(J^g Speach Of ... (g^ 
 
E 440 
 .5 
 
 .G79 
 Copy 1 
 
 NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 . jj 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. J. S. GREEN, OF MISSOURI, 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 12, 1861. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 bill (H. R. No. 714) making appropriations for 
 the naval service for the year ending the 30th of 
 June, 1862; the pending question being on con- 
 curring in the following amendment, made as in 
 Committee of the Whole, to add as an additional 
 section: 
 
 v3?irf he it further enacted,ThB.t the Secretary of the Navy- 
 be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause to be constructed 
 for the United States Navy, at as early a day as practicable, 
 having due regard to efficiency and economy, seven steam 
 screw'sloops-of-war, of the second class, as vessels are rated 
 in the Navy, with full steam power, whose greatest draught 
 of water shall not exceed fourteen feet, which sloops shall 
 combine the heaviest armamentand greatest speed compat- 
 ible with their character and tonnage ; and for the purpose 
 above specified, the sum of $1,20U,000 be, and the same is 
 herebv,appropriated,out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, to be expended under the direction 
 of the Secretary of the Navy. 
 
 Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, it nnight be sup- 
 posed that the line of my remarks is not appro- 
 priate to the present bill now pending befoi-e the 
 Senate; but, under the circumstances growing out 
 of the character of the speeches made on the pend- 
 ing amendment, I think them entirely appropriate. 
 The exact subject-matter upon which the Senatfe 
 must now act, and to which the attention of the 
 Senate ought to be directed, is, the propriety of the 
 appropriation of $1,200,000 to build seven new 
 screwsteamersofcertain dimensions and draught. 
 In itself, it would seem to be a matter of very small 
 importance; but when the intent with which it is 
 now urged is shadowed forth by its friends, it 
 stikes the public mind with so much force that 
 we cannot resist the occasion to meet them in the 
 proper spirit. At a time when the Treasury is 
 depleted; at a time when there is no actual neces- 
 sity for an increase of our naval force; at a time 
 when, unfortunately, we have been driven into the 
 market to borrow nearly seventy million dollars, 
 in addition to a proposition to increase the duties 
 upon all imported goods; and besides all this, 
 when honest contracts are urged for payment, 
 when the creditors of the Government are beg- 
 ging you to pay them, they are put off with the 
 poor and miserable plea, that we have not money 
 to pay; men who have credited this Government 
 for eighty years, who have advanced money and 
 have never received it back, are to be pushed 
 aside on the poor plea that we are not able to pay 
 
 them now, and when you undertake to pay them 
 the plea is urged, also, that the Government is 
 presumed always to be ready, and therefore you 
 will not pay interest — in this contingency and 
 under this state of things we are asked to appro- 
 priate $1,200,000 to build seven new steamers! 
 
 I ask this question, and 1 want the country to 
 respond to it, whether the Senate does or not: is 
 there such a pressing necessity as to require of us 
 to borrow money for that purpose — for it is to bor- 
 row money ? To what purposes are these steam- 
 ers to be applied.' Why is it at this time, when 
 our resources are less than they have been for 
 many years, when our credit is lower than it has 
 been for a long number of years, why is it now- 
 deemed necessary to borrow $1,200,000 to build 
 seven new steamers.' This question would have 
 been pertinent; it is now pertinent; it will remain 
 pertinent; but the purpose was disclosed in the 
 speech of the honorable Senator from New York. 
 I do not mean the thin, keen-visaged, eagle-eyed 
 Senator, but I mean the bellicose Senator, [laugh- 
 ter,] whose voice is still for war, whose object is 
 to involve us in serious, deadly conflict; and he 
 says he wants them to coerce sovereign States. 
 Why, sir, when we have been begging for. some 
 private claims of a few dollars, the cry was, we 
 had not the money; and when we answered it and 
 said: " all we want is an acknowledgment of the 
 debt; we will take your credit for them," a deaf 
 ear was turned to us. When an application for 
 $120,000,000— not thousands, but $120,000,000— - 
 to build a railroad to the Pacific was made, it was 
 adopted almost by acclamation. When the re- 
 sources from the public lands, amounting to 
 $3,500,000 annually, were proposed to be taken 
 away by a homestead bill, to give to the vaga- 
 bonds and scoundrels sent out from your over- 
 grown cities, that was adopted with avidity. You 
 vole away all your resources; you vote away 
 $120,000,000. When we ask you to pay an hon- 
 est debt, you say you have not got the money, 
 and you will not therefore acknowledge it. Then 
 you get up and say, give us $1,200,000 to build 
 seven new steamers for war purpos.s, to coerce 
 those Slates who deem themselves injured, and, 
 in the exercise of their sovereign rigliis, choose 
 to say they secede from the Union. 
 
 Mr. President, it resolves itself into this ques- 
 
s, 
 
 ^^ 
 
 tion — not the protection of public property; not 
 the enforccmeiU of tlie laws; but, has any State 
 a right to secede; and if she has the right under 
 any circumstances and in any contingency, who 
 is to be the judge of the circumstances that jus- 
 tify it? If the Federal Government is to be the 
 judge, the right does not exist. That is a denial 
 of the right. If the State is to be the judge, that 
 is an admission of the right. Who then is to be 
 the judge; and if a wrong decision is made, on 
 whom does the responsibility fall, and what con- 
 sequences are to follow? Talk to me about en- 
 forcing the law ! Why, sir, there is no man in 
 the United States but wiiat says "enforce the 
 law;" but enforce it where? Enforce it where 
 you have jurisdiction; enforce it over your Union. 
 That does not still meet the question ; for if a State 
 has the right to secede and does secede, she is no 
 longer a part of the Union; and the enforcement 
 of the law within the Union does not include the 
 right to enforce it in a seceding State. Protect 
 public property, you say ? Sosayl. Whateveris 
 public property, protect; protect it against John 
 Brown and Montgomery and the Abolition hordes 
 who rush into Missouri and Virginia. That is a 
 diiferent question. But what is public property? 
 That property which is appropriated to public 
 purposes ioit/ti7i /Ae Union; not property outside 
 of the Union. 
 
 You have public property at Spezzia, on the 
 Mediterranean; but I venture to say, that you will 
 not send your Army and your Navy and your 
 seven new steamers there, if the Government there 
 says the circumstances of thatcountry require you 
 to desist. You have public property in the city of 
 London, where your minister resides. You will 
 not send your Army and your Navy there to pro- 
 tect it. You own it as a mere proprietor, and you 
 are subjects to the local law, the law of Great Brit- 
 ain. You have public property in other parts of 
 the world, but you cannot protect it with military 
 power. You can negotiate and insist upon a pro- 
 tection of your rights; but that is all. 
 
 Have you public property in South Carolina? 
 for I intend to reduce this question to its simple 
 elements. I answer, you have not one single par- 
 ticle. The right to secede is a question that I 
 postpone for after consideration. If, however, the 
 right to secede is admitted, whatever forts, maga- 
 zines, arsenals, or other jiublic property had been 
 purchased, made, constructed, or improved by the 
 Federal Government, cease to be public property 
 of the Union; they follow, necessarily, the action 
 of the local sovereignty. Port Sumter this day is 
 wrongfully held by thisGovernment; it isan actof 
 wariigainst the State of South Carolina. But you 
 say, the Federal Government built it. I answer, | 
 yes; with the consentofthc State. When? When 
 that State was a jiarlof the Federal Union. For 
 whose benefit? To protect Washington city ? No. 
 To protect New York ? No. To protect Boston? 
 No. To protect Charleston? Yes. Now, a fort 
 built for the purpose of jn-otecting the city of 
 Charleston, is, it seems, to have its ponderous 
 guns turned and their frowning mouths directed 
 against the very city for whose benefit it was 
 erected. 
 
 Whose money paid for it? you may ask. I 
 
 answer, the money of the Federal Treasury. You 
 then will ask this additional question: if the Fed- 
 eral Treasury built tlie fort, and manned the fort, 
 and armed the fort, although it was intended for 
 the protection of South Carolina, can South Car- 
 olina, by an act of secession, reclaim thatand take 
 Federal property? I give you this answer: South 
 Carolina contributed her due proportion for the 
 building of all the forts; and she contributed as 
 much to build Fort Columbus , and every northern 
 fort, and every other southern fort as she did to 
 build Fort Sumter; so that, in the adjustment of 
 the accounts, there is no injustice done to any por- 
 tion of the Union. She paid to build Fort Mc- 
 Henry, Fortress Monroe, Fort Columbus, and all 
 the other forts stretching from her northern line 
 around to the extreme West — even along the great 
 lakes. She paid her full proportion ; and if we paid 
 our proportion for Fort Sumter, it is no injustice 
 to divide. 
 
 For what object was it erected ? It was erected 
 to protect the city of Charleston and the State of 
 South Carolina. But I will go a step further than 
 that. I say there never was an instance in the 
 history of the world, where a State seceded or 
 revolutionized, when the act was complete, that 
 any other State claimed the forts within her lim- 
 its. I shall hereafter come to the point whether 
 the act is yet complete or not; but I do say there 
 never was an instance — you may search the rec- 
 ords of the world — where a State revolutionizes 
 or withdraws from an association of States, that 
 any other Power claimed a fort situated in her 
 limits. 
 
 Hence, when you talk aboutprotecting the prop- 
 erty of the United States, everybody will say that 
 is right; but it leaves the question still unanswered , 
 what is the property of the United States. When 
 you talk about enforcing the laws within the 
 jurisdiction of the United States, everybody res- 
 ponds, yes; but it leaves the question still unan- 
 swered, what are the limits of the United States. 
 Hence, the whole of it, disguise it as you may, 
 resolve's itself into this one question: has the State 
 the right to secede, and has the State, in fact, se- 
 ceded ? I challenge the world to meet that ques- 
 tion, if you concede the right and the fact. There 
 are two points in it: the ri-glU, and the exercise of 
 the right. You may concede the right to all 
 States; for if it exists with one, it exists with all. 
 They are all on perfect terms of equality; every 
 State in this Union acquired since the original 
 thirteen formed the Confederation, is on exact 
 terms of equality; and a Union not based upon 
 terms of equality would not be worth preserving. 
 
 Individuals may rise in a community, violate 
 the laws, and subject themselves to punishment; 
 but that never meets the real question that we 
 have to consider. Our Government is one of its 
 own jieculiar kind. This association of States is 
 such a one as never existed before; and if broken 
 up by the misconduct of its members, it will never 
 have its counterpart. Individuals in a single Gov- 
 ernment can commit treason, can commit rebel- 
 lion, can violate the laws. Individuals in an 
 associated Governnient can do the sanm things. 
 But in regard to a State — a member of the asso- 
 ciation — it brings up a different question for con- 
 
sideration. A county in a State is an integral 
 part of the Stnte; an individual of a State is an 
 integral part of a State; but tliis Federal Govern- 
 ment is, as expressed by Mr. Calhoun, a multi- 
 ple of units. Each State being an entirety, an 
 entity, a thing of itself, having power to breathe 
 and exist, it goes into this multiple by its own 
 voluntary action. 
 
 In all such cases, every sovereignty can go out 
 of its own voluntary action, it being an entirety 
 and a unit, and not afew individuals; and all this 
 talk about coercing springs from a confounded 
 notion of thought — I mean an uncomprehended 
 consideration of the subject, that they are indi- 
 viduals, and not State sovereignties. They con- 
 found the idea, and undertake to liken a State in 
 the Union to a county in a State; but more differ- 
 ent ideas could not possibly be presented. A 
 county in a State is a fragment of a State; a State 
 in the Union is an entirety; it is a unit; it is a 
 voluntary memberof an association. The county 
 is no voluntary member, because every county in 
 a State but one may vote for a law, and yet that 
 one be bound by it. Any county in a State, there- 
 fore, that revolts; any fragmentof a united sover- 
 eignty that flies off; any segment of an entire 
 circle that is broken, in a political sense, is rebel- 
 lion; but when you take an association resting 
 upon volition, resting upon consent, and that con- 
 sent is withdrawn, and the determination is ex- 
 pressed to cease to be in the association, that 
 State is no longer one of the Confederation. I 
 know the question may be asked: what will jus- 
 tify such an act.' I will not answer; and why.' I 
 have no right to answer. 
 
 The State must take the responsibility; the State 
 itself, is the judge of what will justify it. If any 
 other power is the judge, the right does notexist; 
 and to assert that any other power is the judge, is 
 to deny the right. Each State must judge for 
 itself. But suppose the State judges wrongfully 
 and decides improperly, and on mere pretense 
 says: " We will dissolve the association into 
 which we have honorably entered;" then the 
 State has done wrong. Who is to punish the 
 State.' Nobody. Who is to condemn the State? 
 The enlightened judgment of mankind. That is 
 all. There is no other tribunal that can possibly 
 pass judgment upon her. Who passed judgment 
 upon the Revolution of 1776? The enlightened 
 judgment of the world. Was that war, waged by 
 George 111, on the advice of his ministers, a right- 
 ful or a wrongful war? Everybody in the United 
 States says it was a wrongful war. What was 
 the object of that war? To reduce the thirteen 
 colonies to subjection. Why was it a wrongful 
 war? Did not these colonies belong to Great 
 Britain ? Yes. Were they not subject to the 
 .control of the British Crown ? Yes. Did they not 
 throw off their allegiance and renounce it, say- 
 ing that they would hold England, as they did all 
 the rest of the world, in peace friends, in war en- 
 emies? Yes. Was not this rebellion ? Yes. If 
 it was a rebellion, even a case of rebellion you say 
 was justifiable, and a war made against rebels was 
 a wrongful war. Every man, woman, and child 
 ia the United States says even that. Recollect, 
 .the colonies were not component pjirts of a Gov- 
 
 ernment, formed by the voluntary action of in- 
 dependent communities. They were colonies 
 planted , conquered , or purchased by Great Britain . 
 
 Even in that case, everybody says the war was 
 a wrongful war, brought on by the improper ac- 
 tion of the ministers of George III. If that be 
 true, how much stronger, how much more palpa- 
 ble, and how much more extraordinary would it 
 be if herein an association of equals — each one 
 coming in by its own consent, and each one going 
 out by its own consent — when one goes out, you 
 are to undertake to exercise military power and 
 control, and bring on war by the action of the 
 Federal Government. Who would be the wrong- 
 ful actor in this light? It would be the FedereJ 
 Government. I do not anticipate any great diffi- 
 culty, because I know the good sense, I know the 
 sound judgment, and I know the warmth of heart 
 of the American people will prevent all of this; 
 and the few politicians who, to make themselves 
 conspicuous, talk about war, and yet would be 
 the first to run, do not amount to the weight of a 
 feather in the scale. Some of them are so large 
 that they cannot run fast, [laughter,] and would 
 only be shot in the back. 
 
 But, Mr. President, it is our duty here to incul- 
 cate a spirit in the minds and hearts of the people 
 which will dispose them to act in the best manner 
 possible. We are presumed to be representative 
 men; we are presumed to reflect the will of those 
 who sent us here; and acting in thatcapacity our 
 words are treasured up, however foolish they may 
 be, and however ridiculous they are; and they are 
 not simply attributed to us as individual mem- 
 bers of the Senate, but they are, often improperly, 
 ascribed to the power behind us — the people we 
 represent. Let us, therefore, be cautious in the 
 employment of words; let us remember that this 
 Union, as much as we love it, can only be pre- 
 served by the same means that brought it into 
 existence. What are they? Was any State ever 
 whipped into the Union? Then no State can ever 
 hereafter be whipped in; else that will be a differ- 
 ent Union. Was any State ever coerced into the 
 Union ? Then no State hereafter can be coerced 
 into the Union; else that will be a different Union. 
 
 As the States came in by their own voluntary 
 act, they must remain in by their own voluntary 
 act; and when they go out, as they contributed to 
 pay the general expenses for fortifications and 
 armies while theywere in, every fortification which 
 is necessarily local, and within the jurisdiction of 
 a seceding State, belongs to that State, and was 
 intended for the benefit of that State. South Car- 
 olina has as much claim to Fort Columbus in New 
 York harbor this day as the United States has to 
 Fort Sumter; and the same right to attack Fort 
 Columbus as the United States has to attack Fort 
 Moultrie; and I pledge you one feeble arm to act 
 in a contingency that may arise as soon as the 
 United States undertake to attack Fort Moultrie 
 or any other fort; and if they do not surrender 
 Sumter pretty quick, it will be attacked on the 
 other side, and it ought to be, for it is holding a 
 military position within the jurisdiction of a for- 
 eign State against the will of that State. I must 
 say, that I commend the honor and forbearance of 
 South Carolina; and she has done it to prevent the 
 
effusion of blood; and she has done it with the 
 hope that the good sense of the people would come 
 to a proper understanding of tlie subject, and ad- 
 just these difficulties on an honorable and states- 
 manlike compromise, or a peaceful separation. 
 
 The alternative has been presented to us, and 
 we are compelled to act upon it. I said, in the 
 beginning of this session, that Congress would 
 do nothing; that there was a feeling among the 
 people that would drive them with hot haste; and 
 1 thought South Carolina was too hasty; but, 
 whether she was or not, she must be the judge. 
 I was afraid she would be too hasty, and afraid^ 
 other States would be too hasty. 1 wanted the 
 •whole of the States to consult; and I preferred 
 that even Missouri, as remote as she is, should 
 be taken into consultation with others. 1 knew 
 that her patriotic heart throbbed with emotion for 
 this Union; but not that kind of Union which 
 some Senators speak of when they simply say, 
 "Union! Union!" but a constitutional Union; a 
 Union protecting the rights of the States, and the 
 people of the States; and I am really tired of hear- 
 ing long memorials and petitions and speeches, 
 with nothing but " Union !" "Union!" I would 
 challenge Barnwell Rhett to answer whether he 
 is not in favor of the Union; I would challenge 
 Mr. Yancey, are you not for the Union; and they 
 would both answer " yes, "with as much empha- 
 sis and sincerity as the Senator from Maine and 
 the Senator from New York. But then I come 
 to ask the question, what Union do you want? 
 "The Union of the Constitution," they would 
 say. " How do you construe that Constitution ?" 
 Then they separate. One wants one kind of a con- 
 stitutional Union, and the other wants another kind 
 of a constitutional Union. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, as we have arrived at this 
 fearful crisis in our country's history, let us have 
 an honest understanding — either a Union about 
 which there shall be no controversy with regard 
 to our respective rights, or no Union, and a sep- 
 aration. That is what I say. I have come to 
 that point, and I intend to act upon it. No Union, 
 unless it be a Union upon which we can all agree. 
 I do not want to be continually quarreling and 
 defying each other; one saying " we can whip 
 you," and the other saying " we can whip you." 
 Are we not ashamed of that, as statesmen .' One 
 thieatens to march an army down South, and the 
 othersays "come on, we will meet you." What 
 good can all that do.' Had we not better under- 
 stand whatwe want, what weintend to insistupon, 
 what we will have, or separate; and if we are 
 forced to separation, had we not better do it peace- 
 ably than by war? One says, " Here is the great 
 Mississippi, running from north to south, almost 
 from forty-nine degrees north latitude to ihr. Gulf, 
 and we cannot divide the Mississippi." It does 
 not enter into the question at all. The Congress 
 of 181;'), at Vienna, settled the question of inter- 
 national law governing the exit from navigable 
 waters. The question has never been revived 
 since. Brazil undertook to revive it, with regard 
 to the Amazon. She undertook to make treaties 
 with Peru, with Bolivia, and with New Granada, 
 conceding her right to close the navigation of the 
 Amazon. The treaty was rejected. The treaty 
 
 was called a treaty for fluvial navigation. Mr. 
 Clay, who was then our minister at Peru, wrote 
 an able argument against it. 
 
 It was defeated in Bolivia, in Peru, and in New 
 Granada, as conflicting with the established prin- 
 ciples of international law, as settled by the Con- 
 gress of Vienna in 1815; so that the question of 
 the free navigation of navigable waters is not in- 
 volved in it. It is conceded that you may impose 
 police regulations to pre vent smuggling and fraud; 
 but you cannot stop the naivigation. Hence, that 
 question is settled; and I say to the whole North- 
 west, entertain no fears upon that question. Mis- 
 souri is as deeply interested in the navigation of 
 the Mississippi river as any other State, except 
 Louisiana; and Louisiana, by her ordinance of 
 secession, which I have here before me, has pub- 
 licly proclaimed she will not interfere with that 
 free navigation. Hence, these are mere bugbears, 
 thrown in to frighten timid persons, that we can- 
 not cut off* and divide the Mississippi valley. I 
 hope and 1 trust it may never be divided; yet 
 circumstances may arise, misconduct may be so 
 great, oppression so intolerable, as to force us to 
 divide; and if we do divide, had we not better 
 divide peaceably than forcibly? If we are com- 
 pelled to divide, had we not better divide as hon- 
 orable, thinking, and intelligent men, than as 
 reckless brutes, governed alone by instinct? 
 
 It is said by many here that South Carolina 
 has suffered no wrong; Maryland, Virginia, Ken- 
 tucky, and Missouri, have suffered it. I know 
 that MarylandjVirginia, Kentucky, and Missouri 
 have suffered ten times as much as South Carolina 
 ever did; I might say a hundred times as much; 
 but the fact that she acts in advance, whether we 
 consider it hasty or inconsiderate or not, proves 
 that she is noble, patriotic, and true in her im- 
 pulse. She is acting for our benefit. We may 
 think a different policy would have been better, 
 as I do think; but it shows her regard for a great 
 question involving all of us together; and notonly 
 all of us, but the whole of the human race. It is 
 not a question of slaves only. The very princi- 
 ple that will permit them to attack one species of 
 property against the Constitution, and break it 
 down, will justify them in taking another species 
 of property and confiscating that also. Theagra- 
 rianism of the North will spread from the success 
 of their attempt to break down slavery in the 
 South; and every property holder of New York 
 and Boston is as much interested in repressing 
 this attack upon private property as I am. Let 
 the populace rise; let the mob gather; let the im- 
 pulse be given to them, and they will say: "Why 
 shall one man have $15,000,000, and we stand 
 here starving and begging for bread ?" This feel- 
 ing will be engendered. Law-abiding, orderly, 
 good people ought, therefore, to repress every 
 thing that leads to it. We of the South ought to 
 repress it; you of the North ought to repress it; 
 and, if it be not repressed, the consequences will 
 come home to you in a more fearful degree than 
 they can possibly come to us. 
 
 While Missouri has suflered so much, she has 
 been the last to act; yet that State will act. The 
 action, however, of Kentucky, of Virginia, I am 
 sorry to say it, and of Tennessee, has been of the 
 
most disastrous character. It has done no harm 
 to Missouri; but it has stimulated northern men 
 to make speeches, such as the Kino of New York, 
 very violent, domineering, demanding, threaten- 
 ing, after he hears the returns from Tennessee. I 
 am sorry that Virginia has lagged behind. If all 
 these border States, as they are called, had come 
 right up to the mark at once, we should have had 
 a settlement, or a peaceful separation; and we 
 shall never have it until that is done. 
 
 Some persons say these southern States were 
 precipitate. Grant it; I will not stop to quarrel 
 about that. What are we to do ? Take things as 
 we find them, and shape our action according to 
 the necessities of the case. We do not make the 
 rain; but if it rains we put up an umbrella over 
 our heads. We do not make the sun shine, but 
 yet we will raise a parasol to protect us from its 
 rays. We did not make South Carolina go out 
 of the Union. It may have been hasty, for aught 
 I know. I will not say it was or not. What shall 
 we do.> Take that course which is best calculated 
 to preserve our rights, either in the Union or in 
 anew one. What course ought that to be? For 
 every State to go out together— I mean all the 
 slaveholding States. Do you say we desert our 
 northern friends.' No. Our warm sympathies, 
 our high admiration for them will be as lasting as 
 time; but we can best serve them by serving our- 
 selves in this matter; because if the fifteen States 
 were all to recede from the Union, associate to- 
 gether, and say to the North, " do this and we 
 are with you again," the North would concede it 
 to us; but if some are going off, and we are hesi- 
 tating and higgling and doubting, it makes the 
 North so confident in its power, that they say, let 
 South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, 
 and Florida go. Very well. Just as sure as you 
 let them go, others will follow; and what other 
 States will follow ? Every slaveholding State, ex- 
 cept Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. I am 
 afraid of old Virginia. She is so hesitating, so 
 timid, walking on egg-shells, and afraid she will 
 mash them; but, just as sure as you live, if no 
 adjustment on honorable terms is made in a sat- 
 isfactory manner, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kan- 
 sas will go. [Laughter.] Yes, Kansas. Do not 
 be surprised at the use of that term. Montgom- 
 ery does not rule there now. He can make his 
 raids upon Missouri, and be driven back; they can 
 make attacks from Iowa and be driven back; but 
 the material interests of Kansas will force her to 
 link her fortunes with Missouri. 
 
 But for the hot-bed plants that have been planted 
 in Kansas, through the instrumentality of the Em- 
 igrant Aid Society, Kansas would have been with 
 Missouri this day; and when these hot-bed plants 
 die out — as they are fast dying out, and sending 
 petitions to the Senator from Massachusetts, beg- 
 ging for bread, that they are starving — as soon as 
 they die out, the homogeneous character of the 
 people will gradually bring them back into the 
 arms of Missouri. They are begging for bread 
 and begging for an independent State government; 
 and then saying, "If you will not give us bread, 
 give us land; we are starving." I might ask the 
 question, can you eat land? But it showsit is all 
 a trick, a fraud gotten up through this Emigrant 
 
 Aid Society. It will die out. Every attempt at 
 fraud will be exposed sooner or later; and this 
 miserable attempt is now being exposed, and the 
 people are beginning to comprehend it. Even 
 the traveling agents, who have gone abroad beg- 
 gjng for contributions to relieve poor, starving 
 Kansas, have received more rifles, more lead and 
 powder, than they have bread and meat. These 
 are facts that I can prove in a court of justice. I 
 know what I say; and no one who is acquainted 
 with the subject will contradict me. Do you not 
 see, therefore, it is all a preparation to attack Mis- 
 souri ? I was informed by the Governor of Kan- 
 sas, two weeks before the thing took place, that 
 he was in fearful apprehension that Montgomery 
 would make an attack on Missouri, or the Cher- 
 okee nation, and so on down to Texas, for that 
 was a part of their plan. It was to circumscribe 
 slavery and break it down through the Cherokee 
 nation, through the Choctaw nation, through the 
 Creek nation, in the borders of Arkansas, and 
 then into Texas; and that plan is not yet given 
 up. It is smothered; it sleepeth for the time; but 
 it v/ill be revived again, unless we are prepared 
 to meet it 
 
 Now, Mr. President, whatoughtwetodo? Live 
 in what we call a fraternal relation, yet compelled 
 to keep arms in our hands, or submit to depreda- 
 tions uponourproperty? At the beginning of this 
 session, I suggested the propriety of having an 
 armed police, controlled by the States, paid from 
 the Federal Treasury, to prevent these invasions 
 and enforce the fugitive slave law all along the line 
 separating the slaveholding from the non-slave- 
 holding States It was met with derision. Very 
 well. When we divide, as divide we must, we shall 
 have the same thing to do; but we shall have it to 
 do in a larger degree. We shall then have to raise 
 a very large army, and a strong military force, 
 each watching the other; and the slightest inter- 
 ruption may lead to a collision which will involve 
 the whole country in a bloody war. If my sug- 
 gestion had been received, something might have 
 been done;-but my suggestion was only intended 
 as a ineans to check action and give time for re- 
 flection ; for if the sentiment expressed by the 
 North in the election of Mr. Lincoln is the set- 
 tled judgment of the North, and if the practice of 
 the North in stealing our negroes is the settled 
 practice of the North, I would not live with you 
 one day; I would divide this hour, this minute. 
 There are men, it is true, who say they would 
 not steal a slave; but they would not prevent any- 
 body else from stealing one. There are men who 
 say they have no objection to the fugitive slave 
 law; but will they aid to execute it? Not one. Is 
 not there, then, that dangerous, miserable senti- 
 ment we cannot tolerate and live in unity with? 
 Perhaps it will be said the House of Repre- 
 sentatives passed a very fine resolution yesterday. 
 We have a right to notice the official proceedings 
 of the House. They passed a resolution that they 
 would not interfere with slavery in the States, 
 and also that they did not intend to do it, embrac- 
 ing two points: first, they would not do it, and 
 second, they did not intend to do it. Now, I wish 
 to call the attention of the Senate to a little cir- , 
 cumstancc that took place in this body not twelve 
 
6 
 
 months ago. lasked the question of several north- 
 ern Senators: why do you wish to circumscribe 
 slavery r Wiiy does it affect you to prevent the 
 expansion and spreading of it in new Territories? 
 The answer was, by hemming it in, the slaves 
 will gradually becoine so numerous, that slavery 
 will become so unprofitable or dangerous that the 
 master, perforce, will emancipate — thus seeking 
 to accomplish by indirect means the very thing 
 they swear in the House they do not desire to do 
 by direct means. That is the purpose of every 
 member of this Senate on the Republican side. 
 If it is not, I would like for some one to rise and 
 answer me. They have avowed it. No one has 
 denied it. I have charged it upon them. Some 
 of them were honest enough to confess it. Others 
 chose to sit mute under the charge, thereby giv- 
 ing it a confession. Therefore, to say, " We do 
 not intend to make a directattack upon your State, 
 but we will bring to bear a train of circumstances 
 that will break down slavery in your State," is 
 just as base and as infamous as if you raised an 
 army to attack us in the State. You are attack- 
 ing the State of Missouri every day. 
 
 When you talk of enforcing the fugitive slave 
 law, you know it is not done; and when you say 
 you occasionally enforce it, you know also that 
 nineteen out of twenty never come to the cogni- 
 zance of the law. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. How would you enforce the 
 law in respect to those that never come to the 
 cognizance of tiie law ? 
 
 Mr. GREEN. I will tell you. Your abolition 
 societies pay fifty dollars a head for every one 
 stolen and taken to the North. I would punish 
 those societies; and if you were a Union-loving 
 
 feople, and observed your oath, you would do it. 
 Applause in the galleries.] 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries 
 "will be cleared, vf the disturbance is repeated. 
 
 Mr. GREEN. Why, sir, no rogue ever had a 
 good opinion of the law, when he felt the halter 
 draw. I believe that is in Hudibras, somewhere. 
 
 Mr. ANTHONY. Something like it. 
 
 Mr. GREEN. Now, sir, it is not simply the 
 courts, not simply the liberty bills, not simply 
 the official acts, of which I complain. These are 
 butthettloom.as the miners would say, that blos- 
 som out. It is the deep-seated mind, the sentiment 
 that has been inculcated at the North through the 
 instrumentality of politicians, teachers of schools, 
 tract societies, and everything that you can con- 
 ceive of, which underlies those popular political 
 indications, stronger than all of it. There is not 
 one that dares run counter to it; and when our 
 noble friends over on this side have stood up so 
 manfully, they have been cut down as with a 
 sharp scythe, one by one, until every one must 
 go; and why? Because there is a sentiment in- 
 culcated there which is in direct conflict with their 
 opinions. You have got to go, [to Mr. Bright;] 
 you have already gone, [to Mr. Fitch;] and every 
 one of you will go. Yes, sir, as the Senator from 
 New York said, the "irrepressible conflict" will 
 go on. What did he mean by that doctrine ? I 
 do not suppose he meant a bloody war, for he is 
 not a man of war; he is a man of words. What 
 kind of conflict, then, did he mean ? Why, a con- 
 
 tinual agitation of the question, until they get us 
 in such trepidation and fear that, out of regard 
 for personal safety, we would sell our negroes, or 
 emancipate them, or run them off, and gradually 
 work it down, Missouri first, Maryland next, 
 Virginia next, until you crowd them down to the 
 last extremity. That is the " irrepressible con- 
 flict;" and yet his friends in the other House 
 vote that they do not intend to interfere with 
 slavery in the States. 
 
 Can that Senator reconcile his doctrine of the 
 " irrepressible conflict," that all must be slave or 
 all free, with an honest understanding of the vote 
 of the House yesterday, that they did not intend 
 to interfere with slavery in the States? Can any- 
 body do it? There is a fraud in it. There is a 
 system inaugurated to lull, to stop and suspend 
 action in the border States; and if I had the voice 
 of a Boanerges, I would speak to old Virginia to 
 rouse herself up and go to work, and not rest upon 
 fancied security, and not content herself with these 
 vague promises, all thrown out for the purpose of 
 staying her action. So I would say to Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, and North Carolina. For Missouri 
 I need not speak. She is ready to act; she intends 
 to act; and her duty and her interest prompt her 
 to act, and she will. 
 
 Now, sir, it is for the purpose of trying to come 
 to some fair understanding that we ought to dis- 
 cuss this question, and not to inflame the passions 
 of cither side. I commend the spirit that prompted 
 the honorable Senator from Kentucky in oflering 
 his propositions, not because I hope any good re- 
 sult from them, tor I do not. I desire a good re- 
 sult; but do not entertain any hope of iti If the 
 amendments he proposes were all adopted to-day 
 unanimously by all the States of the Union, and 
 the same feeling continued to exist that now ex- 
 ists in the Abolition party, and the same practices 
 were kept up, they would not be worth one single 
 straw. As I said to the Senator from New Hamp- 
 shire, [Mr. Clark,] I believe it was, I say now, 
 the present Constitution is good enough, as good 
 as I want it, as good as anybody ought to desire 
 it. We have not lived up to it. Plain and pal- 
 pable provisions of it are violated with impunity, 
 and not a representative of that party in this 
 Chamber will say he will execute it. If they will 
 not execute it, will they execute the Consiitution 
 as proposed to be amended by the honorable Sen- 
 ator from Kentucky? Would any Republican 
 Senator raise his finger to execute the fugitive 
 slave law then, any more than he would now? 
 You say you impose a penalty upon the States, 
 if there be a rescue by a mob. As I have stated, 
 the mob rescues one, and nineteen slip through 
 the fingers of the law, and elude detection, and 
 are spirited away through the instrumentality of 
 those underground railroads; and fifty dollars a 
 head are paid for them by the Abolition societies. 
 I have heard of but two being taken for a long 
 while; and I will relate thatcircumstance to give 
 you an idea of the honesty and morality and re- 
 ligion of some of the Abolitionists. 
 j One of them was living over in Illinois. Two 
 negroes escaped from Missouri on one side of the 
 j river. There was a Kentuckian living close by, 
 I and the owner went over to the Kentuckian and 
 
said to him, "I have offered ^800 reward for these 
 two negroes; they will be sure to come to that 
 Abolitionist's house, for he keeps a station on the 
 underground railroad." The Kentuckian went 
 over to the Abolitionist and told him about it, and 
 said, " Now, I will give you half of the reward 
 if you will take them forme." " Well, "said he, 
 " I will tell you what I will do; it will not do for 
 me to catch them for you; but I will detain them 
 here longenough for you to come and take them." 
 The negroes came there. He took them in; he 
 entertained them; gave them to eat; and sent his 
 boy over to the Kentuckian, and the Kentuckian 
 returned and got them. The Abolitionist pre- 
 tended to be very mad about it, but the Kentuckian 
 received the ^800 reward, and gave the Aboli- 
 tionist one half. That is the only instance that 
 I ever heard of where an Abolitionist interposed 
 to catch a negro. [Laughter.] 
 
 I am not talking fiction. I am simply stating 
 plain, naked facts to illustrate the enormity of 
 the attacks that are made upon us. What would 
 any northern man say if he had to pay such re- 
 wards for the recovery of his property? It is 
 sometimes said: you do not recover all the horses 
 that escape. No; but have you ever known an 
 honest community employed in the business of 
 stealing hordes, or preventing the recapture of 
 stolen horses? Yet you think your community 
 is honest who are engaged in doing this with re- 
 
 fard to slaves. I own slaves in Michigan this 
 ay. It would be worth more than my life to go 
 for them. Will any Senator say he owns prop- 
 ertyinMissouri,and thathe is afraid togo afterit? 
 Now, if this state of things is to continue, if 
 this feeling is to be permanent, had we not better 
 separate? I say we must have a retraction of 
 northern sentiment, or a separation. There is no 
 use of talking. We cannot have peace; we can- 
 not maintain our trust; we cannot maintain our 
 honor, urdess there is that retraction. I shall be 
 the last to separate from the Union, if I can help 
 it; but I think the more speedy the action of the 
 border States is, the better the prospect of a reac- 
 tion in the northern mind. I think so, because I 
 hear the rampant talk of northern Senators, since 
 they see a probability that the border States are 
 going to hesitate; and poor old Virginia is lag- 
 ging behind, when she ought to have been fore- 
 most in the work. It is true, she was not fore- 
 most in the Revolution; but she came up man- 
 fully to it. She has always been true ever since; 
 but why this hesitation, this vacillation, and this 
 doubtful position, which encourages the North, 
 and dampens the ardor of the South? You all 
 know this thing lias got to be settled in one of 
 two ways — either separation or an honorable ad- 
 justment; and I say there can be no honorable 
 adjustment, which will be satisfactory and pro- 
 tective in its character, unless there is a retraction 
 of northern sentiment. 
 
 True, you may plant an army along the line; 
 and my idea of putting that police force there was 
 simply to put it there until the time for reaction 
 had occurred, and when that time had passed, 
 and no reaction had taken place, then I was for 
 separation. I was willing to resort to every ex- 
 pedient — I am yet — to give the North time, place, 
 
 and opportunity for repentance, for they need it. 
 If they repent not, I would then spew them out 
 of my mouth. I would let them go; and I would 
 resort to adequate means to protect ourselves with 
 ourselves; and yet, when I did that, I would not 
 draw the sword; I would not point a cannon to- 
 wards them; I would not present a bayonet; I 
 would not make a warlike movement; but I would 
 be ready for any action that they might take. I 
 think the time for settling questions by physical 
 force has passed. 
 
 In this age of Christianity, of civilization, and 
 of refinement, we ought to be able to discuss 
 questions and adjust the'm by reason, by argu- 
 ment, by compromise, and not by military power; 
 and no military power on land or sea ought ever 
 to be used, except in self-defense. That is justi- 
 fiable. I would, therefore, if I had the right to 
 counsel the southern States, beg them to bear with 
 Fort Sumter for a time, though held by a foreign 
 Government, to see if the question could not'be ad- 
 justed withoutforce; butfor a foreign Government 
 to hold a fort within our own confines, I never 
 would concede as right. Let us keep the peace; 
 let us practice forbearance; let us interchange 
 opinions; and when we arrive at that point which 
 satisfies us that we cannot agree, that we cannot 
 live together on teiTns of peace and equality, let 
 us bid each other farewell, and separate as hon- 
 orable men, and not as belligerents. 
 
 If that is not done, fearful consequences may 
 result. If armies are to be brought in conflict — 
 the sturdy men of the North and the valiant men 
 of the South, with all the improvements of mod- 
 ern warfare, with all the equipments and appoint- 
 ments of well-organized armies — most fearful, 
 bloody, and unfortunate will be the issue. 1 would 
 say: 
 
 " Oh, Heaven, my bleeding country save ! 
 Is there no hand on Higli to shield the brave?" 
 
 It is fearful to contemplate ; and yet, as fearful and 
 unfortunate as it is, we are drifting along, not de- 
 signedly, but we are gradually drifting along up 
 to the fearful catastrophe. How are we to arrest 
 it? By such speeches as the Senator from New 
 York has made? No; they stimulate opposition 
 on the other side. I am practicing forbearance 
 when I tell you such speeches as his are driving 
 the country to madness, and doing more harm 
 than he can ever do good in his life. So with the 
 Senator from Maine, [Mr. Fessendev,] in his 
 plausible manner of speaking. He, too, led off 
 in a vein tending precisely in the same direction. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, we have a fearful respons- 
 ibility resting upon us. This Senate cannot amend 
 the Constitution. This Senate can make no ad- 
 justment. This Senate had better let the subject 
 sleep. All that is said is calculated to stimulate 
 one side or the other. We had better make the 
 ordinary appropriations, and let the people and 
 the States, through proper conventions, undertake 
 the work of adjustment. It is no use to say that 
 no adjustment can be made; it is no use to say 
 an adjustment can be made. It is a very doubt- 
 ful question to solve. We, as a Senate and as a 
 Congress, can do no good; yet the motive that 
 promptsthe resolutions of the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky is good, and I commend it only for this 
 
8 
 
 reason: it may, perhaps, hold the country still 
 long enough for that reflection which will bring 
 the northern mind right. Without that change 
 in the northern mind, I would not accept any con- 
 stitution to be associated with any such people as 
 they have proved themselves to be in the past. 
 
 If we can quiet the public mind; if we can throw 
 out suggestions which will induce the North to 
 pause and say, they will enforce the fugitive slave 
 law, they will guaranty us the protection of our 
 rights, they will secure to us all that the Consti- . 
 tution now promises; and if we see there is a dis- 
 position to do what they say — then, indeed, I 
 would love this Union." We have grown with 
 time; we have increased with age; we have pros- 
 pered under every circumstance; wc have over 
 thirty million people; we have productions innu- 
 merable; we have commerce, manufactures, civil- 
 ization, Christianity, and advancement in all that 
 makes a people good and great. War will re- 
 verse the action of all this, and throw us back; 
 war will brutalize; war will barbarize; war will 
 throw us back more than a century, in the short 
 space of five years. It demoralizes the people; 
 it eats up the substance of the people; it brutal- 
 izes the feelings; and it is the last resort, but 
 sometimes a fearful necessity. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, the object of my few re- 
 marks is this: as this proposed amendment to the 
 naval bill comes at such an inopportune time; 
 comes when we have no money in the Treasury; 
 and comes from those who are refusing to do jus- 
 tice to little claimants because they have no money ; 
 comes when we do not need it; and comes with an 
 avowal that it is intended to coerce the weaker 
 States — I think I am compelled to oppose it on the 
 general principles which I have announced. I 
 shall continue to do so; and, whether successful 
 or not, time will prove whether it will accomplish 
 the ends that the friends of the measure expect. 
 
 No threats, no petitions, no demands but jus- 
 tice. Let the whole of the southern States act 
 together as a unit, and act speedily, and nego- 
 tiate with the North as equals. Sir, I would 
 not take a proposition that we had forced upon 
 the North. The North ought not to take a propo- 
 sition that they had forced upon the South. I 
 want to negotiate as equals — the fifteen southern 
 States the equals of the eighteen on the other 
 side. 
 
 Several Senators. Nineteen. 
 
 Mr. GREEN. Nineteen now; but that other 
 one is going to be on our side; and that is the 
 reason I let Kansas pass so easily. Mr. Presi- 
 dent, every body desires an adjustment; everybody 
 desires peace and harmony; everybody desires a 
 continuance of the Union; but when we come to 
 talk about what is the Union, and what are our 
 rights in it, we commence to differ. Let us goto 
 work and settle the question, if we can. Do it, 
 and every slaveholding State will join at once. 
 Let them come together in concert, make their 
 propositions as honorable States to the others. If, 
 then, we cannot agree, our separation is perma- 
 nent and peaceable. 
 
 This is my whole purpose; and I will state, in 
 conclusion, my positions: 
 
 First. That any State has the right to secede. 
 
 Second. If that right is exercised wrongfully, 
 the State alone is responsible. 
 
 Third. When any State does in fact secede, all 
 the fixtures in her limits belong to the State. 
 
 Fourth. Every effort to save the Union and 
 preserve the peace of the country, should be made 
 before any other remedy is resorted to. And 
 finally, when all efforts fail, let us part in peace, 
 and let each section pursue the course and line of 
 policy deemed best for the good of the people; 
 and to the God of justice, not of war, I commit 
 the fate of our beloved country. 
 
 Printed at the office of the Congressional Globe. 
 
 OF CONGRESS 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 895 776 3 
 
 .J