Part 39

Mr. COALTER:--Does the gentleman mean this as a substitute for the entire report of the committee, for all that we have hitherto done?

Mr. FIELD:--Certainly not.

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.

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.

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 true way is, to vote for this plain proposition, and not vote against it.

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. POLLOCK--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?

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.

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.

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 DAVIS--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.

There is an element in this Conference which, from the first 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.

Mr. BUCKNER:--I move to amend the amendment of Mr. FIELD, by adding the following:

"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."

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 as a naked vote of rejection; the reasons why we vote against it will not go before the world.

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.

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.

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.

I am ready to vote down his proposition. I wish to see it 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:

"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."

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

You charged JOHN BROWN with treason. You convicted and executed him; and yet among you are thousands of men guilty of treason, beside which that of JOHN BROWN 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.

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.

I agree that there is no _right_ of secession. I think that secession is revolution. But the right of revolution always exists. It has always been maintained by statesmen North and South. It was admitted by WEBSTER in his reply to HAYNE. I would read a quotation from his speech if time was not so valuable.

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.

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.

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. FIELD.

The PRESIDENT:--I do not think the point of order is well taken.

The question upon agreeing to the amendment of Mr. BUCKNER was then taken by States, with the following result:

AYES.--Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia--5.

NOES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--15.

So the amendment was lost.

Mr. BRONSON:--My motion is now in order as an amendment. I insist that the question should be taken upon its adoption.

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.

The question on the adoption of Mr. BRONSON'S motion was taken _viva voce_, and the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York--Mr. FIELD.

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.

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 KING) 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.

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.

Mr. NOYES:--If my colleague who offered this amendment, 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.

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.

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 _the Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble_. I regard the adoption of this amendment as both expedient and essential.

Mr. TURNER, of Illinois:--I do not think this amendment very important either way. If this is intended as a mere declaration 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?

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.

The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. FIELD, and resulted as follows:

AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kansas--10.

NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11.

So the amendment was disagreed to.