a trial conducted with +greater fairness or justice. The whole of it was entirely satisfactory +to myself, and I believe to my client.</p> + +<p>I have ever since entertained a feeling of the highest respect for +Virginia. Her abstractions I confess I could never understand, nor did +I ever wish to. They are her exclusive property, and she never uses +them to the injury of her neighbors. If she chooses to make the +resolutions of '98 a matter of importance, I do not know that anybody +is injured.</p> + +<p>I regretted to hear the imputations upon Virginia which some gentlemen +have seen fit to make. Menace is not the habit of that ancient +commonwealth. She does not indulge in it, and it would not become her. +The gentleman from New York intimated that if a State came to him with +a menace he would<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">245</a></span> meet it with a menace. In this I agree with him. If +Virginia came here with a menace I should meet her with defiance. But +happily for us we have no occasion to consider the question in this +light. If ever a State came to meet her sisters, to consult for the +common good in a proper spirit, Virginia does so now.</p> + +<p>A military chieftain once, when approaching his death, lamented that +he had no children to transmit his name and his qualities to +posterity. Virginia will never need to take up such a lamentation. She +has children enough. She is the mother of <span class="smcap">Washington</span> and <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span>, of +<span class="smcap">Madison</span>, <span class="smcap">Marshall</span>, and <span class="smcap">Clay</span>. Rightly and justly she has been called +the mother of States. She is the mother of States, and of millions of +freemen.</p> + +<p>I honor and respect Virginia, for she deserves it. She was among the +foremost in the Revolutionary struggle; and since it was terminated, +she has exhibited a continued example of patriotism and loyalty. Her +sons have been among the ablest in our legislative councils, and even +to-day she sets a noble example before the country, for the emulation +of her sister States. Our interests are inseparably connected with her +own. We will acknowledge the fact, and act in view of it. Let her +remember, also, that she has a common interest with us. She will do so +because she will be faithful to her old traditions as well as to her +present duty.</p> + +<p>I cannot believe that the time has come when it is necessary for us to +contemplate a dissolution of the Union. The people are not prepared +for such an awful event. We do not yet know how heavy sacrifices they +will make to avoid it. Some States have left us I know, but I believe +their absence is but temporary. We must have them back, and we will. +As for the Border States leaving us in the present condition of +affairs, with the present feeling of friendship for them, <i>that</i> I +regard as an impossibility. Why should the Border States go out of the +Union when three-fourths of the present Congress are ready to give +them all the guarantees they ask?</p> + +<p>But let not Pennsylvania be misunderstood in her position. She will +yield a vast deal for peace. She will examine and recognize the rights +of every section of the country. She believes that when this is done, +it is the duty of all to stand by the Union. She believes that the +Border States cannot connect themselves<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">246</a></span> with a so-called Southern +Confederacy without involving themselves in a vortex of ruin. The +President of the Southern Confederacy already talks about the smell of +gunpowder, and about battles at the North. Well! he is a brave man no +doubt, but if he will invade Pennsylvania we will resist him. +Pennsylvania has gold enough to calm her friends; she has iron enough +to cool her enemies.</p> + +<p>But Pennsylvania desires no war. She will do all that an honorable +State can do to avoid war. In that temper she sends her delegates +here, and they will do all that honorable men can do to carry out her +wishes. She has no desire to be a frontier State with her four hundred +miles of border, which she must guard and protect if disunion takes +place on the terms suggested. She will do all she can to avoid +disunion. She is now a central State—the keystone of the arch. She +wants no imaginary line drawn along her border, with herself on one +side of it and enemies upon the other.</p> + +<p>Pennsylvania has always kept faith with the Union. She has always +performed all her duties toward the Federal Government with +cheerfulness and fidelity. Her three millions of people are true to +all their obligations now to the Government as well as to her sister +States. Her voice is for peace. She would at all hazards avoid +disunion. She would make many sacrifices to avoid civil war. Last of +all, she would do all she could to save the Union; she would never +permit the destruction of the country. My own position is easily +defined. I fully sympathize with and endorse the position of +Pennsylvania.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Loomis</span> referred to the election, installation, and +message of the Governor of Pennsylvania, also to various +resolutions of political conventions in Pennsylvania, in +confirmation of his own views of the sentiments of the +people of that State, and continued:</p></div> + +<p>I shall dwell but a short time upon the provisions of the proposed +amendments. I can live under the Constitution as it is, or as it will +be if these amendments are adopted. I shall uphold the Constitution. I +shall commit myself to no opposite course. The whole amendment is +connected with and concerns the question of slavery in the +Territories. This has always been a fruitful source of trouble.</p> + +<p>The character of the relation of the Government to the Terri<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">247</a></span>tories, +and the interests of the States in them, were questions raised in most +of the States when the Constitution was adopted.</p> + +<p>The compromise of 1820, it was hoped, settled one question concerning +them—the question of slavery. But upon the repeal of the compromise +the difficulty was opened again. Pennsylvania never took as ultra +ground respecting this subject as many other States. She thought its +importance was magnified. It is magnified now. If the South secured +the amendment proposed it would not avail her much. The granting of it +would not injure the North. The territory is unfitted for the +profitable employment of slave labor. That is shown by experience. In +ten years scarcely ten slaves had found their way into New Mexico and +Arizona.</p> + +<p>This is a question of sectional interest, and may be one, to some +extent, of political power. Examine, for a moment, the true interests +of both the North and South, in the question as it is now presented. I +mean the interest of the extremes, for the Border States certainly +cannot have a very deep interest in it. They lay between the two +sections, and to some extent sympathize with both. The valuable +portion of our present territory is north of the line proposed. It is +rich in agricultural and mineral resources. It will be changed in time +into a number of powerful and wealthy States. Is it not desirable now +to exclude slavery from them forever? Then as to the territory south. +It is smaller in extent, and almost infinitely less valuable. Much of +it is barren desert which can never be cultivated. Considered as a +material interest, the South is asking but little. The North is giving +up almost nothing, by agreeing to give the South the control of this +section while it remains a territory. But the South does not ask even +that. She simply asks to have those rights guaranteed, the existence +of which are already practically conceded.</p> + +<p>As to future territory, I would raise no question about it. We want no +more territory north or south. Its acquisition would only be attended +with new troubles. New questions would be raised to threaten the quiet +of the country and the stability of our institutions. Why should we +trouble ourselves about the acquisition of new territory when we have +already enough for one hundred millions of people?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">248</a></span></p> + +<p>We may form a Constitution which will be entirely satisfactory to the +nation now. We may extend our territory in such a way as to render a +change indispensable. Considerations of climate and race will be +constantly occurring, which will require new changes. The Federal +Constitution may have been well enough adapted to the four millions of +people to whom it was first applied, and it is not strange that the +growth of the nation, and the new interests which have since arisen, +should require some changes now. I say that we need no more territory.</p> + +<p>What objection, then, can there be to compromising this matter, to +arranging it to the satisfaction of all parties, if the rights of all +can be regarded and secured? The course which I would follow in such a +case, would be that indicated by traditional policy of statesmen in +whom our people have had confidence—the policy of such men as +<span class="smcap">Harrison</span> and <span class="smcap">Henry Clay</span>.</p> + +<p>I do not regard the provisions relating to slavery in the District of +Columbia as of any practical consequence to the North. Pennsylvania +cares little about it. There would seem to be a propriety in +countenancing slavery here so long as it exists in the adjoining +States.</p> + +<p>The Border States ask us now for these guarantees. They ask them +earnestly and in a spirit of loyalty to the Union. My answer to such a +request, urged in such a spirit, is, that I would give them any +guarantees I could within the limits of the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Pennsylvania forms one of the brotherhood of States. She is in the +Union, and she will remain there. She is bound to it by all the +memories and associations of the past, and by all the hopes of the +future. She will discharge, as she always has discharged, all her +duties, all her obligations to the Union. No State exceeds her in +devotion to it. But, at the same time, she will not be unmindful of +her duties and her obligations to the other States. She would +discharge these obligations as she can afford to discharge them, in a +spirit of generosity and conciliation. In that spirit she will give +her assent to these propositions of amendment. I believe I have fairly +represented the opinions of Pennsylvania in what I have said, and I +rely upon her people—my constituents—for my justification.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I will consult the pleasure of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">249</a></span> Conference +whether I shall proceed with my observations now, or during the +evening session?</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD: I think the Conference had better adjourn. I make the +motion.</p> + +<p>The motion was adopted, and the Conference adjourned to meet at +half-past seven o'clock this evening.</p> + +<hr class="med" /> + +<h3>EVENING SESSION—FOURTEENTH DAY.</h3> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Thursday</span>, <i>February 21st, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Alexander</span> in the chair.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN: I feel gratified by the kindness which has given me an +opportunity of making a few observations to the Conference, and I +shall not abuse it.</p> + +<p>The delegates from Vermont have acted throughout the session under +great embarrassment. We hold our appointments from the Executive of +that State. Her Legislature was not in session when the Virginia +Resolutions were adopted, and the day fixed for the meeting of the +Conference was so early that no time was given to the Governor of +Vermont for consultation, or for taking any other means of +ascertaining the temper of the State in relation to the Virginia plan. +We were summoned by telegraph—myself upon an hour's notice—to come +here, and we obeyed the summons.</p> + +<p>By the rules of the Conference we are prohibited from correspondence +with our constituents upon the subject of its action, and we are +entirely without recent information concerning their views and wishes. +But one course remains to us, and that we must inflexibly pursue. That +is, to apply the propositions upon which we are called to vote, to the +known and established opinions of our people upon the principles +involved in them; and if these principles coincide with their +opinions, to give our assent; if they do not, to withhold it. We hold +it our duty to respect and obey the opinions of our constituents; and +in our action here, such obedience is a pleasure.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">250</a></span></p> + +<p>First of all, before referring to the merits or demerits of these +propositions, I wish to be informed distinctly upon one point. One +section of the Union requires guarantees; the other does not. Here are +two parties having different interests, proposing to themselves +different courses of action. One of them proposes these guarantees in +the form of what it calls a compromise. There are many subjects which, +in the experience of life, we are obliged to compromise. All of us +understand the meaning of the term. It implies that when two parties +differ upon a subject of common interest, each is to yield something +to the other, until both reach an agreement upon a middle ground, and +the difference is settled. But one consequence always follows, always +must follow, or it is in nowise a compromise: <i>Both parties are bound +by the agreement.</i></p> + +<p>There is another way in which compromises are effected. When opposing +parties cannot come to an understanding, they agree to submit the +matters in difference to some tribunal that can decide between them. A +like consequence always follows from such a proceeding. The parties +agree to <i>submit</i> to the decision, to be <i>bound</i> by it, and mutually +undertake to carry it into effect, whatever the decision may be.</p> + +<p>There is still another way in which a <i>political</i> compromise may be +made. Its terms may be agreed upon, and then it may be submitted to +the people for adoption. When adopted, it becomes the law of the +land—equally binding upon all sections of the country. If it is +rejected, the party which proposed it has secured its submission to +the proper tribunal—it has been considered, and that party should, +upon every principle of law or morality, acquiesce in the result.</p> + +<p>Except in one of these three methods I know of no way in which a +<i>compromise</i> can be made. Let us apply these methods to the questions +before us. One of them must be adopted if we <i>compromise</i> at all.</p> + +<p>In fact there is one principle which forms the very foundation of our +Government, and it should be kept constantly in mind. We cannot +negotiate, we cannot legislate, we cannot <i>compromise</i>, unless all +parties will acknowledge its binding force. If there is a party that +does not acknowledge this, in my judgment that party has no right to +be here. It is not a Republican party. I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">251</a></span> do not use this term in a +party sense, but in the sense which is used in the fourth article in +the Constitution, where the United States are required to guarantee to +every State a <i>republican</i> form of Government. The principle to which +I refer is this: That the will of the majority, constitutionally +expressed, must control the Government, and all questions relating to +it; and that will must be respected and obeyed by the minority.</p> + +<p>Now, if the members representing the free States will accept these +propositions of amendment in good faith—will agree to submit them +through Congress to the people of the States, and to be bound by the +decision of the majority, whatever that decision may be—will you, +gentlemen of the slave States, do the same? I do not refer to the +States which have undertaken to withdraw from the Union. I only call +upon the members for the States here represented. You have the right +to speak for your respective States. You are sent here for that +purpose. You ask us to give our votes for proposals which are +certainly unpleasant, not to say offensive to us, and to use such +influence as we possess to induce Congress to submit these to the +people. You express the highest degree of confidence in the result. +This is <i>your</i> plan of compromise. If we resist it, you charge us with +standing between the people and your plan—of sacrificing the Union to +our platform. Very well. If we will submit your propositions to the +people, and agree to be bound by and to acquiesce in their decision, +will you do the same? If you will, it may be of service to protract +this discussion, to make these propositions as acceptable as possible. +If you will not, we are wasting time. We may as well stop here. +Believe me, sir, Vermont, as well as every other free State, will have +too much self-respect to agree to the terms of a compromise which will +bind one party and will not bind the other.</p> + +<p>There is one thing farther which we must understand. It has been +frequently referred to in debate, and I shall not enlarge upon it. +Time must elapse before these propositions can be acted upon. The free +States expect faithfully to observe all their duties to the General +Government—to keep faith with it as they always have. Will the slave +States do the same? Will they not only <i>not obstruct</i> the Government +in the execution of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">252</a></span> laws, but will they <i>aid</i> the Government in +executing the laws? The answer to this inquiry is as important as the +other.</p> + +<p>Now, it is useless to tell the people of the free States, that such is +the present condition of the South, such is the apprehension and +distrust prevailing there, that we must give them these guarantees at +once, without any longer delay or discussion—that if we do not they +will secede. Such an argument as that, sir, is an unworthy argument; +it is unfit to be used in an assembly of men met to confer upon the +Constitution. This is not the way in which good constitutions are +made, for one of the several parties to present its ultimatum, and +then insist upon its adoption, under the threat that if it is not +adopted they will go no farther. If such is the true condition of +affairs in some of the States, and the gentlemen representing them are +the best judges, then before proceeding to amend the Constitution to +satisfy them, I think we had better try to put them into a frame of +mind suitable for negotiation. A Constitution adopted in that way +would be good for nothing. Let it once be understood that such claims +will be recognized, and we shall have amendments to the Constitution +proposed as often as any section can find a pretext for proposing +them. The agreeable course to us all would be to yield to your +pressing appeals. But you ask us to compromise upon most extraordinary +terms. You will not give us the slightest assurance that the people of +the slave States will acquiesce in the vote of the whole people upon +your propositions. You even say, you will not acquiesce, if the +decision is adverse. You are in doubt if they will be satisfied if the +decision is in their favor; and some gentlemen frankly avow that these +propositions in themselves are not satisfactory. The gentleman from +Virginia, with an openness and a frankness which seems a part of his +nature, tells us in substance that Virginia will not be satisfied with +these; that Virginia is settled in her determination that slave +property shall be respected; that it has as high a right to protection +as any other property, and in some respects higher; that Virginia will +have these rights acknowledged and secured <i>under</i> the Constitution, +or she will not be satisfied. The statement that she will <i>not be +satisfied</i>, has a very peculiar and expressive signification.</p> + +<p>Such being our present condition, I have little hope that good can +come of our deliberations. We have started wrong. We<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">253</a></span> should have +settled the questions first, that the Union must be preserved, the +laws enforced, and the duty of every State toward the Union performed, +in every contingency and under all circumstances. Having resolved +this, we could then go on, carefully consider the wants of every +section, and we could afford to be generous in meeting the views of +our Southern friends.</p> + +<p>I feel more diffidence than I can well express in being obliged to +differ so widely from the opinions of the gentlemen who have +introduced the proposals contained in the majority report, and who +have advocated them with such signal ability. I have less hesitation +in expressing my unqualified dissent from the representatives of the +free States, who pledge the people of those States so unreservedly to +the support of these propositions, if Congress will submit them to +their constituents. I object to these pledges, because I know they are +deceptive, that they are made without authority, and that they will +never be fulfilled. The South may as well understand this now, as +hereafter.</p> + +<p>The Union is precious to the people of the free States. They look upon +it with a feeling closely approaching to reverence. They have looked +upon its dissolution as the greatest national calamity possible. They +have been taught to regard the idea of dissolution as a sin. Now, when +the subject is forced upon their attention, when Conventions are +called throughout the South to discuss it, when in some of the States +the process has already commenced, I am well aware they will make +heavy sacrifices to preserve the Union. They will sacrifice their +prosperity, political influence, friendship, social relations, yes, +their lives, to secure its perpetuity. But they will not sacrifice +their principles which they have conscientiously adopted. No, not even +to save the Union.</p> + +<p>But let me not be misunderstood. A Government that cannot be +maintained without the sacrifice of those principles upon which all +good governments are founded, is not worth preserving. Such is not the +case with <i>ours</i>. Its preservation requires no such sacrifice; and if +we made it, the sacrifice would be useless. The habit once commenced, +we should be called upon to repeat it over and over again, until at +length we should have a Government destitute of principle.</p> + +<p>The people of the slave States believe that slavery is a desira<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">254</a></span>ble +institution, that a Government founded upon it would be most +desirable. It has been declared here, that it is even a missionary +institution, and that the North, in attempting to overthrow it, +interposes between the slaveholder and his Maker, thereby preventing +him from performing a duty toward the African race which his ownership +imposes upon his conscience. Well, that is a question between +yourselves and your consciences. We do not wish to interfere. Keep the +institution within your own State limits, and we are content that you +should have all the credit, and honor, and glory that pertains to it. +Over and over again the truth has been asserted here, that there never +has been, and is not now, any party, or any considerable number of men +in the free States, who entertain the idea of interfering with slavery +in the States. The opinions of a few rash men who entertain other +views, are no more respected among us than among yourselves.</p> + +<p>But the growth and extension of slavery outside of State limits, in +the Territories which are our common property, present a very +different question. If the North permits it there, to that extent it +becomes responsible for slavery. I do not care what term you use to +describe the feeling of the North in relation to slavery. One +gentleman says that the North <i>abhors</i> it, and the use of the term has +excited much comment. I may be still more unfortunate, but it is my +duty to say that you cannot present an idea more repulsive to the +northern mind or the northern conscience, than that of making the +North responsible for the existence, expansion, growth, extension, or +any thing else relating to slavery. Right or wrong, this sentiment has +taken a firm hold of the northern mind. There it is, and it must be +taken into account in every proposition which depends for its success +upon the action of the North. Sneering at it will do no good; abuse +will only make it stronger. You cannot legislate it out of existence. +From this time forward, as long as the nation has an existence, you +must expect the determined opposition of the North to the extension of +slavery into free territory. If your proposals of amendment involve +<i>that</i>, we may accept them, Congress may propose them, the South may +adopt them; but the answer of the North to them all will be an +emphatic, a determined, <i>No!</i></p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—If you Republicans will let us go to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">255</a></span> people, we +will show you what they will do. I think I understand the wishes and +feelings of the people of the North.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—No doubt. The gentleman says he supported the <span class="smcap">Bell</span> +and <span class="smcap">Everett</span> ticket. The record of his State shows to what extent his +opinions are in sympathy with those of the people of the North.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, for a time I did expect profitable results from this +Conference. As I watched it from day to day, it seemed to me that +generally the States had been very fortunate in the selection of their +representatives; that few of extreme opinions had been selected; and +that such a body, animated by common love for the Union, and by a +common desire to secure a perpetuity of its blessings, must finally +come to an agreement which would satisfy all; or if not, to an +agreement in which all would acquiesce. In that belief I had +determined to give my assent to the most extreme propositions which +might be made here, that did not run counter to the position of my +State upon the question of slavery extension, if those propositions +would quiet the country and settle our present difficulties.</p> + +<p>But when I heard it announced on this floor that the propositions +contained in the majority report even, which do provide for the +extension of slavery into the Territories, which involve a direct +constitutional recognition of slavery for the first time, which place +it above and beyond legislation, which take it out of the hands of +posterity, which compel the North to pay for fugitives; and when I +heard it stated that even these were not enough to satisfy the South, +that Virginia must have something more, that she was "solemnly pledged +against coercion, that she would not agree to abide by the decision of +the people upon these propositions," then hope went out from my heart! +I have not since had any expectation that much good would come from +our deliberations.</p> + +<p>I have refrained from entering into the merits or demerits of slavery. +I have refrained, so far as I could, from repeating what has been +better said by others than I could say it. The point which I wish to +press upon the Conference is this: Speaking for one State, we frankly +tell you that she will not enter upon a compromise which is not fair +and mutual, which does not bind both parties.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">256</a></span></p> + +<p>But, sir, although I have thus expressed myself, I do not at all +despair of the Republic. I do not believe that a dissolution or +destruction of this Government is to take place. Its origin and its +existence have been characterized by too many signal interpositions of +Providential favor. We cannot look into the future. I have no desire +to do so. If we all conscientiously perform our prescribed duties, if +we are faithful to ourselves, to our people and our Constitution, <span class="smcap">He</span> +who rules the nations will take care of the rest. It may be that the +clouds which now cover our horizon will be swept away, carrying with +them all these subjects of difficulty and danger, which alone have +troubled the quiet and the prosperity of the American Union.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—Instead of dreaming, like Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span>, of news from the seat +of war, and of marching armies, I have thought of a country through +which armies <i>have</i> marched, leaving in their track the desolation of +a desert. I have thought of harvests trampled down—of towns and +villages once the seat of happiness and prosperity, reduced to heaps +of smoking ruins—of battle-fields red with blood which has been shed +by those who ought to have been brothers—of families broken up, or +reduced to poverty; of widowed wives, of orphan children, and all the +other misfortunes which are inseparably connected with war. This is +the picture which presents itself to my mind every day and every hour. +It is a picture which we are doomed soon to witness in our own +country, unless we place a restraint upon our passions, forget our +selfish interests, and do something to save our country.</p> + +<p>We feel these things deeply in the Border States. The people of these +States bear the most intimate relations to each other. They are +closely connected in business. They associate in their recreations and +their pleasures. The members of a large number of their families have +intermarried. State lines, except for legislative purposes, are +scarcely thought of. The people of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and +Illinois, are one people, having an identity of sympathy, of feeling, +and of interest.</p> + +<p>We have in the West a section of country known as the dark and bloody +ground. The historical incidents connected with it are of the most sad +and mournful character. There is buried under it an ancestor of almost +every family descended from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">257</a></span> early settlers of the West. But this +ground is limited in extent. If we are to plunge this country into +civil war—if we are to go on exasperating the sections until they +take up arms against each other, then shall we make a dark and bloody +ground of all the Border States. We shall desolate all their fields, +and carry sorrow and mourning into every family within their limits.</p> + +<p>Should we not have a deep interest in avoiding war? Should we not +labor with, and entreat the people of all sections to help us avoid +it? If it comes, we are to be the sufferers. Upon <i>our</i> heads the ruin +must fall. We cannot and will not talk about abstractions now. We are +impelled by every consideration to do all we can to settle our +differences, and keep off the evil day that brings civil war upon our +happy and prosperous country, and to prevent the devastation of that +country.</p> + +<p>I wish to say a few earnest words to my brother Republicans. You +object to these propositions because they are pressed just now when +the new administration is coming into power. You say that there is no +need of them, and that they involve submission on your part, as a +condition of your enjoying the fruits of the victory you have won. Let +me assure you that no one labored harder for the triumph of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> than myself; I exerted what little influence I had; I paid my +money to secure his election; I now wish to give him an honorable +administration. I believe he will make a good President, and I wish to +give him a united country to rule. This can only be done by a +settlement of our troubles. No one will rejoice over that settlement +more than Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>.</p> + +<p>Fellow Republicans, the only way that opens before us now to settle +them is, by adopting the report of the committee; by permitting the +people to adopt it. Can you, dare you, refuse to let these +propositions go to the people? Dare you stand between the people and +these propositions?</p> + +<p>I would appeal to you on another ground. Remember that it is the +minority that is asking for these guarantees. You are just coming into +power. The country has approved of your action in the election of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>. You can afford to be liberal. Liberality is a noble trait in +any character, whether it be that of an individual or political party.</p> + +<p>There are reasons why the South should be apprehensive<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">258</a></span> now. The +organizations of the old Whig and Democratic parties had nothing +sectional in them. There were no resolutions in their platforms which +could give the South any cause of alarm. The content between these +parties did not involve any sectional interests whatever. Now, it is +undeniable that the organization of the Republican party was brought +about by the agitation of the slavery question in its various forms.</p> + +<p>It is not strange to me that the success of that party in the late +election should be misconstrued and misunderstood by the South, and +that the people there should be apprehensive for the result.</p> + +<p>If the Missouri Compromise had not been repealed we should not have +found ourselves in our present condition. It was the repeal of that +compromise that brought the Republican party into power. The masses of +the people do not sympathize with extremists on either side. The +Republican party took the middle ground, and thus rendered itself +acceptable to them.</p> + +<p>After the repeal of the Missouri Compromise came the Kansas agitation. +In this the North was right and the South was wrong. Slavery was +attempted to be forced upon an unwilling people. They resisted—the +American people always will resist injustice. The excitement pervaded +the whole country. Sympathy was excited for Kansas, and properly +enough. This excitement benefited the Republican party—it injured all +others. It overwhelmed all other considerations. The aspect of the +slavery question was remembered in Kansas; elsewhere it was forgotten.</p> + +<p>In this way, was the Republican party brought into power. I say now +that if the Union is dissolved, that party will be responsible; +responsible, as that party has now the power to prevent it.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Vermont, who has put his argument in a very +ingenious way, insists that before the North is called upon to act on +these propositions, that the South ought to declare whether she will +be satisfied with them. I do not think so. I am perfectly aware of the +difficulties under which the Representatives of the slave States are +laboring. They cannot answer this question. Let the gentleman +remember, when he presses this point so hard, and with such apparent +candor, that even he will not undertake to answer for New England. +More than<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">259</a></span> that, he denies the authority of those who undertake to +answer for the North. I do not believe the gentleman is very extreme +in his opinions; but let him remember that the South should be treated +fairly, and that she is placed in circumstances of peculiar +embarrassment. It raised the hair upon Republican heads when they were +told that Virginia had presented her ultimatum. Now complaint is made +that she has not done so, and that she will not say what will satisfy +her.</p> + +<p>I feel that I have no interest in this question, except the interest +of a citizen. I have no special interest in it. I ask nothing of +politics, but I do feel for my country. I may be wrong. I do not claim +infallibility; but I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion that we +ought not to adopt these proposals. I cannot see any practical injury +to the North in them, and I can see much benefit to the South.</p> + +<p>The North is vitally interested in the preservation of peace, in the +preservation of her commerce, and other relations with the South. +These relations cannot be broken up without great injury to the +Northern people. My heart would rejoice if we could think alike upon +these propositions, and adopt them with a degree of unanimity that +would give them weight with the country.</p> + +<p>I would not assail the motives of gentlemen. Doubtless there are men +who honestly believe that such a proposition ought only to be +considered in a General Convention. In my judgment such a Convention +would be utterly useless. It would lead to endless discussion, which +would not be conducted with the decorum that characterizes these +proceedings. It would amount to nothing.</p> + +<p>No, gentlemen, there is a better way than that. Let us have no General +Convention, but let us induce Congress to submit our propositions at +once to the people. In no other way, in my judgment, can we avoid the +disunion that threatens us. In no other way can the country be saved +in her present peril.</p> + +<p>Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina:—<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">260</a></span></p> +<p>Mr. ORTH:—Mr. President, I have thus far avoided any participation in +the general discussion of questions which have claimed the attention +of this Conference. My purpose has been to give a calm and careful +attention to whatever may be offered for our consideration; to hear +with unbiassed judgment the grievances which are the subject of +complaint, and to afford redress, if redress be necessary.</p> + +<p>Virginia, rich in her patriotism of the past, rich in her historic +treasures, has called upon her sisters to convene and consult with +reference to the condition of the Union, and the matters which are +supposed to threaten our future peace and welfare. Indiana heard and +heeded that call. To her it was as the voice of a mother to her child. +It was a voice which none of the States of the great Northwest—carved +out of that vast domain which Virginia granted to the United States as +the common property of all—could fail to hear with favor. If dangers +threaten the common welfare, if the future peace of this land is to be +disturbed, it was well for Virginia, as in other days of danger, to +sound the alarm, and invite a general council. In pursuance of that +call, Indiana is here, and here to listen. She feels conscious that +she has by no act of hers infringed upon the rights of any of her +sister States; that she has been faithful to her constitutional +obligations—seeking for nothing but what was right, and ever ready to +remedy any wrong. Occupying this position, her representatives on this +floor would be derelict in their duty if they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">261</a></span> attempted to assume any +other, or to pursue any course of action inconsistent therewith.</p> + +<p>What, then, in all candor, are the grievances of some of our sister +States, as presented by their delegated authority to this Conference? +Nothing of a tangible nature calling for practical and definite +action. A deliberative body ought not to act upon the fears or +imaginations of those desiring such action. The mere election of +President of the United States by the votes of the northern portion of +this Union, affords no just ground of complaint. That election is +valid, being in strict conformity with all the requirements of the +Constitution. The peculiar notions or political opinions of that +President cannot be the ground of a just complaint, so long as these +opinions in their practical operations do not interfere with or +contravene the provisions of that Constitution. The opinions and +principles of the President elect, however obnoxious they may be to +any portion of the people of this Union, are harmless so long as his +political opponents have in their control the legislative and judicial +departments of the Government. The question of slavery in the +Territories, if ever any real cause of grievance to any portion of the +Union, is in process of final settlement, and will be settled before +the close of the present Congress in a manner acceptable to a large +majority of the American people. What, then, is left? "Personal +Liberty bills" in some of the States; and these are being repealed as +rapidly as possible; and so far as practical results are concerned, +they have been a dead letter on the statute books ever since their +enactment.</p> + +<p>The non-enforcement of the fugitive slave law. The history of the +country since the year of its enactment clearly shows that no law +among the national statutes has received more prompt and vigorous +execution, notwithstanding its exceedingly odious features. Here, +then, is the list of grievances, or I might more properly say supposed +grievances; and for a failure to redress them, this Government is +threatened with civil war. To justify this unnatural and diabolical +resort to arms, the chimera of "State sovereignty" is invoked. And +what is State sovereignty? The gentleman from North Carolina has +endeavored to enforce this doctrine, and deduce from certain premises, +the right of a State, when she feels herself aggrieved, to secede from +her sister<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">262</a></span> States, and assume an independent position and a separate +nationality. The fallacy of the gentleman's position, in fact the +fallacy of the doctrine of "State rights," and the deductions made +therefrom by the school of politicians and statesmen to which the +gentleman belongs, arises from confounding the terms State rights and +State sovereignty, and using these as though they were convertible +terms. The several States of this Union possess certain rights clearly +defined, and known and understood by the reader of American political +history. Subject to the restrictions of the national Constitution, +they have the right to establish, regulate, and control their internal +police and entire polity so far as it affects the persons and property +subject to their jurisdiction; to regulate trade, commerce, contracts, +marriage, the acquisition, possession, control, and disposal of real +and personal property; also the assessing and collecting of taxes, and +disbursement of the public revenue.</p> + +<p>These are some of the main rights belonging to the States as such, but +these do not in any just sense constitute sovereignty. The several +States of the Union are not now and never have been sovereign States. +They never possessed the right to declare war, to make peace, to coin +money, to enter into treaty with nations, and none of them ever +endeavored or attempted to exercise any such rights as these. These +are attributes of sovereignty, as laid down by writers upon the laws +of nations, and recognized as such by the civilized world. Examine the +history of your several States, and tell me whether in any one of them +any act or fact can be found which would entitle either of them at any +time, past or present, to be recognized as sovereign independent +nations?</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—Will the gentleman from Indiana permit me to inform him +that during the Revolutionary War, the State of North Carolina had +laid the foundation of a navy, and at the close of hostilities she +transferred her vessels to the United States.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for the +interruption, and for the allusion to the local history of his State, +of which I was not before aware.</p> + +<p>There, then, we have a single instance of one of the States taking one +step toward sovereignty, by the establishing of a navy.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">263</a></span> I believe +this is the only instance now remembered, and this instance affords +the strongest argument in favor of the position I assume and am +endeavoring to enforce. North Carolina, it seems, had taken one step +toward sovereignty; and yet upon the adoption of our national +Constitution, upon the creation of the only sovereign Government in +this Union, the <i>Government of the Union</i>, she transfers to that +sovereign her infant navy; she relinquishes her only attribute of +sovereignty—if such it be—to the United States, and merges herself +with her sister States into that Union of States which has hitherto +been our boast and pride, as well as the admiration of the world.</p> + +<p>The several propositions now pending before us do not meet my +approbation, and cannot receive my support. They are in the shape of +amendments to the Constitution, and are all in the interest of +slavery, seeking to strengthen that institution, and to give it an +importance far beyond what the fathers were willing to concede. While +the North is willing to recognize and enforce the requirements of the +Constitution touching the various aspects of the slavery question, so +nominated in the bond, they feel unwilling to grant new guarantees to +a system which the civilized world is beginning to hold in +detestation, and which is inimical to free institutions, and the only +subject of contention that will ever seriously disturb the peace and +prosperity of the Union. I am opposed to the proposition before us: +First, because the grievances complained of are not of that serious +character requiring any amendment of our fundamental laws. Secondly, +because I am in favor of the Constitution as it is, firmly believing +that no good reason exists for its change, and that an honest +adherence to its wise provisions is our surest guarantee for real or +supposed grievances, and that the present of all times is the most +unpropitious moment to attempt any change or modification. Party +politics in all their embittered madness rule the hour, but calm times +and cool heads will be required whenever the American people desire to +enter upon so hazardous an experiment. Let the Constitution remain; it +has hitherto been, and will continue to be, the palladium of our +rights, the sheet anchor of our safety. Thirdly, under no state of +circumstances that can possibly arise among us as a people, will I +ever consent, by word, thought, or deed, to do any thing to strengthen +the institution of slavery. I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">264</a></span> regard it as an evil which all good men +should desire to see totally eradicated; and I hope for the day to +dawn speedily when, throughout the length and breadth of the land, +freedom shall be enjoyed by every human being, without reference to +caste, color, or nationality. While I am willing to tolerate its +existence where it now is, I am unwilling to extend its boundaries a +single inch, and will not give it any guarantee, protection, or +encouragement, save what it can exact by the strict letter of the +fundamental law. Beyond that I will never go; beyond that Indiana will +never go; and to this, gentlemen from the other side had as well +become reconciled. It is the <i>ne plus ultra</i> of the American people, +and to that they will adhere through all coming time. If, in +consequence of this position, the foundations of society are to be +broken up, civil war inaugurated, and the destruction of the +Government attempted, you must remember we are standing upon the +Constitution, in favor of sustaining the laws of the land, denying the +existence of any real grievance; and standing thus with that +consciousness of strength which integrity imparts, you must strike the +first blow, cross the Rubicon, commit the foul and damning crime of +treason, and bring upon your people ruin, devastation, and +destruction, and call down upon your guilty heads the curses of your +children and the disapprobation of the civilized world!</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—For what purpose was this Conference called? Why have we +come here? I suppose we are here to do something, to accomplish +something. If we are only here to make speeches, and not to arrive at +conclusions, our mission is useless. The greater portion of the debate +hitherto has been made up of set speeches, all like the circumlocution +office in one of Dickens' novels, showing "how not to do it." I am not +in favor of pursuing this course any longer. Let us talk the subject +over like business men, in a sensible way, and then come to a vote. I +think we may do something which will prove effectual, and I hope we +shall. My political opinions are well known. For more than forty years +I have belonged to one political party. I did not come here to speak. +I did not intend to speak at all, and shall now only submit a few +observations.</p> + +<p>I hail from the old Democratic party. The most of you are members of +the opposition. I do not know how or why I was se<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">265</a></span>lected as one of the +delegates from New York. I do not even know how the vote of that +delegation will stand on these proposals of amendment. I suppose the +dominant party has taken care to send a majority of its members. If I +was a mere politician, I do not know but I should be in favor of +breaking up the Conference, and of doing nothing; but being only a +Democrat, I desire to transmit to posterity the blessings of a good +Constitution and a good Government.</p> + +<p>The country has become disquieted. Its peace has been disturbed by the +acts of politicians. Many have become disgusted with the present +condition of affairs, and are unwilling to act or vote. A large +portion of our people have become alarmed. They think their rights +have been invaded. Some of the States have gone. GOD knows whether +they will ever come back again. If we act wisely, perhaps they may. +But there is occasion enough for alarm. I have felt alarmed for a long +time. One way suggested to get these States back is by conquest. But +what are we to do with a conquered State? Shall we establish a +military despotism over it?</p> + +<p>We all have the right to express our opinions, and I will express +mine. There are eight other slave States whose condition is to be +considered. If we do not act here, will they not leave us and join +their sisters? I hope they will not. I would not raise my voice in +this Conference, if it were not for the purpose of inducing them to +stay.</p> + +<p>Virginia, that noble old Commonwealth, has invited us together. She +proposes the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions, and asks us to consider them. Now +she is charged with standing in the way of the Government. This is not +true. Blessed are the peacemakers, and the position of Virginia in +this matter is that of a peace-maker. I thank her for bringing us +together.</p> + +<p>Two-thirds of the speeches here have been made by those of a political +party to which I never belonged. I do not understand either their +purposes or wishes. Perhaps I may be behind the times. I have not been +actually engaged in politics for more than twenty-five years. During a +large part of that time I have been engaged, in my humble way, in the +administration of justice in the State I here in part represent. I do +not know but I may be falling into the common fault of mak<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">266</a></span>ing a +speech. If I do, you must check me. Again I say, I thank Virginia for +her invitation. Why should we not confer together? Six or seven +States—no matter which—are gone. If nothing is done, eight or nine +others will follow, and other divisions will come as a matter of +necessity. Rhode Island—patriotic Rhode Island—will not go with New +England in this Conference. She will not separate from her southern +sisters. Connecticut, I think, will not stay, and New York, I believe, +will stand with the South.</p> + +<p>How is it, or why is it, that we should do nothing? Why should we +break up and go home? Have not all the States asked us to come here +and do this work? Why did their legislatures take the trouble to send +us here? All this circumlocution might have better been done at home.</p> + +<p>Will a Convention answer the purpose, when another Confederacy has +been formed in our very midst? It would be two years at least before +any thing could be accomplished by a Convention, and then it would be +too late. We all know how delegates to such a Convention are elected. +We all know how much time would be consumed before the Convention +could meet. I say we cannot bear the delay. I ask the gentleman (Mr. +<span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>) of Connecticut whether he thinks it would be safe to delay.</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I think it is always safe to follow the Constitution. I +think we can follow the example of Kentucky.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I would suggest to the gentleman from Connecticut that the +representatives of Kentucky are here to speak for her.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—Kentucky has sent delegates to this Convention since she +passed the resolutions to which the gentleman refers. I think we +cannot stand upon the ground taken in these resolutions. I do not +believe Kentucky herself would be satisfied with them now.</p> + +<p>It is strange to see gentlemen so cool and apathetic under such +circumstances. Is no one alarmed for the safety of the old flag about +which so much is said? Can the Border States stay with us when their +brethren are gone? If the action of the North in relation to slavery +is such as to drive out South Carolina, can Delaware and the other +Border States remain?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">267</a></span> For one, I do not wish to put this Constitution +into the hands of a General Convention. Who can tell what such a +convention would do with the Constitution; what it would do with the +decisions of the Supreme Court, under which so many of the vexatious +questions have been settled? It would be worse than attempting to +settle our differences in a town meeting. I would hesitate long before +I would submit such questions to a convention. Before they could be +settled in that way, the Union would be gone forever. The process +would be too slow. I have nothing to gain in this matter. My only wish +is to spend my few remaining days in the United States, and to +transmit the blessings of our Government to my children.</p> + +<p>Some of the Republican members here subordinate their platform to +their country. I commend them for it; these are noble sentiments. Men +should abandon platforms when they tend to destroy the country. I +concur in the sentiments of the gentleman from Illinois, uttered this +morning. They also are noble sentiments.</p> + +<p>I venerate our Constitution. When made, it was equal to any ever +framed. Nothing short of Almighty Wisdom could have framed a better. +But was it given to human wisdom, to <span class="smcap">Washington</span> and <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, to +foresee all the events of the future? The Constitution has held us +together for three-fourths of a century; that is a wonder in itself; +but its makers did not foresee this day—a day when Freedom itself was +in danger of perishing.</p> + +<p>Why this hesitation about amending the Constitution? New York accepted +it reluctantly, and only ratified it upon the assurance that it should +be amended as she proposed. It is not so holy a thing now, that it may +not be amended. <span class="smcap">Washington</span>, you must remember, signed the Fugitive +Slave Law of 1793, as well as the Constitution.</p> + +<p>We are told by gentlemen from New York and Connecticut (Mr. <span class="smcap">Noyes</span> and +Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>), that the action proposed here is unconstitutional. It +does not become these gentlemen to raise this objection. There was +never an amendment of the State Constitutions, in either of the States +they represent, adopted, that was not brought before the people in +substantially the same way.</p> + +<p>Much has been said here about modern civilization and the spirit of +the age. It is said that these are hostile to slavery.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">268</a></span> Suppose they +are? What have we to do with them? The example of England, also, has +been referred to, as well as that of France. True, they have abolished +slavery by name, but they have imported apprentices from Africa, and +Coolies from Asia, and have placed them under the worst form of +slavery ever known. England tolerates slavery in her mining districts +to-day in a worse form than that existing in the Southern States. She +has millions in India worse off than slaves. She has been the greatest +land robber on the earth. She has contributed to the support of the +Juggernaut, and has forced the Chinese at the point of the bayonet to +eat opium. Do you forget that she ruined the capitol in this city, and +blew it up, in 1814? I do not deny her virtues, but I do not care to +follow her example.</p> + +<p>Our fathers said slavery was strictly a State institution, and they +would not meddle with it by the Constitution. Their doctrine is true +now. The Union cannot be preserved if we interfere with the +institutions of the States.</p> + +<p>I will not stop to refer to the Missouri Compromise, or the +compromises of 1850 and 1854. I will only say that the North +understood these to settle the slavery question, and professed to +agree not to meddle with slavery hereafter in the States. But the cry +of freedom was raised, and its new apostles, during the last campaign, +went through the land preaching destruction to slavery. What did they +mean but that slavery was to be assailed at every possible point? This +doctrine was involved in their platforms, and advocated in their +speeches. They collected all the bad things ever said about slavery, +whether true or untrue, and published them. The purpose to assail the +institution was everywhere owned.</p> + +<p>I wish to say a word about the Territories. What great harm would be +done if all the Territories were thrown open to slavery? By the +decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, they are open +already. But in the greater part of them slavery cannot exist at all. +New Mexico has a slave code. So have the Cherokee and other Indian +tribes; and yet slavery does not and cannot flourish among them. It +cannot make head against the obstacles which oppose it, and yet you +will attack it even there. If you do so, civil war is inevitable.</p> + +<p>But what mischief is done if slavery does go into the Terri<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">269</a></span>tories? It +will not add another to the degraded race of Africans. It is a +blessing to the slave if he may be permitted to go with his master +into these new Territories. In the old slave States he is compelled to +work in gangs under the whip of a driver, with no one to look after +his health or comfort. Take him into one of these new Territories, and +there are one hundred white men and women to protect each individual +of his race, and to see that he suffers no wrong. It is a blessing to +take him out of the plantation gangs, and to place him in a new +country. Then why not let him go there and live in peace? Your zeal to +exclude slavery from the Territories only injures the African race. If +there is a good substantial reason for this exclusion I shall be glad +to hear it. Up to this time I have heard no good reason stated. +Although I have declared myself a Democrat, in this Conference I am no +party man. Show me any good reason for not adopting these proposals of +amendment and I will oppose them. But until that reason is shown they +will receive my support. So far as I can judge, no argument has been +proposed here against these propositions which is not of a partisan +character.</p> + +<p>The rights which the slave States now ask to have us recognize, are +guaranteed to them by the Constitution as it now stands. We are giving +them nothing new. Every lawyer is familiar with the rule of +constitutional construction, that all the rights not expressly granted +to the General Government are reserved to the States. Let us carry +this principle into effect now. It is all that we are asked to do. Let +us do something. Let us amend these propositions; make them as +unobjectionable as we can, and send them to Congress. Let us urge +Congress and the country to adopt them. In their adoption there is +safety; there is great danger in their rejection.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Pollock</span> obtained the floor, and at twelve o'clock the Conference +adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">270</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="FIFTEENTH_DAY" id="FIFTEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">FIFTEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Friday</span>, <i>February 22d, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, at 10 o'clock +<span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Sunderland</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal of yesterday was read, corrected, and approved.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—It will be necessary that some plan be adopted to +defray the expenses of the Conference, and of printing the Journal. I +move the appointment, by the President, of a committee of three to +take those subjects into consideration.</p> + +<p>The motion was adopted, and the President appointed Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>, of +Maryland, Mr. <span class="smcap">Pollock</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger</span> as such committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I have an amendment in three sections which I shall +offer to the report of the committee. I ask that it may be read, laid +on the table, and printed.</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to, and the amendment read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Strike out Section 3, and insert the three following:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 3. Congress shall have no power to regulate, abolish, +or control within any State the relations established or +recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to +service or labor therein.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person +held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under +the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair +any rights pertaining to that relation under the laws now in +force within the said District, while such relation shall +exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said +State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or +making to them just compensation therefor; nor the power to +interfere with or prohibit members of Congress, and officers +of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in +said District, from bringing with them, retaining, and +taking away persons so held to service or labor; nor the +power to impair or abolish the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">271</a></span> relations of persons owing +service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction +of the United States, within those States and Territories +where such relations are established or recognized by law.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal +or transportation of persons held to labor or service in any +State or Territory of the United States, to any State or +Territory thereof, where the same obligation or liability to +labor or service is established or recognized by law; and +the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of +touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in +case of distress, shall exist; nor shall Congress have power +to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to +service or labor than on land.</p> + +<p>Strike out Section 7, and insert:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases +where the marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be +to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be +prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous +assemblage, or where, after arrest, such fugitive shall be +rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service +or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the +United States shall pay to such party the full value of such +service or labor.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I offer the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the time fixed upon to commence voting upon +the questions before this Convention, be postponed until +Monday, February 25th, at 12 o'clock <span class="smcap">m.</span></p></div> + +<p>I am as desirous as any member of the Conference can be for action. +Illinois is a Border State, and she feels, in common with the Border +States, a deep interest in the questions we are discussing here. But I +think a false issue has arisen, and that it ought to be corrected. +This issue has been forced upon us, and it will go to the country +unless corrected. Very little time has yet been occupied by Indiana, +Illinois, and Ohio, but we wish and we ought to be heard.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>, of Missouri, moved to lay the resolution upon the table.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken by States, with the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio and +Vermont—10.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I see the resolution does not meet with favor. I will +withdraw it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I offer the resolution again. I wish to appeal to this +Conference in the name of peace, not to press this vote to-<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">272</a></span>day. We +have been discussing general questions. There has been little or no +discussion touching the merits of the proposed amendments to the +Constitution. Do gentlemen suppose that if it is pressed through in +this way, it will meet with favor when it comes before the country? +Let me assure you, gentlemen, that you will not give the country peace +by such a course.</p> + +<p>There is a prospect that all sections of the Union may yet be induced +to agree to a General Convention. The floor is so parcelled out that +the Western States cannot be heard. Why do you force the vote in this +manner? Two-thirds of Congress must concur, or these propositions +cannot go to the people. The same two-thirds can suspend the rule at +any time. There is no necessity for passing these propositions to-day. +I regret that the proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>, limiting the speeches +to thirty minutes, has not prevailed. It was withdrawn.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—No! It was laid on the table by enemies.</p> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—I have the floor. I will occupy it only thirty minutes, +with the understanding that those who follow will do the same. We +still have time for six speeches.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I have but little more to say. When we have a rule, we +know what it is. A general understanding will amount to nothing. I +have insisted that it was inexpedient to press these matters to a +decision before the inauguration of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>; but when overruled I +have cheerfully submitted. I now appeal to gentlemen to yield, and let +us take the final vote on Monday.</p> + +<p>One word now as to a General Convention. I have faith in that, and +believe we can agree to call one. The idea was started by Kentucky, +and promptly followed by Illinois. I have seen a copy of the +"Louisville Journal," which strongly advocates it. It is practicable, +and the country will assent to it.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—The delegates from Delaware desire that the vote should +be taken to-day. We have not discussed these propositions, and do not +wish to discuss them. We want action.</p> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I concur in the views of the gentleman from Delaware. +Discussion, so far, has tended very little toward harmony or +unanimity. I am in favor of closing the general debate to-day. But I +do protest against that part of the resolution<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">273</a></span> we have adopted, which +limits the discussion of an amendment to five minutes, and confines +the reply to the committee. We ought not thus to be restricted and +choked down. I will not move to amend the resolution now under +discussion. It will answer my purpose to give notice that I shall move +to amend the five-minute rule.</p> + +<p>Mr. COOK:—We ought to have an opportunity to present the views of +Illinois. As yet we have had none. We cannot justify ourselves to our +people unless we do.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I move to lay the whole subject on the table. I want +to test the question. Debate and discussion change the mind of no one. +We have now been here eighteen days, and the country is expecting a +decision.</p> + +<p>The vote upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe's</span> motion was called by States, and +resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, +and Vermont—11.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I now offer my proposition as a substitute for Mr. +<span class="smcap">Chase's</span> resolution, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the resolution heretofore passed, limiting +debate on amendments that shall be offered to the report of +the Grand Committee, be so amended as to allow the delegates +who may desire, to speak not exceeding ten minutes on each +amendment.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I do not wish to seem unreasonable. As my resolution meets +with objection, I will withdraw it in favor of the one adopted by my +colleague.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Have gentlemen calculated how many hours this will +take? It will amount to a total defeat of all action. We could not get +through by the middle of next month.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I favor the resolution. All should have a fair chance.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—I move to amend, giving each delegate ten minutes.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I object to that very strenuously. Many delegations are +divided. I hope the resolution will pass as it is.</p> + +<p>Mr. HACKLEMAN:—I approve of the rule as it now stands. Practically, +it gives ten minutes.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">274</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I move to lay the resolution on the table. We adopted +the rule unanimously.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—The motion is not in order. We have once voted not to +table the resolutions.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—I will withdraw my motion, at the instance of the +gentlemen around me.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—The question is upon the adoption of the resolution +offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Backus</span>. I have accepted it in place of the one offered +by myself.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—It is subject, at any time, to a motion to lay on the +table.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—That is my motion.</p> + +<p>The motion to lay the resolution of Mr. <span class="smcap">Backus</span> on the table was lost +by the following vote—the vote by States being requested by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Chase</span>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and +Vermont—10.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I presume we all desire to know the result of our +labors. I regret to see so much feeling manifested. Perhaps some of us +had better take the benefit of the prayers of the church on Sunday. +Some of us wish to get our propositions to Congress at an early hour. +Those who oppose us—those determined to defeat action, can speak on +until the fourth of March. I hope such is not their intention.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—If the rule is abused, the Convention will stop the abuse.</p> + +<p>At this point there were loud calls of "question," and the President +put the question to vote, <i>viva voce</i>.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the Noes clearly have it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—A vote by States was called for by several members.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—Is this resolution intended to give the right of +reply? If so, we shall have a half-hour speech upon every amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—If any member wishes to divide his time, he can do so; +but he can only occupy ten minutes in all. We are called to +deliberate, as well as to act. We are asked if we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">275</a></span> wish to stave off +final action? I answer, No. I want speedy action. But at the same time +let us have deliberation. I wish to give a vote that my constituents +will approve.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The vote will be taken by States.</p> + +<p>The resolution was adopted by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, +and Vermont—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—9.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span> offered the following, which was read, laid on the table, and +ordered to be printed:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Amendment to Section 3 of the Committee's Report, to come in +after the words "retaining and taking away persons so bound +to labor:"—"but the bringing into said District of persons +held to service for the purpose of being sold, or placed in +depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be +sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may +pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; +nor shall Congress have," &c.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will proceed to the order of the day, +and Mr. <span class="smcap">Pollock</span> has the floor:</p> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—Brevity is always a virtue. I intend to practice that +virtue now. I would not make a single observation, if I did not feel +that by keeping silence I should neglect my duty. As it is, I do not +intend to occupy the time of the Conference more than twenty minutes.</p> + +<p>When the committee upon the subject invited Pennsylvania to furnish a +block for the Washington Monument in this city, they asked also for a +motto, to be inscribed upon it, which should express some idea +characteristic of Pennsylvania. What was the motto selected in behalf +of that great State? Did we go to Germantown and invoke the memories +of the mighty dead? Did we ask the motto of Valley Forge? No, +brothers, no! Pennsylvania stood by the side of the grave of Penn, the +man of peace, and in his example she found her motto, and it stands +inscribed upon her contribution to that monument to the Father of his +Country to-day. There may it stand forever. "<i>Pennsylvania was founded +by deeds of Peace.</i>" How noble the sentiment! How characteristic of +that Commonwealth!</p> + +<p>Animated by the same sentiment, filled with the same spirit, herself +asking nothing, requiring nothing, Pennsylvania comes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">276</a></span> into this +Conference and says to every delegate here, "<i>Peace, Brothers, +Peace.</i>" She is not for war. She believes that the power of kindness +is far greater than that of the sword; that in the affection of +brother toward brother there is greater strength than in all the iron +contained in all her thousand hills and mountains. She comes here at +the instance of a sister. She heard the voice of that sister asking +for consultation, and she obeyed it. She is here, and in the right +spirit.</p> + +<p>A word now as to the motive of Virginia in calling the States +together. Some object that Virginia comes bearing the olive branch on +the point of the bayonet. Not so, sir. She is placed in a peculiar +position, and I appreciate it. She does not make use of threats. These +exist only in the imagination of gentlemen. I am willing to meet her +here upon the very ground she takes, and unite with her in saying, +"Our Union as it is, now and forever." We are here taking counsel, not +with traitors, not with secessionists, but with lovers of the Union.</p> + +<p>The people love the Union; they will not give it up. They are true. My +heart almost leapt from my bosom when that telegraph message was read +from Missouri a few days ago. Tennessee has taken up the cry, "Union +for ever," The nation is troubled. All nations are, at times. But our +troubles are not insurmountable. We are all here together to settle +them. Why not settle them, and give peace to the Union, and joy to the +hearts of the people?</p> + +<p>We can settle our difficulties. The right feeling animates gentlemen +from both sections. Where was the heart in this Conference that did +not start with emotion, when, some days ago, that glorious old patriot +from North Carolina (Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span>) told us of his devotion to the Union? +Who did not honor and respect him? Old men and young men wept as they +listened. Friends! Countrymen! I come here from a Border State. These +States have a vital interest in the result, therefore we speak +earnestly. Let us say to the angry passions of the country, "Peace, be +still!"</p> + +<p>The Border States are united; they have common interests. Beside the +hearthstones of each, sit wives, and children, and families, connected +with each other by ties of blood, of interest, of social intercourse. +We are one. Is Maryland or Delaware<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">277</a></span> ready to say that either will +part company from Pennsylvania? No! We are brethren—come weal, come +wo, we will stand by each other, and we will stand by the Union.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen say there will not be war, if we do not agree. I wish I +could think so, but I cannot. But if war should come, let me ask the +gentlemen from New York who think principles are standing in their +way, will you take the risk? Will you see the soil of Pennsylvania +drenched with blood? Can you risk all this hereafter, when you can +avoid it by accepting a proposition that involves no sacrifice of +principles? Never in my whole life have I felt the weight of official +responsibility as I feel it now. God grant that war may be averted +from the country!</p> + +<p>Let the lightning this day flash to the extreme limits of the Union, +the glad tidings that we have settled these questions. The message +would be received with gratitude and thanksgiving. Our friends in the +Border States say, "We love the Union, we wish to stay in it; we do +not wish to be driven out." Can you not, will you not, do something +for them? Let us trust this matter to the people. I am not afraid to +trust the people of Pennsylvania. New York and Massachusetts, trust +yours!</p> + +<p>We talk calmly of war, but we forget its calamities. Let us remember +that we should not sacrifice one life for this paltry abstraction. Let +us remember how great are the miseries of war. Let us think of the +rush of angry armies, of the widows and orphans, of the sorrow and +desolation that war always leaves in its path.</p> + +<p>Christian men! remember that our great Saviour was a Prince of +Peace—that he came to conquer with peace, not with the sword. "The +Lord God omnipotent reigneth."</p> + +<p>Disunion is a crime against every thing. Above all, it is a crime +against <span class="smcap">God</span>. Christians, pause and reflect. Let me entreat you to help +us save this country from disunion.</p> + +<p>I speak earnestly. We Pennsylvanians are upon the border. Our soil +must be the battle ground. Upon us will the heavy trouble fall. Once +more I say, let us trust the people. They are always right. They will +do something; and honest men, sincere men, tell us that unless +something is done, the border slave States cannot be retained in the +Union.</p> + +<p>I am not here as a party man, but as an American citizen, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">278</a></span> a +citizen of Pennsylvania. I am here to perform my duty to the whole +country, if I can find out what that duty is.</p> + +<p>Our friends say there is great apprehension at the South that the +Republican party meditates unconditional interference with Southern +rights. I do not believe for a moment that there is any ground for +such an apprehension. But, nevertheless, it exists. Acting upon it, +several States have withdrawn from the Union. We must deal with it in +the best way we can. If we can satisfy our southern brethren, in the +name of peace let us do it. I labored for the election of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>, +but I never understood that hostility to slavery was the leading idea +in the platform of his party. Pennsylvania had other interests—other +reasons very powerful, for supporting him. There was the repeal of the +Missouri Compromise—ruinous discriminations in the Tariff—the +corruption of the Government—the villanous conduct of its high +officers; these and other considerations gave Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> more +strength in Pennsylvania than the slavery question.</p> + +<p>There are sentiments and opinions at the North that must be respected. +There are sentiments and opinions at the South that must be respected; +but there are no differences that cannot be honorably adjusted. The +only practicable way that I can discover is to adopt the plan reported +by the committee, and secure its submission to the people.</p> + +<p>How can we do greater honor to this glorious day, which gave the +immortal <span class="smcap">Washington</span> to his country and to the world, than by marking +it on the calendar as the day that secured the safety and perpetuity +of the American Union?</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—The Committee on Credentials have examined the case of +Mr. <span class="smcap">J.C. Stone</span>, who is commissioned as a delegate from Kansas, and are +of opinion that he is duly accredited.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I understand that he was appointed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Beebe</span>, the +Secretary of the Territorial Government.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—There is a provision in the Kansas Act authorizing the +Secretary to perform all the duties of the Governor in his absence.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I represent an old and honored Commonwealth. I +speak, remembering the maxing that "a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">279</a></span> soft answer turneth away +wrath." But I should disregard my duty if I did not reply to what was +said a few days ago, in arraignment—in unfair and improper +arraignment, of Virginia.</p> + +<p>Virginia occupies no menacing position, no attitude of hostility +toward the Union or her sister States. Virginia knows that "eternal +vigilance is the price of liberty." She knows, too, that there is good +policy in the maxim, "in peace prepare for war." Her action is only +such as is dictated by a prudent foresight. How unkind, then, are such +taunts against Virginia, the mother of us all. She comes here in a +paternal spirit; she desires to preserve the Union; she disdains to +employ a menace; she knows that she never can secure the cooperation +of brave men by employing menaces. No! She wishes to use all her +efforts to perpetuate the reign of peace.</p> + +<p>Another says we are seeking to secure an amendment of the Constitution +by the employment of unconstitutional means, and that this meeting is +a revolutionary mob—that these eminent men of the country assembled +here, constitute a mob. No, sir! No!</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—If the gentleman from Virginia refers to me, he quite +misunderstood me. I said only that the action proposed here was not +contemplated by the Constitution, and was revolutionary in its +tendency.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I cannot for my life so consider it. This is +merely an advisory body. We are here to devise an adjustment, and to +lay it before Congress. We are exercising the right of petition, and +that is a sacred right. Is this revolutionary? No, sir! You would +insist that Congress should <i>receive</i> a petition, although that body +had no right to act upon it. If so, how much more should our petition +be received, when we seek to preserve the Union, and when the +Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to act in such a case.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Vermont said last evening, that a pledge from the +South to abide by the result would be a condition precedent to the +submission of the proposition at all, and yet he says he cannot pledge +Vermont. Why, then, does he ask us to pledge Virginia?</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I am not willing to be misunderstood. I thought my +language was plain. What I said was, that no one<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">280</a></span> could pledge the +free States for or against these propositions; but I did say we could +pledge them <i>to abide by the Union, whatever</i> the result might be. +<i>That</i> is the pledge we ask from the South.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—Well, that is a pledge we have no authority to +give. We cannot accept these propositions as a boon from any section. +We must have them as a right, or not at all.</p> + +<p>But let me address myself at once to the momentous question. It seems +that we can agree upon every thing but this question of slavery in the +Territories. So far as that subject is concerned, Virginia has +declared that she will accept the Crittenden resolutions. She and her +southern sisters will stand upon and abide by them. If gentlemen will +come up to this basis of adjustment with manly firmness, the electric +wires will flash a thrill of joy to the hearts of the people this very +hour. Why not come up to it like men?</p> + +<p>The Supreme Court has already established the rights of the South, so +far as this question is concerned, upon a basis which is satisfactory. +Under the Dred Scott decision, the people of the South have the right +to go into any portion of the Territory with their slaves. You, +gentlemen of the North, will not abide by that decision. You have +declared in your platform that it is a miserable dogma. How can we be +satisfied with such a guarantee for our rights as that?</p> + +<p>But it is said that this part of the Dred Scott decision is only an +<i>obiter dictum</i>; that the question was not presented by the record. +This is not so. As was said by Governor <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>, the other day, +there were two questions in that case. The judgment of the court was +upon them both, and both were presented by the record.</p> + +<p>We know that the dominant party has elected a President on a purely +sectional issue, and in deadly hostility to our institutions. We +believe, from all the indications of the times, that our institutions +are utterly insecure. Therefore we ask these guarantees. Give them to +us, and from that time you will restore peace and quiet to the +country. You at once attach the Border States firmly to you forever. I +hope you will do so; but I tell you that the Border States cannot be +retained unless you will consent to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">281</a></span> give such guarantees as will +bring back the seceded States, and unite us all in a glorious +confederation.</p> + +<p>Sentiments have been uttered here that grate harshly on the minds of +Southern gentlemen. It is said that this is a war of ideas. If so, +then there is certainly that irrepressible conflict about which we +have heard so much. But it is not true that slaves exclude free labor. +Come to the harvest homes of Western Virginia. There you will see the +union of white and black labor—see the two races working harmoniously +together. The mechanics are white, the field hands are black. Those +only make such assertions who know nothing about it.</p> + +<p>You insist at the North that slavery is a sin. If it is as you claim +it to be, a sin, the sum of all villanies, then we may as well +separate. We cannot live together longer.</p> + +<p>If we cannot have the aid of other sections, the Border States must +take the subject into their own hands, and settle it for themselves. +These States, with one exception, have shown a most excellent spirit. +Let them all come up to the work to-day; on this natal day of +<span class="smcap">Washington</span>, of whom it was said that nature had denied him children, +in order that he might be indeed the Father of his Country. New Jersey +has most nobly responded, through her distinguished sons, but +especially through the voice of that eloquent man, who swept with a +master hand the chords of the human heart, in his remarks here, and +tones of heavenly music responded to the touch.</p> + +<p>The whole nation stands on tiptoe awaiting the final result of the +action of this Conference. All sections are ready to make sacrifices, +but sacrifices are not required. Let us act, and then go home. A +grateful people will bind the wreath of victory around your brows, for +"Peace hath her victories not less than War."</p> + +<p>We make no appeal to the sympathies of gentlemen. We ask you to do +justice, simple justice to the South. Do it, and you will do honor to +yourselves. Give us the guarantees we ask, and my word for it, you +will see the seceded States coming back one by one, and we shall see +ourselves once more a happy and a united people!</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—It is not my purpose to enter upon the wide field that +has been opened in this debate. I did not intend to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">282</a></span> speak at all. I +know well the position I occupy before the country. I am regarded by +those who do not know me as an extreme man. I am, if I know myself, a +man of moderation, and, I trust, of firmness. I make these remarks +because the time has come when I must separate from my delegation. I +concede every thing to their patriotism, good intentions, and +integrity. But I must separate from them in the votes they are about +to give.</p> + +<p>We are called here to consider the condition of the country. It is +said that condition requires our interference—that such interference +is necessary. The country has just passed through one of those +conflicts which are incidental to our form of Government. It has borne +the trial, and I think it is safe.</p> + +<p>Those who insist that certain things shall be done, place us in a +delicate position. You say that you do not object to the inauguration +of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>, but you refuse to permit his principles to be carried +into effect. We say that we have not merely elected Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>, but +we have decided the principles upon which his administration shall be +conducted. You refuse to permit this, and say that you will leave us +and revolutionize, unless we consent to a counter resolution.</p> + +<p>The contest in which we are now engaged is not a new one. It is of +twelve or fifteen years' standing. It assumed new proportions when we +acquired Texas. Texas, under the laws of Mexico, was then free. We +insisted that slavery should not be recognized there. You claimed that +it should—that slavery should go into all the common Territories of +the Union. You succeeded. You procured what you claim is a decision of +the court in your favor. But the people would not give the question +up. The issue was formed—Slavery or Freedom; and on that issue we +went into the late election. It was well understood in all its +bearings. It was discussed and argued upon both sides and all sides, +and the people determined the question against the South. In my +section of the country there was no change. In all the excitement of a +Presidential contest, I do not know of twenty votes that were changed. +The opinions of the people were formed before; now they have declared +them.</p> + +<p>My first allegiance is to the principles of truth and justice. +Convince me that your propositions are right, that they are just<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">283</a></span> and +true, and I will accept them. I will sustain them to the end. If they +are wrong—and I now believe them to be—I will never sustain them, +and I will show my faith in GOD by leaving the consequences with Him.</p> + +<p>Any substantial change in the fundamental principles of government is +revolutionary. Yours may be a peaceable one, but it is still a +revolution. The seceded States are in armed revolution. You are in +direct alliance with them. You say the Government shall not retake the +forts, collect the revenue, and you ask us to aid you in preventing +the Government from doing its duty.</p> + +<p>Permit this, and the judgment of the world will be that we have +submitted to the inauguration of your principles as the principles of +the Government. It would exhibit a weakness from which the country +could never hope to recover. These are reasons satisfactory enough to +me. I cannot vote for the first article.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Do you wish to get the seceded States back?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Certainly I do.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—How do you propose to do it?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I cannot say that I have any special way. It is their +duty to return. There are better methods of coercing them than to +march our army on to their soil. Now I understand it is your purpose +to intrench slavery behind the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—Certainly. That is true—in a certain portion of the +Territories.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I thought I was not mistaken. The Government has long +been administered in the interest of slavery. The fixed determination +of the North is, that this shall be no longer.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—Will the gentleman hazard the assertion that such has +been the policy of Tennessee, Maryland, or Delaware?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I did not intend to say more than that such has been the +general policy of the Government. Another objection to the proposed +amendment is its ambiguity. Its construction is doubtful, when it +should be plain. Don't let us differ<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">284</a></span> when we go home. If we do we +shall settle nothing. Some will claim that the first article does not +furnish a slave code. Others will claim that it does, and such I think +is a fact. I am also opposed to the second article. I do not think it +is right thus to bind posterity. I am opposed to the third article, +except the first clause. If you think there is really a purpose at the +North to interfere with slavery in the States, I am willing a +declaratory amendment should be adopted prohibiting such interference. +I like that of Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> much better. I can go for that with all my +heart.</p> + +<p>As to the foreign slave trade we ask nothing. The laws are well enough +as they are, if properly enforced. Besides, you make too much of it. +You will claim hereafter that this formed one part of the compromise. +It will amount to nothing.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—But the South wants the foreign slave trade +prohibited.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Do not the statutes prohibit it? Why not enforce them?</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—We had rather have the prohibition in the +Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I am opposed also to abrogating the power of Congress +over the District of Columbia. I hope to see slavery abolished in the +District.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania abide by the +decision in the Dred Scott case?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Certainly, so far as it decides what is in the record.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—You will not permit it to settle the principle?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I will not, any more than Virginia would accede to the +decision upon the Alien and Sedition Laws. I will be frank and go +farther. If the Court had undertaken to settle the principle, I would +do all I reasonably could to overthrow the decision.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—My voice has failed me to-day, and I do not know that I +can speak in audible tones, but I will try.</p> + +<p>I understand the gentleman who last addressed us to say, that there +are to be incorporated into the administration of the Government two +new principles: one is, that there shall be no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">285</a></span> slavery in the +territories; the other is, that the action of the Government shall be +on the side of freedom. And furthermore, that slavery is to be +regarded as a purely local institution, and that slaves are not to be +regarded as property anywhere except in the slave States. Now, that +was just the way in which I interpreted the action of the North in the +last election, and it is precisely this view which has led to the +secession of the States. The gentleman well understands that a +different view of their rights under the Constitution prevails among +the Southern people. Will he also understand and recognize the fact, +that the Supreme Court has clearly given the sanction of its opinion +to the Southern construction?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Ought not the action of the Government under <span class="smcap">Washington</span> +to be a precedent of some weight in our favor?</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I cannot accede to that. Now the North has inaugurated +this policy. We of the South say it is a subversion of the +Constitution. The gentleman must as freely admit that the party just +coming into power must of necessity be a Northern party. It can have +no affiliation with any party at the South. Now I ask, can we, as a +matter of policy or justice, whose rights are so vitally involved, sit +by and see this done? Slavery is with us a democratic and a social +interest, a political institution, the grandest item of our +prosperity. Can we in safety or justice sit quietly by and allow the +North thus to array all the powers of the Government against us?</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the <span class="smcap">President</span> +announced that under the resolutions adopted by the +Conference, general debate must cease, and the Conference +would proceed to vote upon the report of the General +Committee, and various amendments proposed thereto.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I rise to a question of privilege. What was done by the +Conference with the credentials of the gentleman from Kansas?</p> + +<p>The SECRETARY:—The practice heretofore has been, to consider a +gentleman a member, when the Committee on Credentials report in his +favor.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—Then I move to reconsider the action of the Conference in +this case.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">286</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. PRICE:—I rise to a question of order. The committee have reported +in favor of Mr. <span class="smcap">Stone</span>, and that is conclusive.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the Conference has a right to pass upon the +credentials.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I have a serious objection to the admission of the +gentleman from Kansas. He holds the commission of the Secretary of the +Territory alone, from a man who has never been appointed Governor. It +is very irregular. It looks as though the gentleman was sent here only +for the purpose of giving the vote of Kansas to certain propositions.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—The delegate comes here with an appointment +under the seal of the State of Kansas. The act admitting Kansas +provides that all the territorial officers shall exercise jurisdiction +until others are elected. I think it is in very bad taste for the +gentleman from New York to question the regularity of the appointment.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I make a point of order. We have decided to proceed to +the vote at this time.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think this is a privileged question.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—I respectfully appeal from the decision of the +<span class="smcap">President</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—I move to lay the whole subject on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I ask for a vote by States.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—It is somewhat difficult to decide what motion has +precedence. What was the motion of the gentleman from New York?</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I moved a reconsideration of the action of the Convention +admitting Mr. <span class="smcap">Stone</span>. Let us have a vote on that motion. It is as good +a test as any.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—I insist that the question is upon my motion to lay the +whole subject on the table.</p> + +<p>The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, with the +following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and +Virginia—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, +New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont—9.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I would ask, as a matter of courtesy, not to say<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">287</a></span> of common +decency, that Mr. <span class="smcap">Stone</span> may be permitted to state how and why he came +here.</p> + +<p>Mr. STONE, of Kansas:—I understand that I was appointed by the +Secretary of Kansas, who was at the time the Acting Governor. I +understand that the appointment was made in accordance with the +Enabling Act of Kansas. I am not inclined to argue my right to a seat +in the Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I wish to ask the gentleman only one question. Was not +Governor <span class="smcap">Robinson</span> actually in possession of his office before the +delegate received his appointment, and is he not in such possession +now?</p> + +<p>Mr. STONE:—He was, and is.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALEXANDER:—I call for the reading of the fourth Rule.</p> + +<p>The fourth Rule was read by the Secretary, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">4th Rule.</span>—A member shall not speak oftener than twice, +without special leave, upon the same question; and not a +second time, before every other who has been silent shall +have been heard, if he chooses to speak upon the subject.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—In order to bring the subject fairly before the +Conference, I will put my motion in the form of a resolution, as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the credentials of Mr. <span class="smcap">Stone</span>, who desires +to act as a Commissioner from Kansas, be referred back to +the Committee on Credentials, with instructions to that +committee to report the facts concerning his appointment, +and whether it proceeded from the Territorial Secretary.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I wish the Committee on Credentials to stand right with +the Conference. We accepted the commission of the Acting Governor as +<i>prima facia</i> correct.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I wish to offer a resolution.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—All resolutions are out of order.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think resolutions under the ruling of the Conference +cannot now be considered.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I ask leave for the State of Iowa to vote on the motion +to lay the subject of the admission of the delegate from Kansas on the +table.</p> + +<p>The motion was granted, and Iowa being called, voted No; and the vote +stood: Ayes, 10; Noes, 10. And so the motion was lost.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">288</a></span></p> + +<p>Much discussion here ensued on the subject of the admission of the +delegate from Kansas, which was participated in by Messrs. <span class="smcap">Stockton</span>, +<span class="smcap">Cleveland</span>, <span class="smcap">Coalter</span>, and others, when</p> + +<p>Mr. STONE observed that he had no desire to force himself into the +Conference, and until the question was settled he thought it proper to +withdraw.</p> + +<p>The resolution offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> was adopted without a division.</p> + + +<h4>VOTE ON THE PROPOSITIONS AND AMENDMENTS.</h4> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration +of the report of the General Committee, and the amendments thereto. +The question will be taken on the adoption of the first section +reported by the Committee of One from each State, which the <span class="smcap">Secretary</span> +will now read.</p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">Secretary</span> read the report as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. In all the present territory of the United +States, not embraced within the limits of the Cherokee +treaty grant, north of a line from east to west on the +parallel of 36° 30´ north latitude, involuntary servitude, +except in punishment of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall +be under a territorial government; and in all the present +territory south of said line, the status of persons owing +service or labor as it now exists shall not be changed by +law while such territory shall be under a territorial +government; and neither Congress nor the territorial +government shall have power to hinder or prevent the taking +to said territory of persons held to labor or involuntary +service, within the United States, according to the laws or +usages of the State from which such persons may be taken, +nor to impair the rights arising out of said relations, +which shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal +Courts, according to the common law; and when any territory +north or south of said line, within such boundary as +Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population required +for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal +ratio of representation, it shall, if its form of Government +be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal +footing with the original States, with or without +involuntary service or labor, as the constitution of such +new State may provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United +States, unless by treaty; nor, except for naval and +commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be +ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment +thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to +regulate, abolish, or control, within any State or Territory +of the United States, the relation established or recognized +by the laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or +involuntary<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">289</a></span> service therein; nor to interfere with or +abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia, +without the consent of Maryland, and without the consent of +the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just +compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit +representatives and others from bringing with them to the +city of Washington, retaining and taking away, persons so +bound to labor; nor the power to interfere with or abolish +involuntary service in places under the exclusive +jurisdiction of the United States within those States and +Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor +the power to prohibit the removal or transportation, by +land, sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary +service in any State or Territory of the United States to +any other State or Territory thereof where it is established +or recognized by law or usage; and the right during +transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings, +and of landing in case of distress, shall exist. Nor shall +Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation +on persons bound to labor, than on land.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the +fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to +prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and +through the action of their judicial and ministerial +officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from +labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 5. The foreign slave trade, and the importation of +slaves into the United States and their Territories, from +places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever +prohibited.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together +with this section six of these amendments, and the third +paragraph of the second section of the first article of the +Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section +of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or +abolished without the consent of all the States.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United +States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive +from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other +officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was +prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from +mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such +fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby +prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for +the recovery of such fugitive.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope now the Conference will proceed in the regular +way, and that the majority report will be first perfected so far as +amendments are concerned, and that then it may be adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I move to amend the first section by inserting, after the +words "in all the present territory south of said line," the words +"including the Cherokee grant," and I call for a vote by States on the +adoption of the amendment I propose. My object is to carry out the +instruction of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">290</a></span> committee. A small part of the grant lies north of +the line. It is better to include the whole.</p> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I move to amend the amendment proposed by the gentleman +from Virginia, by substituting the word "excluding" for the word +"including," and on my motion ask a vote by States.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I think the gentleman does not understand the effect of +his amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I do not think we ought to regard the Cherokee grant at +all.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN:—I think both the amendments important.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—We must recognize the Cherokee Territory, and not divide +it. Upon mature reflection, I think the amendment is important.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken upon the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Backus</span>, and resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, +and Vermont—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—9.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question is now upon the amendment offered by the +gentleman from Virginia, as amended by the Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope the amendment will not be adopted. It is not +necessary to the sense of the article. It is cumulative in its effect. +We have expressly excluded the Cherokee grant, lest we might seem to +overrule the Cherokee treaty by a provision of the Constitution.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken by States, on the adoption of the amendment +proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>, as amended, with the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and +Vermont—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—10.</p></div> + +<p>Thus the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. PRATT:—I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Connecticut.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">291</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN:—I now offer as a substitute for the first section, as +reported, the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Strike out after the words "United States," in the first +line, and insert as follows:</p> + +<p>"Not embraced by the Cherokee treaty, north of the parallel +of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except +in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present +territory south of that line, the <i>status</i> of persons held +to service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; +nor shall any law be passed to hinder or prevent the taking +of such persons to said territory, nor to impair the rights +arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to +judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the +common law. When any territory north or south of said line, +within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall +contain a population equal to that required for a member of +Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, +be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the +original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as +the constitution of such State may provide."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—Let us first perfect the original. I move to amend by +inserting after the word "prevent," in the first section, the words +"or facilitate."</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I think we ought to perfect the section before we vote on a +substitute. I move to amend it by inserting after the word "line," +after the words "territory south of said line," the following words: +"involuntary servitude is recognized, and property in those of the +African race held to service or labor in any of the States of the +Union, when removed to such territory, shall be protected and"—</p> + +<p>I have not expressed my views at large upon the subject of the +committee's report. I have earnestly wished to settle the perplexing +questions which now distract the country. I do not rise to make a +speech. I have not come here to exact more than the North can +honorably grant, nor to deceive the North in the result, if the rights +of the South are not protected. Our property is involved in your +action. You can afford to be liberal. If you intend to recognize +property in slaves, write it down in the bond. If the North wants any +protection, name it, and we will put it into the bond. If you fear +that slavery may go north of the proposed line, we will give you any +assurance to the contrary. But I tell you that on the other side we +require reciprocal terms. Nothing else will satisfy the public +sentiment. Twelve months hence and we will not take what we now offer +to take.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">292</a></span></p> + +<p>What are we talking about? Every one knows that the African race is +better off at the South than it could be elsewhere. We do not wish to +disrupt the Union. You are doing it on a mere Northern abstraction. +Suppose a foreign power asked you what you were fighting about, what +would be your answer?</p> + +<p>But I was saying that the only way is for the North to be liberal; to +be reciprocal; to make us entirely safe. Our security must be put into +the bond and be faithfully preserved. The present <i>status</i> of the +States in the Union is deceptive. If I am to remain in the Union, it +don't suit me. If I am to go into a southern confederacy, it is just +what I should want. Beware, gentlemen of the North! You are cutting +yourselves off from future glory and expansion.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—The gentleman from North Carolina wants the distinct +recognition of slavery in the bond. I would like to refer him to the +condition of this question when the Constitution was adopted. The men +of that time would not assert such a position. They did not think it +proper or necessary. If we adopt his views we attempt to sit in +judgment on the men of that day. Mr. <span class="smcap">Calhoun</span> understood this matter +perfectly, and in one of his speeches refers to the unwillingness of +the Convention to recognize slavery specifically. The sentiment of +Iowa is that no such recognition ought to be made now. I am opposed to +the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I consider this an important amendment, and a very just +one. The principle upon which we are proceeding is that of partition. +We, with our property are prohibited from going north of the line. The +exact correlative of that would be, that you should be prohibited from +going south with your institutions. That we do not ask. On one side +involuntary servitude is prohibited. On the other we simply ask that +it may be recognized. We give up two-thirds of the territory +altogether. All we ask is protection in the remaining one-third.</p> + +<p>What is the meaning of this proposition as it now stands? Who does not +see that its meaning is ambiguous? It requires us to give up +territorial protection, and leaves us with nothing but the shred of a +right protected by the Federal courts. Once more let me tell you, that +in my opinion the South will never consider this a satisfactory +adjustment. You say we are protected<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">293</a></span> by the principles of the common +law. Who can tell what this will amount to? Assuming the territorial +government to be favorable, it could do nothing. You leave it +powerless. Suppose a citizen of Virginia emigrates to the territory +south of the line with his property. He would have no earthly right +except under the laws of Virginia. The power to enforce those laws is +a thousand miles away. If we are to make a partition, let it be a +partition. As the provision stands, it is the unfairest bargain ever +made. It is all on the side of the North. In common fairness and +honesty, I submit that the North ought to vote for this amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—There is much that is worthy of consideration in the +remarks of the gentleman from Virginia. I hope earnestly that we shall +not adopt a proposal of amendment that admits of two interpretations. +If I could vote for the report of the majority at all, I would throw +around it all the protection it needs. This is a new and peculiar +species of property which we are now making the Constitution recognize +and protect. If the South is entitled to the proposition itself, I +think they are entitled to this amendment. After all, it is only +making the amendment express just what we know its friends claim it +implies.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I would have preferred the direct recognition by express +terms of slavery south of the line proposed, and I voted that way in +the committee. I suppose, however, that the clause as it stands +recognizes the <i>status</i> there, as it now exists—that it prevents all +interference with the <i>status</i>. Would you prefer to put into the +proposition certain express terms which would destroy all chance of +its adoption by the people? I do not think the world is governed by +ideas alone. It is governed by ideas and material interests. The +Constitution of 1787 secured the interests of the slaveholder in the +States. This clause does the same in the Territories. No man can be +cheated by it unless he cheats himself. Gentlemen favoring the +amendment must know that at least it will not improve the prospects of +the proposition with the people. Do you wish to break up the +Conference? This is an effectual way of doing it.</p> + +<p>We ask for this proposition substantially as it stands. The North can +give it to us if it chooses. If it will not, then we shall go home and +tell our constituents. They must decide for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">294</a></span> themselves what they will +do. This will settle the Territorial question effectually. What more +do we want? The additional guarantees? These are provided for in the +other clauses.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I call for a vote by States on Mr. <span class="smcap">Reid's</span> amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I shall vote for the amendment of my colleague. I have +occupied no time in the general debate, but now I do desire to say a +few words about this amendment, and the proposition to which it is +offered. The amendment brings up the very <i>gist</i> of the matter. +Differences of opinion exist as to the effect of the clause. The +amendment settles them. This is no place to talk about devotion to the +Union. To be a Union at all it must be one that recognizes and +protects the rights of all. Any other Union is not worth the name; is +not worth preserving. We came here, it is true, to save the Union. We +came here to devise the means of saving it. Practically the Union is +already dissolved. If not dissolved it is disintegrated.</p> + +<p>We ask first, additional guarantees for our rights—for Southern +rights. They must be such as will satisfy our people, and bring back +the States that have left the Union. Short of this they will amount to +nothing. I know the public opinion of the South on these important +questions. I have closely watched its growth. My own convictions as to +what it will require are decided. Unless you use language and adopt +terms in your proposals of amendment which will satisfy the seceded +States—which will induce them to return to the Union—your labors +will have been in vain.</p> + +<p>What is our claim? It is this, in short: We claim that every Southern +man has the right to go into the Territories with his property, +wherever these Territories may be. The Territories belong to both; to +the South as well as to the North. We want equality. We have no wish +to propagate slavery, but every man at the South does wish to insist +upon his right to enter the Territories upon terms of perfect equality +with the North, if he chooses to do so. He may not exercise the right, +but he will not give it up.</p> + +<p>We want a division of the Territories. We want to set up landmarks so +that neither we nor our posterity shall dispute hereafter about the +line.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">295</a></span></p> + +<p>North Carolina has instructed us to say to this Conference, that if +the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment can be adopted here, we can carry it almost +with unanimity. There will be a struggle even with our own people, but +we can induce them to adopt it.</p> + +<p>We have three hundred miles of border in common with South Carolina. +Our trade and our associations are in that direction. It is useless to +deny that South Carolina has sympathizers among us in her recent +movement. You must consider these things, and give us a chance. We +must base our argument on principle; we must stand upon terms of +perfect equality.</p> + +<p>The proposition needs this amendment. As it stands it is ambiguous. It +is worse than that, for its construction will depend on the opinion of +a Territorial Judge.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I come from a State that is deeply interested in the +subject of slavery. Nevertheless, I shall vote against the amendment +of the gentleman from North Carolina.</p> + +<p>I belong to that class of politicians which believes that the people +of every section of the Union have a right to go into all the +Territories of the Union, and take with them their property and hold +it in safety. But we ought not, in our proposals of amendment to the +Constitution, to insist upon what will be repulsive to any section of +the Union. I think the amendment is unnecessary—that the right we +claim is sufficiently protected without it. As it stands, neither +Congress nor the Territorial Government has the right to impair the +<i>status</i> of the slave. What farther protection do we need? What other +can we have? Why should we insist upon the adoption of a new style of +language? We ought not to be unreasonable; we ought to content +ourselves with the proposition as it stands, and not put expressions +into it which will make the whole repulsive to a large section of the +country, and which, in all probability, will defeat the whole +amendment when it comes before the country. I am not even sure that we +could get it there. I doubt whether it would pass Congress.</p> + +<p>This is a very serious and important question. We wish to stay the +hands of extremists on both sides. We wish to stand by the Union. If +war comes, our soil is to be the battle ground. I wish to avoid war. I +will insist upon this, and I will consent to no extreme opinions.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">296</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I do not see why Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> cannot accept the proposed +amendment. He and the gentleman from North Carolina are both aiming at +the same thing. The amendment is certainly the clearest. Do you +suppose the people are not going to understand the subject thoroughly? +Do you suppose that they will be deceived by any such transparent +disguise of words? You do not pay them a very high compliment by such +a supposition.</p> + +<p>I must vote against the amendment, because I am opposed to the +<i>principle</i> of protecting slavery in the Territories. Such is the +sentiment of the North. If it was not, I should vote for the +amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—As I intend to vote against the amendment, +it is due to the Convention that I should state the reasons for my +vote. I am in favor of a clear recognition of all the rights of the +South, especially of our rights in the Territories. I voted for the +<span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment in the committee. I thought the North ought, in +justice to us, to adopt that amendment. We, in this Conference, have +selected a Committee of One from each State—a committee of able men, +and we have placed this subject in their charge. They have consulted +together. They have ascertained the views and feeling of the different +sections of the country; they have embodied the result of their labors +in this report. The question now presented appears to my mind to be +this: After all the time and ability they have given to their report +in the present distracted and perilous condition of the country, shall +I consent to put words into the amendment of the Constitution which +they recommend, that will ensure its defeat when it comes before the +people?</p> + +<p>I know as certainly as that <span class="smcap">God</span> rules in heaven, that unless we come +to some satisfactory adjustment in this Conference, a convulsion will +ensue such as the world has never seen.</p> + +<p>I have been travelling for nearly two months in the seceded States. I +believe I understand the temper of their people. I have found there an +all-pervading dissatisfaction with the existing state of things, but I +have also found great devotion to the Union. I think we can yet save +the seceded States. But at least let us save Texas and Arkansas. As it +is, black ruin sits nursing the earthquake which threatens to level +this Govern<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">297</a></span>ment to its foundations. Can you not feel it, while there +is yet time to prepare for the shock? If this giant frenzy of disunion +raises its crested head—if red battle stamps his foot, the North will +feel the shock as severely as the South.</p> + +<p>Such is the prospect before us, and near to us, and yet gentlemen say +that they will not give <i>one</i> guarantee to avert such dire calamities. +Will not the gentleman from New York do one thing to save that Ship of +State of which he spoke so eloquently, when she is already among the +breakers, and driving so rapidly toward that rocky shore against which +her ribs of steel cannot long protect her? We are patriots all—we are +bound to act together—to do something—to do our duty, and our whole +duty—to do what will ultimately preserve the Union.</p> + +<p>Mr. PALMER:—A few days ago the Conference listened to a deliberate +defence of the institution of slavery by its friends from the slave +States, in which at least one gentleman from a free State (Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span>) +participated. That defence could have had but one object. That object +was to place us who do not believe in slavery in such a position that +we could not agree to a compromise without endorsing the views then +expressed. Gentlemen expect us to give up our opinions and concur with +them. I have but one remark to make to all such suggestions. We +entertain our opinions on the subject of slavery; we cannot, we will +not surrender them.</p> + +<p>We are told that this contest must cease, or the Union must perish. I +am inclined to think so myself. We stand ready to make any reasonable +compromise to save the Union, short of sacrificing our opinions. You, +gentlemen of the South, cannot be satisfied unless our capitulation is +complete.</p> + +<p>I do not assent to much that is said here about the Border States. If +the Union is not dissolved until the Border States go to fighting each +other, it will last forever.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—If we all mean the same thing, let us put it into the bond. +Then there will be no room for misunderstanding or controversy. If you +leave this article open to construction, nothing will be settled. The +gentleman is mistaken if he supposes that I wish him to adopt my +arguments. I do not. If this provision, as it stands, protects slavery +in the Territories south of 36° and 30´, why not say so in express +terms? I ques<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">298</a></span>tion whether the article, as reported, recognizes +property in slaves at all. I wish to settle the question now and +forever. I do not wish to have my purpose perverted. I wish to carry +home to North Carolina a reasonable story. We have given up all our +rights in the territory north of the line. Let the North be +reciprocal. What shall I tell my people at home? That I have given +away their rights in more than one-half the territory, and have not +even secured a provision protecting property in slaves in the +remainder?</p> + +<p>The vote, on the request of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chittenden</span>, was taken by States, and +resulted as follows:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, +Illinois, and Iowa—17.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—Tennessee approves the sentiment of the amendment, +but she thinks the requisite security is already given.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Butler</span> and <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, of Kentucky, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Dent</span>, of Maryland, asked +to have their dissent recorded from the votes of their respective +States.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I wish to make a suggestion in relation to Mr. +<span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> substitute. I think it is not in order. The Conference has +already determined to perfect the committee's report, before +substitutes are to be considered.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—I now move to amend Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> substitute, by +striking out all after the word "prohibit," in the third line, down to +and including the words "common law," and inserting instead thereof +the words, "but this restriction shall not apply to territory south of +said line."</p> + +<p>My proposition is offered in good faith, and to show that Iowa is +disposed to compromise. I do not say that this is as far as she will +go. I have inserted the very words used by our fathers. They +prohibited slavery north and tolerated it south of the line. This was +the original proposition of Virginia. If there is any thing in its +ethics, they are Virginia ethics. Slavery now exists in these +Territories. Let it be there. There is slavery in Kansas, Utah, and +Nebraska. We cannot help it. It appears<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">299</a></span> to me that the South ought to +accept this amendment. It recognizes the opinions of our fathers. This +was <span class="smcap">Jefferson's</span> idea when he drew the ordinance of 1787.</p> + +<p>The Constitution does recognize the relation of master and slave, in +my opinion. I do not like it, I confess. You in the South do not +regard your blacks as slaves in the absolute sense of the term. You +have a right in their services, not in their bodies. You recognize +them as <i>men</i> in various ways.</p> + +<p>Again I say, I do not offer this amendment to embarrass the action of +the Conference. It secures slavery south of 36° 30´.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—This amendment would not be satisfactory either to the +South or myself. In my judgment, it ought not to be adopted. We claim +the right under the Constitution as it is, to go into all the +Territories of the Union with our property. This right is confirmed to +us by the decision of the Supreme Court. There will be no compromise, +if we cannot go home to our people and tell them that you concede this +right south of 36° 30´. Otherwise, they would throw the propositions +in our faces. As it stands, the article gives you security, North. As +it would be when this amendment is adopted, it would give the South +law and litigation. We want peace. We cannot take this amendment.</p> + +<p>Pending the consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Curtis</span>, on +motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span>, the Conference adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow +morning.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">300</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="SIXTEENTH_DAY" id="SIXTEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">SIXTEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Saturday</span>, <i>February 23d, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order at ten o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, by President +<span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and its proceedings commenced with prayer from Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Butler</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal of yesterday, in part, was read. The Secretary stated that +he had not found time to complete it.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALEXANDER:—I move to rescind the resolution adopted yesterday +allowing ten minutes to a member proposing an amendment, and ten +minutes for the reply. I do not propose to discuss the motion. I think +all will agree upon the necessity of rescinding the resolution. This +will leave the five minutes' rule in full force.</p> + +<p>A vote by States was asked by several members.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I wish to call the attention of the Conference to this +subject for a moment. I hope the present rule will not be changed. The +debate up to yesterday was upon general questions. We have not yet +gone into detail. We tried the operation of the ten minutes' rule +yesterday. I am sure that it will not be claimed that any gentleman +abused it.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—We have scarcely discussed a question of detail connected +with an article in the committee's report.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALEXANDER:—I will withdraw my motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I tried to offer a resolution yesterday which I deemed +important. It was then ruled out of order. I am sure it is in order +now. It reads as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That whatever may be the ultimate determination +upon the amendment of the Federal Constitution, or other +propositions for adjustment approved by this Convention, we, +the members, do recommend our respective States and +constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">301</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I rise to a question of order. The report of the +committee and the amendments thereto, are the special order of +business. We ought not to permit collateral questions to be brought +in. We adjourned yesterday with the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span> +as a substitute for the first article of the committee's report before +us. To that Mr. <span class="smcap">Curtis</span>, of Iowa, had offered an amendment, which was +under discussion. Let us keep to our rules.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa is +in order now.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I hope the question will be taken upon my resolution at +the present time. All the questions we have been discussing are, in my +judgment, secondary to another which ought to be first decided. Is +this Conference true to the Union—true under all circumstances? If +so, I regard it as highly important that the Conference should give +some expression to that effect. Even if we should settle this great +contention about slavery to-day, other questions might afterward +arise. I am quite prepared to see a claim set up, to what is called +the right of peaceful secession. I would guard against all such +claims. The passage of this resolution would have a beneficial effect +upon the public mind. I think we still have a Government which can +protect itself and the nation. My constituents believe this +preliminary question quite as important as that of protecting slavery +in the Territories.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I move to lay the resolution introduced by the +gentleman from Iowa, on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. BUTLER:—I want the resolution read again.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—Let us all go on to the record. I ask a vote by States.</p> + +<p>The resolution was read, and the vote being taken by States, resulted +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, and Ohio—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa—9.</p></div> + +<p>So the motion to lay the resolution on the table prevailed.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration +of the order of the day. The question is upon the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">302</a></span> amendment offered +by the gentleman from Iowa, to the substitute for the first section of +the report of the committee, offered by the gentleman from +Pennsylvania.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I came into this Conference with the honest and single +purpose of healing the unfortunate differences which now distract the +country, having no sinister ends to answer. That purpose has hitherto +remained unchanged. To accomplish it, there is nothing I will not +sacrifice except principle and honor. I think the amendment of the +gentleman from Iowa is, in substance, just the same as Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> +substitute. In the one, a fact is implied; in the other, the same fact +is expressed. I understand that neither proposition can command the +support of those gentlemen in the Conference who favor a National +Convention. Neither can the amendment command the approval of the +border slave States. Certainly not all, if it can any of them. The +adoption, then, of this amendment, will operate as a defeat of the +first section of the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Neither +party in this Conference will accept it. While, therefore, I believe +it ought to be accepted—while I believe it amounts to nearly the same +as the original proposition, I will not peril the Union upon a mere +question of form.</p> + +<p>I did not come here to inquire into causes. Our differences exist, and +I do not think they were occasioned by the success of the Republican +party in the last Presidential election. The plotters against the +Union have seized upon the occasion to accomplish their designs.</p> + +<p>By no fault of their own, several of the Border States are placed in a +very unfortunate position. They wish to remain in the Union, but their +people insist that certain of their rights shall be previously +secured; in other words, guaranteed.</p> + +<p>It is my firm belief that if the inauguration of President <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> was +over, if his administration had been for a few months in operation, we +should all be at peace. Now, we must act upon the facts as they are +presented to us.</p> + +<p>I must vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa in order +to give the original proposition a fair chance. I wish to have it +distinctly understood that this is the reason why I cast my vote +against his amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—I do not rise to debate the question at length,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">303</a></span> now +before the Conference. I think that this amendment brings us at once +to the true issue which the case presents. We have hitherto been +talking about abstractions. Now we come directly to the point. As this +is a Conference to settle disputed questions, the sooner we come to +the true points in issue, the better.</p> + +<p>What is the cause of our present differences? It is not found in any +action of the North. No Northern State proposes to disrupt the Union +or to threaten its stability. But certain of the Southern slave States +come here and say to us that certain alleged rights of theirs must be +secured, or they cannot induce their people to consent to remain in +the Union.</p> + +<p>I have heard a great deal said in this Conference about civil war. +Now, civil war is not a pleasant subject to consider; but, gentlemen, +I pray you to remember that the North proposes no civil war. She +declines to consider the subject at all, now. If civil war is brought +upon the country, it will be your work, not ours. The North will do +all she can to stay your hands—to prevent you from plunging the +country into civil war. She will not enter upon it until you force her +to do so. When you begin it, and force her into war in order to defend +the Government and the Union, I have no doubt she will enter the field +and carry on civil war until the Union is restored and its enemies put +down. Let me ask you, gentlemen, who have so much to say about war, +whether you had not better leave that question where it is?</p> + +<p>It has been assumed, and very often stated here, that the present +Constitution gives the right to the Southern slave owner to take his +negroes into any of the Territories of the United States, and hold +them there as slaves. I think it would be well for you not to act so +entirely upon that assumption. A different view prevails quite +extensively at the North. It will be a long time before that view is +changed.</p> + +<p>Now, you gentlemen of the South propose to restore the Missouri +Compromise line. To induce us to adopt it, you say that the territory +south of it is a barren, worthless desert—that slavery can never +obtain a substantial foothold there. Why, then, do you make the +subject one of so much importance? Why do you risk all the calamities +of civil war and a disruption of the Union for such a poor reward? We +should distrust all your statements, we should disbelieve all your +professions of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">304</a></span> patriotism, if we could for a moment credit the +assertion that you would break up the Union on such a worthless +pretext.</p> + +<p>You ring the changes in our ears upon the decision of the Supreme +Court in your favor. Let me tell you plainly that there is no section +of the Union in which the decisions of that court have been so fully +and fairly respected and observed as in the free States of the North. +With that you should be satisfied.</p> + +<p>You are in trouble; that is evident. Your troubles have been caused by +the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. That, again, was your work, not +ours. We opposed the repeal to the end. You had the power and you +carried it. Now the North is indifferent about the restoration of that +compromise; but if that will satisfy you, restore the <i>status quo</i>, +and the North will stand by you. But you must not expect now, that the +North will do any thing better for you than to extend the provisions +of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean.</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—The gentleman from New York who has last addressed +the Conference, appeals to us to accept the amendment now proposed, +upon the grounds of justice and equity. What is the present state of +the case? We claim the right to go into all the Territories with our +southern property. The Supreme Court has confirmed this right to us. +With this advantage in our favor, we have met here to compromise. What +is the proposition now? It is to give the North all the territory +north of 36° 30´, and to leave all questions concerning the territory +south of that line without any adjustment at all! That gentleman +favors no compromise at all. He proposes that we should go home +without any adjustment. Shall we go back to our excited people and say +this: "The North will make no adjustment with you"? Is this the way to +settle the important questions that now distract the country?</p> + +<p>We have not come here for war; we have come here for peace. We have +come to settle all the questions between us upon a fair and equitable +basis. How are we met? Gentlemen from the North say they will give us +nothing. All we ask is right and justice—that right which the +Constitution and the Court has given us in <i>all</i> the territory, +<i>secured in one-third of it</i>. With that we will be content.</p> + +<p>Some gentlemen object to the phraseology of the article.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">305</a></span> Let them +have all that their own way. They stop here to quarrel about words? +Settle those as you like, but we ask all the friends of the Union to +stand by, and reject all amendments which affect the substance of the +article. Such a course will end all contention.</p> + +<p>We read in Sacred History that the Israelites were once so +conscientious that they would not fight on Sunday. They were attacked +and overthrown. They finally agreed to compromise the question of +conscience so far as to fight in self-defence on Sunday. They were +attacked then, and the enemy was overthrown.</p> + +<p>The report is not such as we could wish it might be, but, such as it +is, we will accept it and stand by it. We will adopt it, and we ask +the North to adopt it, in the true spirit of compromise.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I am under the necessity of believing that the gentleman +from Iowa is in earnest, in offering this amendment; but if I were to +present it, I should not expect any one to believe I was in earnest. +What is the compromise which this amendment proposes? It is, in +substance, that the North will take three-fourths of the Territory +under the Constitution, and the rest by force. If gentlemen entertain +such views, we might as well come to a direct vote at once, and see +whether any thing can be done.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from Iowa says this is the Missouri Compromise; but it +lacks much of it. Besides, circumstances have greatly changed since +1820, when the compromise was adopted. Now, seven States have left us +and gone out of the Union, and we are acting in view of that fact. +There is a contest between the North and the remaining Southern +States, and the latter have no better chance in that contest alone, +than Turkey had in the grasp of the rugged Russian Bear. The gentlemen +from these States do not threaten. All they say is, "If we cannot +agree longer together, let us go in peace. We will fight only in +self-defence."</p> + +<p>They ask us further, "If we stay with you, how do you intend to treat +us? As equals, or as inferiors?" If as inferiors, we cannot sustain +ourselves with our people, saying nothing of our own self-respect. I +acknowledge the force of these inquiries.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">306</a></span></p> + +<p>A civil revolution terminated at the last election. The power to wield +the Government came into the hands of the Republicans. The +circumstances suddenly change. Political power leaves the South. What +now shall we give them in place of that? Shall we leave these States +at our mercy? This is an earnest time. We should act as if the fate of +a great nation depended on our action. If we intend to say we will do +nothing, let us say so plainly, and not by indirection.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I thank GOD I hear a voice such as I +have just heard from <i>that</i> section of the country (Iowa)! I have been +a member of a recent Legislature of North Carolina, in which there was +a majority of secessionists. I have been jeered at in that body for +the opinions I have expressed, for I have told those gentlemen +repeatedly that if we could once get the ear of the North, the North +would do us justice. They pointed me to the raid of <span class="smcap">John Brown</span>—to the +meeting in Boston, where the gallows of <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> was carried with +solemn ceremonies into the Cradle of Liberty. They pointed me to the +man who presided over that meeting, since elevated to the high and +honorable position of Governor of Massachusetts. Notwithstanding all +this, I have replied that the masses of the northern people would deal +fairly by us. I have told these secessionists to their teeth that Mr. +<span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> was properly elected under the Constitution, and that he ought +to be inaugurated. Their reply was, "Kansas, and the <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> raid!"</p> + +<p>Now, I ask this Conference to look for one moment at the effect of the +amendment which is proposed. It withdraws all constitutional +protection from us north of 36° 30´. Adopt it, and what has +Massachusetts to do but to import her foreigners into the country +south, and take possession of it. New York will back her, and we shall +be swept from the face of the earth.</p> + +<p>If the gentleman from New York means to say that the nation can put +its foot on to the neck of the States and crush them into submission, +let him go into Virginia and join in another <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> raid. Virginia +will treat him as she did <span class="smcap">John Brown</span>. No! the gentleman has not +studied the motto of the Union. There is the <i>E pluribus</i> as well as +the <i>unum</i>. If the new President proposes to come down to the South +and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">307</a></span> conquer us, he will find that the whole temple shall fall. We can +be crushed, perhaps, but conquered, <i>never</i>!</p> + +<p>Mr. BRADFORD:—Maryland has, under the lead of her constitutional +Chief Magistrate, determined to preserve her position of neutrality, +and not by any action of hers to add to the prevailing excitement on +either side. She has done what she could to allay the existing +irritation, and will continue to pursue the same policy she has +hitherto adopted.</p> + +<p>Here is a large file of amendments. Almost every delegation has given +notice of an intention to offer one or more. If we begin to adopt +them, I feel sure that we shall destroy all hope of an ultimate +agreement.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, I desire to make an emphatic declaration to this +Conference. It is this: Give us the report as it came from the +committee, without substantial alteration, and there is no power on +earth that can draw the State of Maryland out of the Union! Maryland +has been called the heart of the Union. The day she leaves the Union, +that heart is broken! I am now inclined to set my face against all +amendments. I think that is the better course.</p> + +<p>In the populous section of the State where I reside, the universal cry +is, "For God's sake, settle these questions!" Why can we not settle +them? The committee inform us that the members of which it is +composed, were nearly unanimous upon all points except the territorial +question. Will reasonable men not yield a little to each other in +order to settle that?</p> + +<p>Then let us look calmly at the consequences which must follow our +disagreement. I will enter into no panegyric of the Union. To use an +often repeated expression, it needs none. It is enshrined in the +hearts of the people with all the glories of the past, with all the +glorious hopes of the future. It has given us a position in the front +rank of the nations. There is every prospect that it will make us in +the end the most powerful among the nations. Who can look unmoved upon +the spectacle of such a Union about to fall into fragments? What +sacrifice too great to avert such a ruin?</p> + +<p>We all understand, we all agree that we can save the Union by settling +this miserable question of slavery in the Territories. We should be +unworthy of ourselves and our trusts, if we set our<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">308</a></span> division upon +this question above the preservation of the Union. How can it be +possible that Union men, or even politicians, can hesitate as to which +path ought to be taken? One leads to ruin, the other to a haven of +safety.</p> + +<p>It will be a world-wonder hereafter, if we do not agree. The +people—the whole country, will stand aghast at the spectacle of folly +we present. I would not, for all the wealth and honors the nation +could bestow, be remembered hereafter as a man who stood between these +measures of pacification and the people who should finally decide upon +them. I would not have the priceless blessing of the Union put in +peril for a single hour, when its safety can be purchased at so small +a cost.</p> + +<p>Mr. HACKLEMAN:—The civilized world is amazed at the present condition +of one of the greatest Governments on the face of the earth. I +participate in that amazement myself. What is that condition? In a +time of profound peace, of great prosperity, with the Government +itself in the hands of southern men, State after State has dared to +attempt to sever its connection with the Union. Even Florida, which +has cost us so many millions, which ever since we had her has been a +constant slough of expenditure, says we cannot even have the national +property which happens to be within her territorial limits!</p> + +<p>I am not so strong a believer in the effect of legislative action as +many others. I have looked at the main points of our differences in +the light of history, and it is my belief that the laws of soil and +climate will settle this question of slavery in the Territories, much +more effectually than we can settle it by any legislative or +constitutional provisions.</p> + +<p>The Missouri Compromise once settled this Territorial question in a +manner satisfactory to the South. Through the influence of the South +it was repealed. Now the South desires to have its provisions +restored. As I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, it +exactly restores the <i>status quo</i>.</p> + +<p>We are told, farther, that the natural allies of the border slave +States have left them; that, reduced in numbers, they cannot maintain +their position against the North. This assumes that the North is +hostile to the South. I deny it. I say that my state is the natural +ally of Kentucky, a more powerful ally than she ever had South.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">309</a></span></p> + +<p>Parties are governed by certain natural laws. A party which adopts a +principle at war with the sentiments of the people may succeed for a +time by the force of party drill, but in the end it will go down. The +<span class="smcap">Calhoun</span> doctrine destroyed a party. Under the operation of the same +law the Democratic party has gone down. But you cannot destroy a party +before its time. The effort of Virginia now is to overthrow the +Republican party. The effort will not succeed. It is equivalent to an +attempt to overthrow the country.</p> + +<p>I am not frightened at this idea of giving guarantees. I do not think +them of much importance. I am willing to give such as are reasonable. +We hold to a certain extent to your doctrine of State sovereignty, and +would protect it.</p> + +<p>Our people North and South are too much alike in many respects. We are +all inclined to stand too much upon party abstractions. This is almost +the only reason why we cannot agree.</p> + +<p>We are told that some things stated here grate harshly upon the ears +of gentlemen from the South. The converse of this is equally true. I +can take a rebuke, I trust, in a good temper, but I do not like to be +stabbed in the house of my friends. I do not like to have doctrines +and opinions imputed to me and my party which are only entertained by +a little knot of fanatical abolitionists in the neighborhood of +Boston; a few men who will not vote under the present Constitution, +and who are led and controlled by <span class="smcap">Lloyd Garrison</span> and <span class="smcap">Wendell Phillips</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—I am strongly averse to the introduction of the subject +of party into the deliberations of the Conference. I did not intend to +allude to party at all; but since the subject has been referred to in +such impassioned terms, I feel that I must say a word about it.</p> + +<p>Many references have been made in this debate to the opinions of +<span class="smcap">Washington</span>. I wish his opinions were better observed and respected. I +refer to his appeal to his countrymen not to form parties with +reference to geographical lines, and asking them to frown indignantly +upon every attempt to form such parties.</p> + +<p>What <span class="smcap">Washington</span> foresaw, at length has come to pass. Parties have been +formed, and are now in existence, divided by geographical lines, +having no interests or opinions in common.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">310</a></span> But no such parties can +long exist without threatening the stability of the Government.</p> + +<p>So long as parties were national in their character; so long as they +excluded sectional interests from their platforms, their existence was +a benefit rather than an injury to the Union. Gradually they have all +drifted toward sectionalism, until now we find ourselves in a position +which taxes the ability and ingenuity of the ablest men to provide for +the existence even of our Government.</p> + +<p>Now, I see no chance of safety for us until we reëstablish political +parties upon their old bases, excluding all sectional considerations. +When this is accomplished, the country is safe. It can only be done by +settling this territorial question, and removing all inducement to the +formation of sectional parties.</p> + +<p>The election of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> was a fair election. It afforded no just +pretext for secession, much less for the formation of sectional +parties, or for creating sectional issues.</p> + +<p>The time has come when the advice, the counsels of <span class="smcap">Washington</span>, become +his most precious legacy to the country. Shall we not regard the +solemn admonitions of the Father of his Country?</p> + +<p>I would ask our friends from the North—for they are our friends and +not our enemies—whether they will not listen to these counsels of +<span class="smcap">Washington</span>? He was always ready, always willing to submit to just +compromises, when they were necessary to the peace and happiness of +his country. Will they not emulate his example now?</p> + +<p>Delaware does not feel any special interest in this question of +slavery in the Territories. She would have it settled in that way +which would promote the interests of the whole Union. Her present +impression is, that the report of the committee presents the most +practicable and equitable mode of adjustment. Long ago Delaware +favored the abolition of the slave trade. She has been consistent in +her course on that question ever since. It is not unlikely that she +may soon favor the abolition of slavery within her limits. Her +progress has been in that direction. When the present Constitution was +adopted, Delaware had fifteen thousand slaves. Now she has not more +than eighteen hundred.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">311</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I recognize the reason and propriety of the wishes of the +gentleman from Maryland, to try the proposition now before the +Conference upon its merits. I certainly do not desire to have time +taken up in unnecessary delay. I do not think much of these statements +about civil war. Nor is there any attempt here to defame or injure any +section. No member here has any such intention. We seem to be divided +into two parties. Both are willing to act; neither asks for delay. One +desires action through Congress, the other through the people, acting +in General Convention. We all have confidence in the people. What do +you see in this Conference? One-half of the Republicans here, are +ready to join hands with those who would invoke the action of +Congress, and carry their propositions through, to send them at once +to Congress. I am ready to carry your propositions directly to the +people.</p> + +<p>A word now to the Democrats in this Conference. You have always been +our superiors in political address and management. You expect in four +years to bring the Government back under your control. My strong bias +is in favor of a General Convention. That bias I got from the old +Democratic party. The first mention of such an idea I found in an +article in the "National Intelligencer"—a paper which certainly does +not advocate radical views. I am aware of the opposition which this +idea will meet with here, and yet I have heard many gentlemen from the +South say, that this idea carried out—the question fairly submitted +to the people, and decided by them, their decision would be +satisfactory. And would not many of the Southern slave States be +satisfied with a decision upon these questions by a General +Convention? Would not Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee be +willing to submit their interests to such a tribunal?</p> + +<p>Now, I wish to ask the members representing the Southern States in +this Conference, whether, when we offer you a General Convention, +fairly elected, which shall patiently hear and firmly decide all our +points of difference, you had not better accept it? I assure you, +gentlemen, in the most perfect good faith, that a convention is the +best alternative the North can now offer you. It is a fair and an +honorable alternative; and because it is so, the North will insist +that it ought to be satisfactory to you. If you refuse it, I ask you +whether, in the sight of GOD and Man, you<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">312</a></span> will not have stood between +the country and peace? We act in secret here, but in the end all our +actions will be exposed to the world. It will be seen that we were +ready to do justice to you, and to submit all your claims to the final +verdict of the people. Should you not at least wait for their +decision?</p> + +<p>Mr. DONIPHAN:—Will the gentleman support these proposals of amendment +in a convention of the people, and will he use his influence to elect +members of such a convention who will do the same? If the North will +give us such pledges as will secure that kind of action, perhaps we +will go for a General Convention. Without such a pledge, a General +Convention would be worse than useless.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I am glad I have obtained the floor for a few minutes. +I feel that it will be very painful for me to address the Conference, +on account of physical debility.</p> + +<p>But I came here with the single purpose of accomplishing the +settlement of one or two important questions. Permit me, once for all, +and for the last time, to tell the gentlemen from New Hampshire and +Connecticut, that they wholly misunderstand the import of the action +of the Legislature of Kentucky, and the views of the "Louisville +Journal." I have said, before, that in view of the fact that Congress +could not settle our difficulties, the Legislature of Kentucky asked +for a National Convention, as our only hope of making an adjustment. +After this came the invitation of Virginia, like a bright beam of +hope. Virginia invited you all, New York, New Hampshire, and +Massachusetts, and the other States, to meet and consult for the +public safety. If you did not wish to secure our common safety, you +should not have accepted her invitation.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOUTWELL:—Then we are to understand that if we do not favor the +<span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions, we should not have come here at all.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I say nothing of the kind. But I insist that you +should tell us now, what the conclusion is to which you have arrived. +We want to know what you gentlemen, representing the Northern States, +intend to do. Give us your votes. We have had enough of discussion, +which amounts to nothing. If you will consent to no arrangement, let +us know it now. We have a duty to perform toward our own people.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">313</a></span> We +wish to relieve them from suspense, so that they may determine what +their future course shall be, in view of the fact that you will do +nothing for them.</p> + +<p>Mr. COOK:—If Illinois had understood that she was only to come here +for the purpose of agreeing to the propositions of Virginia as +announced in the resolutions which accompanied her invitation, the +Conference may be assured that Illinois would not have appeared here +at all. She understood that she was invited to a <i>Conference</i>, in +which all the States were to meet upon a basis of perfect equality. +The very resolutions of the Legislature of Illinois, under which we +received our appointments, assert that their adoption is not to be +regarded as an assent to the resolutions of Virginia.</p> + +<p>We think we are not passing the limits of propriety, when we insist +that we should be permitted to state the views and opinions of the +people of Illinois, on the questions which this Conference proposes to +decide. To state what we will and what we will not concede. There +seems to be an unwillingness to give us this permission. If the people +are now ready to give their sanction to the propositions contained in +the Virginia resolutions, they would send delegates here who would +accept these propositions without debate or discussion. They have not +yet done so. If they intended to limit our right of private judgment, +they have certainly not yet expressed any such intention. They +understand, and we have not forgotten, that there is a broad +distinction between the guaranty of old rights and the creation of new +ones.</p> + +<p>We now understand just what the South proposes. The question is +plainly and distinctly presented to us, whether we will assent to a +constitutional recognition of the right to hold slaves in a portion of +the Territories of the United States. It is not a question of +prohibition at all. We are required to assert the affirmative right of +holding slaves independent of State laws, and under the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen present us this question, and coolly tell us we want no more +discussion, no more arguments, no examination of our respective rights +under or outside the Constitution. We wish you to tell us at once +whether you will assent to our wishes or not. If you will not, then +comes some dark insinuations<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">314</a></span> about going home to their people, and +certain consequences are to follow, of the precise nature of which we +are not informed.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, when was the sanction of the American people ever secured +to an important proposition in such a way as this? If we are not to +exercise our judgment, and act according to its dictates, upon every +proposal of amendment here presented, then, for one, I care not how +soon our deliberations end. Until we better understand our relative +positions than we seem to at present, I do not see much use in +prolonging the discussion.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—Some concession must be expected from both sides, or we +cannot agree. As a Northern man, I feel it to be my duty to get these +propositions made as acceptable to the North as I can, and then to +ensure their submission to the people. Even then, we are not committed +to the support of these propositions, though I myself should feel so +to some extent. A single question is now presented to us. Shall we +accept these propositions when they are perfected as far as they can +be, or shall we submit to a dissolution of the Union? I am willing to +say that I will yield my personal opinions for the purpose of +concession, and I do not think I show myself an inferior man by doing +so. In all disputes, the firmest men are the first to yield. Let a man +be firm as a rock in battle, but conciliatory in council; especially +in such a council as this, where the lives of millions may be +concerned. There is a firmness which is but another name for +imprudence—for rashness. Take the case of a railroad collision. One +engineer may have the right of track; it may be the duty of all others +to recognize that right, and not interfere with his exercising it. +But, if another gets on to it, he who has the right would not be +justified, if, in its exercise, he ran blindly on, and produced a +collision, destroying the lives of his passengers, when he could have +avoided the collision. So it is here. We may be right—the North may +be right; but we should not hazard the existence of the Union by a +determination to exercise that right at all events, when, by some +slight concessions, we could save the Union. Let us use our +judgments—let us act in view of the facts here presented, with that +prudence and discrimination which we apply to the ordinary affairs of +life, and all will yet be well.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">315</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. KING:—I have not spoken hitherto, and should not now say a word, +but for the remark of the gentleman from Kentucky. I come here as one +of the representatives of the State of New York. As such I am the +equal—the peer of any representative of any other State on this +floor. I do not intend to be lectured into or intimidated from doing +any thing which my judgment tells me I should not do, or should do.</p> + +<p>Speaking for New York, I say that she holds her allegiance to the +Constitution and the Government of the United States above and beyond +any other political duty or obligation. With this obligation always +before them, her representatives have come here to consult with you +upon the present condition of the country. I am as old as the +gentleman from Kentucky. I recognize no right in him to lecture me on +my political duties. I revere the Constitution of my country. I was +educated to love it, and my own father helped to make it. I cannot sit +still and hear such declarations as have been hourly repeated here for +the last few days.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Does the gentleman consider this a consolidated +Government or a confederation of States?</p> + +<p>Mr. KING:—I consider this a confederation of States under the +Constitution, and that in all that respects the General Government, +every good citizen owes an allegiance to it above and beyond that +which he owes to his State or to any other political authority. And +that statement comprises nearly all I wish to say. The State of New +York at all times, in peace or war, has been loyal to the +Constitution; and, although some of her representatives here may +undertake to make you think differently, she always will be. Yes! +loyal with all her strength and power! And as one of her +representatives, I shall yield nothing on her part to threats, +menaces, or intimidations. I believe the Constitution as it now stands +gives you guarantees enough—all you ought to have.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I ought not to permit this vote to be taken, without a +word of reply to the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina. The +impression would certainly be derived from his speech that Governor +<span class="smcap">Andrew</span>, of Massachusetts, approved of the <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> raid. This is not +true. There is not a particle of truth in the assertion. There is a +gentle<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">316</a></span>man here, who heard Governor <span class="smcap">Andrew</span> state publicly when he +first heard of that raid, that <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> must be crazy. It is true +that a meeting was held in Boston to raise funds to support the +poverty-stricken family of <span class="smcap">John Brown</span>. Governor <span class="smcap">Andrew</span>, I believe, +presided; and a single paragraph taken from some remarks he made on +that occasion, has been scattered broadcast over the country. In order +to understand what he did say, both the context and what followed it +are indispensable. Those were carefully suppressed. The opinions of +Governor <span class="smcap">Andrew</span> are well known. They are in sympathy with those of the +people of Massachusetts. Neither he nor they approved the <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> +invasion.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I call the gentleman to order. He is discussing a +subject which is strictly personal, having no connection with the +report of the committee, or the amendments offered to that report.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the remarks of the gentleman from +Massachusetts are not in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—Well, I cannot proceed in order. I only desired to +correct a misapprehension. I do not quite understand why these +misrepresentations should be made, and then objections interposed to +their correction.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOPPIN:—I rise, Mr. President, to address the Conference with +great reluctance. If there is a gentleman within the sound of my voice +whose heart is full of anxious solicitude for the safety of the +country, he will know how to sympathize with me. I do not represent a +State containing four millions of people, but one of the smallest in +the Union; and yet little Rhode Island has a heart which beats true to +the Union. It so happened that she was one of the last to accept the +Constitution; but when she did accept it—when she took upon herself +its obligations—she became faithful to it, and she has ever since +been true.</p> + +<p>I feel that my position is peculiar. I cannot judge of other men as +some gentlemen do. The North is full of men who do not concur in my +opinions upon the question of slavery. I know they are honest and +honorable men. I should do injustice to them and to myself, if I +believed them to be either corrupt or enemies of the Union and of good +government; and it is just the same in the South as in other sections. +Looking around me<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">317</a></span> upon these able and patriotic representatives, who +come here with full hearts and tell us of their position—of the +feelings of their people—of the anxiety and apprehension which is so +deeply felt among them, can I believe that these men are dishonest? +that they do not mean what they say? No, sir! Nobody can be so unjust +and unfair as that.</p> + +<p>I think of these questions which we are discussing earnestly and +continually. My heart is torn by conflicting emotions. I wish to +perform my duty toward all sections, and I do feel sure that something +must be done for our southern friends. They wish to remain in the +Union—they do not wish to be driven out; and they tell us in all +sincerity that something must be done to satisfy their people, or they +cannot keep them in the Union. I know that the questions presented +here are very embarrassing to the North, but we must decide them. We +must do the best we can, and the North will sustain us; our +constituents will approve our action.</p> + +<p>Rhode Island wishes to act fairly by all. She does not herself, need +any amendments to the Constitution; but if her sisters need them, she +will consider their necessities. Her delegation here acts unitedly, +and it's members are influenced by the same spirit. We have done all +we could to bring ourselves to a rational conclusion; and we feel, my +friends, as though this body ought never to separate until we come to +an agreement—until we come to some compromise which will be +satisfactory to all.</p> + +<p>I cannot now, in the short time that remains, go into a minute +examination of the various points presented. This has been done by +abler men. But I do feel that although the questions may be difficult, +there are none of them which, as sensible men, we cannot settle. Don't +let us forget our great mission and descend into personal abuse. Do +not let us forget our high duties. Let us perform them in a friendly +and a Christian spirit. Let us look at the facts as they are. Let us +not spend our time in trying to find out who struck the first blow, or +who is responsible. Let us all unite together in one great, final +effort to save the country and the Union.</p> + +<p>As matters now stand, we who represent Rhode Island can see no way +more desirable than to vote for and support the report of the +committee. And yet we do not insist upon that re<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">318</a></span>port. Show us any +thing better, and we will go for it. But we will do nothing to widen +the breach—we will do all we can to heal it. My friends, I say once +more, let us go to work earnestly, and do not let us separate and go +to our homes, until we can carry with us the glorious news that we +have healed up all dissensions and adopted a plan that will secure the +Union and make it perpetual.</p> + +<p>Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:—I understand that the proposition of the gentleman +from Iowa is to restore the Missouri Compromise. If so, does not his +proposition commend itself to the Conference as one that will command +the respect and support of the country? I have asked, many others have +asked, what is the cause of our present difficulties? The question +meets no direct reply—no definite answer. The repeal of the Missouri +Compromise is referred to, hinted at, as the principal cause. If an +answer were extorted, I think it would be, the repeal of that +Compromise.</p> + +<p>The history of the Missouri Compromise is so simple that we all +understand it. Southern men forced the measure upon the North. The few +northern men who voted for it were swept out of their political +existence at the election which followed its passage. Which section is +responsible for its repeal—the North or the South? You say its repeal +was moved by a northern man. Very true! But he was a northern man who +had adopted southern principles, and who sought to secure the favor of +the South by this act. Southern men supported his proposition and +carried it through Congress against the votes and the remonstrances of +the North.</p> + +<p>The South, then, established and destroyed the Missouri Compromise. +The South wishes to have its provisions restored. Why, then, are you +not satisfied to have it put into the Constitution, and so make it +permanent and perpetual, if the North will consent to it? Are the +circumstances of the South so much changed? If it was equitable in +1820, <i>à fortiori</i> it ought to be equitable in 1861. Territory has +been acquired since 1820, it is true, but it is all or nearly all, +south of the compromise line. Restore the Missouri Compromise and this +territory will be devoted to southern institutions. What territory has +been acquired since? Will gentlemen reply, "Oregon"? I insist that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">319</a></span> +Oregon was virtually acquired before. It only required the final +agreement upon a boundary line.</p> + +<p>If there is any proposition in which the North can concur—any that +will restore harmony between the North and the South—it is the +restoration of the Missouri Compromise. If any other is proposed less +favorable or just to the North, I do not believe the people will adopt +it.</p> + +<p>I am not insensible to the condition of the country. Neither are my +colleagues, nor the constituents they represent. But you must not +expect us here, in the worst emergency you can imagine, to forget or +throw away the rights of our people. If we consent to support this +amendment, it is as far as we can go. You ought not to ask us to go +farther.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I will only occupy one moment. Maryland has spoken in +language which satisfies me. As I understand him, I concur in what my +colleague has said.</p> + +<p>Now the nut is to be cracked. The majority report proposes to give up +three-fourths of our territory to the North absolutely, retaining the +little balance for the South. The amendment proposes to pick the +kernel out of the balance, and to leave the husks to us. To that we +shall agree when we are compelled to; not before.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—The Supreme Court has already decided, in +terms which are not ambiguous, that Congress has no right, under the +Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Now, our +brethren of the North propose to give us the Missouri Compromise. What +do they mean? Do they intend to give us a substantial right—one that +we can enforce and rely upon, or do they intend to keep it from us? +They are shrewd as well as honorable men. They know that the effect of +this amendment will be to leave the territory south of the line, +without the slightest acknowledgment or guaranty, just where it is at +the present time, so far as slavery is concerned.</p> + +<p>The construction placed upon the Missouri Compromise was, that the +prohibition of slavery north of the line which it established, implied +the right of holding slaves south of the line. At the time of its +adoption there was, in respect of this construction, no difference of +opinion: Such was the construction of Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">320</a></span></p> + +<p>Now you propose to leave it still for Congress to legislate as to the +territory south. You secure that north, by a prohibition in the +Constitution; you will get that south, by the action of Congress.</p> + +<p>The decision in the Dred Scott case may be reversed. It afforded no +permanent protection. One of your leaders (Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>) says he will +war against it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span>) denies the +force of the decision in this respect. Now, gentlemen, all we of the +South want, is to have this question settled. You know well that the +adoption of this amendment, so far from settling it, leaves it all +open; or rather it settles the question North, and leaves it open +South. The country is in danger—that all concede. Will you, because +you do not agree in opinion with the Supreme Court, refuse to join us +in one more effort to save the country?</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I have not unnecessarily occupied a moment of the time of +this Conference, and it is not now my intention to occupy the whole +ten minutes to which I am entitled. But I do wish to express some of +the opinions which I entertain upon the questions immediately under +our consideration. "Red Gauntlet" has been cited as an authority in +this body, but I think I might cite another of the same class which +would be more in point. It is the "Bleak House," by Charles Dickens, +in which the circumlocution office is so graphically described. It +would be decidedly more appropriate to our present action.</p> + +<p>Why have we come together? What brought us here? We have come to +devise the means of saving a distracted and bleeding country. What the +South asks you to do, is, to recognize the property which her citizens +possess; and when they take that property to the Territories, to +secure its protection there, or rather to protect it south of the line +of 36° 30´. Will you do it? Are you going to do it? If you intend to +recognize our property south of this line, write it down so plain that +my constituents can understand it—so that they will not be cheated. +If you intend to do nothing, let us know it at once. We will then know +what to expect, and how to advise our people.</p> + +<p>The question of slavery is but an incident to the great questions +which are at the bottom of our divisions. Such differences have +brought war after war upon Europe. It is,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">321</a></span> after all, the old question +of the balance of power between the different sections and different +interests. Who does not remember that in 1832 and 1833 the Tariff +brought up the same questions? Why did South Carolina then threaten to +nullify? Because nullification then, was one of the effects which the +disregard of the rights of a section caused.</p> + +<p>The South have always insisted upon terms of equality with the North. +To this equality no one can deny she is justly entitled. So long as +new States came in <i>pari passu</i>, North and South, she was satisfied. +When this equilibrium was disturbed, she began to insist upon +guarantees. Now, when you propose to put the point of equilibrium out +of sight altogether, the South insists upon these guarantees, as not +only necessary, but indispensable to her safety. This is right and +fair. The North would insist upon the same thing, under like +circumstances.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen from the North have complained here that we have not stated +exactly what would satisfy us. We have told you what we wanted over +and over again. We want the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions. We told you that, +when we first came here. We have now been here for nearly four weeks, +and the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment has never once been submitted to a vote. +Since our difficulties first assumed importance, there has never been +a measure of pacification suggested which has met with such a measure +of acceptance as the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions. State after State has +sent petitions to Congress asking for their adoption. Almost the +entire South, with Virginia, the Mother of States, in the advance, +tells you that these resolutions will be an acceptable measure of +pacification, and yet you will not give us a vote upon them; you will +scarcely consent to consider them. Even the committee, whose report is +so unsatisfactory to the North (and a portion of the South also), does +not appear to have given them much attention.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, in behalf of the South, I think I know what to say. If +our differences are to be settled at all, we must have our property in +our slaves in the Territories recognized; and when that property is +constitutionally recognized, it must be constitutionally protected. +Such, I know, are the sentiments of the people of Kentucky.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALLEN:—I wish to ask the attention of the Conference<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">322</a></span> for only +one moment to the true aspect of the question now before us. We are +asked if we will suffer the Union to be destroyed on account of the +Territory of New Mexico. Let me ask these gentlemen who it is that +proposes to break up and destroy the Union? It is the South—it is +<i>not</i> the North. But all that I pass by.</p> + +<p>If it were merely a question of who should have the beneficial +possession of our present unoccupied territory, we would give that up +at once to the South. But it is not a question of possession at all. +It is <i>the</i> question which shall control and give direction to the +policy of the country—the institutions of Slavery or the institutions +of Freedom! You ask for a provision in the Constitution which will +place that policy under the control of the institutions of slavery. +This we cannot grant you.</p> + +<p>We of the North stand where our fathers did, who resisted the Stamp +Act; who threw overboard the tea in Boston harbor. We have been taught +to resist the smallest beginnings of evil; that this is the true +policy. <i>Obsta principii</i> was the motto of our fathers. It is ours. +The debates of this Conference, and those of the Convention of 1787, +will stand in a strange contrast to each other.</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I now offer the minority report of the committee, with +the accompanying resolutions as an amendment to—</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman from Connecticut is not in order.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken by States, upon the amendment offered by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Curtis</span>, to the substitute proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, for the first +article of the section reported by the General Committee, with the +following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and +New York—6.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—12.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. CORNING:—I dissent from the vote of New York.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I wish to be recorded as voting Aye!</p> + +<p>Mr. DODGE:—I dissent; I am against the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. WOOD:—I wish my vote recorded in favor of the amendment.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">323</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. COOK:—And so do I.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I am the other way.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I dissent from the vote of New Hampshire.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—And I from that of New York.</p> + +<p>Mr. WOLCOTT:—I dissent from the vote of Ohio. I notice that my +colleague, Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, is not present at this moment.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I also dissent from the vote of New York. My associate, +<span class="smcap">Gen. Wool</span>, is confined to his room by a severe indisposition. For his +benefit, and as I know he feels a deep interest in these votes, and +desires to have his name appear upon the record, in his behalf I offer +the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, Whereas <span class="smcap">John E. Wool</span>, a delegate from New York, +is unable to attend the Convention, from sickness, therefore +that he be permitted, when he does attend, or by +communication in writing to the Secretary, to have his +dissent recorded, as to any vote of his State.</p></div> + +<p>This resolution was agreed to without a division.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question now will be upon the adoption of the +substitute proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>), +to the first section of the article reported by the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN:—Before that question is taken, I desire to accept +certain verbal amendments which have been proposed by various members, +which will, I think, improve the substitute which I offer. These +amendments are as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1st. In the fifth line, as printed, after the words "nor +shall any law be passed," insert the words "by Congress or +the Territorial Legislature."</p> + +<p>2d. In the sixth line, after the words "the taking of such +persons," insert "from any of the States of this Union."</p> + +<p>3d. In the eighth line, before the words "according to the +common law," insert the words "course of the."</p> + +<p>4th. In the seventh line, after the words "prevent the +taking of such persons," insert the words "from any State in +the Union."</p></div> + +<p>These amendments I adopt, and wish them to be treated as incorporated +into my substitute.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—Such will be assumed as the pleasure of the +Conference, as no objection is made.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am content, on the part of the committee, that the +substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania should be +adopted in the place of the first section of the arti<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">324</a></span>cle reported by +the committee. It amounts to the same thing, and is expressed in +shorter and better language.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I move to amend Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> substitute as +follows:<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> I think these words would be more acceptable to the people +of the Northern States.</p> + +<p>Mr. PALMER:—Does not the gentleman's amendment involve an +Hibernicism? I think if we are to adopt the report of the committee, +the <span class="smcap">Franklin</span> amendment admits of no improvement. It had better stand +as it is. If we undertake to change it we shall all get to sea.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I withdraw my proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—It was moved yesterday to insert the words, "or +facilitate" after the words "hinder or prevent," in that part of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> amendment which negatives the right to pass laws. What was +done with that?</p> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—Nothing. I moved it, and I insist upon the motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I submit to the Conference whether this amendment is +necessary or proper. Suppose some new question arises relating to +slavery which it may be greatly for the interest of the Territory to +protect. Suppose mines are discovered, and the Territory should want +slaves to work them. Shall we put it into the Constitution that no law +shall be passed to encourage their emigration?</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I see no need of it.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—The point generally comes out. Now you say that you will +have the right to go into the Territory with your slaves, and no law +shall be passed to prevent you, no matter how much such a law would +promote the material interests of the Territory. The converse of this +you will not agree to. You are not content to let slavery stand by +itself, you must have it nursed by the Territorial Legislatures. Does +slavery always require such partiality? I say the power of the +Legislature should be exercised on both sides, or it should not be +exercised at all. I am trying to perfect the article. If it is to +pass, and go to the people as a measure of pacification, and if you +expect them to adopt it, you must not have it so one-sided and unfair. +The peo<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">325</a></span>ple will understand it—it will be our duty to explain it to +them, and to give them its history.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—But your amendment would prohibit the passage of a law +permitting the transit of a slaveholder through the Territory with his +property. Remember, also, that the prohibition only continues so long +as the territorial condition exists.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—Before this vote is taken, I wish to call attention to the +character of the prohibition. "Nor shall any law be passed to hinder +or prevent the taking of such persons to said Territory, nor to impair +the rights arising from said relation," &c. Now, this is very broad. +Suppose a law giving the right of transit to the people of the free +States, or any law for their protection in the Territory, as +inhabitants, is held by the Territorial Judge to "impair the rights +arising from said relation." He holds it unconstitutional. Where is +the remedy? What views are entertained upon some of these points in +some sections of the South we know. If you do not adopt this amendment +it is quite in the power of the Legislature to exclude any person from +the Territory whose presence there may be thought injurious to +slavery. Did the committee intend this?</p> + +<p>The question upon the adoption of Mr. <span class="smcap">Fowler's</span> amendment resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and +Iowa—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and +Ohio—10.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, by inserting after the words "nor shall any law be passed," +the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature." I think this +is necessary to make our intention plain. Otherwise it might be said +that the prohibition did not apply to Congress.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN:—I think the suggestion a very proper one. I will accept +the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I only wish to understand where we are. Have we disposed +of the word "facilitate"?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—That amendment was not adopted.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">326</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Then I move to insert before the word "<i>status</i>," the +word "legal."</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—That raises again every question we have been discussing. +The word, as used in the substitute, only refers to the status <i>in +fact</i>.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—This brings up all our old troubles. Let us reject it.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I wish to understand this subject, and what will be the +effect of adopting this amendment. I understand that the slave has +what we call a <i>status</i>. The substitute of Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span> is intended +specifically to recognize and protect that <i>status</i> in the Territories +as fully as it is protected and recognized in the States. I think it +has that effect. Adopt the amendment, and the effect is precisely the +opposite. The amendment rescinds the <i>status</i>.</p> + +<p>Mr. PALMER:—I wish to make an inquiry of the mover. Does the +amendment, after all, make any difference? Must not any <i>status</i>, not +against law, be, of necessity, a <i>legal</i> status?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—No. I think there is a wide difference, and the South +thinks so. One is a status in fact, the other, one in law.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I hope we shall not adopt the amendment. We all want these +questions settled. The amendment opens them all wider than before. If +we intend to give the South the right she asks for, and, as I think, +rightfully asks for, let us give it to her in plain and unequivocal +language. Let us not give her a legacy of litigation, by using words +which mean one thing or the opposite, according to the construction +you place upon them. I wish to settle all these questions fairly. The +amendment leaves the question as to what constitutes a <i>legal status</i>, +to be decided by the Court. The North would claim that there cannot be +such a thing as a legal status, a legal condition of slavery. The +South would claim the opposite.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—If the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina had +been adopted, I would not have moved this. The section then would have +been unambiguous and clear. Now it is all open to construction.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—In my judgment it is unimportant whether the amendment is +adopted or not. The condition of the slave in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">327</a></span> the Southern States is +one arising out of law, established by legislative provisions. <i>Status +in fact</i> must mean <i>status in law</i> as well as <i>status in fact</i>.</p> + +<p>I have listened with attention to the appeals made by gentlemen who +urge the interests of the South in favor of a settlement of these +questions. But you are now prosecuting a plan which will be the +subject of debate throughout the country. Adopt your article in either +form, and the question, What does status mean? will still remain.</p> + +<p>A majority of the people have adopted the opinion that under the +Constitution slavery has not a legal existence in the Territories. The +triumph of this opinion is not the result of any sudden impulse. A +President has been elected, and a Government will soon be organized, +whose duty it will be to respect and observe the opinions of the +people. You are now seeking, by the adoption of a single section, to +change these opinions and this policy. Do not deceive yourselves, +gentlemen. You will never accomplish this result so easily. You are +presenting such a subject for debate and excitement as the country +never had before. It is best we deal frankly.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken upon the adoption of the amendment, and resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, and Ohio—11.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I move to insert in the substitute offered by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, after the words "south of that line," the words "not +embraced by the Cherokee treaty."</p> + +<p>A word of explanation. Do we intend to prohibit the Cherokee Nation +from changing the status of persons within their Territory, if they +think proper to do so? Would not this be a violation of our +understanding, if not of our treaty stipulations with these Indians?</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I have looked into this subject, and I do not think the +proposition would be improved by the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—Then I will withdraw it for the present.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">328</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope the vote on the main question will now be taken. +It is evident that the sense of the majority is against accepting +amendments.</p> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—That obliges me to renew my motion. I do renew it, and +ask for a vote by States.</p> + +<p>The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Goodrich</span> was taken, with +the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, +Illinois, and Iowa—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and +Missouri—9.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, +by inserting after the words "hinder or prevent," the words "or +encourage."</p> + +<p>I think there is a palpable difference between the word "encourage" +and the word "facilitate." The former is broader and less restricted. +If this measure is to be commended to the favor of the North, it +should be deprived of this one-sided character.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—We have already decided this question. In every +practical sense the words are synonymous.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Turner</span>, and +resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and +Iowa—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and +Ohio—10.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I ask the Conference now to let us have a vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Not just yet. I move to amend the substitute offered by +the gentleman from Pennsylvania, by the insertion after the clause +providing for the division of the territory, of the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"All appointments to office in the Territories lying north +of the line 36° 30´, as well before as after the +establishment of Territorial governments in and over the +same, or any part thereof, shall be made upon the +recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing, +at the time, the non-slave<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">329</a></span>holding States. And, in like +manner, all appointments to office in the Territories which +may lie south of said line of 36° 30´, shall be made upon +the recommendation of a majority of the Senators +representing, at the time, the slaveholding States. But +nothing in this article shall be construed to restrain the +President of the United States from removing, for actual +incompetency or misdemeanor in office, any person thus +appointed, and appointing a temporary agent, to be continued +in office until the majority of Senators as aforesaid may +present a new recommendation; or from filling any vacancy +which may occur during the recess of the Senate; such +appointment to continue <i>ad interim</i>. And to insure, on the +part of the Senators, the selection of the most trustworthy +agents, it is hereby directed that all the net proceeds +arising from the sales of the public lands, shall be +distributed annually among the several States, according to +the combined ratio of representation and taxation; but the +distribution aforesaid may be suspended by Congress, in case +of actual war with a foreign nation, or imminent peril +thereof."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I invite the careful and deliberate attention of the +Conference to the provisions of this amendment. It is commended by +high authority. It is commended by nothing inferior to the wisdom and +experience of our honored President. It is intended as a division of +the territory between the North and the South.</p> + +<p>Now, to insure a fair operation of the provisions of the Constitution, +as they will stand in that instrument when amended as we propose, we +deem it very essential that the rights of the southern section should +be secured by such an amendment as this. It will be noticed that Mr. +<span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> substitute precludes us from any appeal to Congress or the +Territorial Legislatures for affirmative protection. The powers of +those bodies will be negative only. We have nothing left, then, but +the Federal Courts. We ask now that we may not be subjected to the +government and power of Federal officers, whose opinions are against +us—who will exercise those powers for our oppression. Congress or the +President may send into a Territory in the southern section, a set of +officers who are anti-slavery propagandists, who will exercise all +their official powers to our injury. I hold this amendment to be +eminently just and fair. We have no protection from Congress; none +from the Legislature. Is there a chance, even, unless such a provision +is adopted, that the South will ever be placed in the favorable +possession or enjoyment of the rights you are willing to concede to +us?</p> + +<p>The latter portion of the amendment is equally just. The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">330</a></span> Government +holds the public lands in trust. It is better to divide their proceeds +at short intervals, and thus remove the subject from all danger of +corrupting influences. But I shall leave this to be discussed by the +mover.</p> + +<p>Mr. PALMER:—I move to rescind the ten-minute rule adopted by the +Conference, so far as the President is concerned.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Palmer</span> was agreed to without a division.</p> + +<p>President TYLER:—I am very grateful for the compliment which the +Conference extends to me in the vote which has just passed. I will not +abuse its kindness.</p> + +<p>The amendment which is offered may, at first sight, appear to be +extraordinary; but I wish to say, in all seriousness, that all my +experience in public life leads me to favor its adoption. I wish to +have the Conference understand fully its import and meaning.</p> + +<p>That policy is the best, which reduces within the narrowest limits the +patronage to be exercised by the Executive authority. Every party out +of power has discovered that in the patronage of the President there +is a voice of greater potency than is heard elsewhere in the +Government. This amendment places a limitation upon the power of the +President. It confers upon a majority of the Senators from each +section the power to recommend appointments to office, and this will +be found in practice equivalent to the power of appointment. It is the +only practicable limitation of Executive patronage. The power of the +Executive in this Government is very great. Limit it, abridge it as +you may, and the President will have a power in the Government which +is not possessed by any sovereign of any throne in Europe.</p> + +<p>This is not a political question. Our warrant for the adoption of this +plan will be found in the tranquillity it will give to the country—in +the peace which will result from it. We are now settling differences +between the States. Adopt this provision, and we secure unanimity +forever. You will always find that dissatisfaction is confined to +limited portions of the country. The North is content with the +existing state of things—so is three-fourths of the South. Remove +this power from the Executive, and those measures will be adopted +which will promote the welfare of the greater number. Do you not see +that you have in this way good security for the selection of the best +men?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">331</a></span></p> + +<p>Suppose the Government should start to day on this new policy—that it +should avoid all propagandism—should place honest, competent men, +only, in office—should let all others understand that there was no +chance for them—should permit both sides, all sides to be fairly +represented. You would ensure peace, secure quiet in the country +forever. You would thus heal the wound, not cicatrize it. How small +would be the cost of so great a victory!</p> + +<p>May I not go one step farther. I have heard with pleasure the feelings +expressed, the references made, to the Cotton States. I have scarcely +heard an unkind word said against them. We have come here to cement +the Union—to make that Union, of which gentlemen have so eloquently +spoken, permanent, noble, and glorious in the future as it has been in +the past—not to be content with it as a maimed and crippled Republic.</p> + +<p>Now, eight flourishing States are practically lost to us. The crest of +the noble Mexican Gulf has separated from us. Let us exert every power +we possess to bring them all back to the fold. Why should we not? +Every motive of interest or patriotism should induce us to do so. +Suppose the States were vacillating and in doubt where to go. Suppose +they were set up for sale in market <i>overt</i>, and the States of Europe +were to bid for them—for this, not only the richest portion of our +own country, but of the world—because this portion of our land has an +element of wealth and power which must be prized and valued wherever +commerce is known. What would not one of the Powers of Europe give for +this favored section? The treasures of the continent would be opened. +Nations would unlock the caskets of their crown jewels to secure it. +England would double her national debt to have it; so would France; so +would Russia. And yet we stand here higgling over these little +differences which alone have caused our separation. Is it not better +that we should rise to the level of the occasion, and meet the +requisition of the times, instead of expending precious hours in the +discussion of these miserable abstractions?</p> + +<p>We talk about the events of the Revolution and their consequences. +Have we forgotten our revolutionary history? Have we forgotten the +<span class="smcap">Marions</span>, the <span class="smcap">Sumters</span>, the <span class="smcap">Pickens</span>, of those<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">332</a></span> times? Has the spirit of +sacrifice which, animated those men wholly departed from their +descendants? God forbid!</p> + +<p>Our body politic is not free from disease. The disease should be +treated properly and judiciously. Whenever disease shows itself we +should apply a suitable remedy—one that is suggested by the pharmacy +of mutual brotherhood, and yet powerful enough to reach every nerve in +our political system.</p> + +<p>It is to accomplish this purpose that we have come together. It is to +secure this desirable result that I urge the adoption of this +amendment. I press it because I feel that it will give peace to all +sections. Adopt it, and from that moment you may date the beginning of +the return of the seceded States into the fold of the Union. How +heartily would we welcome their return! Do we not all desire it? Has +not Virginia a heart large enough to give them their old place in the +Union? Has not Rhode Island and New Jersey?</p> + +<p>I say my proposition will accomplish this, and a single reason will +disclose the ground of my faith. It preserves the equilibrium, the +balance of power, between the sections. It enables each section to +appoint its own officers, to protect its own interests, to regulate +its own concerns. It is fair and equal in its operations. With it, no +section can have any excuse for dissatisfaction. I pledge the united +support of the South to the Union, if it is adopted.</p> + +<p>The latter branch of the amendment looks to the annual distribution of +the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several +States. This was one of the favorite ideas of <span class="smcap">Henry Clay</span>. His argument +upon this subject, to my mind, was always conclusive. Will the party +which has adopted his principles repudiate this, or will its members +put their feet down firmly and give it their support?</p> + +<p>I have watched the operations of this Government with great interest +and care, and I have noticed that every approach toward making each +source of revenue or expenditure separate and independent of all +others, tended to the profit and advantage of the Government, and +increased the chances of securing honorable and honest agents to +transact its business. A marked instance of this will be found in the +administration of the affairs of the Post Office Department. And here +I cannot refrain from re<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">333</a></span>lating an anecdote which is strongly in +point, and which forms one of the pleasantest recollections of my own +connection with the administration of the General Government.</p> + +<p>Upon a certain occasion I called my cabinet together. Sad complaints +had been made concerning the administration of several of the +Departments, and the press had not failed to predict heavy losses to +the Government through the dishonesty and the defalcations of its +agents. I determined that I would know what the facts were, and I +directed all the departments to furnish me, by a certain day, with a +correct and accurate list of all their defaulting employés, and on the +same day I summoned my cabinet to consider these reports. The lists +came in from the several Departments, and I assure the Conference that +they were formidable enough to give ample occasion for anxiety. But +the list from the Department of the Post Office was not forthcoming. +My friend, Governor <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>, was at that time at the head of that +Department. The day of the cabinet meeting arrived. We were all +assembled but the Postmaster General. We waited for a long time for +him and for his report. At length he came, bringing his report with +him, but with the marks of great care and anxiety upon his brow. <i>He +had discovered a defalcation</i> in his Department. He had been occupied +for a long time in tracing it out, but he had at length succeeded. He +came to announce to the President that the postmaster of a certain +"Cross Roads" in Kentucky had absconded, and defrauded the Government +out of the sum of <i>fifteen dollars</i>! and worst of all, his bail <i>had +run away with him</i>!!</p> + +<p>This is only one of the many proofs which my own experience would +furnish of the propriety, if not the necessity of keeping each +Department of the Government by itself—of not connecting it with +others, and of making the agents of each Department responsible to +itself alone. Carry this idea into practice in all the Departments of +the Government, and a better class of agents would be secured, and the +loss by defaulters would be much lessened.</p> + +<p>The enormous increase of the expenditures of the General Government +might, by the same process, be prevented. How does it happen that in a +time of peace these expenses have risen from twenty-three millions of +dollars up to seventy or eighty millions? In the same proportion, the +sum to which they will<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">334</a></span> reach in another decade will be frightful! It +is high time that a stop was put to this lavish expenditure, and +especially to the losses by dishonest agents. The plan here proposed +will give you a starting point. The proceeds of the vast domain of the +public lands are now so mingled with the other expenditures of the +Government, that no one can tell what becomes of them. They are now +common plunder. Divide them among the States, and they will be +saved—they will be applied to some worthy object, and you will have +adopted a principle which, after a little time, under any honest +administration, will be applied to the other Departments of the +Government. I trust the whole amendment may be adopted. As the +amendment may be divided into two parts—one relating to appointments +to office, and the other to the public domain—I would ask that the +vote may be taken upon each proposition separately.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken upon the first portion of the amendment +proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>, with the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and +Missouri—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and +Iowa—14.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—I cannot concur in the vote just given by Maryland. I +desire to have my dissent recorded.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I dissent, also, from the vote of Maryland.</p> + +<p>President TYLER:—The last part of the amendment will be considered as +withdrawn.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I move to amend the substitute proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>, +by adding thereto the following words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Provided</i>, That nothing in this article contained shall be +so construed as to carry any law of involuntary servitude +into such Territory."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope we shall reject all such amendments. I consider +this simply procrastination.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I wish to raise a point, a question of +order. This conflicts directly with the sense of the substitute +proposed. We ought not to entertain it.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy</span>, with +the following result:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">335</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, and Iowa—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois—13.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I dissent from the vote of Indiana.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I rise to inquire whether it will now be in order to +offer a substitute? I have one which I wish at the proper time to +present.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question is now upon the adoption of a +substitute—that offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania—to the +first section of the article reported by the committee. I do not think +any other substitute is in order at the present time.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I hope that this vote may be postponed, and I will briefly +state the reason why. I am informed that a delegation from the State +of Kansas has arrived during the day, and that their credentials are +now in the hands of the appropriate committee. That committee has not +yet reported, and cannot until they have a meeting after our +adjournment. The credentials of three of these delegates have been +presented by myself but a few minutes since. The Committee on +Credentials, I am informed, will not report until Monday. I wish the +youngest State in the Union to express her opinion upon this motion. I +therefore move an adjournment.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I do not think any delay is necessary. We can let them +vote on Monday.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I only wish to say a word of explanation in behalf of +the Committee on Credentials. The delay in the case of Kansas is not +the fault of that committee. The delegates themselves think it better +that the report should not be made until all the delegates arrive who +are expected. The committee can report at any time.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken on the motion to adjourn, with the following +result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and +Indiana—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri—12.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">336</a></span></p> + +<p>So the motion to adjourn was negatived.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question will now be taken upon the substitute of +the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin</span>), offered for the first +section of the article reported by the committee.</p> + +<p>Which vote being taken, resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, +Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois—14.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri—4.</p></div> + +<p>And the substitute was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—There seems to be a misapprehension as to the proper time +for offering substitutes for the whole report of the committee. I +shall act upon the understanding that the proper time to offer them +will be when we have gone through with the report of the committee. If +I am wrong I wish to be corrected now.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I am informed that Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>, the President-elect, has +arrived in this city. I feel certain that the Conference would desire +to treat him with the same measure of respect which it has extended to +the present incumbent of that high office. I therefore move that the +President of this Convention be requested to call upon the +President-elect of the United States, and inform him that its members +would be pleased to wait upon him in a body at such time as will suit +his convenience, and that this Convention be advised of the result.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span> was agreed to unanimously.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I move an adjournment to half-past seven o'clock this +evening.</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to, and the Conference adjourned.</p> + +<hr class="med" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">337</a></span></p> + +<h3>EVENING SESSION—SIXTEENTH DAY.</h3> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Saturday</span>, <i>February 23d, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order by the President, at half-past +seven o'clock.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I have addressed a note to the President-elect, +announcing the desire of the Conference to offer their respects to him +in a body, at seven and one-half o'clock this evening, or at such +other time as would be agreeable to him. I have received his reply, +stating that he will be pleased to receive the members of this body at +nine o'clock this evening, or at any other time which may suit their +convenience.</p> + +<p>The Conference then proceeded to the order of the day, being the +consideration of the second article of the section reported by the +committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move to strike out the second article, and to insert +the following in its place:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Territory may be acquired for naval and commercial stations +and transit routes, and by discovery, and for no other +purposes, without the concurrence of four-fifths of the +Senate."</p></div> + +<p>It is generally conceded that under our present Constitution the +United States have no power to acquire territory for coaling or naval +stations, within the country of a foreign power. It was the +committee's intention to remedy this defect by the present section. +But as it stands, I do not like it. The idea is somewhat awkwardly +expressed. I wish to have the enabling power conferred in direct +terms.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I would ask to interrupt the order of business for a +moment, in order to make a report from the Committee on Credentials, +in the Kansas case. The defect adverted to in the case of Mr. <span class="smcap">Stone</span>, +has been supplied to the satisfaction of the committee, and Messrs. +<span class="smcap">Conway</span>, <span class="smcap">Ewing</span>, and <span class="smcap">Adams</span>, have also presented themselves as delegates +from the State of Kansas, with proper credentials. It has not been our +practice heretofore to admit members by a formal vote, nor do I see +any necessity for making the case of Kansas an exception. The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">338</a></span> +committee would suggest that the clerk enter the names of these +gentlemen upon the roll of delegates, unless objection is made.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Secretary will make the entry, as no objection is +made.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—Some days ago I introduced into the Conference, and +caused to be printed, a substitute which I proposed to offer for the +second section of the committee's article. I offer it now, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"No territory shall be acquired by the United States without +the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from +States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of +all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; +nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes +of a majority of the Senators from each class of States +hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds +majority necessary to the satisfaction of such treaty."</p></div> + +<p>I do not propose to occupy time in discussing it, but I ask a minute +or two to explain its provisions. The second section of the article +proposed by the committee, requires that a treaty under which +territory or commercial or naval stations is acquired, should require +four-fifths of the Senate for its ratification. This, I think, is an +unnecessary restriction upon the treaty-making power. Occasion may +arise when it would not be advisable to wait for the exercise of this +power at all. The question of acquiring territory may arise under +circumstances when delay would be fatal. Suppose our title to an +island in the Arctic Ocean, or a point upon the shore, by discovery or +otherwise, which might be settled by prompt action! There might be no +national authority with which we could treat for its acquisition. I +think it would be hazardous to provide that in no event should +territory be acquired except by treaty. The case I have supposed has +no relation whatever to the case of an ordinary acquisition of +territory by treaty with a recognized foreign power.</p> + +<p>But the question of slavery always arises when the subject of +acquiring territory is mentioned. This clause would fix the <i>status</i>, +would put it in the power of either class of States to prevent the +acquisition, but it would not permit a small number of States to do +it. To leave it where a <i>majority</i> of the Senators of both sections +could control the subject, would seem to me the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">339</a></span> mode of settlement +least objectionable. The ratification would require two-thirds of the +Senate, like all treaties, and these two-thirds would include a +majority of both sections.</p> + +<p>Objection will be made to this classification of the States. I do not +like it myself, but there it no way to avoid it. I have adopted the +language of the Ordinance of 1787. There can be no very sound +objection to the use of these terms. The objection is rather +sentimental than otherwise.</p> + +<p>The amendment I offer ought to satisfy the South, and I think it will. +The South asks for these provisions because they settle all questions +about our present territory, and prevent questions arising over that +we may acquire hereafter. They will give to both sides equality of +power. But voting is far more important now than speaking. I will +consume no more time.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—The gentleman from Virginia desires to try his motion. +For the present, I will withdraw mine.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I have only a word to say on this subject. There are very +grave objections to this classification of sections. I will not repeat +them here. I supposed the sense of the Conference had been expressed +against it.</p> + +<p>But I wish to inquire why this second section is necessary at all? It +came up in the committee rather by accident than otherwise. I do not +think any one of the committee intended to make it one of the subjects +of our action, and the section was finally presented by a small +majority.</p> + +<p>Let us leave this subject where the Constitution leaves it. We can now +acquire territory by discovery or by treaty. So far the Constitution +has operated satisfactorily. The country owes much of its greatness to +this very provision of the Constitution. No grievance to the South, +assuredly, has been caused by it. I am much averse to any alteration.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I think, after some reflection, that this amendment is +of much more importance than many of us have supposed. I shall vote +for it, because I do not wish to have too many limitations placed upon +the power of the Government in relation to the acquisition of +territory. We know how difficult it is to change our fundamental law. +Very few amendments to the Constitution have been made since the death +of <span class="smcap">Washington</span>. We are now establishing our fundamental law for ages to +come.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">340</a></span> Is there upon the face of the civilized earth a nation with +such a limitation upon the power of acquiring territory as this +original article proposes? Its adoption would place us at the feet of +foreign nations.</p> + +<p>In war, conquest is one means of indemnity—often the best and only +one. We must look to the acquisition of future territory; we must make +our settlement with that in view.</p> + +<p>Reference has been made here to the seceded States, and some hard +words have been used toward them. This is not the place for such +words. What is the condition of these States now? They say they are +out of the Union. We say, No! The question between us may be decided +by the Courts; it may be decided by the sword. But we all want them +back; we would place no restrictions upon their return. They will only +come back by treaty. Unless you adopt this amendment, the section +proposed will be applicable to their case, and a mere fraction could +keep them out of the Union forever.</p> + +<p>In regard to the subject of slavery, what we want is security for the +future. That we can arrange. In my opinion you will never get back the +seceded States, without you give them some hope of the acquisition of +future territory. They know that when slavery is gathered into a +<i>cul-de-sac</i>, and surrounded by a wall of free States, it is +destroyed. Slavery must have expansion. It must expand by the +acquisition of territory which now we do not own. The seceded States +will never yield this point—will never come back to a Government +which gives no chance for the expansion of their principal +institution. They will insist upon equity, upon the same rights with +you in the common territory, and the same prospect, of acquiring +foreign territory that you have. If you are not prepared to grant all +this, do not waste your time in thought about the return of the +seceded States.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—New Jersey voted to make the first section of the +article reported applicable to future territory, not because she +wishes to acquire new territory, but because she knows that it will be +acquired; and she believes all questions raised here can be settled +now, in regard to it, better than they can be hereafter. These +questions have raised a ferment in the nation; we would settle them +any way. We should have voted for these restrictions upon the power of +acquiring territory; and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">341</a></span> still we cannot shut our eyes to the fact +that in a few years new territory must be acquired. Look at Sonora, at +all Mexico; they furnish the reason for our action. An effort will be +made, perhaps, to secure the new territory by treaty. Better get it in +that way than by conquest.</p> + +<p>Personally, I would oppose any farther acquisitions. We need no more +territory, and yet I know that more will be acquired. The North wishes +it more than the South. In the end, the North will insist that we +should have Cuba. What is the sentiment of our commercial cities now?</p> + +<p>I think we ought to surround this power of acquisition by some +judicious restrictions; not make them too strong, or the country will +break over, and not regard them. What restriction would not have been +broken down, when the question came up in relation to Texas? We must +anticipate occasions of the same kind. I am inclined to vote for the +substitute of the gentleman from Virginia. At all events let us adopt +some limitations. If not these, then such as are contained in the +original article.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:—I propose to amend the substitute offered +by the gentleman from Virginia, by inserting after the words "United +States," the words "except by discovery, and for naval and commercial +depots and transit routes."</p> + +<p>There is now a law, the constitutionality of which has not been +doubted, providing for the acquisition of territory by discovery. But +the Court, in the Dred Scott case, decided that territory could not be +acquired, except as preliminary to the formation of a State. This +difficulty should be obviated. I think the amendment I propose will do +it. If we adopt the proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span>, we cut off the power +of acquiring territory for transit routes, &c., except by treaty. I +think my amendment will make the section more satisfactory to the +South.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I will accept the amendment, and treat it as a part of +my substitute.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I feel a deep solicitude in this subject. We are +here for the purpose of settling a great difficulty. Instead of +settling it, we shall add to it by placing these unnecessary +obstructions in the way of acquiring territory in future. Would not +the South be safer by the adoption of this guarantee? It is the only +one, aside from the first section, which gives the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">342</a></span> South a grain of +power. We cannot go on with things as they are—only seven States to +contend with all the rest of the nation. We must all desire that the +seceded States should return to the Union. How are they to come back? +By treaty, or by the sword? Who will not prefer to win them back by +adopting principles in our amendments which will make it for their +interest to return? If the amendment is adopted, no future territory +will be acquired without the consent of a majority of Senators on both +sides of the line. Reject this, and I have not the slightest hope of +ever seeing the seceded States again in the Union. I believe this +amendment will meet the wishes of a large majority of the people of +Virginia.</p> + +<p>The vote upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span> +resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and +Missouri—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, +Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—10.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I will now renew my proposition, and ask a vote upon it +by States.</p> + +<p>The vote upon the substitute offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span>, for the section +of the article reported by the committee, resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and +Ohio—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, +North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa—10.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Price</span> dissented from the vote of New Jersey, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Barringer</span> +from the vote of North Carolina.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—As the hour named for the call upon the +President-elect is approaching, I move that a committee of three +members be appointed by the President to make arrangements for the +introduction of the members of the Conference.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span> was agreed to, and the President appointed +Messrs. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>, <span class="smcap">Field</span>, and <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, as the committee.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">343</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. McKENNAN:—I move a reconsideration of the vote of the Conference +rejecting the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. I am +not at all certain that we may not think it advisable to adopt that +amendment.</p> + +<p>The order of the day was now suspended, and the committee appointed to +wait upon the President-elect, reported that they had performed that +duty, and that the President-elect would be pleased to receive the +members of the Conference in his parlors in Willard's Hotel, at the +present time.</p> + +<p>For the purpose of waiting on the President, on motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span>, +the Conference adjourned until the 25th inst., at ten o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span></p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">344</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="SEVENTEENTH_DAY" id="SEVENTEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">SEVENTEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Monday</span>, <i>February 25th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Convention was called to order at ten o'clock, pursuant to +adjournment, by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. +<span class="smcap">Smith</span>.</p> + +<p>The Journal of Saturday was read.</p> + +<p>Mr. HACKLEMAN:—The Delegates from the State of Indiana desire that +the vote of that State upon the proposition of amendment offered by +the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. <span class="smcap">Curtis</span>), on Friday last, may be recorded. +The vote was taken on Saturday, and Indiana desires to record her vote +against said proposition.</p> + +<p>The Conference granted the leave asked, and the vote of Indiana was +accordingly entered upon the Journal.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—There have been transmitted to me the proceedings of a +meeting of the Democrats of Pennsylvania, in which are contained +certain resolutions relating to the matters now before us. I am +informed that the meeting was one of the largest ever held in that +State. The usual course would be to enter them upon the record, but in +this instance I would suggest the propriety of having them read. +However, the Conference will take such order upon them as it thinks +proper.</p> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—The policy of the Conference from the beginning has been +not to receive or consider resolutions of a partisan character. That +decision was made on one of the early days of our session, upon a +series of resolutions adopted by a convention held in New Haven, +Connecticut, which were pre<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">345</a></span>sented by Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>. I think we had better +pass over the subject informally, and I would call for the order of +the day.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I think the resolutions had better be +referred to the Committee on Credentials.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I quite approved of the course taken by the Conference of +the resolutions which were sent to me for presentation. I hope we will +pursue the same course now. I move that these resolutions be entered +upon the Journal as received, and that they be laid on the table.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> was agreed to, and the resolutions were laid on +the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH, of New York:—I would inquire whether any action has been +taken under the order of the Conference for the printing of the +Journal from day to day. It is very important that we have these +Journals, that we may know exactly what has been done. No gentleman +can carry all our proceedings in his memory.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The Secretary made a statement to the effect that he had not +found time fully to complete the Journal, or to arrange for +its being printed under the rule requiring that secrecy +should be preserved; that the Mayor of Washington had +proposed to have the printing done under a supervision which +would secure its non-publication by the press, and that +various reasons existed why the order of the Conference had +not been complied with.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—Then I hope the order will be complied with to-day. It is +very important that each member should have a copy of our daily +Journal. I certainly expected one this morning. I will not make a +motion now, but if these copies are not furnished, I shall move the +appointment of a committee to secure their future publication.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—There was a vote passed upon this subject. It may have been +in the absence of the Secretary.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference is informed that the Journal shall be +published as soon as possible.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I have two amendments which I shall offer. At +present I desire to have them laid on the table and printed.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">346</a></span></p> +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration +of the order of the day, which is the motion to reconsider the vote +rejecting the substitute offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span>, for the second +section of the articles of amendment reported by the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. McKENNAN:—At the request of one of my colleagues I would ask a +postponement of the vote upon my motion of reconsideration for the +present. It will produce no injurious result, and I think myself we +had better hold this amendment subject to the future action of the +Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I will not withhold my consent to the postponement. But +I hope the members of this Conference will consider my amendment, and +give it their attention when it comes up again.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—If we pass Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers'</span> amendment, we should pass by the +consideration of the whole section. I think that is the better way. +Let us now proceed to the consideration of the third section in the +article of amendment proposed by the committee.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—Such will be taken as the pleasure of the Conference.</p> + +<p>The third section was read.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The third section is open to propositions of +amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move to amend this section by striking out the words +"by land, sea, or river," occurring after the words "or +transportation."</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie's</span> motion was adopted without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now move to insert after the words "during +transportation," the words "by sea or river."</p> + +<p>Which motion was also agreed to without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I now move to amend the third section by striking out +all after the word "give," in the second line thereof, and inserting +as follows:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">347</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"to Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within +any State, the relations established or recognized by the +laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor +therein."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any +person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, +under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to +impair any rights pertaining to that relation, under the +laws now in force within the said District, while such +relations shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the +consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or +labor is due, or making them just compensation therefor; nor +the power to prohibit or interfere with members of Congress +and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require +them to be in said District, from bringing with them, for +personal service only, retaining, and taking away persons so +held to service or labor, nor the power to impair or abolish +the relations of persons owing service or labor in places +under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, +within those States and Territories where such relations are +established or recognized by law.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the +removal or transportation of persons held to service or +labor in any State or Territory of the United States to any +State or Territory thereof where the same obligation or +liability to labor or service is established or recognized +by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or +river, of touching at ports, shores, or landings, and of +landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall the +Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation +on persons held to service or labor than on land.</p></div> + +<p>Although it may not be strictly in order, yet, as a part of my plan, I +wish to bring forward a substitute which I shall offer to the seventh +section of the committee's article, which, if adopted, should be +numbered</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases +where the Marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be +to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be +prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous +assemblage; or where, after such arrest, such fugitive shall +be rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such +service or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the +same, the United States shall pay to such party the full +value of such service or labor.</p></div> + +<p>I offer these in separate sections, in order not only that the vote +may be taken upon each one separately here, but also when the same +questions come before the people. The first section of my amendment, +as I understand from every quarter, sets all opposition at rest; all +are willing to agree to it. This may be adopted and the others +rejected, which could not be done if the original section was adopted. +The other sections conform to the language of our present +Constitution, and for that reason I think they will<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">348</a></span> meet with more +favor. Each subject is thus made to stand on its own merits.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question will be taken upon each section of the +substitute proposed.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—I propose the following as a substitute for the first +section of the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span>. It is, I believe, +the same as that proposed in Congress by the Committee of Thirteen. I +understand, also, that the Committee of the House of Representatives +are about to substitute it for what is known as the <span class="smcap">Adams</span> Proposition. +We all have the same purpose in view, to negative in express terms the +right of Congress to interfere with the institution of slavery within +the States. I present the amendment because I think it expresses the +purpose in better language.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution +which will authorize or give to Congress the power to +abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic +institutions thereof, including that of persons held to +labor or service by the laws of said State.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—This amendment would be limited in its application to the +States. Congress would still have power in this respect over +Territories.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—The report of the committee has been agreed upon after +much discussion, and printed. We all understand it, and I hope we +shall adhere to it without any alteration. If we begin to adopt these +amendments no one can tell where they will carry us.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—My proposition is offered as an amendment to that offered +by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—So I understand; but his amendment is proposed as a +substitute for the third section of the article reported by the +committee. I object to the whole of it.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—Do I understand that the question now is upon +substituting Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock's</span> amendment for the committee's report.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—No. It is upon substituting my proposition for the first +section of Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock's</span> amendment.</p> + +<p>The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span> resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, and Indiana—7.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">349</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas—13.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. WOOD:—I must enter my dissent from the vote of Illinois.</p> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—I have an amendment which I offer to the substitute +proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span>—</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I object to it as out of order. Let us take the vote +upon the various sections of Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock's</span> proposition. If they are +rejected, then these amendments may all be moved to the committee's +report.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I have already decided that the substitute is open to +amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—Then I will appeal from the decision of the Chair.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I will state the ground of my decision. It is true, as +claimed by the gentleman from New Jersey, that if the propositions of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span> are <i>rejected</i> these amendments may be moved to the +sections reported by the committee. If, on the contrary, they are +<i>adopted</i>, or either of them, so far as they are adopted they must +stand as the order of the Conference, and are no longer subject to +amendment. I understand the Parliamentary rule in such a case to be +well settled.</p> + +<p>A somewhat confused debate here arose, when Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span> withdrew his +appeal from the decision of the chair.</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I move to amend the proposition of the gentleman from +Ohio, by striking out the words "nor shall Congress have the power to +authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or +labor, than on land." I do not think these words are appropriate in a +provision of the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I supposed the Conference would understand my purpose. +It was to substitute my three sections for the third section of the +committee's report. I did not suppose this series of amendments would +be offered. For the present, I will withdraw my amendments.</p> + +<p>Mr. HARRIS:—The gentleman forgets that if we once adopt them, they +are no longer subject to amendment.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">350</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I wish to make a suggestion. I don't know but +Parliamentarians would call it a point of order. Now let us go on and +decide whether we will, or will not, adopt the third section as +reported by the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I have several amendments which I am constrained to offer +to this third section. My State would think me remiss if I did not +offer them. I move, first, to insert after the words "State or +Territory of the United States," the words "or obstruct, hinder, +prevent, or abolish."</p> + +<p>By the section as reported by the committee, Congress is prohibited +from controlling or abolishing slavery in any State or Territory. This +amendment which I propose will prevent any action in relation to +it—in aid of it, or otherwise. The Territorial Legislature will +always be the creature of Congress, and under the committee's section +it might act upon the subject of slavery. I understand that the +purpose of the committee was to prevent Congress from abolishing +slavery in the Territories, but not to prevent the Territorial +Legislature from acting in aid of it. My amendment will secure slavery +from all interference. That is what we want.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—The first section of the report covers this. The +amendment, I think, is unnecessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I think the first section, properly construed, would +prevent the Territorial Legislature from enacting a law in aid of +slavery, even if the whole people of the Territory desired it.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I do not desire to go over these questions again. If the +Conference intends to come to any conclusion at all, I hope it will +vote down all these amendments.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I call for a vote by States.</p> + +<p>Mr. WOOD:—I move that the amendment be laid on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—Which motion is in order—mine or that of the gentleman +from Virginia?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman from Ohio having withdrawn his +amendment, the proposal of the gentleman from Connecticut is no longer +before the Conference. The question is upon the motion of the +gentleman from Virginia to amend the third section of the article +reported by the committee.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">351</a></span></p> + +<p>The vote upon the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, +Kentucky, and Missouri—6.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky—14.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was not adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I now move to amend the third section reported by the +committee, by striking out the words "City of Washington," and +inserting in their place the words "District of Columbia."</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> was agreed to without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I do not see why this privilege of bringing their +slaves into the District should be limited to members of Congress.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—It is not. The expression is "representatives and +<i>others</i>."</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I now propose to amend the same section by inserting +after the words "without the consent of Maryland" the words "and +Virginia." I think slavery ought not to be destroyed in the District +of Columbia without the consent both of Maryland and Virginia. If +there is any reason for requiring the consent of one State, the same +reason exists as to the other. This amendment will make the section +much more acceptable to the slaveholding States.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—The committee did not require the assent of Virginia, +because no part of the present District came from Virginia. We thought +it unnecessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—Maryland and Virginia originally joined in the cession of +the District to the United States. Afterwards that portion which came +from her was re-ceded to Virginia. But this question is not one of +territory alone. The policy and interest of the two States are +intimately connected. It would be far more satisfactory to both these +States, and to the South, if the assent of Virginia was required +before Congress could abolish slavery in the District. Still Maryland +does not insist upon it.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I can see no necessity for, or propriety in, the +amendment. We might as well require the consent of North<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">352</a></span> Carolina or +any of the other slave States. Virginia owns none of the District. She +has no right to interfere.</p> + +<p>The amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> was rejected by the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and +Missouri—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas—14.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—My next proposition is to amend the third section by +inserting after the words "landing in case of distress, shall exist," +the words "and if the transportation be by sea, the right of property +in the person held to service or labor shall be protected by the +Federal Government as other property."</p> + +<p>We claim that our property in slaves shall be recognized by the Union +just like any other property—that no unjust or improper distinction +shall be made. When we trust it to the perils of the seas, we wish to +have it protected by the Federal Government.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I would inquire of the gentleman from Virginia whether +it has not already been decided that this species of property is as +much entitled to Federal protection as any other. I refer to the +"Creole" case. The British Government made compensation for this +species of property in that case. This was done upon the award of the +commissioners pursuant to the decision of the umpire.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Yes! But on the express ground that slavery was +recognized in the islands. Express notice was given, that when the +emancipation policy was adopted, the same principles would not be +recognized. We are now removing doubts. We wish to have these matters +no longer involved in uncertainty. We insist upon having these +provisions in the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I wish to say a word on this subject, much as I regret +the consumption of time. I am willing to leave this question where it +is now; and my reason is this: If we put this into the Constitution, +the question may be raised, whether if foreign nations should +interfere with this kind of property on the high seas, the Government +would not be bound to consider it a cause of war. We ought not to bind +ourselves to go to war. War should always depend upon considerations +of policy. We<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">353</a></span> should raise a thousand troublesome questions by +putting these words "shall be protected" into the Constitution. The +matter is well enough as it is. Our rights in this respect are well +enough protected by the ordinary course of national diplomacy. I would +not be willing to put into the Constitution language which would +embarrass us hereafter.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I will frankly say that I think slave property upon every +ground is as well entitled to the national protection as any other +species of property.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—This amendment brings up the very gist of the matter. +The question of the right of our property to Federal protection is now +an open one. In the case of the Creole it was settled by negotiation, +and not by the courts. The question so often hinted at and suggested +in this Conference is now fairly brought up for decision. Governor +<span class="smcap">Chase</span> struck at the very root of the matter the other day, when he +said that slavery was an <i>abnormal</i> condition. He laid down the +opinion of the North. He is a statesman and a lawyer. He says that +slavery cannot exist anywhere until it is established or authorized by +law. This is the Northern idea, and it is a technical one. I hate +technicalities almost as bad as I do sectionalism. The North deals in +both. I regret to speak in these terms of the North, but I must if I +speak truth. Now, I will lay down what is the opinion of the South +upon the subject. We say that the right to hold and use slave +property, always, everywhere, exists until it is prohibited by law. We +say that it is a natural right, which grows out of the very +necessities of society. We hold that the condition of slavery is a +normal condition—not local at all; that it is found everywhere, +except where it is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to hold +slaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and of +the world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with our +opinion.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I would ask whether this normal condition is confined +to the blacks, or does it extend to all races?</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—Most assuredly it is not confined to a single race. It +extends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—Not now!</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—Perhaps not now, and why? For the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">354</a></span> reason that it has +been abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery once +existed in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in those +States. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it ought +to be protected—the rights of the owner ought to be protected.</p> + +<p>This question came up in the case of the "Amistead." Mr. <span class="smcap">Adams</span> claimed +that although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain as +property, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law of +nations, <i>free</i>, and these slaves have never been paid for to this +day.</p> + +<p>This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we ask +is no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and +1815, slaves were to be protected as property.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I do not wish to nullify the action, or change the +course of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seas +have always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815. +That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken from +the District were paid for. <span class="smcap">Adams</span>, of Massachusetts, took the same +ground now taken by the North. The Government took the opposite +ground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia, +who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law of +nations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But I +will not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon grounds +which were entirely different.</p> + +<p>But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Constitution. +The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia +has again raised a question which was decided against him by a large +majority in the Conference a few days ago.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be the +same whether applied to the Territories or to the high seas.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—It is claimed by the South that slaves are property +everywhere. Why, then, name slave property more than any other species +in the Constitution?</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—We say that slaves are <i>both</i> persons and property.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">355</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—It has always been the course of the Government to pay +for slaves taken on the high seas. The gentleman has referred to the +"Amistead" case as having been decided against the southern claim. I +present the "Amistead" case as a perfect answer to the miserable +calumnies which have been disseminated against that Court. The Judges +in that case were unanimous with a single exception, and he was a +Judge from a free State. We of the North upon these national questions +are prepared to go with you to the extreme verge of right and loyalty.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I have no desire to complicate these +questions of international law. The treaties of 1783 and 1815 were +participated in by <span class="smcap">Jay</span> and the elder <span class="smcap">Adams</span>. They expressly provided +for the payment for slaves like other property. This is plain English, +and settles the question so far as the North is concerned. I am for +letting it alone where it is.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I am not able to support this proposition of the +gentleman from Virginia. I consider the right of property in slaves, +in the slave States, and in the territory south of 36° 30´, as fully +recognized and established in the report of the majority of the +committee. In this very clause this property is expressly admitted, +and Congress is prohibited from interfering with it. This is +enough—it is all that should be done. We have come here to settle our +domestic troubles. The report of the committee recognizes and affirms +these rights of the South which have heretofore been denied or +doubted. I think their report gives us all the assurance we need. We +were not sent here to engraft new principles into our foreign policy, +and I will not consent to enter upon that business. We have got this +right of property specifically recognized, and no administration +hereafter will refuse to carry out the plain provisions of the +Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—Where in the article do you find this right recognized? +It simply prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery within +certain limits. Nothing beyond that.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I find the recognition pervading the whole report. The +right of transportation, for instance, is secured. Does not that +involve, of necessity, a recognition of the right of property? I am +sure the South is safe in leaving this question where the report +leaves it.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">356</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—We feel disposed to adhere firmly to the report of the +committee. We know the arduous labor they have bestowed upon the +subject, and feel that we ought to be satisfied with the result. We do +not wish to have our friends put us in a false position. We shall vote +against the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, not because we +do not think it is right on principle, but because we think it is +unnecessary. The right of property in slaves is protected now wherever +that property goes.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I admit that the policy of the Government hitherto has +been as the gentlemen claim. If the South could have been satisfied +with that, we should never have been sent here—this Convention would +never have been called. But we have come together for the reason that +we fear the established policy of the Government will be changed by +the party now coming into power. We ask for assurances that the old +policy should be continued; and we wish to have the obligation to +continue it, written down in the bond.</p> + +<p>The Chair restated the question, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> called for a vote by +States.</p> + +<p>The vote upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon's</span> amendment resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Missouri—4.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, +and Kansas—17.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Butler</span> and <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, of Kentucky; Messrs. <span class="smcap">Doniphan</span> and <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>, of +Missouri; Messrs. <span class="smcap">Howard</span> and <span class="smcap">Dent</span>, of Maryland, dissented from the +votes of their respective States.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I now move the following amendment of the same third +section. After the words "in case of distress, shall exist," insert +the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And the rights of transit by persons holding those of the +African race to labor or service, in and through the States +not recognizing the relations of persons held to labor or +service, in passing with them from one State or Territory +recognizing such relation, to another, shall be secure."</p></div> + +<p>I only wish to say in reference to this amendment that it secures a +right specifically referred to in the resolutions of Virginia under +which this Conference is called. On that account I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">357</a></span> feel bound to +offer it, but I will not occupy time in its discussion.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—In the early years of our Government this right was +extended by courtesy to the slaveholding States. Since these +differences have sprung up, in some States it has been denied—in +others, the courtesy still exists. We considered this question +thoroughly in committee. We did not wish to put any thing into our +report that would operate to excite the prejudices of any section +against it, and so lessen the chances of its being adopted. We thought +it best not to insert such a provision. I am opposed to the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I call a vote by States.</p> + +<p>The amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> was rejected by the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes</span>.—Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri—4.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes</span>.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, +Iowa, and Kansas—17.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—One more amendment. I move to amend the third section as +follows: after the words "by the laws thereof touching," insert the +words "the relations existing between master and slave or."</p> + +<p>I shall not detain the Conference for five minutes in the discussion +of this amendment. I wish, however, to have the words "master and +slave" somewhere inserted in this article, in plain English language, +so that the dangerous delusion so prevalent at the North, that the +Constitution does not recognize slavery, may be thoroughly and forever +removed; so that the Constitution shall, beyond any question, +recognize the relation of master and slave; a duplex relation—a +relation of person and property. I wish to meet that question fairly +and squarely. Let it be thoroughly understood as a relation of person +and property. This is what we ask, and this is what we insist upon. +Put this into the Constitution, and you take the shortest and the most +effective means of settling the question, and of promoting peace and +tranquillity. You strike the axe to the very root of bitterness, +whence has sprung all our trouble, all our difficulties. I ask a vote +by States.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—What I have already said applies with equal force to +this amendment. I will not repeat my objections.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">358</a></span></p> + +<p>The amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> was rejected by the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, +Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—18.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—Maryland votes "No," not because she specially objects +to the amendment, but she stands by the report of the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I dissent from the vote of Maryland.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—And I from the vote of Kentucky.</p> + +<p>Mr. ALEXANDER:—<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> + +<p>Mr. HALL, of Vermont:—I move to amend the third section by striking +out the word "nor," immediately succeeding the words "persons so bound +to labor," and inserting the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"But the bringing into said District of persons held to +service, for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot +to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold +as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass +all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor +shall Congress have."</p></div> + +<p>It is well known that much of the agitation upon the question of +slavery has formerly arisen from the existence of the slave-trade in +the District of Columbia. Since the prohibition of 1850, the public +mind has been much more quiet, so far as this subject is concerned. I +suppose the committee did not intend to change the law of 1850, but I +fear their action will not be so understood at the North. I propose to +make the matter clear. [Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span> here read the section of the Act of +1850 referring to this subject.] My amendment puts the language of +this act into the Constitution. My only purpose is, to have this +question left in exactly its present position. Without the amendment, +I fear it will be claimed that the article restores the slave-trade in +this District. Nothing would more effectually destroy the article at +the North.</p> + +<p>Mr. WHITE:—The language of the report is clear. It gives no right to +sell slaves in the District.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">359</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. HALL:—I wish to be understood. The article prohibits Congress +from interfering with slavery. <i>Ergo</i>, it will be claimed they cannot +prohibit the exercise of any of its functions. The construction, to +say the very least, will be doubtful. It should not be left in doubt.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—The slave-trade in the District of Columbia has always +been a subject of great dissatisfaction. I don't know that it is +considered of much importance in the South, but at the North it always +has been. Ten years ago it was abolished by act of Congress. I fear +that unless the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont is adopted, +the effect of the committee's report will be to restore the +slave-trade in the District. The section reported by the committee +permits any person to bring his slaves into the District; to retain +them there as long as he chooses, and to take them away. It recognizes +the right of absolute dominion. It secures it effectually. It imposes +upon the soil of the District the right of holding, retaining, and +taking away the slaves by the owner himself, his agent or assignee. +The slave-trade, in my judgment, is thus restored.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am satisfied that the article reported by the +committee is not susceptible of misconstruction, and I hope we shall +not mar the report by adopting the amendment. Our intention was only +to permit public officers to bring their servants here.</p> + +<p>Mr. AMES:—Two words will cure all this difficulty. The insertion of +the words "for personal service only."</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—We have no intention of reviving the slave-trade in the +District. I have no more to say.</p> + +<p>Mr. DODGE:—I hope this section will not be left in doubt. When I +first read it I said to myself, "This thing will never do; it will +bring the slave-trade back to the District."</p> + +<p>Mr. AMES:—Will the gentleman from Vermont accept my amendment?</p> + +<p>Mr. HALL:—No. I cannot accept it. I offer the amendment in good +faith, for I believe it necessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—Cannot we avoid the verbiage of the +amendment?</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from +Vermont, so that I can vote for that proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Ames</span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">360</a></span></p> + +<p>The vote upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall's</span> amendment being taken by States, resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and +Kansas—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and +Missouri—10.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was adopted.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Hoppin</span> and <span class="smcap">Browne</span>, of Rhode Island, dissented from the vote of +that State.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I move to amend the original article of the committee's +report by the addition of this proviso. My object is to prevent the +sale of slaves in the waters of New York or any other port:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Provided</i>, That nothing in this section shall be so +construed as to prevent any States in which involuntary +servitude is prohibited, from restraining by law the +transfer of such persons, or of any right or interest in +their services, from one individual to another, within the +limits of such State."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I insist there is not the slightest necessity for this +amendment. I hope gentlemen will stop interposing these useless +propositions; they confound the sense of the article, and we are +guarding against questions which by no possibility can arise.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken on the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy</span>, and resulted +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and +Kansas—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and +Missouri—10.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Logan</span> and <span class="smcap">Palmer</span>, of Illinois, dissented from the vote of that +State.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD:—I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he ever +knew or heard of a case where a slave was sold in a free State?</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I do not intend to argue that question; but as I am +appealed to, although the proviso is adopted, I will state the grounds +on which it rests.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I wish to know whether the object of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">361</a></span> amendment is to +prevent the making of contracts connected with the purchase or sale of +slaves in the free States?</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—My object is apparent from the amendment. It explains +itself. I wish to prohibit any transactions concerning the purchase or +sale of slaves, either within the free States or the navigable waters +connected therewith, or under free State jurisdiction. If there were +no such prohibition, a cargo of slaves might be brought from the coast +of Africa into the port of New York, and transferred there to parties +residing in the slave States. The free States have a right to direct +what shall, and what shall not be a subject of commerce within their +limits. I presume it is not intended that the Constitution shall +prohibit the exercise of this right. I desire not to leave this open +to construction, but to make the section declare that no such +intention exists.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am now satisfied that we shall get nothing here that +is satisfactory to the people of the south side of the river. We are +continually waylaid by suspicions, which are unjust, unfounded, and +ought not to exist. If this class of amendments is to be adopted, I +cannot go on, with respect to myself or the Convention. I feel now, +since this amendment is adopted, that my mission here is ended.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I move to insert at the end of the third article reported +by the committee these words: "Persons of the African race shall not +be deemed citizens, or permitted to exercise the right of suffrage, in +the election of federal officers."</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—This is worse than ever, and it comes from the South +too.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—I will withdraw it then.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to move +the adoption of the previous question. We may as well come to the +point now as ever. There is no use of discussing this question any +longer. I move the previous question upon the report.</p> + +<p>Objections and cries of "No, no," were made by several members.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I will withdraw the motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I think it would be very unreasonable for any gentleman +to expect that we were to get through with the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">362</a></span> questions presented by +this report without the exercise of mutual forbearance. The adoption +of an amendment implies no disrespect to the committee. No member of +the committee should take it in that sense. I will move a +reconsideration of the vote by which the last amendment was adopted. I +do not think we had better take the vote now, but pass the subject for +the present.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—It can be passed by common consent.</p> + +<p>The vote was reconsidered without a division, and the immediate +consideration of the question passed.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I now renew the offer of my substitute for the third +section of the article reported by the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I thought when the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. +<span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> amendment was agreed to, it was understood that the +consideration of the whole section was to be passed for the present. +My vote upon that amendment was given deliberately, and I have no idea +that this Convention is to break up because a vote is passed in it +which is distasteful to any man, State, or delegation.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I think I must insist upon the consideration of my +substitute.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROWNE:—I move to lay the substitute proposed by the gentleman +from Ohio on the table. If that motion is carried, I do not understand +that the effect of it is to lay the report of the committee on the +table.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—I rise to a question of order. I think the question now +should be on Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> amendment. I ask for information. I do not +quite see how that amendment can be informally passed over without at +the same time passing the consideration of the whole article.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—It was passed by universal consent.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—As I understand it, the gentleman from Illinois made the +motion that the vote be reconsidered, and the consideration of the +amendment passed for the present, and this was agreed to by the +Conference unanimously.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Browne</span> to lay the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span> on the +table, was agreed to without a division.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">363</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I move to strike out these words in the third section: +"Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of +taxation on persons bound to labor than on land." I have already +stated that I think this language singularly inappropriate to a +provision of the Constitution. The Constitution already prohibits such +distinctions in the laying of taxes, and, therefore, there is no +necessity for the adoption of this clause. But I have another and more +important objection to it; it contains and proposes to place in the +Constitution the distinct recognition of the right of property in +slaves. This recognition was carefully avoided in the Convention which +framed the Constitution, and the North always has been, and always +will be, opposed to any such recognition. Place it there, and your +article will never be adopted in any of the free States.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—The first statutes passed by Congress on this subject +recognized the right to tax slaves. This implied the right to hold +slaves. This recognition of the right of taxation was made in express +terms. The gentleman has forgotten the history of the legislation on +this subject. The object of the committee is to prevent any +possibility that those who come after us should make any distinction +between these classes of property in levying taxes. We do not seek a +recognition of the right of property in slaves in this; that right is +already recognized to our satisfaction in the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I understand the gentleman from Kentucky, and I think he is +right. If we adopt the article at all we ought to retain this +language.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken by States on the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>, +with the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Indiana, +Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri—18.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Pratt</span> dissented from the vote of Connecticut.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Noyes</span> and <span class="smcap">Smith</span> also dissented from the vote of New York.</p> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—I move to strike out the words "without the consent of +Maryland," immediately following the words "service in the District of +Columbia."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">364</a></span></p> + +<p>I can see no necessity for requiring the consent of Maryland to the +abolition of slavery in the District. There is no more reason for it +than for requiring the consent of Maine, or any other State. By the +cession of the District to the United States Maryland has parted with +all power over it, and the exclusive power of legislation is given to +Congress. The District has become the common property of the Union as +much as any of the Territories, and ought to be controlled in the same +way.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I hope this amendment will not prevail. The District +is almost surrounded by the Territory of Maryland. The abolition of +slavery in it would be very destructive to our interests and property. +To convert the District into free territory would offer a direct +invitation to our slaves to abscond and go into the District. Even if +the rendition clause of the Constitution was faithfully observed and +carried out, it would involve us in much expense and difficulty. If we +are required to maintain faith with the Government, the Government +must keep faith with us.</p> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—I did not suppose my motion would meet with such serious +objections. If they exist I will withdraw it.</p> + +<p>Mr. BATES:—I have an amendment to propose, which I think will improve +the language of the section, and make it more consonant with that used +in the Constitution. I move to amend the third section by striking out +the word "bound" wherever it occurs therein, and inserting in its +place the word "held;" also to insert after the words "to labor" +wherever they occur, the words "or service."</p> + +<p>The amendments proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Bates</span> were adopted without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—I propose to amend the section as it stands after the +adoption of the amendments of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bates</span>, by inserting between the +words "or" and "service" where they occur in that connection, the word +"involuntary."</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I had rather leave out the word "involuntary;" it would +look better. As the section now stands, both voluntary and involuntary +service are included.</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—By the insertion of the words "service" in Mr. <span class="smcap">Bates'</span> +amendment, one portion of my purpose is accomplished. I will withdraw +my motion.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">365</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I would ask if it is now in order to move a substitute +for the whole section. I have one which meets my wishes, and which, I +think, will meet the views of, and be acceptable to, the Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I do not think it is in order to offer a substitute at +the present time.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—Then I will call it a motion to strike out and insert, +which, certainly, is in order. I, therefore, move to strike out the +whole of the third section and insert the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish or +control within any State the relations established or +recognized by the laws thereof respecting persons held to +service or labor therein.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 4. Congress shall have no power to legislate +respecting the relation of service or labor in places under +its exclusive jurisdiction, but within States where that +relation is established or recognized, and while it +continues, without the consent of such States; nor abolish +or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without +the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such +relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of +Maryland, and compensation to persons to whom such service +or labor is due.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the +removal from any State or Territory of persons held to +service or labor therein, to any other State or Territory in +which persons are so held; and the right during removal of +touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in +case of distress, shall exist, but not the right of transit +in or through any State or Territory without its consent. No +higher rate of taxation shall be imposed on persons so held +than on land.</p></div> + +<p>Three objects are sought to be obtained by the third section as +proposed by the committee: one is, the declaration that Congress has +no power over slavery in the States; the second, that Congress shall +not legislate respecting slavery in territory under its jurisdiction, +but within the limits of States, without the consent of such States, +nor abolish slavery in the District without the consent of Maryland; +the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place to +place. It is desirable that these three subjects should be so +presented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the others +rejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are all +embraced in the same section. My substitute is plain and simple, and I +think covers the whole ground.</p> + +<p>Mr. ROMAN:—Has not the gentleman entirely left out the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">366</a></span> provision +relative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary. +Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the +District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of +Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation +would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or +elsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished without +compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the +subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish +slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The owner should always have compensation, it is true; +but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in +slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent +for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the +question whether he will part with his property upon receiving +suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right +would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a +farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North +denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation +also, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The North +holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish +the institution without paying for it.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute I +offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation +without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.</p> + +<p>Mr. DODGE:—I wish to support the proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck</span>; and +let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we +should use language which common men can understand, and which does +not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some +confidence in each other.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—There is another entire and important omission in Mr. +<span class="smcap">Groesbeck's</span> proposition: there is no provision whatever for the +Territories.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I think the Conference had much better adhere<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">367</a></span> to the +section reported by the committee as it has been already amended. We +have all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State that +will not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, +and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I am +opposed to the adoption of the substitute. We understand the original +article better than we can any other.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I think the original proposition the best; the word +"regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impair +or abolish."</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret having +withdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT (Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span> in the chair):—The motion of the +gentleman from Connecticut is out of order.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I understand we are now considering the amendment +offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck</span>). If so, I move to +insert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "or +impair."</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effect +of the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span> upon the +table: it was offered as a substitute to the third section; if it did +not carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend that +section are in order. In that view, I think Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> motion is in +order either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, or +to amend the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I think Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> motion is entirely out of order; +it has once been passed by informally.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—Is it not in order at any time to make a motion which +will render the proposed substitute more perfect?</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon any +technical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition to +the third section.</p> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motion +proposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span>).</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I oppose the motion. The amendment is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">368</a></span> both proper and +necessary. It can certainly do no harm to the South; and if the South +wishes to be fair, it will not object to it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I oppose the reconsideration of the vote adopting Mr. +<span class="smcap">Hall's</span> amendment, and I will state very shortly the reason why. If the +doctrine is to be established here, that the report of the committee +is too sacred to be touched—too perfect to be made subject to +amendment—let us know it. It will relieve myself, and I think many +others, from farther attendance here; and I wish to say now, that if +we are to sit here, such considerations must not be presented in +future.</p> + +<p>Mr. FOWLER:—I will withdraw my motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I certainly wish some one would renew the motion +to reconsider the vote upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall's</span> amendment. I do not like to do +it myself, but I think if that amendment were reconsidered, we would +fix upon some terms that would be satisfactory to all sides.</p> + +<p>Mr. AMES:—I do not see the necessity for adopting Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> +proposition. I think it amounts to nothing. It is simply a prohibition +in the Constitution against the exercise of a right which no one +wishes to exercise. I oppose it because it is unnecessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I certainly do not wish to insist upon an unnecessary +amendment. If the third section, as reported by the committee, is +adopted, it declares that the right of transportation, &c., <i>shall +exist</i>. Under this, if no amendment is adopted, slaves may be bought +and sold in any of the waters of the free States.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—What difficulty or damage does the gentleman propose +to obviate by his amendment?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Chair has already decided that the proposition of +Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy</span> is not in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> appealed from the decision of the Chair, and upon the appeal +the decision was sustained.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I understand this decision cuts off both the amendments +offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy</span>; that compels us to vote against +the proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHITTENDEN:—The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. <span class="smcap">Hall</span>, has +been accepted. It stands as the order of the Conference, and cannot be +rescinded except by a vote. I sus<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">369</a></span>tain the decision of the Chair, +because, by every rule of parliamentary law, it was correct. But one +thing farther. It is now perfectly in order to move Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> +proposition, or any other, as an <i>addition</i>.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—Most clearly so.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I do not discover any particular objection to the +amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck</span>. If it had been reported by the committee, +I should have preferred it; but the South is willing to take the +section as it stands, and prefers the original to any substitute.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—I am against the substitute, for it destroys the effect of +the amendments offered by Messrs. <span class="smcap">Hall</span> and <span class="smcap">McCurdy</span>.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck's</span> amendment, and resulted +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Indiana—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, +Illinois, and Kansas—12.</p></div> + +<p>And it was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I feel that my mission here is ended, and that I may as +well withdraw from the Conference. I seem to be unable to impress +gentlemen with the necessity of accomplishing any thing. The report of +the committee is not satisfactory to the South; it is even doubtful +whether they will adopt it; certainly they will not, if it is cut to +pieces by amendments. I may be compelled to sacrifice my property, or +go with the secessionists. At my time of life, I do not wish to do +either.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—I regret that my amendment produces so much feeling, but +I think, at all events, we should prevent the sale of slaves in the +free States; it should be prevented beyond any possibility. I renew +the offer of my amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—If the laws of New York will permit the sale of slaves +within the limits of that State, then we should prohibit the sale in +the Constitution as proposed; but so long as that State has power to +pass a law prohibiting it, there is no necessity for the amendment. +The owner is only permitted<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">370</a></span> to touch with his slaves, under certain +circumstances, at the ports of free States.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—It is impossible that slaves can be sold in a free State +under the section reported by the committee. We propose to give the +right of touching at those ports as a privilege, but we give no right +of sale there. The laws of a free State could not be evaded in this +way. Each State is supreme within its own limits; that supremacy would +not be aided by this proviso.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—Suppose a slave owner is compelled to stop at the port of +Cairo, through stress of weather or any other cause, and he dies +there, are his slaves set free by his death? Does not the law of +actual domicil prevail? I think they will be regarded as slaves, and +that under this provision they might be administered upon and sold as +a part of his estate.</p> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—I think we may obviate all difficulty by inserting after +the words "landing in case of distress," the words "but not for +traffic or sale."</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman +from Pennsylvania. It is not proper or best to encumber these +propositions with amendments that are not necessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—Every State has the right to regulate transit within its +own limits to suit itself. The proposed amendment gives no rights +except such as are expressly named: "a right, during transportation, +of touching at the ports, and of landing in case of distress." The +right of the State to regulate transit is left unimpaired.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD:—There is one principle of law which will settle this +question at once: property that is held under State laws must be +transferred by the operation of State laws alone. Slaves are held and +transferred by the specific laws of the States in which they are held.</p> + +<p>Mr. PALMER:—The right of sale cannot possibly arise out of the right +to touch during transportation at a port, or the right to land in case +of distress. I cannot see the slightest occasion or necessity for the +adoption of Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> amendment was rejected by the following vote:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">371</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, +Indiana, and Iowa—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and +Kansas—14.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Pollock's</span> amendment was then adopted without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I wish to propose an amendment by way of proviso:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Provided</i> nothing herein contained shall be so construed +as to prevent any State from prohibiting the introduction as +merchandise of persons held to service or labor, or to +prevent such State from prohibiting the transit of persons +so held to service or labor through its limits."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—This does not cover Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> proposition at all. Is +there any secret purpose here to bring into the Constitution a +provision which will permit the sale of slaves in free States? If +there is not, why not say plainly that the States shall have the +exclusive right to determine who shall and who shall not cross its +borders, and what shall be the subject of sale or traffic within them?</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—The States have all the powers which are not expressly +delegated under the Constitution to be exercised by Congress. Congress +has no power, except such as are expressly conferred upon them. The +power to prohibit the sale of slaves rests somewhere. It has not been +conferred upon Congress; it must remain in the State.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—The argument of the gentleman from Kentucky seems to me +very inconsistent with his report in other respects.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD:—The Border States are trying to get back the seceded +States. We hope they will come back. We expect the adoption of this +report to offer a strong inducement to them to return to the Union. It +will not offer such inducement if its general effect is ruined by +amendments.</p> + +<p>The vote upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Vandever's</span> amendment resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, +Indiana, and Iowa—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and +Kansas—14.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">372</a></span></p> + +<p>So the amendment was not agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I have already stated that the State of Kentucky is +prepared to adopt the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment; that amendment will be +satisfactory to the Border States. The longer we remain here the more +I become satisfied that the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment will meet with more +general favor than any other; therefore I ask the consent of the +Conference to introduce the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment as a substitute for +the committee's report.</p> + +<p>The consent of the Conference was not given to Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay's</span> proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I move to amend the third section by inserting after +the words "in case of distress shall exist," the words "but not the +right of transit in any other State or Territory without its consent."</p> + +<p>We must certainly do something to cover this difficulty; if we omit +the subject entirely, we shall leave much opportunity for cavil on +this question when the question goes to the people.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I move to amend the amendment by substituting in place of +the words "without its consent," the words "against its dissent."</p> + +<p>Mr. GROESBECK:—I will accept the amendment.</p> + +<p>The amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Groesbeck</span> was agreed to by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +and Ohio—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois—8.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span>, of New Jersey, dissented from the vote of that State.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger</span> moved that when the Conference adjourn it adjourn to +half-past seven o'clock this evening.</p> + +<p>The vote upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger's</span> motion was taken by States, and resulted +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, +Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—13.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, +Kentucky, and Missouri—6.</p></div> + +<p>So the motion was adopted.</p> + +<p>On motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> the Conference adjourned.</p> + +<hr class="med" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">373</a></span></p> + +<h3>EVENING SESSION—SEVENTEENTH DAY.</h3> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Monday</span>, <i>February 25th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Alexander</span> in the chair.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH, of New York:—I move that a committee of two be appointed +by the <span class="smcap">President</span> to arrange for the printing of the Journal.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span> was adopted, and the <span class="smcap">President</span> appointed as +such committee, Mr. <span class="smcap">Smith</span>, of New York, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Howard</span>, of Maryland.</p> + +<p>The Conference then proceeded to the consideration of the order of the +day, being the third section of the article reported by the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I move to amend the third section by striking out the +words "or Territory of the United States," occurring after the words +"within any State."</p> + +<p>I think we shall make the amendment more satisfactory by limiting the +prohibition to States alone; still leaving the power in Congress to be +exercised in conformity with the other provisions that regulate +slavery in the Territories.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I have the same objection to this as to other +amendments. It may not be important, but I do not want to commence by +adopting amendments at all.</p> + +<p>The question was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hitchcock</span>, +and was agreed to by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and +Kansas—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and +Missouri—9.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SUMMERS:—I now desire to call up for consideration the amendment +proposed by myself on the evening of the 23d instant. The state of the +case is this: Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>, of Maryland, moved an amendment to my +proposition, which was accepted; my amendment was then rejected by a +vote of the Conference, and on the 25th the Conference reconsidered +the vote by which the amendment was rejected. I will not now repeat +what I said, when the amendment was offered, in favor of its +adoption.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">374</a></span> I would only call the attention of gentlemen to the remarks +I then made, and say in addition, that I earnestly hope the Conference +will now adopt the amendment. It will make the proposition much more +acceptable to the South, and, certainly, not more objectionable to the +North. The amendment is offered to the second section, and is as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except +by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots +and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of +all the Senators from States which allow involuntary +servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States +which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be +acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the +Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, +be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to +the ratification of such treaty."</p></div> + +<p>The amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span> was adopted by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—12.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, +and Kansas—6.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—No further amendment being offered to the second and +third sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration of +the fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to that +section.</p> + +<p>None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I move to strike out the whole of the section. It has +been heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section was +under consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch as +existing laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibition +of the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South does +not. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I think it very important to retain this section; it +can, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that the +foreign slave-trade should not be revived.</p> + +<p>The amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> was rejected by the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri—4.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">375</a></span> Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, +Iowa, and Kansas—17.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BRADFORD:—I move to amend the fifth section by inserting after +the words "slave-trade," the words "by citizens of the United States."</p> + +<p>In proposing amendments to the Constitution, it seems to me improper +that we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoption +of the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook to +prohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens of +other countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have the +constitutional provision expressed in appropriate terms.</p> + +<p>Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:—I object to this amendment. It would nullify the +operation of the section entirely. There are in the United States +thousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such a +provision of the Constitution, would revive the slave-trade and infuse +into it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better to +have no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. The +amendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibit +the slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it by +those who are not citizens.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—I am in favor of the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRADFORD:—I do not desire to embarrass the action of the +Conference, and I will withdraw the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. JAMES:—I move to amend this section by striking out the following +words: "from places beyond the limits thereof."</p> + +<p>The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not need +explanation.</p> + +<p>The amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">James</span> was agreed to by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, +Indiana, and Kansas—17.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri—3.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I move that the vote just passed +striking out the words "from places beyond the present limits +thereof," be rescinded.</p> + +<p>I think the action of the Convention in passing this vote was<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">376</a></span> hasty, +and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important question +to determine, what are "the present limits thereof." Upon one +construction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the States +which have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, +which assumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognize +their secession, it would not cut off the trade between those States +and the others. I do not like to have such a question raised.</p> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I am against this reconsideration. So far as I am +concerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize the +secession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State to +withdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. And +beyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentleman +asserts.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I think the clause is better as it is. By striking out +the words "from beyond the present limits thereof," we do not +establish any territorial limitation. And whether these States come +back or not, no question of territory is raised. But if this +reconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return to +the Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of their +continued secession we cannot get back from those States those of our +slaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back those +slaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argument +of Judge <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> is conclusive.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Why +not leave it as we have to leave many others—to the discretion of +Congress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cut +off the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others. +Nobody is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage this +question. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men. +They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Those +families may at times become separated. A portion of them may now be +in the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it often +happens that during one season of the year the planter, with his +family and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; and +at another season, removes with his family and slaves<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">377</a></span> to a plantation +farther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding of +this kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is one +involving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves are +interested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as it +does, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—I have always stood up against all the societies and +organizations which have been established at the North to carry on +crusades against slavery. My position in that respect is still +unchanged. I hold that the people of the free States have nothing to +do with slavery; that they are not responsible for it, and that it is +their duty to let it alone. At the same time I have just as steadily +opposed the slave-trade. I think it inhuman and atrocious, and I am +the last man that would consent to its restoration. This section as it +stands, in my judgment, cannot be improved. I think we had better +leave it, and not raise these troublesome questions which will +inevitably be suggested if these words are restored.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—This is a matter which requires some reflection, and, +on the whole, I am inclined, for the present, to withdraw my +proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I do not like this plan of legislating in the +Constitution. The Constitution ought to be an instrument defining and +limiting the powers of Congress. We had better leave to Congress, or +rather, to assign to Congress the power to exercise this prohibition. +I, therefore, move to amend by inserting at the commencement of the +section these words: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit," and +to strike out at the end of the section the words "are forever +prohibited."</p> + +<p>Mr. ALLEN:—This would be a most effectual way of reviving the +slave-trade. It would remove the constitutional prohibition, and +permit Congress to prohibit or permit it, as that body may choose. +Would that ever hereafter be considered a crime which Congress had +power to permit? No. I cannot conceive it possible that any State +should seriously wish to see a traffic resumed which has been +stigmatized by the whole civilized world as worse than piracy. This is +a question which I would not leave to Congress. We know how immensely +profitable this trade is—that fortunes are made by a single +successful voyage.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">378</a></span> Don't let such an inducement to corruption creep +into our Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—I am in favor of this amendment, not because I am in +favor of the slave-trade, but because such a section is out of place +in the Constitution. The Constitution is a bill of rights, an +instrument which defines and settles the rights of citizens. It is not +a law. I have no fear that if we leave this to Congress the +slave-trade will be revived.</p> + +<p>Mr. DONIPHAN:—I cannot agree with my colleague. I am opposed to the +foreign slave-trade in every form. I would not even make a treaty with +a nation or a State that would permit it. If the seceded States are to +be regarded out of the Union, I would not treat with them; I would not +invest Congress with such a dangerous power. Nothing will suit me but +an unqualified prohibition of this trade in the Constitution itself.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—The gentleman from Missouri has expressed the views of +Delaware. His argument is conclusive.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD:—The intervention of Congress will be necessary whether +this amendment passes or not. The section as adopted makes no +provision for the punishment of any one who violates it. If a vessel +should be seized while engaged in the trade, this section does not +provide for her forfeiture or condemnation, or the punishment of her +officers or owners. The section would be inoperative without the +action of Congress. Why not let Congress have all the power?</p> + +<p>Mr. DODGE:—Congress will declare the punishment.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—If you cut off the slave with the seceded States, they +will do the same with you. I think the Border States should at all +events adopt the amendment.</p> + +<p>The Conference refused to agree to the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> by the +following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and +Missouri—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and +Kansas—16.</p></div> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span> and <span class="smcap">Doniphan</span>, of Missouri, dissented from the vote of +that State.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—I move to strike out the whole of this section, and +insert a new one of the following tenor: "The foreign<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">379</a></span> slave-trade is +hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to +pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves into the United States +and their Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof."</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I like the amendment proposed better than the +original, but I wish to suggest an amendment to it myself.</p> + +<p>We are aware that certain countries which are much exercised over the +criminality of slavery and the slave-trade, have recently adopted a +system, the horrors of which are not surpassed by those of the middle +passage. I refer to the importation of coolies and other persons from +China and the East. In my judgment, this is the slave-trade in one of +its worst forms. I think if we prevent the importation of slaves at +all, the provision ought to be made to cover such a case. I therefore +move to amend the proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, by inserting after the +words "importation of slaves," the words "or coolies, or persons held +to service or labor."</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—I accept the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wickliffe</span>, and should +have inserted it myself had it occurred to me. My proposition as it +now stands, covers both the points here made; it declares the entire +prohibition of the slave-trade, and it makes it also the duty of +Congress to pass laws effectually to prevent it.</p> + +<p>The amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span> was agreed to by the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North +Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and +Illinois—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, New York, New Jersey, and Kansas—8.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoppin</span>, of Rhode Island, Messrs. <span class="smcap">Orth</span> and <span class="smcap">Ellis</span>, of Indiana, and +Mr. <span class="smcap">Stockton</span>, of New Jersey, dissented from the votes of their +respective States.</p> + +<p>Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:—I move to strike out the whole section. I had +rather have no section at all, and no provision upon the subject, than +such a one as we have now adopted. The requisition upon Congress +making it their duty to enact laws, will be considered as a necessary +one; the consequence which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">380</a></span> must result is, that until Congress +legislates, there is no law against the importation of slaves.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Crowninshield</span> was rejected by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Massachusetts, Virginia, and Tennessee—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, +Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, +Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas—18.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration +of the sixth section.</p> + +<p>No amendment being offered thereto, the Conference proceeded to the +seventh section.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I move to strike out the whole of the seventh section, +and insert in lieu thereof the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens +of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of +the several States."</p></div> + +<p>The seventh section, as it now stands, will encounter more serious +objection at the North than all the remaining portion of the article. +It is objectionable for many reasons: it looks to the actual exercise +of violence and intimidation by mobs and unlawful assemblies at the +North. Although such may have occurred in one or two sections only, +generally the provisions of the fugitive slave law have been observed +and carried out. The whole subject is very distasteful to the North. I +think if we keep it out of the article, and in its place secure that +respect for the privileges of citizens in the various States, to +which, indeed, under the Constitution, they are entitled, we shall do +much better.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—There are various reasons peculiar to some of the free +States why this provision should not be adopted. The laws of several +of the Western States do not recognize negroes as citizens. I move to +amend the amendment proposed by my colleague, by inserting the words +"free white" before the word "citizens."</p> + +<p>The amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span> was adopted by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and +Illinois—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa—8.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">381</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, of Indiana, dissented from the vote of his State.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER:—I suppose the purpose of my colleague has been attained. +If there is a delegation willing to make such a distinction in the +Constitution, they will, of course, support the amendment as it is now +amended.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken upon the amendment, as amended, with the +following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—None.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, +Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana—18.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—If the seventh section is adopted, I think the North +should have some compensation therefor. I think citizens of the North +have as much occasion for complaint on account of the action of mobs +and riotous assemblies in the slave States, as the slave States have +of the occurrence of those mobs and assemblies in the North. I +therefore move the following as an addition to the seventh section:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And Congress shall farther provide by law, that the United +States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any +State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of +violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, +in his person or property, or in the deprivation, by +violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am opposed to this amendment upon the general +principles I have so often stated. I oppose it for another reason. I +am not in favor of an amendment which encourages mobs and riots at the +North, and I will not consent to one which, like this, encourages +seditious speeches at the South.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Such is not the effect of my amendment. It does not +protect a man in making seditious speeches in the slave States. It +only secures to the citizen his rights without regard to the State to +which he belongs. We have a provision of the Constitution on that +subject now, but it is not effective.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—I am in favor of the amendment. There is great necessity +for it.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I think gentlemen entirely misconstrue the intent and +purpose of the present provision of the Constitution on that subject. +It grows out of and rests upon that provision<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">382</a></span> which requires the +return of fugitive slaves. It imposes an obligation upon Congress to +secure to the owner, when he pursues his slave into a free State, the +right which he enjoys as a citizen of his own State. In all other +respects it is unnecessary. If a man is injured in his person or his +property, he has his redress in the State courts; or if he is a +foreigner or a citizen of another State, he may go into the Federal +courts and get his redress there. In this respect the citizens of both +sections are amply protected.</p> + +<p>Mr. STEPHENS:—I earnestly hope this amendment may be rejected. We +have come here to arrange old difficulties, not to make new ones. +Adopt this, and you lay the foundation stone of disunion. It is an +encouragement to seditious speeches and purposes. The clause is well +enough as it is. We do not wish to encourage men to come among us and +excite discontent among our slaves. We will not permit them to do it. +Our safety requires that we should not. Our own citizens do not +connive at the escape of slaves. None do it who have any business in +our States. We are here for peace. When half a dozen States are out, +whose return we wish to secure, shall we put such a clause as this +into the Constitution? Do it, and a half dozen others will follow. I +am not at all sure that the report of the majority, if adopted, will +satisfy my State. It certainly will not if it is mangled and frittered +away. I have not occupied time in making speeches here. I say to you +gentlemen, beware! If I thought the spirit of the North was truly +represented in this Conference, I would go home and advise my State to +secede; and if she did not, I would abandon her forever.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I am opposed to the amendment because I think it +unnecessary, and because it opens a new and very serious controversy. +The rights of Northern men are fully protected now. There is not a +court in the South in which a Northern citizen cannot find a lawyer to +advocate his cause. If he is poor, he may even sue <i>in forma +pauperis</i>, and incur no liability even for costs.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I am claiming no more than I have a right to claim under +the decision of the Supreme Court. That court, in the case of Prigg +<i>vs.</i> The State of Pennsylvania, decided that the Constitution imposes +the duty upon Congress of carrying this<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">383</a></span> provision into effect. I +insist upon making it plain. Rights upon both sides are sought to be +protected by this article. They are correlative.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span> favored and Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span> opposed the amendment, in a few brief +remarks.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I do not think we shall accomplish much by protracting our +present session longer. I move that the Conference adjourn, and ask a +vote by States.</p> + +<p>The Conference refused to adjourn, by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, +Iowa, and Kansas—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, +New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, +North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—14.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question recurs upon the amendment of the +gentleman from Pennsylvania.</p> + +<p>The vote upon the question of agreeing to the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>, +resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Maine, New York, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts, +Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Iowa—8.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, and Ohio—11.</p></div> + +<p>And the motion was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I now move to amend the seventh section, by adding +thereto the following words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And in all cases in which the United States shall pay for +such fugitive, Congress shall also provide for the +collection by the United States of the amount so paid, with +interest, from the county, city, or town in which such +arrest shall have been prevented, or rescue made."</p></div> + +<p>I am certain that no objection can be made to the equity of this +amendment. If a municipal corporation shall permit the rights of a +slave owner to be disregarded by the rescue of a slave, it not only +fails to perform its duty under the Constitution, but becomes an +active participant in the crime. Shall the consequences of its own +fault be visited upon the people of the whole country? Those who +acknowledge and carry out their obligations under the Constitution, as +well as those who do not? This would inflict a punishment upon the +innocent for the crime of the guilty. It is not right to leave it in +that way. It would present an inducement to these violations of law +which the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">384</a></span> provision is intended to prevent. We ought to make the +guilty party pay the penalty.</p> + +<p>Mr. HACKLEMAN:—If such a proposition were to come from a free State, +the mover would be charged with attempting to destroy all hope that +the committee's report could be adopted by the people. However, if the +friends of the report are willing to adopt it, I do not know that I +ought to object. It places the Government in a position where it is +bound under the Constitution to prosecute a municipal corporation for +the acts of its individual members. It is certainly novel, and +introduces a new system into the jurisprudence of the country. Is the +mover serious in his proposition?</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I am certainly serious. I would like to hear some +substantial argument against my motion.</p> + +<p>The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Barringer</span>, resulted +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, +Illinois, and Iowa—17.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Maryland. I +consider the amendment as eminently just and proper.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I dissent from the vote of Kentucky.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I have an amendment which I intend to offer at +some time, and I may as well propose it now. The people of the free +States have complained, and not without good reason, that one clause +in the Constitution is not carried into effect in some of the +slaveholding States. Their complaints are similar to those made on the +part of the South, which it is the purpose of the seventh section to +remove. If there have been instances at the North where mobs and +riotous assemblies have obstructed the administration of justice in +the case of fugitive slaves, so there have been instances at the South +where mobs and riots have disregarded the rights of citizens of +Northern States. I propose to deal fairly by all sections. Let us +remove both causes of complaint. I move to amend the seventh section +by adding thereto the following words:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">385</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens +of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in +the several States."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I repeat my objection to all these amendments. If our +work here is to have any efficacy, we must adhere to the report. Why +bring in another bone of contention?</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—Will you not extend the same protection to free citizens +which you do to slaveholders?</p> + +<p>The question was taken on the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Frelinghuysen</span>, with the +following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, +Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New +Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and +Kansas—16.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and +Virginia—4.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Roman</span> dissented from the vote of Maryland.</p> + +<p>Mr. AMES:—I move an amendment which will make the section more +explicit. I move to strike out the word "force," and to insert instead +thereof the words "violence or intimidation."</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to without objection.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I move to amend the seventh section by adding at the close +thereof the following words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And such fugitives, after such payment, shall then be +discharged from such service."</p></div> + +<p>I am opposed to this whole business of making compensation for +fugitive slaves; but if this section is to be adopted, and the +Government pays the owner the whole value of the fugitive, upon every +principle of equity and justice the fugitive should be discharged, and +the master should have no right to reduce him again to slavery. You +make the measure of the owner's damages in such a case the value of +the slave. Do you intend, after he has secured that, he shall still +have the right of capture—that after the damages have been fully +paid, he may still call on the courts of law for the slave's +surrender? This would be a double compensation indeed. I shall insist +upon this amendment, and ask a vote by States.</p> + +<p>Mr. ROMAN:—I have not hitherto addressed the Conference, but I should +do myself injustice if I remained silent any longer. I came here in +good faith, encouraged with the hope<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">386</a></span> that this Conference would do +something which would indicate a purpose to protect and acknowledge +the rights of the slaveholding States. I have patiently attended your +sittings, and little by little that hope has faded, until to-night it +has almost passed away. What good can come of these deliberations, +when upon every question which is presented the lines of sectionalism +are tightly drawn, and with one or two exceptions every northern State +is arrayed against us? Suppose these proposals of amendment as +reported by the committee are adopted, there is evidently a purpose +manifested here by a large delegation from the free States, to prevent +their adoption by the people. I know the opposition which in any event +will be arrayed against them. It is an opposition which nothing but +unanimity among the moderate conservative men of the country can +overcome. Believe it or not, gentlemen, I assure you we are in +earnest, in our determination to have our rights under the +Constitution defined and guaranteed. Our safety, as well as our +self-respect, requires this. I have not been satisfied with the +majority report, but if I had been disposed to accept it—if the South +would accept it now, you will not concede even that. You insist upon +weakening its provisions by amendments, and by amendments which are +insulting to us.</p> + +<p>It is now seriously proposed under the Constitution, by an express +provision, to deprive us of our property in slaves against our +consent, and to emancipate them by making compensation. What other +effect can be given to such an amendment? One of our slaves escapes +into a free State. He is arrested by the marshal and discharged by a +mob. Does this act discharge him from his service? Does this lawless +violence make him free? And if the town or city where the mob occurs +is made to pay a slight penalty, does this also divest the owner of +his right? This is nothing but an inducement to mobs and riots. Pass +this provision, and no fugitive slave will ever again be returned from +a free State. There will always be abolitionists enough to pay for a +slave, and this payment will set the slave free, and will constitute +the only penalty for this violence. For one, I would prefer to have no +provision at all on the subject than to have one encumbered with such +an amendment.</p> + +<p>I have but little more to say. If the peace of this country<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">387</a></span> is to be +hereafter established on a permanent basis, and the Union is to be +preserved, you, gentlemen of the North, must recognize our rights, and +cease to interfere with them. You have nothing to do with this +question of slavery. It is an institution of our own. If it is a +crime, we are responsible for it, and will bear the responsibility. We +have never interfered with your institutions. You must now let us +alone.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—The objection of the gentleman from Maryland may be +answered in a word. It is for the owner to elect whether or not to +accept compensation and set his slave free. If he still chooses to +pursue him, he need not accept compensation; but if he does not, and +receives payment for him, the slave should go free. As to mobs and +riots, we punish men at the North who engage in them.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I entirely agree with my colleague in this respect. We +could not accept the section if such an amendment was adopted. The +report of the committee is the very least that will satisfy our +people. Do not destroy it by such amendments as these.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, with +the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New +York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kansas—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, +New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, +Vermont, and Virginia—11.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I move to amend the report by adding a section to be +numbered Section 8, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The second paragraph of the second section of fourth +article of the Constitution shall be so construed that no +State shall have the power to consider and determine what is +treason, felony, or crime, in another State; but that a +person charged in any State with treason, felony, or crime, +who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, +shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State +from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the +State having jurisdiction of the crime."</p></div> + +<p>I do not think discussion necessary upon such an amendment as this. It +is well known to the Conference that great difficulties have been +found to exist in carrying into effect this provision of the +Constitution. So far as the slave States are concerned, it is a +perfect nullity. Unless it is amended it may as well be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">388</a></span> stricken from +the instrument. I believe the tenor of the decisions at the North has +been to permit the executive upon whom the requisition is made, to +determine whether the offence charged is a crime under the law of the +State to which the person charged has fled. If it is a crime, the +fugitive is delivered up. If not a crime in that sense, he is +discharged. The decisions of the courts have been to the same effect; +whenever the fugitive has been brought upon <i>habeas corpus</i>, the +decision has been the same. It is obvious that under this construction +of the Constitution no fugitive will be hereafter returned for an +offence in which the question of slavery is involved. This is only one +of the many evasions of the Constitution which have been practised in +the free States. I deem the amendment very important.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—The gentleman from Kentucky is entirely mistaken in his +statement of the decisions of the northern courts or northern +governors. The decisions are uniform so far as I know, that where the +offence charged is either a crime at common law, or under the statutes +of the State from which the fugitive has fled, he has been delivered +up.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—Did not the Executive of New York refuse to deliver up a +fugitive on the demand of the Governor of Virginia?</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—In that case I think there was no evidence that the +offence charged was a crime under the statutes of Virginia, and it +certainly was not at common law.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken upon Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay's</span> amendment, and resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and +Virginia—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, +Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New +Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and +Kansas—16.</p></div> + +<p>And the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>And on motion, at two o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, the Conference adjourned.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">389</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="EIGHTEENTH_DAY" id="EIGHTEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">EIGHTEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Tuesday</span>, <i>February 26th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference, pursuant to adjournment, was called to order at eleven +o'clock.</p> + +<p>Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Gurley</span>.</p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> informed the Conference that in consequence of the +length of the Journal of yesterday, the Secretary had not been able to +write it out, and that it would be necessary to omit the reading +thereof this morning.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCURDY:—There was a vote taken in the confusion near the close +of the session last evening, in which Connecticut, according to the +minutes of the Secretary, appears to have voted in the negative. It +was upon the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, declaring that the slave should be +free whenever his master had accepted payment for him. On that +amendment the vote of Connecticut was Yea. As the vote is recorded Nay +by mistake, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was +rejected.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—The motion to reconsider is not necessary. Connecticut +can record her vote as she wishes to have it stand. It will not change +the result.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the motion is in order, if made by +Connecticut.</p> + +<p>Mr. BATTELL:—I will move to reconsider. I voted with the majority.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—No individual delegate can make such +a motion. States vote here, not individuals. I submit that the motion +is out of order, unless made by a majority of the delegation.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">390</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—The question is not complicated at all; neither is the +motion out of order. A majority of the delegation from Connecticut +cast the vote of that State in favor of Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth's</span> amendment. By +mistake that vote was recorded against the amendment. The same +majority whose vote is made to do them injustice by a mistake for +which its members are not responsible, now moves to reconsider the +vote.</p> + +<p>The question was then taken upon Mr. <span class="smcap">McCurdy's</span> motion, and resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and +Kansas—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—10.</p></div> + +<p>And the motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by +Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>. On this amendment the vote will be taken by States.</p> + +<p>Mr. WHITE:—I consider this amendment as entirely unnecessary. The +result which it seeks to attain is only the announcement of a +well-understood provision of the common law. By the common law, if an +action is brought for a trespass, and judgment recovered for that +trespass, and the damages under that judgment paid, the property which +is the subject of the action, and which may have originally been +wrongfully taken, becomes transferred; the damages take the place of +the property, the defendant has paid for his wrongful act, or, in +other words, has paid for the property. The same principle applies to +the case of the fugitive slave who is rescued from the custody of the +law, when his owner has consented to accept payment for him. The legal +right of the owner in the slave is satisfied by such payment; the +money takes the place of the slave. But if this were not so, we ought +not to encumber the Constitution with such provisions. Congress will +undoubtedly make the proper provision both for the protection of the +slave and his master. Congress will not permit payment to be made for +a slave, and then suffer him to go back to bondage. This would be both +unlawful and unjust. I can see no necessity for adopting the +amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. ORTH:—I understand there is some difference of opinion between +members of the Conference as to the effect of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">391</a></span> the phraseology of my +amendment. I will change that phraseology, and make the amendment read +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And such fugitive, after the master has been paid therefor, +shall be discharged from such service."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I am opposed to this amendment upon every +ground. I would rather see some direct scheme of emancipation adopted +and inserted in the Constitution. Adopt this amendment, and the result +is inevitable. It would amount to emancipation upon the largest +possible scale. Our slaves would escape, you would rescue and pay for +them, and that would be the end of them. Why not leave it to Congress +to pass the necessary laws upon this subject? The adoption of this +amendment would destroy all hope that our labors would be acceptable +to the South. I say again, we had better establish emancipation at +once.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—If this amendment is to be adopted, I hope we shall at the +same time reconsider the vote by which we rejected the amendment of +the gentleman from North Carolina, requiring the payment by the +county, city, or town wherein the slave is rescued from the custody of +the law. This provision would make the General Government pay for the +crimes of a few citizens in one section. In that case the General +Government ought to own the negro. It has paid for him, and the +property in him ought to be transferred.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—There is nothing in this. We do not wish to have the +Government own the negro. It is bad enough to have individuals own +slaves. We do not propose to turn the Government into an extensive +slave owner.</p> + +<p>But let me ask the gentleman seriously, who is to own the negro, in +such a case, after he has been paid for? Certainly not the former +owner, because his right is gone. This amendment only states a +conclusion of law; the right of the owner being gone, the negro is +free.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I think a single word will settle this. By the +Constitution as it now stands, the escaped fugitive is not discharged +from service or labor. The original section, as proposed, requires +that the slave should be paid for, when he is rescued. Now, he might +be rescued three or four times. Shall he be paid for as often? Do +gentlemen claim that his owner shall receive<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">392</a></span> compensation more than +once? I cannot see why gentlemen interested in slavery should object +to this amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—I think if gentlemen would look at this proposition +seriously, there would be no difference of opinion among us. Such a +proposition would foist into the Constitution a most injurious, +pernicious, and troublesome doctrine. By the most ultra abolitionists +of the free States the power of emancipating our slaves has been +disclaimed. From the organization of the Government, no such right has +been claimed by any respectable party or body of men. The question +arose in the first Congress, I think, upon the petition of the Quakers +of Pennsylvania. It was decided almost unanimously against the power, +even when exercised by Congress. But there is no need of multiplying +or citing precedents. From that time to this, no political party has +claimed the power of emancipation. Such is the universal doctrine now.</p> + +<p>The right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia is now +claimed by some. I think that is the doctrine of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>. But upon +what argument is it founded? Simply this: That the States, by the act +of cession, have surrendered this power to Congress. This is the only +argument I have ever heard in favor of the right, even in the +District.</p> + +<p>But this amendment proposes a most comprehensive scheme of +emancipation. It accomplishes emancipation in every one of the slave +States. It amounts to forcible emancipation upon the principle of +compensation.</p> + +<p>The point has been well stated by gentlemen who have preceded me. +Place this in the Constitution, and there is an end of returning +fugitives. The very courts will act upon it. They will say that if any +one will come forward and pay the value of a slave when arrested, all +the requirements of the Constitution are satisfied, and he shall go +free.</p> + +<p>What is the object of our Conference? Why are we here? We are here to +bury out of sight all the causes of our difference and trouble. And +yet you propose to insert a new principle into our fundamental law, +which, however you may look upon it, will be regarded at the South as +totally inconsistent with our independence. Our people will not +consent to it.</p> + +<p>There is another view which I would suggest. This is emi<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">393</a></span>nently a +matter of legislative regulation. If the slave is paid for, Congress +will at once recognize the impropriety and injustice of permitting the +owner to receive payment for, and also receive his slave. Congress may +say with great propriety that the owner shall give a bond to return +the money upon the restoration of his slave. I hope no principle will +be implanted in the Constitution which will be more troublesome—more +productive of difficulties than any which has heretofore been made the +subject of discussion.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—If we do any thing of this kind, perhaps we had better say +that if the owner accepts compensation for his slave, he shall execute +a deed of manumission. This will make it a matter of consent on the +part of the owner. Put the amendment in that form and I will vote for +it.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—This amendment would offer a most powerful inducement to +our slaves to run away. It would be dangerous in the extreme. When a +fugitive has been paid for, and thus emancipated, he can come back and +settle by the side of his master. What effect would that have upon the +rest of his slaves? Would they not attempt the same thing? It may be +said that the States can pass laws which will prevent their return. +But this power will not be exercised. I know many free negroes in the +slave States who are respectable persons, who own property, and have +their social and domestic ties. These examples are bad. A fugitive who +has been set free is not a safe man to return and settle as a free +negro among those who were his co-slaves.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—By this amendment you are inaugurating a system of +covert emancipation to which the South can never submit. We protest +against its adoption. The argument upon which you seek to sustain it +is a false one. How can the owner receive the full value of his +rescued slave when he himself, as a citizen and tax-payer, pays a part +of the price?</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I move to amend this amendment by +adding thereto these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And the negro when thus emancipated shall not be permitted +to leave the State in which the emancipation takes place."</p></div> + +<p>We know from past experience what the abolitionists of the free States +would do under such a provision as this in the Con<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">394</a></span>stitution. There +will be an underground railroad line along every principal route of +travel. There will be depots all along these lines. Canoes will be +furnished to ferry negroes over the Potomac and Ohio. <span class="smcap">John Brown & Co.</span> +will stand ready to kill the master the very moment he crosses the +line in pursuit of his slave. What officer at the North will dare to +arrest the slave when <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> pikes are stacked up in every little +village? If arrested, there will be organizations formed to rescue +him, and you may as well let the "nigger" go free at once. You are +opening up the greatest scheme of emancipation ever devised.</p> + +<p>Mr. BACKUS:—I move to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span> by the +substitution of the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner +from further claim to said fugitive."</p></div> + +<p>It is claimed that this is a scheme of emancipation. It is nothing of +the sort. It is not intended that the owner shall be obliged to accept +compensation for his slave. That is left optional with him. He may +take it or not as he likes. The effect of accepting compensation would +be just the same as if he sold his slave to the North. The gentleman +from Virginia raises a curious objection; that the owner does not +receive a full compensation because he pays a portion of it himself. +Well, I suppose the owner would pay the one hundred and +thirty-millionth part of the price! Does not the same objection lay +against the payment of any tax whatever? It is asked, Does this +payment transfer the legal title to the slave? Well, it probably goes +to the party who pays for it. If the payment is made in a free State, +where slavery is not tolerated, the title would not pass at all. I +submit to our friends from the South, whether they wish to have the +Government become a slave-trader, to set it up as a huckster of slaves +in the shambles. My amendment imposes the responsibility upon +Congress. I have no doubt Congress will legislate properly upon the +subject.</p> + +<p>Now let me say one word to gentlemen, friends of the South, in all +kindness. I have appreciated your position, and it has influenced my +action. I have not refused to give you any reasonable guarantees, and +I shall not refuse them. But I submit to you, whether it is in good +taste for you to declare that, if we do<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">395</a></span> not yield all these little +points to you, the Government is to be broken up; that that is the +only alternative?</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope this amendment will be adopted. As a Southern +man, I declare that it is acceptable to me. Let us adopt it, and end +the matter. [Cries of "Agreed."]</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I have a very serious objection to putting +any bid in the Constitution to induce slaves to run away. I firmly +believe that if this amendment should ever become a part of the +Constitution, it would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. The +State of Missouri is surrounded on three sides by free States. When +one of our slaves escapes and crosses the border, he finds himself at +once among a people, some of whom will vindicate his freedom with +their lives. I am willing to leave this whole subject to Congress. +Congress will not permit the owner to get his money, and also retain +his slave. In the name of God I ask that no such provision may be put +into the Constitution!</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD:—I will agree to this. The difference between the two is +as wide as the poles.</p> + +<p>The vote was then taken upon the amendment as amended, and resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, +Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North +Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, and Vermont—17.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia—3.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, of Kentucky, <span class="smcap">Dent</span> and <span class="smcap">Roman</span>, of Maryland, <span class="smcap">Stephens</span> and +<span class="smcap">Totten</span>, of Tennessee, dissented from the votes of their respective +States.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—It is evident under the rules, as they now stand, that +this debate is not to close within a month. I move to amend the rules +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Before reaching the final question on the plan to be +submitted to Congress, no member shall be allowed to speak +more than three minutes on any proposition."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I rise to a question of order. I submit that the motion +of the gentleman from New York is not in order.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">396</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move to lay the amendment on the table.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> prevailed without a division.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I move to add an additional section to the report, as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 8. The Union of the States under the Constitution is +indissoluble, and no State can secede from the Union, or +nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from +their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution +and laws of the United States.</p></div> + +<p>In offering this amendment as an additional section, I propose very +briefly to state the reasons for its adoption. I shall not anticipate +any of the objections that may be urged against it, for, as I +understand the rule, I shall have the right to speak in reply. I will +only state one or two arguments in favor of the article.</p> + +<p>We have been discussing the means of removing the symptoms of the +disease called secession. This amendment attacks the disease itself. +The doctrines of <span class="smcap">Calhoun</span>, originated and advocated by him, have now +been taken up by his followers, who are striking at the very +foundation of our Government. The doctrine of the North is, that no +State can secede from the Union. This amendment asserts that doctrine. +Before we begin to amend, we ought to know whether we have any +Constitution to amend. The people of my section wish to know whether +we can compel obedience of a State, if every man in it undertakes to +refuse obedience. They believe that power to exist in the Constitution +now. If there is any doubt about it, they wish that power distinctly +asserted.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I move to lay the amendment on the table at present, +without affecting the section of the report under consideration.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—This motion is debatable.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New +York is not an amendment; that it is an addition, and may be laid on +the table without affecting the remainder of the report.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—We have now gone through with the propositions, and are +ready to take a final vote upon them. Mr. <span class="smcap">Field's</span> amendment is +properly an addition, and relates entirely<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">397</a></span> to other subjects. Laying +that on the table does not carry the whole subject there.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Ewing</span> prevailed by the following vote: Ayes, 11; +Noes, 10.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Meredith</span>, <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>, and <span class="smcap">Chase</span> dissented from the votes of their +respective States.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I now offer it as an amendment to the 7th section.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I rise to a point of order. My colleague has proposed +this amendment as an additional section, and it has been laid upon the +table. He now proposes to put the same thing in another place. That is +certainly not in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I now offer it distinctly as an amendment to the 7th +section, to avoid the quibbling by which a direct vote was avoided +before. It may as well be understood that other than slave States have +certain rights upon this floor, and that those rights will be +asserted. I wish gentlemen to understand that I shall resist, as well +as I may, every attempt to avoid or dodge this question.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—In the opinion of the Chair it is not in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—Then I offer one-half the amendment as follows: "The Union +of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble."</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Is it necessary to put this into the Constitution? +Does not the gentleman think the Constitution prohibits secession now? +If so, let him offer a resolution to that effect, and I will vote for +it.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I rise to a point of order. The amendment is not germane to +the section.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—That is entirely a matter of opinion. The Chair cannot +rule out an amendment on that ground.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—If gentlemen will give us a square vote on my proposition, +I will not debate it.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I believe every word that is stated in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">398</a></span> that +proposition. It is all in the Constitution now; but the South thinks +differently, and this is one of the great obstructions in our path. +There is not a man here who does not believe that this provision is +already in the Constitution. I hope, therefore, that we shall vote at +once, and vote it down.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—The amendment proposed, implies the existence of the right +of secession, under the present Constitution. I do not believe in +that, and shall therefore vote against it.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—I desire to obtain a clear vote upon this question, and +not have it pass off upon any technical points. I will withdraw my +amendment, and now move to amend the 7th section by striking out the +whole of it, and inserting in its place the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"No State shall withdraw from the Union without the consent +of all the States, given in a Convention of the States, +convened in pursuance of an act passed by two-thirds of each +House of Congress."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. GOODRICH:—I do not quite like the language of the amendment, for +it might seem to give the implication of a right to secede. I move the +following as a substitute:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act +of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount +obligations of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the +United States."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—There is no objection on my part +against the gentleman from New York taking any course he pleases, and +as much time as he likes; but I should regret extremely to have this +amendment adopted, and to have the Constitution made practically to +assert a right of secession. I have denied that right always in my +State, in public and in private. I am aware that on this point I +differ from the general sentiment of the South, and I hold there is no +right of secession, and on the part of the General Government no right +of coercion. I claim that a State has no right to secede, because that +right is not found in the Constitution, and the theory of the +Constitution is against it.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Goodrich</span> is not in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—As suggested by a friend, I will modify my motion, and +state it in this way, which certainly will avoid all these +objections:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">399</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the +present Constitution, that the Union of the States under it +is indissoluble."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—Does the gentleman mean this as a substitute for the +entire report of the committee, for all that we have hitherto done?</p> + +<p>Mr. FIELD:—Certainly not.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—We have not met here for any such purpose as that +indicated in the present amendment. We are not here to discuss the +question of secession. We are here because the Border States are +alarmed for their own safety. We wish them to remain in the Union. The +purpose of our consultations is to make an arrangement under which +they can stay in the Union. If we do not confine ourselves to that +purpose, and leave these questions alone, our differences may be +submitted to a greater than any human judge. I hope, in Heaven's name, +they will not be submitted to the arbitrament of battle. No practical +good whatever can come from debating this amendment. I move to lay it +on the table; but if that motion will have the effect to carry the +whole report on the table, I will not make it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I shall vote against this amendment. I believe the +Constitution is endowed with sufficient authority to accomplish its +own preservation, and to carry into execution its own laws; and, +believing so, I deny the right of secession, but the right of +revolution is a natural right possessed by every people. They may +revolutionize their governments when they become oppressive. The +Constitution was adopted as the logical consequence of this idea. +There is no use now in discussing the abstract question of secession. +We must treat the present condition of the Gulf States as a revolution +in fact accomplished. We must meet them fairly. I vote against this +amendment, and wish to stand right upon the record. If the history of +this Convention is to be written, I do not wish to be handed down to +posterity as one who favors the right of secession, which I believe to +be a radical error.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—Pennsylvania is agreed in principle upon the doctrine of +this amendment. I believe the whole North agrees also that the right +of secession cannot be conceded, but my colleagues and myself differ +essentially as to the manner in which we shall make our doctrine most +effective. I think the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">400</a></span> true way is, to vote for this plain +proposition, and not vote against it.</p> + +<p>Now, all the North agrees that there is no right under the +Constitution to interfere with slavery where it exists. No one has +ever asserted such right, or believed in it. We are now asked to give +a declaratory provision on that subject—to give it in order to quiet +the slave States. One of my colleagues—Mr. <span class="smcap">Pollock</span>—was willing to +give that declaratory clause, which was necessary. I went with him in +that; I now ask him to go with me, not against a mere shadow, but +against what is the doctrine of a large portion of the people of the +slave States; a doctrine of that proportion which proposes to +overthrow the Constitution of the country. It is a demoralizing +doctrine. My colleague proposes to vote against it. Did my colleague +believe that any one proposed to interfere with slavery in the States?</p> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—No, I do not believe there was any such intention +entertained by any considerable party. But there was an apprehension +upon this subject in the slave States, caused by the action of a few +radical men at the North. I was willing to vote for a declaratory +resolution to quiet that apprehension.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—This amendment points to something more than an +apprehension. It deals with an existing fact. Seven States have +already gone out of the Union, asserting that the principal allegiance +of their people is to the State, and not to the General Government. I +think it high time that the Constitution was made unequivocal upon +this subject of secession.</p> + +<p>Mr. PRICE:—I occupy even a few minutes of time with much reluctance. +Time is precious to us—too precious to be used in debate. I believe +in the doctrine of the gentleman from New York. That is the doctrine +of my State; but I believe in a great many other things which it is +not necessary to insert in the Constitution. We came here to treat a +fact, a great fact. There is a Southern Confederacy—there is a +President <span class="smcap">Davis</span>—there is a Government organized within the Union +hostile to the United States. I came here, as the gentleman from +Illinois has said, to act as if I had never given a vote or united +with a political party. I say, with my colleague, that when the +country is in danger my political robes hang loosely upon my +shoulders.</p> + +<p>There is an element in this Conference which, from the first<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">401</a></span> day of +our session, has opposed any action. Its policy has been to distract +and divide our counsels, to put off every thing, to prevent all +action. How different this is from what I expected when I came here. +Shall we sit here debating abstract questions when State after State +is seceding? I hope not. I trust the patriotic spirit which animates a +majority of this Conference will to-day send forth a proposition which +will restore peace to the country. We all agree to the principle +contained in this amendment; but if we adopt it and make it a part of +the Constitution, we could never, under it, bring back the seceded +States. They will not admit the principle. What is to be gained, then, +by adopting it? Why will gentlemen insist upon propositions which will +nullify our action? New Jersey occupies high constitutional ground. +She is ready to do any thing that is fair, and she goes for these +propositions of the majority because they are fair. She will adopt +these, and I believe every State will adopt them—New York as quickly +as any. I do not think the gentleman properly represents the wishes of +his constituents. He misrepresents them. Let us act, then, promptly, +and act now. Every moment is precious. I know the trembling anxiety +with which the country is awaiting our action. Do not let us sit here +like the great Belshazzar till the handwriting appears on the wall. +Let us set our faces against delay. Let us put down with an indignant +rebuke every attempt to demoralize our action or destroy its effect.</p> + +<p>Mr. BUCKNER:—I move to amend the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span>, by adding +the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"But this declaration shall not be construed so as to give +the Federal Government power or authority to coerce or to +make war directly or indirectly upon a State, on account of +a failure to comply with its obligations."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I hope the gentleman from New York will withdraw +his resolution. The view of this Convention is against secession, and +we all know that the Union of the States under the Constitution is +indissoluble. We know just as well that it is not necessary to assert +this principle now. It is not expedient to assert it. We want to get +back the seceded States. If we are earnest in this, is it best to call +them traitors? I ask the gentleman whether the rejection of his +proposition will not tend to weaken the Government and the Union? It +will stand<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">402</a></span> as a naked vote of rejection; the reasons why we vote +against it will not go before the world.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—With the exception of a few minutes between eleven and +twelve o'clock, a few nights since, I have not occupied the time or +attention of the Conference. I will not now occupy but a few minutes. +I came here to do something. I supposed we could accomplish something. +We learned very soon after our arrival here that my colleague was +opposed to any amendment of the Constitution. The same is true of +several of my colleagues; perhaps a majority of them are here to do +nothing. I supposed that something ought to be done to quiet the +country. Instead of that an amendment is now offered asserting that we +do not believe in the right of secession, that we do believe that +these States which have seceded have done wrong. Suppose we do not +believe in secession, what relevance has that to the present subject? +Such an amendment may be used to delay or embarrass our action. There +are a good many ways to defeat the project, a good many ways to +suppress secession. My colleague looks to force alone. He proposes to +bring back the seceded States by force. I contemplate the use of force +in this connection with horror. It can never be used successfully.</p> + +<p>We are here to agree upon something which will give peace to the +country. Our committee has submitted a report which they think will +accomplish that. My colleagues are skilful; they know how many ways +there are to accomplish their purposes. One way to defeat any action +here is by making long speeches, by loading down the propositions of +amendment to the Constitution with other amendments, which will make +the whole thing offensive to the country.</p> + +<p>I stand here for my country. I would leave politics and political +parties in the back ground. I would vote for nothing here which is not +pertinent to the Constitution, and which will not help us in our +attempts to quiet the apprehensions of our fellow-citizens. My +colleague now brings forward a proposition which may be true in +itself, but it is not pertinent and amounts to nothing. I am sorry he +is not in his seat to hear what I have to say. He shot his arrow, and, +I understand, has left for New York.</p> + +<p>I am ready to vote down his proposition. I wish to see it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">403</a></span> voted down. +I am prepared to take all the consequences of voting it down, here and +elsewhere. But I have drawn an amendment myself which I offer in lieu +of his. Permit me to read it:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"While we do not recognize the constitutional right of any +State to secede from the Union, we are deeply impressed by +the fact that this Government is not maintained by force, +but by unity of origin and interest, inducing fraternal +feelings between the people of different sections of the +country; and our labors have been directed to the end of +giving a new assurance to our brethren, North, South, East, +and West, of our determination to stand firmly by all the +compromises of the Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>I think we can vote for this amendment. It denies the right of +secession as explicitly as the amendment of my colleague. But it has +no coercion about it, and it asserts, as I understand it, the true +principle upon which our Government is founded. I offer it as an +expression of my own views. I have sat here for eight or ten days and +have voted, except in a few instances, with the delegation from my own +State. There is a bare majority of that delegation against the +propositions of the committee. That majority ordinarily casts the vote +of our State. I cannot express my views by my votes, and for that +reason I undertake to express them in this amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. KING:—Like my colleague, I have taken but little part in the +discussions in this Conference. I cannot be justly charged with having +occupied time unnecessarily, as I have spoken on but one occasion, and +then very briefly. I would not speak now if I did not sincerely +believe this amendment to be eminently proper for the consideration of +this body.</p> + +<p>Myself and the majority of my colleagues differ from the majority of +the Conference. That difference is an honest difference of opinion. It +is based upon principle. If we consulted policy only, it would give us +pleasure to yield to the wishes of the majority. But our first duty is +to our constituents, and we must represent their opinions here. We +should do it because our opinions coincide with theirs; and it was +because we entertained these opinions that we were selected to +represent New York in this body. When we are called upon to vote, we +shall vote to carry out those opinions; and even when we differ from +some of our colleagues, we are entitled to the same consideration from +this body that they are. We do not intend to be driven<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">404</a></span> from our +position by threats or by intimidation. We believe that it is +eminently proper for this Conference to express its decided +convictions upon the question of secession. We are told here that +secession is a fact. Then let us deal with it as such. I go for the +enforcement of the laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution. I +will never give up the idea that this is a Government of the people, +and possessing within itself the power of enforcing its own decrees. +This I shall never do. This Conference could perform no nobler act +than that of sending to the country the announcement that the union of +the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and that secession +is but another term for rebellion.</p> + +<p>The gentleman from New Jersey says we misrepresent our constituents. +How does he know that? Who gave him the right to place himself between +our constituents and ourselves—to sit in judgment upon us? He will +find that statement a very adventurous one. I should know something +about New York and the people of New York. I have lived in that State +all my life. I have been honored by the confidence and support of my +fellow-citizens. Let me assure the gentleman that I know the people of +that State far better than he. We will undertake to answer to our +constituents; let him answer to his.</p> + +<p>I will occupy no farther time. I wish to live in peace and harmony +with our brethren in the slave States. But I wish to put upon the +record here a statement of the fact that this is a Government of the +people, and not a compact of States.</p> + +<p>Mr. PALMER:—It is no part of my business or duty to vindicate the +motives or conduct of the gentleman from New York, who is charged by +one of his colleagues with interposing his amendment only for the +purpose of delay. But that amendment meets my approval, and will have +my support without regard to such imputations. Of what consequence are +the gentleman's motives to us if his motion is right and proper? Are +we to be gravely told that secession and treason are not proper +subjects for our consideration? To be told this when every mail that +comes to us from the South is loaded with both these crimes? Sir, we +have commenced wrong. The first thing we ought to have done was to +declare that these were crimes, and that we would not negotiate with +those who denied the authority of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">405</a></span> Government, and claimed to have +thrown off their allegiance to it. Far better would it be for the +country if, instead of debating the question of slavery in reference +to our Territories, we had set to work to strengthen the hands of the +Government, and to put down the treason which threatens its existence.</p> + +<p>You, gentlemen of the slave States, say that we of the North use fair +words, that we promise fairly, but you insist that you will not rely +upon our promises, and you demand our bond as security that we will +keep them. I return the statement to you with interest. You, +gentlemen, talk fairly also—give us your bond! You have been talking +fairly for the last dozen or twenty years, and yet this treason, black +as night, has been plotted among you, and twelve years ago one of your +statesmen predicted the very state of things which now exists. I am +willing to give bonds, but I want our action in this respect to be +reciprocal. I want your bond against secession, and I ask it because +seven States in sympathy with you have undertaken to set up an +independent Government—have placed over it a military chieftain who +asserts that we, the people of the United States, are foreigners, and +must be treated with as a foreign nation.</p> + +<p>You charged <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> with treason. You convicted and executed him; +and yet among you are thousands of men guilty of treason, beside which +that of <span class="smcap">John Brown</span> was paltry and insignificant. If we are to act at +all, gentlemen, we must act upon reciprocal terms. I am willing to +make every reasonable concession. Will you do the same? Will you, +gentlemen of the South, declare that you will stand by the Union, and +brand secession as treasonable? If you will, you must vote for this +amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD:—I am sure no member of this Conference could have +listened to the remarks of the two gentlemen who have last spoken +without the deepest regret. It has been intimated here that Maryland +will secede unless she secures these guarantees. I do not know whether +she will or not. I know there is danger that she will.</p> + +<p>I agree that there is no <i>right</i> of secession. I think that secession +is revolution. But the right of revolution always exists. It has +always been maintained by statesmen North and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">406</a></span> South. It was admitted +by <span class="smcap">Webster</span> in his reply to <span class="smcap">Hayne</span>. I would read a quotation from his +speech if time was not so valuable.</p> + +<p>Yes, gentlemen, we are all in danger. The storm is raging; Virginia +has hung her flag at half-mast as a signal of distress. If Virginia +secedes our State will go with her, hand in hand, with Providence as +our guide. This is not intended as a threat. GOD forbid! It is a truth +which we cannot and ought not to conceal.</p> + +<p>Why will not New York and Massachusetts for once be magnanimous? Why +will they not follow the glorious example of Rhode Island? If they +will, I should still have hope. But if those two great States are +against us, I can see nothing but gloom in the future.</p> + +<p>Mr. SMITH:—I hope the true state of the question will not be lost +sight of. The first question is on the motion of the gentleman from +Missouri, to amend the proposition of my colleague. On that I rise to +a point of order. The motion of the gentleman from Missouri is a +distinct proposition, and inconsistent with that offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span>.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I do not think the point of order is well taken.</p> + +<p>The question upon agreeing to the amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Buckner</span> was then +taken by States, with the following result:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and +Virginia—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and +Kansas—15.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was lost.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—My motion is now in order as an amendment. I insist that +the question should be taken upon its adoption.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Does the gentleman propose to put this into the +Constitution? If the gentleman wishes to publish it as his speech, I +will agree to it.</p> + +<p>The question on the adoption of Mr. <span class="smcap">Bronson's</span> motion was taken <i>viva +voce</i>, and the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question now recurs on the amendment offered by +the gentleman from New York—Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">407</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. RIVES:—I hope the Conference will pardon me for saying a few +words upon this motion. I feel so sensibly the gravity of the +consequences involved in the result of this vote, that I ask for a few +minutes only in which to beseech the Conference not to act now upon a +mere abstraction.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, what have we come here for? We have come at a time when the +Government of our country is in great peril; and after a long session +of diligent labor, and when we are just upon the point of arriving at +the satisfactory adjustment of our differences, we have these abstract +questions thrust upon us. They do not belong here. They ought not to +be considered here. They would better befit a debating society than an +assembly of statesmen met to consider constitutional questions. The +gentleman (Governor <span class="smcap">King</span>) of New York announces his theory that this +is a Government of the people and not a compact of the States. While I +should agree with him upon his conclusions, we should differ widely as +to the premises from which they are derived. It is a compact. All the +authorities say so; and like any other compact, it is one from which +each independent party may withdraw.</p> + +<p>Now, what is this proposed amendment but an abstraction? In theory, +the union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble. But +how is it in fact? It is now a fact that the Union is disrupted, is +dissolved, because certain of the States composing it have withdrawn. +But this is no time to discuss these questions. While we are talking +about abstractions, we are wasting our time. I do not propose to +enlarge upon the observations I have already submitted. But I beseech +you, one and all, recognizing every member of the Conference as a +brother of a common family, that now, after the labor of three weeks, +and upon the very verge of adjustment, you should not destroy all we +have done by interposing questions of this kind. Do not let us be seen +engaged in the idle labor of Sisyphus. Do not let us now, just as we +are about placing on the top of the mountain the block of +constitutional adjustment, suffer that block to rebound. Dismiss the +amendment with, I pray you earnestly, all questions of this sort, and +let us proceed to the practical matters involved in the report, and +its adoption.</p> + +<p>Mr. NOYES:—If my colleague who offered this amend<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">408</a></span>ment, was not at +this time absent, I should not address the Conference at all. I should +like, however, to know what possible dangerous consequence we may +anticipate from the adoption of this clause. Whether this Union is a +compact of the States or a Government of the people, is equally +unimportant in this connection. In either case it is not to be broken +up at pleasure. If it is claimed either that the right exists +already—if it is apprehended that the people themselves may assert +the right to overthrow the Constitution and destroy the Government at +pleasure—we should not, by all means, pass this amendment.</p> + +<p>The slave power has now had possession of the Government in all for +more than fifty years. A President has been elected belonging to the +opposing party. For that cause alone, and without claiming or +assigning any other, the slave States, under the powerful protection +of Virginia, have come here for guarantees. We are told, over and over +again, that seven States have left the Union. There is a fact with +which we have to deal. On our side, we are merely dealing with +apprehensions. If you have a right to guarantees to quiet your +apprehensions, have we not a right to insist that secession shall be +put down and condemned by an explicit clause of the Constitution? It +is this claim of the right of secession which has brought all the +trouble upon the country. We are right in our claim that it should be +dealt with in this Conference. If we, as delegates, should prove +faithless to our trust, should yield you all the guarantees you ask, +and should insist upon nothing on our side, such action would not +avail you any thing.</p> + +<p>The North and the people of the North must be satisfied upon this +point. Much has been said here about the right of revolution. I do not +propose to discuss that right. At all events that is not a right which +depends upon the Constitution, or grows out of it. If it exists at +all, it is higher than, and above all Constitutions. The statement in +this amendment does not controvert the right of revolution. It is +simply a statement that <i>the Union of the States, under the +Constitution, is indissoluble</i>. I regard the adoption of this +amendment as both expedient and essential.</p> + +<p>Mr. TURNER, of Illinois:—I do not think this amendment very important +either way. If this is intended as a mere declara<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">409</a></span>tion of the purposes +of the Constitution, it may be well enough. But will the assertion +that such is the purpose of the Constitution preserve that instrument +and the Government under it? No, sir. We may call spirits from the +vasty deep; but the question is, will they come?</p> + +<p>If the right of secession exists at all, it is not confined to the +South. If it is conceded at all, it must be conceded in much broader +terms—in terms that are common to all the States. This amendment +secures to the States no practical benefit. I protest against being +bound to harmonize on all abstract questions. This is an abstraction. +Gentlemen schooled in deduction could spend weeks in argument over it.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span>, and +resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and +Kansas—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, +and Virginia—11.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was disagreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now submit that we ought to take the vote on the +substitute proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut. I trust we are +through with speeches, and hope we shall now get to some result. We +may as well vote upon all these propositions within the next hour.</p> + +<p>Mr. SOMES:—I desire to move an amendment by adding the following, to +be numbered</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 8.</span> "That the freedom of speech, or of the press, +shall not be abridged; but that the people of any Territory +of the United States shall be left perfectly free to discuss +the subject of slavery."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—I move to lay that amendment on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. SOMES:—Is not that motion debatable?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—It is not debatable.</p> + +<p>The motion to lay the amendment offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Somes</span> upon the table, +prevailed by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas—13.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont—5.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">410</a></span></p> + +<p>Thus the amendment was laid upon the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. VANDEVER:—I move to amend the report by the addition of the +following section:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The navigation of the Mississippi River shall remain free +to the people of each and all the States; and Congress shall +provide by law for the protection of commerce on said river +against all interference, foreign or domestic."</p></div> + +<p>The importance of this proposition can be seen at once. It is one in +which the whole country is interested, especially that portion of it +in which I reside, which is drained by the upper waters of the +Mississippi and Missouri. On this subject we have our apprehensions, +and they are better founded, too, than any which I have heard from the +South. We believe that our right to the navigation of this great +national highway is imperilled. I submit whether we are to be +cavalierly treated in this matter, and whether a subject of so much +importance is to be laid upon the table? We may at all events, with +perfect propriety, go this far, and make it, under the Constitution, +the duty of Congress to protect the free navigation of the Mississippi +River by law. We want it understood that the navigation of that river +should be free and unobstructed, and that the faith of the nation is +pledged to enforce that right. <span class="smcap">Henry Clay</span> once stated that nothing +upon earth could induce him to agree to any thing that should impede +the free navigation of that river. I assert and repeat his +declaration. We of the Northwest ask that this right should be +guaranteed to us.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—I am as anxious for the free navigation of the +Mississippi River as the gentleman. I wish simply to say that it is +made the duty of the people of Iowa, and of other States bounded by +this river, to protect that right of navigation. But the amendment is +not germane to the report of the committee. I move to lay it on the +table.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Crisfield</span> prevailed by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, +Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia—14.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +and New York—6.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was laid on the table.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">411</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BALDWIN:—I move that my substitute be taken up, and ask that it +may be read.</p> + +<p>It was read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Whereas</i> unhappy differences exist, which have alienated +from each other portions of the people of the United States, +to such an extent as seriously to disturb the peace of the +nation and impair the regular and efficient action of the +Government within the sphere of its constitutional powers +and duties;</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, the Legislature of the State of Kentucky has +made application to Congress to call a Convention for +proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United +States;</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, it is believed to be the opinion of the +people of other States that amendments to the Constitution +are, or may become, necessary to secure to the people of the +United States, of every section, the full and equal +enjoyment of their rights and liberties, so far as the same +may depend for their security and protection on the powers +granted to or withheld from the General Government in +pursuance of the national purposes for which it was ordained +and established:</p> + +<p>This Convention does therefore recommend to the several +States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress +to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the +Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the +Legislatures of the several States, or to Conventions +therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of +ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with +the provision in the fifth article of the Constitution.</p></div> + +<p>I propose to avail myself of the privilege of a short reply to the +arguments against my proposition; and in order that I may occupy as +little time as possible, I have reduced my reply to writing. At the +risk of repeating some of the remarks I made at the opening of the +discussion, I wish to recur to the facts on which my report is based.</p> + +<p>The resolution which I have moved to substitute, recommends to the +several States to unite with Kentucky in her application for the +calling of a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.</p> + +<p>On the 28th day of January, seven days before the assembling of this +Conference Convention, the Governor of Kentucky transmitted to the +President of the United States the joint resolutions of the General +Assembly of that Commonwealth, "recommending a call for a Convention +of the United States," with a request that the President would lay the +same before Congress; and on the 5th of February, the day after the +assembling of this Convention, they were, by a special message of the +President, communicated to Congress, with the expression of great +satisfaction in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">412</a></span> performance of that duty, and of confidence that +Congress would bestow upon those resolutions the careful consideration +due to the distinguished and patriotic source from which they +proceeded, as well as to the great importance of the subject which +they involve. The resolution requesting the call of a Convention I +have already read to the Conference.</p> + +<p>There are, sir, but two modes provided by the people of the United +States for altering the fundamental law of their Government, both of +which are specified in the fifth article of the Constitution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1. Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses <i>shall deem +it necessary</i>, shall <span class="smcap">propose</span> amendments to the Constitution; +or,</p> + +<p>2. On the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of +the several States, shall <i>call a Convention</i> for <span class="smcap">proposing</span> +<i>amendments</i>, which, in either case, shall be valid as part +of the Constitution, when <i>ratified</i> by the Legislatures, or +by Conventions in <i>three-fourths</i> of the States.</p></div> + +<p>The first mode is recommended by the majority of the committee, in the +expectation that Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, will +propose, on the request of this Convention, for ratification by the +States, the several amendments they have reported.</p> + +<p>The second mode is the one proposed by the Legislature of Kentucky, +and which, in accordance therewith, I have moved to substitute for the +recommendation of the committee.</p> + +<p>There are now but few days remaining before the termination of the +functions of the present Congress. If it were within the fair scope +and interest of the constitutional provision that Congress should act, +in the proposing of amendments, on the recommendation of this +Conference Convention, no one, I think, can reasonably expect them to +consider and deliberately act on such recommendation during the few +remaining days of the present Congress. Other questions, of engrossing +interest, now pending before them, and the acts of necessary +legislation at the close of the session, will prevent it. It must, +therefore, go over to the next Congress. Assuming that during the term +of that Congress the amendments recommended by this Convention shall, +by two-thirds of both houses, be <i>deemed necessary</i>, and be proposed +to the States for ratification; there would probably be no earlier +final action by the requisite number of States, than in the mode +propos<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">413</a></span>ed by Kentucky, and recommended by the resolution which I have +moved to substitute for the mode of amendment reported by the +committee. But the great objection, in my mind, to the mode of +amendment contemplated by the majority report, is that it is not in +accordance with either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. +The people of the United States intended, when they adopted the +Constitution under which we have for more than seventy years enjoyed a +higher degree of prosperity than has fallen to the lot of any other +people, that it should remain in full force and unchanged, except in +one of the two modes prescribed in that sacred instrument for its own +amendment.</p> + +<p>It is a Constitution which binds the people of every State, as the +supreme law of the land, until it can be changed by the action, in the +first instance, of those who are <i>sworn</i> to support it. No amendments +can, consistently with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, +be <i>proposed</i> by Congress, unless two-thirds of both houses, acting +under the responsibility of their official oaths, shall "<i>deem</i> them +<i>necessary</i>." No interference or pressure by any extraneous body +unknown to the Constitution, was contemplated, or can be allowed with +safety to the people, to impair the exercise of this function under +all the responsibilities and official sanctions that properly +appertain to it. The judgment of two-thirds of both houses of Congress +in regard to the <i>necessity</i> of the amendments, must precede their +proposal to the States for <i>ratification</i>.</p> + +<p>The Government of the United States, in its sphere of duties, is +supreme. The State Governments, when they consented to its formation +by the people of the United States, surrendered so much of their +separate sovereignties as was essential to its strength and +efficiency. To that extent we became one people. This Government, for +all <i>national</i> purposes, took the place of the State Governments, as +well in regard to the <i>paramount allegiance</i> as to the duty of +protection of the people of every State in the enjoyment of all their +federal rights. Its powers can neither be enlarged nor diminished, +except in the <i>constitutional</i> mode, without violating the rights of +the States as well as of the people.</p> + +<p>Any attempt from without, by combinations and associations not +responsible to the people, to <i>coerce</i> or overawe Congress, or in any +way to impair the free and <i>deliberate</i> exercise of its judg<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">414</a></span>ment in +<i>proposing</i> amendments "as deemed <i>necessary</i>" by Congress, is a +palpable violation of the privileges of the people. They elected the +members of the House of Representatives with the intention that they +should freely and deliberately, under their official oaths, propose +amendments, or not, to the Constitution, as <i>they</i> might <i>deem +necessary</i>, and not at the dictation of <i>States even</i>, who cannot +themselves propose amendments, but can only require of Congress to +call a Convention of <i>all the States</i> for that purpose. Much less can +a convention of delegates from the Legislatures, or the Executive of a +part only of the States—a body unknown to, and unauthorized by, the +Constitution—assume to exercise, or dictate to Congress the exercise +of this high prerogative.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">We</span> do not represent the people of the United States. This Government, +for every purpose for which it was established, is a separate, and in +some sense a foreign government to the States. It operates directly on +the people, and is itself their true protector in all their Federal +rights.</p> + +<p>Any number of States, less than two-thirds, have no more right to call +into action the power of Congress either to call a Convention, or to +propose amendments, than the individual members of their Legislatures +in their private capacities; and Congress might as well, and probably +would, treat our interference with their official duties as an +<i>usurpation</i>; as much so as if we should seek to interfere with the +appropriate duties of the Legislatures of Virginia or Massachusetts. +And, sir, I cannot but regard it, so far as the <i>free</i> action of +Congress should be influenced by the recommendations of this body, as +in the nature of a <i>revolutionary proceeding</i> for which there is no +sufficient cause or justification. Sir, all the States are not here +represented. All have not even had an opportunity to be here. And yet +we are endeavoring to influence the action of Congress in a manner +which may deeply affect their interests. If, under any circumstances, +a body so convened, would have a right to act upon Congress, by the +expression of our opinions as a Convention of States, ought not all to +have an opportunity to participate in our deliberations? Most +certainly they ought.</p> + +<p>But it is said some of the States are threatening to secede from the +Union; others have seceded, and must be induced to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">415</a></span> come back, by the +speedy action of Congress on the amendments recommended by the +committee. Does the <i>Constitution</i> authorize amendments under such +circumstances, with <i>less care</i> and deliberation than in time of peace +and tranquillity?</p> + +<p>This Government, sir, cannot recognize the fact that <i>States</i> have +seceded. It is not a Government over <i>States</i>, but over the <i>people</i> +of the United States, irrespective of the State in which they live. +This Government, and not the States, protects them in their Federal +rights, and requires allegiance and obedience from the people in every +State, to the Constitution and laws of the United States as the +supreme law of the land, any thing in the laws or ordinances of any +State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is the <i>people</i> and not the +States that are governed by that law, within the sphere of its +constitutional operation.</p> + +<p>I have said that the course proposed by the majority of the committee +is, in my judgment, not only against the letter, but the spirit of the +Constitution. The State of Kentucky, ever patriotic and conservative, +must have so regarded it, when, instead of asking Congress to propose +the amendments they desired, they requested their sister States to +unite with them in an application in the mode prescribed by the +Constitution to Congress to call a Convention for that purpose.</p> + +<p>Our fathers, who framed that Constitution, and the people of the +United States, who ratified it, set it forth in the preamble as their +first great purpose "to form a more perfect Union." They intended to +establish thereby a Government of perpetual obligation and of +self-sustaining vigor. They did not contemplate the necessity of +amendments for any other causes than such as, after calm, deliberate, +undisturbed consideration should be judged necessary. They did not +intend that it should be exposed to the danger of hasty action under +the influence of excited passions or timid and groundless +apprehension. They would not trust the entire people even with the +right of amendment, except in the mode prescribed, with all the delays +incident to that mode; and then only by the action, in every stage of +the proceeding, of persons bound by solemn oath to support it.</p> + +<p>The Constitution, in prescribing the modes of proposing amendments, +endeavored to provide against irregular combination of a part only of +the States to effect them. Hence it pro<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">416</a></span>hibited all agreements or +compacts between the States; and it made no provision for the +recognition of any action by a convention, except when called on the +recommendation of two-thirds of the States applying to Congress, by +separate action of their Legislatures, for that purpose.</p> + +<p>Any interference with the duty of Congress by such a body as we are, +representing only a portion of the States in any form, and some of us +only the executives of the States from which we come, would be as much +at variance with the Constitution as with the counsel of that +illustrious American—I will not say Virginian—for <span class="smcap">Washington</span> +belonged to his whole country—in the Farewell Address which he +dedicated to the people of the United States on his retirement from +the public service, and which ought to be cherished in the heart of +every patriot. In addition to what I have already read from that +address let me read this passage:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all +<i>combinations</i> and <i>associations</i> under whatever plausible +character, with the <i>real design to direct, control, +counteract</i>, or <i>awe</i> the regular deliberation and action of +the <i>constituted authorities</i>, are destructive to this +fundamental rule, and of fatal tendency."</p></div> + +<p>Let me read it again. "All obstructions," &c. "All combinations," &c.</p> + +<p>This address is replete with words of true wisdom. Let us heed them; +for they are eminently adapted to the present occasion. There is no +exigency which should be allowed to overawe Congress in the +performance of its constitutional duties. No State intervention, no +combination or association of representatives of States in a manner +unknown to the Constitution, can be recognized as authoritative by +those to whom, on their own responsibility, the people of the United +States have conferred their national interests and the guardianship of +their fundamental law. "We owe," in the language of the illustrious +statesman of Kentucky, "<i>a paramount</i> allegiance to the Government of +the United States—a subordinate one to our State."</p> + +<p>Sir, while I am willing to perform all my constitutional duties—all +my fraternal duties toward the people of every section of our common +country, I, for one, feel bound to abstain from any encroachment on +the duties which the Constitution of my country has delegated to +others to be performed, in the modes, and with the responsibilities, +which the <i>people</i> for their own security have deemed it proper to +prescribe.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">417</a></span></p> + +<p>With these opinions, I should be unfaithful to my own convictions of +duty, and recreant to the trust which has devolved on me as a citizen +of the United States, and by inheritance from an ancestor who took a +part in the deliberations of the Convention which framed our +Constitution, and to whose public services, you, sir, so kindly +alluded at the opening of the Conference, were I to unite with the +majority of the committee in urging upon Congress the amendments they +have proposed.</p> + +<p>Entertaining as I do for the members of the committee who have +concurred in that report a profound respect, it has been with a +feeling of unaffected diffidence and self-distrust that I have +ventured to express my sentiments on this occasion. But as I must act +on my own convictions of duty, which are in harmony with those of my +associates from Connecticut, so far as in the brief period which has +elapsed since the report was submitted I have had opportunity to +ascertain them, I felt bound to make known to the Convention the +reasons which will govern my action.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> + +<p>The vote was then taken by States on the substitute proposed by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>, and the substitute was rejected by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont—8.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas—13.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was not agreed to.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen disagreed to the vote of their respective +States:</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bronson</span>, of New York; Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger</span>, of New York; Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge</span>, of New +York; Mr. <span class="smcap">Corning</span>, of New York; Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, of Indiana; Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span>, +of Indiana.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I suppose it is now in order for me to move my substitute +for the report of the majority of the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I also have a substitute to offer. I shall not discuss it.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">418</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—The substitute which I propose embodies the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> +resolutions, with the modifications suggested by Virginia. These are +principally confined to the first section, which is made to apply to +our future as well as our present territory. I have modified the form +of the substitute in several particulars, and now offer it without +farther introduction. These are the amendments which I understand the +delegation from Virginia is instructed to insist upon:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h3>JOINT RESOLUTIONS</h3> + +<h4>PROPOSING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE +UNITED STATES.</h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen +between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the +rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding +States, and especially their rights in the common territory +of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable +and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the +very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted +and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do +equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the +people that peace and good will which ought to prevail +between all the citizens of the United States: therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, by this Convention, that the following articles +are hereby approved and submitted to the Congress of the +United States, with the request that they may, by the +requisite constitutional majority of two-thirds, be +recommended to the respective States of the Union, to be, +when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the States, +valid and operative as amendments of the Constitution of the +Union.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 1.</span> In all the territory of the United States now +held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° +30´, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a +punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory +shall remain under territorial government. In all the +territory now or hereafter acquired south of said line of +latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized +as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress; +but shall be protected as property by all the departments of +the territorial government during its continuance; and when +any territory, north or south of said line, within such +boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the +population requisite for a member of Congress, according to +the then federal ratio of representation of the people of +the United States, it shall, if its form of government be +republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing +with the original States, with or without slavery, as the +constitution of such new State may provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 2.</span> Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery +in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate +within the limits of States that permit the holding of +slaves.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 3.</span> Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery +within the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">419</a></span> District of Columbia, so long as it exists in +the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, +nor without the consent of the free white inhabitants, nor +without just compensation first made to such owners of +slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall +Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal +Government or members of Congress, whose duties require them +to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves +and holding them, as such, during the time their duties may +require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them +from the District.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 4.</span> Congress shall have no power to prohibit or +hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to +another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law +permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by +land, navigable rivers, or by the sea. And if such +transportation be by sea, the slaves shall be protected as +property by the Federal Government. And the right of transit +by the owners with their slaves in passing to or from one +slaveholding State or Territory to another, between and +through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, shall +be protected. And in imposing direct taxes pursuant to the +Constitution, Congress shall have no power to impose on +slaves a higher rate of tax than on land, according to their +just value.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 5.</span> That in addition to the provisions of the third +paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the +Constitution of the United States, Congress shall provide by +law, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall +apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in all +cases, when the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was +to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by +violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said +fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby +prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for +the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of +the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And +in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such +fugitive, they shall reimburse themselves by imposing and +collecting a tax on the county or city in which said +violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, equal in +amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition of +interest and the costs of collection; and the said county or +city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, +may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the +wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was prevented +from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as +the owner himself might have sued and recovered.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 6.</span> No future amendment of the Constitution shall +affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph +of the second section of the first article of the +Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section +of the fourth article of said Constitution, and no amendment +shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or +give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with +slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be +allowed or permitted.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 7. Sec. 1.</span> The elective franchise and the right to +hold office, whether Federal, State, territorial, or +municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in +whole or in part, of the African race.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">420</a></span></p> + +<p>And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension +embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the +Constitution of the United States, there are others which +come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be +remedied by its legislative power: and whereas it is the +desire of this Convention, as far as its influence may +extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent +and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, +and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore,</p> + +<p>1. <i>Resolved</i>, That the laws now in force for the recovery +of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and +mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been +sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of +the Supreme Court of the United States; that the +slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance +and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be +repealed or so modified or changed as to impair their +efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the +punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or +other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution +of said laws.</p> + +<p>2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive +slave acts, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or +which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free +course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and +void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the +United States. Yet those State laws, void as they are, have +given color to practices, and led to consequences which have +obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of +Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of +fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the +discord and commotion now prevailing. This Convention, +therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem +it improper, respectfully and earnestly, to recommend the +repeal of those laws to the several States which have +enacted them, or such legislative corrections or +explanations of them as may prevent their being used or +perverted to such mischievous purposes.</p> + +<p>3. That the act of the eighteenth of September, eighteen +hundred and fifty, commonly called the fugitive slave law, +ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the +commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, +equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his +decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to +avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section +of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant +for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave to summon to +his aid the <i>posse comitatus</i>, and which declares it to be +the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its +execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the +authority and duty to cases in which there shall be +resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue.</p> + +<p>4. That the laws for the suppression of the African +slave-trade, and especially those prohibiting the +importation of slaves into the United States, ought to be +made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed, and all +further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be +promptly made.</p></div> + +<p>The substitute offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> was rejected by the following +vote:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">421</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia—4.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, +Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New +Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, +Vermont, and Kansas—16.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dent</span> dissented from the vote of Maryland.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOUSTON:—I wish to explain the vote of Delaware. She has endorsed +the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions. She would accept the mode of adjustment +proposed by the gentleman from Virginia. She has adhered to her +opinions as long as she thinks it fit or expedient to do so. Under +these circumstances Delaware feels it her duty to vote for the report +of the majority. As we desire to harmonize conflicting opinions, and +to arrive at a fair settlement, we have voted against Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon's</span> +amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRISFIELD:—Like Delaware, Maryland prefers the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> plan of +adjustment. That we think is now impossible. But that plan does not +differ very widely from the report of the majority. Certainly not +enough to warrant us in risking the Union, when we can get the one and +cannot have the other. For this reason Maryland votes "No" on Mr. +<span class="smcap">Seddon's</span> proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLAY:—I gave notice some days ago that I should offer as a +substitute the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions—pure and undefiled—without the +crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i." I now offer them as +follows, and demand a vote by States:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the Union is in danger; and owing to the unhappy +divisions existing in Congress, it would be difficult, if +not impossible, for that body to concur, in both its +branches, by the requisite majority, so as to enable it +either to adopt such measures of legislation, or to +recommend to the States such amendments to the Constitution +as are deemed necessary and proper to avert that danger; and +whereas, in so great an emergency, the opinion and judgment +of the people ought to be heard, and would be the best and +surest guide to their representatives: Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That provision ought to be made by law, without +delay, for taking the sense of the people, and submitting to +their vote the following resolutions as the basis for the +final and permanent settlement of those disputes that now +disturb the peace of the country and threaten the existence +of the Union.</p> + +<p>And that whereas serious and alarming dissensions have +arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning +the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding +States, and especially their rights in the common territory +of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable +and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the +very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted +and settled by constitutional provis<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">422</a></span>ions, which shall do +equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the +people that peace and good will which ought to prevail +between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the following articles be, and hereby are, +proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of +the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and +purposes as part of said Constitution, when ratified by +conventions of three-fourths of the several States:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 1.</span> In all the territory of the United States now +held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° +30´, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a +punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory +shall remain under territorial government. In all the +territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the +African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not +be interfered with by Congress; but shall be protected as +property by all the departments of the territorial +government during its continuance; and when any Territory, +north or south of said line, within such boundaries as +Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population +requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then +Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United +States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, +be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the +original States, with or without slavery, as the +constitution of such new States may provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 2.</span> Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery +in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate +within the limits of States that permit the holding of +slaves.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 3.</span> Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery +within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the +adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor +without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just +compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not +consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time +prohibit officers of the Federal Government or members of +Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, +from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them, as +such, during the time their duties may require them to +remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 4.</span> Congress shall have no power to prohibit or +hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to +another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law +permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by +land, navigable rivers, or by the sea; and the right of +transit by the owners with their slaves in passing to or +from one slaveholding State or Territory to another, between +and through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, +shall be protected.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 5.</span> That, in addition to the provisions of the third +paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the +Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power +to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, +that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall +apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all +cases, when the marshal or other officer whose duty it was +to arrest said fugitive was prevented from so doing by +violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said +fugitive was res<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">423</a></span>cued by force, and the owner thereby +prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for +the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of +the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And +in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such +fugitive, they shall have the power to reimburse themselves +by imposing and collecting a tax on the county or city in +which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, +equal in amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition +of interest and the costs of collection; and the said county +or city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, +may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the +wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was prevented +from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as +the owner himself might have sued and recovered.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 6.</span> No future amendment of the Constitution shall +affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph +of the second section of the first article of the +Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section +of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment +shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or +give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with +slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be +allowed or permitted.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Article 7. Sec. 1.</span> The elective franchise, and the right to +hold office, whether federal, State, territorial, or +municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in +whole or in part, of the African race.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> The United States shall have power to acquire, from +time to time, districts of country in Africa and South +America, for the colonization, at expense of the Federal +Treasury, of such free negroes and mulattoes as the several +States may wish to have removed from their limits and from +the District of Columbia, and such other places as may be +under the jurisdiction of Congress.</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, also, besides those causes of dissension +embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the +Constitution of the United States, there are others which +come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be +remedied by its legitimate power; and whereas it is the +desire of this Convention, as far as its influence may +extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent +and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, +and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore,</p> + +<p>1. <i>Resolved</i>, That the laws now in force for the recovery +of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and +mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been +sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of +the Supreme Court of the United States; that the +slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance +and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be +repealed or so modified or changed as to impair their +efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the +punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or +other illegal means, to hinder of defeat the due execution +of said laws.</p> + +<p>2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive +slave acts, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or +which in their operation impede, hin<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">424</a></span>der, or delay the free +course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and +void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the +United States. Yet those State laws, void as they are, have +given color to practices, and led to consequences which have +obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of +Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of +fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the +discord and commotion now prevailing. This Convention, +therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem +it improper, respectfully and earnestly, to recommend the +repeal of those laws to the several States which have +enacted them, or such legislative corrections or +explanations of them, as may prevent their being used or +perverted to such mischievous purposes.</p> + +<p>3. That the act of the eighteenth of September, eighteen +hundred and fifty, commonly called the fugitive slave law, +ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the +commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, +equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his +decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to +avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section +of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant +for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave to summon to +his aid the <i>posse comitatus</i>, and which declares it to be +the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its +execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the +authority and duty to cases in which there shall be +resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue.</p> + +<p>4. That the laws for the suppression of the African +slave-trade, and especially those prohibiting the +importation of slaves into the United States, ought to be +made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed, and all +further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be +promptly made.</p></div> + +<p>The question on agreeing to said amendment resulted in the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and +Virginia—5.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, +Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New +Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and +Vermont—14.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was not agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. DENT:—I desire to dissent from the vote of Maryland.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I desire to record the vote of Kansas in the negative.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—Leave will be given unless objection is made.</p> + +<p>Mr. TUCK:—I hold in my hand a substitute which I propose to offer for +the report of the committee. I know all the delegates have made up +their minds how to vote, and what to vote for. Argument now will +amount to but little. But I submit this as indicating to a certain +extent the views of the minori<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">425</a></span>ty here. I shall make no farther +remarks, but shall pass it to the Secretary, and I hope the Conference +will be patient for five minutes while it is read.</p> + +<p>The proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuck</span> was read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">To the People of the United States:</span></p> + +<p>On the 4th day of February, 1861, in compliance with the +invitation of the State of Virginia, commissioners from +several other States met the commissioners of that State in +Conference Convention, in the City of Washington. From time +to time, commissioners from other States appeared, appointed +as were those who first appeared, some by the Legislatures, +and some by the Governors of their respective States, until, +on the 23d instant, twenty-one States were then represented. +The Convention thus constituted claims no authority under +the Constitution and laws; but deeply impressed with a sense +of existing dissensions and dangers, proceeded to a careful +consideration of them and their appropriate remedies, and +having brought their deliberations to a close, now submit +the result to the judgment of their fellow-citizens.</p> + +<p>We recognize and deplore the divisions and distractions +which now afflict our country, interrupt its prosperity, +disturb its peace, and endanger the Union of the States; but +we repel the conclusion, that any alienations or dissensions +exist which are irreconcilable, which justify attempts at +revolution, or which the patriotism and fraternal sentiments +of the people, and the interests and honor of the whole +nation, will not overcome.</p> + +<p>In a country embracing the central and most important +portion of a continent, among a people now numbering over +thirty millions, diversities of opinion inevitably exist; +and rivalries, intensified at times by local interests and +sectional attachments, must often occur; yet we do not doubt +that the theory of our Government is the best which is +possible for this nation, that the Union of the States is of +vital importance, and that the Constitution, which expresses +the combined wisdom of the illustrious founders of the +Government, is still the palladium of our liberties, +adequate to every emergency, and justly entitled to the +support of every good citizen.</p> + +<p>It embraces in its provisions and spirit, all the defence +and protection which any section of the country can +rightfully demand or honorably concede.</p> + +<p>Adopted with primary reference to the wants of five millions +of people, but with the wisest reference to future expansion +and development, it has carried us onward with a rapid +increase of numbers, an accumulation of wealth, and a degree +of happiness and general prosperity never attained by any +other nation.</p> + +<p>Whatever branch of industry, or whatever staple production, +shall become, in the possible changes of the future, the +leading interests of the country, thereby creating +unforeseen complications or new conflicts of opinion and +interest, the Constitution of the United States, properly +understood and fairly enforced, is equal to every exigency, +a shield and defence to all, in every time of need. If, +however, by reason of a change in circumstances, or for any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">426</a></span> +cause, a portion of the people believe they ought to have +their rights more exactly defined or more fully explained in +the Constitution, it is their duty, in accordance with its +provisions, to seek a remedy by way of amendment to that +instrument; and it is the duty of all the States to concur +in such amendments as may be found necessary to insure equal +and exact justice to all.</p> + +<p>In order, therefore, to announce to the country the +sentiments of this Convention, respecting not only the +remedy which should be sought for existing discontents, but +also to communicate to the public what we believe to be the +patriotic sentiment of the country, we adopt the following +resolutions:</p> + +<p>1st. <i>Resolved</i>, That this Convention recognize the +well-understood proposition that the Constitution of the +United States gives no power to Congress, or any branch of +the Federal Government, to interfere in any manner with +slavery in any of the States; and we are assured by abundant +testimony, that neither of the great political organizations +existing in the country contemplates a violation of the +spirit of the Constitution in this regard, or the procuring +of any amendment thereof, by which Congress, or any +department of the General Government, shall ever have +jurisdiction over slavery in any of the States.</p> + +<p>2d. <i>Resolved</i>, That the Constitution was ordained and +established, as set forth in the preamble, by the people of +the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, +establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for +the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure +the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity; +and when the people of any State are not in full enjoyment +of all the benefits intended to be secured to them by the +Constitution, or their rights under it are disregarded, +their tranquillity disturbed, their prosperity retarded, or +their liberty imperilled by the people of any other State, +full and adequate redress can and ought to be provided for +such grievances.</p> + +<p>3d. <i>Resolved</i>, That the Constitution of the United States, +and the acts of Congress in pursuance thereof, are the +supreme law of the land, to which every citizen owes +faithful obedience; and it is therefore respectfully +recommended to the Legislatures of the several States to +consider impartially whatever complaints may be made of acts +as inconsistent therewith, by sister States or their +citizens, and carefully revise their statutes, in view of +such complaints, and to repeal whatever provisions may be +found to be in contravention of that supreme law.</p> + +<p>4th. <i>Resolved</i>, That this Convention recommend to the +Legislatures of the several States of the Union to follow +the example of the Legislatures of the States of Kentucky +and of Illinois, in applying to Congress to call a +Convention for the proposing of amendments to the +Constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth +article thereof.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I have not thought it best to occupy much of the time of +the Convention in discussing the propositions presented for its +decision. I have indeed been impressed with an<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">427</a></span> idea that a decision +upon these propositions just now may be premature.</p> + +<p>I have already stated to the Conference that the delegates from Ohio +act under resolutions of the General Assembly of that State, one of +which requires them to use their influence in procuring an adjournment +of this body to the 4th of April next. It is the wish of that State +that opportunity may be given for full consideration of any +constitutional amendment that may be proposed here, and especially to +avoid precipitate action under apprehensions of resistance to the +inauguration of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> on the 4th of next month.</p> + +<p>I have already submitted resolutions in accordance with the views of +the Legislature, and intended, at the proper time, to ask a vote upon +the proposed adjournment. On consultation with my colleagues, however, +I find a majority of them averse to postponement; and, in view of the +fact that the resolution of the Legislature is not imperative in its +terms, and especially in consideration of the assurances constantly +given here by delegates from slaveholding States that, whatever may be +the result of our deliberations, no obstruction or hindrance will be +opposed to the inauguration of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span>, I have determined to +forbear urging a vote.</p> + +<p>Upon the respective merits of the propositions of the committee, and +the proposed amendments, I have not much to say. But what I do say +will be said in all seriousness.</p> + +<p>I do not approve the confident pledges made here of favorable action +by the people of either section, or of any State, upon whatever +propositions may receive the sanction of this Conference. The people +of the free States, so far as my observation goes, do not commit their +right of judgment to anybody. They generally exercise it themselves, +and be assured they will exercise it freely upon any proposition +coming from this body. Whatever our actions may be here, every +proposition to amend the Constitution must come before the people. +They will discuss it, and must adopt it before it can become a part of +the fundamental law. Dismiss, then, the idea that all that is +necessary to secure amendments acceptable to a particular interest or +section is to secure for them the sanction of a majority in this hall.</p> + +<p>The result of the national canvass which recently terminat<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">428</a></span>ed in the +election of Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> has been spoken of by some as the effect of a +sudden impulse, or of some irregular excitement of the popular mind; +and it has been somewhat confidently asserted that, upon reflection +and consideration, the hastily-formed opinions which brought about +that election will be changed. It has been said, also, that +subordinate questions of local and temporary character have augmented +the Republican vote, and secured a majority which could not have been +obtained upon the national questions involved in the respective +platforms of the parties which divide the country.</p> + +<p>I cannot take this view of the result of the Presidential election. I +believe, and the belief amounts to absolute conviction, that the +election must be regarded as the triumph of principles cherished in +the hearts of the people of the free States. These principles, it is +true, were originally asserted by a small party only. But, after years +of discussion, they have, by their own value, their own intrinsic +soundness, obtained the deliberate and unalterable sanction of the +people's judgment.</p> + +<p>Chief among these principles is the restriction of slavery within +State limits; <i>not</i> war upon slavery within those limits, but fixed +opposition to its extension beyond them. Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> was the candidate +of the people opposed to the extension of slavery. We have elected +him. After many years of earnest advocacy and of severe trial, we have +achieved the triumph of that principle. By a fair and unquestionable +majority we have secured that triumph. Do you think we, who represent +this majority, will throw it away? Do you think the people would +sustain us if we undertook to throw it away? I must speak to you +plainly, gentlemen of the South; it is not in my heart to deceive you. +I therefore tell you explicitly that if we of the North and West would +consent to throw away all that has been gained in the recent triumph +of our principles, the people would not sustain us, and so the consent +would avail you nothing. And I must tell you farther, that under no +inducements whatever will we consent to surrender a principle which we +believe to be so sound and so important as that of restricting slavery +within State limits.</p> + +<p>There are some things, however, which I think the people are willing +to do. In all my relations with them, and these relations have been +somewhat intimate, I have never discovered any de<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">429</a></span>sire or inclination +on the part of any considerable number, to interfere with the +institution of slavery within the States where it exists. I do not +believe that any such desire anywhere prevails. All your rights have +been respected and enforced by the people of the free States. More +than this: even your claims have been enforced, under repulsive +circumstances, and, in my judgment, beyond right and beyond +constitutional obligation. When and where have the people of the free +States, in their representatives, refused you any right? When and +where have they refused to confer with you frankly and candidly when +you imagined your rights to be in danger? They have been, and still +are, patient and forbearing. They do not believe that you need any new +constitutional guarantees. You have guarantees enough in their +voluntary action. But, since you think differently, they send us +hither to meet you, to confer with you, to consider the questions +which threaten the Union, to discuss them freely and decide them +fairly.</p> + +<p>Now, gentlemen, what do we ask of you? Do we ask any thing +unreasonable in the amendment which has been submitted? We simply ask +that you say to your people that we of the free States have no +purpose, and never had any purpose, to infringe the rights of the +slave States, or of any citizen of the slave States. And that our +devotion to the Government and the Constitution is not inferior to +that of any portion of the American people. By uniting with us in the +declaration we propose, you tell your people at home that no +considerable party, that no considerable number of persons, in the +free States, has any wish or purpose to interfere with slavery in the +States where it exists, or with any of your rights under the +Constitution. You can say this with absolute truth, and with entire +confidence. In all the action of the delegates who favor this +amendment, in all our private consultations, every heart has been +animated by a most anxious desire to maintain the Union and preserve +the harmony of the Republic. No word has been uttered indicating the +slightest wish to avoid any obligation of the Constitution, or to +deprive you of any right under it. All concur in desiring to give +effect to the Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance of it. The +same sentiments animate the people of the free States. Congress has +declared, with the almost unanimous concurrence of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">430</a></span> members from +the free States, against national interference with slavery in the +slave States. The Chicago Convention most emphatically asserted the +same doctrine. It has been reiterated over and over again by the +Legislatures of the free States, and by great and small conventions of +their people. Is it, then, too much to ask you to unite with us in a +declaration that all fears of aggression entertained by your people +are groundless? Such a declaration will go far to insure peace; why +not make it?</p> + +<p>You profess to be satisfied with slavery, as it is and where it is. +You think the institution just and beneficial. The very able gentleman +from Virginia (Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span>), who commands the respect of all by the +frankness and sincerity of his speech, has said that he believes +slavery to be the condition in which the African is to be educated up +to freedom. He does not believe in perpetual slavery. He believes the +time will come when the slave, through the beneficent influences of +the circumstances which surround him, will rise in intelligence, +capacity, and character, to the dignity of a freeman, and will be +free.</p> + +<p>We cannot agree with you, and therefore do not propose to allow +slavery where we are responsible for it, outside of your State limits, +and under National jurisdiction. But we do not mean to interfere with +it at all within State limits. So far as we are concerned, you can +work out your experiment there in peace. We shall rejoice if no evil +comes from it to you or yours. [Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase's</span> time having expired, he +was unanimously invited to proceed.]</p> + +<p>Aside from the Territorial question—the question of slavery outside +of the slave States—I know of but one serious difficulty. I refer to +the question concerning fugitives from service. The clause in the +Constitution concerning this class of persons is regarded by almost +all men, North and South, as a stipulation for the surrender to their +masters of slaves escaping into free States. The people of the free +States, however, who believe that slaveholding is wrong, cannot and +will not aid in the reclamation, and the stipulation becomes therefore +a dead letter. You complain of bad faith, and the complaint is +retorted by denunciations of the cruelty which would drag back to +bondage the poor slave who has escaped from it. You, thinking slavery +right, claim the fulfilment of the stipulation; we, thinking slavery +wrong,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">431</a></span> cannot fulfil the stipulation without consciousness of +participation in wrong. Here is a real difficulty, but it seems to me +not insuperable. It will not do for us to say to you, in justification +of non-performance, "the stipulation is immoral, and therefore we +cannot execute it;" for you deny the immorality, and we cannot assume +to judge for you.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, you ought not to exact from us the literal +performance of the stipulation when you know that we cannot perform it +without conscious culpability. A true solution of the difficulty seems +to be attainable by regarding it as a simple case where a contract, +from changed circumstances, cannot be fulfilled exactly as made. A +court of equity in such a case decrees execution as near as may be. It +requires the party who cannot perform to make compensation for +non-performance. Why cannot the same principle be applied to the +rendition of fugitives from service? We cannot surrender—but we can +compensate. Why not, then, avoid all difficulties on all sides, and +show respectively good faith and good will by providing and accepting +compensation where masters reclaim escaping servants and prove their +right of reclamation under the Constitution? Instead of a judgment for +rendition, let there be a judgment for compensation, determined by the +true value of the services, and let the same judgment assure freedom +to the fugitive. The cost to the National Treasury would be as nothing +in comparison with the evils of discord and strife. All parties would +be gainers.</p> + +<p>What I have just said is, indeed, not exactly to the point of the +present discussion. But I refer to this matter to show how easily the +greatest difficulties may be adjusted if approached in a truly just, +generous, and patriotic spirit.</p> + +<p>I refer to it also in order to show you that, if we do not concede all +your wishes, it is because our ideas of justice, duty, and honor +forbid, and not because we cherish any hostile or aggressive +sentiments. We will go as far as we can to meet you—come you also as +far as you can to meet us. Join at least in the declaration we +propose. Your people have confidence in you. They will believe you. +The declaration, made with substantial unanimity by this Conference, +will tranquillize public sentiment, and give a chance for reason to +resume its sway, and patriotic counsels to gain a hearing.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">432</a></span></p> + +<p>Do you say that after all what we propose embodies no substantial +guarantees of immunity to slavery through the perversion of Federal +powers? We reply that we think the Constitution as it stands, +interpreted honestly and executed faithfully, is sufficient for all +practical purposes; and that you will find all desirable security in +the legislation or non-legislation of Congress. If you think +otherwise, we are ready to join you in recommending a National +Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution in the regular +and legitimate way. Kentucky, a slave State, has proposed such a +Convention; Illinois, a free State, has joined in the proposition. +Join us, then, in recommending such a Convention, and assure us that +you will abide by its decision. We will join you and give a similar +assurance.</p> + +<p>This, gentlemen, is the proposition we make you to-day. It is embodied +in the amendment just submitted. Is it not a fair proposition? It is a +plain declaration of facts which cannot reasonably be questioned, and +a plain submission of all disputed questions to the only proper +tribunal for the settlement of such questions—that of the American +people, acting through a National Convention.</p> + +<p>The only alternative to this proposition is the proposition that the +present Congress be called upon to submit to the States a thirteenth +article embodying the amendments recommended by the committee. In +order to the submission of these amendments to the States by Congress, +a two-thirds vote in each House is necessary. That, I venture to say, +cannot be obtained. Were it otherwise, who can assure you that the new +article will obtain the sanction of three-fourths of the States, +without which it is a nullity? As a measure to defeat all adjustment, +I can understand this proposition. As a measure of pacification, I do +not understand it. There is, in my judgment, no peace in it. Gentlemen +here, of patriotism and intelligence, think otherwise. I am sorry that +I cannot agree with them.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen say, if this proposition cannot prevail, every slave State +will secede; or, as some prefer to phrase it, will resort to +revolution. I forbear to discuss eventualities. I must say, however, +and say plainly, that considerations such as these will not move me +from my recognized duty to my country and its Constitution. And let me +say for the people of the free States, that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">433</a></span> they are a thoughtful +people, and are much in earnest in this business. They do not delegate +their right of private judgment. They love their institutions and the +Union. They will not surrender the one nor give up the other without +great struggles and great sacrifices. Upon the question of the +maintenance of an unbroken Union and a whole country they never were, +and it is my firm conviction they never will be divided. Gentlemen who +think they will be, even in the worst contingency, will, I think, be +disappointed. If forced to the last extremity, the people will meet +the issue as they best may; but be assured they will meet it with no +discordant councils.</p> + +<p>Gentlemen, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> will be inaugurated on the 4th of March. He +will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United +States—of the whole—of all the United States. That oath will bind +him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed throughout the +United States. Will secession absolve him from that oath? Will it +diminish, by one jot or tittle, its awful obligation? Will attempted +revolution do more than secession? And if not—and the oath and the +obligation remain—and the President does his duty and undertakes to +enforce the laws, and secession or revolution resists, what then? War! +Civil war!</p> + +<p>Mr. President, let us not rush headlong into that unfathomable gulf. +Let us not tempt this unutterable woe. We offer you a plain and +honorable mode of adjusting all difficulties. It is a mode which, we +believe, will receive the sanction of the people. We pledge ourselves +here that we will do all in our power to obtain their sanction for it. +Is it too much to ask you, gentlemen of the South, to meet us on this +honorable and practicable ground? Will you not, at least, concede this +to the country?</p> + +<p>The question on agreeing to said amendment resulted in the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, +and Virginia—11.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was not agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I wish now to offer an amendment which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">434</a></span> embraces an +unconditional proposition for the call of a Convention.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRONSON:—This has been voted down already.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—What changes do you gentlemen from Pennsylvania and +Ohio wish to make in the report of the committee? Would you adopt that +report in a General Convention?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the +gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in order.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>, <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, <span class="smcap">Corning</span>, and <span class="smcap">Bronson</span> then entered their +dissents from their respective States upon the substitute offered by +Mr. <span class="smcap">Tuck</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I hope now that we may be permitted to take the vote +at once upon the report of the majority.</p> + +<p>Mr. REID:—Before this vote is taken, I deem it my duty to myself and +my State to make a remark.</p> + +<p>I came here disposed to agree upon terms that would be mutually +satisfactory to both sections of the Union. I would agree to any fair +terms now, but the propositions contained in the report of the +majority, as that report now stands, can never receive my assent. I +cannot recommend them to Congress or to the people of my own State. +They do not settle the material questions involved; they contain no +sufficient guarantees for the rights of the South. Therefore, in good +faith to the Conference and to the country, I here state that I cannot +and will not agree to them.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—If the gentlemen from the South, after we have yielded +so much as we have, assert that these propositions will not be +satisfactory to the slave States, I, for one, will not degrade myself +by voting for them.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I insist now upon taking the vote.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The rules of the Conference do not require the vote to +be taken upon this proposition by sections.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—We have not heretofore adhered to the rules. Let us +vote then on the whole as a proposition, and not by sections.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I think we should take the vote by sections. It is +certainly within the discretion of the President to rule that the vote +may be so taken. The rules do not apply to an article which is +composed of many sections. We certainly should vote upon them +separately.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">435</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I desire now to get the amendment which I have +proposed once more before the Conference. I move to amend by adding to +the first section a clause which shall provide that</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The rights of the slave States shall be protected by all +the departments of the territorial government during its +continuance."</p></div> + +<p>By the section as it now stands, the rights of the North are absolute; +those of the South should be equally clear. It is true that the +section contains a distinct recognition of the relation of master and +slave, but this recognition is in negative terms. It is certainly the +duty of the territorial legislature and government to protect these +rights wherever they are invaded. If this is so, why not declare it in +the provision?</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I desire to ask whether this proposition is in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I insist that it is. I assert the existence of +certain rights, and I want these rights protected under the +Constitution. Rights without remedies are anomalies of which the law +knows nothing.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILMOT:—I feel constrained to oppose any amendment of this kind.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Chair is inclined to rule this amendment as not in +order.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—Before the final vote is taken, I wish to say a word by +way of explanation. My colleague says he cannot vote for the report of +the committee because he does not approve the whole of it. I do not +like the first article, but the report as a whole is a great +improvement upon the Constitution as it now stands. I think the report +ought to go before the people. If we can secure what the report +proposes, we are certainly no worse off. I wish to submit it to my +people, and thus have them to judge for themselves whether they will +adopt it.</p> + +<p>Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I would not say a word were it not +for the words that have fallen from my colleague—Governor <span class="smcap">Reid</span>. I +came here to try to save the Union. I have labored hard to that end. I +hope and believe the report of the majority, if adopted, will save the +Union. I wish to carry these propositions before the people. I believe +that the people of North Carolina and of the Union will adopt them. +Give us<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">436</a></span> an opportunity to appeal to the generosity of the people of +the whole Union. Certainly no Southern man can object to submitting +these propositions to the popular vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOOMIS:—I am content to vote for the first article.</p> + +<p>Mr. CARRUTHERS:—I only desire to say for my State that if you will +give us these propositions, Tennessee will adopt them, and it will +sink secession beyond any hope of resurrection.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I cannot say that I am gratified with the display +which I have just witnessed in these appeals from the Conference to +the people. We come here to deal with facts, not theories. I do not +speak with the confidence of some with respect to the action of some +of the people. I know the people of the South, and I tell you this +hollow compromise will never satisfy them, nor will it bring back the +seceded States. We are acting for the people who are not here. We are +their delegates that have come here, not to demand indemnity for the +past, but security for the future. This is my opinion. You will see +whether I am right or not. We could stand upon the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> +proposition or the Virginia alternative. With Virginia in our favor we +could have stood upon either. You, gentlemen of the North, might as +well have consented to either as to the report which is now presented. +I desire the preservation of the Union; I would go for this scheme if +that would accomplish it. But it will not. There is great force in the +statement of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, in which he says +there is no importance to a scheme which goes from this Conference to +the States only by a majority of one or two States. If one or two +States only, which are here, reject this compromise, it will be +rejected entirely. Once more I say it would have been better for all +to have stood upon the Virginia alternative.</p> + +<p>Mr. STOCKTON:—I have not much to say, sir. I rise with a sadness +which almost prevents my utterance. I was born at Princeton. My heart +has always beat for the Union. I have heard these discussions with +pain from the commencement. Shall we deliberate over any proposition +which shall save the Union? The country is in jeopardy. We are called +upon to save it. New Jersey and Delaware came here for that purpose, +and no other. They have laid aside every other motive; they have +yielded every thing to the general good of the country.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">437</a></span></p> + +<p>The report of the majority of the committee meets their concurrence. +Republicans and Democrats alike, have dropped their opinions, for +politics should always disappear in the presence of a great question +like this. Politics should not be thought of in view of the question +of disunion. By what measure of execration will posterity judge a man +who contributed toward the dissolution of the Union? Shall we stand +here and higgle about terms when the roar of the tornado is heard that +threatens to sweep our Government from the face of the earth? Believe +me, sir, this is a question of peace or war.</p> + +<p>In the days of Rome, Curtius threw himself into the chasm when told by +the oracle that the sacrifice of his life would save his country. +Alas! is there no Curtius here? The alternative is a dreadful one to +contemplate if we cannot adopt these propositions and secure peace. It +is useless to attempt to dwarf this movement of the South by the name +of treason. Call it by what name you will, it is a revolution, and +this is a right which the people of this country have derived in +common from their ancestors.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now move that we proceed to take the vote, and propose +to take it upon the first section of the report of the majority.</p> + +<p>Mr. ELLIS:—I move so to amend the rule that when the report is taken +up each section and each distinct proposition shall be voted on +separately.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—I think this motion is out of order, and the question +will be taken on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky for the +adoption of the first section, which the Secretary will now read.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. In all the present territory of the United States +north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, +involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is +prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, +the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, +as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be +passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder +or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States +of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights +arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to +judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the +course of the common law. When any Territory north or south +of said line, within such boundary as Congress may +prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required +for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of +government be republican, be ad<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">438</a></span>mitted into the Union on an +equal footing with the original States, with or without +involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such State may +provide.</p></div> + +<p>The question on agreeing to said section resulted as follows—Indiana +declining to vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—8.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +Missouri, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, +and Virginia—11.</p></div> + +<p>And the section was not agreed to.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the votes of their respective +States: Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of North Carolina; Mr. <span class="smcap">Totten</span>, of +Tennessee; Mr. <span class="smcap">Coalter</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Hough</span>, of Missouri; Mr. <span class="smcap">Bronson</span>, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Corning</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Wool</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Granger</span>, of New York; Mr. +<span class="smcap">Meredith</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>, of Pennsylvania; Mr. <span class="smcap">Rives</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span>, +of Virginia; Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Butler</span>, of Kentucky; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span>, of +Illinois.</p> + +<p>The vote was taken in the midst of much partially suppressed +excitement, and the announcement of the vote of different States +occasioned many sharp remarks of dissent or approval. After the vote +was announced, for some minutes no motion was made, and the delegates +engaged in an informal conversation.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Turner</span> finally moved a reconsideration of the vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. GRANGER:—To say that I am disappointed by the result of this +vote, would fail to do justice to my feelings. I move that the +Conference adjourn until half-past seven o'clock this evening. I think +it well for those gentlemen from the slave States especially, who have +by their votes defeated the compromise we have labored so long and so +earnestly to secure, to take a little time for consideration. +Gentlemen we have yielded much to your fears, much to your +apprehensions; we have gone to the very verge of propriety in giving +our assent to the committee's report. We have incurred the censure of +some of our own people, but we were willing to take the risk of all +this censure in order to allay your apprehensions. We expected you to +meet us in the path of compromise. Instead of that you reject and +spurn our propositions. Take time, gentlemen, for reflection. Beware +how you spurn this report, and incur the awful responsibility<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">439</a></span> which +will follow. Reject it, and if the country is plunged in war, and the +Union endangered, you are the men who will be held responsible.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, I have been deeply pained at the manner in which some +gentlemen have here spoken of the possible dissolution of this +Government. When, perchance, the rude hand of violence shall here have +seized upon the muniments and archives of our country's history; when +all the monuments of art that time and treasure may here have +gathered, shall be destroyed; when these proud domes shall totter to +their fall, and the rank grass wave around their mouldering columns; +when the very name of <span class="smcap">Washington</span>, instead of stirring the blood to +patriotic action, shall be a byeword and a reproach—then will this +people feel what was the value of the Union!</p> + +<p>The motion to reconsider was then adopted by a vote of 14 ayes to 5 +noes, and the Conference adjourned to seven o'clock and thirty minutes +this evening.</p> + +<hr class="med" /> + +<h3>EVENING SESSION—EIGHTEENTH DAY.</h3> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Tuesday</span>, <i>February 26th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference was called to order pursuant to adjournment by the +President.</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I hope after some of the informal consultations which +have been held since the adjournment of the Conference this afternoon, +that we may yet be able to bring our minds together, and to adopt the +propositions recommended by the committee. It is, however, certain +that the vote had better not be taken this evening. I therefore move +an adjournment until ten o'clock to-morrow morning.</p> + +<p>The motion to adjourn was agreed to; ayes 17, noes 3, and the +Conference adjourned.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">440</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="NINETEENTH_DAY" id="NINETEENTH_DAY"></a><span class="gesperrt">NINETEENTH DAY.</span></h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Washington, Wednesday</span>, <i>February 27th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<p><br /><span class="smcap">The</span> Conference assembled pursuant to adjournment, and was called to +order by President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>. Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. <span class="smcap">Gurley</span>.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration +of the order of the day, the proposals of amendment to the +Constitution reported by the majority of the committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I suppose, under the rules which the Conference has +adopted, discussion of these proposals is no longer in order. I hope +now the Conference will proceed to the vote. The opinions of each +delegation are undoubtedly fixed, and cannot be changed by farther +argument.</p> + +<p>I move you, sir, the adoption of the first section of the report as +amended, which I ask to have read by the Secretary.</p> + +<p>The section was read by the Secretary, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> In all the present territory of the United States +north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, +involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is +prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, +the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, +as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be +passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder +or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States +of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights +arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to +judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the +course of the common law. When any Territory north or south +of said line, within such boundary as Congress may +prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required +for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of +government be republican, be admitted<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">441</a></span> into the Union on an +equal footing with the original States, with or without +involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such State may +provide.</p></div> + +<p>The vote upon said section resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, +Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North +Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia—8.</p></div> + +<p>So the section was adopted.</p> + +<p>The vote of New York being called, Mr. <span class="smcap">King</span>, temporary Chairman of the +delegation, said:</p> + +<p>The question arises concerning the vote of New York. Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span>, one of +the delegates from this State, is necessarily absent from the +Conference, having left to attend to the argument of a cause in the +Supreme Court noted for argument this morning. It is his +understanding, and with him that of a majority of the delegation, that +the vote of New York is to be cast against this section, and the whole +report. Under these circumstances I propose to give the vote of New +York as it would be given if Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> was present.</p> + +<p>Mr. CORNING:—I object to this. The vote of that State should be given +as the majority of the commissioners present decide. And I think this +is a matter for the delegation, and that the Conference has nothing to +do with it.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—An absent member cannot participate in the control of +a vote except by general leave of the Convention.</p> + +<p>Mr. KING:—If Mr. <span class="smcap">Field</span> is not to be taken into the account, the vote +of New York upon this section is divided.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">442</a></span></p> +<p>Mr. EWING:—The vote of Kansas is also divided.</p> + +<p>Mr. HACKLEMAN:—The vote of Indiana is divided. The commissioners of +Indiana were appointed by virtue of resolutions passed by the +Legislature of that State, which require them to report to the +Legislature any proposition before voting for it finally, so as to +commit the State either for or against it. It is impossible, under the +circumstances, to submit this proposition of amendment to the +Legislature of Indiana for approval or rejection. Indiana, therefore, +declines to vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. SLAUGHTER:—As the delegation from Indiana declines to cast its +vote, I desire to have my individual vote entered in the affirmative +upon this section.</p> + +<p>Mr. ELLIS:—For the same reason I desire to have my vote entered in +the negative.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respective +States: Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of Kentucky; Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> and Mr. +<span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of North Carolina; Mr. <span class="smcap">Meredith</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>, of +Pennsylvania; Mr. <span class="smcap">Totten</span>, of Tennessee; Mr. <span class="smcap">Cook</span>, of Illinois; Mr. +<span class="smcap">Rives</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span>, of Virginia; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span>, of +Ohio.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move the adoption of the second section of the report +as amended, and ask that it may be read.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read it as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 2.</span> No territory shall be acquired by the United +States, except by discovery, and for naval and commercial +stations, depots, and transit routes, without the +concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States +which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the +Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall +territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a +majority of the Senators from each class of States +hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds +majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty.</p></div> + +<p>The vote on the adoption of section two was taken, and resulted as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Vermont—8.</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_443" id="Page_443">443</a></span></p> + +<p>New York and Kansas were divided.</p> + +<p>So the section was adopted.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their States: Mr. +<span class="smcap">Meredith</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span>, of Pennsylvania; Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, +of North Carolina; Mr <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, of Virginia; Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, of Kentucky; and +Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, of Indiana.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now move the adoption of the third section of the +report as amended, and request that it may be read.</p> + +<p>The Secretary proceeded to read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 3.</span> Neither the Constitution nor any amendment +thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to +regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the +relation established or recognized by the laws thereof +touching persons held to labor or involuntary service +therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary +service in the District of Columbia without the consent of +Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making +the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the +power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and +others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, +retaining and taking away, persons so held to labor or +service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish +involuntary service in places under the exclusive +jurisdiction of the United States within those States and +Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor +the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of +persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or +Territory of the United States to any other State or +Territory thereof, where it is established or recognized by +law or usage; and the right during transportation, by sea or +river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of +landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right +of transit in or through any State or Territory, or of sale +or traffic, against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress +have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on +persons held to labor or service than on land.</p> + +<p>The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held +to labor or service for sale, or placing them in depots to +be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as +merchandise, is prohibited.</p></div> + +<p>The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, and Virginia—12.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New +Hampshire, and Vermont—7.</p></div> + +<p>New York and Kansas were divided.</p> + +<p>So the section was adopted.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_444" id="Page_444">444</a></span> States: Mr. +<span class="smcap">Clay</span>, of Kentucky; Mr. <span class="smcap">Cook</span>, of Illinois; Mr. <span class="smcap">Slaughter</span>, of Indiana; +and Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span>, of Ohio.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move the adoption of the fourth section of the report +as amended.</p> + +<p>And the Secretary read it as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 4.</span> The third paragraph of the second section of the +fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to +prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and +through the action of their judicial and ministerial +officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from +labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.</p></div> + +<p>The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the following +vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, +Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and +Virginia—15.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire—4.</p></div> + +<p>New York and Kansas were divided.</p> + +<p>And the section was adopted.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respective +States: Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>, of Connecticut; Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, of +Indiana; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span>, of Ohio.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now move the adoption of the fifth section of the +report as amended.</p> + +<p>It was read by the Secretary as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 5.</span> The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever +prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass +laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or +persons held to service or labor, into the United States and +the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof.</p></div> + +<p>The vote on the adoption of this section resulted as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, +Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, +Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and +Kansas—16.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and +Virginia—5.</p></div> + +<p>So this section was adopted.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respective +States: Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span>, of Connecticut; Mr. <span class="smcap">Clay</span>, of Kentucky; Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> +and Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of North Carolina; Mr. <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>, of +Ohio; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, of Indiana.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_445" id="Page_445">445</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move the adoption of the sixth section of the report +as amended, and desire that the Secretary may read that also.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 6.</span> The first, third, and fifth sections, together +with this section of these amendments, and the third +paragraph of the second section of the first article of the +Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section +of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or +abolished without the consent of all the States.</p></div> + +<p>The vote on the adoption of this section stood as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Kansas—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia—9.</p></div> + +<p>The State of New York was divided.</p> + +<p>And this section was adopted.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their States:—Mr. +<span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of North Carolina; Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span>, +of Ohio; Mr. <span class="smcap">Cook</span>, of Illinois; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Rives</span>, of +Virginia.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move the adoption of the seventh section of the +report, as amended.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 7.</span> Congress shall provide by law that the United +States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive +from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other +officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was +prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from +mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such +fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and +the owner thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance +of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim +to such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing +to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities +of citizens in the several States.</p></div> + +<p>The vote on the adoption of this section was as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New +Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, and Kansas—12.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, +Vermont, and Virginia—7.</p></div> + +<p>The vote of New York was divided.</p> + +<p>So this last section was also adopted.</p> + +<p>The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_446" id="Page_446">446</a></span> respective +States:—Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of North Carolina; Mr. <span class="smcap">Totten</span> of +Tennessee; Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Orth</span>, of Indiana; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> and +Mr. <span class="smcap">Wolcott</span>, of Ohio.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—The sections which have been adopted severally, as a whole +may not be acceptable to a majority of the Conference. They have been +adopted by different votes and different majorities. I think a vote +should be taken upon them collectively, in order that we may know +whether, as a single proposition, they meet the approbation of the +Conference. I move that a vote be taken upon the several sections as a +whole.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—It is the opinion of the Chair that this motion is not +in order. Each section, when once approved by a majority of votes, +stands as the order of the Conference. These sections have been +severally taken up, amended, and adopted, and no further vote is +necessary or proper, except by way of reconsideration.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—I think the motion an important one, and with all +deference, appeal from the decision of the Chair to the Conference.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDENT:—The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand +as the order of the Conference?</p> + +<p>Mr. CHASE:—As I have no wish except to secure a fair vote, and the +opinion of the Chair may be technically correct, I will withdraw my +appeal.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN:—Having adopted the report of the committee, I think now +there should be an expression of the Conference upon the question of +secession. I therefore move the adoption of the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, As the sense of this Convention, that the +highest political duty of every citizen of the United States +is his allegiance to the Federal Government created by the +Constitution of the United States, and that no State of this +Union has any constitutional right to secede therefrom, or +to absolve the citizens of such State from their allegiance +to the Government of the United States.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—I move to lay that resolution on the table. This is a +Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, not to make +commentaries upon that instrument.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLEVELAND:—I ask a vote by States.</p> + +<p>The question was taken by States, and resulted as follows:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_447" id="Page_447">447</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode +Island, Vermont, and Kansas—12.</p></div> + +<p>And the Convention refused to lay the resolution upon the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. COALTER:—I offer the following amendment: strike out all after +the word resolve, and insert as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The term of office of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents of +the United States, hereafter elected, shall be six years; +and any person once elected to either of said offices shall +ever after be ineligible to the same office."</p></div> + +<p>The amendment of Mr. <span class="smcap">Coalter</span> was rejected by a <i>viva voce</i> vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEDDON:—I now move to amend by striking out all after the word +"resolved" in Mr. <span class="smcap">Franklin's</span> resolution, and insert a series of +amendments hitherto proposed by myself, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>To secure concert and promote harmony between the +slaveholding and non-slaveholding sections of the Union, the +assent of the majority of the Senators from the slaveholding +States, and of the majority of the Senators from the +non-slaveholding States, shall be requisite to the validity +of all action of the Senate, on which the ayes and noes may +be called by five Senators.</p> + +<p>And on a written declaration, signed and presented for +record on the Journal of the Senate by a majority of the +Senators from either the non-slaveholding or slaveholding +States, of their want of confidence in any officer or +appointee of the Executive, exercising functions exclusively +or continuously within the class of States, or any of them, +which the signers represent, then such officer shall be +removed by the Executive; and if not removed at the +expiration of ten days from the presentation of such +declaration, the office shall be deemed vacant, and open to +new appointment.</p> + +<p>The connection of every State with the Union is recognized +as depending on the continuing assent of its people, and +compulsion shall in no case, nor under any form, be +attempted by the Government of the Union against a State +acting in its collective or organic capacity. Any State, by +the action of a convention of its people, assembled pursuant +to a law of its legislature, is held entitled to dissolve +its relation to the Federal Government, and withdraw from +the Union; and, on due notice given of such withdrawal to +the Executive of the Union, he shall appoint two +commissioners, to meet two commissioners to be appointed by +the Governor of the State, who, with the aid, if needed from +the disagreement of the commissioners, of an umpire, to be +selected by a majority of them, shall equitably adjudicate +and determine finally a partition of the rights and +obligations of the withdrawing State;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_448" id="Page_448">448</a></span> and such adjudication +and partition being accomplished, the withdrawal of such +State shall be recognized by the Executive, and announced by +public proclamation to the world.</p> + +<p>But such withdrawing State shall not afterwards be +readmitted into the Union without the assent of two-thirds +of the States constituting the Union at the time of the +proposed readmission.</p></div> + +<p>I desire to get these amendments on the Journal. It is my duty to +offer them, and I wish the Journal to show that I have performed that +duty.</p> + +<p>Mr. FRANKLIN:—I then move to lay the amendment on the table, and to +give the gentleman leave to have it inserted in the Journal. That will +accomplish his purpose.</p> + +<p>The question was taken on the motion to lay the amendment on the +table, and resulted in an affirmative vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—I regard the mission of this Convention as now performed, +and I hope we shall take up no new questions, which can only distract +and divide us. I therefore move to postpone the consideration of this +resolution indefinitely.</p> + +<p>The question was taken on Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin's</span> motion, with the following +result:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania—7.</p></div> + +<p>The vote of New York was divided.</p> + +<p>Messrs. <span class="smcap">Duncan</span> and <span class="smcap">Ames</span> dissented from the vote of Rhode Island.</p> + +<p>Mr. GUTHRIE:—It will be necessary that this proposition be presented +to Congress in an authentic form, and I suppose it will not be +necessary for the Convention to continue its sessions until this +presentation is made. I therefore offer the following preamble:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">To the Congress of the United States:</span></p> + +<p>The Convention assembled upon the invitation of the State of +Virginia to adjust the unhappy differences which now disturb +the peace of the Union and threaten its continuance, make +known to the Congress of the United States that their body +convened in the city of Washington on the 4th instant, and +continued in session until the 27th.</p> + +<p>There were in the body, when action was taken upon that +which is here submitted, one hundred and thirty-three +commissioners, representing the following States: Maine, New +Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_449" id="Page_449">449</a></span> Island, +Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas.</p> + +<p>They have approved what is herewith submitted, and +respectfully request that your honorable body will submit it +to conventions in the States as an article of amendment to +the Constitution of the United States.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. RANDOLPH:—I move the adoption of the preamble, and that the same, +with the propositions already adopted, be authenticated by the present +Secretary, and that all be presented by the President of this +Convention to the Senate and House of Representatives, with a +respectful request for their passage.</p> + +<p>This motion was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. BARRINGER:—As the labors of the Convention are now closed, I +presume there is no occasion for continuing the injunction of secrecy. +As notes of the proceedings have been taken with a view, I presume, to +publication, I now move that the injunction of secrecy against +speaking of the action of the Convention, or the publication of its +proceedings, be removed.</p> + +<p>The motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Barringer</span> was agreed to by a <i>viva voce</i> vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON:—I desire here to have printed in the Journal the +following resolution.</p> + +<p>Leave was granted to Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span> as requested, and his resolution was +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That while the adoption, by the States of South +Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, +and Texas, of ordinances declaring the dissolution of their +relation with the Union, is an event deeply to be deplored; +and while abstaining from any judgment on their conduct, we +would express the earnest hope that they may soon see cause +to resume their honored places in this Confederacy of +States; yet to the end that such return may be facilitated, +and from the conviction that the Union being formed by the +assent of the people of the respective States, and being +compatible only with freedom, and the republican +institutions guaranteed to each, cannot and ought not to be +maintained by force, we deprecate any effort by the Federal +Government to coerce in any form the said States to reunion +or submission, as tending to irreparable breach, and leading +to incalculable ills; and we earnestly invoke the abstinence +from all counsels or measures of compulsion toward them.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. POLLOCK:—The Committee on Finance have made an examination of the +expenses which have been incurred for printing, stationery, &c., by +the Conference. It has been, already<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_450" id="Page_450">450</a></span> stated that the expense of +printing the Journal is met by the city of Washington. The additional +expense incurred amounts to $735. If this is equally apportioned among +the States represented it will amount to $35 each. It is for the +Conference to decide in what manner the assessment shall be made.</p> + +<p>Mr. BROWNE:—I offer the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the report of the committee be received and +accepted; that the committee be continued, and requested to +make the necessary disbursements; and that the States now +pay over the sum assessed to the chairman.</p></div> + +<p>And the resolution was unanimously adopted.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOOMIS:—I take great pleasure in presenting to the Conference the +following letter, which has been addressed by the proprietors of the +hall to the Secretary. I ask that the letter may be read, and I also +offer the following resolution.</p> + +<p>The letter was read, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Crafts J. Wright, Esq.</span>,<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em"><i>Secretary Conference Convention</i>:</span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>:—Please inform the Convention that we have tendered, +free of charge, the use of our Hall and lights, which they +have occupied. We hope the use may be sanctified by +restoring peace to the Union.</p> + +<p class="center">We are, respectfully, &c.,</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">J.C. & H.A. Willard</span>.</p> + +<p><i>February 23d, 1861.</i></p> +</div> + +<p>And the resolution, which was unanimously adopted, was as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this Convention are justly +due, and are hereby given, to the Messrs. Willard, for the +liberal and generous tender, free of charge, of the use of +the Hall and the lights, for the purposes expressed in their +letter to the Secretary; and that the Secretary be requested +to communicate to them a copy of this resolution.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dodge</span> offered the following resolution, and that, too, was +unanimously agreed to:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this Convention are justly +due and hereby given to the Mayor and Council of the city of +Washington, for their kindness and liberality to the members +of this Convention, in defraying so large an amount of their +expenses for printing and stationery, and also for the +officers to protect this hall and the members from intrusion +whilst in session, and that the Secretary be requested to +communicate the same to said parties.</p></div> + +<p>On motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Randolph</span>, the thanks of the Conference<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_451" id="Page_451">451</a></span> were tendered +to the clergymen of the city for their services during the Conference.</p> + +<p>The thanks of the Conference were also presented to the Secretary and +his assistants.</p> + +<p>Mr. EWING:—I move the adoption of the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered +to the President, for the dignified and impartial manner in +which he has presided over the deliberations of this body.</p></div> + +<p>The resolution being seconded by Mr. <span class="smcap">Hackleman</span>, it was unanimously +adopted; whereupon President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span> addressed the Conference as +follows:</p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Gentlemen of the Conference</span>:</p> + +<p>"The labors of this Convention are drawing to a close. Before we +separate never in this world to meet again, I am much pleased that the +resolution you have just adopted gives me an opportunity of uttering a +few words of congratulation and farewell.</p> + +<p>"We came together at a most important and critical time. One of the +oldest members of the American Union, a commonwealth which had +contributed its full share to the honor and glory of the +nation—having as great interests at stake as any other member of the +sisterhood of States—summoned you here to consider new additions to +our Constitution, which the experience of near three-quarters of a +century had taught us were required. I expected from the first that +you would approach the consideration of the new and important +questions which must arise here, with that patriotism and intelligence +which belongs to the descendants of the patriots of the Revolution and +the statesmen of the Convention of 1787. I have not been disappointed. +In the whole course of a public life, much longer than usually falls +to the lot of man, I have been associated with many bodies of my +fellow-citizens, convened for legislative or other purposes, but I +here declare that it has never been my good fortune to meet with an +association of more intelligent, thoughtful, or patriotic men, than +that over which I have been here called to preside. I cannot but hope +and believe that the blessing of GOD will follow and rest upon the +result of your labors, and that such result will bring to our country +that quiet and peace which every patriotic heart so earnestly desires. +I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_452" id="Page_452">452</a></span> thank you most sincerely for that kindness and partiality on your +part which induced you to call me to the honorable position of your +presiding officer, and for the courtesy so uniformly extended in the +discharge of the responsible duties of that position.</p> + +<p>"Gentlemen, farewell! I go to finish the work you have assigned me, of +presenting your recommendations to the two Houses of Congress, and to +ask those bodies to lay your proposals of amendment before the people +of the American Union. Although these proposals are not in all +respects what I could have desired—although I should have preferred +the adoption of those recommended by the Legislature of Virginia, +because I know they would have been acceptable to my own constituents, +still it is my duty to give them my official approval and support. It +is not to be expected that entire unanimity of opinion should exist +among the representatives of so large a population, and so many +diversified interests, as now comprise the Republic of the United +States. It is probable that the result to which you have arrived is +the best that under all the circumstances could be expected. So far as +in me lies, therefore, I shall recommend its adoption.</p> + +<p>"May you have a happy and safe return to your constituents and your +families! May you all inculcate among your people a spirit of mutual +forbearance and concession; and may GOD protect our country and the +Union of these States, which was committed to us as the blood-bought +legacy of our heroic ancestors!"</p> + +<p>Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I move that the Convention do now adjourn, its labors +having come to an end; and I would suggest that the delegates meet +informally and take leave of each other at three o'clock this +afternoon.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Browne</span> moved that the Conference adjourn without day, and his +motion was adopted by the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, +Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and +Pennsylvania—5.</p></div> + +<p>And the Conference adjourned without day.</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_453" id="Page_453">453</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a><span class="gesperrt">APPENDIX.</span></h2> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h3>No. I.</h3> + +<p><span class="smcap">Before</span> the final vote was taken upon the proposals of amendment to the +Constitution of the United States, reported by the General Committee +of which Mr. <span class="smcap">Guthrie</span> was Chairman, and the votes upon the various +substitutes offered for such proposals, there were <i>twenty-one</i> States +represented in the Conference.</p> + +<p>Maine and Iowa were represented by their respective Congressional +delegations; Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Delaware, Illinois, +New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and +Missouri, by delegates appointed by their respective Legislatures, +under joint resolutions which are here inserted; New Hampshire, +Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Indiana, and Kansas, +by delegates appointed by their respective Governors.</p> + +<p>The resolutions of Virginia originated the call for the Conference.</p> + +<p>Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Oregon were not +represented. South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, +Arkansas, and Texas had passed ordinances of secession previous to the +meeting of the Conference. Messrs. <span class="smcap">Benjamin</span> and <span class="smcap">Slidell</span>, the Senators +from Louisiana, withdrew from the Senate of the United States before +the proposed amendments to the Constitution were reported to the +Conference.</p> + +<p>The following resolutions of their respective States were presented by +the delegates to the Committee on Credentials, and were ordered by the +Conference to be printed, on the motion of Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span>.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_454" id="Page_454">454</a></span></p> + +<h4>TENNESSEE.</h4> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Resolutions</span> <i>proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United +States.</i></p> + +<p><i>Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee</i>, That a +Convention of delegates from all the slaveholding States should +assemble at Nashville, Tennessee, or such other place as a majority of +the States coöperating may designate, on the fourth day of February, +1861, to digest and define a basis upon which, if possible, the +Federal Union and the constitutional rights of the slave States may be +perpetuated and preserved.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee +appoint a number of delegates to said Convention, of our ablest and +wisest men, equal to our whole delegation in Congress; and that the +Governor of Tennessee immediately furnish copies of these resolutions +to the Governors of the slaveholding States, and urge the +participation of such States in said Convention.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, such plan of +adjustment should embrace the following propositions as amendments to +the Constitution of the United States:</p> + +<p>1. A declaratory amendment that African slaves, as held under the +institutions of the slaveholding States, shall be recognized as +property, and entitled to the <i>status</i> of other property, in the +States where slavery exists, in all places within the exclusive +jurisdiction of Congress in the slave States, in all the Territories +south of 36° 30´; in the District of Columbia; in transit; and whilst +temporarily sojourning with the owner in the non-slaveholding States +and Territories north of 36° 30´, and when fugitives from the owner, +in the several places above named, as well as in all places in the +exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in the non-slaveholding States.</p> + +<p>2. That all the territory now owned, or which may be hereafter +acquired by the United States south of the parallel of 36° 30´; +African slavery shall be recognized as existing, and be protected by +all the departments of the Federal and Territorial Governments, and in +all north of that line, now owned, or to be acquired, it shall not be +recognized as existing; and whenever States formed out of any of said +territory south of said line, having a population equal to that of a +congressional district, shall apply for admission into the Union, the +same shall be admitted as slave States, whilst States north of the +line, formed out of said territory, and having a population equal to a +Congressional district, shall be admitted without slavery; but the +States formed out of said territory north and south having been +admitted as members of the Union, shall have all the powers over the +institution of slavery possessed by the other States of the Union.</p> + +<p>3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its +exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that +permit the holding of slaves.</p> + +<p>4. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District +of Columbia, as long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia +and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, +nor without just<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_455" id="Page_455">455</a></span> compensation made to such owners of slaves as do not +consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit +the officers of the Federal Government or members of Congress whose +duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them +their slaves, and holding them as such, during the time their duties +may require them to remain there, and afterwards take them from the +District.</p> + +<p>5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the +transportation of slaves from one State to another, or the Territory +in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that +transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by seas.</p> + +<p>6. In addition to the fugitive slave clause, provide that when a slave +has been demanded of the Executive authority of the State to which he +has fled, if he is not delivered, and the owner permitted to carry him +out of the State in peace, the State so failing to deliver, shall pay +to the owner the value of such slave, and such damages as he may have +sustained in attempting to reclaim his slave, and secure his right of +action in the Supreme Court of the United States, with execution +against the property of such State and the individuals thereof.</p> + +<p>7. No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the six +preceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section of +the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the +second section of the fourth article of the Constitution; and no +amendments shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or +give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any +of the States by whose laws it is, or may be allowed or permitted.</p> + +<p>8. That slave property shall be rendered secure in transit through, or +whilst temporarily sojourning in, non-slaveholding States or +Territories, or in the District of Columbia.</p> + +<p>9. An amendment to the effect that all fugitives are to be deemed +those offending the laws within the jurisdiction of the State, and who +escape therefrom to other States; and that it is the duty of each +State to suppress armed invasion of another State.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That said Convention of the slaveholding States having +agreed upon a basis of adjustment satisfactory to themselves, should, +in the opinion of this General Assembly, refer it to a Convention of +all the States, slaveholding and non-slaveholding, in the manner +following:</p> + +<p>It should invite all States friendly to such plan of adjustment, to +elect delegates in such manner as to reflect the popular will, to +assemble in a Constitutional Convention of all the States North and +South, to be held at Richmond, Virginia, on the —— day of February, +1861, to revise and perfect such plan of adjustment, for its reference +for final ratification and adoption by a Convention of the States +respectively.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That should a plan of adjustment, satisfactory to the +South, not be acceded to by a requisite number of States to perfect +amendments to the Constitution of the United States, it is the opinion +of this General Assembly that the slaveholding States should adopt for +themselves the Constitution of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_456" id="Page_456">456</a></span> the United States, with such +amendments as may be satisfactory to the slaveholding States, and that +they should invite into the Union with them all States of the North +which are willing to abide such amended Constitution and frame of +Government, severing at once all connections with States refusing such +reasonable guarantees to our future safety; such renewed conditions of +Federal Union being first submitted for ratification to Convention of +all the States respectively.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor of the State of Tennessee furnish copies +of these resolutions immediately to the Governors of the +non-slaveholding States.</p> + +<h4>OHIO.</h4> + +<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Joint Resolutions</span> <i>of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, +relative to the appointment of Commissioners to the Convention to meet +in Washington on the 4th of February, proximo. Passed, January 30, +1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The Commonwealth of Virginia has appointed five Commissioners +to meet in the City of Washington on the fourth day of February next, +with similar Commissioners from other States, and after full and free +conference to agree, if practicable, upon some adjustment of the +unhappy difficulties now dividing our country, which may be alike +satisfactory and honorable to the States concerned; therefore be it</p> + +<p><i>Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio</i>, That the +Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, be and he +is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint five Commissioners to +represent the State of Ohio in said Conference.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we are not prepared to assent to the terms of +settlement proposed by Virginia, and are fully satisfied that the +Constitution of the United States as it is, if fairly interpreted and +obeyed by all sections of our country, contains ample provisions +within itself for the correction of all evils complained, yet a +disposition to reciprocate the patriotic spirit of a sister State, and +a sincere desire to have harmoniously adjusted all differences between +us, induce us to favor the appointment of the Commission as requested.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor be requested to transmit without delay a +copy of these Resolutions to each of the Commissioners to be appointed +as aforesaid, to the end that they may repair to the City of +Washington, on the day hereinbefore named, to meet such Commissioners +as may be appointed by any of the States in accordance with the +aforesaid propositions of Virginia.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, it will be +wise and expedient to adjourn the proposed Convention to a later day, +and that the Commissioners to be appointed as aforesaid, are requested +to use their influence in procuring an adjournment to the fourth day +of April next.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_457" id="Page_457">457</a></span></p> + +<h4>KENTUCKY.</h4> + +<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Resolutions</span> <i>appointing Commissioners to attend a Conference at +Washington City, February 4th, in accordance with the invitation of +the Virginia Legislature.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The General Assembly of Virginia, with a view to make an +effort to preserve the Union and the Constitution in the spirit in +which they were established by the Fathers of the Republic, have, by +resolution, invited all the States who are willing to unite with her +in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies, to +appoint Commissioners to meet on the 4th of February next, to +consider, and if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment—</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we heartily accept the invitation of our Old Mother +Virginia, and that the following six Commissioners, viz.: Wm. O. +Butler, James B. Clay, Joshua F. Bell, C.S. Morehead, James Guthrie, +and Chas. A. Wickliffe, be appointed to represent the State of +Kentucky in the contemplated Convention, whose duty it shall be to +repair to the City of Washington, on the day designated, to meet such +Commissioners as may be appointed by any of the States in accordance +with the foregoing invitation.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That if said Commissioners shall agree upon any plan of +adjustment requiring amendments to the Federal Constitution, they be +requested to communicate the proposed amendments to Congress, for the +purpose of having the same submitted by that body, according to the +forms of the Constitution, to the several States for ratification.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That if said Commissioners cannot agree on an adjustment, +or if agreeing, Congress shall refuse to submit for ratification such +amendments as they may propose, the Commissioners of this State shall +immediately communicate the result to the Executive of this +Commonwealth, to be by him laid before this General Assembly.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of Kentucky, +the propositions embraced in the resolutions presented to the Senate +of the United States by the Hon. <span class="smcap">John J. Crittenden</span>, so construed, +that the first article proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of +the United States shall apply to all the territory of the United +States now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° 30´, and +provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually +protected as property therein during the continuance of the +Territorial Government; and the fourth article shall secure to the +owners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between and +through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, constitute the +basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which now +divides the States of this Confederacy, as would be acceptable to the +people of this Commonwealth.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor be, and he is hereby requested to +communicate information of the foregoing appointment to the +Commissioners above named, at as early a day as practicable, and that +he also communicate copies of the foregoing resolutions to the +Executive of the respective States.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_458" id="Page_458">458</a></span></p> + +<h4>INDIANA.</h4> + +<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">A Joint Resolution</span> <i>authorizing the Governor to appoint Commissioners +to meet those sent by other States in Convention on the state of the +Union.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The State of Virginia has transmitted to this State +resolutions adopted by her General Assembly, inviting all such States +as are willing to unite with her in an earnest effort to adjust the +unhappy controversies, in the spirit in which the Constitution was +originally formed, to send Commissioners to meet those appointed by +that State in Convention, to be held in the City of Washington, on the +fourth day of February next, to consider, and if possible, to agree +upon some suitable adjustment.</p> + +<p>And whereas, some of the States to which invitations were extended by +the State of Virginia have already responded and appointed their +Commissioners; therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana</i>, That we +accept the invitation of the State of Virginia, in the true spirit of +fraternal feeling, and that the Governor of the State is hereby +directed and empowered to appoint five Commissioners to meet the +Commissioners appointed by our sister States, to consult upon the +unhappy differences now dividing the country; but the said +Commissioners shall take no action that will commit this State until +<i>nineteen</i> of the States are represented, nor without first having +communicated with this General Assembly in regard to such action, and +having received the authority of the same so to commit the State.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we are not prepared to assent to the terms of +settlement proposed by the State of Virginia, and are fully satisfied +that the Constitution, if fairly interpreted and obeyed, contains +ample provisions within itself for the correction of the evils +complained of; still, with a disposition to reciprocate the patriotic +desire of the State of Virginia, and to have harmoniously adjusted all +differences existing between the States of the Union, this General +Assembly is induced to respond to the invitation of Virginia, by the +appointment of the Commissioners herein provided for; but as the time +fixed for the Convention to assemble is so near at hand that the +States cannot all be represented, it is expected that the +Commissioners on behalf of this State will insist that the Convention +adjourn until such time as the States shall have an opportunity of +being represented.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That his Excellency, the Governor, be requested to +transmit copies of these resolutions to the Executives of each of the +States of the Union.</p> + +<h4>DELAWARE.</h4> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Joint Resolutions</span> <i>appointing Commissioners.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The State of Virginia has recommended the holding of a +Convention of Delegates from all the States of the Union, at the City +of Washington, on the fourth day of February next, for the purpose of +taking<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_459" id="Page_459">459</a></span> into consideration and perfecting some plan of adjusting the +matters in controversy now so unhappily subsisting in the family of +States, and has appointed five Commissioners to represent the people +of that Commonwealth in said Convention; and</p> + +<p><i>Whereas</i>, the people of the State of Delaware regard the preservation +of the Union as paramount to any political consideration, and are +fixed in their determination that Delaware, the first to adopt the +Federal Constitution, will be the last to do any act tending to +destroy the integrity of the Union; therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the +State of Delaware in General Assembly met</i>, That the Hon. George B. +Rodney, Daniel M. Bates, Esq., Dr. Henry Ridgely, Hon. John W. +Houston, and William Cannon, Esq., be, and they are hereby appointed +Commissioners, on behalf of the State of Delaware, to represent the +people of said State in the Convention to be held at Washington, on +the fourth day of February next.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, the people +of Delaware are thoroughly devoted to the perpetuity of the Union, and +that the Commissioners appointed by the foregoing resolution are +expected to emulate the example set by the immortal patriots who +framed the Federal Constitution, by sacrificing all minor +considerations upon the altar of the Union.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved, further</i>, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of +State to furnish a copy of the above preamble and resolutions to each +of the Commissioners herein and hereby appointed, duly attested under +the great seal of the State.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved, further</i>, That immediately upon the adoption of the +foregoing preamble and resolutions, it shall be the duty of the Clerk +of the House to transmit to the Secretary of State a copy thereof, +certified by him; and when the Secretary of State shall have received +said copy so certified, it shall be evidence that said preamble and +resolutions were duly adopted by this General Assembly.</p> + +<h4>ILLINOIS.</h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, resolutions of the State of Virginia have been communicated +to the General Assembly of this State, proposing the appointment of +Commissioners by the several States to meet in Convention, on the +fourth day of February, A.D. 1861, at Washington.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring +herein</i>, That with the earnest desire for the return of harmony and +kind relations among all our sister States, and out of respect to the +Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of this State be requested to +appoint five Commissioners on the part of the State of Illinois, to +confer and consult with the Commissioners of other States who shall +meet at Washington: <i>Provided</i>, That said Commissioners shall at all +times be subject to the control of the General Assembly of the State +of Illinois.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_460" id="Page_460">460</a></span></p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the appointment of Commissioners by the State of +Illinois, in response to the invitation of the State of Virginia, is +<i>not</i> an expression of opinion on the part of this State that any +amendment of the Federal Constitution is requisite to secure to the +people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security +of their rights, nor an approval of the basis of settlement of our +difficulties proposed by the State of Virginia, but it is an +expression of our willingness to unite with the State of Virginia in +an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the +spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and +consistently with its principles.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we are willing to appoint Commissioners to meet +in convention with those of other States for consultation upon matters +which at present distract our harmony as a nation, we also insist that +the appropriate and constitutional method of considering and acting +upon the grievances complained of by our sister States, would be by +the call of a Convention for the amendment of the Constitution in the +manner contemplated by the fifth article of that instrument; and if +the States deeming themselves aggrieved, shall request Congress to +call such Convention, the Legislature of Illinois will and does concur +in such call.</p> + +<h4>NEW JERSEY.</h4> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Joint Resolutions</span> <i>in relation to the Union of the States.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the people of New Jersey, conforming to the opinion of "the +Father of his Country," consider the unity of the Government, which +constitutes the people of the United States one people, a main pillar +in the edifice of their independence, the support of their +tranquillity at home and peace abroad, of their prosperity, and of +that liberty which they so highly prize; and properly estimating the +immense value of their National Union to their individual happiness, +they cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it as +the palladium of their political safety and prosperity; therefore,</p> + +<p>1. <i>Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of +New Jersey</i>, That it is the duty of every good citizen, in all +suitable and proper ways, to stand by and sustain the Union of the +States as transmitted to us by our fathers.</p> + +<p>2. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That the Government of the United States is a +National Government, and the Union it was designed to perfect is not a +mere compact or league; and that the Constitution was adopted in a +spirit of mutual compromise and concession by the people of the United +States, and can only be preserved by the constant recognition of that +spirit.</p> + +<p>3. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That however undoubted may be the right of +the General Government to maintain its authority and enforce its laws +over all parts of the country, it is equally certain that forbearance +and compromise are indispensable at this crisis to the perpetuity of +the Union, and that it is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_461" id="Page_461">461</a></span> the dictate of reason, wisdom, and +patriotism, peacefully to adjust whatever differences exist between +the different sections of the country.</p> + +<p>4. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That the resolutions and propositions +submitted to the Senate of the United States by the Honorable John J. +Crittenden, of Kentucky, for the compromise of the questions in +dispute between the people of the northern and of the southern States, +or any other constitutional method that will permanently settle the +question of slavery, will be acceptable to the people of the State of +New Jersey, and the Senators and Representatives in Congress from New +Jersey be requested and earnestly urged to support those resolutions +and propositions.</p> + +<p>5. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That as the Union of the States is in +imminent danger unless the remedies before suggested be speedily +adopted, then, as a last resort, the State of New Jersey hereby makes +application, according to the terms of the Constitution, of the +Congress of the United States, to call a Convention (of the United +States) to propose amendments to said Constitution.</p> + +<p>6. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That such of the States as have in force laws +which interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens of the +other States, either in regard to their persons or property, or which +militate against the just construction of that part of the +Constitution that provides that "the citizens of each State shall be +entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the +several States," are earnestly urged and requested, for the sake of +peace and the Union, to repeal all such laws.</p> + +<p>7. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That his Excellency Charles S. Olden, Peter +D. Vroom, Robert F. Stockton, Benjamin Williamson, Joseph F. Randolph, +Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Rodman M. Price, William O. Alexander, and +Thomas J. Stryker, be appointed Commissioners to confer with Congress +and our sister States, and urge upon them the importance of carrying +into effect the principles and objects of the foregoing resolutions.</p> + +<p>8. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That the Commissioners above named, in +addition to their other powers, be authorized to meet with those now +or hereafter to be appointed by our sister State of Virginia, and such +Commissioners of other States as have been, or may be hereafter +appointed, to meet at Washington on the fourth day of February next.</p> + +<p>9. <i>And be it resolved</i>, That copies of the foregoing resolutions be +sent to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of +Representatives of the United States, and to the Senators and +Representatives in Congress from New Jersey, and to the Governors of +the several States.</p> + +<h4>NEW YORK.</h4> + +<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Concurrent Resolutions</span> <i>appointing Commissioners from this State to +meet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation of +Virginia.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her General +Assembly, passed the 19th instant, has invited such of the +slaveholding and non-slave<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_462" id="Page_462">462</a></span>holding States as are willing to unite with +her, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, to +consider, and, if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment of +our national difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, while +they hold the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as +it is, contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, +are nevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethren +upon all alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be required +of them to allay discontent; therefore</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. +Wadsworth, James O. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Addison +Gardiner, Greene O. Bronson, William E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. +King, and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointed +Commissioners, on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners from +other States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February +next, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by a +majority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon the +complaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remedies +therefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the said +Commissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of this +Legislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majority +of their number.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it is +not to be understood that this Legislature approves of the +propositions submitted by the General Assembly of that State, or +concedes the propriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. +But while adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New +York will not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing +together the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an +honorable settlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration +of peace and harmony to the country.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the +foregoing resolutions to the Executive of the several States, and also +to the President of the United States, and to inform the Commissioners +without delay of their appointment.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the +honorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein.</p> + +<h4>PENNSYLVANIA.</h4> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Resolutions</span> <i>to appoint Commissioners to a Convention of the States.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the Legislature of the State of Virginia has invited a +meeting of Commissioners from the several States of this Union, to be +held in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February next, to +consider, and if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment of +the unhappy differences which now disturb the business of the country +and threaten the dissolution of this Union:</p> + +<p><i>And whereas</i>, in the opinion of this Legislature, no reasonable cause +exists for this extraordinary excitement which now pervades some of +the States, in relation to their domestic institutions, and while +Pennsylvania still ad<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_463" id="Page_463">463</a></span>heres to, and cannot surrender the principles +which she has always entertained on the subject of slavery, this +Legislature is willing to accept the invitation of Virginia, and unite +with her in an earnest effort to restore the peace of the country, by +such means as may be consistent with the principles upon which the +Constitution is founded; therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the +Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met</i>, That the +invitation of the Legislature of Virginia to her sister States, for +the appointment of Commissioners to meet in the City of Washington, on +the fourth of February next, be and the same is hereby accepted; and +that the Governor be, and he is hereby authorized to appoint seven +Commissioners for the State of Pennsylvania, whose duty it shall be to +repair to the City of Washington on the day designated, to meet such +Commissioners as may be appointed by any other States which have not +authorized or sanctioned the seizure of the forts, arsenals, or other +property of the United States, to consider, and if possible, to agree +upon suitable measures for the prompt and final settlement of the +difficulties which now exist: <i>Provided</i>, That the said Commissioners +shall be subject, in all their proceedings, to the instructions of +this Legislature.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of this Legislature, the people of +Pennsylvania do not desire any alteration or amendment of the +Constitution of the United States, and any recommendation from this +body to that effect, while it does not come within its appropriate and +legitimate duties, would not meet with their approval; that +Pennsylvania will cordially unite with the other States of the Union +in the adoption of any proper constitutional measures adequate to +guarantee and secure a more strict and faithful observance of the +second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United +States, which provides, among other things, that "the citizens of each +State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens +of the several States," and that no person held to service or labor in +one State under the law thereof, escaping into another, shall in +consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such +service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party +to whom such service or labor may be due.</p> + +<h4>MASSACHUSETTS.</h4> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Resolve</span> <i>for the appointment of Commissioners to attend a Convention<br /> +to be held in the City of Washington.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is desirous of a full and +free conference with the General Government, and with any or all of +the other States of the Union, at any time and on every occasion when +such conference may promote the welfare of the country; and whereas, +questions of grave moment have arisen touching the powers of the +Government and the relations between the different States of the +Union; and whereas, the State of Virginia has expressed a desire to +meet her sister States in Convention at Washington; therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor of this Commonwealth, by and with the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_464" id="Page_464">464</a></span> +advice and consent of the Council, be and he hereby is authorized to +appoint seven persons as Commissioners, to proceed to Washington to +confer with the General Government, or with the separate States, or +with any association of delegates from such States, and to report +their doings to the Legislature at its present session; it being +expressly declared that their acts shall be at all times under the +control, and subject to the approval or rejection of the Legislature.</p> + +<h4>RHODE ISLAND.</h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the +19th day of January inst., adopted resolutions inviting the sister +States of this Union to appoint Commissioners to meet on the fourth +day of February next, in the City of Washington, to consider the +practicability of agreeing on terms of adjustment of our present +national troubles:</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor be, and he is hereby authorized to +appoint five Commissioners, on the part of this State, to meet such +Commissioners as may be appointed by other States, in the City of +Washington, on the fourth day of February next, to consider and, if +practicable, agree upon some amicable adjustment of the present +unhappy national difficulties, upon the basis and in the spirit of the +Constitution of the United States.</p> + +<h4>MISSOURI.</h4> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Joint Resolution</span> <i>to appoint Commissioners.</i></p> + +<p><i>Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring +therein</i>, That Waldo P. Johnson, John D. Coalter, A.W. Doniphan, +Harrison Hough, and A.H. Buckner be appointed Commissioners on the +part of the State of Missouri, to meet Commissioners from Virginia, +and other States, in Convention at Washington City, on the 4th of +February, 1861, to endeavor to agree upon some plan of adjustment of +existing difficulties, so as to preserve or to reconstruct the Union +of these States, and to secure the honor and equal rights of the +slaveholding States. Said Commissioners shall always be under the +control of the General Assembly, except when the State Convention +shall be in session, during which time they shall be under the control +of the Convention.</p> + +<hr class="med" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_465" id="Page_465">465</a></span></p> + +<h3>No. II.</h3> + +<p>The following is a corrected list of the Delegates to the Conference, +with their respective post office address.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Maine.</span>—William P. Fessenden, <i>Biddeford</i>; Lot M. Morrill; Daniel E. +Somes, <i>Biddeford</i>; John J. Perry, <i>Oxford</i>; Ezra B. French, +<i>Damariscotta</i>; Freeman H. Morse, <i>Bath</i>; Stephen Coburn; Stephen C. +Foster, <i>Pembroke</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">New Hampshire.</span>—Amos Tuck, <i>Exeter</i>; Levi Chamberlain; Asa Fowler, +<i>Concord</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Vermont.</span>—Hiland Hall, <i>North Bennington</i>; Levi Underwood, +<i>Burlington</i>; H. Henry Baxter, <i>Rutland</i>; L.E. Chittenden, +<i>Burlington</i>; B.D. Harris, <i>Brattleboro'</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Massachusetts.</span>—John Z. Goodrich, <i>Stockbridge</i>; Charles Allen, +<i>Worcester</i>; George S. Boutwell, <i>Groton</i>; Theophilus P. Chandler, +<i>Boston</i>; Francis B. Crowninshield, <i>Boston</i>; John M. Forbes, <i>Salem</i>; +Richard P. Waters, <i>Salem</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Rhode Island.</span>—Samuel Ames, <i>Providence</i>; Alexander Duncan, +<i>Providence</i>; William W. Hoppin, <i>Providence</i>; George H. Browne, +<i>Providence</i>; Samuel G. Arnold, <i>Providence</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Connecticut.</span>—Roger S. Baldwin, <i>Windham</i>; Chauncey F. Cleveland; +Charles J. McCurdy, <i>Lyme</i>; James T. Pratt; Robbins Battell; Amos S. +Treat, <i>Bridgeport</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">New York.</span>—David Dudley Field, <i>New York</i>; William Curtis Noyes, <i>New +York</i>; James S. Wadsworth, <i>Geneseo</i>; James C. Smith, <i>Canandaigua</i>; +Amaziah B. James, <i>Ogdensburg</i>; Erastus Corning, <i>Albany</i>; Francis +Granger, <i>Canandaigua</i>; Greene C. Bronson, <i>New York</i>; William E. +Dodge, <i>New York</i>; John A. King, <i>Jamaica</i>; John E. Wool, <i>Troy</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">New Jersey.</span>—Charles S. Olden, <i>Princeton</i>; Peter D. Vroom, <i>Trenton</i>; +Robert F. Stockton, <i>Princeton</i>; Benjamin Williamson, <i>Elizabeth</i>; +Joseph F. Randolph, <i>Trenton</i>; Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, <i>Newark</i>; +Rodman M. Price, <i>Harrison, Hudson Co.</i>; William C. Alexander, <i>P.O., +92 Broadway, N.Y.</i>; Thomas J. Stryker, <i>Trenton</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Pennsylvania.</span>—James Pollock, <i>Milton</i>; William M. Meredith, +<i>Philadelphia</i>; David Wilmot, <i>Towanda</i>; A.W. Loomis, <i>Pittsburg</i>; +Thomas E. Franklin, <i>Lancaster</i>; William McKennan, <i>Washington</i>; +Thomas White, <i>Indiana</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Delaware.</span>—George B. Rodney, <i>Newcastle</i>; Daniel M. Bates, +<i>Wilmington</i>; Henry Ridgely, <i>Dover</i>; John W. Houston, <i>Milford</i>; +William Cannon, <i>Bridgeville</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Maryland.</span>—John F. Dent, <i>Milestown</i>; Reverdy Johnson, <i>Baltimore</i>; +John W. Crisfield, <i>Princess Ann</i>; Augustus W. Bradford, <i>Govanstown</i>; +William T. Goldsborough, <i>Cambridge</i>; J. Dixon Roman, <i>Hagerstown</i>; +Benjamin C. Howard, <i>Catonsville</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_466" id="Page_466">466</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Virginia.</span>—John Tyler, <i>Sherwood Forest</i>; William C. Rives; John W. +Brockenbrough, <i>Lexington</i>; George W. Summers, <i>Kanawha C.H.</i>; James +A. Seddon, <i>Goochland</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">North Carolina.</span>—George Davis, <i>Wilmington</i>; Thomas Ruffin, <i>Graham</i>; +David S. Reid, <i>Pleasantville</i>; D.M. Barringer, <i>Raleigh</i>; J.M. +Morehead, <i>Greenboro'</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Tennessee.</span>—Samuel Milligan, <i>Greenville</i>; Josiah M. Anderson, <i>Walnut +Valley</i>; Robert L. Carruthers, <i>Lebanon</i>; Thomas Martin, <i>Pulaski</i>; +Isaac R. Hawkins, <i>Huntington</i>; A.W.O. Totten, <i>Jackson</i>; R.J. +McKinney, <i>Knoxville</i>; Alvin Cullom, <i>Livingston</i>; William P. +Hickerson, <i>Manchester</i>; George W. Jones, <i>Fayetteville</i>; F.K. +Zollicoffer, <i>Nashville</i>; William H. Stephens, <i>Jackson</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Kentucky.</span>—William O. Butler, <i>Carrollton</i>; James B. Clay, <i>Ashland</i>; +Joshua F. Bell, <i>Danville</i>; Charles S. Morehead, <i>Louisville</i>; James +Guthrie, <i>Louisville</i>; Charles A. Wickliffe, <i>Bardstown</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Missouri.</span>—John D. Coalter, <i>St. Louis</i>; Alexander W. Doniphan, +<i>Liberty</i>; Waldo P. Johnson, <i>Osceola</i>; Aylett H. Buckner, <i>Bowling +Green</i>; Harrison Hough, <i>Charleston</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Ohio.</span>—Salmon P. Chase, <i>Columbus</i>; William S. Groesbeck, +<i>Cincinnati</i>; Franklin T. Backus, <i>Cleveland</i>; Reuben Hitchcock, +<i>Cleveland</i>; Thomas Ewing, <i>Lancaster</i>; V.B. Horton, <i>Pomeroy</i>; C.P. +Wolcott, <i>Akron</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Indiana.</span>—Caleb B. Smith, <i>Indianapolis</i>; Pleasant A. Hackleman, +<i>Rushville</i>; Godlove S. Orth, <i>Lafayette</i>; E.W.H. Ellis, <i>Goshen</i>; +Thomas C. Slaughter, <i>Corydon</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Illinois.</span>—John Wood, <i>Quincy</i>; Stephen T. Logan, <i>Springfield</i>; John +M. Palmer, <i>Carlinville</i>; Burton C. Cook, <i>Ottowa</i>; Thomas J. Turner, +<i>Freeport</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Iowa.</span>—James Harlan, <i>Mt. Pleasant</i>; James W. Grimes, <i>Burlington</i>; +Samuel H. Curtis, <i>Keokuk</i>; William Vandever, <i>Dubuque</i>.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Kansas.</span>—Thomas Ewing, jr., <i>Leavenworth</i>; J.C. Stone, <i>Leavenworth</i>; +H.J. Adams, <i>Leavenworth</i>; M.F. Conway, <i>Lawrence</i>.</p> + +<hr class="med" /> + +<h3>No. III.</h3> + +<p>In the United States Senate, February 27th, 1861, while the Army +Appropriation bill was under consideration, proceedings relating to +the Peace Conference were opened as follows:</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—Is it in order to move to postpone this bill and take up +another?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair believes it is in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—I move to postpone the Army bill for the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_467" id="Page_467">467</a></span> purpose of +taking up the resolutions to amend the Constitution proposed by my +colleague. For several weeks Senators have declined to make an effort +to call up the propositions of my colleague, for the reason that +certain Peace Commissioners were in session in this capital, convened +at the call of the State of Virginia. I am confident now that that +Commission, or Peace Congress, or Conference, or whatever you may call +it, will not accomplish any thing. Indeed, certain facts have fallen +under my notice, that cause me to believe that it has been the fixed +purpose of certain Republicans that that Conference should not +accomplish any thing. I believe, sir, that certain commissioners from +States of this Union have been brought into that Conference for the +purpose of preventing them from agreeing on any thing. I have thought +that for some time past. A friend sent to me yesterday the Detroit +<i>Free Press</i>, containing two letters from the distinguished Senators +from the State of Michigan to their Governor, which, I think, clearly +and fully establish the fact that the Republicans, a portion of them +at least, instead of sending commissioners to that Conference with a +view to inaugurate something that would compromise the difficulties by +which we are surrounded, and save this country from ruin, have +absolutely been engaged in the work of sending delegates there to +prevent that commission from doing any thing. I send this paper to the +desk, and ask the Secretary to read these letters.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, <i>February 15th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>: When Virginia proposed a Convention in Washington, +in reference to the disturbed condition of the country, I +regarded it as another effort to debauch the public mind, +and a step toward obtaining that concession which the +imperious slave power so insolently demands. I have no doubt +at present but that was the design. I was therefore pleased +that the Legislature of Michigan was not disposed to put +herself in a position to be controlled by such influences.</p> + +<p>The Convention has met here, and within a few days the +aspect of things has materially changed. Every free State, I +think, except Michigan and Wisconsin, is represented; and we +have been assured by friends upon whom we can rely, that if +those two States should send delegations of true, +unflinching men, there would probably be a majority in favor +of the Constitution as it is, who would frown down rebellion +by the enforcement of laws. These friends have urged us to +recommend the appointment of delegates from our State; and, +in compliance with their request, Mr. <span class="smcap">Chandler</span> and myself +telegraphed to you last night. It cannot be doubted that the +recommendations of this Convention will have a very +considerable influence upon the public mind, and upon the +action of Congress.</p> + +<p>I have a great disinclination to any interference with what +should properly<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_468" id="Page_468">468</a></span> be submitted to the wisdom and discretion +of the Legislature, in which I place great reliance; but I +hope I shall be pardoned for suggesting that it may be +justifiable and proper, by any honorable means, to avert the +lasting disgrace which will attach to a free people who, by +the peaceful exercise of the ballot, have just released +themselves from the tyranny of slavery, if they should now +succumb to treasonable threats, and again submit to a +degrading thraldom. If it should be deemed proper to send +delegates, I think, if they could be here by the 20th, it +would be in time.</p> + +<p class="center">I have the honor, with much respect, to be truly yours,</p> + +<p class="right">K.S. BINGHAM.</p> + +<p>To his Excellency Governor <span class="smcap">Blair</span>.</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—I submit whether it is in order to go into a +discussion on this motion. If so, I suppose this must be regarded as a +part of the speech.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair understood the discussion to be in +order. It was certainly not objected to at the time the Senator +commenced.</p> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—It is not too late to raise the point.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The motion is to lay aside one bill and take +up other business; and the Chair understood the Senator from Kentucky +to be giving his reasons why he wished that to be done.</p> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—If it is in order, of course I cannot object to it; +but I raise that question.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Senator from Maine raises the question +whether this debate is in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—There was no objection to my proceeding, and I suppose I +have a right to go on. I wish the letters read as part of my speech.</p> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—There is no objection to reading them.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair has decided that the Senator from +Kentucky is in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—I have not yielded, except for the purpose of reading +these letters.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—Is an appeal taken from the decision of the +Chair?</p> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—I take no appeal.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, <i>February 11th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Governor</span>: Governor <span class="smcap">Bingham</span> and myself telegraphed +you on Saturday, at the request of Massachusetts and New +York, to send delegates to the Peace or Compromise Congress. +They admit that we were right and that they were wrong; that +no Republican State should have sent delegates; but they are +here and cannot get away. Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_469" id="Page_469">469</a></span> +are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois; and now they +beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue, and save +the Republican party from rupture. I hope you will send +<i>stiff-backed</i> men, or none. The whole thing was gotten up +against my judgment and advice, and will end in thin smoke. +Still, I hope as a matter of courtesy to some of our erring +brethren, that you will send the delegates.</p> + +<p class="center">Truly your friend,</p> + +<p class="right">Z. CHANDLER.</p> + +<p>His Excellency <span class="smcap">Austin Blair</span>.</p> + +<p>P.S.—Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight +would be awful. Without a little blood-letting this Union +will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush.</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—I think it evident from these letters, that there is, and +has been, a fixed purpose in certain quarters, that the Peace +Conference should do nothing. Indeed, it seems, from the letter of the +Senator from Michigan [Mr. <span class="smcap">Chandler</span>], that while he opposed any +Republican State going into this Conference, yet, as some of them were +there, and Indiana, and Illinois, and Ohio, and Rhode Island were +about to cave in, on the advice of Massachusetts and New York he asked +Michigan to come in and relieve them, and save the Republican party +from rupture. Is it possible that the Republican party is to be saved, +even if the Union be destroyed? It is very evident that those +"stiff-backed" gentlemen were to be sent here in order to prevent any +compromise being presented. The object, then, as I stated, on the part +of certain members on the other side of the Chamber, has been to send +delegates to the Conference for the purpose of preventing any +compromise measures being proposed by that body. They desire, in the +language of these letters, to save their party from destruction. They +say that if the Conference should agree on any thing, it would have a +demoralizing effect upon the people, and upon the two Houses of +Congress. In one word, it will have the effect to make a rupture in +the Republican party, which, in the estimation of the Senators, is +higher, holier, and better, it seems, than the Union.</p> + +<p>In consequence of this fact being apparent, that it is not the design +or the intention that the Peace Conference should do any thing, I +think we should not wait for it any longer, but the Senate should +proceed at once to the consideration of the amendments to the +Constitution proposed by my colleague. I think we had better be +engaged in that work—one that is calculated, if the propositions of +my colleague should pass, in my opinion, to save the country from +further disintegration. I think we had better be at that, than be +appropriating money to support an Army that is to be engaged, it +seems, in the work of blood-letting.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_470" id="Page_470">470</a></span> The Senator from Michigan thinks +the Government is not worth a rush until it shall have drawn a little +blood. I hope my motion will prevail, and that we shall lay this bill +aside and proceed to the consideration of the measures proposed by my +colleague.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHANDLER:—The Senator from Kentucky has read what purports to be +a short note that I sent the other day to the Governor of Michigan. +Whether it is a correct copy or not, I cannot say; I kept no copy of +it, nor do I care.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—If the Senator will allow me one word, I will state to +the Senate that, when I received this paper, yesterday—</p> + +<p>Mr. CHANDLER:—I was about to state that.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—I asked both the Senators if the letters were right. They +told me they kept no copies, but they believed they were substantially +so.</p> + +<p>Mr. CHANDLER:—I was going to say that. Now, sir, I desire to answer +the Senator from Kentucky, and to set myself right on this +question—(my position from the first has been well known upon this +question, and upon most others)—but, at the earnest solicitation of +the Senator from Maine, who has charge of this bill, I will forego the +response which I intended to make, and which I shall make to the +Senator from Kentucky, for the present, for the purpose of going on +and disposing of the Army appropriation bill. At another day I propose +to give my views more at large upon these compromise measures, that +the Senator from Kentucky seems so anxious to take up at this time. I +am as anxious as he is to go into that discussion. I am anxious to go +into it. It is a question that ought to be discussed. It is a question +in which the people of Michigan take a deep interest. They are opposed +to all compromises; they do not believe that any compromise is +necessary; nor do I. They are prepared to stand by the Constitution of +the United States as it is; to stand by the Government as it is; ay, +sir, to stand by it to blood, if necessary.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—I ask the general permission of the Senate to give notice +that at three o'clock I shall move to go into executive session; and +if it is not agreed to, I shall then ask that the galleries may be +cleared, for the purpose of disclosing what I consider ought to be +passed on in executive session.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:—If I can obtain the attention of the +Senator from Kentucky, I wish to make a suggestion. Those resolutions, +as I understood, went over until last Monday at one o'clock,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_471" id="Page_471">471</a></span> and were +then to be taken up and considered. I do not know whether the motion +was made in that way, or whether it was an informal understanding that +they should be taken up last Monday for consideration; but as the Army +bill is now under consideration, and the time is growing short, would +it not be better to have a night session, and postpone the subject +until seven o'clock this evening, and let it be taken up at that time; +and then let this other bill go on to-day? Those who want to make +speeches on those resolutions could do it to-night; we should thus +save time and expedite business.</p> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—I think the Senator from Virginia has given an +additional very good reason for taking up the Army bill, and going +through with it; and not postponing it for speeches at the present +time.</p> + +<p>The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 17, nays 27; +as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, +Douglas, Fitch, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, +Lane, Latham, Mason, Polk, Powell, and Rice—17.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, +Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, +Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, King, Morrill, Pearce, Seward, +Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and +Wilson—27.</p></div> + +<p>So the motion to postpone the Army bill, in order to take up the +resolutions of Mr. <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span>, was not agreed to.</p> + +<p>Subsequently the following action, by the Senate, was taken on the +report of the Peace Conference.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—The Chair has received a communication from +Ex-President <span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, as President of the Conference which has been +recently sitting in this city, which he will lay before the Senate; +and also the proceedings of that body.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read the communication, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>To the Senate of the United States:</i></p> + +<p>I am instructed, as the presiding officer of the Convention, +composed of Commissioners appointed by twenty-one States, +now in session in this city to deliberate upon the present +unhappy condition of the country, to present to your +honorable body the accompanying request and proposed +amendment.</p> + +<p class="center">JOHN TYLER,</p> + +<p class="right"><i>President of the Convention.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, D.C., <i>February 27, 1861.</i></p> +</div> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>To the Congress of the United States:</i></p> + +<p>The Convention assembled, upon the invitation of the State +of Virginia, to adjust the unhappy differences which now +disturb the peace of the Union,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_472" id="Page_472">472</a></span> and threaten its +continuance, make known to the Congress of the United States +that their body convened in the City of Washington on the +fourth instant, and continued in session until the +twenty-seventh.</p> + +<p>There were in the body, when action was taken upon that +which is here submitted, one hundred and thirty-three +Commissioners, representing the following States: Maine, New +Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, +Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, <i>Wisconsin</i>, and +Kansas. They have approved what is herewith submitted, and +respectfully request that your honorable body will submit it +to conventions in the States as article <i>thirteen</i> of the +amendments to the Constitution of the United States.</p> + +<p>Attest: <span style="margin-left: 20em">J. HENRY PULESTON,</span></p> + +<p class="right"><i>Secretary.</i></p></div> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4><a name="ARTICLE" id="ARTICLE"></a><span class="smcap">Article XIII.</span></h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 1.</span> In all the present territory of the United States +north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, +involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is +prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, +the <i>status</i> of persons held to involuntary service or +labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any +law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to +hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the +States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the +rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be +subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, +according to the course of the common law. When any +Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary +as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal +to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its +form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union +on an equal footing with the original States, with or +without involuntary servitude, as the constitution of such +State may provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> No territory shall be acquired by the United States, +except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, +depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a +majority of all the Senators from States which allow +involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators +from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall +territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a +majority of the Senators from each class of States +hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two thirds +majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3.</span> Neither the constitution, nor any amendment thereof, +shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, +abolish, or control, within any State, the relation +established or recognized by the laws thereof touching +persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to +interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the +District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and +without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who +do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere +with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing +with them to the District<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_473" id="Page_473">473</a></span> of Columbia, retaining, and +taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the +power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in +places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States +within those States and Territories where the same is +established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the +removal or transportation of persons held to labor or +involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United +States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is +established or recognized by law or usage, and the right +during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at +ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of +distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in or +through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, +against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to +authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to +labor or service than on land. The bringing into the +District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service, +for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards +transferred to other places for sale as merchandise, is +prohibited.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 4.</span> The third paragraph of the second section of the +fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to +prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and +through the action of their judicial and ministerial +officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from +labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 5.</span> The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever +prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass +laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or +persons held to service or labor, into the United States and +the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 6.</span> The first, third, and fifth sections, together with +this section of those amendments, and the third paragraph of +the second section of the first article of the Constitution, +and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth +article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without +the consent of all the States.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 7.</span> Congress shall provide by law that the United States +shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from +labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, +whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented +from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or +riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such fugitive +was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner +thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such +payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such +fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the +citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of +citizens in the several States.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—I suppose the proper disposition is to have it printed.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—There is nothing to print.</p> + +<p>Mr. GREEN:—And refer it to the Committee for the District of +Columbia. I think that is about right.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I move that it be referred to a select committee, +with instructions to report to-morrow morning.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_474" id="Page_474">474</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—We ought certainly to have it printed.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—It can be printed in the mean time.</p> + +<p>Mr. FESSENDEN:—We should have time to look at it.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—It is moved that the communication be printed and +referred to a select committee, with instructions to report to-morrow +morning.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I would be glad to make a suggestion to the Senator from +Kentucky, that he name in addition an hour to-morrow at which the +consideration of the report shall be in order, or else a single +objection will throw it over to the next day.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Well, to-morrow at twelve o'clock, I would say. +["One."] I move one o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—With instructions to the committee to report to-morrow +morning, and that the report be the special order at one o'clock?</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Yes, sir.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—Does the Senator indicate the number of the +committee?</p> + +<p>Mr. GREEN:—Seventeen.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—Five is enough.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—A committee of five; no more.</p> + +<p>Mr. COLLAMER:—I would suggest to gentlemen not only that it be made +the order of the day for twelve o'clock to-morrow, but that it be +adopted by three-fourths of the States the next day. [Laughter.]</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—It is moved and seconded that the communication +be printed and referred to a select committee of five members, to +report to-morrow at one o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—I ask for a division of the question.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—The first question will be on printing.</p> + +<p>The motion to print was agreed to.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—The next question is that the communication be +referred to a select committee of five, with instructions to report +to-morrow at one o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—I ask for a division of that.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—How would it be divided?</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—The motion to refer to a select committee is one +proposition, and the instructions are another.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—That is the form in which the Senator wants it +divided?</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—Yes, sir.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—As the Chair states the proposition, it does not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_475" id="Page_475">475</a></span> reach +the object which the Senator from Kentucky had in view. The +instructions should be that the committee report to-morrow morning, +and that the report shall be the special order at one o'clock. Unless +that is done, one objection will put it over.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—The Senator from New Hampshire asks for a +division of the question, and it is susceptible of division. The first +question is on referring the communication to a special committee of +five.</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—The next branch of the proposition is that that +committee be instructed to report to-morrow morning, and that their +report be made the special order for to-morrow at one o'clock.</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—On that, I should like to have the yeas and nays.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.</p> + +<p>The VICE-PRESIDENT:—The question is upon directing the committee to +report to-morrow morning, and that the report be made the special +order for to-morrow at one o'clock.</p> + +<p>The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLINGMAN:—Though I am utterly opposed to the proposition, I am +willing to give it the direction its friends desire, and I vote "yea."</p> + +<p>Mr. LATHAM:—I desire to change my vote. I have no confidence in this +thing, and I fear it will be an unnecessary consumption of time; but I +yield to the judgment of my political associates and I vote "yea."</p> + +<p>The result was announced—yeas 26, nays 21; as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, +Bright, Clingman, Crittenden, Dixon, Douglas, Fitch, Foster, +Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, +Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Rice, Sebastian, and +Thomson—26.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, +Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Green, Grimes, Hale, +Harlan, King, Morrill, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, +Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson—21.</p></div> + +<p>So the motion was agreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I move that the committee be appointed by the Chair.</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to; and Mr. <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Bigler</span>, Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomson</span>, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Seward</span>, and Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>, were appointed the committee.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_476" id="Page_476">476</a></span></p> + +<p>On the 28th of February the committee so appointed, presented to the +Senate the following report, and the following action was taken +thereon:</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—The select committee, to whom was referred the +communication received yesterday from the Convention assembled in this +place, commonly called the Peace Convention, with instructions to +report by twelve o'clock to-day, have had the subject under +consideration, and have directed me to make the following report—</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—I object to its consideration to-day.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. <span class="smcap">Fitch</span> in the chair):—Objection being made, +it cannot be considered until one o'clock, but it will be read.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read the joint resolution reported by Mr. <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> (S. +No. 70), proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the +United States, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<h4><span class="smcap">Joint Resolution</span> <i>proposing certain amendments to the +Constitution<br />of the United States.</i></h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span> Commissioners, appointed on the invitation of the +State of Virginia, by the following States, respectively: +Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, +Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, +Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, +Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and +Kansas, have met in Convention at the City of Washington, +for the purpose of considering the distracted and perilous +condition of the country, and proposing measures for the +preservation of the peace, the safety of the people, and the +security of the Union, and having performed that duty, and +communicated to Congress the result of their deliberations, +with a request and recommendation on the part and in the +name of said States, that the following be proposed to the +several States as amendments to the Constitution of the +United States, according to the fifth article of said +instrument, namely: [See <a href="#ARTICLE">article</a> preceding.]</p></div> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—Mr. President—</p> + +<p>Mr. GWIN:—I think I am on the floor.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—I desire to speak a word from the committee touching the +present report.</p> + +<p>Mr. GWIN:—Certainly.</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—I object to its present consideration.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—I am not proposing to consider it.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—The Senator from New Hampshire has no right to make the +objection.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_477" id="Page_477">477</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—I am not proposing to consider it at the present moment; +but I am desirous of making an explanation from the committee, +touching the report made by the Senator from Kentucky. The honorable +Senator from Illinois [Mr. <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>], and myself, constituted a +minority of the committee. We dissent from the report, and we proposed +in committee to submit a substitute. The majority held that, for some +reason, sufficient in their estimation, we were not entitled to submit +a minority report. I therefore ask leave of the Senate to introduce a +joint resolution in my own name, and in which the honorable Senator +from Illinois authorized me to say that he concurs with me, and which +I ask unanimous consent to have read and printed; and it will be the +subject of consideration at such time hereafter as the Senate shall +choose to hear it, either in connection with the other or not.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Is it in the form of a report?</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—No; it is not insisted on in that form; it is submitted +on my own behalf. I desire that it may be read for information and +printed, subject to the future action of the Senate.</p> + +<p>The proposition of Mr. <span class="smcap">Seward</span> was read, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>A joint resolution concerning a National Convention to +propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New +Jersey, and Illinois, have applied to Congress to call a +Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of +the United States: Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Be it Resolved, &c.</i>, That the Legislatures of the other +States be invited to take the subject into consideration, +and to express their will on that subject to Congress, in +pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I desire to make—</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Senator from California was on the floor. +No action is now requested on the paper just offered, only a motion to +print. Shall the paper be printed?</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—Was it read for information?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—For information only.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—I move that it be printed.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair hears no objection.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I desire to make a remark in reference to the question of +order made by the Senator from New Hampshire. The Senator objects to +the consideration of the report to-day. Yesterday, when the Senator +from Kentucky made the motion, I insisted on further moving that the +report of the committee should be the special order at one o'clock +to-day.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—That is the record.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_478" id="Page_478">478</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—That instruction was offered, and therefore the Senator's +objection will not apply.</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—Therefore it will.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—I insist on the motion to print.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Senator from California is on the floor. +The Senator from New Hampshire having objected to the present +consideration of the resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky, +for the time being it cannot be considered.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—Will the Senator from California allow the question to be +put on my motion to print?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:-The Chair heard no objection to that; and it +was ordered.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOOLITTLE:—The Senator from California will allow me to say a +single word. I observe that, in this report, the State of Wisconsin is +mentioned as having sent delegates to this Convention, commonly +denominated the Peace Convention. That is a mistake. I desire, also, +to give notice that when this subject shall come up for consideration, +I shall offer as an amendment to the first section of article +thirteen, as proposed, the following proviso:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Provided, however</i> (and this section shall take effect upon +the express condition), That no State, or any part thereof, +heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted, into the +Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of +the United States; and that this Constitution, and all laws +passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the +land therein, any thing contained in any constitution, act, +or ordinance of any State Legislature or Convention to the +contrary notwithstanding.</p></div> + +<p>The section will then read as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Sec. 1.</span> In all the present territory of the United States +north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, +involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is +prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, +the <i>status</i> of persons held to involuntary service or +labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any +law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to +hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the +States of the Union to said territory, nor to impair the +rights arising from the said relation; but the same shall be +subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, +according to the course of the common law. When any +Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary +as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal +to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its +form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union +on an equal footing with the original States, with or +without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such +State may provide; <i>Provided, however</i> (and this section +shall take effect upon the express condition), That no +State, nor any part thereof, heretofore admitted, or +hereafter<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_479" id="Page_479">479</a></span> to be admitted into the Union, shall have power +to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and +that the Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance +thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land therein, any +thing contained in any constitution, act, or ordinance, of +any State Legislature or Convention to the contrary +notwithstanding.</p></div> + +<p>And I desire that that amendment, which I now send to the Chair, may +be printed.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—Is there any objection to printing the paper +which the Senator has just read? The Chair hears no objection.</p> + +<p>The same day the Report of the Peace Conference was called up for +consideration, when Senator <span class="smcap">Hale</span> objected to the consideration of the +report. Considerable discussion then ensued, in which Messrs. <span class="smcap">Hale</span>, +<span class="smcap">Bigler</span>, <span class="smcap">Trumbull</span>, <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span>, and <span class="smcap">Dixon</span> participated. This discussion +related merely to the question, whether under the rules of the Senate +the Report of the Peace Conference could at this time be taken up. The +merits of the report were not considered, and for that reason it is +not deemed necessary to report the proceedings of the Senate in this +respect. The joint rules of the two Houses were suspended in order +that another subject might be taken up, and no decision was had upon +the question, whether the Report of the Peace Conference at this time +should be considered.</p> + +<p>The allotted time having been consumed in this discussion, the Senate +proceeded to the consideration and disposal of several orders of the +day. On the first of March it resumed action on the Report of the +Peace Conference.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. <span class="smcap">Fitch</span>):—It is the duty of the Chair to +announce the special order of the day, being the joint resolution (S. +No. 70) proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United +States.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I ask that the resolutions from the House of +Representatives, in regard to amendments of the Constitution, be laid +before the Senate, in order that they may be considered at the same +time.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair will lay before the Senate a joint +resolution from the House of Representatives.</p> + +<p>The joint resolution (H.R. No. 80) to amend the Constitution of the +United States, was read the first time by its title.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I ask that that be made the special order at the same +time, in connection with the joint resolution reported by the Senator +from Kentucky.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—I have looked at that joint resolution, and it cer<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_480" id="Page_480">480</a></span>tainly +ought to be committed to a committee to correct its English. It is +unintelligible.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—My object is merely to have it considered at the same +time with the other.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The joint resolution will have its second +reading.</p> + +<p>The joint resolution (H.R. No. 80) was read a second time by its +title.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—It is now the subject of any motion that may +be made in regard to it.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I move that it be made the special order in connection +with the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLARK:—How does that happen to be in order here when there is a +special order called up?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—It is not in order to consider it, except by +unanimous consent.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLARK, Mr. BINGHAM, and Mr. SUMNER:—I object.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The special order is before the Senate.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I ask that the other resolutions which have come from +the House of Representatives, be read. There are two of them, I +believe.</p> + +<p>The House joint resolutions (No. 64) declaratory of the opinion of +Congress in regard to certain, questions now agitating the country, +and of measures calculated to reconcile existing differences, were +read the first time by the title.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The second reading—</p> + +<p>Mr. CHANDLER and others:—I object.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—Is objection made?</p> + +<p>Mr. CHANDLER:—I withdraw my objection.</p> + +<p>Mr. SUMNER:—I object.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—Objection being made, it cannot be read the +second time.</p> + +<p>Mr. SIMMONS:—It passed the other House unanimously. There can be no +objection, I think.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLARK:—We have another subject up.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The special order is before the Senate. The +question is on the second reading.</p> + +<p>The joint resolution (S. No. 70) proposing certain amendments to the +Constitution of the United States, was read the second time, and +considered as in Committee of the Whole.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_481" id="Page_481">481</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. PUGH:—Let the resolution be read, not the proposition itself, but +the formal part, the introduction.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Is that open to amendment now?</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—It is in Committee of the Whole, and open to +amendment. The reading of the formal part of the joint resolution is +called for.</p> + +<p>The Secretary read it.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—I offer the following as a substitute:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Strike out all after the word "whereas," in the preamble, to +the end of the resolution, and insert:</p> + +<p>The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New Jersey, and +Illinois, have applied to Congress to call a Convention for +proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United +States; Therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives +of the United States of America in Congress assembled</i>, That +the Legislatures of the other States be invited to take the +subject of such a Convention into consideration, and to +express their will on that subject to Congress, in pursuance +of the fifth article of the Constitution.</p></div> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair understands that a proviso was +offered to the matter that the Senator from New York proposes to +strike out. The vote will first be taken on the proviso offered by the +Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. <span class="smcap">Doolittle</span>], to insert at the end of +section one of article thirteen:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Provided, however</i> (and this section shall take effect upon +the express condition), That no State, nor any part thereof, +heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted into the +Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of +the United States; and that this Constitution, and all laws +passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the +land, any thing contained in any constitution, act, or +ordinance of any State Legislature or Convention to the +contrary notwithstanding.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I believe that the amendment of the Senator from +Wisconsin is not pending.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Senator from Wisconsin proposes that as a +proviso to the matter which the Senator from New York moves to strike +out; and the question must first be taken on that.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I did not know that that was before the Senate.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—He only gave notice of it.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I thought the Senator from Wisconsin only gave notice +that he would offer it.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair may have misunderstood the Senator's +motion at the time. He called for the printing of it; but if that is +the understanding of the Senate—</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—What does the record say?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_482" id="Page_482">482</a></span></p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Chair understands that the record presents +it as "intended to be offered."</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—Then the question is on the substitute. I ask that the +question be taken.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I have an amendment to submit. I propose to amend the +first section of the proposition before us, by inserting in lieu of it +the first article of what are called the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions. I +move to strike out the first article of the peace propositions, and to +insert:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>That in all the territory of the United States now held, or +hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30´, +slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for +crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under +territorial government. In all the territory south of said +line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby +recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by +Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the +departments of the territorial government during its +continuance; and when any Territory, north or south of said +line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, +shall contain the population requisite for a member of +Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of +representation of the people of the United States, it shall, +if its form of government be republican, be admitted into +the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with +or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State +may provide.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. COLLAMER:—I rise to a question of order. It will be observed that +this paper is before us under a recital that, whereas these +propositions of amendment have been presented by the Commissioners, as +they are called, from the several States—naming them—who have asked +Congress to submit them, therefore we propose to submit them to the +States. The whole proceeding is based and predicated on this recital. +I say that it cannot be amended. If it were amended, it would cease to +be the application of that body which the recital States. I therefore +object to any amendments, except a substitute; perhaps a substitute +may be offered striking out the recital and all; but an amendment to +it is out of order, in my view.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—In regard to the question of order, I understand that the +recital is the recital of the committee, and that the question before +us is on these propositions for amending the Constitution of the +United States, which are to be treated as a bill. If so, each section +is subject to amendment as a bill would be subject to amendment. It +was my purpose to offer the entire series of what are called the +<span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions, as an amendment to these, and I still intend +to offer them, section by section; but I was prevented from offering +them in that form, because the Senator from New York got the floor +first, and offered his proposition as a substitute. I therefore could +not raise the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_483" id="Page_483">483</a></span> question which I desired to raise, except by offering +the amendments, section by section, in order to perfect the original +proposition. I submit that it is in order.</p> + +<p>Mr. COLLAMER:—I submit, still, my question of order, suggesting to +gentlemen that if we make any amendment, we must strike out the +recital.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I do not see that any ordinary question of order can be +raised in this case; but I do think there is a consideration much more +grave, and that is the question whether we will treat the series of +resolutions presented here by this Peace Congress as a proposition +which we ought either to accept or reject. I was one of those in the +select committee who took that position. It was manifestly intended +that we should accept the entire programme, or reject it. Therefore I +was unwilling; and we decided to consider no question of amendment—</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—That is not a question of order, but of propriety. It +would be an argument against any amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I have said it was no ordinary question of rules; but +that there was a far graver question of propriety. I agree with the +Senator in that view; and I rose for the purpose of alluding to the +view taken of this subject by the select committee. The Senator from +New York desired the leave of the committee to report his proposition +as a substitute; but the majority of the committee held that the +resolutions had not been committed to us for the purpose of +considering them and changing them, or substituting something else, +but simply to attach to them the formal resolution to present them as +amendments to the Constitution for the ratification of the States. For +that reason we proposed no amendment; and the Senator from New York +yesterday offered his substitute on his own responsibility, because, +as I understood him, of the view taken by the committee. Now, sir, I +still entertain the view that, while the Senate have a clear right +unquestionably to change these resolutions, and to change the +resolution of submission to make it conform to any thing we may do, we +ought to consider these resolutions sent here by this Peace Conference +as a whole, and accept them or reject them; but there can be no +question of ordinary rule raised as to the right to offer an +amendment; there is a greater, a graver question of propriety as to +how they shall be treated.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—It is not merely a question of form or order, but the +proposition of the Senator from Virginia would change the whole +character of the transaction. This joint resolution is one single, +complete proposition. It is one act. It begins with a declaration by +Congress, that "whereas Commissioners, appointed on the invitation of +the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_484" id="Page_484">484</a></span> State of Virginia," have performed a certain duty confided to +them, "and communicated to Congress the result of their deliberations, +with a request and recommendation on the part and in the name of said +States"—of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, and the rest of the States represented in the Convention—"the +following"—nothing different, nothing originating in Congress, +nothing originating anywhere else, but—"the following be proposed to +the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United +States, according to the fifth article of said instrument." Now, if we +should adopt this whole transaction, we should simply do this: we +should submit these amendments to the people of the United States for +their acceptance, for the reason that the Peace Convention, as it is +called, has considered upon the subject, and thought it grave enough +to solicit us to invest it with the legislative or congressional +sanction, and so submit it to the Legislatures and conventions of the +States; but whenever you have made a single alteration in it, such as +is proposed now by the Senator from Virginia, it is not, then, the +proposition of the States "of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, +Massachusetts," or any other States; but it is a recommendation of the +Congress of the United States. The whole character is changed. The +Convention is swept out of existence in the history of Congress. The +resolutions then adopted become the deliberate conviction of the +majority of the Congress of the United States, who substitute their +own judgment, and their own wisdom, and their own will, for the +wishes, the opinions, respectfully submitted to them by the +representatives of those States, and take the responsibility of saying +that this is what the Peace Convention should have submitted, instead +of the proposition which they have sent here.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I wish to make a suggestion in regard to the real +position of this question, as it now appears before us. The arguments +that have been urged by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator +from New York might very well be brought up against the propriety of +adopting the amendment; but, so far as the question itself stands, it +is only brought before us by a report of our committee. The Peace +Conference had no power to present questions or make communications to +us; but they having made a communication, and we, having respect for +that body, agreed to take it up, and we referred their proposition to +a committee. The only authority which we have now for considering it +in the Senate, is on the recommendation of our committee. This +proposition stands here as a recommendation of that committee to alter +the Constitution, as proposed by this Conference. It being their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_485" id="Page_485">485</a></span> +recommendation in regard to the alteration of the Constitution, under +our rules it stands like a bill; and I have a right to move to amend +it, section by section; and in doing so, I should be pursuing the +method taken by the Peace Conference, as I understand, for I am told +they never took a vote on it as a whole, but voted on it proposition +by proposition; and in fact, the majority who passed the propositions +were composed of different States, and they never did take a vote on +the articles as a whole.</p> + +<p>Now, I am proposing to amend this as it comes up, proposition by +proposition; and if it would be in order for me to make such a motion, +supposing that this proposition had originated with a committee of +this body, who had made a report proposing such amendments to the +Constitution, I should have a right to make it now, for it is only in +that way that it appears legally before us. I say, then, so far as the +question of order is concerned, it seems to me that I have clearly a +right to do it. I would be willing, in order to get rid of the +question of order, to move to strike out the preamble too; but in my +opinion it stands before us as a bill would stand. I may amend the +particular sections. I am not proposing by this amendment to perfect +the whole proposition, but a part of it; and if I should succeed in +that, I can then go back, and move to amend the preamble.</p> + +<p>So far as the question of order is concerned, I cannot see how it is +that I am out of order. There may be a question of propriety. Those +who believe that this proposition is one that ought to be accepted as +a whole, and ought to be accepted because it comes from this body, +eminently respectable, as we all acknowledge it to be, may say that we +ought not to amend it; not that we have not the power, but that we +ought not to amend it. Those of us, however, who think as I do, that +it is a proposition not to be accepted; that it is a proposition +highly dangerous, and one which will give rise to great difficulties, +on the other hand, may think it eminently proper to amend it. I, +thinking in that way, avail myself of what I suppose my parliamentary +right, to offer an amendment; and it is upon that question of +parliamentary right alone, as I understand, that the Chair is to +determine.</p> + +<p>Mr. TRUMBULL:—Mr. President, it seems to me very clear that, as a +question of order, this proposition does not stand in any respect +different from any other. Suppose an individual Senator had thought +proper to propose amendments to the Constitution; that they had been +referred to a committee; and the committee had approved them: what +would it have done? Precisely what this committee has done. It would +have reported back the proposition, with a resolution<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_486" id="Page_486">486</a></span> in conformity +with that clause of the Constitution which points out the mode of its +amendment. The fact that this proposition was adopted by gentlemen +from various States does not alter it at all. It comes here as a mere +petition. However respectable and dignified the Convention may have +been which arrived at these conclusions; however much weight their +conclusions may be entitled to in the country, they come here simply +as petitioners—in that light, and none other—asking Congress to +submit certain resolutions to the States of the Union to be adopted or +not as portions of the fundamental law, and, unquestionably, any +Senator has a right to propose an amendment in the same way as if they +were introduced by an individual Senator. Can it be possible that if I +draw up a series of propositions as amendments to the Constitution of +the United States, and a select committee thinks proper to recommend +them to this body, the hands of the body are tied up, and it must take +them, word for word, and letter for letter, as I have drawn them? The +question is, whether it is proper to do this; whether the respect due +the Peace Convention should not deter gentlemen from offering +amendments, is a question we are not discussing. The point is one of +order; and as a question of order, I was astonished when the Senator +from Pennsylvania first suggested it.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I suggested no question of order.</p> + +<p>Mr. TRUMBULL:—I did understand the Senator from Pennsylvania to say, +that that was the view he took in committee in response to what was +said by the Senator from Vermont, and it was to that I alluded when I +said I was astonished at the ground he took, that the committee could +not amend these propositions, or that any other person could not move +to amend them.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—The Senator from Vermont made a distinct point of order; +but I did not sustain the Senator's views on the point of order. On +the other hand, so far from that, I stated distinctly, that there +could be no ordinary question of order under the rule; but a question +of propriety, a question as to the consideration that was to be +attached to this proposition of the Peace Convention; that the select +committee, or a majority, at least, were under the impression that it +was expected we would treat it as a whole, and accept it or reject it. +That is what I said. I have no doubt whatever of the right of a +Senator on this floor to move to amend this resolution. But, sir, I +cannot agree with the Senator from Illinois by any means, that this +proposition should be treated as the mere report of a committee or the +proposition of an individual Senator. Who supposes that twenty States +would have sent commissioners here to consider this great question and +suggest to Congress<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_487" id="Page_487">487</a></span>—</p> + +<p>Mr. TRUMBULL:—The Senator from Pennsylvania, I see, is +misunderstanding me. I said, as a question of order, it was to be +treated the same as if offered by an individual Senator; that however +much respect we might have for it, as coming from the source it did, +yet, as a question of order, there was no difference in the rules.</p> + +<p>Mr. BIGLER:—I did not understand the Senator as placing entire stress +on the question of order. I have been endeavoring to take this +question away from the rules, to set it above the rules, and I say +that we ought to consider it without reference to the rules. If it be +that this programme is not acceptable to the Senate, let it be +rejected. What I supposed was intended from the beginning was, that +whatever they sent here was to be considered as an entirety—accepted +or rejected. I was about to remark, who supposes that twenty States +would have sent commissioners to prepare a programme of peace for the +consideration of Congress, if they had supposed that immediately the +peculiar views of each member of Congress would be set up in +opposition to them?</p> + +<p>Mr. President, a single remark in relation to what fell from the +Senator from New York, and I shall have done. The Senator from New +York alludes to the terms of the preamble, that, for the reason that +these commissioners agreed, therefore these propositions are submitted +as amendments to the Constitution. I do not wish to be understood as +regarding it in that light. I do not think it is the right of Congress +to submit propositions of amendment of the Constitution because they +come from any source. The spirit of the Constitution is, that Congress +will submit amendments to the Constitution; because Congress approves +those amendments, and it would be a reason why I should vote for or +against them, whether I approved them or not. If, as a whole, I could +vote for them, I would vote for them; if, as a whole, I could not, I +would vote against them. That does not affect the question whether, +under all the circumstances, and solemn surroundings, the labor which +has been bestowed, and the character of the men that have presented +this paper, we should consider it as an entirety, or attempt to cut it +up by piecemeal, by which neither they, nor the public, will ever +ascertain what the judgment of Congress was on the results of their +labor. That is what I say.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEWARD:—The honorable Senator may very naturally and very +properly take the ground that he would not vote, and that Congress +ought not to vote, for submitting this proposition to the people, for +the reason assigned in the paper before us. I have not any disposition +to quarrel with him about it. I might take the same view,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_488" id="Page_488">488</a></span> and say +that I would not submit to the people a proposition which was futile, +which was frivolous. That is not what I was speaking to. What I was +speaking to was, the character of this proposition; and this is a +proposition just to this effect, logically and technically expressed: +that whereas these commissioners appointed by the States have met, +consulted, considered, and adopted that resolution, therefore, for +that reason, independent of every thing else, Congress submits it to +the States.</p> + +<p>Mr. PUGH:—I want to make an appeal to the friends of some proposition +of peace. This is the last day of the session but one, and we have not +made the progress of one line. We have gone into an eternal discussion +about questions of order, and that, too, in defiance of the rule of +the Senate. I insist that the question shall be decided without +further debate.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. <span class="smcap">Fitch</span>):—It is not for the Chair to decide +any question of propriety, except as an individual Senator. As +Presiding Officer, he does not deem the question of order, made by the +Senator from Vermont, to be well taken. The joint resolution differs +in no respect from other resolutions, and is open to amendment, and is +before the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, for that purpose. The +question is on agreeing to the amendment which has been offered by the +Senator from Virginia.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Mr. President, I have offered this amendment, as the +first of a series which I shall offer, for the purpose of carrying out +the will of my State, as it has been expressed through its +Legislature; and I might say there are other Senators similarly +situated, for there are other States which have declared a disposition +to settle upon the basis of what are called the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> +resolutions. That is the first reason which prompts me; and to me it +is imperative, because the Legislature of the State which I have the +honor in part to represent, has declared that this is the basis upon +which it would settle, and intimated that it would not take less than +they propose by way of security for the South. I have also another +reason. I have examined this proposition of the Peace Conference—</p> + +<p>Mr. WADE:—Will the Senator let us hear it read? We do not understand +what his proposition is.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—My proposition is the first article from the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> +amendments, in regard to the territorial adjustment.</p> + +<p>Mr. WADE:—We understand that.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—After as careful an examination as I have been able to +give this proposition from the Peace Conference since it was<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_489" id="Page_489">489</a></span> printed, +that is to say, within the last day or two, I have come to the +conclusion that it would not only make a great many more difficulties +than it would remove, if it should be adopted as an amendment to the +Constitution, but that it would place the South—the slaveholding +States—in a far worse position than they now occupy under the present +Constitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLARK:—Will the Senator from Virginia allow me to make a +suggestion?</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Certainly.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLARK:—I understand him to say he proposes to offer the several +propositions of the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> amendment one after the other.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Yes, sir.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLARK:—Then I suggest, as that is the intention of the Senator, +that unanimous consent be given to move them as one amendment, so that +we may have them all up for discussion, if any one chooses to discuss +them, at the same time.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I have no objection to that, if it is the general wish. I +was saying, Mr. President, when I was interrupted, that after as +careful an examination as I was able to give this peace proposition, +since it was printed, I came to the conclusion that it would put the +southern States in a far worse position than they now occupy under the +present Constitution, and with the Dred Scott decision. Under that +Constitution, and with the Dred Scott decision, they had a right, as +the court has decided, to carry their slaves into any Territory of the +United States. That is a right which has been adjudicated to them by a +solemn decision of the Supreme Court; and it is to be remembered that +this right has not only been accorded to them by the decision of the +court, but by the action of the several branches of the Federal +Government. That is their present state of things under the present +Constitution of the United States with regard to the territorial +question. In what position, then, does this proposed territorial +adjustment place them? Why, sir, it excludes them; it puts the <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span> +proviso on all territory north of 36° 30´; and south of 36° 30´ it +gives them the privilege of another lawsuit, in order to try their +right and title to enter the territory with their slaves. What are the +words of this proposed amendment of the Constitution?</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"In all the present territory south of that line, the +<i>status</i> of persons hold to involuntary service or labor, as +it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be +passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder +or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States +of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights +arising from said relation; but the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_490" id="Page_490">490</a></span> same shall be subject +to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to +the course of the common law."</p></div> + +<p>"In all the present territory south of that line, the <i>status</i> of +persons held to involuntary servitude or labor, as it now exists, +shall not be changed." What is the meaning of that word "<i>status</i>"? +What is the <i>status</i>? The word <i>status</i> may be applied to different +things; there may be a local <i>status</i> or a political <i>status</i>. In some +countries a slave may hold property, and, in a certain form, sue; in +others, he cannot. Or it may be the social and legal relation, that of +the slave to his master, which constitutes the <i>status</i> that is +referred to; and I presume it is that which it is declared shall not +be changed. But, sir, shall not be changed by whom? By Congress? It +does not say so. By the Territorial Legislature? It does not say so in +terms. Does it mean that it shall not be changed by Congress or by the +government of the Territory? Does it mean that it shall not be changed +at all by anybody? Does it mean the master shall not emancipate him if +he chooses? Is it an absolute prohibition of any change of the +<i>status</i> of the slave, of any sort or description?</p> + +<p>These are the terms which we are obliged to resort to in order to +escape from the manly declaration of the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolution, that +south of that line slavery shall be recognized and protected. It was +eminently proper, as we excluded them north of it, that our +institutions should be recognized and protected south of that line. +That, sir, was plain English; that everybody could understand; but +here we are interpolating law Latin into the Constitution; this word +"<i>status</i>" is introduced; and who is to determine what the <i>status</i> +was? I thought it had been considered a march forward, a step of +progress, an evidence of improvement in English legislation, when it +abandoned Norman French and law Latin, and resorted to the mother +tongue; and especially it should be so, when we are making +constitutions for American people of English descent, and who speak +the English tongue. A constitution is for the millions, and the +millions should be able to understand it.</p> + +<p>But, Mr. President, let us proceed a little further. This whole matter +is to be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, +according to the course of common law. That embraces the right of the +master to his slave as a matter of cognizance under the common law +before the courts; because what do they mean by the <i>status</i> of all +persons held to involuntary servitude or labor? They mean rightfully +held. They do not mean if a man is kidnapped and held illegally to +involuntary service or labor that he is always to be so held. It means +that the <i>status</i> of persons who are rightfully and legally held shall +not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_491" id="Page_491">491</a></span> be changed; and who is to determine that? The courts are to +determine it according to the common law. That is to be determined by +judges who are to be appointed from a party, and by a party who +believe that there cannot be property in man; by a party who believe +that, in the Somerset case, Lord <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span> has laid down the common +law properly; by a party who will probably believe that the decision +of the English courts, in regard to the slave <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, that it was no +murder for a slave when escaping to kill his master, was a correct +exposition of the common law.</p> + +<p>How, then, do we stand? Why, sir, in relation to our right to slaves, +we have to try that right before judges who are thus appointed, and +appointed from a party who we know entertain these opinions. Why, sir, +you might poll that party through the whole United States, and I would +venture any thing upon the assertion that you cannot get one in a +hundred thousand who would not deny that there could be property in +man, especially under the common law. We thus lose the advantage of +the Dred Scott decision. According to the Dred Scott decision, we can +carry them into the territory of the United States and hold them, and +it is decided that there is property in slaves—decided under the +Constitution. The court maintain that the Constitution recognizes it. +It is upon constitutional ground that we have made our claims, and so +far, it is upon this that we have fought and won the battle, not upon +common law; and now we are to abandon the advantages that we have got +from that ground of title under the Dred Scott decision, and go into +court and try a case that has been already decided in our favor; and +under the common law, try it before judges who are to be selected by a +party entertaining such opinions as I have just described; and I am +sorry to say, without appeal to the Supreme Court; because, in the +territorial bills which have been lately passed, that right has been +taken from us. My friend from North Carolina will be kind enough to +read an article in the Chicago platform, showing what is held on that +subject by those who wield the power of this Government.</p> + +<p>Mr. CLINGMAN read, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Eighth. "That the normal condition of all the territory of +the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican +fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national +territory, ordained that 'no person should be deprived of +life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' it +becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation +is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution +against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the +authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of +any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any +Territory of the United States."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_492" id="Page_492">492</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Thus much, Mr. President, in regard to the <i>status</i>; and +it is to be observed that the same word is used in reference to +persons who are now held to involuntary servitude in the Territories +and to those whom we are to have the right to take into the +Territories from the States recognizing slavery. So that we submit +this question of our right to slaves, when it reaches the Territories, +to be tried under the common law, by courts appointed by the party +entertaining the opinions I have described, and that without appeal. +This is in regard to the Territories which we now own. What is the +settlement provided for in regard to territory hereafter to be +acquired? Here it is, in the third section:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Section 3.</span> Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment +thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to +regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the +relation established or recognized by the laws thereof +touching persons held to labor or involuntary service +therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary +service in the District of Columbia without the consent of +Maryland, and without the consent of the owners, or making +the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the +power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and +others from bringing with them, to the District of Columbia, +retaining and taking away, persons so held to labor or +service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish +involuntary service in places under the exclusive +jurisdiction of the United States within those States and +Territories where the same is established or recognized.</p></div> + +<p>That is, they shall not prohibit it as to future acquired territory, +where it is established or recognized. Will not the inference be +claimed from such an expression, that where it is not established and +not recognized, they may prohibit it? Will it not be said that the +expression of one exception to the power of Congress to prohibit +slavery in the Territories excludes the idea of an exception to that +power when slavery is not recognized in the Territories?</p> + +<p>Mr. COLLAMER:—If the gentleman will indulge me a moment, I desire to +say that is a section declaring that Congress shall not abolish +slavery in the dock-yards, &c., in the States where it is recognized. +There is nothing in it about future acquired territory.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—This third section applies not only to present but to +future acquired territory. It is not confined, like the first section, +to the territory at present acquired. It is not confined to dock-yards +and arsenals in the Territories and States. If the Senator will +examine it, he will find that it is applied to all places where the +United States have exclusive jurisdiction. "Exclusive jurisdiction" is +the word. Will it not be claimed that they have exclusive jurisdiction +in the Territories of the United States? Will not those who have the +power to construe,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_493" id="Page_493">493</a></span> and carry out their construction, so construe it? +Will they not say it is a prohibition to Congress to prohibit slavery +where it is recognized in the Territories or States, but not a denial +of the right to prohibit slavery in Territories where it is not +recognized by law, although that Territory may be vacant and +uninhabited?</p> + +<p>Mr. COLLAMER:—That clause of the section is, that Congress shall not +have power—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"To interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places +under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within +those States and Territories where the same is established +or recognized."</p></div> + +<p>That, so far as I have read, is confined only to where they have local +jurisdiction in the States holding slaves.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I thought so at first myself; but the Senator will find, +on a further examination, I think, that he is mistaken. They shall not +prohibit it wherever they have exclusive jurisdiction in places where +slavery "is established or recognized." It is not confined to +dock-yards, forts, and arsenals. Why should it be in the Territories? +They have exclusive jurisdiction over the whole. There is reason for +confining it to dock-yards in the States; but there is no reason for +confining it to dock-yards, &c., in the Territories. But that is not +the construction which will be given; the construction given to it +will be, that they shall not prohibit it where they have exclusive +jurisdiction, if it is recognized in such places; but if it be not +recognized in such places, where they have exclusive jurisdiction, I +say the inference will be drawn, plausibly, if not justly, that they +shall have power to prohibit; and I say if this be so, then it is a +power (so far as Mexican territories are concerned, if there should be +any acquisition there) by which the South will be forever estopped; +because there the Mexicans have abolished slavery, and there, under +this clause giving in that territory exclusive jurisdiction, the party +now controlling the Government would claim the right to prohibit it. +And what a difference between our position then and our position now +under the decision of the Supreme Court! Under the decision of that +court, all the people of all the States have a right to go into the +common territory with their institutions. It belongs to all in common, +and Congress cannot prohibit them from taking their property there.</p> + +<p>I say that those who have the power to carry out any construction they +choose to give, would be interested in putting upon it the +construction which I fear; and it would be difficult to raise an +argument which they would deem conclusive against it. But take it the +other way; suppose that the Senator from Vermont is right in his first +supposition,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_494" id="Page_494">494</a></span> that it was only meant to be applied to forts, arsenals, +and dock-yards, then I ask what settlement does this proposition give +us in regard to future acquired territories; what earthly settlement +is it? We have all the old difficulties to encounter that we have to +meet now, every one of them. We not only have all the old difficulties +to encounter, but the slaveholder would have an additional obstacle +which this first clause would put in his way. It requires that the +right to slaves in the present territory shall be tried by the common +law, and it might be said in court that the inferences drawn +heretofore from those provisions of the Constitution recognizing +slavery were to be overruled by the fact that the people in their +latest action—by way of constitutional amendment—had introduced +another rule in order to determine the <i>status</i> of those held to +involuntary service or labor, and the consequence of that would be +that the South never could acquire another foot of territory; that is, +the few southern States who are left in the Union.</p> + +<p>I am told that here is a provision that you cannot acquire territory +except by the assent of a majority of the Senators from both sections. +Does any man believe that the North, with its eighteen, soon to be +twenty, or thirty, non-slaveholding States, would allow a majority of +six, or seven, or eight slave States, that are now attached to them, +to prevent them from acquiring any territory hereafter? Would they +agree to such an amendment, in the first instance; and if they did, +how long before they would change this restriction in the +Constitution? Indeed, it is hardly to be supposed that they will agree +to it in the first instance, so far as it regards the acquisition of +territory; but of what avail would it be to the South? There is but +one conceivable acquisition—I speak of possible things, and I hope +gentlemen will not understand me as coveting my neighbor's goods, or +desiring to lay violent hands on the property of any other States or +nations—but, if things should so happen that we could rightfully +acquire Cuba, under my view of the probable construction to be given +to this clause, and because slavery there is recognized, Congress +might be prevented from prohibiting it; but, everywhere else, the +South would be shut out and excluded.</p> + +<p>Then, sir, what would be its position? It would be prevented from +acquiring any territory under this Government as an outlet for its +slaves; and the only chance of securing that necessity of its +condition would be to quit this Union and join the Southern +Confederacy, which can acquire territory. It would be an inducement to +disunion so strong as would almost force them to it.</p> + +<p>Let us go a little further. Here is another clause holding out the +same temptation:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_495" id="Page_495">495</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited, and +it shall be the <i>duty</i> of Congress to pass laws to prevent +the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to +service or labor, into the United States and the Territories +from places beyond the limits thereof."</p></div> + +<p>This is to be the duty of Congress. As it now stands, it is in the +power of Congress. When it was merely given as a power to Congress, +was there a failure to execute that power? Do we not know that every +State in the present Confederation has desired to suppress the African +slave-trade? Some do it from sentiment and principle; some from +interest; but there is a controlling motive with each and all of them. +It is safe enough to leave it where it stood, giving Congress the +power merely. Here you make it their duty. Suppose this case: the +States that have left us have set up another Government, another +Confederation; under this clause you forbid us to buy their slaves, to +interchange and trade in slaves with them: what will be the +consequence? They will exclude us from selling our slaves in their +territory, and where then do we stand? If you should think it prudent, +if you should think it politic, you would have no means, under this +proposed amendment, of allowing that to be done between these two +coterminous countries. Though it would be to the advantage of both +Confederacies that there should be this interchange, you preclude +Congress from allowing it; and then where would that place the border +slave States? They would not be able to sell their slaves in the +States further South; and if they carried them there, they would have +to emigrate with them. You would thus prevent Congress from adopting a +regulation which would make it possible for them to remain in this +Union with safety, with advantage, to themselves. Why was this put in? +Why not have left it where it stood, giving Congress the power, when +we all know that there is no State in the present Confederation that +would not exercise that power for the purpose of suppressing the +slave-trade from Africa? This probably would constitute the only +exception. Why shut ourselves out from allowing the exception?</p> + +<p>But, Mr. President, my desire is to be brief; I do not want to consume +the time of the Senate; I am merely endeavoring to state the points of +objection as briefly as I can. Here is, at the close of it, another +provision which, it seems to me, contains the seeds of civil war; and +that is this: "Congress shall provide by law for securing to the +citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in +the several States;" that is to say, Congress shall have power to pass +laws to force the States to receive those persons whom they have +excluded from police considerations—considerations of domestic +safety. Yes, sir, to force the States to receive persons who would be +dangerous<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_496" id="Page_496">496</a></span> to their peace; to force upon them, if you will, abolition +lecturers; to force upon them persons whom they regard as the most +dangerous emissaries that could be sent among them; to enable Congress +to obtrude, in fact, into all the business of the States. That was not +intended when the Constitution was framed, and never ought to have +been. The present provision in regard to the rights of citizens in the +several States, I regard as in the nature of an inter-treaty +stipulation. It is a duty imposed on each State, for the violation of +which there is no remedy; no remedy, unless the State aggrieved may +resort sometimes to retaliation.</p> + +<p>There are various things of that sort in the Constitution. Duties +imposed upon the States, but without a remedy for the failure to +execute them. No State shall keep a standing army; but suppose it +does: what are you to do? Congress cannot remedy it; and it would not +be right to give Congress the power to remedy it. You have to trust +something to the sense of right and duty of the States themselves; and +so it should be in regard to this matter of citizens. Suppose one +State should say that the citizens of another should not sue in its +courts; how is Congress to enforce their right? Is Congress to say +they shall be allowed to sue, and that the Sheriffs and officers of +the State shall execute the process? Is it proposed to allow Congress, +by law, to interpose in all these delicate matters? Is it not far +better to leave it to the sense of justice of the States—to their +sense of duty and of honor? Have we not got along very well while we +left it there? If there be any instances in which there have been +exceptions, they are instances in which persons have been excluded on +account of police considerations, deemed to be dangerous to the safety +of the people who excluded them. Is it proposed so to amend the +Constitution as to take from the people of the States this right of +self-defence?</p> + +<p>If we once introduced this as an amendment to the Constitution, what +would become of the feeble southern States, six or seven (for Delaware +can hardly be considered as a slave State), that would be left? +Arkansas may conclude to secede when she shall determine finally upon +her position in the Union. What would become of us in the hands of +this powerful majority, who would pass what laws they pleased in +regard to the introduction of their citizens among us, and the rights +of those citizens to do as they pleased after they got there? Is it +not obvious that these various changes would lead to endless +discontents, to irreparable breaches between these States? Would you +not certainly drive out the Border States? They would say, "If we go +south, we ally ourselves to a homogeneous people; we shall have none +of these difficulties; we have no reason to fear their citizens; we +can<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_497" id="Page_497">497</a></span> grant all these privileges without the least difficulty or +danger; we can send our slaves south from a country where they are not +profitable, to one where they are; but if we stay here, we are +forbidden to do any of these things; if we stay here, we are prevented +from ever obtaining any outlet for our slave property." Will you not +offer them the highest inducements, nay, will you not make it almost +necessary for them to leave you, if you should adopt such a +proposition as this?</p> + +<p>Nor is that all, Mr. President. Our present Constitution—for I am +comparing our position under it with that in which this would place +us—in most of its difficult provisions has been expounded—expounded +by the action of the State Governments, by the action of all the +departments of the Federal Government. We have had legal +interpretations in the decisions of the State and Federal courts. We +have come almost to a point—indeed, I, who believe that the Dred +Scott decision is law, think we have come to a point—where we have a +legal exposition on the whole of these matters. Are we to be turned +aside from that, to wander into a new sea of doubt and difficulty and +ambiguity? No candid man can take this up and say it is not full of +double constructions, full of ambiguities, giving ground for new +quarrels between the sections, to new constructions of courts, to new +lawsuits.</p> + +<p>Mr. COLLAMER:—And to be perpetual.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Yes, sir; and to be made perpetual. We cannot change them +afterwards, if we want to do it. I can conceive nothing that would +endanger what is left of this Union so much as the adoption of this +proposition, although it has been produced by persons so eminent and +so respectable as those who composed the Peace Congress.</p> + +<p>I know that this measure does emanate from a body eminently patriotic +and wise, entitled to the public deference and affection; and for +their work I feel all possible respect. Against that work I will +pronounce nothing except what the necessities of the occasion may +require. But when the peace, the safety, the rights of the State which +I seek to represent—when the peace of the whole country, as it seems +to me, would be so seriously imperilled as it would be if this were +adopted, I feel bound by a sense of what I owe to those who sent me +here, bound by a sense of what I owe to those who have some respect +for my opinions, to express them here on this occasion, and to give +briefly the points and the heads upon which I differ from the +conclusions of that Congress. Indeed, sir, before taking my seat, I +may suggest a doubt whether I am in truth acting against any thing +which they have really done. I was informed by a member of that +Congress that they never did take a vote upon this proposed article, +as a whole.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_498" id="Page_498">498</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. DOOLITTLE:—If the Senator will allow me, I beg leave to state +that I was informed of the same fact by a distinguished member of the +Convention; and I was further informed that the person who claims to +be the secretary of the Convention was never elected as such. And +there is another fact stated in the preamble that I know is not +correctly stated: that the State of Wisconsin was in that Convention, +or took any part in it. How many more mistakes there are in the +preamble, I am unable to say.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—I believe it is certain that they never did take a vote +on this article as a whole, but upon its separate sections. I think it +equally probable that it could not have passed as a whole. That +opinion was expressed to me by a member. As it did pass, I think there +were three or four States not voting; and the States not voting were +supposed to be against it. Under such circumstances, I do not know +that this is to be taken as an expression of the will of that +Congress. Further: I will say, in regard to myself, that a majority of +the members from my own State voted against it, and were very decided +in their opposition to it. They believed it was not such a proposition +as the South could safely accept; and that majority, I believe, have +returned home to express that opinion to the State Convention, and to +give their reasons for it. Under all these circumstances, I have +thought that I ought to present, as a counter proposition (believing +that the people whom I represent cannot and ought not to accept +these), resolutions upon which they have said they were willing to +settle this controversy. I believe the State of Kentucky has declared +the same thing. I understand the State of California has done +likewise. I believe, though I may be mistaken, that Tennessee has said +the same. The State of North Carolina has made the same declaration +unanimously. To the last, I believe I may add Missouri.</p> + +<p>Now, I am making a proposition to amend, by inserting the resolutions +of the honorable Senator from Kentucky; upon which so many of the +border slaveholding States have said they would settle the difference. +Why not send them out to the States and the people? We know that some +of them would settle on that. Why should we send out such a +proposition as this, which there is every reason to believe they will +not accept, and which will have the effect of dividing the +conservative men of the North? Those northern men who are willing to +settle on some proposition that would give satisfaction to the Border +States, would just as soon vote for the <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions as for +these, and some probably would prefer to do so. They will waste all +their strength, and efforts, and energies, in going for a proposition<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_499" id="Page_499">499</a></span> +which the South in the end will not accept, or at least which I do not +believe they will accept, as there is every reason to suppose they +will not accept it. Then, when we know there are propositions upon +which so many of the Border States have said they would be willing to +settle existing difficulties, why not submit them? I think, under such +circumstances, notwithstanding the respect which I feel for the +members composing the Peace Congress, my duty to my own State, whose +Legislature has spoken in regard to it, and my sympathy with so many +of the Southern States who have declared the same opinion, should +induce me to present the proposition which they desire instead of one +to which none of them have as yet given their adhesion, and to which I +have no idea they will ever agree.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I suppose, Mr. President, not only out of deference +to the Presiding Officer of this body, but because it seems to me to +be entirely reasonable, that the decision of the Chair on the question +of order which was made as to the admissibility of these amendments, +was correct. The question which these amendments present, I think, is +a question of consistency or inconsistency with the proceeding in +which we are engaged, with the resolutions offered by the Peace +Conference; and each member, in deciding ultimately upon the question +for or against the proposed amendment, will consider that question of +consistency or inconsistency, and regulate his vote accordingly. It is +not, perhaps, strictly a question of order, to be decided on the +consistency or inconsistency of amendments. So I take it. I am willing +it should be decided by this body. Now, what is it? The proposed +amendment contravenes the whole nature of the transaction, and changes +its character. The representatives of twenty-one or twenty-two +States—we will not make any question about Kansas; whether it be in +or not, is not material—the representatives and delegates of over +twenty States of the Union have recommended to us the adoption of +certain amendments to the Constitution, which they say will arrest the +troubles of the country and adjust those great differences which now +so much threaten us; and they ask Congress to propose these amendments +to the several States, according to the fifth article of the +Constitution, for their adoption. These amendments have been submitted +to us, and the question is, whether we will submit them to the States +or not? That I take to be the specific and solitary question. This +imposes no obligation on us to sanction these constitutional +amendments by proposing them to the people. We can do as we please +upon that point; but what is the question and the only question? It is +not whether we ourselves will propose amendments to the Constitution,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_500" id="Page_500">500</a></span> +but whether we will propose to the people the amendments which this +Convention has proposed to us. Now, that whole character is effaced, +and a new character is given to the transaction, if any one of the +amendments proposed by Senators be adopted.</p> + +<p>Suppose these same States, by their Legislatures, had respectively +recommended to us these particular and specific constitutional +amendments, asking us to propose them according to the Constitution: +would it have been proper for us then to undertake to amend their +resolutions? It would be a different transaction altogether. In the +one instance, out of respect to the States, we are proposing their +resolutions; in the other case, we are proposing our own to the +States. Now, the question here is, whether the resolutions have come +to us with a sufficient sanction to constitute in our minds a reason +for referring to the States the amendments which the States themselves +have asked. That is all. It seems to my mind to be a clear question. +They have asked us, they have requested us, to submit their +resolutions, and not any others, to the States; and the question is, +will we comply with their request, not whether we will fabricate +amendments of our own and refer them to the people. They have asked of +us to submit their proposals; and the question is, whether we will do +it.</p> + +<p>This amendment implies, in the first instance, that we will not do +that, because the moment we adopt the amendment of the Senator from +Virginia, that moment we say in effect, "We will not propose your +recommendations to the people; while proposing our own, which we will +substitute for yours." That is passing by this Convention altogether; +it is negativing the States represented in it.</p> + +<p>If gentlemen take this view it will be a sufficient reason, I trust, +in itself, for voting against the proposed amendment. These +propositions which the Convention has recommended may be such as we +may refuse; it is in our power to refuse; but the question is, whether +a recommendation, coming so sanctioned to us, is not, in itself, a +sufficient reason why Congress, if disposed to satisfy the people, +shall do the small act of presenting this to the people themselves, +for their adoption. We may reject it, if we please. The people, when +it is sent to them, will, of course, have the power to reject or adopt +it. The only question now is, whether we will give the States an +opportunity of saying whether this proposition is satisfactory or not.</p> + +<p>Sir, I do not wish to occupy time; but I cannot perceive the justice +of the criticisms made upon these resolutions of the Convention. They +seem to me to be perspicuous and intelligible in every part and in +every sentence. I do not see where the difficulty is to arise. +Gentle<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_501" id="Page_501">501</a></span>men need not tell us here, in respect to these resolutions, +that a member of the Convention told them thus and so. No matter what +a member of the Convention told this one or that one about the votes +that were given, it is certified to us, in a formal manner, by the +President of the Convention—himself a Virginian, and once a President +of the United States—that this is the result of the proceedings of +the Convention.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—If the Senator will allow me, I will state to him how +that occurred. It was decided, as it will be seen when we get the +Journal, that, according to some rules of the old Convention, they +should not vote upon a proposition as a whole, but upon each +particular provision. That was the rule of the Convention; and +therefore he certified it as the Convention had instructed. The vote +was taken only section by section, and the vote was never taken on it +as a whole. There is no inconsistency between what I have said, and +the certificate of the President of the Convention, because, according +to the rules adopted by them, he had to certify it if it was adopted +by sections, though it was not voted upon as a whole.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I suppose this remark is intended to annul the +Convention, and discredit all their proceedings, though the Senate +have received the letter of the President and Secretary as authentic +evidence that this does contain the result of the deliberations and +the proceedings of the body. I take it so, whatever a discontented +member here and there may have said to the contrary notwithstanding. +He may have said it all truly, for aught I know, but we must regard +this as the authentic act of the Convention; otherwise it was nothing; +and it is certified to us by the proper authority as its act, by the +President of the Convention, with the request that we shall adopt it. +It must have had, in some form or shape, the sanction of a majority of +the Convention, or it could not have been so certified to us. How they +voted, whether upon parts or the whole, they gave such votes as, they +thought were necessary to ascertain the meaning of the body, and the +expression of their will and opinion upon the subject. This is what +they have done.</p> + +<p>I do not stop to inquire whether I like these resolutions better than +I do those proposed by myself, or the amendments now offered by the +Senator from Virginia. We are near the close of our session. I have +looked upon the proceedings of this great and eminent body of men as +the best evidence of public opinion outside of this body, and of the +wish and will of the States they represent. I am for peace. I am for +compromise. I have not an opinion on the subject of what would be best +that I would not be perfectly willing to sacrifice to obtain<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_502" id="Page_502">502</a></span> any +reasonable measure of pacification that would satisfy the majority. I +want to save the country and adjust our present difficulties. +[Applause in the galleries.]</p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">Presiding Officer</span> (Mr. <span class="smcap">Bright</span> in the chair) called to order.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—That is what I want to do. That is the object I am +aiming at. I attach no particular importance—I feel, at least, no +selfish attachment—to any opinions I may have proclaimed on the +subject heretofore. I proclaimed those opinions because I thought them +right; but I am ready to sacrifice them, any and every one of them, to +any more satisfactory proposition that can be offered. I look upon the +resolutions proposed by this Convention as furnishing us, if not the +last, the best hope of an adjustment; the best hope for the safety of +the people and the preservation of the Government. I will not stop to +cavil about the construction of these words; but I see none of the +difficulties that suggest themselves to the mind of my friend from +Virginia. Look at that third section, which has been the subject of +his particular criticism. Every part and portion of it is a negation +of power to Congress, and nothing else; and yet he has argued as if it +gave Congress power; as if it conferred more power upon Congress. It +leaves to the States all the rights they now have; all the remedies +which they now have; and consists merely in a negation of power to +Congress. How can that take away the rights of the people? How can +that make our condition worse? I cannot possibly see. It is nothing +but a negative from beginning to end, and therefore it cannot take +away any thing from the people. It may take from Congress, but cannot +take away from the States, or the people, any thing. It is a negative +in its form and in its language, from beginning to end, that Congress +shall have no power to do this, that, or the other. If they have that +power under the present Constitution, it is taken away. That is all. +It takes away no power from the States. It takes away no rights from +individuals. Its simple office is the negation of power to Congress. +That is all there is in it; and how, under that, can the gentleman +find constructions which are to increase our difficulties and diminish +our rights? He says the language will need construction. So does all +language need construction. I do not see that this is particularly so.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, the Senator offers my own proposition as an amendment to +this. I shall vote against my own proposition here; I shall vote for +this. [Applause in the galleries.]</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—I shall be constrained to require that the galleries be +cleared, if there be any further demonstrations in that quarter.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_503" id="Page_503">503</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. BAKER:—I hope the galleries will not be cleared. The admiration +of a noble sentiment is never out of place.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—There is no motion to clear the galleries.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I shall vote for the amendments proposed by the +Convention, and there I shall stand. That is the weapon offered now, +and placed in my hand, by which, as I suppose, the Union of these +States may be preserved; and I will not, out of any selfish preference +for my own original opinions on this subject, sacrifice one idea or +one particle of that hope. I go for the country; not for this +resolution or that resolution, but any resolution, any proposition, +that will pacify the country. Therefore, I vote against my own, to +give place to a proposition which comes from an authority much higher +than mine—from one hundred and thirty of the most eminent men of this +country, out of which number a Senate might be selected that might +well compare in point of talent and intellect and ability even with +this honorable body. They have recommended this on arduous, laborious +consultation with one another; through many difficulties, through many +diversities of opinion, they have at last arrived at these +conclusions, and sent them to us. Shall any Senator stand upon the +little consideration, "this changes my resolution," and shall he +compare that little atom of his production with the great end and +object proposed to be attained for a whole nation? No, sir; not a +moment. I believe our best hope of preservation is in adopting the +resolutions proposed by this Convention, and I adhere to them against +all amendments.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, the only material or substantial change in respect to +the first section of this proposed amendment from my first proposition +is, that it omits all reference to territory hereafter acquired, +limiting our consideration and our settlement to territory which we +now have. When I first offered my resolutions, I explained somewhat in +reference to that particular provision which related to future +territory. I said that I wanted no more territory. Our great trouble +now is from the magnitude of the territory which we have already +acquired. New Mexico is one of our acquisitions, and what a subject of +dispute it has been! I want no more acquisitions. My country is big +enough, and great enough. I say that further acquisitions are +dangerous. We have found them to be so. Our experience and our reason, +then, unite in teaching us "to beware of that sin, ambition." National +aggrandizement! I want no more. I proposed that, however, as the idea +then was, that we wanted a settlement that was to last forever; to be +eternal; to embrace the present and to embrace the future, with all +its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_504" id="Page_504">504</a></span> acquisitions, all its changes. Reflection since, and the +arguments of others, I will say, have changed my opinion on that +point. If they had not changed it, however, I should be ready here to +sacrifice it and give it up, if thereby I could obtain the assent of +any respectable portion of my countrymen to the propositions for +peace. If we can settle in respect to what we have, in <span class="smcap">God's</span> name let +us do it; and if we are to have future acquisitions, let us leave the +troubles they may bring upon us to a future day. We have enough for +to-day. I do not object, therefore, to the first section of the +proposition of the Convention, that it is confined to the territory +which we now have. The adjustment which they have made varies but +little in substance in regard to the territorial question, and the +question of slavery as connected with it, from my original +proposition. South of the line which we propose to establish, 36° 30´, +you have no foot of territory left, but what is embraced in the +Territory of New Mexico. In New Mexico, by law of the Territory—a +constitutional law, a valid law of the Territory—slavery exists as +fully and completely as the law can establish it, or has established +it.</p> + +<p>Now, this proposition is, that the <i>status</i> of things shall continue +as it is until that Territory becomes a State; and when it becomes a +State, let it dispose of the question of slavery as it chooses. There +is no ambiguity about this. In substance, though in a different form +of words, the same is expressed in my proposition. The proposition of +the Convention is the same in substance, only omitting the words—a +very proper and a very timely omission—supposed to be offensive in +certain parts of the country, and substituting others that are equally +well understood in all parts of the country, and which were less +offensive to some.</p> + +<p>Sir, now is the time for mediation; now is the time for pacification; +now is the time to omit every word that can give offence or add to the +irritation under which the country is. I desire, by the most moderate +terms, by the most unoffending language, to reach some mode of +adjustment that can give satisfaction to the whole country and reunite +us all.</p> + +<p>My friend from Virginia seems to apprehend that under these amendments +we shall be worse off in respect to territory hereafter acquired. That +is supposed to be sufficiently provided for and secured in the +provision, that no future acquisition shall be made, by purchase or by +treaty, except that treaty or that purchase be ratified by a majority +of the Senators from the slaveholding States, as well as a majority of +Senators from the non-slaveholding States. Does not this<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_505" id="Page_505">505</a></span> give the +South a safe assurance, an assurance to be relied upon? My friend from +Virginia says, however, do we believe the North, with its superior +number, would submit to this provision of the Constitution? Why, sir, +the Convention have had the caution to make this provision, if I +understand them, irrepealable by any future amendment of the +Constitution. There it stands, then, in the most solemn form that men +can enter into any compact, in the most formal language by any terms +that Government can establish, that all are bound by that provision of +the Constitution which requires a majority from each section. When the +gentleman asks whether we can believe for a moment that this law will +be acquiesced in and adhered to, I say we must to some extent have +confidence in one another, or all human society must lose its basis, +not merely of government, but its foundation, and all society would be +torn up at once by the roots. That confidence is the root of society; +it is the root of all the associations of men in public or private +life; it is the root and foundation of all government. What more can +you have, what better security can you have than written, solemn terms +upon any subject which is to regulate government? There is nothing +more solemn among men, unless you would require angels to come down +and make responses for them. Here you have the very highest security +that can be given; and when any gentleman shall say these are not to +be relied upon, he says there is no Government that stands upon any +foundation that can be relied upon. Such an assertion strikes not at +this provision; it strikes at the root of all government. What further +security can be had? If our brethren of the other section were willing +to give the highest possible security they could, what can they give +more? Nothing. This argument, then, can avail nothing.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, I have gone perhaps a little further than I ought to +have done. It is not now necessary that I should enter into a +vindication of every provision of these amendments offered by the +Convention. It is sufficient to speak to the amendment which the +gentleman has offered. Excluding territory hereafter to be acquired, I +think, in substance, we ought to be satisfied with that; I believe +that will make peace; I believe that will give substantial security to +our rights, and to the rights which the Southern States claim. With +that I am satisfied. It is enough for the dreadful occasion. It is the +dreadful occasion that I want to get rid of. Rid me of this, rid the +nation of this, and I am willing to take my chance for the future and +meet the perils of every day that may come. Now is the appointed time +upon which our destiny depends. Now is the emergency and exigency upon +us. Let<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_506" id="Page_506">506</a></span> us provide for them. Save ourselves now, and trust to +posterity and that Providence which has so long and so benignly guided +this nation, to keep us from the further difficulties which in our +national career may be in our way.</p> + +<p>I prefer the propositions which the Convention have made to my own +propositions, because I have no hope for my propositions. They have +not been so fortunate as to receive the favor of my colleagues of the +Senate from the North, the men whose sanction of them was necessary to +give them effect. I transfer all my hopes of peace to these +propositions and terms proposed by the Convention representing +twenty-odd of the States of this Union—a large majority of all the +States. I will not go into particulars about it; but since gentlemen +have made some allusion to the out-of-door rumors and reports and +sayings in respect to this Convention, I believe that perhaps a +majority of those who voted for these amendments were men representing +non-slaveholding States. I do not know the fact, and I will not state +it, but I am under that impression now, and that impression encourages +my hopes that the Senate, rather than see the country fall into ruin, +fall into dismemberment, limb from limb, and blood flowing at the +plucking out of every limb, will supply the remedy which is proposed. +It seems to me proper and just. But little is asked, and great is the +reward, and mighty are the consequences that are to flow from it.</p> + +<p>Sir, I have occupied more of the time of the Senate on this particular +question than I ought to have done.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Mr. President, there is a very grave duty devolving upon +the Senate on the proposition which is now before us. We are called +upon, pursuant to the Constitution, to propose amendments to the +Constitution. The fifth article of the Constitution says this:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem +it necessary, shall propose amendments to this +Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>Now, sir, I cannot agree, for one, to propose an amendment to this +Constitution unless it has the sanction and the approbation of my +judgment; and I suppose no other Senator will. I am bound, therefore, +by every obligation of faith and honor to my State, when a proposition +is submitted to the Senate as one that should be proposed to the +States as an amendment to the Constitution, to examine it and +understand it, and see it in all its bearings and effects, as far as +my intellect will enable me, and to propose it or to withhold it by my +vote, as I shall be guided by my judgment. I can see no other position +of a Senator.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, what are the facts? The country was convulsed by the success +in the late presidential election of one of the political parties of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_507" id="Page_507">507</a></span> +the country. The tremor was evinced at once in all the Southern +States, in a belief that their existence and their safety was +imperilled by that election. Congress met. As was proper and +necessary, the very first act in each House was to appoint a committee +to take the condition of the country into consideration, and see if, +by any mode of amendment to the Constitution, those perils could be +avoided. A committee was raised in the collateral branch. A committee +was raised in this Senate, I think upon the motion of the honorable +Senator from Kentucky, actuated as he always is by principles of the +highest patriotism. Those committees met. They remained in anxious +deliberation for weeks. What was the result? They were unable to +agree. I think the committee came before the Senate and admitted the +fact. They could agree upon no form of amendment which they believed +would remedy the evils and avert the perils under which the country +suffered.</p> + +<p>In that state of things, the Legislature of Virginia—my own honored +State—having been called into special session on the 19th of January, +passed a series of resolutions, one of which recites this:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"That on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, an +invitation is hereby extended to all such States, whether +slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite +with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present +unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the +Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with +its principles, so as to afford to the people of the +slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of +their rights."</p></div> + +<p>That is the recital of the resolution of the Legislature of Virginia: +"to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate +guarantees for the security of their rights;" and there was a further +provision, that, if those States should meet and agree upon any form +of adjustment, it should be submitted to Congress. A number of the +States—some twenty or twenty-one, it seems—some by their +Legislatures, some by their Executives—met the invitation of +Virginia, and deputed their commissioners to the conference in +Washington, to see if they could agree upon a mode of adjustment. We +have the report of that Conference before us now, presented through a +committee of this body; and they propose an additional article to the +Constitution. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Kentucky, who +has pronounced so deserved a eulogium upon that body, does not exceed +me in the respect which I bear to it. If there be one more than +another Senator upon whom it would devolve to treat the work of that +Convention with peculiar respect, it would devolve upon me and my +colleague, because they met at the invitation of my State. I yield to +none in the respect which I bear to those gentlemen or to the purity +of their motives in the results which they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_508" id="Page_508">508</a></span> have attained in that +Conference; but, sir, I am bound by my obligations to the +Constitution, by my honor as a man, by my faith to my own State, to +understand what they have done, and to exhibit it either in +recommendation or disapproval, as my judgment may dictate. <i>Nullius +addictus jurare in verba magistri.</i></p> + +<p>I admit no authority to bind my judgment as a representative of one of +the States of the Union. I yield my respect to what they have done; +but I will scan it, and if, in my honest, unbiased judgment, I cannot +recommend it as an amendment to the Constitution, I am bound to +withhold that recommendation, and to give the reasons for it.</p> + +<p>As I have said, sir, the State of Virginia, finding that Congress was +at a loss for a mode of adjustment, invited the States to send +commissioners here for this purpose:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"To agree upon something which would afford to the people of +the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security +of their rights."</p></div> + +<p>Virginia knew that, under the Constitution as it was interpreted under +the constituted authorities of the country as they have been elected, +there was no security for their rights; and it was in the hope of +obtaining such a security—Congress failing to agree upon it—that, at +her invitation, these gentlemen from the different States met here in +conference. I am to look, therefore, to their work, and to see if it +affords that security for their rights; and if I am satisfied in my +own judgment, as I honestly am—and the reasons for which I am now to +announce to the world—that it not only affords no security for the +rights of the South, but takes away what little they have, I should be +a traitor if I would recommend it as an amendment to the Constitution +of the United States.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, let us look at it. It is presented as an entire article, to +be the thirteenth article, if adopted, of the Constitution. The first +section of it relates to the Territories—the great and difficult +point of division between the two sections. If that could be +overcome—if these rights that are spoken of in the resolutions of +Virginia in the Territories could be guaranteed by adequate securities +to the slaveholding States—I believe the rest of the path would be +smooth. It embraces almost the whole controversy. What securities are +provided in the Territories to the slaveholding States by this first +section of the thirteenth article? It proposes to divide the present +Territories—for it is confined to them—by an east and west line, a +parallel of latitude. North of that line, there is a clear cut +entirely, unsusceptible of misinterpretation. None can doubt what the +condition of servitude is north of that line. It is a clear cut; it is +prohibited, and prohibited forever. No interpretation<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_509" id="Page_509">509</a></span> can mistake it; +no casuist can doubt upon it; it is a work well done. North of that +line involuntary servitude, except for crime, is prohibited. How is it +south? My honorable colleague, I think, has well said that, south of +that line, for our rights, at best we are remitted to a lawsuit. I +will read the language:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial +Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such +persons—"</p></div> + +<p>That is, persons held to service—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"from any of the States of this Union to said Territories, +nor to impair the rights arising from said relation."</p></div> + +<p>Neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature has power to +interfere with the rights arising from the relation of master and +servant, or master and slave. That is the meaning; that is clear. What +next?</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"But the same—"</p></div> + +<p>The rights resulting from the relation of master and slave—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal +courts, according to the course of the common law."</p></div> + +<p>There is the security for the rights of the South. South of that line +they are remitted to the courts under the common law. Now, sir, let us +examine that. By this section, if it is adopted as an article of the +Constitution, the common law, <i>eo nomine</i>, is made a part of the +Constitution, so far as it affects the relations of master and slave. +Now, what is the common law? Who is there upon this floor that will +tell me what common law is meant by this section? With all my respect +for the thorough knowledge and the legal acquirements of the honorable +Senator from Kentucky, I know he cannot tell me what common law is +meant by that first section. We know, as jurists, what is meant by the +term common law, for it is a technical term. The common law is the law +of England, the unwritten law of England, the <i>lex non scripta</i>. That +is the common law in its legal acceptation. Is it, then, the law of +England that is made a part of the Constitution, and to which the +master is remitted for the security of his rights between him and his +servant? Will any gentleman tell me that it is the common law of +England that is to be made a part of the Constitution to which we are +to be remitted? If it is the common law of England, is it the common +law of England as it stands at this day, on the first of March, 1861?</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—If my friend will allow me, I take it that that term +applies only to the remedies known to the common law. The laws of the +Territories are to be enforced, and the remedies under them<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_510" id="Page_510">510</a></span> are to be +administered according to common law. The master is to have his rights +according to the law of the Territory, and to secure those rights +according to the common law.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—The language of the section is, that neither Congress nor +the Territorial Legislature shall interfere to impair the rights +arising from this relation of master and slave; "but the same"—that +is, this relation between master and slave—"shall be subject to +judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of +the common law."</p> + +<p>Now, the honorable Senator says that means only the remedy of the +common law; that you are to take the law of the Territory, whatever it +may be, and administer that, by confining it to the remedies known to +the common law. I deny the interpretation. The Senator may be right, +or I may be right. I say the text does not warrant the interpretation. +The text refers to the rights in the relation of master and slave, and +says they (those rights) shall be the subject of judicial cognizance, +according to the course of common law. Now, I ask, what is the common +law that is thus made a part of the Constitution for the subject to +which it refers? Is it the law of England? There is no common law, +that I am aware of, known to jurists as the law of England. There is +no law in the State of Virginia, and, I presume, none in the State of +Kentucky, known as common law. The State of Virginia, when it became +independent as a colony of Great Britain, adopted and made its own +that which before had been the common law of England, and therefore +the common law of the colony. The State of Virginia (and I instance +that only because I am familiar with it), when it became independent, +adopted as its law the common law of England, as that common law stood +at the commencement of the fourth year of James I.; and thereby, by +statute, made that which had been the common law, the law of Virginia. +Now, it is the law of Virginia, not because it is the common law, but +because statutes made it the law of Virginia. But is the common law of +Virginia, if you will call it by that name, the common law of +Kentucky; or is the common law of Kentucky the common law of Missouri; +or is the law of those three States, or any other State, now the +common law of England? I demand to know, therefore, when we make the +common law a part of the Constitution, if this enactment should +prevail, what is meant by the common law? To that vague, grand +residuum of judicial legislation we are to be remitted for our rights +between master and slave, if this is enacted.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, suppose it were so: my colleague has well said (and I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_511" id="Page_511">511</a></span> will +not repeat it after him, for I should only weaken it), that there is +not one judicial interpreter or expounder of the common law, in any +one of the free States, in reference to the relation of master and +slave, that does not deny that the master has any property in his +slave, at this day and this hour. Why, sir, what is the pending +controversy between the State of Ohio, one of the free States, and the +State of Kentucky, one of the slave States—a controversy depending +here recently in the Supreme Court? The Governor of Kentucky demanded, +under the Constitution, the rendition of a fugitive from justice, who +had abducted a slave from Kentucky, and carried him into Ohio. The +Governor of Ohio refused the demand, upon the ground that there could +be no stealing of a man; that there could be no property in man; and +that the slave, being a man, was not a subject of theft, of larceny; +and he refused, and refuses up to this day, under the common law, to +recognize the existence of property in man.</p> + +<p>Now, take the common law of England at this day: here, within the last +three or four weeks, the Queen's Bench, in England, has declared as +the common law, that if a slave murders his master, or murders the +agent of his master, in the attempt to recapture him, he is justified. +That is the common law to which we are to be remitted for the rights +resulting from the relations of master and slave. Sir, I have looked +back a little to see what the common law was in England in this famous +Somerset case, I find this in the argument of the counsel there, +expounding the common law, which was afterwards sustained by Lord +<span class="smcap">Mansfield</span> in his decision:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"But it has been said by great authorities, though slavery, +in its full extent, be incompatible with the natural rights +of mankind, and the principles of good government, yet a +moderate servitude may be tolerated, nay, sometimes must be +maintained."</p></div> + +<p>And again:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"There is now, at last, an attempt, and the first yet known, +to introduce it [slavery] into England. Long and +uninterrupted usage, from the origin of the common law, +stands to oppose its revival."</p></div> + +<p>And again:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"A new species has never arisen till now; for had it, +remedies and powers there, would have been at law; +therefore, the most violent presumption against it, is the +silence of the laws, were there nothing more. It is very +doubtful whether the laws of England will permit a man to +bind himself by contract to serve for life; certainly will +not suffer him to invest another man with despotism, nor +prevent his own right to dispose of property."</p></div> + +<p>And again:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_512" id="Page_512">512</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"There are very few instances, few, indeed, of decisions as +to slaves in this country. Two in Charles II., where it was +adjudged trover would lie. Chamberlayne and Perrin, William +III., trover brought for taking a negro slave; adjudged it +would not lie. 4th Ann., action of trover; judgment by +default. On arrest of judgment, resolved that trover would +not lie. Such the determinations in all but two cases; and +those the earliest, and disallowed by the subsequent +decisions. Lord <span class="smcap">Holt</span>: 'As soon as a slave enters England he +becomes free.'"</p></div> + +<p>In the opinion of the court, of Lord <span class="smcap">Mansfield</span>, as to these principles +of common law, that very distinguished and able judge, who made the +law, as I understand, for the occasion, but certainly ruled it as the +common law, says this:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is +incapable of being introduced for any reasons, moral or +political; but only by positive law, which preserves its +force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from +whence it was created, is erased from memory. It's so odious +that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law. +Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a +decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by +the law of England."</p></div> + +<p>I need not go back to authority. We have it abundantly in our own +country, in all the free States, so far as I know, without exception. +They deny what the amendment of my honorable friend from Kentucky +affirms. They deny that there is property in a slave. The amendment of +the Senator affirms there is property in a slave. This section is +silent, ominously silent, portentously and potentially silent. It is +not only silent, Mr. President, but when it refers you to that code of +law which is to protect the right of the master to the slave, it +refers you to the common law, and the common law to be expounded by +the Federal courts, and the common law, which is judicially and +historically known to the whole country, to be expounded in all the +free States as one that denies that very property which we say must be +secured. That is our position under this section. Sir, the State of +Virginia has said that we must have adequate guarantees; and I am +asked here to vote away what little guarantees we have. I am asked, +almost in the high ethics or morals of revealed religion, when my +adversary takes away my cloak, that I shall give him my coat also. I +am required to do that by this section. We believe that our rights are +secured under the present Constitution; we know that they have been +withheld by the political party which has now come into power; we +believe that they are insecure unless there are further and adequate +guarantees; but, so far from their being proposed by the section +before us, in my judgment, what little we have is taken away. Sir, I +cannot vote for these propositions.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_513" id="Page_513">513</a></span> I regret it. I was prepared, +whether it had the approval of my judgment or not, to follow the +instructions of my State, and to vote for the amendment offered by the +honorable Senator from Kentucky after it had been modified, as was +required by the resolutions of my State.</p> + +<p>The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky was so modified, I do not +know whether at the instance of Virginia or not; but it was modified +by a vote of this Senate, so as to embrace what was required in the +resolutions of Virginia. I am not at liberty to recommend, or, in the +language of the Constitution, to propose to the States this section of +the thirteenth article; because it not only withholds, but denies by +withholding, any security, far less that security which the State of +Virginia requires.</p> + +<p>There are further provisions in this proposition that are +objectionable, one of which was pointed out by my colleague: that +which calls upon Congress to legislate on that clause of the +Constitution which secures to the citizens of one State all the +privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. I need +not say that any legislation on that subject by Congress would be any +thing but the messenger of peace to which the honorable Senator from +Kentucky looks. Why, sir, it has been found indispensable in +slaveholding States, as a part of their police regulations, to punish +all persons who were either of the State or otherwise, who tamper with +the slaves, who have intercourse with them that is forbidden by law, +far more those who preach to them sedition, or insurrection, or +revolt; and yet, if we were to be controlled within the body of the +State by Federal relations in our interior police, we should be +completely at the mercy of the free States.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, I should have been certainly gratified, if my honored +State of Virginia had been successful in the mediation which she +invited of all the States, with a view to agree upon an adjustment +which would guaranty the rights of the South. I deeply deplore, and I +doubt not my State will deplore, that that mediation has not been +effected. So far from impugning any motives or purpose of that +honorable and distinguished body, I doubt not that, in the short time +that was allowed to them, they got together the best mode of +adjustment which would satisfy their judgment, but which I am sure +will not satisfy the judgment of the Southern States, but would place +them in still greater peril, if they were to admit that to become a +part of the Constitution. I did not intend to do more than state my +objections to it as briefly as I could. I have done so temperately and +without heat, I regret that I cannot, as one Senator, propose this as +an amendment to the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I wish only to reply for a single moment<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_514" id="Page_514">514</a></span> to the +material objection urged by the Senator from Virginia. The portion of +the article to which the Senator from Virginia objects, declares that +the <i>status</i> of persons bound to service and labor shall remain +unchanged; that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature shall +pass any law affecting the relation, or the rights growing out of the +relation between master and servant—I do not pretend to recite the +exact words; but that is the exact idea—well knowing that, according +to the laws of the Territory, the <i>status</i> of slavery was fully +established, and all the rights of the master in and to his servant +established, as they exist in the State of Missouri, or the State of +Virginia, by positive law of the Territory. It is therefore equivalent +to saying that that law shall stand, when it says that the <i>status</i> +shall continue unchanged. It then goes on to say (which I admit was +altogether unnecessary) that the remedy for the violation of the +rights of the master, whatever they might be, shall be had in the +Federal courts, and according to the course of the common law. Now, +sir, what right does this take away from any slaveholder? That law +which secured and gave him a right, is declared to be unchangeable. +That law acknowledges his property in any sense in which you please to +take it, or in any sense in which it is applicable. It acknowledges +it, and gives legal remedies for the violation of it; and in addition +to all that, and, as I admit, by a sort of pleonasm of expression, it +says that he shall have his remedy in the Federal court, according to +the course of the common law.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Will the Senator allow me a moment?</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Certainly.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—With the permission of the Senator I will put this +proposition to him: He says that the meaning of the language, +"according to the course of the common law," is confined to the +remedy. Now, admitting that to be the case, for the sake of the +argument, suppose, in one of these Territories, a slave is purloined, +seduced, got away; the slave of A gets into the possession of B, and +he is there at work for him upon his farm, or in his house, and A +brings an action of trover to recover him; that is an action known to +the common law; and the decision of the Federal court is, that trover +lies only to recover property, and a slave is not property: what is +the remedy? That is the decision in England; and I presume it would be +the decision in the free States, if the suit were brought.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—It was to avoid going into definitions of that sort +that this language was employed in the amendments of the Convention. +They saw and had before them the law of New Mexico, which did +acknowledge the existence of this right as fully as it is +ac<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_515" id="Page_515">515</a></span>knowledged by the law of Virginia. However it may be disputed here, +however legal opinions may differ about it, the law of New Mexico +established property in slaves; and there the law stands; and the +Convention now comes and says that <i>status</i> shall remain unchanged.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAGG:—Oh, no.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—That is the resolution.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAGG:—Will the honorable Senator allow me a word, for I am very +anxious to understand it?</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Certainly.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAGG:—The Senator says it provides that that law, the law of New +Mexico, whatever it may be, shall remain unchanged, if I understand +him, and that that fixes the <i>status</i> of slavery in the Territory. I +call the attention of the Senator to the language. I think that only +fixes the <i>status</i> of persons now in the Territory, and not those to +be carried there hereafter—not the <i>status</i> of slavery, but the +<i>status</i> of persons who are there now, held to service or labor, and +not the <i>status</i> of those who are to be carried there in future. That +is provided for in the language which it follows in another part.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Here it is, sir:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"In all the present territory south of that line"—</p></div> + +<p>Which I have explained, and which gentlemen admit to be embraced in +the Territory of New Mexico—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"the <i>status</i> of persons held to involuntary service or +labor, as it now exists."</p></div> + +<p>It is not as to such slaves as are now there, but such slavery as now +exists.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAGG:—If it said that, I admit that it would cover the <i>status</i> +of slavery.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—It does say that. It seems to me that is the only +construction that can be given to the language. It could not be +intended to confine it to the twenty-six slaves that are now held +there, especially when they provided, in a subsequent article, that it +shall be lawful for any one to carry slaves there.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAGG:—Will the honorable Senator again allow me to interrupt +him?</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Certainly.</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAGG:—I have not the slightest doubt that a great many who voted +for the proposition consider it as the Senator does. I have equally as +little doubt that others intended it to mean precisely what I have +stated. I cannot see, for my life, while they were framing a +constitutional provision, why they did not place this matter beyond +any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_516" id="Page_516">516</a></span> sort of doubt. If they intended to recognize slavery, they could +have said so in one word. If they intended not to recognize it, they +could have said it in another word. If they intended to mystify and +leave in doubt, then they have been very successful in accomplishing +their purpose.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—"In all the present territory south of that line, the +<i>status</i> of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now +exists;" not as they now exist; not in respect to those that are there +now; but part of the same sort of slavery which now exists, shall +continue to exist unchanged until the Territory becomes a State; and +in the mean time persons shall be admitted to go into that Territory +and carry their slaves with them. Now, I submit it to my honorable +friend if it is not entirely improbable that any such construction as +he suggests can prevail before any court that seeks to attain the real +intention of the parties who made this proposition? It is such slavery +as now exists. Persons held to that service—you may carry as many +there as you please. Put them both together, and they would read so; +and they being in the same instrument, can there be a doubt that ought +to alarm us here, that the construction will be given to it which I +place upon it, that it was intended not to be confined merely to +persons now there and held to servitude, but as well to those who +might be carried there hereafter? This is all I will say in reference +to that; and I submit it to the candor and the judgment of my +honorable friend from North Carolina, in which I have entire +confidence, whatever result he may come to, that if we put the two +propositions together, all doubt would seem to be removed.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, my friend from Virginia will argue this question as if the +question of slavery was to be decided according to the course of the +common law, and then refers us to the express declarations and +decisions as though the common law decided that slavery could not +exist. What sort of construction would that make of this provision? +Here they have provided that the law establishing slavery shall exist, +that the property of the master in him shall be recognized as it is +there established by law; and then the gentleman supposes that to be +exactly contradictory, to refer to the common law as furnishing the +rule of decision, which common law says there can be no property, as +he interprets it, in man, and that when trover was brought for a +slave—</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Not as I interpret it, but as interpreted in England.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I know that. He says it may be so interpreted; that +when trover was brought for a slave in England, the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_517" id="Page_517">517</a></span> judges decided +there was no property in man. Could the same judges, sitting in a +court in New Mexico, have given that decision when the law there +established such property? In such a case, their decision must be +different. They are referring, according to him, to two contradictory +rules: one establishing slavery and acknowledging property in the +master, and the other the common law denouncing and deciding against +the right of property in man. This could not have been their +intention, nor can this be the construction. We cannot consider these +gentlemen to have changed their opinion from one sentence to another, +to have left an incongruity and a contradiction expressed upon the +face of the same section.</p> + +<p>Nor, sir, do they refer—and that is my answer to my friend from +Virginia—to the common law as furnishing the rule of decision at all. +The proceedings shall be according to the course of the common law; +that is all. If any violation is done to the rights of the master, he +may sue; and, for his greater security, he may sue in the Federal +courts; and, for greater security still, the law shall be administered +according to the course of the common law. The common law is referred +to as determining the mode of trial. We say according to the course of +the civil law, and we say according to the course of the common law. +What do we mean? We mean this marked and characteristic and essential +difference: the course of the civil law is for the judge, without the +intervention of a jury, to decide facts as well as the law. The common +law takes away from the judge the power of deciding the facts, and +demands a trial by jury. What this convention mean, therefore, by this +provision is, that trial shall be by jury, according to the course of +the common law. That is the explanation of the difficulty, and thus +all doubt is removed. By these plain provisions—plain in themselves, +and made plainer still by being taken with the context—they say you +shall have your rule of right, according to the law of the Territory, +which is in your favor as to the right to hold persons as property; +that law shall be your security; you shall have a remedy for any +violation of that right in the Federal courts, and you shall have that +remedy, not according to the course of the civil law, in which the +judge is to decide, who might be against you, but in which a jury +shall be called to decide the fact according to the course of the +common law. That is the whole of it.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Mr. President—</p> + +<p>Mr. POLK:—If the Senator will allow me, before the Senator from +Kentucky sits down, I will ask him if the Mexican law establishes +slavery, or if it does any thing more than to protect the right of the +master<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_518" id="Page_518">518</a></span> to his slave? If that is the only establishment of it, then it +is established by implication merely.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I really do not know whether the gentleman would +consider it as establishing or merely protecting. I do not know that +there is a law in any State of the Union that <i>eo nomine</i> establishes +slavery; I do not know.</p> + +<p>Mr. POLK:—The object of the inquiry was this: it has been contended +heretofore that, by the law of Mexico, there could be no slavery +there; and then there is another law of New Mexico professing to +protect the right of property. I have never seen that New Mexican law.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I believe I have answered the gentleman as far as my +information extends. I have examined that law. It is as strong in +favor of the master as the laws of Kentucky or Missouri. I believe it +is the law of Mississippi transcribed literally, <i>verbatim</i>. That is +my understanding. The law is as complete on the subject as the law of +any State that I know of.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Mr. President, if the Senator from Kentucky is right, and, +in the interpretation of this section, the courts are necessarily to +consider the expression, "according to the course of the common law," +to which slaveholders are referred for the enforcing of the relation +of master and slave, as referring only to common law remedies, then I +am at no loss to conceive, after our experience of judicial +interpretation against slavery, by what sort of artificial and +sophistic reasoning those judges of the Federal courts may feel +themselves bound to withhold the remedy. Why, sir, are we to shut our +ears and our eyes against experience passing before us every day? What +is the present Constitution? The second section of the fourth article +is in these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or +other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in +another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority +of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be +removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."</p></div> + +<p>That is the text of the Constitution. What is the interpretation in +the free States? In the State of Kentucky an African is property, +under their laws and usages, and has been so for two hundred years; +for it was so when it was a part of Virginia; and did it ever enter +into the mind of man to conceive that this plain text of the +Constitution would be resisted, upon the ground that property in man +was not acknowledged? And yet it is done. If I am not mistaken, the +honorable Senator from New York [Mr. <span class="smcap">Seward</span>], not now in his seat, +when Governor of New York, made that very question with the Governor +of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_519" id="Page_519">519</a></span> Virginia; and seeing this, are we to be willingly blind to this as +the actual, judicial, and executive interpretation in every thing that +affects the question of slavery as it stands in that section, and +that, too, while we are seeking equality? Sir, it never entered into +the mind of man, at the time this Constitution was formed, to credit +that the time could ever come in the relations of these States when a +man who fled from the State of Kentucky because he had stolen a negro +into the State of Ohio, was screened from the operation of the +Constitution, because in Ohio they do not deem a negro to be the +subject of property; and yet that is the fact, the very issue now +depending between those States; and we are asked to be blind, +willingly blind, to all that experience at the very time we are +attempting to secure a guarantee for violated rights!</p> + +<p>Now, I said, Mr. President, that, if I were to tax my ingenuity, I +might find a mode, even if the honorable Senator is right in ascribing +to this clause of the section the necessary interpretation that it +refers to remedies only. The Senator says the previous part of the +section establishes the relation, as he construes it, not directly +like the resolution of the honorable Senator which we offer here as an +amendment, which establishes directly that there is property in +slaves. This does not; but designedly avoids it; not from any improper +motive—I do not ascribe that—but it is not only silent, but it +avoids the very question. I suppose the honorable Senator is right in +saying this language, judicial cognizance, according to the course of +the common law, refers only to the remedy. Now, I tax my ingenuity to +know how a court, in one of the free States, always leaning, of +course, against slavery, would reason out that proposition, whether +the remedy could be applied. Suppose an action of trover is brought. +The inquiry would be, what is the remedy? We are told this is the +remedy for which you are to apply to the law. A remedy is nothing in +the world but a redress for wrong. Before you can apply the remedy, +therefore, you must ascertain whether a wrong has been committed for +which the remedy is adequate. Well, it comes from one side: the wrong +was in taking the negro from the possession of the owner, against the +local law of the Territory. The answer would be, "that may be true as +far as the local law of the Territory is concerned; but here the +Constitution adopts the common law as part of its text, and points the +judges to the common law, and it applies the remedy." Now, the remedy +is redress of the wrong, and we are bound to see that the wrong is one +to which the remedy is applicable. The remedy is to recover property +in the possession of one who is not entitled to it, and the common +law, which applies that remedy to that wrong,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_520" id="Page_520">520</a></span> says there is no wrong +inflicted by taking the negro from the possession of his owner. It +comes to that. It is suggested to me by the honorable Senator from +Vermont [Mr. <span class="smcap">Collamer</span>], that the common law, as a remedy, is one +applicable to a common-law wrong. I do not say that the reasoning is +just; I do not say that it is juridical; but I say, in our experience, +we should be willingly blind if we take that for a security which will +only be a snare.</p> + +<p>Mr. PUGH:—Mr. President, it is very well known to the Senate that I +prefer the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, as a matter of +individual choice, to the proposition which is proposed by the Peace +Conference. Nevertheless, that Conference having been authorized, if +not by Congress, at all events, so far as my State is concerned, by +the act of her Legislature; and an overwhelming majority of the +commissioners having agreed to this proposition as it stands, I shall +hesitate very much in departing from it, whatever might be my +individual opinion; but certainly if I thought the two Senators from +Virginia had given it a correct interpretation, I should not agree to +it. Now, as to this clause, it, in my judgment, had better have been +omitted:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the +Federal courts, according to the course of the common law."</p></div> + +<p>I suggest that the common law is referred to as fixing a right simply. +The course of the common law is a phrase defined for more than two +hundred years, in Latin, in English, and in Norman French. It means +the formula of proceeding. I understood the Senator from Virginia [Mr. +<span class="smcap">Mason</span>] to say that it had been decided in several of the courts that +an action of trover could not be brought for a negro slave in England. +I think I am familiar with the case. It is reported in Salkeld's +Reports, Lord Raymond's Reports, and in the Modern Reports—the same +case reported three times; but the same court which decided that +trover would not lie, because trover included the idea of property in +the man himself, in the same opinion said that trespass on the case +would lie for the loss of the service; so that it was all a question +of pleading, and no question of right at all. It is within my +recollection—and I believe the case was brought to the Supreme Court +on a writ of error, and can be found in Howard's Reports—that a +citizen of Kentucky declared in trespass on the case for taking away +his slaves, and added two counts in trover. What is trover but an +action of trespass on the case? Nothing more; and it never was any +thing more. The measure of damages is the same in both actions—the +value of the service of the servant; and yet that controversy on mere +pleading—which, in nine-tenths of the States of this Union, has +ceased to be of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_521" id="Page_521">521</a></span> any value, because they have a code of procedure, is +made a terrific objection here.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, I have never read the code of New Mexico, and I do not +propose to read it; but it is perfectly understood that that +Territorial Legislature, pursuing the privilege, if you call it +privilege, conferred by the compromise measures of 1850, has +established the relation of master and slave, or master and servant, +as perfectly as it is established in any of the fifteen so-called +slaveholding States. I do not admire this word "<i>status</i>" which we +find in the report of the Peace Conference; but as to the meaning of +that word, I cannot be in any doubt. It does not refer to any persons +in particular; it refers to a legal relation of servitude as between +master and servant, and it provides that that relation, or condition, +or <i>status</i>, shall not be changed; that for all wrongs or +controversies arising out of that there shall be a remedy through the +Federal judiciary.</p> + +<p>I can see why the commission made this distinction. There have been +many who have insisted that the Congress of the United States should +pass laws for the protection of the right of the master to the +services of his slave in a Territory; but it has always been my +opinion, that the worst thing the slaveholding States ever could have +would be to have that; for there would be a perpetual controversy here +from session to session, and from day to day, whether the law went far +enough in giving protection or went too far; and they would be +remitting their right to the adjudication of the Senators and +Representatives from the non-slaveholding States. Others have +insisted, as the propositions of my honorable friend from Kentucky +provided, that the relation should be protected by the legislation of +the territorial authority. I would rather it were so, individually, if +they chose to establish it. The peace commission do not want that. +They evidently do not want to quarrel with the Territorial +Legislatures about the measure of legislation; but they declare the +right, and then say that this right shall be enforced in the Federal +judiciary according to the course of remedies and forms of the common +law. I do not see how there can be a doubt; and yet, as I have said, +it seems to me that a great deal of it is unnecessary verbiage. I do +not mean to debate that; I am not one of the peace commissioners; I am +not to select my words to express the idea; but I am here; and my +State with other States, having appointed commissioners in view of a +crisis like this, as they esteem it, and as I esteem it, and they +having agreed upon a great variety of propositions, some of which +commend themselves to my judgment and some do not; but taking it +altogether as one proposition, I am satisfied that I must<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_522" id="Page_522">522</a></span> either vote +for all of it, or let all of it fall. I would rather vote for the +proposition of my honorable friend from Kentucky. I said that sixty +days ago; and I have said it in season and out of season. I have +expressed my views frequently. I think the proposition of the +commissioners would be better expressed, though it would come to the +same thing, in these words: "in all the territory south of that line, +it is hereby declared that no law or regulation shall ever be made or +have any effect denying or impairing the right of the inhabitants to +the service or labor of such persons as were held in that condition in +any State of the Union; and thence taken into the said Territory." +That would have expressed my idea more clearly, yet I am satisfied +with this; it amounts to that. Whether the word "<i>status</i>" be good +Latin or good English, the meaning is very clear.</p> + +<p>I believe I admonished the Senate two hours ago that time was very +precious; and I shall not detain them myself.</p> + +<p>Mr. BAKER:—Mr. President, I mean to vote for the passage of these +proposed amendments, just as they are, without any change; and I +propose to give very briefly a few of the reasons which govern my +judgment in that act. I will do it as pointedly as I can, and I will +certainly do it very briefly.</p> + +<p>In the first place, I feel that I am but submitting to the people of +the whole country, amendments which they, and they only, can +incorporate in the present Constitution; and I do not believe that, in +any state of the case, I can do very wrong in doing that; but when I +consider the immediate condition of the country, I feel that I am +doing very right. Twenty States assemble in what is called the Peace +Convention. They recommend to us, in times of great trial and +difficulty, the passage of these resolutions. They are eminent men; +they are able men; they are—very many of them, at least—great men; +they have been selected by the States which they respectively +represent, because of their purity of character and ability. The +country is in great trouble. Six States have seceded; and I am told by +very many men in whom I have great confidence, that their States are +to-day trembling in the balance. I believe it. I am told—and upon +that subject I have not yet made up my mind—that the adoption of +these measures by the people will heal the differences with the Border +States. I do not believe that I can do wrong, therefore, in giving the +people of the whole Union a chance to determine these questions.</p> + +<p>In the beginning, I voted against the propositions of the +distinguished Senator from Kentucky. Even then I did not perceive any +great harm in submitting any propositions to the people of the United<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_523" id="Page_523">523</a></span> +States which circumstances might appear to render necessary for any +good purpose. I refused to vote for them, for two reasons: first, I +believed something better might be attained; and second, I did not +believe that the people of the States would agree to them. I do not +believe that now, and for one simple reason: I think I may consider +myself in some respect a representative of the opinion as well as the +power of my own people. I am a Republican, a zealous and determined +one. I have all my life been of the opinion that Congress ought not to +protect slavery, and to extend the dominion of this Government for +that purpose or with that possibility. A great many in the North, who +are not Republicans, but are what we call <span class="smcap">Douglas</span> men, have shown, at +the last election, under something of trial and sacrifice, that they +too, do not believe that the Constitution does or ought to extend +slavery. I am not disposed to give up that opinion; I do not believe +they are. I was not disposed to give up when six States were in the +Union who are now out, as they say; and I am not disposed to give it +up yet. Independently of pride of opinion, I do not believe that kind +of sacrifice would accomplish any good result.</p> + +<p>These are the reasons in brief which induced me to vote with regret +against the propositions of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky in +the earlier portion of this session. But now, we are within two days +of adjournment. Propositions essentially variant in their character to +those are submitted here; and I am asked: "Will you, in your +representative capacity, submit these to your people for their +decision, either to accept or reject?" Now, why not? I need not dwell +upon the fact that, while we are a representative, we are at the same +time a democratic Government. I will not shut my eyes to the fact that +twenty States appeal to us; I will not shut my eyes to the fact that +there is imminent danger of permanent dissolution; I will not shut my +eyes to the fact that, though the Republican party is in a +constitutional majority, it is not yet, and it never has been, in an +actual majority; and I do not believe that it is possible for +one-third of the people to coerce the opinion of two-thirds.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILKINSON:—I wish to ask the gentleman a question.</p> + +<p>Mr. BAKER:—Do, sir.</p> + +<p>Mr. WILKINSON:—I understand him as saying that the whole of the +twenty States which were assembled in this Peace Convention agreed to +this proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. BAKER:—My distinguished friend was writing, instead of listening, +when he understood that. I did not mean to say that, and I did not.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_524" id="Page_524">524</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. WILKINSON:—I understood the Senator to say that twenty States +appealed to us.</p> + +<p>Mr. BAKER:—Yes, sir; just as I say that the Government appeals to +another Government, I do not say every individual in it; just as I say +that Congress appeals to another Government, not every individual +member of Congress; but I do say, in the words of the proposition +before us, that "they," the Peace Convention, composed of the States +recited, "have approved what is herewith submitted, and respectfully +request that your honorable body will submit it to conventions in the +States, as article thirteen of the amendments to the Constitution of +the United States." That is all I said, or, at least, it is all I +meant to say.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, suppose every argument that the distinguished Senators from +Virginia have brought to bear on this proposition was true: what then? +Is that any reason why it should not be submitted to the people? +Suppose they do not approve of it: what then? It is their business, +not ours. Suppose they should: it is a measure of peace, of security, +of union. Sir, I know, as you do, many of the members of that +Convention. I have acted with them as Whigs in old times, and I wish +they could come back. I know they have proved in old times, as they +will prove again, that they love this Union to the very depth and core +of their hearts. I do not propose to give them up; I do not propose to +weaken them; I do admire, with my whole heart, the sacrifice of +opinion which they make, and which is typified by the noble expression +of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to-day. Party or no party, +North or no North, I, at least, will meet him half way. My State is +very far distant. She had no members in that Convention. I do not know +whether she will approve this measure; but I know it will neither hurt +that State nor me to give her a chance to determine. I know very well +that the Senators from Virginia do not approve it. That is the very +reason I do. [Laughter.] If I was sure they would not think me guilty +of disrespect, I would remind them of what was said by a distinguished +man in old times. Phocion, in the last days of his Republic—and I +hope in that respect, at least, there will be no parallel—Phocion was +once making a speech to the Athenian people, and something he said +excited very great applause. He turned around to gentlemen, friends +near him, and said: "What foolish thing have I been saying, that these +people praise me?" Sir, if Virginia, represented as she is to-day—not +as I believe she really is—but if Virginia, represented as she is +here to-day, and as she has been during this session, were to approve +these propositions, I should doubt them very much indeed.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_525" id="Page_525">525</a></span></p> + +<p>I was surprised, however, to hear some things that the distinguished +Senator from Virginia—I do not know whether to call him junior or +senior—said. I do not mean the Senator who spoke last. He [Mr. +<span class="smcap">Hunter</span>] says that this proposition here is worse than the old +Constitution. If that be really so, what in the world has he been +complaining of so bitterly? He tells us, now, that under the old +Constitution slavery was secure. Then, why do you grumble? He +considers it as secure, not only wherever it is, but wherever it can +go—nay, more than that; wherever the Stars and Stripes of the +American Republic can float. I have been telling my people that, as a +Republican, for a long while, and complaining of the Dred Scott +decision; but he says slavery is secured. All the complaint that the +other Senator from Virginia [Mr. <span class="smcap">Mason</span>] makes, is against the decision +of the courts in the free States we have been in the habit of making, +which he insists are against the decision of the Supreme Court, +constituted other than we wished it was. We have been in the habit of +believing that one of the great evils we complained of was under the +old Constitution, and that a new construction was given to it, alien +to the intention, wish, construction, of our fathers; and we have +complained that the Supreme Court was so constituted that it could not +be reversed. We complained, as partisans, that now this Senate and the +other House were so composed that we had no power in the Government, +save through the President. Now, the Senator from Virginia indorses +the whole of it, and says they were very well off, and did +beautifully. Then why dissolve; why threaten; why make a Peace +Conference necessary?</p> + +<p>Mr. President, let us be just to these propositions. As a Republican, +I give up something when I vote for them; but remember, sir, I am not +voting for them now; I am only voting to submit them to my people; and +I shall go before them, when the time comes, being governed in my +opinion and advice as to whether they shall vote for them or not, as I +see that Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Missouri, +by their people, desire. To be frank, sir; if this proposition will +suit the Border States, if there will be peace and union, and loyalty +and brotherhood, with this, I will vote for it at the polls with all +my heart and with all my soul; but if I see that the counsels of the +Senators from Virginia shall prevail; if my noble friend from +Tennessee [Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>] shall be overwhelmed; if secession shall still +grow in the public mind there; if they are determined, upon artificial +causes of complaint, as I believe, still to unite their fate, their +destiny, and their hope, with the extremest South, then, perceiving +them to be of no avail, I shall refuse them. Therefore, at the polls +at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_526" id="Page_526">526</a></span> last, I shall be governed as an individual citizen by my +conviction at the moment of what the ultimate result of these +propositions will be; but I am not voting for that to-day. I am +saying: "People of the United States, I submit it to you; twenty +States demand it; the peace of the country requires it; there is +dissolution in the very atmosphere; States have gone off; others +threaten; the Queen of England upon her throne declares to the whole +world her sympathy with our unfortunate condition; foreign Governments +denote that there is danger to-day that the greatest Confederation the +world has ever seen is to be parted in pieces, never to be reunited." +Now, not what I wish, not what I want, not what I would have, but all +that I can get, is before me. I know that I do no harm. If the people +of Oregon do not like it, they can easily reject it. If the people of +Pennsylvania will not have it, they can easily throw it aside. If they +do not believe there is danger of dissolution, if they prefer +dissolution, if they think they can compel fifteen States to remain in +or come back, or if they believe they will not go out, let them reject +it. I repeat again, it is their business, it is not mine.</p> + +<p>But, sir, whether I vote for it at the polls or not, in voting for it +here it may be said that I give up some of my principles. Mr. +President, we sometimes mistake our opinions for our principles. I am +appealed to often; it is said to me: "You believed in the Chicago +platform." Suppose I did. "Well, this varies from the Chicago +platform." Suppose it does. I stand to-day, as I believe, in the +presence of greater events than those which attend the making of a +President. I stand, as I believe, at least, in the presence of peace +and war; and if it were true that I did violate the Chicago platform, +the Chicago platform is not a Constitution of the United States to me. +If events, if circumstances change, I will violate it, appealing to my +conscience, to my country, and to my God, to justify me according to +the motive. [Applause in the galleries.]</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. <span class="smcap">Foster</span> in the chair). Order will be +preserved in the galleries, or they will be cleared.</p> + +<p>Mr. BAKER:—Again, sir, let us see how, as a Republican, I give up any +thing. First, suppose I did: I would give up a great deal to preserve +a great Government; I would give up a great deal to be able to shake +hands with Kentucky and Tennessee as friends for the rest of my life, +as I have in all that has gone before. I would not be ashamed to give +up. I would not at least be giving up to traitorous secession, such as +Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina are guilty of to-day; but I +would be giving up to loyal and affectionate brethren, who<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_527" id="Page_527">527</a></span> implore me +for the love of a common Union to do something to satisfy the doubts +and fears of their people. I can stand that; I will do it.</p> + +<p>Again, sir; how much do I give up? I have said, as a Republican, that +Congress has the power to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of +the United States. I believe it to-day. Talking about giving up, there +are a good many other people that give up something here. Gentlemen on +the other side, who have been contending that Congress had no power +whatever to prohibit slavery, acknowledge that they were mistaken; at +any rate they go for it; they do prohibit it by law, by the +Constitution itself. Therefore I am not the only one that gives up.</p> + +<p>Again: I believe it is wrong, politically wrong—I am not now +discussing the social and moral question—but I believe it to be +politically very wrong to establish slavery in the name of freedom. +Sir, twelve years ago or more, it was my fortune, perhaps, to wander +in a foreign land beneath the Stars and Stripes of my country. I went +there, as I think, impelled by motives of patriotism, perhaps having +mingled with them not a little desire of adventure, love of change, +and that feverish excitement for which we people of this country are +always and everywhere remarkable; but I believe, if I know myself, +that I did suppose I was doing something to repay the country for much +that she had done for me. Sir, often and again, wandering sometimes +beneath</p> + +<p class="center"> +"Where Orizaba's purpled summit shone,"<br /> +</p> + +<p>sometimes by the dark pestilential river that marks the boundary +between the two countries, often and often have I wondered to myself +whether I was wandering and suffering there to spread slavery over an +unwilling people. I am not sorry to see that now that is rendered +impossible. I am not sorry to see that it is impossible, first, in the +course of events; but if it were not so, I know, if these propositions +shall pass, that the foul blot of slavery never will be extended over +one foot of territory to be stolen or conquered by the people of the +United States.</p> + +<p>But I am asked, "What do you say about New Mexico?" I will tell you in +twenty words. I am an older Republican than many of those I see around +me, who vote to-day differently from me; not a better but an older. I +voted in 1850, on the floor of the other House, against the compromise +measures of that year. I did so, among other reasons, because I was +not willing that Utah and New Mexico should become slave or free +according to the wishes of their people, believing as I did then (I +have changed my opinion in some respects since), that that was not +best for the whole country. Contrary to my wishes, those compromise +measures prevailed. New Mexico is nominally now, I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_528" id="Page_528">528</a></span> believe, a slave +Territory; that is, to use the words of the distinguished Senator from +New York [Mr. <span class="smcap">Seward</span>], there are some twenty slaves in the whole +Territory. There they may, they probably will, remain. I submit to my +people a proposition, that if they approve it as a compromise, as a +concession, for peace for the Union, as it happens that that little +Territory includes all that possibly can be slave territory, they will +let it alone till the people are able and willing to make their own +State constitution. That is all. Do I state it fairly? Does it go +beyond that?</p> + +<p>First, I contend that I give up but little. I give it up, as I +understand, for purposes of freedom; and the distinguished Senators +from Virginia agree with me. They say, in substance, that I am getting +a great deal more than I give; and I confess, taking that view of the +subject, at least in part, I wonder that a good many more of my +Republican friends do not go with me.</p> + +<p>Again: it is said on the Republican side that we protect slavery. In +one sense we do, and in another sense we do not. In the offensive idea +to me and to you of protecting slavery, I do no such thing, and I +would die first. When the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky +were up the other day, I voted for the amendment of the other Senator +from Kentucky [Mr. <span class="smcap">Powell</span>], in order to make them clear, to show what +I was voting against. I was unwilling that territory hereafter to be +acquired should be rendered slave territory; and I put that +proposition distinctly in it, in order that when I voted against them, +it might be seen why and how I did it. As I have said, this +proposition renders that impossible. First, it refers only to the +territory we now possess; that is, New Mexico alone. As to the +territory north of 36° 30´, I need not speak. We know that God +Almighty has registered a decree in Heaven that that shall never be +slave. We, on our part, want no <span class="smcap">Wilmot</span> proviso there; we all agree +that we are willing to let it alone. South, there is but the barren +Territory of New Mexico. Beyond that, who knows? If we are to acquire +it, we are to acquire it by this proposition, by the assent of a +majority of the States of both sections and two-thirds of the whole; +and I do not know a man living who believes that with that proposition +incorporated in the Constitution, slavery is probable, or even +possible.</p> + +<p>Therefore, Mr. President, I agree that in the compromise I, as a +Republican, do give up to that extent, and no more, what I have said; +but doing that, I believe that I consecrate all the territory between +here and Cape Horn to freedom, with all its blessings, forever and +forever.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_529" id="Page_529">529</a></span></p> + +<p>So far, sir, as the discussion as to the meaning of this phrase about +the common law is concerned, I do not care to indulge in it, and for +this simple reason: first, according to the legal view of the Senator +from Ohio, everybody knows that this expression, "the course of the +common law," means the duly established forms of procedure known to +the courts; that is all. In the next place, I am not afraid of the +common law. I have been reared under it. With all its imperfections, +and they are many, I love it. While it may be an objection to Virginia +to quote it, to me it is full of guardianship and blessing. I do not +stop to talk about the Somerset case, nor the decision in Salkeld, nor +the Modern Reports. It is enough for me that I know, taking the whole +proposition together, that slavery is impossible beyond where it now +is, and, as a Republican, I can justify myself to my conscience in +giving that vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, I add very few more words. I should have been +excessively pleased, as a partisan and a man, if the inauguration of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> could be one at which all the States would attend with the +old good feeling, and with the old good humor. I have seen six States +separate themselves, as they say, from us, and form a new confederacy, +with great pain and greater surprise. I cannot shut my eyes, if I +would, to the existing state of things. I listen to the warning of my +friend from Kentucky. I listen to the warning of my friend from +Tennessee. I have been in both States. I know something of their +people. I believe that there, even there, the Union is in danger; and +I believe if we break up here without some attempt to reconcile them +to us, and us to them, many of the predictions of friends and foes as +to the danger will be accomplished. I said, in the earlier part of the +session—I repeat it—I would yield nothing to secession. When the +Representatives from South Carolina and Mississippi and Alabama and +Louisiana came here invoking war, telling us that if we did not yield +to them they would secede, they would confederate with foreign +Governments, they would break this Union, they would hold us as aliens +and strangers and enemies, I believed then, as I believe now, that +that was too dear a price to pay even for Union and peace; but to-day +the case is altered. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, reiterate their +love for the Union. They tell us in unmistakable terms that they +desire to remain; and in every county, nay, in every township of those +States, we have staunch and true and ardent friends who would be +willing to seal their devotion to this Union with their blood. It is +they to whose appeal I would listen. It is from them that I would take +counsel and advice; and when they tell me, "pass these resolutions; +they are reso<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_530" id="Page_530">530</a></span>lutions of peace; submit them to your people; listen to +what ours say in reply; if it appears to you at the polls that these +resolutions will produce peace, restore union, create or renew +fraternal, kindly feeling, pass them; let us settle this question, and +be one people," I agree; with all my heart, I will do it.</p> + +<p>Now, as I close, let me ask what evil; who will be hurt? Suppose, when +I get home, I find that the Senators from Virginia are on the stump +and they are convincing their people that they are a great deal worse +off; the more they convince Virginia that she is worse off, the more +Pennsylvania and New York will be convinced that they are better off; +and every argument they make against it in Virginia will have a +twofold weight North and West. I could not make half as good a speech +in favor of these propositions of Union, even in Oregon, or +California, or Illinois—I speak of the States I know best—as I +should make if I were to read their objections to these propositions.</p> + +<p>But suppose—which I do not think possible—they could succeed, not +only in Virginia (which I do not believe), but in Kentucky and +Tennessee; suppose they were to swear, by the throne of God, they +would not take them, but would dissolve and go off whether we passed +them or not: we could very easily refuse to vote for them and be in as +good a condition as we are to-day, and, in the mean time, next Monday, +Mr. <span class="smcap">Lincoln</span> will be inaugurated. I desire to see around him thronging, +nay forming the procession, every augury of hope and peace.</p> + +<p>I expect to hear from his lips words of manly trust and confidence in +the Union, and of concession, kindness to all its constituent parts. I +have hoped that, in response to what he shall say, I shall hear from +every part of what is now acknowledged everywhere yet as our +Confederacy, a perpetual hymn of hope and praise rising from all parts +of the Union; and, above all things else, I have hope and trust in +time and patience. Therefore it is that I shall do no harm.</p> + +<p>I know that there are very excited feelings upon this subject North +and South. I understand that Massachusetts, an honored State—let me +say, to qualify what I am going to say, first, that I believe that +Massachusetts is the pattern of a community in the world; as well +represented here as any State can be; representing herself better than +anybody else can do it for her—I know that there are excited feelings +in Massachusetts, and I think she has good cause. The act that more +than any other else, perhaps, leads to this proposition of a Peace +Convention—that "Congress shall provide by law for securing to the +citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in +the several States"—was an act which I abhorred and condemned from +the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_531" id="Page_531">531</a></span> beginning, and which I am not sorry to perceive that +Massachusetts remembers now. Many gentlemen on the floor know to what +I allude. On the other hand, South Carolina and Louisiana are +ferocious for disunion; and I am afraid that their young men do want +war. There is not excitement enough on the plantation and the farm, +and in the streets of the towns; but they really want contest, +excitement, and bloodshed. What they want I do not; I am trying to +keep from it. I do not apprehend, therefore, that the sentiments which +I have expressed here to-day will meet the approbation of the extreme +men upon either side. I have no doubt my republicanism may be doubted. +I think I can see in the look of my friend on my left now [Mr. <span class="smcap">King</span>] +that he has various convictions that I am very far from being sound in +the faith. [Laughter.] Sir, it may be. I come from the midst of a +people not directly concerned in this controversy; a population about +half northern, half southern. We have intermarried together. Our +interests, our fears, our hopes, our recollections, are mingled North +and South; and I believe I am expressing their opinions—which perhaps +form my own—when I say that I can see no possible harm to anybody +anywhere in submitting these propositions to the people, who are, and +ought to be, sovereign.</p> + +<p>Besides, sir, what else can I do? As I sit down, let me ask Senators +upon every side, what else can any of us do? Shall we sit here for +three months, when petition, resolution, public meeting, speech, +acclamation, tumult, is heard, seen, and felt on every side, and do +nothing? Shall State after State go out, and not warn us of danger? +Shall Senators and Representatives, patriotic, eloquent, venerable, +tell us, again and again, of danger in their States, and we condescend +to make no reply?</p> + +<p>Sir, there is other business to be done here besides the mere ordinary +business of the Government; besides the voting of supplies, and the +raising of means by which to buy them. We have questions here to-day, +as I believe, of peace and war, and I have waited long to see some +mode of their solution. I repeat, I go for this proposition, and agree +to submit it to the vote of the people, not because I believe it the +best that can be done. I believe, however, that, to-day being two days +from the close of this session, it is all I can do. When my people ask +me, on my return, "Sir, have not States gone out?" I will say, "Yes." +"Do not more threaten it?" if that is the word (I trust it is not the +best one), I say, "Yes." They say, "Sir, do you believe they will do +it?" "On my honor and on my conscience," I say, "if something is not +done, yes." They then ask, "What have you done?" Mr. Pres<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_532" id="Page_532">532</a></span>ident, what +have we done? I believe that is the question the country will ask of +us; and I, for one, will vote for this proposition, that I may be able +to respond.</p> + +<p>Mr. GREEN:—Mr. President, I regard the consideration of this question +as one of the most important which has ever been presented to the +Senate since I have been a member of it. The Union is in danger; the +fate of the country is at stake; and whatever the Senate or the House +of Representatives or Congress combined can do, ought to be done to +save the country. I have very little faith or hope, and I would +express the reason why. But as little as there is, I will cling to the +last remaining straw, and sink with it grasped fast in my hands, if I +have no other resource. This country is of too much importance to me, +to my family, to my friends, to my State, to my associates everywhere, +to give up without a struggle. That struggle may prove to be +fruitless; it may prove to be unavailing. The taunts and jeers thrown +out are calculated to stir up ire and ill-feeling; I shall pass them +by with disregard. I choose to sacrifice my feelings, and to make +myself a burnt-offering on the altar, if I can do any thing to save +the country.</p> + +<p>What, then, shall we do? These propositions, presented by what is +called the Peace Conference, are not to be compared to the +propositions of the Senator from Kentucky; and I will not vote for a +single one of them, while I will vote for his. They amount to a +sacrifice of my honor, and a destruction of the rights of my State. I +am permitted to say that the representatives from my State in the +Peace Conference condemned them all, while they are willing to go for +the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky. We cannot stand by this, +and we will not.</p> + +<p>Let us not deceive each other; let us not undertake to practice a +system of deception which will sound pleasant to the ear, but will be +bitter to the taste. I will not do it. Here is a positive prohibition +of slavery north of 36° 30´, and then a doubtful question whether it +is recognized south of 36° 30´. The Senator from Kentucky thinks it +is; but I will not act upon a doubt. We have had too many doubts +heretofore, and out of those doubts have grown many difficulties. I +shall never permit, so far as my action is concerned, another question +of doubt.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Did he +understand me as admitting that it was a doubtful recognition of +slavery?</p> + +<p>Mr. GREEN:—Not at all. I said expressly that the Senator from +Kentucky contended that it did amount to a recognition, but others +denied it, and that made it a question of doubt. I will not +misrepresent<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_533" id="Page_533">533</a></span> anybody if I know it. Now, sir, I will not act upon a +question which admits of doubt. We have passed along in our career for +so many years that we have arrived at a point when we must understand +each other distinctly and unequivocally, and I will not leave a single +point open to equivocation. It must be expressly settled, and settled +not only in express words, not only in unmistakable language; but I go +further than that; it must emanate from the hearts of a people +disposed to stand by it; and if they will not stand by it, I will not +associate with them.</p> + +<p>I want to preserve this Union; I want to maintain the constitutional +rights of all classes, North and South; but to give me a mere written +guarantee on parchment, and file it in the office of the Secretary of +State, with a predetermination in the hearts and minds of the northern +people inculcated and instructed to violate it, I cannot live with, +and I will not. I would rather go where I naturally belong, with +southern men; but if the true-hearted, the patriotic, and the +honorable portion of the North will reverse this inculcated spirit of +hostility to southern institutions, and bring them up to the mark +where they will recognize constitutional guarantees, then I say, +"Hail, thou my brother, we can go together;" but never till that comes +to pass. We have approached that period in our country's history when +there should be no cheating or attempt to cheat. We must understand +each other, and make a permanent, lasting Union, or a permanent, +lasting, peaceful separation.</p> + +<p>This proposition presented by the Peace Conference, as it is called, I +think the merest twaddle—and I use the term with entire respect to +the members—the merest twaddle that ever was presented to a thinking +people. The proposition of the Senator from Kentucky has some sense in +it. If he chooses to desert his own, I shall not complain of him; for +I know that warm, patriotic impulses move him in all his action; but I +cannot accept the other, and I shall vote against every one of its +provisions. When it is said to me that the territory south of 36° 30´ +has adopted slavery—that New Mexico has—I must reply to Senators +that they misunderstand the law. New Mexico has never adopted slavery. +New Mexico has done this: she has provided remedies for redress of +wrongs, including wrongs affecting slave property; but she has never +established slavery; nor has Utah. Utah has never even recognized it +by implication. Utah passed a law of this character: apprentices bound +to service for a period of years may be held there; but when their +servitude has expired, according to their articles of apprenticeship, +they are free; so that the law of Utah absolutely, if it has any +effect, prohibits slavery.</p> + +<p>Senators overlook these facts. I take the broad and the bold and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_534" id="Page_534">534</a></span> the +unmistakable ground, not that the Constitution establishes slavery +anywhere, but that the Constitution, extending over a Territory, will +protect me in all my rights not prohibited by a local competent +authority; that my rights are to take any property which I own in any +part of the Union, Yankee clocks from the North, polar bears from the +Rocky Mountains, mules from the Middle States, and slaves from the +South; and that, unless there is a competent local authority to +prohibit my rights in these respective classes of property, I am to be +protected. The second step is that there can be no local authority as +long as the territorial condition remains, competent to prohibit +slavery in any Territory.</p> + +<p>These are my positions; and hence, so far from this extraordinary +position that slavery is local being true, the reverse is true. It may +be local in the United States, but so far from its being local to the +Territory in the United States, the reverse is true. Talk about +freedom being national, and slavery local! I have a right to pass +through Pennsylvania, and my right of transit is as perfect this day +as it was when Pennsylvania was a slave State....</p> + +<p>I have been anxious from the beginning of this session to stave off +public action, to hold the public pulse still, and give an opportunity +for reaction of northern sentiment. I want no reaction south. It has +been my only hope, and my last hope, and that hope has failed....</p> + +<p>These resolutions are intended to lull old Virginia, Maryland, +Missouri, and Kentucky, until we are hand-cuffed and tied fast, and +then action is to commence. They are all designed simply to lull us +into a fancied security; but if we are wise betimes, and look forward +to coming events, we will at once strike the blow, and separate from a +Confederation which denies us peace, denies us protection, denies us +our constitutional rights, and seek them in some other association of +States....</p> + +<p>Now, Mr. President, I want all these propositions voted down, and I +hope my friend from Kentucky will revive his propositions and bring +them up again. There is some vitality in them; there is some point in +them; but as for these wishy-washy resolutions, that amount to +nothing, it is impossible that any Senator here will, for a moment, +entertain the idea of supporting them. The Peace Conference! And the +smallest peace that ever I have heard of. Let the Senator adhere to +his original propositions; let the Senator bring them up and press<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_535" id="Page_535">535</a></span> +them upon the attention of the Senate. That is as far backing down as +I will go. It is a little more than I want; but still, as a last +effort to save the Union, I would go that far. Talk about these +measures! These measures that have no vitality—these measures that +amount to a total surrender of every principle—I never will vote for; +and let the consequences of the future be what they may, I stake my +faith and reputation upon the vote I intend to cast.</p> + +<p>Mr. WADE:—I move that the Senate adjourn.</p> + +<p>Mr. LANE:—I hope the Senator will give me the floor before he makes +that motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. TRUMBULL:—I ask the Senator from Oregon to yield to me a moment.</p> + +<p>Mr. LANE:—For a motion to adjourn, I will.</p> + +<p>Mr. TRUMBULL:—Yes, sir; I desire the floor with a view to make that +motion. It is apparent that no good is to come out of the discussion +of the proceedings of this Peace Conference. It is a proposition got +up for the purpose of satisfying the Border States; and the Border +States, Missouri and Virginia, say they will have none of it. The +first section is a proposition establishing slavery—</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—I rise to a question of order.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Senator from Illinois will pause. The +Senator from Virginia rises to a question of order, which he will +state.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—I understand the motion to adjourn has been made.</p> + +<p>Mr. TRUMBULL:—I have not made the motion yet. I stated that I would +make that motion, and I was merely going to give the reason. The +Senator from Oregon will have the floor to-morrow. I was stating the +reason why I should make the motion to adjourn, which I intend to make +in the course of a minute, and I merely made that statement to show +that there was no object in sitting here and punishing ourselves in +regard to resolutions which manifestly cannot command the assent of +this body. I now move that the Senate adjourn.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.</p> + +<p>And the Senate refused to adjourn, and, for special business, the +peace propositions were set aside. The same day they were introduced, +as follows:</p> + +<p>Mr. LANE:—Mr. President, my object in getting the floor, was to give +the reason why I cannot vote for the resolution now before the Senate. +You are aware, sir, that I did vote for the propositions of the +Senator from Kentucky to amend the Constitution, with the hope, if<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_536" id="Page_536">536</a></span> +they could be adopted, that peace, perhaps, might be restored to the +country; but those propositions have been superseded, and the Senator +from Kentucky himself says that he is willing to sacrifice, on the +altar of his country, as he terms it, his own propositions, and take +the amendments which are proposed to the Constitution presented by the +Peace Congress to the Senate. The resolutions proposed by the +distinguished Senator from Kentucky were as low down as I could go. +They did not secure to every State that right they have under the +Constitution, as I understand it; but the resolution now before the +Senate, to speak modestly, as I look at it, with all due respect to +the great men who met here to consider this matter, who deliberated +for many days, and presented this as the result of their +deliberations, is a cheat, a deception, a humbug—nothing that any +State can take as a final settlement of the questions that are now +giving trouble to this country, nothing that can settle permanently +those difficulties. We must have something more definite, something +more certain, or there can be no Union even of the States that now +remain in the Union, as I believe.</p> + +<p>Mr. GREEN:—Mr. President—</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—Does the Senator from Oregon give way?</p> + +<p>Mr. LANE:—Only for an adjournment.</p> + +<p>Mr. GREEN:—I rise to make that motion, that the Senate do now +adjourn.</p> + +<p>So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate by a vote—23 to +22—adjourned.</p> + +<p><i>March 2d.</i>—Senator <span class="smcap">Lane</span> having secured the floor, made the following +speech on the report of the Peace Conference:</p> + +<p>Mr. LANE:—Mr. President, I hope I shall be permitted to proceed +without interruption, and I trust not to consume much time. While I +had the floor yesterday, I stated some of my objections to the +proposed amendments to the Constitution which are now before us. They +are: that they do not do justice to the whole country—that they do +not do justice to all the States. I have always held that the +territory is common property; that it belongs to all the States; that +every citizen of every State has an equal right to emigrate to, and +settle in, the common Territories; and that any species of property, +recognized as such in any State of the Confederacy, should have a like +recognition in the Territories, and be guaranteed, protected, and +secured in its full integrity, to the owner thereof. That this should +be so, was the intent of the revolutionary fathers who shaped and +framed the Constitution; and it was this principle, more, perhaps, +than any other, which called<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_537" id="Page_537">537</a></span> into being that noble compact, which has +so long been a bond of Union and goodness between all the States. It +is the very life-blood and vitality of the Constitution. It is the +ligament that has held us together heretofore, and which, if cut now, +will result only in hopeless and immutable disruption. I have never +deviated a single iota from this correct doctrine. Had we lived up to +this equitable principle—the foundation upon which the Constitution +rests, upon which only this Union can be maintained—we should have +had no trouble in this country to-day. It is not my fault that trouble +and dissatisfaction prevail; it is not my fault that secession has +taken place, and that further secession will take place, unless +Congress shall recognize this great principle of justice, of right, +and of equality. That is the doctrine upon which this Union rests; and +it must be maintained, or the connection will be severed.</p> + +<p>While upon this question, Mr. President, I may be permitted to allude +to my course in the Senate last session, and I shall do so very +briefly, upon a series of resolutions introduced by the Senator from +Mississippi [Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span>]—a series of resolutions that were considered +in this body, after having been previously maturely and deliberately +adopted by a caucus composed of the Democratic Senators, and agreed +upon by them, as setting forth the principles necessary to be +maintained in order to secure the existence and perpetuity of this +Confederacy. It has been charged upon this floor that, on the 25th day +of May last, I voted against the right of protection to slave property +in the Territories. In order that the Senate may know how I voted, and +that I may show you and every other man that I stood then as I stand +to-day, and as I have always stood upon this question, I will read +some short extracts from the discussion upon this series of +resolutions. The fourth resolution was in these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That neither Congress nor a Territorial +Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of +an indirect and unfriendly nature, possesses the power to +annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of +the United States to take his slave property into the common +Territories, but it is the duty of the Federal Government +there to afford for that, as for other species of property, +the needful protection; and if experience should at any time +prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure +adequate protection, it will then become the duty of +Congress to supply such deficiency."</p></div> + +<p>Now mark! this resolution states that all the property of all the +people of any State, whether slave or otherwise, has an equal right to +protection; and if experience should at any time prove that the +courts<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_538" id="Page_538">538</a></span> had not the power to afford that protection, then it was the +duty of Congress to enact such laws as were necessary to protect every +man in his legal and rightful property, no matter of what description +or characteristic. Sir, not long since, upon this floor, a Senator was +hardy enough to say that I voted against protecting property in +Territories; and he desired to know what had happened that States +should be concerned; what had occurred to alarm the States that were +seceding from the Union? I will show you, sir, very briefly, what I +said upon that question then; and I will repeat it now, for I have +never changed my sentiments on this subject. No living man can assert, +and in so doing tell the truth, that I ever uttered a word against the +equality of the States, and their equal right in the common territory +of our common country; and any charge that I voted then to refuse +protection to property in the territory <i>is false</i>. I have always held +that the territory belonged to all; that it was acquired, as I knew, +at the expense of the Southern States as well as of the Northern; and +upon the battle-fields where I had witnessed the good conduct of +Northern and Southern troops, I found the soldier from the Southern +States pouring out his blood as freely, and certainly in very much +larger quantity—for there were very many more from the Southern +States who participated in the battles of our country in the war which +resulted in the acquisition of territory, than there were from the +Northern States. Then, so far as the acquisition is concerned, it is +joint, and it was for the joint benefit of all portions of the +country. Consequently, I have held, and I hold now, that the +Territories should be so appropriated. And when those resolutions were +up last winter, I said what I will now read:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"I only desire to say, in relation to the series of +resolutions, a portion of which I have already voted in +favor of, that I shall vote in favor of the rest; for the +whole of them together meet with my hearty approbation. They +assert the truth; they assert the great principle that the +constitutional rights of the States are equal; that the +States have equal rights in this country under the +Constitution; and, as I understand it, they must be +maintained in that equality. These resolutions only assert +that principle; and I say that it is a misfortune to the +country, in my opinion, that the principles laid down in +these resolutions had not been asserted sooner. They ought +to have been asserted by the Democratic party in plain +English ten years ago. If they had been, you would have had +no trouble in this country to-day; the Democratic party +would have been united and strong, and the equality and +constitutional rights of the States would have been +maintained in the territory, and in all other things; +squatter-sovereignty would not have been heard of, and +to-day we should be united. It is the fault of the +Democratic party in dodging truth, in dodging principle, in +dodging the Constitution itself,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_539" id="Page_539">539</a></span> that has brought the +trouble upon the country and the party that is experienced +to-day."</p></div> + +<p>I believe, if we had asserted and maintained these great truths ten +years ago, and placed ourselves upon them boldly, as it was our duty +to have done, we would have no trouble in this country to-day; but +instead of declaring the great truths enunciated in these resolutions, +we went off upon issues unbecoming the Democratic party. A portion of +our leaders wandered and went astray, and asserted that the people of +a Territory had the right to prohibit slavery whenever, in their +judgment, it ought to be prohibited; a power which Congress even does +not possess, and consequently cannot confer upon a Territorial +Legislature, unless the creature becomes greater than the creator. It +was this kind of trouble, and this sort of heresy introduced into the +Democratic party, that has broken it up, and brought the disasters +upon our country which we experience to-day. I say, then, let the +blame fall upon the guilty; I am innocent of it; for I have held but +one doctrine upon this question from the beginning to the present +hour, and I shall hold that doctrine to the end. In the speech from +which I have already read, I also used the following language:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Sir, it appears to me to be very singular indeed, that any +man can hold that the territory of this country belongs to a +portion of the people, and that the people of one portion of +the Union can go there and enjoy their property, when the +people of another portion cannot enjoy the right of property +in that territory—territory common to the whole country; +territory that was earned or acquired by the common blood +and common treasure of all; territory that is sustained by +the common treasure of all; and to say that all shall not +have an equal right there, is to deny a fact so plain, a +principle so just, a right so manifest, that I can hardly +see how any man who professes to be a Democrat can deny it, +or how he can attempt to embarrass the adoption of the +correct principles announced in these resolutions. I shall +therefore vote against all the amendments, and every thing +that is offered to obstruct their passage, upon the ground +that they assert justice, that they assert truth, that they +assert the equality and constitutional rights of all the +States, which principle must be maintained, or this Union +cannot be preserved."</p></div> + +<p>That was my doctrine then, it is the doctrine which I have held and +advocated for twenty years. It is the doctrine I hold now; and I so +notified the Senator from Tennessee, who arraigned me here as voting +against protecting property, and who did me willful and gross +injustice in it—for I voted for it and he voted against it. That is +to say, I voted against the resolution introduced by Mr. <span class="smcap">Clingman</span>, +declaring "that slave property did not need protection in the +Territories," while the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_540" id="Page_540">540</a></span> Senator from Tennessee voted for it; and when +the motion was made to reconsider the vote adopting it in lieu of the +fourth resolution of the <span class="smcap">Davis</span> series, I voted to reconsider, and the +Senator from Tennessee voted against it, showing clearly that he was +against affording that protection to slave property which the fourth +resolution provided for. Did I not maintain the truth? Was I not +prophetic in the announcement that I made in this Senate Chamber then? +I said, that unless this great principle of justice, of equality, of +the right of every man to the common territory should be maintained, +this Union would be broken up. This great principle has not been +maintained, but the Union has been destroyed.</p> + +<p>But, sir, to go to the votes. It will be borne in mind, and every +Senator on this floor will bear me out in my statement, that while the +<span class="smcap">Davis</span> resolutions—the series of which I speak—were up, various +propositions were made to amend them, and I voted against all +amendments. There are Senators here at this moment who will sustain me +when I say that, when in caucus and we had under consideration this +series of resolutions, I said, and said it boldly and in plain terms, +that if every man from every Southern State of this Union would come +here and say, for the sake of peace, if you please, or any other +reason, he was willing to abandon his equality, his right in the +common territory, then, if alone, I would stand and protest against +it; protest that he had no right to surrender a constitutional right; +that none but a coward would do it; that every man had a right in the +common territory; that it was his privilege, and he should never +surrender it with my permission. On the other hand, I said that if +every Northern man in the Senate Chamber—nay, but even every Northern +citizen—expressed a desire to surrender his right, his equality, his +privilege, to go to the common Territories with his property, I should +enter my solemn protest against it, and insist that he had a +constitutional right to go there, which he should never surrender with +my consent. Then, how any man could assert that I ever entertained the +opinion that slavery did not need protection from aggression, is to me +the strangest, falsest thing in nature. I said, as I have shown you, +that I had voted against all amendments, and would continue to vote +against all amendments, or any attempt whatsoever calculated to +obstruct the passage of the resolutions; for they asserted the right +of the people to go to the Territories, asserted the power of the +court to protect them in the possession of their property, and that if +the court failed to protect them, Congress should afford the necessary +authority to do so.</p> + +<p>But, sir, allow me to observe, there was a resolution that I never<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_541" id="Page_541">541</a></span> +voted for, and that no man can charge me with ever having voted for. +Senators will recollect—and whoever has read the proceedings of the +Senate will recollect—that an amendment was offered as a substitute +to the fourth resolution, in these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"That the existing condition of the Territories does not +require the intervention of Congress for the protection of +property in slaves."</p></div> + +<p>I did not vote for that resolution; but the Senator from Tennessee +did. That amendment was adopted in lieu of the fourth resolution of +the series that I have read, which insured protection to slave +property in the Territories. It was adopted not entirely by Democratic +votes; and that there may be no mistake, I will read what the Senator +from Massachusetts said when he moved a reconsideration:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"I wish simply to say that I voted for that resolution +because I believed the condition of the Territories requires +no such law now or ever, and I do not believe in the +enactment of any such law; but my friends on this side of +the Chamber have put that resolution in the series; and for +myself, I do not wish to be responsible for any portion of +these resolutions, and I therefore wish the vote to be +reconsidered."</p></div> + +<p>This was the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, when he found +that the Republicans, united with some Democrats, had stricken out the +fourth resolution of the series, and inserted this as a substitute. I +said to Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> on that occasion:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"I desire merely to tender my thanks to the honorable +Senator from Massachusetts. The series of resolutions, as +introduced by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, are +germane one to the other. They are a declaration of +principles by the Democratic party. This amendment, as the +Senator has said correctly, has been fastened on the +Democratic resolutions by the votes of the Republican +Senators. I feel grateful, indeed, to the Senator for making +the motion to reconsider. I hope the vote will be +reconsidered, and the resolution voted down."</p></div> + +<p>The motion was put, and on the yeas and nays the vote was +reconsidered. I voted for the reconsideration, and I voted against the +amendment when it was adopted as a substitute for the fourth +resolution. Among those who voted in the affirmative for +reconsideration were Messrs. <span class="smcap">Benjamin, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Davis, +Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Harlan, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson</span> of +Arkansas, and <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Among those who voted against it, I find <span class="smcap">Johnson</span> +of Tennessee. I did not vote to continue in the series a resolution +that refused protection to all the people in the common Territories. +Portions of the Journal have been paraded to show the vote on Mr. +<span class="smcap">Brown's</span> amendment to Mr. <span class="smcap">Clingman's</span> amendment. I said, in several +speeches, that I should vote against all amendments, because<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_542" id="Page_542">542</a></span> the +series had been considered not only here, but in a caucus composed of +the Democratic Senators of this body, and we had agreed to take them +as a whole, and to vote them through altogether if we had the strength +to do so. I voted against every proposition to amend. I voted against +Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown's</span>, and I voted against Mr. <span class="smcap">Clingman's</span>, and I voted against +every other amendment that was calculated to weaken or embarrass the +passage of the resolutions. Yet I am represented here as having voted +against affording protection to slave property in the Territories! I +ask again, if any Senator, if any man who can read, can say that the +fourth resolution, for which I did vote and for which I struggled and +contended, does not declare that slave property shall be protected in +the common Territories of our country.</p> + +<p>Could any thing be stronger than the fourth resolution? Could any man +desire a more direct declaration of principles than that? Upon the +yeas and nays I voted for it. I voted against the amendment that was +adopted, and afterwards reconsidered. How, then, can a man arraign me +before the country as having said upon oath, on the 25th of May last, +that slave property should not be protected in the common Territories +with other property? I have always held that all property should be +protected, slave as well as other property; that it should have the +same protection as, and no more protection than any other property. +That they do not secure all this, is the objection I have to the +amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Peace Conference. They +are ambiguous, loose, and deceptive. I do not know that the people can +comprehend them. There will be no certainty under them; and they +would, if adopted, result in endless trouble and litigation. I trust +no amendments will ever be made to the Constitution, unless they are +made upon principles of right, justice, and equality, so that there +can be no mistake in construing them hereafter. If we amend the +Constitution, let us do it with a view to the peace of the country, +with a view to the harmony of the country, with a view to the security +of every interest, and of every State in the Union. If we could do +that, and this day amend the Constitution so as to provide expressly +that every State should have equal rights in the Territories and +elsewhere within the Union, this Confederacy would last forever, the +States that have left us would come back, and we should have then a +great and a lasting Union indeed. Without it, we never can have a +permanent Union. We must do something that is clearly right, or the +States that have left us will never return. They never ought to +return, unless they can have the right of equality secured to them by +the Constitution. I claim for my State just that which she is entitled +to, and not a parti<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_543" id="Page_543">543</a></span>cle more. I would concede to the Southern States, +that to which they are entitled, and not a particle more. That, they +must have, or there can be no peace, no union, no harmony, no +security, and no perpetuity of this Confederacy. Such amendments to +the Constitution, securing these objects and principles, are +indispensable to the maintenance of the Government as it was formed.</p> + +<p>Then why not do right? Why not every southern man ask just that which +he is entitled to, and no more? He ought to be content with nothing +short of what he is entitled to; and if he be, he is untrue to his +section and his constituents; untrue to the people whose servant he +is; and untrue to the institutions of the country; for the country can +exist only upon the triumph of such principles. He who is unwilling to +deal fairly by the North and the South, is a man who is guilty of +shattering and ruining the Confederacy; destroying the peace and +harmony and success of this great experiment of ours.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, in the State of Connecticut the Democracy assert the +correct principle, and they charge the trouble in the country to the +right quarter. I stated, on a former occasion, that the Democracy of +old Connecticut would never join the Republican party in any attempt +to coerce the Southern States; and I am now authorized by their own +declaration to say again, what I said before, that they, like the +Democracy of Oregon and of every other Northern State, will never join +a party that has refused justice; that has refused equality and right; +that has refused to protect property in the Territories, or wherever +the jurisdiction of the United States extends, in putting down those +who contended for their rights and for the equality to which they were +entitled. Sir, the loyal Democracy of this country fully understand +the question, and they assert the right.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, these great principles were not carried out. The platform on +which the Democracy presented their candidates for President and +Vice-President was not heeded, though based upon the Constitution. I +will say to the Senator who has boasted of his efforts in Tennessee in +behalf of the <span class="smcap">Breckinridge</span> ticket, that I shall notice that hereafter; +but I have only to say now, that, for the sake of the country, I would +to God the ticket had succeeded. We should then have had those +principles endorsed upon which the Government is established, and the +country would have been at peace. For that alone I wished it to +succeed.</p> + +<p>I will say only a word, now, as to the amendments proposed to the +Constitution. I had the pleasure of listening, yesterday, to the +distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I know his patriotism and his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_544" id="Page_544">544</a></span> +devotion to the Union. I know his willingness to take any thing, +however small, however trifling, however little it might be, that +would, in his opinion, give peace to the country. Sir, I am actuated +by no such feeling. We should never compromise principle nor sacrifice +the eternal foundations of justice. Whenever the Democratic party +compromised principle it laid the foundation of future troubles for +itself and for the country. When we do, then, amend the Constitution, +it ought to be in the spirit of right and justice to all men and to +all sections. I voted for the Senator's propositions, and I will do so +again, if we can get a vote, because there is something in them; +something that I could stand by; but there is nothing in the +amendments proposed by the Peace Conference. He proposed to establish +the line of 36° 30´, and to prohibit slavery north of it and protect +it south of it, in all the present territory, or of the territory to +be hereafter acquired. In that proposition there was something like +justice and right; but there is nothing in the amendments proposed by +the Peace Conference that any man, North or South, ought to take. They +are a cheat; they are a deception; they are a fraud; they hold out a +false idea; and I think, with all due respect to the Senator—for I +have the highest regard for him personally—that he is too anxious to +heal the trouble that exists in the country. He had better place +himself upon the right and stand by it. Let him contend, with me, for +the inalienable and constitutional rights of every American citizen. +Let him beware of "compromising" away the vital rights, privileges, +and immunities of one portion of the country to appease the graceless, +unrelenting, and hostile fanaticism of another portion. Let him labor +with me, to influence every State to mind its own affairs, and to keep +the Territories entirely <i>free</i> to the enterprise of all, with equal +security and protection—without invidious distinctions—to the +property of every citizen. Thus, and only thus, can we have peace, +happiness, and eternal Union.</p> + +<p>I could not avoid noticing the anxiety of the Senator from Kentucky to +accept any thing, and the readiness of the Senator from Oregon to +pledge his people—"my people"—to any thing that he chooses. Now, I +know there are many free people in the State of Oregon. They generally +do as they please. They have no master. No man owns them; and no man +can claim to control them. But this I am warranted in asserting—for I +know long, well, and intimately, the gallant men of Oregon—that they +will not be found ready or inclined, at the Senator's and his masters +beck, to imbrue their hands, in a godless cause, in fraternal gore.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, the principles asserted in the resolutions adopted<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_545" id="Page_545">545</a></span> by +the Senate, last winter, have not been carried out. We see the +consequences. We see a dissevered country and a divided Union. A +number of the States have gone off, have formed an independent +Government; it is in existence, and the States composing it will never +come back to you, unless you say in plain English, in your amendments +to the Constitution, that every State in the future Union has an equal +right to the Territories and all the protection and blessings of this +Government—never! I tell you, sir, although some foolish men and some +wicked ones may say I am a disunionist, I am for the Union upon the +principles of the Constitution, and not a traitor. None but a coward +will even think me a traitor; and if anybody thinks I am, let him test +me. This Union could exist upon the principles that I have held and +that are set forth in the <span class="smcap">Davis</span> resolutions; but upon no other +condition can it exist. Then, sir, disunion is inevitable. It is not +going to stop with the seven States that are out. No, sir; my word for +it, unless you do something more than is proposed in this proposition, +old Virginia will go out too—slothful as she has been, and tardy as +she seems in appreciating her own interests and her rights, and kind +and generous as she has been in inviting a Peace Congress to agree +upon measures of safety for the Union. The time will come, however, +when old Virginia will stand trifling and chicanery no longer. Neither +will North Carolina suffer it. None of the slave States will endure +it; for they cannot separate one from the other, and they will not. +They will go out of this Union and into one of their own; forming a +great, homogeneous, and glorious Southern Confederacy. It is and it +has been, Senators, in your power to prevent this; it is and it has +been for you to say (you might to-day, as it is the last day, say so), +whether the Union shall be saved or not. I know, that gallant Old +Dominion will never put up with less than her rights; and if she +would, I should entertain for her contempt. I should feel contempt for +her if she were to ask for any thing more than her rights; and so I +would if she were to put up with any thing less than her +constitutional rights. Then, sir, secession has taken place, and it +will go on unless we do right.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, in the remarks which I made on the 19th of December +last, in reply to the Senator from Tennessee, I took the ground that a +State might rightfully secede from the Union when she could no longer +remain in it on an equal footing with the other States; in other +words, when her continuance as a member of the Confederacy involved +the sacrifice of her constitutional rights, safety, and honor. This +right I deduced from the theory of equality of the States, upon which +rests the whole fabric of our unrivalled system of +government—unrivalled, as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_546" id="Page_546">546</a></span> it came from the hands of its illustrious +framers—a model as perfect, perhaps, as human wisdom could devise, +securing to all the blessings of civil and religious liberty, when +rightly understood and properly administered; but like all other +Governments, and even Christianity itself, a most dangerous engine of +oppression when, having fallen into the hands of persons strangers to +its spirit, and unmindful of the beneficent objects for which it was +framed, it is perverted from its high and noble mission to the base +uses of a selfish or sectional ambition, or a blind and bigoted +fanaticism. I said, on that occasion—referring to this fundamental +principle of our Government, the equality of the States—that "as long +as this equality be maintained the Union will endure, and no longer." +I might here undertake to enforce, by argument and the authority of +writers on the nature and purposes of our Government, this, to me, +self-evident proposition. But I deem it unnecessary to consume the +time of the Senate in discussing that branch of the subject.</p> + +<p>I propose, Mr. President, to confine what I have to say in regard to +the right of secession to the question, Who must judge whether such +right exists, and when it should be exercised? According to the theory +of every despotic Government, of ancient or modern times, there is no +such right. A province of an empire, how much soever oppressed, is +held by the oppressor as an integral part of his dominions. The yoke, +once fastened on the neck of the subject, is expected, however +galling, to be worn with patience and entire submission to the +tyrant's will. This is the theory of despotism. What are its fruits? +We have seen, in modern times, some of the bloodiest struggles +recorded in history growing out of the assertion by one party, and the +denial by the other, of this very right. Hungary undertook to "secede" +from the Austrian empire. Her right to do so was denied. She +constituted an integral part of the empire—a great "consolidated" +nation, as some consider the United States to be. Being an integral +part of the empire, according to the theory of the Austrian +Government, she must so remain forever. Austria not having the power +to enforce an acquiescence in this doctrine, Russian legions were +called to her aid; and Hungary, on whose gallant struggle for +independence the liberty-loving people of this country looked with so +much admiration and sympathy, soon lay prostrate and bleeding at the +tyrant's feet. You may call this attempt of Hungary to regain her +independence revolution. That is precisely what Austria called it. I +call it an effort on her part to peaceably secede—to peaceably +dissolve her connection with a Government which, in her judgment, had +become intolerably unjust and oppressive. Her oppressors told her it +was not her province but theirs, to judge of her alleged<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_547" id="Page_547">547</a></span> grievances; +that to acknowledge the right of secession would strike a fatal blow +at the integrity of the empire, which could be maintained only by +enforcing the perfect obedience of each and every part.</p> + +<p>We have, in the recent struggle of the Italian States, an instructive +commentary on the now mooted questions of secession and coercion. +Indeed, history, through all past ages, is but a record of the efforts +of tyrants to prevent the recognition of the doctrine, that a people +deeming themselves oppressed might peaceably absolve themselves from +allegiance to their oppressors. When our Government was formed, our +fathers fondly thought that they had made a great improvement on the +despotic systems of modern Europe. They saw the infinite evil +resulting from coercing the unwilling obedience of a subject to a +Government which he abhorred and detested. They accordingly declared +the great truth, never enunciated until then, that "Governments derive +all their just power from the consent of the governed." A Government +without such consent they held to be a tyranny.</p> + +<p>Now, Mr. President, this brings us to the very point in issue. Who is +to determine whether this consent is given or withheld? Must it be +determined by the ruler? If so, the proposition just stated is an +absurdity. Clearly it was the meaning of those who enunciated this +great truth, that the subjects of a Government have the right to +declare or withhold their consent; otherwise no such right exists. +They, and they only, must judge whether their rights are protected or +violated. If protected, every consideration of interest and safety +impels them to consent to live under a Government which secures the +blessings they desire. If, on the other hand, in their judgment, their +most sacred rights are violated, interest and honor, and the instinct +of self-preservation, all conspire to impel them to withhold their +consent; which being withheld, the Government, as far as they are +concerned, ceases.</p> + +<p>Here I would call the attention of the Senate to the first of the +Kentucky resolutions of 1798-'99, written by Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span>, in which +he says distinctly, that the parties to a political compact must judge +for themselves of the mode and measure of redress, when they consider +the compact violated and their rights invaded:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That the several States composing the United +States of America, are not united on the principle of +unlimited submission to their General Government; but that +by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for +the United States, and of amendments thereto, they +constituted a General Government for special purposes, +delegated to that Government certain definite powers, +reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right +to their own self-government; and that whensoever the +General Government<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_548" id="Page_548">548</a></span> assumes undelegated powers, its acts are +unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact +each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party; +that this Government, created by this compact, was not made +the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers +delegated to itself, since that would have made its +discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its +power; but that, as in all other cases of compact among +parties having no common judge, each party has an equal +right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the +mode and measure of redress."</p></div> + +<p>Here Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> asserts that a State aggrieved shall judge not only +of the mode, but the measure of redress. Is this treason? If the +measure of redress extends to secession, how can the Senator from +Tennessee [Mr. <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>] do less than denounce the great apostle of +liberty—as Mr. <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> has been called—a traitor?</p> + +<p>No less clear and explicit on this point, is the language of Mr. +<span class="smcap">Madison</span>. Being chairman of a committee to whom the subject was +referred—the resolutions having been returned by several of the +States—he says in his report:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, +founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and +essential to the nature of compacts, that where resort can +be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the +parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges +in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been +pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States +was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in +its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and +dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, +that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The +States, then, being the parties to the Constitutional +compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of +necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their +authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the +compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as +the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last +resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to +require their interposition."</p></div> + +<p>In the remarks which I made on the 19th of December last, I referred +to the fact that Virginia, in accepting the Constitution, declared +that the powers granted under that instrument "being derived from the +people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same +shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." I referred, also, +to the fact that New York had adopted the Constitution upon the same +condition and with the same reservation. I may here quote the language +of Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span>, distinctly recognizing the right of the people to +change their Government whenever their interest or safety require it. +He says:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"We see, therefore, from the commencement of the Government +under which we live, down to this late act of the State of +New York"—</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_549" id="Page_549">549</a></span></p> + +<p>To which he had just referred—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"one uniform current of law, of precedent, and of practice, +all going to establish the point that changes in Government +are to be brought about by the will of the people, assembled +under such legislative provisions as may be necessary to +ascertain that will truly and authentically."</p></div> + +<p>If the people of a State, believing themselves oppressed, undertake to +establish a Government, independent of that to which they formerly +owed allegiance, and the latter interferes with the movement, and +employs force to prevent such a consummation, no one who acknowledges +the great truth that the basis of all free government is the "consent +of the governed," will deny that such interference is an act of +usurpation and tyranny. Those only who borrow their ideas of political +justice from the despotic codes of Europe, and are more imbued with +the spirit of <span class="smcap">Metternich</span> and <span class="smcap">Bomba</span> than of <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> and <span class="smcap">Madison</span>, will +attempt to justify, palliate, or excuse such violation of the sacred +rights of the people. I have observed that often the noisiest +champions of popular rights are the first to trample those rights +under foot. The word "freedom" is continually on the tongues of +gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber; and I believe the Senator +from Tennessee has been suspected of a decided leaning to agrarianism, +so zealous has he been in advocating the rights, so entirely devoted +is he to the interests of the "dear people." But now, when the +<i>people</i> of the seceding States have pronounced, in tones of thunder, +the fiat which absolves them from allegiance to a Government which +they no longer respect or love, these same gentlemen all lift their +hands in horror, roll up the whites of their eyes, as did old Lord +<span class="smcap">North</span> many years ago, and exclaim "Treason!" "Treason!" Then, boiling +with patriotic rage, they rise up and declare that "this treason must +be punished; the laws must be enforced." History tells us that this +was the language of King <span class="smcap">George</span> and Lord <span class="smcap">North</span> when the colonies +renounced their allegiance to the mother country. The former of these +worthies, we are told, spent much of his life in a state of mental +darkness—in other words, he was a lunatic. The other received from +nature a narrow intellect, and inherited prejudices common to the +aristocracy of that period and of all other periods of the world's +history. Their errors were the natural offspring of incapacity and the +false teaching received in their youth. While, therefore, we cannot +admire or approve their conduct, these circumstances incline us more +to sorrow than to anger, disarm our resentment, and dispose us to +forgive what, under other circumstances, would deserve the severest +censure.</p> + +<p>But what excuse can we find for the peculiar champions of popular<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_550" id="Page_550">550</a></span> +rights in this Chamber; these zealous servants of the people, forever +ringing in our ears, "Let the voice of the people be heard; respect +the will of the people; <i>vox populi vox Dei</i>!" Sir, I say too, let the +voice of the people be heard and respected. And I think, for the sake +of consistency with all my past professions as a Democrat, I am bound +to respect the declared will of the sovereign States which, for +reasons satisfactory to themselves, have seceded from the Union and +established a separate and independent Government. Whatever the causes +may have been which impelled them to a separation from the other +States, I am bound to respect the expression of their sovereign will; +and I heartily reprobate the policy of attempting to thwart that will +under the pretence of "punishing treason" and "enforcing the laws." We +are told that the design is to attempt nothing more than to collect +the revenue in the ports of the seceded States. To say nothing of the +justice or injustice of the attempt so to do, I ask Senators from the +North, and the Senator from Tennessee, <i>will it pay</i>? Will it not be a +declaration of war against the seceding States, involving the people +of all the States in a long and bloody conflict, ruinous to both +sections? Are their ethics not the ethics of the school-boy pugilist, +"Knock the chip off my shoulder"?</p> + +<p>One of the framers of the Constitution [Mr. <span class="smcap">Madison</span>], whose +expositions of that instrument all classes, all parties, have +heretofore received, and still receive, or pretend to receive, with +profound deference and respect, has left on record his views of the +injustice, impracticability, and inefficacy of force as a means of +coercing States into obedience to Federal authority.</p> + +<p>Among the statesmen of the Revolution—those who participated in the +formation of our Government—there was no one who had such exalted +notions of the power and dignity of the Federal Government, as the +great <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span>. He was a consolidationist. The advocates of coercion +might naturally expect to obtain "aid and comfort" from the recorded +declarations of one of his peculiar political faith. But an +examination of his writings will show, that instead of favoring +coercion, instead of being the advocate of force, he was the advocate +of leniency and conciliation towards refractory States, and deprecated +a resort to force as madness and folly.</p> + +<p>If the great names of <span class="smcap">Madison</span> and <span class="smcap">Hamilton</span> have not sufficient weight +to restrain the madness of those who urge a coercive policy against +the seceding States, then, indeed, I see no escape from that most +dreadful of all calamities which can befall a nation—civil war. If +those in this Chamber who talk so flippantly of war, had seen, as it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_551" id="Page_551">551</a></span> +has been my lot to see, some of its actual horrors, they might, +perhaps, heed the warnings and respect the counsels of the sages and +patriots whose language I have quoted. They would at least refrain +from ungenerous insinuations against the patriotism of those northern +Democrats, who, like myself, reprobate the policy of coercion as +destructive of the peace, the prosperity, and happiness of every part +of the country, north as well as south.</p> + +<p>But to return to the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. In the +pamphlet report of his speech, page 7, <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> is quoted; but the +concluding part of the quotation is repeated in the <i>Globe</i> report and +not in that of the pamphlet. That part is:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"When two parties make a compact, there results to each a +power of compelling the other to execute it."</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> is here quoted to show that the Confederation has a power to +enforce its articles on delinquent States. But the citation is +unfortunate for the Senator from Tennessee. He had just previously +asserted that Vermont and other States had, by personal liberty bills, +violated the Constitution. Well; can he tell us how Virginia and South +Carolina could enforce the Constitution on Vermont in that respect? It +cannot be done. What follows? Why, as Mr. <span class="smcap">Webster</span> said at Capon +Springs, "a compact broken by one party is broken as to all." Hence, +according to the doctrines of <span class="smcap">Jefferson</span> and <span class="smcap">Webster</span> as to the actual +case which, according to the Senator, has occurred, the compact having +been broken, the Southern States have a right to retire—are absolved +from further obligations under the constitutional compact.</p> + +<p>The Senator complains that I replied at all, as I was a northern +Senator, and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election for +a high office. Now, I was, as I stated at the time, surprised at the +Senator's speech—because I understood it to be for coercion, as I +think it was by almost everybody else, except, as we are now told, by +the Senator himself; and I still think it amounted to a coercion +speech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which he +describes it—a speech for the execution of the laws and the +protection of the Federal property. Sir, if there is, as I contend, +the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right, +this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it any +property in any such State that can be protected by the power of this +Government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases +of "executing the laws" and "protecting public property" for coercion, +for civil war, we have an important concession, <i>i.e.</i>, that this +Government dare not go before the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_552" id="Page_552">552</a></span> people with a plain avowal of its +real purposes, and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is to +inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the design +in smooth and ambiguous terms.</p> + +<p>Now, sir, I want it distinctly understood, as I have already shown, +that during the last session I stood firmly by the <span class="smcap">Davis</span> resolutions. +I voted against every amendment. I voted against an amendment that he +voted for, because I believed it was partial, and did not do justice.</p> + +<p>But the Senator from Tennessee proceeded with an air and tone of great +triumph to bring forward my vote on the amendments proposed to the +<span class="smcap">Davis</span> resolutions. I think I have said all that it is necessary for me +to say upon that subject. I have shown that I have voted for them +under all circumstances, and against every amendment. Those +resolutions assert the right of property in the Territories, and that +when the courts fail to afford protection, then it is the duty of +Congress to come forward and provide that protection. I wished to put +slave property upon the same footing as other property. That is where +I then stood, where I now stand, and where I intend to stand. The +Senator asks, with a kind of triumphant air, what has happened since +that day? Mr. President, I have said that I have done all in my power, +by standing firm to the resolutions agreed to by the Democratic party, +to afford protection. The Senator misrepresented my vote on those +resolutions. I never voted against the <span class="smcap">Davis</span> resolutions, nor did +their substitute ever come up as a separate proposition. It was an +amendment to one of that series of resolutions I voted against; and I +would vote against any thing and every thing that would embarrass +their passage, for they contained just what I thought was right.</p> + +<p>What has happened since? Why, a thing has happened that never happened +before. The denial of any and all protection to slave property in any +and in all the territory; the denial of the right to take slave +property to any of them has been proclaimed and affirmed at the +ballot-box by a majority of the States, and a majority of the +electoral votes of this Union. What has happened? Why, the thing has +happened that has been three times before attempted, and three times +before failed; the first attempt having endangered the formation of +the Union, and the second and third its continuance. The first attempt +was made in 1784, to exclude slavery from all the Territories. It was +abandoned in 1787 by excluding it only from the territory northwest of +the Ohio, leaving it to colonize that portion southwest of that river. +The same thing was again attempted in 1820, as to the territory +acquired from Louisiana; and after a terrible agitation, was abandoned +by adopting<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_553" id="Page_553">553</a></span> the Missouri line. The third attempt was made in 1850, as +to the territory acquired from Mexico; and then also the Union +narrowly escaped destruction; but the compromise measures were +adopted. And now it comes again, but in a more formidable way than +ever. A President has been elected on that issue; for the first time +the people of the North, after all previous compromises and warnings, +have voted on the question, and every Northern State has pronounced +for the spoliation.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, perhaps the most signal instance of the evils of +compulsory union between dissimilar people, is that of Ireland and +England. The people of Ireland—the home and heritage of my +ancestors—have, as the South has, a representation in the national +Legislature; but being also, as the South is, in a minority in that +body, have no power to protect themselves from the aggressions of +England. The consequence is, that they have been excluded from the +common benefits of British legislation, commercially, and even +religiously, to say nothing of their exclusion from official station +in the empire. And, accordingly, Ireland has been impoverished, +degraded, and discontented. She has been trampled upon, outraged, +insulted, treated like Cinderella. The people of this country have +always sympathized with the wrongs of Ireland, and her struggles for +independence. Yet there is now a greater difference between the people +of the South and of the North than between those of England and +Ireland, and greater antagonism of opinion and feeling. Nevertheless, +it is proposed to hold the South in political subjection to the North, +and for that purpose to employ naval and military force.</p> + +<p>Sir, I might mention many other cases: the subjection of Greece to +Turkey; of Poland to Russia; of the Netherlands to Spain; Italy to +Austria. In all these cases we have sympathized with, and, in many of +them aided, the secession from the common government, by contributions +and individual service. Yet those Governments were not founded on +consent, and there was no compact conceding the right of secession.</p> + +<p>Sir, in conclusion, whether the course the seceding States have seen +fit to take be right or not, is a question which we must leave to +posterity, and the verdict of impartial history. Our time will +probably be more profitably employed in considering how we shall deal +with secession than in discussing the causes which have produced it. +Secession, right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable, is an +accomplished fact; and it presents to us no less an alternative than +that of peace or war. Sir, I believe that, in the general ruin which +would follow coercive measures against the seceding states, all +sections, all classes, all the great<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_554" id="Page_554">554</a></span> interests of the country, +without any exception, would be involved. How much better, Mr. +President, that, in so fearful a crisis as the present, instead of +passing "force bills," and preparing for war, instead of "breathing +threatenings and slaughter," and preparing implements of destruction +to be used against our brethren of the South, how much better, I say, +for ourselves, for posterity, for the cause of civil liberty +throughout the world, that our thoughts should be turned on peace? +Peace, not war, has brought our country to the high degree of +prosperity it now enjoys. The energies of the people up to this time +have been directed to the development of our boundless resources, to +the mechanic arts, to agriculture, mining, trade, and commerce with +foreign nations. Banish peace, turn these mighty energies of the +people to the prosecution of the dreadful work of mutual destruction, +and soon cities in ruins, fields desolate, the deserted marts of +trade, the silent workshops, gaunt famine stalking through the land, +the earth cumbered with the bodies of the dying and the dead, will +bear awful testimony to the madness and wickedness which, from the +very summit of prosperity and happiness, are plunging us headlong into +an abyss of woe.</p> + +<p>Sir, in God's name, let us have peace! If we cannot have it in the +Union, as it existed prior to November last, let us have it by +cultivating friendly relations with those States which have dissolved +their connection with that Union, and established a separate +government. Though we and they may not, and, perhaps, in the nature of +things, cannot live harmoniously under the same Government, it is our +interest, no less than theirs, that we should at once endeavor to +establish between our Government and theirs those amicable relations +which should ever exist between two neighboring Republics. War, with +its attendant horrors, being thus happily averted, the people of each +Republic will be left at liberty to pursue, undisturbed, their several +vocations. A mutually advantageous commerce will grow up between the +two nations; treaties, such as regulate our intercourse with the +Canadas, will be formed; confidence in all branches of business will +be restored; a new impetus given to every variety of industry; the +march of improvement accelerated, and the cause of humanity, of +civilization, and of Christianity, advanced throughout the world. The +people of Europe, accustomed to refer the settlement of their +slightest differences to the bloody arbitrament of the sword, will +behold with silent wonder and amazement the spectacle of a great +people unable to agree in reference to one of their peculiar domestic +institutions, peacefully separating, as did the patriarchs of old; +resolving themselves into two distinct political communities, not +hostile, discordant, belligerent; but each, animated with a spirit of +gen<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_555" id="Page_555">555</a></span>erous rivalry toward the other, pursuing a more successful and +prosperous career in its own chosen path, than when, united under the +same Federal head, they painfully sought together the same common +destiny.</p> + +<p>Mr. President, we are living at a day and at a time when a Northern +sectional party have obtained possession of the power of this great +Government, who have declared in their platform, in their speeches +everywhere, and in their press, that slavery shall never go into +another foot of territory; that no other slave State shall ever be +admitted into this Union; that slavery shall be put in the course of +ultimate extinction. We have the announcement of the party that the +foot of a slave shall never press the soil of one of the Territories; +that no new slave State shall be admitted; and, in addition to that, +that no slave State shall go out of the Union. Who ever saw such a +party as that? Who ever knew any thing like it in the world before? +They will not let slavery go into the Territories; they will not let a +slave State come in; and they will not let one go out! They will not +let them go out because they could not carry out their programme of +placing slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. They want to +keep the slave States in for their benefit—to foot the bills, to pay +the taxes—that they may govern them as they see fit, and rule them +against their will. Well, sir, I wish to say one word to that party, +in all kindness; for I shall not trouble them again on this subject. I +shall be a private, independent citizen before long. But I will say to +that party, they had better change their tactics; they had better +change front, and do it speedily. Let them place themselves upon the +high ground of right and justice, and adopt such amendments to the +Constitution as will not only hold old Kentucky, which has produced +the greatest "compromiser" of us all—that good old State where I was +raised, and that I am proud of—but the other Southern States also. I +am afraid Republicanism will not do this. I know those old Kentucky +people from terrace to foundation. They will endure much—very +much—peaceably and quietly; but if they are goaded too far; if, by +repeated wrongs, they are compelled to fight, then I would say to +their enemy "beware!" There are chivalry and patriotism in Kentucky +which is neither in the power of accident nor nature to subdue. You +had better not press them too far. Do not drive them to the goal of +last resort. Give them justice while you have it in your power to do +so. Satisfy them that ultimately they shall have equality in this +broken Government, or Union, if you will. But, sir, I leave the +patching up of the Constitution to the distinguished Senator from +Kentucky and other gentlemen, especially my friend from Pennsylvania +[Mr. <span class="smcap">Bigler</span>], who has labored harder to patch up the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_556" id="Page_556">556</a></span> Constitution +than any man I ever knew, except my friend from Kentucky, and I wish +him God speed in the work. Let it be upon just principles; let it be +right; let us have justice; and I shall be content.</p> + +<p>Now, Mr. President, I have paid all the attention to the attempt that +was made to place me in the wrong that I deem necessary. I can only +now repeat, in the conclusion of my speech, that neither the Senator +from Tennessee, nor any other Senator, nor can any man, tell the truth +and say that I have, by any vote, word, or act of mine, at any time or +on any occasion, refused protection to all property alike in the +Territories. I have made it a point always. Indeed, the doctrine of +the equal right of property, whether slave or any other, in the +Territories, and its equal right to protection, is as strong in me as +life itself. I have never uttered a word against that principle; but I +have said, upon all occasions, that that doctrine must be maintained, +or this Union could not stand. I have fought for it; but as I said in +the outset, while I deeply deplore the condition of the country, it +has been caused by no act of mine. And with this remark, I part with +him, who, in imitation of Esau, seeks to sell his birthright. I would, +if there was time, give a little advice to all sides, to every Senator +on this floor. I would say: Senators come up to the great importance +of this question; meet it; adopt, by a two-thirds vote—as we could do +if Senators would deal rightly—amendments to the Constitution, +placing all the States upon an equality in the Territories, and on +every other question; submit them to the people; and by such +amendments I believe we could prevent, or stop, a further rupture of +this Union.</p> + +<p>In a reply to the speech of Senator <span class="smcap">Lane</span> of Oregon, the following +remarks on secession, coercion, the Territorial question, and the +Peace Conference propositions, are furnished by</p> + +<p>Senator JOHNSON, of Tennessee:—Mr. President, it is painful for me to +be compelled, at this late hour of the session, to occupy any of the +time of the Senate upon the subject that has just been discussed by +the Senator from <i>Oregon</i>. Had it not been for the extraordinary +speech he has made, and the singular course he has taken, I should +forbear from saying one word at this late hour of the day and of the +session. But, sir, it must be apparent, not only to the Senate but to +the whole country, that, either by accident or by design, there has +been an arrangement that any one who appeared in this Senate to +vindicate the Union of these States should be attacked. Why is it that +no one, in the Senate or out of it, who is in favor of the Union of +these States, has made an attack upon me? Why has it been left to +those who have<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_557" id="Page_557">557</a></span> taken both open and secret ground in violation of the +Constitution, for the disruption of the Government? Why has there been +a concerted attack upon me from the beginning of this discussion to +the present moment, not even confined to the ordinary courtesies of +debate and of senatorial decorum? It is a question which lifts itself +above personalities. I care not from what direction the Senator comes +who indulges in personalities toward me; in that, I feel that I am +above him, and that he is my inferior. [Applause in the galleries.] +Mr. President, they are not arguments; they are the resort of men +whose minds are low and coarse. Cowper has well said:</p> + +<p class="cpoem"> +"A truly sensible, well-bred man<br /> +Will not insult me; no other can."<br /> +</p> + +<p>Sir, have we reached a point at which we cannot talk about treason? +Our forefathers talked about it; they spoke of it in the Constitution +of the country; they have defined what treason was; is it an offence, +is it a crime, is it an insult to recite the Constitution that was +made by <span class="smcap">Washington</span> and his compatriots? What does the Constitution +say:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Treason against the United States shall consist only in +levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, +giving them aid and comfort."</p></div> + +<p>There it is defined clearly that treason shall consist only in levying +war against the United States, and adhering to and giving aid and +comfort to their enemies. Who is it that has been engaged in +conspiracies? Who is it that has been engaged in making war upon the +United States? Who is it that has fired upon our flag? Who is it that +has given instructions to take our arsenals, to take our forts, to +take our dock-yards, to take the public property? In the language of +the Constitution of the United States, have not those who have been +engaged in it been guilty of treason? We make a fair issue. Show me +who has been engaged in these conspiracies, who has fired upon our +flag, has given instructions to take our forts and our custom-houses, +our arsenals and our dock-yards, and I will show you a traitor. +[Applause in the galleries.]</p> + +<p>Mr. President, if individuals were pointed out to me who were engaged +in nightly conspiracies, in secret conclaves, and issuing orders +directing the capture of our forts and the taking of our +custom-houses, I would show who were the traitors; and that being +done, the persons pointed out coming within the purview and scope of +the provision of the Constitution which I have read, were I the +President of the United States, I would do as <span class="smcap">Thomas Jefferson</span> did, in +1806, with <span class="smcap">Aaron Burr</span>; I would have them arrested, and, if convicted, +within the meaning and scope of the Constitution, by the Eternal <span class="smcap">God</span> I +would<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_558" id="Page_558">558</a></span> execute them. Sir, treason must be punished. Its enormity and +the extent and depth of the offence must be made known. The time is +not distant, if this Government is preserved, its Constitution obeyed, +and its laws executed in every department, when something of this kind +must be done.</p> + +<p>The Senator from Oregon, in his remarks, said that a mind that it +required six weeks to stuff could not know much of any thing. He +intimated that I had been stuffed. I made my speech on the 19th of +December. The gentleman replied. I made another speech, and now he has +replied again; and how long has he been "stuffing"? How often has he +been "stuffed"? [Laughter.] He has been stuffed twice; and if the +stuffing operation was as severe and laborious as the delivery has +been, he has had a troublesome time of it, for his travail has been +great and the delivery remarkable. [Laughter.]</p> + +<p>We know how the Senator stands upon popular or squatter sovereignty. +On that subject he spoke at Concord, New Hampshire, where he +maintained that the inhabitants of the Territories were the best +judges; that they were the very people to settle all these questions; +but when he came here, at the last Congress, he could make a speech in +which he repeated, I cannot tell how many times, "the equality of the +States, the rights of the States in the Union, and their rights out of +the Union;" and he thus shifted his course. If the conflict between +his speech made in Concord in 1856, and his speech made here on the +25th day of May last, can be reconciled, according to all rules of +construction, it is fair to reconcile the conflict. If the discrepancy +is so great between his speech made then and his speech on the 25th of +May last, of course the discrepancy is against him; but I am willing +to let one speech set off the other, and to make honors easy, so far +as speech-making is concerned.</p> + +<p>Then, how does the matter stand? There is one speech one way, and +there is another speech the other way. Now, we will come to the +sticking point. You have seen the equivocation to-day. You have seen +the cuttle fish attempt to becloud the water and elude the grasp of +his pursuer. I intend to stick to you here to-day, as close and as +tight as what I think I have heard called somewhere "Jew David's +Adhesive Plaster." How does your vote stand as compared with your +speeches? Your speeches being easy, I shall throw in the scale against +you the weight of what you swore. How does that matter stand? I intend +to refer to the record. By referring to the record, it will be found +that Mr. <span class="smcap">Clingman</span> offered the following as an amendment to the fourth +resolution of the series introduced by Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span>:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_559" id="Page_559">559</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That the existing condition of the Territories +of the United States does not require the intervention of +Congress for the protection of property in slaves."</p></div> + +<p>What was the vote on the amendment proposed to that resolution by Mr. +<span class="smcap">Brown</span>, to strike out the word "not." I want the Senator's attention, +for I am going to stick to him, and if he can get away from me he has +got to obliterate the records of his country. How would it read, to +strike out the word "not."</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"That the existing condition of the Territories of the +United States does require the intervention of Congress for +the protection of property in slaves."</p></div> + +<p>Among those who voted against striking out the word "not," who +declared that protection of slavery in the Territories by legislation +of Congress was unnecessary, was the Senator from Oregon. When was +that? On the 25th day of May last. The Senator, under the oath of his +office, declared that legislation was not necessary. Now where do we +find him? Here is a proposition to amend the Constitution, to protect +the institution of slavery in the States, and here is the proposition +brought forward by the Peace Conference, and we find the Senator +standing against the one, and I believe he recorded his vote against +the other.</p> + +<p>But, let us travel along. We have only applied one side of this +plaster. The Senator voted that it was not necessary to legislate by +Congress for the protection of slave property. Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> then offered +the amendment to the resolution submitted by Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span>, to strike out +all after the word "resolved," and to insert in lieu thereof:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"That experience having already shown that the Constitution +and the common law, unaided by statutory enactment, do not +afford adequate and sufficient protection to slave +property—some of the Territories having failed, others +having refused, to pass such enactments—it has become the +duty of Congress to interpose, and pass such laws as will +afford to slave property in the Territories that protection +which is given to other kinds of property."</p></div> + +<p>We have heard a great deal said here to-day of "other kinds," and +every description of property. There is a naked, clear proposition. +Mr. <span class="smcap">Brown</span> says it is needed; that the court and the common law do not +give ample protection; and then the Senator from Oregon is called +upon; but what is his vote? We find, in the vote upon this amendment, +that but three Senators voted for it; and the Senator from Oregon +records his vote, and says "no," it shall not be established; and +every Southern man, save three, voted against it also. When was that? +On the 25th day of May last. Here is an amendment, now, to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_560" id="Page_560">560</a></span> protect +and secure the States against any encroachment upon the institution +within the States; and there the Senator from Oregon swore that no +further legislation was necessary to protect it in the Territories. +Well, his speeches in honors being easy, and he having sworn to it in +the last Congress, I am inclined to take his oath in preference to his +speeches, and one is a fair set-off against the other. Then, all the +amendments being voted down, the Senate came to the vote upon this +resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"That if experience should at any time prove that the +judicial and executive authority do not possess means to +insure adequate protection to constitutional rights in a +Territory, and if the territorial government should fail or +refuse to provide the necessary remedies for that purpose, +it will be the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency, +within the limits of its constitutional powers."</p></div> + +<p>Does not the resolution proceed upon the idea that it was not +necessary then; but if, hereafter, the Territories should refuse, and +the courts and the common law could not give ample protection, then it +would be the duty of Congress to do this thing? What has transpired +since the 25th day of May last? Is not the decision of the court with +us? Is there not the Constitution carrying it there? Why was not this +resolution, declaring protection necessary, passed during the last +Congress? The Presidential election was on hand.</p> + +<p>I have been held up and indirectly censured, because I have stood by +the people; because I have advocated those measures that are sometimes +called demagogical. I would to <span class="smcap">God</span> that we had a few more men here who +were for the people in fact, and who would legislate in conformity +with their will and wishes. If we had, the difficulties and dangers +that surround us now, would be postponed and set aside; they would not +be upon us. But in May last, we could not vote that it was necessary +to pass a slave code for the Territories. Oh, no; the Presidential +election was on hand. We were very willing then to try to get northern +votes; to secure their influence in the passage of resolutions; and to +crowd some men down, and let others up. It was all very well then; but +since the people have determined that somebody else should be +President of the United States, all at once the grape has got to be +very sour, and gentlemen do not have as good an opinion of the people +as they had before; we have changed our views about it. They have not +thought quite as well of us as we desired they should; and if I could +not get to be President or Vice-President of all these United States, +rather than miss it altogether, I would be perfectly willing to be +President of a part; and therefore we will divide—yes, we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_561" id="Page_561">561</a></span> will +divide. I am in favor of secession; of breaking up the Union; of +having the rights of the States out of the Union; and as I signally +failed in being President of all, as the people have decided against +me, we have reached that precise point of time at which the Government +ought to be broken up. It looks a little that way.</p> + +<p>I have no disposition now, in concluding what little I am going to +say, to mutilate the dead, or add one single additional pang to the +tortures of the already politically damned. I am a humane man; I will +not add one pang to the intolerable sufferings of the distinguished +Senator from Oregon. [Laughter.] I sought no controversy with him; I +have made no issue with him; it has been forced upon me. How many have +attacked me; and is there a single man, North or South, who is in +favor of this glorious Union, who has dared to make an assault on me? +Is there one? No; not one. But it is all from secession; it is all +from that usurpation where a reign of terror has been going on.</p> + +<p>I repeat, again, the Senator has made a set-to on me. I am satisfied +if he is. I am willing that his speech and mine shall go to the +country, and let an intelligent people read and understand, and see +who is right and who is wrong on this great issue.</p> + +<p>But, sir, I alluded to the fact that secession has been brought about +by usurpation. During the last forty days, six States of this +Confederacy have been taken out of the Union; how? By the voice of the +people? No; it is demagogism to talk of the people. By the voice of +the freemen of the country? No. By whom has it been done? Have the +people of South Carolina passed upon the ordinance adopted by their +Convention? No; but a system of usurpation was instituted, and a reign +of terror inaugurated. How was it in Georgia? Have the people there +passed upon the ordinance of secession? No. We know that there was a +powerful party there, of passive, conservative men, who have been +overslaughed, borne down; and tyranny and usurpation have triumphed. A +convention passed an ordinance to take the State out of the +Confederacy; and the very same convention appointed delegates to go to +a congress to make a constitution, without consulting the people. So +with Louisiana; so with Mississippi; so with all the six States which +have undertaken to form a new Confederacy. Have the people been +consulted? Not in a single instance. We are in the habit of saying +that man is capable of self-government; that he has the right, the +unquestioned right, to govern himself; but here, a government has been +assumed over him; it has been taken out of his hands, and at +Montgomery a set of usurpers are enthroned,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_562" id="Page_562">562</a></span> legislating, and making +constitutions and adopting them, without consulting the freemen of the +country. Do we not know it to be so? Have the people of Alabama, of +Georgia, of any of those States, passed upon it? No; but a +Constitution is adopted by those men, with a provision that it may be +changed by a vote of two-thirds. Four votes in a convention of six, +can change the whole organic law of a people constituting six States. +Is not this a <i>coup d'état</i> equal to any of Napoleon? Is it not a +usurpation of the people's rights? In some of those States, even our +Stars and our Stripes have been changed. One State has a palmetto, +another has a pelican, and the last that I can enumerate on this +occasion, is one State that has the rattlesnake run up as an emblem. +On a former occasion I spoke of the origin of secession; and I traced +its early history to the garden of Eden, when the serpent's wile and +the serpent's wickedness beguiled and betrayed our first mother. After +that occurred, and they knew light and knowledge, when their Lord and +Master turned to them, they seceded, and hid themselves from his +presence. The serpent's wile, and the serpent's wickedness, first +started secession; and now, secession brings about a return of the +serpent. Yes, sir; the wily serpent, the rattlesnake, has been +substituted as the emblem on the flag of one of the seceding States; +and that old flag, the Stars and the Stripes, under which our fathers +fought and bled and conquered, and achieved our rights and our +liberties, is pulled down and trailed in the dust, and the rattlesnake +substituted. Will the American people tolerate it? They will be +indulgent; time, I think, is wanted, but they will not submit to it.</p> + +<p>A word more in conclusion. Give the Border States that security which +they desire, and the time will come when the other States will come +back; when they will be brought back—how? Not by the coercion of the +Border States, but by the coercion of the people; and those leaders +who have taken them out will fall beneath the indignation and the +accumulating force of that public opinion which will ultimately crush +them. The gentlemen who have taken those States out are not the men to +bring them back.</p> + +<p>I have already suggested that the idea may have entered into some +minds, "if we cannot get to be President and Vice-President of the +whole United States, we may divide the Government, set up a new +establishment, have new offices, and monopolize them ourselves when we +take our States out." Here we see a President made, a Vice-President +made, cabinet officers appointed, and yet the great mass of the people +not consulted, nor their assent obtained in any manner whatever. The +people of the country ought to be aroused to this condition of +things;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_563" id="Page_563">563</a></span> they ought to buckle on their armor; and, as Tennessee has +done (<span class="smcap">God</span> bless her!), by the exercise of the elective franchise, by +going to the ballot-box under a new set of leaders, they will +repudiate and put down those men who have carried these States out and +usurped a Government over their heads. I trust in <span class="smcap">God</span> that the old +flag of the Union will never be struck. I hope it may long wave, and +that we may long hear the national air sung:</p> + +<p class="cpoem"> +"The star-spangled banner, long may it wave,<br /> +O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"<br /> +</p> + +<p>Long may we hear old Hail Columbia, that good old national air, played +on all our martial instruments! long may we hear, and never repudiate, +the old tune of Yankee Doodle! Long may wave that gallant old flag +which went through the Revolution, and which was borne by Tennessee +and Kentucky at the battle of New Orleans, upon that soil the right to +navigate the Mississippi near which they are now denied. Upon that +bloody field the Stars and Stripes waved in triumph; and, in the +language of another, the Goddess of Liberty hovered around when "the +rocket's red glare" went forth, indicating that the battle was raging, +and watched the issue; and the conflict grew fierce, and the issue was +doubtful; but when, at length, victory perched upon your Stars and +your Stripes, it was then, on the plains of New Orleans, that the +Goddess of Liberty made her loftiest flight, and proclaimed victory in +strains of exultation. Will Tennessee ever desert the grave of him who +bore it in triumph, or desert the flag that he waved with success? No; +we were in the Union before some of these States were spoken into +existence; and we intend to remain in, and insist upon—as we have the +confident belief we shall get—all our constitutional rights and +protection in the Union, and under the Constitution of the country. +[Applause in the galleries.]</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. <span class="smcap">Fitch</span> in the chair):—It will become the +unpleasant but imperative duty of the Chair to clear the galleries.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:—I have done.</p> + +<p>[The applause was renewed, and was louder and more general than +before. Hisses were succeeded by applause, and cheers were given and +reiterated, with "three cheers more for <span class="smcap">Johnson</span>."]</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—The Sergeant-at-Arms will immediately clear +the galleries, and the order will not be rescinded.</p> + +<p>The order having been executed by clearing the galleries and locking +the doors leading to them, the Presiding Officer announced that the +business of the Senate would be proceeded with.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_564" id="Page_564">564</a></span></p> + +<p>The Senate, having disposed of several bills, was about to take action +on a proposed amendment to the House resolutions, when the Peace +Conference amendments were adverted to as follows:</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—Now, I desire to say a word. There was a commission from +twenty or twenty-one States summoned here by the State of Virginia to +take into consideration the state of the country, and they have +proposed an elaborate amendment to the Constitution, which they ask +this body, in connection with the other House, to refer to the States. +That has been under consideration for two days; no vote has been taken +upon it; and the Senator from Illinois now proposes to postpone that +in order to give precedence to a resolution from the House of +Representatives proposing to amend the Constitution by prohibiting +Congress from interfering with slavery in the States. His motion is, +at this stage of the session, to put aside any further consideration +of this amendment to the Constitution proposed by that Peace +Conference, presented in the impressive manner in which it was done by +the honorable Senator from Kentucky, in order to give precedence to +this joint resolution of the House on this the last day of the +session. Sir, I shall vote against giving it that precedence. I think +it is due not only to those honorable gentlemen who came here and have +submitted to us the result of their labors that we should give it that +precedence, but I feel that it is due to the State of Virginia, who +invited the Conference, that no precedence should be given over it. +For that reason, I shall vote against it.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I am glad to find that the Senator from Virginia has +become such a warm advocate of the report of the Peace Conference. How +many hours is it since we heard him denounce it as unworthy the +consideration of Southern men or of this country? How long is it since +these denunciations were ringing in our ears? We do not hear the +praises of the Peace Conference sounded until we are about to get a +vote on another proposition to pacify the country; and for fear we may +have a vote that will quiet the apprehensions of the Southern States +in respect to the designs of the North to change the Constitution, so +as to interfere with slavery in the States, we find now that the Peace +Conference is to be pushed forward, to defeat this. Sir, if he is a +friend of the proposition of the Peace Conference, let him act with me +and sit as long as I will in urging it upon the Senate. I am for both; +but this one is within our reach. We can close this much in five +minutes. We should have had it passed before this time, if the Senator +from Virginia had not interposed objections. If the amendment to the +Constitution which furnishes guarantees to the border slave<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_565" id="Page_565">565</a></span> States +fail, it will be the result of the efforts of the Senator from +Virginia. My object is to take that up; we can dispose of it in a very +few minutes; and then, when we have secured thus much, we will proceed +immediately to take up the report of the Peace Conference; and I tell +the Senator from Virginia he will find me standing here adhering to it +as long as he will; and when the vote comes, I think I shall show that +I am as friendly to it as he; and that I have as much respect for and +appreciation of the services of the great men who reported it.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—The Senator from Illinois and I construe our duties in a +very different way. I have no parliamentary ends to obtain here by +dexterous motions to give preference. The Senator has never heard me +express the slightest approbation of these resolutions from the Peace +Conference. On the contrary, he has heard me point out, with whatever +ability I might, the objections that would compel me to vote against +them. I intend to vote against them; but I deem it due to the +character of these resolutions, and the way in which they were brought +before the Senate, that their precedence should not be taken from +them, and that we should have the first vote upon them. The Senator +from Illinois will not find me taking back one word that I have said +of objection to the resolutions that came from the Peace Conference; +but I protest against their precedence being taken from them—a matter +which has engaged the attention of the Senate for the last two hours +to effect it. Now that it is done, I shall vote against the motion to +give precedence. The resolutions of the Peace Conference should not be +thrust aside by this resolution of the House; but that is the motion +now before us, to thrust aside these resolutions in order to give +place to the resolution of the House, and I shall vote against it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I shall pursue, on this occasion, the course I have +pursued throughout. My object is to attain a great end, and, if +possible, to give entire satisfaction to the country, and restore it +to peace and quiet, or to go as far in that direction as it is in my +power to go. I shall vote to take up the resolution of the House, +because we can act upon it immediately. I am an advocate of the +resolutions from the Peace Conference. I have shown it; I have +expressed it, and my determination to vote for them, and so I will; +but I confess that I feel somewhat as the gentleman from Illinois +does—surprised at the great zeal with which gentlemen want to keep up +these propositions merely to strike a blow at others, claiming a +precedence for a thing they mean to trample and spit upon.</p> + +<p>Mr. MASON:—It has precedence, if the Senator will allow me, and he +took it from it.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_566" id="Page_566">566</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—And he wants to continue that precedence. Sir, the +way to manifest respect for their proposition is to vote for it. I do +not understand this sort of proceeding on the part of gentlemen who +desire to afford any means of pacification to the country. I am for +this resolution of the House of Representatives; and I hope the Senate +will vote to take it up. We can act upon it, and we can vote upon it, +and we know well that we cannot pass these propositions of the Peace +Conference. There are but two hours more of session in the other +House—from ten to twelve o'clock on Monday morning. I cannot indulge +in a hope, sanguine as I have been throughout, of the passage of those +resolutions; and, indeed, the opposition here, and the opposition on +this [the Democratic] side of the Chamber to those resolutions, are +confirmation strong as Holy Writ that they cannot pass. Do gentlemen +want to press them forward in order to prevent a vote on this +resolution of the House? I hope not. I hope the motion of the +gentleman from Illinois will prevail, and that we shall take up the +House resolution.</p> + +<p>Mr. BAYARD:—Mr. President, I have forborne to take any part in this +discussion about the merits of any of these propositions before the +Senate, nor do I intend to do so now. I shall reserve what I may have +to say to another occasion. I shall not occupy the time of the Senate +now. I shall vote against this motion, because, while I feel I do no +injustice to others, I must necessarily exercise my own opinions. I +consider the resolution passed by the House of Representatives as not +worth the paper on which it is written, for the purpose of adjusting +the difficulties in this country. I shall not detain the Senate by any +attempt to give the reasons. Sufficient for me to state the ground of +my objection, why I shall not vote to give preference to a resolution +which, as it stands, I think will lead to no attainable result as +regards peace or quiet in the country. As regards the other +propositions, for which it is sought to be substituted, I express no +opinion now, except to say, they are not exactly those that I should +have preferred; but that I would gladly and willingly vote to adopt +the distinct resolutions offered originally by the Senator from +Kentucky. As to attaining a vote and disposing of this House +resolution at once, of course, as I do not attach any importance to +the measure, if passed, for the purpose for which it is to be passed, +that would be a sufficient answer; but further, it will not stop +debate, and it cannot prevent amendments. Amendments may be made; one +substitute after another may be offered, and you can be led into +debate quite as much as on the other. I would rather see the other +proposition discussed; and on the whole, not thinking the partic<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_567" id="Page_567">567</a></span>ular +resolution of the House entitled to preference as being of any great +importance, I am not disposed to give it precedence.</p> + +<p>Mr. SEBASTIAN, in speaking on the House resolutions, said: "It is now +past four o'clock in the morning of the 4th of March, and it is +evident, from obvious causes, that it is utterly impossible that any +expression of preference for any other resolution than this can now +have any effect, or receive even the notice of the House of +Representatives."</p> + +<p>At different stages of the proceedings of the Senate, in proposing and +voting in relation to various amendments, the following among other +things said and done, occurred with reference to the Report of the +Peace Conference:</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas:—I beg leave to offer as an amendment, and I +presume it will be the last, the propositions submitted by the Peace +Conference. I offer them not with a belief that they will be accepted +or sustained at all. I should be glad to see even that step taken by +the party who are to have, and who, in point of fact, do have +possession of this Government. I offer them for the purpose of +obtaining a vote upon them. I offer them, stating frankly that I shall +not vote for them. I offer them with the conviction that there is +between the Representatives on the other side of the Chamber, and +those on the southern side, an irreconcilable difference; and it ought +to be proclaimed, and it ought to be made frank and unmistakable. I +offer it because it evolves truth. There is nothing left here to this +Senate, on this the last night of the session, but this: to declare to +the American people what is true, in order that they may know it, and +may prepare themselves to meet it; that they may prepare, if they can, +to reconcile it with peace, or to reconcile it to themselves; to stand +by all the sorrowful consequences that shall otherwise come. This is +the reason why I present this amendment. I believed when I voted for +them that the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky were fair, +were just to the people of the South, and to my own State among that +number; and it is but honest that I should say now in presenting this +amendment, that I consider these propositions a thousand fathoms +beneath the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky.</p> + +<p>It is in that condition that I offer this amendment. I hope Senators +will have the courage and the nerve, if they have faith in and regard +for their constituents, to whom they have taught their doctrines +heretofore, to adhere to them and to stick to them now; and while they +will vote against this amendment, I will stand by them also and vote +against it,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_568" id="Page_568">568</a></span> as one person who for fourteen years has represented his +State in one or the other branch of this Congress. In saying this, I +say it as the last act of my political life, and it is one upon which +I put my faith, and on which I would put the last hope I have on +earth. I know from the bottom of my soul that I am not averse to the +continuation and the preservation of the present Union of States, +which I have always considered sanctifies the continent of North +America to peace and to prosperity forever. I feel from the bottom of +my heart that whenever it shall be divided, it will be given up, from +petty causes, and from petty irritations and misapprehensions, to the +contingencies of war and the contingencies of blood and disaster, +which have followed the divisions and separations of every other +continent in the whole wide world.</p> + +<p>Then, Mr. President, I offer this amendment from the conviction that +common honesty of purpose, and the common frankness of men of nerve +and of honor, will give us one vote to show that there is among us an +irreconcilable difference, or that will give hope to those who, like +the Senator from Kentucky, it seems to me, can hope against hope, that +there is something to be done. I cannot believe that any thing is +gained by this resolution. I cannot conceive that the proposition of +the House gives security to my people. I will not stop to comment upon +it, and to show why it is that I cannot vote for it. I sincerely hope +that we may have a vote of the Senate upon the amendment I now offer; +and I call for the yeas and nays upon it.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:—I wish merely to repeat again, before the +yeas and nays are called on this amendment, that I shall vote against +this, as I have voted against all preceding amendments, with the +distinct understanding that I am not committed for or against any +proposition contained in those amendments. I hope we shall vote them +all down.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I will merely state that when we have disposed of this +resolution, I hope we shall take up the Peace Conference propositions +immediately, and get through with them.</p> + +<p>The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN (when his name was called):—I desire to say that, +although preferring this amendment, I shall vote against it, as I have +against all others, in order to pass it as it came to us from the +House.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas:—I should like to have made a further +explanation; but I will not do it. I vote "nay."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_569" id="Page_569">569</a></span></p> + +<p>The result was then announced—yeas 3, nays 34; as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Messrs. Foot, Nicholson, and Pugh—3.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bigler, Bingham, Bright, +Chandler, Clark, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, +Durkee, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Hunter, Johnson +of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, King, Latham, +Mason, Morrill, Polk, Rice, Sebastian, Sumner, Ten Eyck, +Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilkinson, and Wilson—34.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was rejected.</p> + +<p>Other amendments—of which some were approved and some rejected—were +offered to the joint resolutions, and, finally, the proposals of +amendments to the Constitution from the Conference Convention were +again brought forward in this manner:</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I intend to be perfectly consistent in my course on +this subject. I look upon the result of the deliberations of the Peace +Congress, as they call it here, as affording the best opportunity for +a general concurrence among the States and among the people. I +determined to take it in preference to my own proposition, and so +stated to many of the members of that Convention. I now propose the +propositions agreed to by them as a substitute for my own.</p> + +<p>I came here this morning, without the least expectation of any vote +being taken on this proposition of mine. It has never been in a +condition before where I was prepared to offer amendments to it. I had +amendments which I intended to propose, not intending to make material +changes, as I supposed, in substance and effect, but changing the +phraseology, particularly of the first article, in which I propose to +substitute an amendment, to declare merely that the <i>status</i> of +persons held to servitude or labor under the laws of any State shall +continue with the laws thus unchanged, as long as the Territory +remains under a territorial government; and when it forms a +constitution, to come into the Union as a State, to be received with +or without slavery. All my papers and the amendments which I prepared +are at my room, not here. That is the condition of the thing.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—The resolution stands now as several States have +instructed for it, and I hope we shall have a vote on it.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I now move to substitute the resolutions of the Peace +Convention. I have declared that I would do this; that I would abandon +my own resolutions, and take that proposed by the Peace Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—Then I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the +Senator from Kentucky.</p> + +<p>The PRESIDING OFFICER:—Does the Chair understand the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_570" id="Page_570">570</a></span> Senator from +Kentucky to offer as an amendment to the resolution now before the +Senate, the resolution of the Peace Conference?</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—Yes, sir.</p> + +<p>Mr. HUNTER:—That is an amendment, and on that I ask for the yeas and +nays.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRITTENDEN:—I wish to say a word in explanation; of course I +shall make no speech at this hour. I have examined the propositions +offered by that Convention; they contain, in my judgment, every +material provision that is contained in the resolution called the +<span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolution. The resolution that I offered contained nothing +substantial that has not been adopted by the Convention, except in one +particular, and that particular is this: they reject so much of the +resolution offered by me as embraced future acquired territory. They +said it was enough to settle in regard to the territory we now hold; +and they have substituted a provision which, I think, ought to be +perfectly satisfactory, as to acquisition of future territory. They +say none shall be acquired, unless it be by a two-thirds vote of the +Senate, which two-thirds vote shall include a majority of the Senators +from the slaveholding States, as well as a majority of the Senators +from the North. That gives ample security to the South; it gives ample +security to the North. No territory can be acquired without the +approbation of both sections of the Union, and having this in their +power, they can then make any previous arrangement in regard to +slavery that they please, before the acquisition of territory. That is +the way they dispose of future acquisitions. I prefer it to the +disposition made in the resolutions which I submitted to the Senate. I +therefore offer them, and for other reasons: out of deference to that +great body of men selected on the resolution of Virginia, and invited +by Virginia herself. The body having met, and being composed of such +men, and a majority of that Convention concurring in these +resolutions, I think they come to us with a sanction entitling them to +consideration; therefore I have moved them.</p> + +<p>Mr. GWIN:—I hope the substitute will not be adopted. The very reason +the Senator has given in favor of it, with reference to the +acquisition of future territory, I think should be the cause of its +being voted down. I am sure Senators from Northern States should not +vote for such an amendment as this; because the first acquisition, if +we get any at all, will be the very kind of acquisition that the +Northern States want. It is well known that if we had had the same +counsels in 1854 that we had in 1803, we should have acquired the +whole Russian<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_571" id="Page_571">571</a></span> Pacific territory to Behring Straits. If <span class="smcap">Thomas +Jefferson</span> had been President, we should have got the whole of the +Pacific possessions of Russia, as we got Louisiana from France, on the +same principle; and I believe the first acquisition of territory we +shall get will be the Russian possessions to Behring Straits. I hope +this amendment of the Constitution will not be voted for by those who +are in favor of acquiring territory, especially which will give us +such important advantages on the Pacific Ocean. I am utterly opposed +to restricting all acquisition hereafter; especially on the Pacific +coast of the United States, both north and south. I hope this +amendment will be voted down.</p> + +<p>Mr. DOUGLAS:—I was exceedingly anxious to get a separate and distinct +vote, first on the Peace Conference propositions, and then on the +<span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> proposition, as perfected by the Senator from Kentucky. I +have announced several times to-night, that that was my purpose; but +after what the Senator from Kentucky has said about his obligations to +the Peace Conference, to give priority to their proposition, I must +follow him, although I should be delighted if we could make +arrangements for separate votes. I prefer his perfected amendment to +the Peace Conference proposition; but still, I cannot separate from +him on this question, when he thinks he is bound to bring it forward.</p> + +<p>The Secretary proceeded to call the roll on the amendment.</p> + +<p>Mr. NICHOLSON (when his name was called):—I greatly prefer the +resolution of the Senator from Kentucky, because it is unequivocal, +unambiguous in its language, and embraces future as well as present +territory; but I am willing, if that cannot be got, to vote for the +other; and I do not concur in the criticisms that have been made on it +to the full extent, though there are features in it to which I very +much object. I shall, therefore, vote "nay" on this proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—As I have before announced, I have paired with the +Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. <span class="smcap">Cameron</span>]. If I were not paired, I +should vote "nay."</p> + +<p>Mr. GWIN:—He would vote with you, if he were here.</p> + +<p>Mr. POWELL:—I cannot tell; he is not here.</p> + +<p>The result was announced—yeas 7, nays 28, as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Messrs. Crittenden, Douglas, Harlan, Johnson of +Tennessee, Kennedy, Morrill, and Thomson—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bingham, Bright, Chandler, +Clark, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Gwin, Hunter, +Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, +Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilkinson, and +Wilson—28.</p></div> + +<p>So the amendment was rejected.</p> + + +<hr class="med" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_572" id="Page_572">572</a></span></p> + +<h3>No. IV.</h3> + +<p>[The action of both houses of Congress in relation to the Peace +Conference, and the propositions of amendments therein adopted, would +seem to form a portion of its history. I shall endeavor to furnish +their action so far as it can be separated from other matters +connected with the propositions presented. Immediately after the +adoption of the resolutions of Virginia, under which the Conference +was called, and on the 28th of January, 1861, the following +proceedings took place in the House of Representatives of the United +States.]</p> + +<table style="float: right" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="letter"> +<tr><td class="center"><span class="smcap">House of Representatives,</span></td><td rowspan="2"><span class="xxlg">}</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="right"><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, <span class="smcap">Monday</span>, <i>January 28th, 1861.</i></td></tr> +</table> + +<p><br /><br /><br />The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>, Hon. <span class="smcap">Wm. Pennington</span>, laid before the House a message from +the President of the United States, which was read by the Clerk, as +follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United +States:</i></p> + +<p>I deem it my duty to submit to Congress a series of +resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Virginia, on the +19th inst., having in view a peaceful settlement of the +exciting questions which now threaten the Union. They were +delivered to me on Thursday the 24th inst., by ex-President +<span class="smcap">Tyler</span>, who has left his dignified and honored retirement, in +the hope that he may render service to his country in this +its hour of peril. These resolutions, it will be perceived, +extend an invitation "to all such States, whether +slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite +with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present +unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution +was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, +so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding States +adequate guarantees for the security of their rights, to +appoint Commissioners to meet, on the 4th day of February +next, in the City of Washington, similar Commissioners +appointed by Virginia, to consider, and, if practicable, +agree upon some suitable adjustment."</p> + +<p>I confess I hail this movement, on the part of Virginia, with +great satisfaction. From the past history of this ancient and +renowned Commonwealth, we have the fullest assurance that +what she has undertaken she will accomplish, if it can be +done by able, enlightened, and persevering efforts. It is +highly gratifying to know that other patriotic<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_573" id="Page_573">573</a></span> States have +appointed, and are appointing Commissioners to meet those of +Virginia in council. When assembled, they will constitute a +body entitled, in an eminent degree, to the confidence of the +country.</p> + +<p>The General Assembly of Virginia have also resolved "that +ex-President <span class="smcap">John Tyler</span> is hereby appointed by the concurrent +vote of each branch of the General Assembly, a Commissioner +to the President of the United States; and Judge <span class="smcap">John +Robertson</span> is hereby appointed, by a like vote, a Commissioner +to the State of South Carolina, and the other States that +have seceded or shall secede, with instructions respectfully +to request the President of the United States and the +authorities of such States to agree to abstain, pending the +proceedings contemplated by the action of this General +Assembly, from any and all acts calculated to produce a +collision of arms between the States and the Government of +the United States."</p> + +<p>However strong may be my desire to enter into such an +agreement, I am convinced that I do not possess the power. +Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making power, can +exercise the discretion of agreeing to abstain "from any and +all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms" between +this and any other Government. It would, therefore, be a +usurpation for the Executive to attempt to restrain their +hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he has +no constitutional control. If he were thus to act, they might +pass laws which he should be bound to obey, though in +conflict with his agreement.</p> + +<p>Under existing circumstances, my present actual power is +confined within narrow limits. It is my duty at all times to +defend and protect the public property within the seceding +States so far as this may be practicable, and especially to +employ all constitutional means to protect the property of +the United States, and to preserve the public peace at this +the seat of the Federal Government. If the seceding States +abstain "from any and all acts calculated to produce a +collision of arms," then the danger so much to be deprecated +will no longer exist. Defence, and not aggression, has been +the policy of the administration from the beginning.</p> + +<p>But while I can enter into no engagement such as that +proposed, I cordially commend to Congress, with much +confidence that it will meet their approbation, to abstain +from passing any law calculated to produce a collision of +arms pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of +the General Assembly of Virginia. I am one of those who will +never despair of the Republic. I yet cherish the belief that +the American people will perpetuate the Union of the States +on some terms just and honorable for all sections of the +country. I trust that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_574" id="Page_574">574</a></span> the mediation of Virginia may be the +destined means, under Providence, of accomplishing this +inestimable benefit. Glorious as are the memories of her past +history, such an achievement, both in relation to her own +fame and the welfare of the whole country, would surpass them +all.</p> + +<p class="right">JAMES BUCHANAN.</p> +</div> + +<p>The "series of resolutions" referred to, and transmitted in President +<span class="smcap">Buchanan's</span> message to Congress, are in the body of this book on pages +<a href="#Page_9">9</a> and <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</p> + +<p>The following communication by the Governor of Virginia to the General +Assembly thereof, was also submitted with the President's Message:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>The Commonwealth of Virginia,</i><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 5em"><i>to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:</i></span></p> + +<p>Know you, that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of +Virginia, having, by joint resolution, adopted on the 19th +instant, and hereto attached, appointed ex-President <span class="smcap">John +Tyler</span> a Commissioner to the President of the United States to +carry out the instructions conveyed in said resolution: +therefore, I, <span class="smcap">John Letcher</span>, Governor, do hereby announce the +said appointment, and authenticate the same.</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" summary="seal"> +<tr><td class="center">[L.S.]</td><td>In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused +the great seal of the State to be affixed, in the City of +Richmond, this 20th day of January, Anno Domini 1861.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p class="right">JOHN LETCHER.</p> + +<p>By the Governor:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em"><span class="smcap">George W. Munford</span>,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em"><i>Secretary of the Commonwealth.</i></span> +</p> +</div> + +<p>Mr. STANTON:—I move that that message be printed, and referred to the +Standing Committee on Military Affairs.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:—I move as an amendment to that motion, that it be +referred to the special committee of five.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan:—I would suggest that whatever committee the +message is referred to, ought to have power to report it back at any +time; otherwise it will be locked up where the House cannot control +it.</p> + +<p>Mr. BURCH:—The gentleman from Virginia only yielded the floor for the +reading of the message, and is now entitled to the floor.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—It is proper that the message should be disposed of in +some way.</p> + +<p>Mr. STANTON:—If the House will allow me, I will move that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_575" id="Page_575">575</a></span> the +message be referred to the Standing Committee on Military Affairs, +with power to report on it at any time.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—That motion is not in order. A motion has been made to +refer the message to the Committee on Military Affairs, and the +gentleman from New York moves, as an amendment, that it be referred to +the special committee of five.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOCOCK:—If there is to be any debate on this motion, it should be +allowed to go over until my colleague (Mr. <span class="smcap">Pryor</span>) makes his speech.</p> + +<p>Mr. STANTON:—I move the previous question.</p> + +<p>Mr. CURTIS:—The question should first be taken on the motion to refer +to the Committee on Military Affairs.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—That statement is correct. The question is on referring +the message to the Military Committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOCOCK:—I am bound to interpose on behalf of my colleague, who +says he only yielded to have the message read.</p> + +<p>Mr. STANTON:—The previous question is demanded, and that will put an +end to the matter at once.</p> + +<p>Mr. MILLSON:—I think the question deserves some little consideration. +I therefore move to postpone the further consideration of the +President's message till to-morrow.</p> + +<p>Mr. STANTON:—Very well; let that course be taken.</p> + +<p>The motion was agreed to.</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p>After the report of the Peace Conference had been transmitted to the +House of Representatives, and while the joint resolutions were under +consideration, several ineffectual attempts were made to get the +labors of the Conference before the House. Here is one of the first:</p> + +<p>Mr. MAYNARD:—It is known, I suppose, to most members of the House, +informally and unofficially, that what is known as the Peace +Conference, to which the country has been looking for several days, +has concluded its labors and dissolved. [Cries of "Order!"] I desire +to make a proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. BINGHAM, and others objected.</p> + +<p>Mr. MAYNARD:—I have a right to make a proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:—I call the gentleman to order, and +insist upon the enforcement of the rules.</p> + +<p>Mr. MAYNARD [amid loud cries of "Order!"] moved to postpone the vote +upon the pending propositions until to-morrow after the morning hour.</p> + +<p>The motion was not agreed to.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_576" id="Page_576">576</a></span></p> + +<p>And again, the same day, February 27th, the following effort was made:</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—I wish to state that I understand there is on the +Speaker's table a communication from the president of the Peace +Conference. I ask the unanimous consent of the House that it be taken +up and read.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—I object.</p> + +<p>So action was further delayed.</p> + +<p><i>March 1st, 1861.</i>—When a communication from the Navy Department came +up for consideration in the House, the motion to postpone the special +order brought out the following action on the communication of the +Peace Conference:</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—There is a communication, which has been for some time +lying upon the Speaker's table, from the president of the Peace +Conference. The Chair thinks it is right that it should be taken up.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—I object.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I call for the regular order of business.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair has not thought proper to present it until the +propositions of the Committee of Thirty-three had been disposed of; +but he thinks it right that they should now be presented.</p> + +<p>Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania:—I object, on behalf of John Tyler, who +does not want them in. [Laughter.]</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—I move to suspend the rules.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I call for the regular order of business.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair thinks he ought to have the privilege of +presenting these papers.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I rise to a question of order. The territorial business is +the special order. I am entitled to the floor; and I submit that it +cannot be taken from me by any motion to suspend the rules.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair thinks the motion to suspend the rules is in +order.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—The Chair can hardly understand my question of order. It is +that the territorial business is the special order, made so by a +suspension of the rules. While that is pending, therefore, by the +uniform decision of the House, no motion can be entertained to suspend +the rules.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The territorial business was made the special order for +the two succeeding days after the propositions reported by the +Committee of Thirty-three had been disposed of.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOTELER:—I want to know if there is any business, or can<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_577" id="Page_577">577</a></span> be any +business, that should take precedence of these propositions of the +Peace Conference?</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—Yes, sir; there are ten thousand things that should take +precedence.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair decides that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. +<span class="smcap">McClernand</span>] has the floor, and is entitled to make the motion to +suspend the rules.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—Do I understand the Chair to decide that the business of +the Territories does not come up to-day?</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair is of opinion that, under a strict +construction of the rule, it would properly come up to-morrow.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I appeal from the decision of the Chair.</p> + +<p>Mr. HATTON: I move to lay that appeal on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. HICKMAN:—Upon that motion, I call for tellers.</p> + +<p>Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois:—Before the House divides upon the appeal, +I desire the Chair to state precisely what the point of order is that +we are to vote upon.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair decided that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. +<span class="smcap">McClernand</span>] had the floor, and was in order in moving to suspend the +rules for the purpose of receiving the communication the Chair desired +to lay before the House. From that decision an appeal was taken, and a +motion made to lay the appeal on the table. The question is now upon +the latter motion.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I rise to a question of order again. The Chair has not +stated my question of order correctly. My point of order was, that the +business of the Territories was set down as a special order +immediately after the disposal of the business of the Committee of +Thirty-three.</p> + +<p>Mr. HATTON:—I call the gentleman from Pennsylvania to order.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I have the right to state my point of order.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of +order.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—It is, that the Territorial business having been made the +special order, comes up now as the regular order of business.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair decides that the gentleman from Illinois +obtained the floor, and had the right to submit the motion to suspend +the rules.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—He had no right to take the floor from me for any such +purpose.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair overrules the question of order.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—And from that decision I take an appeal.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_578" id="Page_578">578</a></span></p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The appeal is already pending; and a motion has been +made to lay the appeal on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—I call for tellers on the motion.</p> + +<p>Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. <span class="smcap">Adrain</span> and <span class="smcap">Grow</span> were appointed.</p> + +<p>The House divided; and the tellers reported—forty-seven in the +affirmative.</p> + +<p>Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan:—I move that the House adjourn.</p> + +<p>Before the vote had been taken on the motion, the hour of five +arrived; and</p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span> declared the House had taken a recess until seven o'clock.</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>EVENING SESSION.</h4> + +<p>The House reassembled at seven o'clock <span class="smcap">p.m.</span></p> + +<h4>COMMUNICATION OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE.</h4> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—What is the regular order of business?</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair had decided that the gentleman from Illinois +[Mr. <span class="smcap">McClernand</span>] was entitled to the floor, to move that the rules be +suspended to receive a communication from the Peace Conference. From +that decision the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. <span class="smcap">Grow</span>] appealed; and +a motion was made to lay the appeal on the table.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—I think we can perhaps agree to an arrangement that +will be satisfactory to gentlemen upon both sides, by which any +difficulty upon the question of order can be avoided. If gentlemen +upon that side of the House will allow the propositions to be +presented, we are willing that they shall be referred, and the House +then proceed to the consideration of the territorial business.</p> + +<p>Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois:—I hope that will be done.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—I object to the reception of the proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. HICKMAN:—There are but few members present. I move that there be +a call of the House.</p> + +<p>The motion was disagreed to.</p> + +<p>Mr. HICKMAN:—I ask the Chair for his judgment whether there is a +quorum present or not.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—In the opinion of the Chair, a quorum is not present.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_579" id="Page_579">579</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—I inquire whether there is any objection to the +propositions of the Peace Conference being taken up and referred?</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—I certainly object in <i>toto cœlo</i> to any such +proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOTELER:—I desire to ask this question: can any member object to +the reception of a communication from the Peace Congress?</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—It is not a Peace Congress at all. There is no such body +known to this House.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOTELER:—I merely ask the question for information, for I do not +profess to be familiar with the rules; I desire to know whether the +objection of a single member can defeat the reception of such a +proposition, especially when that single member is known not to be a +conservative man, but a man opposed to all compromises?</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair will suggest that a great deal of time will be +saved by having a call of the House, as there is evidently no quorum +present.</p> + +<p>A call of the House was taken. A quorum having appeared, the House +proceeded to dispose of several special orders, when, on a motion of +postponement, it returned in this wise to the Peace Conference:</p> + +<p>Mr. LOGAN:—I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were not ordered.</p> + +<p>The special order was then postponed.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—I now move to suspend the rules of the House, for the +purpose of receiving the memorial of the Peace Congress, which +assembled lately in this city.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—To be received? What for?</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—For reference I suppose.</p> + +<p>Mr. BURNETT:—No; but to get it in, and put it upon its passage.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair understood the proposition to be, that the +rules should be suspended, in order that the paper should be received +for reference.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—I withdraw that part of the proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. SICKLES:—If it be received, it is then in the power of the House +to do with it what it pleases.</p> + +<p>Mr. GROW:—The understanding was that the motion should be made for +the suspension of the rules only to receive the proposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. SICKLES:—That is all right. When the paper gets in, the House can +do with it what it may deem fit.</p> + +<p>Mr. LOVEJOY:—I demand the yeas and nays.</p> + +<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_580" id="Page_580">580</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. SHERMAN:—Is it proposed to act on the memorial of the Peace +Congress?</p> + +<p>Mr. SICKLES:—If it comes before the House, it will be for us to say +what disposition shall be made of it. [Cries of "Call the roll!"]</p> + +<p>Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:—This motion is merely for the +suspension of the rules to receive the proposition, and this, +therefore, may be considered a test vote. [Cries of "Call the roll!"]</p> + +<p>The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 93, +nays 67; as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Messrs. Charles F. Adams, Green Adams, Adrain, +Aldrich, William C. Anderson, Avery, Barr, Barret, Bocock, +Boteler, Brabson, Branch, Briggs, Bristow, Brown, Burch, +Burnett, Campbell, Horace F. Clark, John B. Clark, John +Cochrane, Corwin, James Craig, John G. Davis, De Jarnette, +Dunn, Etheridge, Florence, Foster, Fouke, Garnett, Gilmer, +Hale, Hall, Hamilton, J. Morrison Harris, John T. Harris, +Haskin, Hatton, Hoard, Holman, William Howard, Hughes, +Jenkins, Junkin, William Kellogg, Killinger, Kunkel, +Larrabee, James M. Leach, Leake, Logan, Maclay, Mallory, +Charles D. Martin, Maynard, McClernand, McKenty, McKnight, +McPherson, Millson, Millward, Laban T. Moore, Moorehead, +Edward Joy Morris, Nelson, Niblack, Nixon, Olin, Pendleton, +Peyton, Phelps, Porter, Pryor, Quarles, John H. Reynolds, +Rice, Riggs, James C. Robinson, Sickles, Simms, William N.H. +Smith, Spaulding, Stevenson, William Stewart, Stokes, +Thomas, Vance, Webster, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, and +Wright—93.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Messrs. Alley, Ashley, Bingham, Blair, Brayton, +Buffinton, Burlingame, Burnham, Carey, Case, Coburn, Colfax, +Conway, Burton Craige, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Edgerton, +Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Ferry, Frank, Gooch, Graham, Grow, +Gurley, Helmick, Hickman, Hindman, William A. Howard, +Hutchins, Irvine, Francis W. Kellogg, Kenyon, Loomis, +Lovejoy, McKean, Morrill, Morse, Palmer, Perry, Potter, +Pottle, Christopher Robinson, Royce, Ruffin, Sedgwick, +Sherman, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, Tappan, Tompkins, +Train, Vandever, Van Wyck, Wade, Waldron, Walton, Cadwalader +C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Wells, Wilson, Windom, and +Woodruff—67.</p></div> + +<p>So (two thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not +suspended.</p> + +<p>During the vote,</p> + +<p>Mr. WOODSON said:—I rise for information. What are we voting on? +[Cries of "Order!"] I cannot for my life imagine how this can be +regarded as a test vote. I will vote to receive the proposition of the +Peace Conference; but on its passage I will vote against it.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The motion is, to suspend the rules for the reception of +the memorial.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_581" id="Page_581">581</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:—I understood the gentleman from +Illinois to state that this was a test vote.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair cannot undertake to decide whether it is a +test vote or not.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">John Cochrane</span> stated that his colleagues, Mr. <span class="smcap">Clark B. Cochrane</span> +and Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, were paired.</p> + +<p>Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:—I would have no objection, Mr. +Speaker, to permit this resolution to come before the House, but I +understood the gentleman from Illinois to proclaim that this was a +test vote. Utterly opposed to any such wishy-washy settlement of our +national difficulties, I vote "no."</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Curtis</span> stated that he was paired with Mr. <span class="smcap">Anderson</span>, of Missouri.</p> + +<p>Mr. FOSTER:—While I am willing to vote for the reception of the +memorial of the Peace Congress, of which I was a member, still I am +unwilling to be considered as favoring their proposition. Is this vote +a test vote on that proposition?</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair does not think that it is; but each gentleman +will decide for himself.</p> + +<p>Mr. HALE:—I am willing to receive this memorial in courtesy to the +Peace Conference; and not regarding this as a test vote, I vote "ay."</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Leach</span>, of Michigan, stated that he had paired with Mr. <span class="smcap">English</span>, or +he would have voted in the negative.</p> + +<p>Mr. LEAKE (when his name was called) said that he regarded this +<i>thing</i> as a miserable abortion, forcibly reminding one of the old +fable of the mountain and the mouse; nevertheless, he was willing to +let the mouse in, in order to have the pleasure of killing it.</p> + +<p>Mr. RUFFIN:—As it is announced that this is a test vote, I am +compelled to vote "no." Otherwise, I would have been willing to let +the matter be brought before the House for its consideration.</p> + +<p>Mr. JENKINS:—Who can make this a test vote? Certainly no man in this +House. This is a vote to receive the memorial, and nothing more.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wilson</span> stated that Mr. <span class="smcap">Vallandigham</span> was paired with Mr. <span class="smcap">Beale</span>.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Junkin</span> stated that his colleague, Mr. <span class="smcap">Montgomery</span>, was detained at +home by illness.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Nixon</span> stated that his colleague, Mr. <span class="smcap">Stratton</span>, was detained at his +room by illness, and that if he were present, he would vote to receive +the memorial of the Peace Conference.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_582" id="Page_582">582</a></span></p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ely</span> stated that his colleague, Mr. <span class="smcap">Lee</span>, was detained at his room +by indisposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Pendleton</span> stated that his colleague was detained at his room by +indisposition.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Campbell</span> stated that his colleague, Mr. <span class="smcap">Scranton</span>, was absent from +the Hall because of illness.</p> + +<p>Mr. POTTER:—As this is a test vote, I vote "no."</p> + +<p>Mr. BRAYTON:—I understand this to be a test vote, and therefore vote +"no."</p> + +<p>Mr. HOARD:—These papers are not before us. They are not printed, and +we cannot be supposed to know any thing of them; and I would ask, +therefore, how they can be regarded as a test vote? I vote "ay."</p> + +<p>Mr. BOCOCK:—Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the Peace Conference, +called as it was by my State, I vote to receive this report. But +unless the report, as it appears in the papers, can be amended, it +cannot receive my approval.</p> + +<p>Mr. SHERMAN:—I vote against this, simply because we have no time to +consider it.</p> + +<p>Mr. HINDMAN:—I vote against suspending the rules, because I desire to +defeat the proposition of the Peace Conference, believing it to be +unworthy of the vote of any Southern man.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Cox</span> (not being within the bar when his name was called) asked +leave to vote.</p> + +<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Washburne</span>, of Illinois, objected.</p> + +<p>Mr. GARNETT:—Mr. Speaker, intending and desiring to express my +abhorrence of these insidious propositions, conceived in fraud and +born of cowardice, by giving a direct vote against them, yet from +respect for the conference which reported them, I am willing to +receive them, and therefore now vote "ay."</p> + +<p>Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia:—I vote "ay," because I am in favor of the +resolutions as a peace measure.</p> + +<p>Mr. MAYNARD:—Believing these propositions eminently wise and just, I +will let my vote stand in the affirmative.</p> + +<p>Mr. BURNETT:—I hope the Chair will enforce the rules.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—I am trying to, all I can; and I hope gentlemen will +keep their seats and preserve order.</p> + +<p>Mr. DE JARNETTE:—I vote "ay," with the hope of having an opportunity +to vote against the propositions of the Peace Conference.</p> + +<p>Mr. BOTELER:—I vote "ay," to introduce these propositions,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_583" id="Page_583">583</a></span> because I +believe it to be my duty to do every thing, consistent with honor, to +preserve the peace and save the Union of my country.</p> + +<p>Mr. COX:—I desire to ask a question of the Chair.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair will hear you.</p> + +<p>Mr. COX:—I desire to know whether or not it will be in order to move +to suspend the rules to enable me to have my vote recorded?</p> + +<p>Mr. SPEAKER:—No, sir.</p> + +<p>Mr. COX:—I would like very much to have it recorded in favor of these +peace propositions. I vote "ay," if there is no objection.</p> + +<p>Mr. HINDMAN:—Consent is not given to the gentleman from Ohio to have +his vote recorded.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—It is not received.</p> + +<p>Mr. ROBINSON, of Rhode Island:—Believing that this is a test vote, I +change my vote, and vote "no."</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:—I wish to know whether the vote of my colleague, +<span class="smcap">Clark B. Cochrane</span>, is recorded.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—It is not.</p> + +<p>Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:—I think he has retired from the House on account +of sickness in his family; and I believe he is laboring for the Union +in other quarters.</p> + +<p>Mr. MILLSON:—I desire to vote.</p> + +<p>Objection was made.</p> + +<p>Mr. MILLSON:—I am entitled to vote, having been absent upon a +committee of conference. I vote "ay."</p> + +<p>Mr. HINDMAN:—Is the gentleman entitled to vote under the rules of the +House?</p> + +<p>Mr. BARR:—Objection comes too late.</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—It has been usual to allow gentlemen to vote under such +circumstances.</p> + +<p>Mr. HICKMAN:—Do the rules allow him to vote?</p> + +<p>The SPEAKER:—The Chair supposes that is the rule of the House.</p> + +<p>Mr. HINDMAN:—I ask to have the rule read.</p> + +<p>Mr. MILLSON:—No rule of the House could take away the right of a +member to vote when he is absent by order of the House. If the rules +deprived a member of the right to vote under such circumstances, it +would be void.</p> + +<p>The result was announced as above recorded.</p> + +<p>Mr. McCLERNAND:—This vote divides the Republican party, and sounds +its death knell.</p> + + +<hr class="med" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_584" id="Page_584">584</a></span></p> + +<h3>No. V.</h3> + +<h4>REPORTS OF DELEGATES TO STATES.</h4> + +<p class="center"><i>Report of the Peace Commissioners to the Legislature of Virginia.</i></p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>To His Excellency</i> <span class="smcap">John Letcher</span>, <i>Governor of Virginia:</i></p> + +<p>The undersigned Commissioners, in pursuance of the wishes of +the General Assembly, expressed in the resolutions of the +19th day of January last, repaired in due season to the City +of Washington. They there found, on the 4th day of February, +the day suggested in the overture of Virginia for a +Conference with the other States, Commissioners to meet them +from the following States, viz.: Rhode Island, New Jersey, +Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, +Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and +Kentucky. Subsequently, during the continuance of the +Conference, at different periods, appeared likewise +Commissioners from Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, New +York, Maine, Iowa, and Kansas. So that before the close +twenty-one States were represented by Commissioners, +appointed either by the Legislatures or Governors of the +respective States.</p> + +<p>The undersigned communicated the resolutions of the General +Assembly to this Conference, and, both before its committee +appointed to recommend a plan of adjustment, and the +Conference itself, urged the propositions known as the +<span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> resolutions, with the modification suggested by +the General Assembly of Virginia, as the basis of an +acceptable adjustment.</p> + +<p>They were not adopted by the Conference, but in lieu thereof, +after much discussion, and the consideration of many proposed +amendments, the article with seven sections, intended as an +amendment to the Constitution, was adopted by sections (not +under the rules, being voted on as a whole), and by a vote of +the Conference (not taken by States), was directed to be +submitted to Congress, with the request that it should be +recommended to the States for ratification, which was +accordingly done by the President of the Conference.</p> + +<p>The undersigned regret that the Journal showing the +proceedings and votes in the Conference has not yet been +published or furnished them, and that consequently they are +not able to present it with this report. As soon as received +it will be communicated to your Excellency.</p> + +<p>In the absence of that record it is deemed appropriate to +state that on the final adoption of the first section, two of +the States, Indiana and Missouri, did not vote, and New York +was divided, and that the votes by States was,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_585" id="Page_585">585</a></span> ayes 9, nays +8—Virginia, by a majority of her Commissioners, voting in +the negative.</p> + +<p>The other sections were adopted by ranging majorities (not +precisely recollected), and on the fifth and seventh sections +the vote of Virginia was in the negative. The plan, when +submitted to Congress, failed to receive its recommendation, +and as that body, having adjourned, can take no further +cognizance of it, the undersigned feel the contingency has +arrived on which they are required to report, as they herein +do, the result of their action. +</p> + +<p class="center">Respectfully,</p> + +<p class="right">JOHN TYLER,<br /> +G.W. SUMMERS,<br /> +W.C. RIVES,<br /> +JAS. A. SEDDON.<br /> +</p> +</div> + +<p>The above report having been read and ordered to be printed, Mr. +<span class="smcap">Summers</span> stated that the reason it was not signed by Judge +<span class="smcap">Brockenbrough</span>, the other Virginia Commissioner, was because that +gentleman was not in Richmond. Mr. <span class="smcap">Summers</span> presented a communication +in which Judge <span class="smcap">Brockenbrough</span> stated his views at length on the +propositions adopted by the Convention, and it was printed, by vote of +the Legislature, in connection with the report.</p> + +<p>After reviewing the different sections of the propositions adopted by +the Peace Conference, Judge <span class="smcap">Brockenbrough</span>, in his letter, states that +the said propositions, <i>as an entirety</i>, would have received his vote, +and therefore the vote of Virginia, in the Peace Conference, if it had +been submitted to a vote in that form.</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4><i>Reports of the New York Commissioners to the Legislature of that +State.</i><br /> +<br /> +MAJORITY REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE PEACE CONVENTION.</h4> + +<p class="right"><i>March 23d, 1861.</i></p> + +<p><i>To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New York:</i></p> + +<p>The Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Legislature of the +State of New York to meet Commissioners from other States in the City +of Washington on the fourth day of February, 1861, upon the call of +the State of Virginia, by resolutions passed by the General Assembly +of that State on the nineteenth day of January, 1861.</p> + +<p>A copy of the Journal of the Convention is submitted herewith, from +which it will be seen that prior to the presence of the Commissioners +from New York, that body had been completely organized, rules of order +adopted which excluded all persons other than members from witnessing +its deliberations, forbidding any publication or other communication +of its proceedings,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_586" id="Page_586">586</a></span> and the taking of any entry from its Journal +without leave; in short, requiring all its debates and acts to be kept +secret. A committee had also been organized of one from each State to +be appointed by the Commissioners from such State, to which the +Virginia resolutions were referred, "with all other propositions for +the adjustment of existing differences between the States, with +authority to report what they might deem right, proper, and necessary +to restore harmony and preserve the Union;" and this committee had +been in session two days before your Commissioners were enabled to +appoint any one of their number upon it. This was done on the eighth +of February by the appointment of Mr. Field.</p> + +<p>William E. Dodge, one of your Commissioners, took his seat in the +Convention on the seventh day of February, 1861, and Messrs. Field, +Noyes, Wadsworth, Corning, King, and Wool, on the eighth of February, +Mr. Smith on the eleventh, and Judges James and Bronson on the twelfth +day of February, and Mr. Granger, who was appointed in the place of +Judge Gardiner, who declined, on the eighteenth day of February, 1861.</p> + +<p>It was deemed advisable by your Commissioners that the proceedings of +the Convention should be open to the public and the press, and hence +they advised and concurred in resolutions introduced for that purpose, +which were laid on the table on the motion of a Commissioner from the +State of New Jersey. On a subsequent day they also concurred in a +resolution authorizing the employment of a stenographer, to "preserve +accurate notes of the debates and other proceedings of 'the +Convention,' which notes should not be communicated to any person, nor +shall copies thereof be taken, nor shall the same be made public until +after the final adjournment of this Convention, except in pursuance of +a vote authorizing their publication;" but this was refused, and the +resolution laid on the table on motion of a Commissioner from the +State of Pennsylvania, by a vote of eleven to eight, all the Slave +States represented voting against it, with the addition of the States +of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Before the +Convention closed its session, the following states, twenty-one in +all, were represented in the Convention: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, +Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Rhode +Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, +Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Kansas. With the +concurrence of a majority of your Commissioners, Mr. Field offered in +the committee of one from each State, on the fourteenth of February, +the following proposition:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Each State has the sole and exclusive right, according to +its own judgment, to order and direct its domestic +institutions, and to determine for itself what shall be the +relation to each other of all persons residing or being +within its limits;"</p></div> + +<p>but it was rejected by a majority of the committee, and formed no part +of its report.</p> + +<p>That committee made its report on the fourteenth of February, +unaccompanied by any written observations, in the shape of an +amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in the following +words:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_587" id="Page_587">587</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 1. In all the territory of the United States not +embraced within the limits of the Cherokee Treaty Grant, +north of a line from east to west on the parallel of 36° 30´ +north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment +of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall be under a +Territorial Government; and in all the territory south of +said line, the status of persons owing service or labor, as +it now exists, shall not be changed by law while such +territory shall be under a Territorial Government; and +neither Congress nor the Territorial Government shall have +power to hinder or prevent the taking to said territory of +persons held to labor or involuntary service, within the +United States, according to the laws or usages of the State +from which such persons may be taken, nor to impair the +rights arising out of said relations, which shall be subject +to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts according to +the common law; and when any Territory north or south of +said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, +shall contain a population required for a member of +Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of +representation, it shall, if its form of government be +republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing +with the original States, with or without involuntary +service or labor, as the constitution of such new State may +provide.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United +States, unless by treaty, nor except for naval and +commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be +ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof +shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, +abolish, or control, within any State or Territory of the +United States, the relation established or recognized by the +laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or involuntary +service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish +involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the +consent of Maryland, and without the consent of the owners, +or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; +nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives +and others from bringing with them to the City of +Washington, retaining, and taking away persons so bound to +labor; nor the power to interfere with, or abolish +involuntary service in places under the exclusive +jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and +Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor +the power to prohibit the removal or transportation by land, +sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary +service in any State or Territory of the United States to +any other State or Territory thereof where it is established +or recognized by law or usage; and the right during +transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings, +and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, nor shall +Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation +on persons bound to labor than on land.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the +fourth article of the Constitution, shall not be construed +to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, +and through the action of their judicial and ministerial +officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from +labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 5. The foreign slave-trade and the importation of +slaves into the United States and their Territories from +places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever +prohibited.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 6. The first, third, and fifth articles, together with +this article of these amendments, and the third paragraph of +the second section of the first article of the Constitution, +and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth +article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without +the consent of all the States.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States +shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from +labor, in all cases where the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_588" id="Page_588">588</a></span> marshal or other officers, +whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented +from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs and +riotous assemblies, or when after such arrest such fugitive +was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and +obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of +such fugitive.</p></div> + +<p>Mr. Field, the member of the committee from New York, dissented from +this report, as also did Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, and Mr. +Crowninshield, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Seddon, of Virginia.</p> + +<p>This report was under discussion, and various amendments were proposed +to it until the twenty-seventh day of February, a majority of your +Commissioners steadily opposing all its provisions except that +prohibiting the foreign slave-trade, and most of such majority being +opposed to the submission, by the Convention, of any amendment of the +Constitution of the United States at the present time, and in the +present excited state of the public mind. During the consideration of +the report various independent propositions were made by the consent, +and with the concurrence of your Commissioners; among which was one by +Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, presented on the fifteenth of February, +in the form of a minority report from the committee upon the plan of +adjustment, which concluded with a resolution, "That the Convention +recommend to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her +application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments +to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the +Legislatures of the several States or to Conventions therein, for +ratification, as the one or other mode of ratification may be proposed +by Congress;" and this proposition, after being discussed at length, +was lost on the twenty-sixth of February, by a vote of thirteen States +against to nine in its favor, a majority of your Commissioners casting +the vote of New York in favor of it.</p> + +<p>A proposition somewhat similar, embracing an address to the people of +the United States, and containing a resolution for calling the +Convention, was also submitted to the Convention, with the like +concurrence of a majority of your Commissioners, by Mr. Tuck of New +Hampshire, on the eighteenth of February, and on the twenty-sixth was +also defeated by a vote of eleven States against nine.</p> + +<p>It will be seen, therefore, that your Commissioners, with those from +several other States, offered to unite in a call for a Convention, to +be convened in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States; and +that the slave States uniting with several of the free States, +uniformly opposed, and at last defeated it.</p> + +<p>On the twenty-third of February Mr. Vandever, of Iowa, offered the +following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That whatever may be the ultimate determination +upon the amendment to the Federal Constitution, or other +propositions for the adjustment approved by this Convention, +we, the members, recommend our respective States and +constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union."</p></div> + +<p>A motion to lay it upon the table prevailed by a vote of eleven to +nine, a majority of your Commissioners voting in the negative.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_589" id="Page_589">589</a></span></p> + +<p>On the twentieth of February, Mr. Field, one of your Commissioners, at +the instance of a majority of them, offered, as an amendment to the +Constitution to be adopted by the Convention, and proposed with any +other amendments, that it should recommend the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The Union of the States, under this Constitution, is +indissoluble; and no State can secede from the Union, or +nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from +their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution +and laws of the United States."</p></div> + +<p>On the twenty-sixth of February, after several ineffectual attempts to +get rid of the proposition, on points of order, it was negatived by a +vote of eleven States against ten, a majority of your Commissioners +casting the vote of New York in its favor.</p> + +<p>Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, moved the following as an amendment to +the seventh article, on the twenty-first of February.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"And Congress shall further provide by law, that the United +States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any +State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of +violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblies in +his person or property, or in the deprivation by violence of +his rights secured by this Constitution."</p></div> + +<p>A motion was made to insert the word "white" before "citizen," but it +failed by a vote of eleven to ten; and on the twenty-fifth of February +the entire amendment was defeated by a vote of eleven to eight; your +Commissioners, by a majority, casting the vote of New York in its +favor.</p> + +<p>Several other propositions upon other subjects were also submitted to +the Convention, as will appear by the Journal; but it is not deemed +necessary to refer to them more particularly, except, that on the +eighteenth of February, Mr. Reid, of North Carolina, proposed to amend +the first section of the committee's report by inserting after the +word "line" in the seventh line thereof, the words "involuntary +servitude is recognized; and property in those of the African race +held to service or labor, in any of the States of the Union, when +removed to such territory, shall be protected," and which was lost by +a vote of seventeen States against to three for it. On the +twenty-sixth of February, he also moved to insert in the same section, +after the words "common law," the words, "and such rights shall be +protected by all departments of the Territorial Government during its +continuance," which the President ruled out of order, as the section +had been previously gone through in detail, and was only before the +Convention on its final passage.</p> + +<p>The Report of the Committee on a plan of adjustment, already +mentioned, came up for consideration on its final passage, after many +amendments had been made to it, as will appear by the Journal, on the +twenty-sixth of February, in the following form, and was ultimately +thus adopted, by the votes stated at the end of each section:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p class="center"><span class="smcap"><b>Article XIII.</b></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> I. In all the present territory of the United States +north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, +involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is +prohibited. In all the present territory south of that +line,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_590" id="Page_590">590</a></span> the <i>status</i> of persons held to involuntary service +or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall +any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature +to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of +the States of this Union to said Territory, nor to impair +the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be +subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts +according to the course of the common law.</p> + +<p>When any Territory north or south of said line, within such +boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a +population equal to that required for a member of Congress, +it shall, if its form of government be republican, be +admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the +original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as +the constitution of such State may provide.</p> +</div> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, +Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North +Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia—8.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Divided.</span>—New York and Kansas—2.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Not Voting.</span>—Indiana.</p> +</div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> II. No territory shall be acquired by the United States +except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, +depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a +majority of all the Senators from States which allow +involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators +from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall +territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a +majority of the Senators from each class of States +hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds +majority necessary for the ratification of such treaty.</p> +</div> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Vermont—8.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Divided.</span>—New York and Kansas—2.</p></div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> III. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof +shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, +abolish, or control, within any State, the relation +established or recognized by the laws thereof touching +persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to +interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the +District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, nor +without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who +do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere +with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing +with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking +away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to +interfere with, or abolish involuntary service in places +under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, +within those States and Territories where the same is +established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the +removal or transportation of persons held to labor or +involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United +States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is +established or recognized by law or usage, and the right +during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at +ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of +distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in, or +through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic +against the laws thereof; nor shall Congress have power to +authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to +labor or service than on land. The bringing into the +District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service for +sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred +to other places as merchandise, is prohibited.</p> +</div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_591" id="Page_591">591</a></span></p> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, North Caroline, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, and Virginia—12.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New +Hampshire, and Vermont—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Divided.</span>—New York and Kansas—2.</p> +</div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> IV. The third paragraph of the second section of the +fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to +prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and +through the action of their judicial and ministerial +officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from +labor to the person to whom such labor or service is due.</p> +</div> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, +Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and +Virginia—15.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire—4.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Divided.</span>—New York and Kansas—2.</p> +</div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> V. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever +prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass +laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or +persons held to service or labor, into the United States and +the Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof.</p> +</div> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, +Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, +Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and +Kansas—16.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and +Virginia—5.</p> +</div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> VI. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with +this section of these amendments, and the third paragraph of +the second section of the first article of the Constitution, +and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth +article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without +the consent of all the States.</p> +</div> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New +Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—11.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, +North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia—9.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Divided.</span>—New York.</p> +</div> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> VII. Congress shall provide by law, that the United +States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive +from labor in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, +whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented +from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or +riotous assemblies, or when after arrest such fugitive was +rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner +thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such +payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such +fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to +citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of +citizens in the several States.</p> +</div> + +<div class="dblblock"> +<p><span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New +Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, +Tennessee, and Virginia—12.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Missouri, +and Vermont—7.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Divided.</span>—New York.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Not Voting.</span>—Massachusetts.</p> +</div> + +<p>When the question was first taken on the first section, it was lost by +a vote of eleven States against it to eight in its favor, a majority +of your Commissioners casting the vote of New York against it. A +motion was immediately made to reconsider, which was advocated by Mr. +Granger, one of the Commissioners from New York, and was carried by a +vote of fourteen States<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_592" id="Page_592">592</a></span> for, to five against it—a majority of the +Commissioners from New York again casting its vote in the negative, +and the Convention adjourned. On the next day it again came up on its +final passage, and was then carried by a vote of nine States for, to +eight against it—the vote of New York not being given. Why it was not +given is left by the Commissioners to be stated by Mr. Field, on his +own responsibility. (<i>See note</i>, <a href="#Page_596">p. 596</a>.)</p> + +<p>The vote of New York was not given upon any of the sections except the +fifth, for the reason already stated; but upon that section we all +voted Aye, as all her Commissioners then present were in its favor.</p> + +<p>After the several votes had been taken, it was objected that the whole +article should be put to a vote upon the question of its final +adoption before it could be regarded as properly passed, but the +President of the Convention decided that this was not necessary, and +no such vote was taken. At the close of the discussion on this subject +your Commissioners were prepared to cast the vote against the entire +article, if any question had been taken upon it as a whole, as a +majority of your Commissioners think it should have been.</p> + +<p>Soon after the adoption of these proposed amendments to the +Constitution, and after voting down and laying on the table various +propositions made by a minority in the interest of freedom and the +free States, the Convention adjourned—having adopted an address to +Congress requesting that body to submit the amendment, to Conventions +of the several States, for ratification, according to the Constitution +of the United States; and they were accordingly communicated to +Congress on the same day. In the Senate, they were referred to a +committee, and were recommended for adoption by a majority of that +committee; but Messrs. Seward and Trumbull, a minority of the +committee, reported against the amendments, and in favor of a National +Convention; thus following out and approving the proposition which had +been made in the Convention by your Commissioners, and the entire +minority of that party, nearly three weeks before, and for which the +majority which controlled it, if it had chosen to do so, could at any +time have obtained an unanimous vote. The amendment of the Convention, +however, failed to secure the approval of either branch of Congress.</p> + +<p>The labors of your Commissioners having thus terminated, it is due to +those whom they represented, and to themselves, that the majority +should state briefly the reasons why the proposed amendments to the +Constitution did not meet their approbation.</p> + +<p><i>First.</i>—In their judgment, no amendment of that sacred instrument in +the interest, and for the purpose of the extension and perpetuation of +the slave power—an interest which has wielded the whole political +power of the United States during almost the entire existence of the +Government—was either expedient or necessary. They preferred it +should remain and continue just as it came from the hands of our +revolutionary fathers; a Constitution establishing freedom and not +slavery.</p> + +<p><i>Second.</i>—The Convention would scarcely listen to, much less adopt, +any amendment in the interest of freedom or of free labor, or of the +rights of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_593" id="Page_593">593</a></span> citizens of the free States; the only one of that +character—that in relation to securing to the citizens of each State +the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several +States—having been voted down as a direct proposition when offered by +Mr. Wilmot, and only adopted in an indirect way at the end of the +section requiring payment to be made by Congress for rescued slaves. +In like manner the absolute right of secession in every State as +inherent under the Constitution of the United States was claimed to +exist by members of the Convention from the slave States, accompanied +by a denial of any right in the General Government to coerce obedience +to it, or to enforce the laws for the collection of revenue. And +although all the delegates from the slave States did not take this +ground, yet in several instances a majority of the delegates from +several of them did so, and the States themselves generally voted +against all propositions to the contrary. The article proposed by your +Commissioners denying the right of nullification and secession was +defeated in accordance with these views; so that in effect slave +States, and such of the free States as voted with them, would not +consent so to amend the Constitution as to deny the right of +nullification and secession, even if all the guarantees demanded by +the slave interest were accorded to it. In addition, many of the +delegates from the slave States declared that it was the fixed +determination of those States to stand by the States that had seceded +from the Union, and to aid them in resisting it, even if such +guarantees were given; and that they would resist any attempts to +coerce them, or to enforce the revenue, or any other laws within their +limits, without their consent. In other words, they claimed a right to +remain in the Union under the Constitution, with its new guarantees of +slavery, and yet to obstruct the operations of the Government, to +prevent the execution of the laws, and to aid those who were in open +rebellion against, and had made war upon it. Under these circumstances +your Commissioners did not deem it consistent with justice, or the +respect due to their own State, to give their assent to any of the +proposed amendments, except that prohibiting the slave-trade—and even +that, in their opinion, was unnecessary, as no enlightened legislative +body would dare to propose to reëstablish that infamous traffic.</p> + +<p><i>Third.</i>—By the first section of the proposed amendments, slavery is +<i>constitutionally</i> established in all of the territory south of the +line of 36° 30´, and all control over it by Congress or the +territorial legislatures is absolutely taken away during its +territorial condition. In effect, there is to be no law for slavery, +its permanency and existence being provided for, except the will of +the master and the present odious slave code of New Mexico. These are +fastened upon every inch of the soil of that immense region, beyond +even the power of the people to remove them, however much they may +desire to do so, prior to the formation of a State government. Slavery +must therefore be the normal condition of the territory, while the +State is in the process of formation and organization; and the +inevitable result must be, that free labor and free institutions will +be excluded, and no free State formed within its limits. As the +territory was free from the blight of slavery when acquired,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_594" id="Page_594">594</a></span> your +Commissioners could not assent to its being changed into slave soil by +an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.</p> + +<p><i>Fourth.</i>—The second section of the proposed amendments gives to the +slave States an absolute negative upon the acquisition of free +territory in every possible mode by which it can be acquired; and in +giving reciprocally the same right to free States as to acquiring +slave territory, also fetters the operations of the General Government +both in peace and war, depriving it to some extent of the exercise of +perfect sovereignty, and at the same time sanctioning, and +perpetuating in the organic law, an odious discrimination in favor of +an institution peculiar to the slave States, and at variance with the +humane principles of the age. The free States do not need any such +veto power in their favor, and the slave States would not demand it +except to maintain and preserve for slavery a balance of power +hitherto claimed, and to some extent exercised by them, for which they +secure by this amendment a constitutional perpetuation. No +well-founded objection seems to exist in regard to the acquisition of +free territory, unless it be that it is obtained in order to convert +it into slave soil; and your Commissioners could not consent to give +to a single interest, that of slavery, a negative upon such +acquisitions. They have always regarded slavery as a local +institution, depending solely upon the laws of the States in which it +was permitted for its existence; and they did not deem it expedient or +just to recognize it as, or elevate it to, the rank of a positive +governmental power, by clothing it with the right to interrupt one of +the ordinary and most essential functions of the Government. Slavery, +except as a limited basis of representation, has now no political +power or authority under the Constitution; the wise and good men who +framed that instrument cautiously withheld it in all other respects; +and your Commissioners find in the history of the aggressions of the +slave interest, only additional reasons for confining it within its +original limits.</p> + +<p><i>Fifth.</i>—To so much of the third article as declares that the +Constitution nor any amendment of it, shall be so construed as to give +Congress the power to regulate, abolish, or control slavery within any +State, there was no objection, as it has never been seriously claimed +that any such power was given; but this provision is connected with so +many objectionable, not to say odious ones, that your Commissioners +felt themselves bound to vote against it. These surrender all the +power of Congress over the District of Columbia, and over other places +within its exclusive jurisdiction, in respect of slavery and its +ultimate extinction, however much the people of the United States in +the progress of civilization and humanity may desire it; and by the +sixth section this provision is made unalterable without the consent +of all the States. The influences produced by the existence of slavery +at the National Capital, upon public men and public measures, are well +known; and while they may be tolerated, as they have been, without any +desire to exercise the power of eradicating the cause of the evil, +still a sound policy requires that the power should not be abandoned. +Connected with this surrender of a well-defined and necessary power, +are other provisions in regard to the transit of slaves through the +free States; in effect, permitting the carrying on of the internal<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_595" id="Page_595">595</a></span> +slave-trade through these States, unless they pass laws forbidding it. +This trade through the free States is not made dependent upon the +consent of the States, but is made lawful without dissent; and the +result is, that if this amendment shall be adopted, every free State +will find it necessary to legislate for its exclusion, or to permit +and regulate the transit by its own laws. These laws would be deemed +odious by the slave States, and would produce dissatisfaction and +irritation. Besides, in most of the free States, the normal legal +condition of every person is that of freedom; this constitutional +provision would at once change the local law of the State, and operate +as a positive recognition of slavery in the absence of any new +enactment. Thus, every free State would find itself compelled to adopt +a slave code, more or less extensive in its character, regulating or +excluding the inter-state slave-trade. Taking this in connection with +the fourth section, authorizing the States to legislate upon the +subject of fugitive slaves, and by their judicial and ministerial +officers to enforce their delivery, contrary to the decision of the +Supreme Court of the United States, which declares all such +interference on the part of the States unconstitutional, it is +apparent that the legislatures of all the free States would be beset +by hordes of persons in the interest of the slave power for the +passage of laws protecting slavery within their limits. No means, +however impure, would be omitted to obtain them; and it is easy to see +that a slave code upon the subject of transit of fugitives, more or +less stringent in its character, would soon find its way into every +statute book. When the States now free abolished slavery within their +own limits, they intended to get rid of the evil entirely, not only in +practice but as a necessity of legislation; these provisions compel a +return to it, and involve the adoption of new laws for its regulation +or exclusion.</p> + +<p><span class="err" title="Transcriber's Note: should be 'Sixth'"><i>Seventh.</i></span>—The sixth section +makes most of the amendments which give a constitutional protection to +slavery, unalterable without the consent of all the States. It also +includes the second section of the fourth article, which provides that +"representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the +several States according to their respective members," including +three-fifths of all slaves, &c.; and that portion of the fourth +article which requires the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Thus, a +preference is given to the slave interest over every other; these may +all be affected by a constitutional amendment, ratified or adopted by +three-fourths of the States; but the slave clauses are to remain, +except by universal consent, fixed and immovable. No such protection +is given to freedom; none to the property of free men, unless it be +what is called property in slaves; none to the freedom of the press; +none to the religion of the citizen, or to the rights of conscience. +These rights, more sacred than any other, are deemed of less +importance, and are secured by less guarantees than the right to hold +a fellow man in bondage and to traffic in his flesh. Moreover, the +three-fifth representation of slaves, and only the same rate of direct +taxation, are perpetual by the same rigid provision. This not only +gives to the slave States a representation of three-fifths of their +slave property, but it secures to them an exemption from taxation on +the same property to the extent of two-fifths. But no property +whatever,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_596" id="Page_596">596</a></span> in the free States constitutes a basis of representation, +and all of it is liable to, and may be taxed. Unequal and unjust as +was this discrimination in favor of the slave States, still as it +formed a part of the original Constitution, it should be maintained; +but when it is sought to extend it to new States, and to make it +unchangeable without the consent of all the States, the attempt should +be resisted by every freeman. There are other property interests more +important than that of slavery, but none of them have been so arrogant +as to claim such exclusive privileges and perpetuation.</p> + +<p><i>Finally.</i>—Other objections of a grave character might be stated, but +it is not deemed necessary. The great purpose of the Convention was to +amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to recognize and +protect slaves as property. As a direct proposition this was +negatived, but the same end was sought to be attained by indirect +means, and its friends exulted in having accomplished it. Such is the +obvious effect of these amendments. If adopted, slaves must everywhere +in the Union be regarded as property, and entitled to the same legal +protection as other property. The necessary result will be, that all +State laws forbidding the bringing of slaves within their limits, will +be void, the sovereignty of the States in that respect will be +destroyed, and the National Constitution will recognize and protect +property in man.</p> + +<p>We do not believe that the people of the State of New York will, under +any pressure of circumstances, however grave, recognize a claim so +repugnant to humanity, so hostile to freedom.</p> + +<p>We commend to your honorable body the careful consideration of these +proposed constitutional amendments. We believe that they will, if +adopted, engraft upon our Constitution the odious doctrine of property +in man; that they will extend slavery over a vast domain once free; +that they will change the whole spirit and character of our organic +law, making that to protect and foster slavery which was intended to +establish freedom; making that irrevocable and perpetual which the +framers of the instrument intended should be temporary.</p> + +<p class="right"> +DAVID DUDLEY FIELD,<br /> +WM. CURTIS NOYES,<br /> +JOHN A. KING,<br /> +JAMES S. WADSWORTH,<br /> +A.B. JAMES,<br /> +JAMES C. SMITH.<br /> +</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>NOTE OF MR. FIELD.</h4> + +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> following statement shows why the vote of New York was not given +upon the first question taken in the Peace Convention, on the +twenty-seventh of February. The Journal represents the vote as +divided. <i>It was not divided.</i> The vote was ordered to be cast, <i>and +should have been cast</i> in the negative.</p> + +<p>On Tuesday, the day preceding, a message came to me from the clerk of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_597" id="Page_597">597</a></span> +the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Court was waiting for +me in a case which had stood upon the docket since December, 1859, and +was now for the first time reached in its order. The case was of great +importance, for upon its result depended the closing or reopening of a +litigation which I had conducted for nineteen years, which had +embraced in its different forms more than eighty suits, and in the +course of which the Courts of the State and of the United States had +come into direct conflict. All the tribunals of the State of New York, +where the question had been raised, had decided against my clients. +The Supreme Court of the United States, by a majority of two, had once +decided in their favor.</p> + +<p>The present case was to determine whether the Court would adhere to +its former decision. The stake of my clients was therefore immense, +and I was their only counsel.</p> + +<p>The case being called after my arrival in Court, the Chief Justice +observed that, as it was too late to begin that day, the argument +would proceed first the next morning, at eleven o'clock, unless the +Attorney-General should claim precedence in another case. Then, +thinking that the Convention would close its business during the day, +I hastened back, and the question being soon taken, I cast the vote of +the State against the proposition before the Convention, and it was +rejected by 11 to 8.</p> + +<p>A reconsideration was moved and carried, and an adjournment taken to +half-past seven in the evening. At that hour I returned to the +Convention, but to my disappointment, and in spite of my efforts, it +adjourned to the next morning at ten o'clock, a majority of my +associates voting for the adjournment.</p> + +<p>The next morning I endeavored to procure a meeting of the delegation +before ten o'clock, that I might obtain a formal instruction to the +Chairman in my absence to cast a vote of the State against the +proposed amendments. Not being able, however, to obtain the earlier +attendance of all the members, I waited till they appeared in the hall +of the Convention, and there, shortly before eleven o'clock, I called +them together, and, all being present, a resolution, in contemplation +of my absence, was moved and carried, that "the Chairman declare that +New York voted No on each section." Thereupon requesting Mr. King to +act as temporary Chairman in my absence, and when New York was called +to cast the vote in the negative, pursuant to the resolution, I left +the hall and drove to the Capitol as rapidly as possible, that I might +be present at the opening of the Court.</p> + +<p>Was it reasonable, nay, was it possible, that I should do otherwise? +It is known to be a rule of the Supreme Court not to postpone an +argument for other engagements of counsel. If neither counsel is +present, the case goes to the foot of the docket, to be reached again +only after two or three years; if one of the counsel only appears, he +makes an oral argument, and a printed brief is submitted on the other +side. In my view, it would have been trifling with the rights of my +clients either to submit their case on a printed brief or to postpone +it for two years. I had no one to send to the Court in my place. To +despatch a letter with an excuse was a liberty I did not feel +justified in taking, and if taken, it might fail of its object, as the +Court, when informed of the circumstances, must have believed that no +member of the delegation would take advantage of my absence if he +could, and that he could not if he would, since the vote had been +already determined in a meeting of the delegation, and that +determination could not be reconsidered or changed without the +desertion to the minority of one of the majority.</p> + +<p>But whatever might be the opinion of others, my duty appeared to +myself extremely plain. There was nothing to be done in the Convention +but the merely ministerial duty of declaring what had already been +determined, which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_598" id="Page_598">598</a></span> duty could certainly be performed by another as +well as myself, while, on the other hand, no one but myself could act +in Court for my clients. It is true that some of my associates +expressed to me their apprehension that the minority might appeal to +the Convention, and that the Convention might arbitrarily overrule the +delegation; but I answered them as I repeat now, that neither the +minority of the delegation nor the Convention itself had any right to +interpose. We were not asking a favor, but exercising a right. Whether +a person not present could vote was not the question. Persons did not +vote except on unimportant questions and by general consent. States +voted; the vote of each State was delivered by its Chairman, who +collected the voices of his delegation and announced the result. There +was nothing in the reason of the thing, nothing in any rule or usage +of the Convention, which required the voices of the delegation to be +collected at the instant of announcing the result. They might be +collected one minute beforehand, or, as in the present instance, ten +minutes, or twice ten minutes. All that could be required was, that +each member should give his own judgment upon the particular +proposition, and the sum of these judgments it was the sole province +of the Chairman to make known. There could be no occasion for their +standing by his side while he performed this duty unless he needed +their support or they feared his weakness.</p> + +<p>I have said that there was no rule of the Convention which ordered the +matter otherwise; on the contrary, the rule as to the mode of +voting—the 18th—was as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"18. <span class="smcap">Mode of Voting</span>: All votes shall be taken by States, and +each State to give one vote. The yeas and nays of the +members shall not be taken, or published—only the decision +by States."</p></div> + +<p>On the twenty-first of February, Mr. Dent, of Maryland, moved the +adoption of the following rule:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"When the vote on any question is taken by States, any +Commissioner dissenting from the vote of his State may have +his dissent entered on the journal."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the following as a substitute for Mr. +Dent's rule.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The yeas and nays of the Commissioners of each State, upon +any question, shall be entered upon the Journal, when it is +desired by any Commissioner; and the vote of each State +shall be determined by the majority of Commissioners present +from each State."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. Chase's substitute was rejected, and Mr. Dent's rule adopted.</p> + +<p>The usage of the Convention may be understood by a single example. The +Maine delegation consisted of her two Senators and six members of the +House of Representatives. One member only attended for the greater +part of the Convention, and cast the vote of the State. Indeed it was +a frequent practice for members to absent themselves and leave their +associates to act for them.</p> + +<p>The State of New York had, moreover, decided for herself in what +manner her Commissioners should speak for her, by declaring in the +joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly that they should cast +their "votes to be determined by a majority of their number," not the +majority of those who should happen to be present at a particular +instant on the floor of the Convention, but a majority of the whole +number. Suppose, upon a question being put, the delegation had met for +consultation, and by a formal resolution determined that the vote of +the State be No; then, instructing their Chairman to cast the vote +accordingly, had separated, and all but the Chairman retired from the +hall, could he thereupon have changed the vote to Aye, because he +disagreed with the majority and alone remained on the floor? Or could +the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_599" id="Page_599">599</a></span> Convention have refused this vote of the State? And if not, how +is that question different from the one here?</p> + +<p>It was, therefore, I must think with good reason, assumed by me when I +left the hall, that if the question should be put in my absence, which +by the way I considered uncertain, as the debate then going on might +last for hours, and I hoped still to find some means of deferring my +argument to the next day, I might certainly depend on the vote of New +York being declared again as it had been declared before, never +doubting for a moment the ability and the will of my associates to +defend against all opposition the rights of the State, their own +rights, and mine.</p> + +<p>On my arrival at the Court I did not succeed in my desire to defer my +argument to the next day; but had I done so, it would have made no +difference, as the vote in the Convention must have been called before +I reached the Capitol.</p> + +<p>What occurred in my absence I can only know from report. Five +different statements are given: one by Mr. King in a published letter, +another by the secretary of the delegation in the minutes kept by him, +the third by the chairman of the Massachusetts delegation, who had the +best opportunity to observe what was passing, the fourth by the +secretary in a correspondence with me, and the fifth in the published +Journal of the Convention.</p> + +<p>Mr. King's statement of what occurred in my absence is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The vote on the amendment soon followed, and before New +York was called I asked my colleagues what vote should be +given, and the reply was that in the absence of Mr. Field +the vote was divided. Nevertheless, I stated the case to the +Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before. +This was objected to by one of the Commissioners of the +minority, and permission having been refused by the +Convention, by direction of my colleagues when the State was +called I answered that the vote was divided."</p></div> + +<p>The other statements are subjoined, and numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.</p> + +<p>From a comparison of these statements it appears.</p> + +<p><i>First:</i> That the direction given to Mr. King, when the whole +delegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of my +absence, was to "declare that New York voted No."</p> + +<p><i>Second:</i> That instead of confining himself to that duty, he began +immediately upon my departure, and before the vote was demanded, to +ask anew, "what vote should be given?" and when the vote was demanded, +instead of voting No, "stated the case to the Convention, and asked +permission to cast the vote as before."</p> + +<p><i>Third:</i> That Mr. King's colleagues, though they had just resolved, in +expectation of my absence, that he should "declare that New York voted +No," yet "before New York was called," and of course before any +intimation from the Convention or its President, in answer to his +question, "What vote shall be given?" replied, "that in Mr. Field's +absence, the vote was divided," and directed him so to declare.</p> + +<p><i>Fourth:</i> That the Convention never "decided that no person could vote +who was not present." Whatever was done, was done between the +delegation and Mr. Tyler. No order was taken by the Convention, but, +on the contrary, the objection on the part of the minority of the +delegation was that "the Convention had no control or authority in the +matter."</p> + +<p>What caused this departure from the course of proceedings prescribed +by the resolution does not clearly appear. The delegation did not +rescind the resolution; the Convention did not reverse it. I do not +understand that my associates consider it a nullity—certainly they +could not have so considered it when it was passed. I have not +sufficient evidence that they changed their minds within ten minutes, +or that they have changed them yet. That the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_600" id="Page_600">600</a></span> resolution was not a +nullity, but an authoritative act, binding upon every member of the +delegation, until duly reconsidered, I believed then, and believe +still.</p> + +<p>I submit, therefore, that my reason for attending court, at its +opening, was not only sufficient but imperative; and if I had not +yielded to it, I should have incurred the reproach of my clients, and +the censure of all right-thinking men; that before I left the +Convention, I did not only all that could have been done, but all that +was necessary, to make the vote of New York certain against the +proposed amendments of the Constitution; and that the omission to +record the vote of New York as it was ordered, was owing not to any +act or omission of mine, but to the efforts of the minority of the +delegation, or some of them, to prevent an expression of the opinion +of the majority, and to the failure of my associates of the majority +to execute in my absence what had been resolved when I was present.</p> + +<p>It is certainly with regret that I write this note. My preference was +for a statement in which we all could join, but my associates refused +to enter into any joint relation of the facts.</p> + +<p>I hope, also, it will not be inferred from any thing I have written, +that I do not regret the omission to record New York as voting against +what appeared to me an unwise and pernicious proposition. Though the +importance of the vote has been greatly magnified, and the result in +my opinion would not have been different if the vote of New York had +been counted, as I believe some of the States not voting would, if +necessary, have voted in the affirmative; and even if it had been +otherwise, I think the action of the Convention was of no importance +whatever; yet, I should wish this State, of which we are so proud, to +appear always, even in a matter of ceremony, on the side of Freedom; +ever loyal to the Constitution as it is, but against placing there a +guaranty to slavery beyond the guarantees of our fathers.</p> + +<p class="right">DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">New York</span>, <i>March 20th, 1861.</i></p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>I.—<i>Extract from the Minutes of the New York Delegation, kept by +their Secretary.</i></h4> + +<p class="right">"<span class="smcap">Wednesday</span>, <i>February 27th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>"New York delegation met in the room, and Mr. Wadsworth moved that the +New York delegation vote No on each of the sections of the committee's +report. Messrs. Corning, Bronson, Granger, Wool, and Dodge opposed, +urging that the vote of New York be given on each section as it was +called. The majority overruled, and decided to have the Chairman +declare that New York voted No on each section.</p> + +<p>"The question on the first section being called, Mr. King stated that +one of the members of the delegation being called away to the United +States Court, the delegation had taken a vote before he left, and he +appealed to the justice of the Convention to have it so cast, stating +that the vote of the delegation had been so cast on the previous day.</p> + +<p>"The Convention decided that no person could vote who was not present.</p> + +<p>"The delegation was divided."</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>II.—<i>Letter from the Chairman of the Massachusetts Delegation.</i></h4> + +<p class="right">"<span class="smcap">Washington</span>, <i>March 8th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">My Dear Sir:</span>—Your favor of the 6th instant is before me. After +alluding to the fact that 'my seat in the Peace Convention was at the +table directly under the President's chair, between him and the New +York delegation,' you desire me to inform you what took place, on the +occasion of the vote of New York being called on the morning of the +27th February. What I observed was this:</p> + +<p>"When the vote of New York was called for, Governor King rose and +stated in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_601" id="Page_601">601</a></span> substance that you had a short time before left the +Convention to argue a case in the Supreme Court, which had been +assigned for that morning, and asked the permission of the Convention +to give the vote of the State in your absence, the same as though you +were present. To this one of the Commissioners, Mr. Corning I think it +was, objected, saying that the vote of New York was to be given as her +Commissioners who were present should decide, and that the Convention +had no control or authority in the matter. Some conversation was then +had between the Commissioners who favored and those who opposed the +pending proposition, which I did not hear with sufficient distinctness +to understand, and in a minute or two Governor King announced that the +vote of New York was divided.</p> + +<p>"This is the substance of what occurred, so far as I observed it.</p> + +<p class="center">"With great respect, your friend,</p> + +<p class="right">"J.Z. GOODRICH.</p> + +<p>"To David Dudley Field, Esq., New York."</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>III.—<i>Letter to the Secretary of the Convention.</i></h4> + +<p class="right">"<span class="smcap">New York</span>, <i>March 4th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir:</span>—Was any resolution passed by the Convention on Wednesday, +the 27th of February, respecting the right of New York to vote, or +affecting the vote of that State in the absence of any of her +Commissioners? On one side I am told that there was such a resolution +passed, or vote taken, in my absence; on the other side, I am told +that there was not. If one was passed, will you do me the favor to +give me a copy of it, and oblige</p> + +<p class="center">"Yours truly,</p> + +<p class="right">"DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.</p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Crafts J. Wright</span>, Esq., &c., &c."</p> + + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>IV.—<i>The Secretary's Answer.</i></h4> + +<p class="right">No. 135, <span class="smcap">Willard's</span>, <span class="smcap">Washington</span>, <i>March 5th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir:</span>—I have your letter. When New York was called, the inquiry +was made whether an absent member could vote, stating that one member +of that delegation was absent. The President stated that an absent +member could not vote. New York was stated divided, and did not vote.</p> + +<p class="center">"Respectfully, &c.,</p> + +<p class="right">"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT."</p> + + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4>V.—<i>Extract from the Journal of the Convention.</i></h4> + +<p class="right">"<i>February 27th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>"The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the +following vote:</p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Yeas.</span>—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, +Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—9.</p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Nays.</span>—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New +Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia—8.</p> + +<p>"So the section was adopted.</p> + +<p>"On calling New York, the members stated that one of their number was +absent, and the delegation were divided. Inquiry was made of the +President whether an absent member could vote. The President decided +he could not, without general leave.</p> + +<p>"New York, Indiana, and Kansas were divided."</p> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p><i>To the Legislature of the State of New York:</i></p> + +<p>The undersigned beg leave to submit a reply to the statement of Mr. +D.D. Field, to the report of the majority of the Commissioners to the +Conference Convention at Washington, respecting his absence on the +final vote in that body, on the proposed amendments to the +Constitution of the United States.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_602" id="Page_602">602</a></span> The fact of his absence is +admitted by Mr. Field, and attempted to be defended at great length, +but Mr. Field has omitted to state that, by the 14th Rule of the +Convention, "no member should be absent from the Convention, so as to +interrupt the representation of the State, without leave." Mr. Field +neither asked nor obtained leave of absence, and hence, under the +rule, he failed to discharge his duty, both to the Convention and his +colleagues. Mr. Field does not state that he made any application to +the court for a temporary postponement of his case, in view of the +important vote then about to be taken in Convention. But, on the +contrary, argues to show that his duty to his client was paramount to +his duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question +involving constitutional principles. After Mr. Field had stated, in +the presence of his colleagues in the Convention, that he was obliged +to go immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States, he was +urged by those who agreed with him in opinion, to remain, and give the +vote of the State against the proposed amendments, and was repeatedly +told that his absence would divide the vote; this was so stated to +him, by the minority of the Commissioners, and that it would be so +claimed by them before the Convention. He refused to remain, and with +the full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the question about +to be taken, he left the Convention, and thus defeated the vote of his +State. We who remained in our places, felt deeply the embarrassment, +and the remarks which were made in consequence of Mr. Field's +withdrawal. We had steadily, up to that time, sustained with him, our +own, and what we believed to be the sentiment of the State, in favor +of freedom, and were, therefore, entirely unprepared for such a +determination on his part. Nor is our surprise lessened by the manner +and the certificates by which he has at great length attempted to +defend his course on this occasion. The vote of New York was not +declared until after the vote which had been previously taken in its +delegation had been stated, nor until an appeal had been made to the +Convention, and refused by its President, to enable his colleagues to +protect its vote in the absence of the Chairman of the delegation. By +his absence the vote of New York stood 5 to 5, and it was under the +decision of the Convention alone, that the vote was declared to be +divided. Mr. Field has stated that the omission to record the vote of +New York against the amendments was not owing to any act or omission +of his, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some +of them, to prevent the expression of the opinion of the majority. The +objection was made after notice to him that it would be made, and the +Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost by his absence. Nor +is the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration when he imputes +to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and +adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and +which was afterwards rendered null, by his absence. They did adhere to +it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to +have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had +been previously agreed to. Mr. Field states, and truly, that his +colleagues refused to unite in a joint relation of the facts of the +case. They refused, because they were not satisfied with his course, +and would not be responsible for it in any way. Up to the moment of +his leaving the Convention, Mr. Field had manifested great zeal and +ability in sustaining and defending the principles which a majority of +the delegation desired to advocate, and his failure at the last, and +decisive vote, was as unexpected as it was indefensible.</p> + +<p class="right"> +JOHN A. KING,<br /> +WM. CURTIS NOYES,<br /> +A.B. JAMES,<br /> +JAS. S. WADSWORTH,<br /> +JAS. C. SMITH.<br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">New York</span>, <i>March 28th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<hr class="short" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_603" id="Page_603">603</a></span></p> + +<p><i>To the Legislature of the State of New York:</i></p> + +<p>Informed by the newspapers of this morning that five of my associates +in the Peace Convention, after waiting nearly three weeks, made +yesterday to the Legislature a communication purporting to be an +answer to the note which I thought it my duty to append to the report, +explaining why the vote of New York was not given at a particular +time, I beg leave to submit the following in reply:</p> + +<p>I do not perceive that my associates impugn a single statement of fact +contained in my note. My engagement in Court, the importance of the +engagement, the necessity for my keeping it, the meeting of the +delegation in contemplation of it, their resolution directing how the +vote should be cast in my absence, the neglect so to cast it, are all, +by silence, admitted. Nor do I perceive any denial of the proposition +that the delegation had a right to pass the resolution, which thus +became binding on all its members until reconsidered and reversed.</p> + +<p>Perhaps I ought to make one exception to this use of admissions. My +associates apparently wish to have it believed, yet hesitate to +assert, that the Convention made a decision respecting the right to +vote. In one place they say, "that an appeal had been made to the +Convention, and refused by its President;" in another, that "it was +under the decision of the Convention alone that the vote was declared +to be divided;" and in a third, that the objection of the minority was +made after notice to me that it would be made, and the "Convention +sustained it, hence the vote was lost," by my absence. They should +have reflected that there could have been no "decision of the +Convention" if the appeal to it was "refused by its President." The +truth beyond question is, that although my associates imagined that +the Convention decided something, it did in fact decide nothing.</p> + +<p>My associates say further, that I argue to show that my duty to my +client was paramount to my "duty as Commissioner of the State of New +York, in a question involving constitutional principles." This is an +idle calumny. My note can be read as well as theirs; and in general +will be read by the same persons, and there is not a word in it to +justify or excuse their assertion. I never thus argued. I claimed that +I had two duties to perform, and that I performed both. I did not +claim that my duty to my State was subordinate to any other duty +whatever.</p> + +<p>When my associates assert that their Chairman left the Convention +"with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about to +be taken," if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended to +reverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the vote +as it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or that +they would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrule +the delegation, then they assert what they could not know to be true, +and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, and +what I replied.</p> + +<p>My associates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I did +not obtain leave of the Convention before going into the Supreme +Court. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave granted +by a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or for +one or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence was +expressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of the +State." My associates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, the +State ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remaining +behind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that a +State is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that the +vote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say that +the vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long as +the resolution passed by the delegation remained valid, and its +validity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equally<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_604" id="Page_604">604</a></span> +fallacious. A State is represented when there are in the body +delegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. The +arguments of my associates seem to be, that a State could only be +represented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if it +sent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives at +all.</p> + +<p>But what shall I say to the following sentences:—"Nor is the opinion +of Mr. Field entitled to consideration, when he imputes to the +majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to +the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was +afterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, and +endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been +present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been +previously agreed to." Would any one imagine that the authors were +speaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and to +determine what should be done when I was away? The vote was taken +because I was to be absent, and directed the Chairman how to act in +that event, but it is nevertheless pretended that the moment I became +absent, the vote became null. They might better have said that the +vote would have become null, or rather that there would have been no +occasion for it in case of my continued presence. Then they say that +they adhered to it. How did they adhere? The resolution directed the +Chairman to cast the vote in the negative. He did not obey the +resolution. His associates and mine did not insist that he should. +Nobody prevented his answering "no," when the vote was called. No +reason has ever been given for his not so answering. That he should +instead have entered voluntarily into a discussion with Mr. Tyler on +the subject, and that his associates should have looked quietly on, +can only be accounted for by supposing them indifferent or bewildered.</p> + +<p>It is not an agreeable task to write thus of old friends; but I must +defend myself when attacked, and defence cannot always be made +pleasant to an assailant.</p> + +<p>My late friends profess to think me responsible for the loss of the +vote of New York on a certain occasion. I think them responsible for +it. Which side is right the Legislature and the people of the State +will judge.</p> + +<p class="right">DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">New York</span>, <i>April 11th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<hr class="short" /> + +<h4><i>Report of a Minority of the Commissioners of New York.</i></h4> + +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">In Senate</span>, <i>March 25th, 1861.</i></p> + +<p>The undersigned, constituting a minority of the Commissioners, +appointed by the Legislature of the State of New York, under +resolutions responsive to those of the State of Virginia, referred to +in the report of the majority of the Commissioners of said State of +New York, admitting the correctness of the record of the proceedings +presented by said majority, but differing from them in much of the +reasoning which they present, respectfully report:</p> + +<p>That they entered upon the duties assigned to them, earnestly desiring +to carry out the patriotic spirit of said resolutions as therein +expressed, which said original resolutions are herein embodied as a +part of this report:<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_605" id="Page_605">605</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>NEW YORK.</b></p> + +<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Concurrent Resolutions</span> <i>appointing Commissioners from this State to +meet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation of +Virginia.</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her General +Assembly, passed the nineteenth instant, has invited such of the +slaveholding and non-slaveholding States as are willing to unite with +her, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, to +consider, and if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment of our +national difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, while they +hold the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as it is, +contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, are +nevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethren upon +all alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be required of +them to allay discontent; therefore,</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. +Wadsworth, James C. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Addison +Gardner, Greene C. Bronson, Wm. E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. King, +and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointed +Commissioners on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners from +other States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February +next, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by a +majority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon the +complaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remedies +therefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the said +Commissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of this +Legislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majority +of their number.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it is +not to be understood that this Legislature approve of the propositions +submitted by the General Assembly of that State, or concede the +propriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. But while +adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New York will +not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing together +the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honorable +settlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration of peace +and harmony to the country.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the +foregoing resolutions to the Executives of the several States, and +also to the President of the United States, and to inform the +Commissioners without delay of their appointment.</p> + +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the +honorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein.</p> + +<p>The foregoing resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly by a +vote of seventy-three ayes to thirty-nine noes, and in the Senate by a +vote of nineteen to twelve, those in the negative, in both Houses, +being all members of the dominant party, and those in the affirmative +composed of the members of the opposition, and of those Republicans +who were supposed to be prepared to meet the State of Virginia and +other sister States, in the spirit of the resolutions adopted by the +States of Virginia and New York.</p> + +<p>A single point in the record, to which reference has been made, +requires some consideration before proceeding to the reasoning of a +majority of the Commissioners upon the propositions finally adopted by +the Convention. The majority of the Commissioners state that most of +said majority were opposed to the submission by the Convention of any +amendments of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_606" id="Page_606">606</a></span> Constitution of the United States at the present +time, and in the present excited state of the public mind.</p> + +<p>Not only was that ground assumed by a majority of the New York +Commissioners, but some of their number argued with great ability +against the danger of touching that sacred instrument, consecrated by +memories so dear to every patriot heart.</p> + +<p>The propositions, presented as amendments, were clear and +distinct—their adoption would in no manner disturb the general +harmony of the Constitution; yet, strangely enough, to an ordinary +mind, the majority of the Commissioners who found such danger in +adopting the specific amendments proposed, voted with a united action +for a General Convention to remodel the entire Constitution—exposed +to all the hazards that must attend such a Convention—by whose action +a form of government might be presented, in which could not be found a +single trace of that Constitution for which they professed such high +veneration.</p> + +<p>The undersigned will now consider the reasons presented by a majority +of the Commissioners against the proposition: The majority declare +that the Convention would not listen to, much less adopt any +amendments in the interests of freedom, or of free labor, or of the +rights of citizens of the free States, the only one of that character, +that in relation to the securing to the citizens of each State the +privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States, &c., +&c. As the undersigned have no recollection of the propositions to +which reference would seem to be made, other than that embraced in the +last clause, which they have quoted, they would call the attention of +the people of the State of New York to this subject, as one deeply +interesting in its character, and upon which it is supposed that there +is very little difference of opinion. As this statement is thrown out +by a majority of the Commissioners, in a manner to carry a belief that +the harsh and cruel enactments which deprive colored citizens of the +North of the privileges they claim in Southern States under the +Constitution, it may be well for our people to consider that such +enactments are not confined to the States fostering the institution of +slavery, but exist and are enforced in some States making peculiar +claim to love for freedom and the rights of man. The State of Illinois +has a code of laws against free colored persons, citizens of other +States, as severe as those of South Carolina or Louisiana. These laws +have been recently enforced, and yet the North does not hear one word +of the wrongs inflicted upon colored citizens of other States found +within the borders of Illinois.</p> + +<p>It will be recollected that the Constitution first presented by the +State of Oregon, contained a clause prohibiting free colored persons +from residing within that State. That Constitution received the votes +of both the Senators from New York—each expressing his views of that +instrument, yet the public censure has not fallen upon either of those +gentlemen, by reason of such action. Nor is it necessary to go beyond +the election polls of this State, claiming its fifty thousand majority +for the cause of freedom and of equal rights—and yet counting from +the ballot box an hundred thousand majority<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_607" id="Page_607">607</a></span> against securing the +privilege of suffrage to colored persons, upon the same conditions +that it is secured to whites. These facts are presented with the hope +that they may create a spirit of charity in the public mind toward +those States whose peculiar position renders such harsh legislation +certainly not more censurable than it is in free States.</p> + +<p>The undersigned differ entirely from the majority of the +Commissioners, as to the action of the Convention upon subjects +interesting to the North. It is known to all that Virginia, Kentucky, +and it is believed all the Southern Border States instructed their +delegates to insist on the Crittenden propositions, a material feature +of which was, that in all future acquired territory, south of 36° 30´, +slavery should be permitted; and yet when this material clause was +found repugnant to the Northern sentiment, a distinguished +Commissioner from Maryland moved to limit it to <i>present</i> territory, +which proposition was adopted. Surely this was an important surrender +to Northern sentiment that should not have been forgotten.</p> + +<p>The majority say, that by the first of the proposed amendments, +slavery is constitutionally established in all the territory south of +the line of 36° 30´, as if such recognition of slavery there was now +for the first time to be established by the proposed amendment. The +majority of these Commissioners are counsellors of eminent ability, +and yet, for some reason not easily comprehended, they have seen fit +to ignore a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which +declares that slavery can be carried into all the Territories of the +United States, whether south or north of the line of 36° 30´. The +famous Dred Scott decision, to which reference is here made, was often +referred to in the debates of the Convention, and was insisted upon by +many gentlemen, holding views and opinions similar to those of a +majority of the New York Commissioners, as affording all the +protection that the South could require, and claiming that the +proposed amendment was unnecessary, by reason of such protection.</p> + +<p>The Territory of New Mexico was declared open to slavery by the +compromise act of 1850. The public mind of the North was deeply +agitated upon that subject. A distinguished statesman, who was removed +from earth before his eyes were forced "to rest upon a dismembered +Confederacy," was violently assailed for declaring that slavery could +work no practical evil in New Mexico; and yet the recent census has +vindicated that assertion, showing that in the ten years that have +passed since that compromise, only twenty-four slaves were to be found +in what the majority of the committee are pleased to call the "immense +region" of New Mexico; more than half of whom were servants of army +officers, to be removed when they should be ordered to other stations.</p> + +<p>The Territorial Legislature of New Mexico has declared the existence +and passed laws for the protection of slavery throughout that entire +Territory, while the proposed amendment of the Constitution would +exclude it from all that portion of said Territory north of 36° 30´.</p> + +<p>The undersigned are not only ready to vindicate their votes for that +proposed amendment, but claim that such an amendment to the +Constitution<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_608" id="Page_608">608</a></span> would be a great gain to the cause of freedom; taking +from the action of the Dred Scott decision, and of the Territorial +Legislation, all territory north of 36° 30´; and they challenge a +comparison of their votes, with the course of those who preferred to +leave this question subject to the action of that decision, and to the +legislation to which reference is made.</p> + +<p>The <i>second</i> section of the proposed amendments, touching the future +acquisition of territory, met the approval of the undersigned, as +certainly not less important to the North than to the South. The +history of our country shows how hastily the assumed powers of +Congress have been exercised upon this question, and at this moment +presents a startling example, of a State of vast territory, acquired +by a joint resolution of Congress, sustained at an enormous expense, +and now withdrawing from the Confederacy, seizing upon and applying to +its own use all the Government property found within its borders. +Every reflecting citizen can determine for himself where there is the +most danger to the cause of humanity, and whether territory is more +probably to be acquired from the North, and consecrated to freedom, or +from the Southwest, upon which these exciting contests might be +revived.</p> + +<p>This proposed amendment is presented with entire confidence for the +decision of our people.</p> + +<p>As the majority of the Commissioners do not dissent from the general +principles of the <i>third</i> article, but object to some of its +provisions, the undersigned would remark that the principal difference +between them and the majority would seem to be whether Congress shall +be denied the power of abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia, +without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, +or making the owners who do not consent just compensation. Ever since +the formation of the Government, this has been a subject upon which +the friends of freedom have been divided. In the opinion of the +undersigned, this question should be permanently settled.</p> + +<p>The power of removing slaves from one section of the country to +another, is secured by this section, but cannot be exercised against +the wishes of the State through which slaves would otherwise be taken. +The power to touch at ports, shores, and landings, with vessels having +on board persons held in bondage, and of landing, in case of distress, +is embraced in this proposed amendment, the latter clause of which +will, certainly, receive the approval of every friend of humanity. The +undersigned do not join in the fears expressed by the majority, that a +resort to "impure means" could ever secure from the Legislature of New +York any laws upon these subjects, not entirely consistent with the +honor and dignity of the State.</p> + +<p>The <i>Fourth</i> proposition was adopted by a vote so large as to make +comment here unnecessary.</p> + +<p>As the <i>Fifth</i> proposition received the unanimous vote of your +Commissioners, it requires no comment.</p> + +<p>The <i>Sixth</i> proposition is upon a subject that has been discussed ever +since the formation of the Government, and need not be dwelt upon.</p> + +<p>The <i>Seventh</i> proposition presented itself with such force to the +Convention as to receive a strong vote, but seven States declaring +against it. It<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_609" id="Page_609">609</a></span> will be seen that this section requires Congress to +provide by law for securing to citizens of each State the privileges +and immunities of citizens in the several States.</p> + +<p>Many other propositions were presented to the Convention, some of +which received the full concurrence of the undersigned; to others they +were opposed, and those who shared in the deliberations of the +Convention do not doubt, and will not deny, that propositions were +presented whose only object and effect could be to embarrass its +proceedings.</p> + +<p>The action of the Convention failed to secure at the hands of Congress +the legislation necessary to present it to the people of the different +States, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. Still it is in +the power, and the undersigned trust will be in the disposition of the +representatives of the people of New York, in both Halls of its +Legislation, to present them for the acceptance or rejection of her +people.</p> + +<p>Whatever differences of political opinion may exist, there can be but +one mind as to the present critical condition of our country, or that +it is the duty of every citizen to give all the aid in his power, to +sustain an administration that has entered upon its complicated duties +under circumstances of more embarrassment than have ever before +existed in our country's history.</p> + +<p>The undersigned not only as deeply regret, but as severely condemn, +the action of those States who have attempted to withdraw from the +Union, as do the majority of the Commissioners who opposed the +adoption of the measures of conciliation presented by the Peace +Convention.</p> + +<p>Those who are conversant with the political action of the seceding +States, will have observed how strong is their desire to draw the +Southern Border States into this new Confederacy. With each of those +Border States are large bodies of active politicians, constantly +influencing the public mind, and misrepresenting, to a great extent, +the opinions and designs of those who have wrought out this revolution +in the national administration. The public mind is fearfully agitated +upon these issues, and the refusal of the Legislature of New York to +present the propositions of the Peace Convention, for the suffrages of +her people, will greatly diminish the power of the Union men of the +Border States to sustain themselves in their present trying position.</p> + +<p>It is believed that Virginia is about to submit these propositions to +her people; let New York, who so nobly responded to the call of +Virginia, show that she, too, will be governed by the wishes of <i>her</i> +people, and that if those ties which have so long held these powerful +States in the bonds of brotherhood, must be severed, it shall be done +only by the verdict of their people as recorded in the ballot box.</p> + +<p class="right"> +FRANCIS GRANGER,<br /> +ERASTUS CORNING,<br /> +GREENE C. BRONSON,<br /> +WM. E. DODGE.<br /> +</p> + + +<hr class="short" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_610" id="Page_610">610</a></span></p> + +<h4><i>Report of the Rhode Island Peace Commissioners.</i></h4> + +<p><i>To the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island:</i></p> + +<p>The undersigned Commissioners on the part of this State, appointed +upon the request of the State of Virginia, to meet Commissioners from +the other States to confer upon the best mode of adjusting the unhappy +differences which now disturb the peace of the country, respectfully +beg leave to report:</p> + +<p>That on the 4th day of February last, at Washington, the day and place +named for the opening of the Conference, they met Commissioners from +other States, and remained with them in conference until the 27th day +of February, at which time twenty-one States were represented, when +having agreed by a majority of States to submit to Congress, to be by +Congress submitted to conventions in the several States, the annexed +article in amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the +Convention finally adjourned.</p> + +<p>This article, it will be seen, applies the old line of 36° 30´ of +North latitude to all the present Territory of the United States, +prohibiting slavery north of that line, whilst it recognizes and +secures its existence south of that line during the territorial +government, and provides for the formation of new States out of such +territory with or without slavery as their constitutions may direct.</p> + +<p>As this partition of territory was not disadvantageous, at least to +the free States, as it disposed of the agitation consequent upon a +recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon a +celebrated case, and followed a precedent which had given peace to the +country upon this most dangerous subject of controversy for upwards of +thirty years, your Commissioners gave their assent to it as the best +practical solution of all difficulties growing out of the territorial +question.</p> + +<p>New territory is no further dealt with by this article than to +require, except in certain specified cases, a majority of all the +Senators from each side of said line, to concur in its acquisition, +whether made by act of Congress or by treaty, thus giving to each +class of States a check upon the cupidity of the others.</p> + +<p>The other sections of the article were designed in general so to +define and limit the rights, powers, and duties of both Congress and +the States, with regard to the subject of slavery, as to prevent +further controversy, and to enable and induce those most opposed in +opinion and interest, by the practice of mutual forbearance, to live +in peace and amity under the same Federal Government. It is believed +that in no essential particular will this article change the present +actual state of things; its value consisting in the security therein +which it gives to all, and in the settlement made by it of present and +probable subjects of controversy.</p> + +<p>In a great practical matter of this sort, your Commissioners deem +these results of far more importance than strict adhesion to any +theory, however plausible in the abstract, and especially than to any +party declaration of prin<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_611" id="Page_611">611</a></span>ciples of a sectional cast, however +vehemently argued, or numerously adopted on either side. To deal well +and wisely with the actual and real, and whilst consulting the past +and looking to the probable future for guidance, to base his action on +what <i>is</i>, comprises the whole duty of a statesman; leaving to +political philosophers to dream of what might have been, or in the +abstract of what ought to be. Reform, it is true, in this way comes +slowly, but it comes without the disturbance of material interests, +without agitation of human passions, and without the violent outbreaks +which these occasion—hindering and obstructing its progress in that +grand and orderly procession of moral causes and effects which +expresses and marks the providence and government of <span class="smcap">God</span>.</p> + +<p>It was apparent to all that, whatever may have been the motive and +origin of the present alarming movement in the extreme Southern +States, the instrument successfully used to promote it was the +agitation of their people upon the safety of the institution of negro +slavery in the States and Territories; and various conflicting +opinions with regard to the best course to be pursued to allay this +agitation were elicited in the course of this long conference. +Extremists were not wanting on the one hand, who seemed inclined to +construe the anomaly of slavery of the negro race, found in the +Constitution of a free people, into a general rule; and who proposed +or voted for propositions which they knew could not be accepted, that +their assertion might aid in the remaining States the cause of +secession. Extremists were not wanting, on the other hand, who were +opposed to doing any thing upon the subject of slavery, especially at +present, lest such action should compromise the incoming +administration, and the Republican party, and even the character of +the Government itself. Without suspecting the purity of the motives of +either of these extremists, who beyond doubt represented the views of +large and respectable bodies of men in their different sections, your +Commissioners found themselves equally unable to agree with either.</p> + +<p>They could not ignore the fact that seven States had separated +themselves from the others and set up a federal government of their +own; and that these were ceaselessly agitating the people of the +remaining Southern States by inflammatory speeches, and writings +skilfully addressed to their interests and sympathies, to induce them +to join in this new movement. They could not doubt the assurances +given to them by able and patriotic men from the States of Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, that +these attempts upon the loyalty of the people of their States had met +at least with partial success; nor, indeed, blind themselves to the +evidences of this found in the speeches and votes of individual +Commissioners from these very States. Above all, they could not be +insensible to the touching appeals of men, venerable in years, +distinguished in public service, and whose reputation for ability and +patriotism was national, to give them something in the shape of a +constitutional security with which to allay the startled fears of +their constituents, beat back the attacks of <i>their</i> enemies and +<i>ours</i>, and even bring again to their duty thousands of men in the +States of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_612" id="Page_612">612</a></span> extreme South, who had been led astray by the popular +fears and impulses of the hour, and who, with the loyal but overborne, +might well look to them for support, since no other had been afforded +them in the reign of terror under which they were suffering. In the +circumstances in which the country was placed, it seemed to your +Commissioners that true policy ran in the course of generous impulse; +that in this matter we were dealing not with treason, but with the +most devoted loyalty which invoked our aid against it; that the +concessions we made, if concessions indeed they were, were made to our +friends that they might be strong enough to triumph over <i>their</i> +enemies and <i>ours</i>, because the enemies of the country.</p> + +<p>If, as is true, in this view of their duty your Commissioners stood in +the main alone amongst the Commissioners from the Northern States, and +ranged themselves by the side of the Central States of the Union, upon +whom the weight of the civil strife must come if come it must, they +need not assure you that no dastardly fears, no feelings of base +compliance, dictated the position thus taken by them. Such motives to +action neither became them nor those whom they represented. It was +because of generous faith and earnest sympathy, of ties which no +distance of time or space, and no difference of institutions can +weaken; which in our fathers' days and our own led our heroes to +<i>hazard all for all</i>, and at Guilford Court House, and Eutaw, and at +Erie, with desperate valor to snatch victory for our common country +out of the very lap of defeat; it was because our little State, with a +warm heart and a ready hand, has never failed in counsel or deed to +stand with the whole country in all dangers and in extremest +disasters, that your Commissioners conceived that they best +represented her by averting danger from those with whom they knew she +would hasten to share it. If it be true that the time has arrived when +our sympathy for an alien and a subject race has extinguished all +sympathy for our own, and has hidden from us the ties of a common +origin, common interests, and of a common glory, then, indeed, are we +separated from our brethren, and the curse of slavery has fallen upon +us as well as upon them. Your Commissioners found nothing in +themselves to justify them in attributing such sentiments to the +people of the State; and unitedly recommend the adoption by you of the +amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Conference of +Commissioners, as best fitted to give security and ensure peace to the +country.</p> + +<p>Among the measures strenuously enforced by some of the Commissioners, +in lieu of that adopted by a majority, was the calling of a General +Convention. To this measure your Commissioners opposed their most +earnest and determined resistance. As a measure of peace, if for no +other reason, because of the long delay which it implied, it would be +utterly fruitless. But the possible danger of exposing a Constitution, +framed and adopted in the earlier and more conservative days of the +Republic, to be torn in pieces in these times of lawless irreverence +and change, is too great for any wise man willingly to encounter. The +very equality of the States in the Senate, which was won by the +revolutionary sacrifices and valor of the smaller States, now almost +forgotten, would, in the judgment of your Commissioners, be thereby<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_613" id="Page_613">613</a></span> +greatly endangered; and your Commissioners earnestly represent to your +Honorable body that under no circumstances should this State consent +to a measure which might lead to her own extinction. The Constitution +of a great country, adopted, as this was, on account of diversity of +interests and views, with great difficulty, should be sacred. It may +and should from time to time be amended to suit a change of +circumstances, but never exposed to the danger of being uptorn. It is +the symbol of our strength, because the ligament of our Union. It has +collected about it the reverence of three generations of our people. +It is the only rallying point now for the loyalty of the remaining +States; the only hope of the restoration of the States which have left +us; and, in its main features, it should be, as it was designed to be, +perpetual. At no time should a General Convention be invited to invade +it; and, of all times, this, in the judgment of your Commissioners, +would be the most dangerous.</p> + +<p>Finally, it will be found upon an inspection of the Journal of the +late Conference of Commissioners, that the undersigned voted against +many propositions in themselves just and expressive of <i>their</i> +sentiments and <i>yours</i>, because inopportune and useless; and against +others, because introduced for the very purpose of sowing dissension +among the Commissioners and to prevent an agreement by majority upon +any thing. In this they must ask your candid construction of their +conduct, looking to the crisis, the occasion, the purpose and effect +of the matter upon which they were called to act; and their +unwillingness to hazard an agreement upon that deemed by them +necessary, by tacking to it that which, however true, was at least +useless, and might in the result be dangerous.</p> + +<p>All which is respectfully submitted by</p> + +<p class="right"> +SAMUEL AMES, for self, and<br /> +ALEXANDER DUNCAN,<br /> +G.H. BROWNE,<br /> +WILLIAM W. HOPPIN,<br /> +SAMUEL G. ARNOLD,<br /> +<i>Commissioners.</i><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Providence</span>, <i>March 4th, 1861.</i></p> + + +<hr class="short" /> +<h4>COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.</h4> + +<table style="float: right" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="letter"> +<tr><td class="right"><span class="smcap">Executive Department, Council Chamber</span>,</td><td rowspan="2"><span class="xxlg">}</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="right"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, March 25, 1861.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p><br /><br /><br /><i>To the Honorable the Senate:</i></p> + +<p>I have the honor to transmit to the General Court, for its use and +information, a Report just received by me from John Z. Goodrich, +Charles Allen, George S. Boutwell, Theophilus P. Chandler, Francis B. +Crowninshield, John M. Forbes, and Richard P. Waters, Esquires, who +were appointed Commissioners on the part of Massachusetts, under a +Resolve passed the fifth day of February last, to attend a Convention +of delegates from the several States of the Union, recently held at +Washington.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_614" id="Page_614">614</a></span></p> + +<p>And I embrace this opportunity to congratulate the people of the +Commonwealth upon the fidelity, judgment, and ability with which the +Commissioners, by whom they were represented, conducted their share of +the duties of that deliberation.</p> + +<p>And I trust that a similar intelligent, manful, and, at the same time, +charitable and patriotic adherence to principles, fundamental both in +morals and politics, will characterize the people of Massachusetts, +and all their representatives, by whatever experiences of danger or +difficulty their devotion to truth and duty may hereafter be tried.</p> + +<p>I ask leave to call the attention of the General Court, also, to the +fact that, as yet, no provision has been adopted for the payment of +the expenses incident to the service with which the Commissioners were +charged, and to recommend that a suitable appropriation for that +purpose be made at the present session of the Legislature.</p> + +<p class="right">JOHN A. ANDREW.</p> + +<p><br />To His Excellency <span class="smcap">John A. Andrew</span>, <i>Governor, &c., &c.</i>:</p> + +<p>The undersigned, Commissioners appointed by your excellency, in +pursuance of certain resolutions passed by the Legislature at its +present session, to attend a Convention to be held in the City of +Washington, with authority to confer with the General Government, or +with the separate States, or with any associations of delegates from +such States, having, agreeably to your excellency's instructions, +repaired to Washington and conferred with the delegates of twenty +other States of the American Union, now respectfully submit the +following report of the proceedings of the said Convention, and of the +action of the Commissioners from Massachusetts.</p> + +<p>The Convention commenced its sessions on the 4th of February, and +closed its deliberations on the 27th of the same month. The +Massachusetts Commissioners repaired to Washington as early as +practicable after their appointment, and presented their credentials +on the 8th of February.</p> + +<p>The sessions of the Convention were secret; although repeated efforts +were made, with the concurrence of the undersigned, first, to remove +the injunction of secrecy, then to admit the public to witness the +deliberations, and then to procure a complete and accurate report of +the debates and doings. These efforts failed, and the undersigned are +therefore able only to transmit a copy of the Journal of the +Convention.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> + +<p>On the 6th of February a resolution was adopted, upon the motion of +Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, that a "committee of one from each State be +appointed by the Commissioners thereof, to whom should be referred the +resolutions of the State of Virginia, and the other States +represented, and all propositions for the adjustment of existing +difficulties between the States." Mr. Crowninshield represented +Massachusetts upon this committee. At the earliest practicable moment +he called for a specific statement of the grievances complained of by +the discontented States of the Union. This call elicited much +dis<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_615" id="Page_615">615</a></span>cussion, but no definite response to the demand was ever made +either in the committee or in Convention.</p> + +<p>On the 15th of February, Mr. Guthrie, from the committee of one from +each State, made a report recommending certain amendments to the +Constitution of the United States. This report was adopted in +committee by a majority of five States, the delegates from Kansas not +having then taken their seats in the Convention.</p> + +<p>A copy of this report may be found upon the twenty-second and +twenty-third pages of the Journal. After much discussion and many +amendments, the several sections of the proposed article of amendment +to the Constitution were finally adopted on the last day of the +session. It is to be observed, however, that the report as a whole +never received the sanction of the Convention, although the several +sections of the article of amendment were separately approved by a +majority of the States voting; and it may well be doubted whether the +entire article would have been adopted by the Convention.</p> + +<p>The first section was adopted by a vote of nine States to eight; four +States—New York, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas—not voting.</p> + +<p>The other sections were approved by larger majorities.</p> + +<p>The undersigned declined to vote upon the last section, but the vote +of Massachusetts, with the unanimous consent of its Commissioners, was +given in the negative upon all the others. This course seemed to be +demanded, whether regard was had to the constitution of the +Convention, the circumstances under which it assembled, the nature of +the propositions submitted, the solution of the difficulties in which +the Government and people are involved, or to the character and peace +of the country in the future. The two Pacific States, whose loyalty to +the Constitution and the Union is unquestioned, could not have been +represented in the Convention. Other States failed to appoint +Commissioners. The resolutions of the State of Virginia were passed on +the 19th of January; and it was expected that within sixteen days +thereafter the representatives of this vast country would assemble for +the purpose of devising, maturing, and recommending alterations in the +Constitution of the republic. As a necessary consequence, the people +were not consulted in any of the States. In several, the Commissioners +were appointed by the executive of each without even an opportunity to +confer with the Legislature; in others, the consent of the +representative body was secured, but in no instance were the people +themselves consulted. The measures proposed were comparatively new; +the important ones were innovations upon the established principles of +the Government, and none of them had ever been submitted to public +scrutiny. They related to the institution of slavery; and the +experience of the country justifies the assertion that any proposition +for additional securities to slavery under the flag of the nation, +must be fully discussed and well understood before its adoption, or it +will yield a fearful harvest of woe in dissensions and controversies +among the people. Nor could the undersigned have justified the act to +themselves, if they had concurred in asking Congress to propose +amendments to the Constitution unless they were prepared also to +advocate the adoption of the amendments by the people.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_616" id="Page_616">616</a></span></p> + +<p>It is due to truth to say that the Convention did not possess all the +desirable characteristics of a deliberative assembly. It was in some +degree disqualified for the performance of the important task assigned +to it, by the circumstances of its constitution, to which reference +has already been made. Moreover, there were members who claimed that +certain concessions must be granted that the progress of the secession +movement might be arrested; and on the other hand there were men who +either doubted or denied the wisdom of such concessions.</p> + +<p>The circumstances were extraordinary. Within the preceding ninety days +the integrity of the Union had been assailed by the attempt of six +States to overthrow its authority; seven other States were +disaffected, and some of them had assumed a menacing and even hostile +attitude. The political disturbances had been associated with or +followed by financial distress.</p> + +<p>The Convention was then a body of men without a recognized and +ascertained constituency, called together in an exigency and without +preparation, and invited to initiate measures for the amendment of the +Constitution in most important particulars, and all at a moment when +the public mind was swayed by fears and alarms such as have never +before been experienced by the American people.</p> + +<p>In these circumstances the undersigned thought it inexpedient to +propose amendments to the Constitution, believing that so important an +act should not be initiated and accomplished without the greatest +deliberation and care. Nor could the undersigned satisfy themselves +that any or all of the proposed amendments would even tend, in any +considerable degree, to the preservation of the Union. Although +inquiries were repeatedly made, no assurance was given that any +propositions of amendment would secure the return of the seceded +States; and it was admitted that several of the Border States would +ultimately unite with the Gulf States, either within or without the +limits of the Union, as might be dictated by events yet in the future. +Indeed, no proposition was in any degree acceptable to the majority of +delegates from the border slave States that did not provide for the +extension of slavery to the Territories, and its protection and +security therein.</p> + +<p>And further, as appears from the Journal, the Convention was not +prepared to deny the right of a State to secede from the Union. Mr. +Field, of New York, introduced the following proposition, which, on +motion of Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, was laid upon the table:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"The Union of the States under the Constitution is +indissoluble; and no State can secede from the Union, or +nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from +their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution +and laws of the United States."</p></div> + +<p>After much debate and repeated attempts to avoid a direct vote, the +following proposition was rejected:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the +present Constitution that the union of the States under it +is indissoluble."</p></div><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_617" id="Page_617">617</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and +Kansas—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, +and Virginia—11.</p></div> + +<p>On the last day of the session, Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, moved +the adoption of the following resolution:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, as the sense of this Convention, that the +highest political duty of every citizen of the United States +is his allegiance to the Federal Government, created by the +Constitution of the United States, and that no State of this +Union has any constitutional right to secede therefrom, or +to absolve the citizens of such State from their allegiance +to the Government of the United States."</p></div> + +<p>Mr. Ruffin, of North Carolina, moved to postpone the consideration of +the same indefinitely, and the resolution was thereupon postponed by +the following vote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">Ayes.</span>—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, +North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and +Virginia—10.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Noes.</span>—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, +Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania—7.</p></div> + +<p>For these reasons and others the Commissioners from Massachusetts +supported the proposition originally made by Kentucky, and introduced +by Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, recommending a national convention for +the purpose of revising the Constitution, and of providing for the +exigencies likely to arise from the changed and perilous condition of +the country. This measure offered an opportunity for consideration by +the people, and for careful deliberation by the convention that might +be constituted for the purpose. It is highly probable that, after the +lapse of three-fourths of a century, a convention of delegates from +all the States would by general consent propose amendments to the +Constitution; and it is also probable that such a convention would at +once tend to strengthen the feeling of brotherhood among the people of +various sections, while the discussion of the principles of the +Government would render its preservation of paramount concern to all. +This measure of peace and union was rejected.</p> + +<p>The undersigned are constrained by the force of many facts and +circumstances to believe that an exciting cause of the present +difficulties, and a serious obstacle to their removal, is the possible +acquisition of Mexico and Central America.</p> + +<p>The proceedings of the Convention furnish evidence upon this point.</p> + +<p>The proposition to restore the Missouri Compromise, which guaranteed +freedom north of the parallel 36° 30´ north latitude, but furnished no +protection to slavery south of that line, was rejected by the aid of +the unanimous support of the slaveholding States.</p> + +<p>The proposition to settle the territorial question by the admission of +New Mexico as a State, was summarily discouraged by the South in the +committee.</p> + +<p>The suggestion of one of the Commissioners from Massachusetts, that if +the Convention would leave the territorial question out of view, the +diffi<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_618" id="Page_618">618</a></span>culties concerning the rights and relations of the existing +States might be adjusted, did not meet with a favorable response from +the slaveholding section of the country.</p> + +<p>It is to be observed further, that the various propositions and +amendments which were in any degree acceptable to the slave States +guaranteed slavery south of said line.</p> + +<p>It did not seem to the undersigned of signal importance, whether this +guarantee was limited to our present territories, or made in words to +apply to all future acquisitions. Whenever the line of slave States +from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean shall be formed, an +effectual barrier will have been raised against the migration of +freemen southward. Nor can it be assumed, that either with or without +constitutional prohibition, the limits of the republic are not to be +further extended; and if the proposed line be established by the +Constitution, the fairest portions of North America will be given up +irrevocably to African slavery. Nor is the limitation of the right of +a sovereign State to fix its own boundaries, which involves the right +to acquire territory, consistent with its honor in peace, or +compatible with its dignity and necessities in time of war. The +American people are fully forewarned that it is unwise to rely upon +constitutional prohibitions against the acquisition of territory; nor +can such prohibitions always withstand the assaults of a determined +and desperate majority when acting in harmony with the tendencies of +public opinion, and the real or supposed necessities of the country.</p> + +<p>With these views, and with this experience in mind, the undersigned +did not regard with favor the provisions contained in the second +section of the proposed article of amendment. It is also to be +observed that by this section territory may be acquired for <i>naval and +commercial stations, depots, and transit routes</i>, without a resort to +the treaty-making power. These provisions seem to be broad enough to +permit the summary annexation of Cuba, and portions of Central America +and Mexico, by a simple law or joint resolution of Congress.</p> + +<p>Thus, these two sections considered together, furnished no additional +securities against territorial acquisitions, while they effectually +established and protected slavery in all territory, present and +future, south of the parallel 36° 30´ north latitude. By the first +section, the common law was to be so changed, that a condition of +slavery would be assumed in regard to all the African race within the +Territories, and the laws of the several slave States would be +enforced against all persons of that race who might be carried from +the existing slave States into the Territories. The language is +ambiguous, but this interpretation seems to be warranted; and, in the +opinion of the undersigned, the courts would render an interpretation +adequate to the result just indicated. It is thus seen that the only +method of establishing and protecting slavery in the Territories, is +to provide for the execution, within their limits, of the laws of the +several slave States.</p> + +<p>This section also incorporates into the Constitution of the United +States the existing laws and usages of New Mexico relating to slavery, +and renders them irrepealable during the territorial condition.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_619" id="Page_619">619</a></span></p> + +<p>By the second section, the Senators are divided into two classes, +those who represent the slaveholding, and those who represent the +non-slaveholding States of the Union, and a majority of each class is +required as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary for the +acquisition of territory by treaty. A full exposition of this +proposition would show that it is a complete and dangerous departure +from the principles of the Government, and sure to effect its complete +dissolution. When the Senate becomes two separate and distinct bodies, +and when the existence of the institution of slavery determines where +the line of division shall be, then the Government, for all practical +purposes, is at an end. This proposition was introduced by Mr. +Summers, of Virginia; and Virginia, by its delegates, also introduced +and supported a kindred proposition, by which "all appointments to +office in the Territories lying north of the line 36° 30´, as well +before as after the establishment of Territorial Governments in and +over the same, or any part thereof, shall be made upon the +recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing at the time +the non-slaveholding States; and in like manner, all appointments to +office in the Territories which may lie south of said line of 36° 30´, +shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senators +representing at the time the slaveholding States."</p> + +<p>We cannot hesitate to declare the opinion, carefully formed, that this +policy of dividing the Senate into two classes, is fraught with +dangers to the country more to be dreaded than the bold and defiant +measures of those men and States that are arrayed in open hostility to +the Union. This measure is a part of the policy of Mr. Calhoun, by +which the Government was to be changed, and the executive department +so divided that nothing could be done without the concurrence of two +Presidents, one representing the slaveholding and one representing the +non-slaveholding States.</p> + +<p>The third section contains several provisions for strengthening and +securing slavery in the District of Columbia and in the several States +and Territories. It gives to representatives and others the right to +bring their slaves into the District of Columbia, retain, and take +them away, even after slavery may have ceased to exist in that +District by the constitutional action of Congress. It secures the +slave-trade between States and Territories in which slavery is +established or recognized by law or usage, with the right of transit +through free States, by sea or river, and of touching at ports, +shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress; reserving, +however, to the States and Territories the power to prohibit the +transit of slaves and the sale or traffic therein. Thus the +transportation of slaves would be a right as broad as the limits of +the republic, unless it should be restrained by the laws of individual +States, which acts might readily be regarded as a breach of comity.</p> + +<p>The fourth section of the article gives to the States the power of +concurrent legislation with the United States for the rendition of +fugitive slaves, thus introducing a new topic of agitation into every +State, without in any degree relieving Congress of its duty in this +particular.</p> + +<p>The fifth section prohibits the foreign slave-trade, and makes it the +duty<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_620" id="Page_620">620</a></span> of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, +coolies, or persons held to service or labor. As Congress has already, +by the Constitution, full power to regulate the migration or +importation of persons from other countries, there is no reason for +such constitutional provisions upon the subject. It alone remains to +enact proper laws and secure their faithful and prompt execution.</p> + +<p>The sixth section declares that certain sections of the proposed +article of amendment, and certain provisions of the Constitution +relating to slavery, shall not be amended or abolished without the +consent of all the States.</p> + +<p>The undersigned, being of opinion that no such stipulation ought to be +made, and that if made, it would not be binding upon the country, did +not hesitate to give the vote of the State against the proposition.</p> + +<p>The seventh and last section of the proposed article of amendment is +in the following words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall +pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, +in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty +it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing +by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblies, +or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like +violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of +the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude +the owner from further claim of such fugitive. Congress +shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each +State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the +several States."</p></div> + +<p>In a Convention duly called and assembled for the revision of the +Constitution, the undersigned would have assented to this section; and +in declining to vote thereon they intended to so declare to their +associates from the slaveholding States.</p> + +<p>The undersigned thus set forth the doings of the Convention, and some +of the reasons by which their conduct was controlled. It was not their +fortune to concur with the action of the Convention. The concessions +demanded by the discontented States, seemed to be inconsistent with +honor, justice, and freedom, and calculated to render permanent the +existing causes of disturbance. A Union restored by unmanly +concessions, would be productive of bitter criminations and lasting +hostilities, and would contain within itself the seeds of a violent +death.</p> + +<p>But the undersigned are bound to say that the differences in the +Convention were, in the main, differences of opinion, and not of +purpose. Loyalty to the Constitution and the Union was general; and +the undersigned do not doubt that the act of Virginia, in inviting a +conference with her sister States, will be productive of beneficial +results to the country.</p> + +<p>The Commissioners from Massachusetts were much impressed by the fact, +which their personal intercourse with gentlemen from all the +slaveholding States brought to their knowledge, that the present +difficulties of the country were not caused by the pressure of +grievances supposed to be actually existing; but rather by the fear of +future interference with Southern rights, caused by entire +misapprehension of the purposes of the people of the free States. +Misrepresentation of those purposes, proceeding from among our<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_621" id="Page_621">621</a></span>selves, +whether prompted by ignorance of Northern sentiment, or by sinister +motives, are greatly to be deprecated.</p> + +<p>The undersigned entertain no doubt that the intercourse between the +different sections of the country, through their representatives in +Convention, had a most salutary influence in correcting false views of +Northern sentiment, and in assuring our brethren of the South that +there is no purpose among the people of those States, who, upon +principle, oppose the extension of slavery, to disturb or touch with +an unfriendly hand the domestic relations of any other States of the +Union.</p> + +<p>In the present exigency of public affairs, each State should be +careful to perform its whole duty freely and faithfully to its sister +States and to the country; and then may it well and fearlessly demand, +whether the Union contain many States or few, that the Government +shall be administered according to the principles of equality and +justice which characterize the Constitution formed by our fathers, and +which will prove a sufficient security in all the trials and perils of +our national existence.</p> + +<p class="right"> +JOHN Z. GOODRICH,<br /> +CHARLES ALLEN,<br /> +GEO. S. BOUTWELL,<br /> +T.P. CHANDLER,<br /> +F.B. CROWNINSHIELD,<br /> +J.M. FORBES,<br /> +RICHARD P. WATERS.<br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, <i>March 22d, 1861.</i></p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_622" id="Page_622">622</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a><span class="gesperrt">INDEX.</span></h2> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p> +ALEXANDER, W.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>, <a href='#Page_372'>372</a>, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a>, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +ALLEN, CHARLES.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +AMES, SAMUEL.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +BACKUS, F.T.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_394'>394</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BALDWIN, R.S.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">report of, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_390'>390</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendments by, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>, <a href='#Page_411'>411</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BARRINGER, D.M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a>, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a>, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_446'>446</a>, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BATES, D.M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BATTELL, ROBINS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BOUTWELL, GEO. H.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BROWN, GEO. H.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>, <a href='#Page_452'>452</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BRADFORD, A.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BROCKENBROUGH, J.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BRONSON, G.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_395'>395</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_388'>388</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_402'>402</a>, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_409'>409</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BUCHANAN, JAMES.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">letter from, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BUCKNER, A.H.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +BUTLER, WM. O.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +CARRUTHERS, R.L.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CHASE, S.P.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_391'>391</a>, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>, <a href='#Page_446'>446</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">appeal by, <a href='#Page_446'>446</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CHITTENDEN, L.E.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">footnotes by, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a>, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CLAY, J.B.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_372'>372</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a>, <a href='#Page_388'>388</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_387'>387</a>, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CLEVELAND, C.F.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>, <a href='#Page_448'>448</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +COALTER, J.D.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>, <a href='#Page_399'>399</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_447'>447</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +COMMITTEE.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on organization, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on credentials, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on State resolutions, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CONVENTION A.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">rules and organization of, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +COOK, B.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CORNING, ERASTUS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CRISFIELD, J.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a>, <a href='#Page_410'>410</a>, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CROWNINSHIELD, F.B.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +CURTIS, S.H.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +DAVIS, GEORGE.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion of, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +DENT, J.F.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a>, <a href='#Page_391'>391</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +DODGE, W.E.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +DONIPHAN, A.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +ELLIS, E.W.H.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remark of, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +EWING, THOMAS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a>, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>.</span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_623" id="Page_623">623</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +FIELD, D. DUDLEY.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>, <a href='#Page_371'>371</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a>, <a href='#Page_399'>399</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +FOWLER, ASA.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_364'>364</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +FRANKLIN, THOS. E.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_448'>448</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment (substitute) by, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_446'>446</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +FRELINGHUYSEN, F.T.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a>, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a>, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +GOODRICH, J.Z.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +GRANGER, FRANCIS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>, <a href='#Page_438'>438</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_372'>372</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +GRIMES, J.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +GROESBECK, W.S.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a>, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_372'>372</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +GUTHRIE, JAMES.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>, <a href='#Page_371'>371</a>, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a>, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>, <a href='#Page_395'>395</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_409'>409</a>, <a href='#Page_440'>440</a>, <a href='#Page_448'>448</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a>, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>, <a href='#Page_440'>440</a>, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>, <a href='#Page_443'>443</a>, <a href='#Page_444'>444</a>, <a href='#Page_445'>445</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">report of, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preamble by, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +HACKLEMAN, P.A.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a>, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +HALL, HILAND.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +HARRIS, B.D.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preamble and resolutions by, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +HITCHCOCK, REUBEN.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +HOPPIN, W.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +HOUSTON, J.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>, <a href='#Page_421'>421</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">appeal by, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +HOWARD, B.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_371'>371</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>, <a href='#Page_405'>405</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +JAMES, A.B.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendments by, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +JOHNSON, REVERDY.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +JOHNSON, WM. P.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_395'>395</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolutions of, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +KING, J.A.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_403'>403</a>, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +LOGAN, S.T.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_386'>386</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendments by, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +LOOMIS, A.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +McCURDY, C.J.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_368'>368</a>, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +McKEENAN, WM.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +MEREDITH, WM. M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">proposition of, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +MOREHEAD, C.S.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_391'>391</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +MOREHEAD, J.M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>, <a href='#Page_395'>395</a>, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a>, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a>, <a href='#Page_393'>393</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +MORRILL, L.M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +NOYES, W.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a>, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +ORTH, G.S.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>, <a href='#Page_387'>387</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motions by, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +PALMER, J.M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_404'>404</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +POLLOCK, JAMES.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a>, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +PRATT, J.T.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +PRICE, E.M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +RANDOLPH, J.F.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_449'>449</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">appeal by, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +REID, D.S.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +RIVES, W.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +ROMAN, J.D.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a>, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +RUFFIN, THOMAS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a>, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>, <a href='#Page_448'>448</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_372'>372</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_448'>448</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +SECRETARY.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">statement of, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +SEDDON, JAMES A.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_395'>395</a>, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a>, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">report of, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a>, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>, <a href='#Page_418'>418</a>, <a href='#Page_447'>447</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +SLAUGHTER, T.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_442'>442</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +SMITH, J.C.<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_624" id="Page_624">624</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>, <a href='#Page_371'>371</a>, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +SOMES, D.E.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_409'>409</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_409'>409</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +STEPHENS, W.H.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +STOCKTON, R.F.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_436'>436</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +STONE, J.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +SUMMERS, G.W.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">report of, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#Page_373'>373</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +TUCK, AMOS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a>, <a href='#Page_424'>424</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">address by, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_425'>425</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +TURNER, T.J.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_408'>408</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +TYLER, JOHN.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>, <a href='#Page_390'>390</a>, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">decisions by, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a>, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>, <a href='#Page_437'>437</a>, <a href='#Page_441'>441</a>, <a href='#Page_444'>444</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +VANDEVER, WILLIAM.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>, <a href='#Page_410'>410</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendments by, <a href='#Page_371'>371</a>, <a href='#Page_410'>410</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preamble and resolutions of, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +WHITE, THOMAS.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_390'>390</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WICKLIFFE, C.E.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a>, <a href='#Page_397'>397</a>, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>, <a href='#Page_434'>434</a>, <a href='#Page_439'>439</a>, <a href='#Page_452'>452</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">resolution by, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preamble and resolution by, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WILLARDS, J.H. & H.A.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">letter from, <a href='#Page_450'>450</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WILMOT, DAVID.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">amendment by, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>, <a href='#Page_391'>391</a>, <a href='#Page_399'>399</a>, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a>, <a href='#Page_433'>433</a>, <a href='#Page_435'>435</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WOOD, JOHN.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motion by, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WOLCOTT, C.P.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WRIGHT, C.J.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">letter from, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +WRIGHT, J.C.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remarks of, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.</span><br /> +</p> + + + +<hr /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_625" id="Page_625">625</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="INDEX_TO_THE_APPENDIX" id="INDEX_TO_THE_APPENDIX"></a>INDEX TO THE APPENDIX.</h2> + +<hr class="short" /> + +<p class="center"><b>B</b></p> + +<p>Baker, Edward D., <a href='#Page_502'>502</a>, <a href='#Page_522'>522</a>, <a href='#Page_523'>523</a>, <a href='#Page_524'>524</a>, <a href='#Page_526'>526</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Barr, Thomas J., <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bayard, J.A., <a href='#Page_566'>566</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bigler, William, <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_476'>476</a>, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>, <a href='#Page_478'>478</a>, <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>, <a href='#Page_483'>483</a>, <a href='#Page_486'>486</a>, <a href='#Page_487'>487</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bingham, K.S., <a href='#Page_468'>468</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bingham, J.A., <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bocock, Thomas S., <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Boteler, A.R., <a href='#Page_576'>576</a>, <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bragg, Thomas, <a href='#Page_515'>515</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Brayton, William D., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Buchanan, James, <a href='#Page_572'>572</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Burch, John C., <a href='#Page_574'>574</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Burnett, Henry C., <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>C</b></p> + +<p>Campbell, James H., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Chandler, Zachariah, <a href='#Page_469'>469</a>, <a href='#Page_471'>471</a>, <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Clark, Daniel, <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>, <a href='#Page_489'>489</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Clingman, Thomas L., <a href='#Page_475'>475</a>, <a href='#Page_491'>491</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Cochrane, John, <a href='#Page_574'>574</a>, <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Collamer, Jacob, <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_482'>482</a>, <a href='#Page_483'>483</a>, <a href='#Page_492'>492</a>, <a href='#Page_493'>493</a>, <a href='#Page_497'>497</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Committee, Select, <a href='#Page_475'>475</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Cox, Samuel S., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Craige, Burton, <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>, <a href='#Page_580'>580</a>, <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Crittenden. John J., <a href='#Page_471'>471</a>, <a href='#Page_473'>473</a>, <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_475'>475</a>, <a href='#Page_476'>476</a>, <a href='#Page_499'>499</a>, <a href='#Page_501'>501</a>, <a href='#Page_502'>502</a>, <a href='#Page_503'>503</a>, <a href='#Page_509'>509</a>, <a href='#Page_513'>513</a>, <a href='#Page_514'>514</a>, <a href='#Page_515'>515</a>, <a href='#Page_516'>516</a>, <a href='#Page_518'>518</a>, <a href='#Page_532'>532</a>, <a href='#Page_565'>565</a>, <a href='#Page_566'>566</a>, <a href='#Page_568'>568</a>, <a href='#Page_569'>569</a>, <a href='#Page_570'>570</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Curtis, Samuel R., <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>, <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>D</b></p> + +<p> +De Jarnette, D.C., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Delegates, List of, <a href='#Page_465'>465</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Doolittle, James R., <a href='#Page_478'>478</a>, <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>, <a href='#Page_498'>498</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Douglas, Stephen A., <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_479'>479</a>, <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>, <a href='#Page_535'>535</a>, <a href='#Page_564'>564</a>, <a href='#Page_568'>568</a>, <a href='#Page_571'>571</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>E</b></p> + +<p>Ely, Alfred, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Extract from the minutes of the New York delegation, <a href='#Page_600'>600</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Extract from Journal of the Convention, <a href='#Page_601'>601</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>F</b></p> + +<p>Fessenden, Wm. P., <a href='#Page_468'>468</a>, <a href='#Page_471'>471</a>, <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Field, David Dudley, <a href='#Page_596'>596</a>, <a href='#Page_601'>601</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Foster, Lafayette S., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>G</b></p> + +<p>Garnett, Muscoe, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Goodrich, J.Z., <a href='#Page_601'>601</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Green, James S., <a href='#Page_473'>473</a>, <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_532'>532</a>, <a href='#Page_536'>536</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Grow, Galusha A., <a href='#Page_576'>576</a>, <a href='#Page_577'>577</a>. <a href='#Page_578'>578</a>, <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Gwin, William M., <a href='#Page_476'>476</a>, <a href='#Page_570'>570</a>, <a href='#Page_571'>571</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>H</b></p> + +<p>Hale, John P., <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_475'>475</a>, <a href='#Page_476'>476</a>, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>, <a href='#Page_478'>478</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hale, James T., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Harris, John T., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hatton, Robert, <a href='#Page_577'>577</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hickman, John, <a href='#Page_577'>577</a>, <a href='#Page_578'>578</a>, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hindman, Thomas C., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hoard, Charles B., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Howard, William A., <a href='#Page_574'>574</a>, <a href='#Page_578'>578</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hunter, R.M.T., <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>, <a href='#Page_482'>482</a>, <a href='#Page_483'>483</a>, <a href='#Page_484'>484</a>, <a href='#Page_488'>488</a>, <a href='#Page_489'>489</a>, <a href='#Page_492'>492</a>, <a href='#Page_493'>493</a>, <a href='#Page_497'>497</a>, <a href='#Page_498'>498</a>, <a href='#Page_501'>501</a>, <a href='#Page_569'>569</a>, <a href='#Page_570'>570</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>J</b></p> + +<p>Jenkins, Albert G., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Johnson, Andrew, <a href='#Page_470'>470</a>, <a href='#Page_556'>556</a>, <a href='#Page_568'>568</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Johnson, Robert W., <a href='#Page_567'>567</a>, <a href='#Page_568'>568</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Joint Resolutions, preamble to, <a href='#Page_476'>476</a>, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>, <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Junkin, Benj. F., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>K</b></p> + +<p>Kellogg, Francis W., <a href='#Page_578'>578</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>L</b></p> + +<p>Lane, Joseph, <a href='#Page_535'>535</a>, <a href='#Page_536'>536</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Latham, Milton S., <a href='#Page_475'>475</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Leach, De Witt C., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Leake, Shelton F., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Letcher, John, <a href='#Page_574'>574</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Logan, John A., <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Lovejoy, Owen, <a href='#Page_576'>576</a>, <a href='#Page_577'>577</a>, <a href='#Page_578'>578</a>, <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>M</b></p> + +<p>McClernand, John A., <a href='#Page_576'>576</a>, <a href='#Page_578'>578</a>, <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Mason, James M., <a href='#Page_470'>470</a>, <a href='#Page_473'>473</a>, <a href='#Page_474'>474</a>, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>, <a href='#Page_479'>479</a>, <a href='#Page_502'>502</a>, <a href='#Page_506'>506</a>, <a href='#Page_510'>510</a>, <a href='#Page_514'>514</a>, <a href='#Page_516'>516</a>, <a href='#Page_518'>518</a>, <a href='#Page_535'>535</a>, <a href='#Page_564'>564</a>, <a href='#Page_565'>565</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Maynard, Horace, <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_626" id="Page_626">626</a></span>Millson, John S., <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>N</b></p> + +<p>Nicholson, A.O.P., <a href='#Page_571'>571</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Nixon, John T., <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>P</b></p> + +<p>Pendleton, Geo. H., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Polk, Trusten, <a href='#Page_517'>517</a>, <a href='#Page_518'>518</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Potter, John F., <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Powell, Lazarus W., <a href='#Page_466'>466</a>, <a href='#Page_468'>468</a>, <a href='#Page_469'>469</a>, <a href='#Page_470'>470</a>, <a href='#Page_571'>571</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Pugh, James L., <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>, <a href='#Page_488'>488</a>, <a href='#Page_520'>520</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Puleston, J. Henry, <a href='#Page_472'>472</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>R</b></p> + +<p>Reports of Delegations to States:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Virginia, <a href='#Page_584'>584</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">New York, <a href='#Page_585'>585</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Rhode Island, <a href='#Page_610'>610</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Massachusetts, <a href='#Page_613'>613</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Report, minority, of New York Commissioners, <a href='#Page_604'>604</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Report of Peace Conference, <a href='#Page_472'>472</a>, <a href='#Page_478'>478</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Resolutions of States:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Tennessee, <a href='#Page_454'>454</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Ohio, <a href='#Page_456'>456</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Kentucky, <a href='#Page_457'>457</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Indiana, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Delaware, <a href='#Page_458'>458</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Illinois, <a href='#Page_459'>459</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">New Jersey, <a href='#Page_460'>460</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">New York, <a href='#Page_461'>461</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Pennsylvania, <a href='#Page_462'>462</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Massachusetts, <a href='#Page_463'>463</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Rhode Island, <a href='#Page_464'>464</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Missouri, <a href='#Page_464'>464</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Robinson, Christopher, <a href='#Page_583'>583</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Ruffin, Thomas, <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>S</b></p> + +<p>Sebastian, William K., <a href='#Page_567'>567</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Seward, Wm. H., <a href='#Page_476'>476</a>, <a href='#Page_477'>477</a>, <a href='#Page_478'>478</a>, <a href='#Page_481'>481</a>, <a href='#Page_482'>482</a>, <a href='#Page_483'>483</a>, <a href='#Page_487'>487</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sherman, John, <a href='#Page_580'>580</a>, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sickles, Daniel E., <a href='#Page_579'>579</a>, <a href='#Page_580'>580</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Simmons, James F., <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Stanton, Benjamin, <a href='#Page_574'>574</a>, <a href='#Page_575'>575</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Statement to N.Y. Legislature, <a href='#Page_601'>601</a>, <a href='#Page_603'>603</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Stevens, Thaddeus, <a href='#Page_576'>576</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sumner, Charles, <a href='#Page_480'>480</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>T</b></p> + +<p>Tyler, John, <a href='#Page_471'>471</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Trumbull, Lyman, <a href='#Page_485'>485</a>, <a href='#Page_486'>486</a>, <a href='#Page_487'>487</a>, <a href='#Page_535'>535</a>.<br /> +</p> + +<p class="center"><br /><b>W</b></p> + +<p>Wade, Benj. F., <a href='#Page_488'>488</a>, <a href='#Page_535'>535</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Washburne, Elihu B., <a href='#Page_577'>577</a>, <a href='#Page_582'>582</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Wilkinson, Morton S., <a href='#Page_523'>523</a>, <a href='#Page_524'>524</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Wilson, James, <a href='#Page_581'>581</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Woodson, Samuel H., <a href='#Page_580'>580</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Wright, C.J., <a href='#Page_601'>601</a>.<br /> +</p> + + + +<hr /> +<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruffin</span> stated the substance of the amendments he +proposed in a voice so low, as not to be audible to the greater part +of the Conference. They are not to be found in the Journal, nor in the +documents printed by order of the Conference, nor were they heard by +me.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> The speech of Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> is, I believe, the only one +delivered in the Conference which I did not hear, and of which I did +not preserve minutes more or less full. The reason for the omission +was this: The morning session was protracted until a late hour, and +the labor of reporting the remarks of the members had been very +severe. The evening session commenced with some observations of my +own; and after reporting the remarks of Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span>, which followed +mine, I found myself in such a condition of physical exhaustion that I +was obliged to retire to my room. It was during this temporary absence +that the remarks of Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> were made. I was informed that his +speech was very animated and in excellent temper—that he took the +position that North Carolina was loyal to the Union, but that he fully +concurred with the Southern States in the necessity of demanding +constitutional guarantees; and that if these were not given, her +relations were such with South Carolina and the Gulf States that, +however much she might regret the necessity, she could not do +otherwise than to leave the Union and unite her future with those of +the seceded States. +</p><p> +I have been unable to communicate by letter with any of the members +representing the States now in insurrection. As Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> was the only +representative from North Carolina who entered into a general +discussion of the reports of the majority and minority of the +Committee of One from each State, I was the more desirous of securing +some report of his remarks. But in all the material which has been +furnished me, by the many members with whom I have corresponded, I +find that none of them preserved notes of his speech.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> This was a verbal amendment. I was not able to note it at +the time, nor have I since been able to procure it.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> I suppose these amendments offered by Mr. <span class="smcap">Brockenbrough</span> +were never printed; certainly no printed copy of them was ever +distributed to the members of the Conference, and they were never +inserted in the Journal. In preserving my notes, I naturally assumed +that I could rely upon the printed copies distributed to the members, +for the various amendments offered. At the period of writing out these +notes communication with Mr. <span class="smcap">Brockenbrough</span> is impossible, and I am +obliged to omit farther notice of his amendments. I am not even able +to state the subjects to which they referred.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> The published Journal states that Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span> dissented +from the vote of New Jersey. My notes do not show that he dissented, +and I think the Journal may be erroneous in this particular.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> I relied upon the Journal for the individual list of the +votes. In this respect the Journal is defective, and does not give the +names of the States voting. My minutes show that the vote was taken by +States with the foregoing result.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> The closing remarks of Mr. <span class="smcap">Baldwin</span> were committed to +writing. I am able through the kindness of a member of his family to +avail myself of a copy.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> I have not heretofore expressed my own opinions upon the +action of the Conference or of delegations; but as much has been said +about the vote given by New York, or rather the division of the +delegation, under which no vote was given, it is due to the parties +concerned that I should state my own understanding of the practice of +the Conference in this respect. After the rejection of the motion of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Chase</span> (found on <a href="#Page_209">page 209</a>), and the adoption of the proposition of +Mr. <span class="smcap">Dent</span>, so far as my own knowledge goes it was never deemed +necessary that the entire delegation from a State should be present in +order to cast its vote. I was present all the time, and frequently +cast the vote of my own State upon previous consultation with my +colleagues, when a majority of the delegation was absent. This was +frequently done, to my personal knowledge, by other States: by none +more frequently than Virginia. During several of the sessions the +President himself was absent, and the chair was filled for the greater +part of the time by Mr. <span class="smcap">Alexander</span>, or Mr. <span class="smcap">Morehead</span>, of Kentucky. I can +recall to mind several occasions when the vote of Virginia was cast by +Mr. <span class="smcap">Seddon</span> alone, no other member of his delegation being present. +When the question arose upon the vote of New York, I was surprised +that this point was not insisted upon; but deeming it a matter +exclusively for the delegation from that State to settle, I did not +think the case one in which others should interfere. L.E.C.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> See <a href="#Page_64">page 64</a>, Proceedings of the Conference.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> An authentic copy of the Journal was not received until +the 21st instant and the Commissioners did not feel prepared to make a +report without an opportunity for consulting it.</p></div> + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Report of the Debates and +Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention, by Lucius Eugene Chittenden + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPORT OF THE DEBATES *** + +***** This file should be named 24561-h.htm or 24561-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/5/6/24561/ + +Produced by Curtis Weyant, Linda Cantoni, and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from scans of public domain works at the +University of Michigan's Making of America collection.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |