Mouvo^ ?.. 
 
 /lfoi/<.VW^<^tD''/"v , Ufc',. 
 
Glass ,f f jo 
 
 •l^ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF ' 
 
 HON. JOSEPH LANE, OF OREGON, 
 
 EEPORT OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 2, 1861. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the joint resolution proposing certain 
 amendments to the Constitution of the United States — Mr. LANE said: 
 
 Mb. President : I hope I shall be permitted to proceed with- 
 out interruption, and I trust not to consume much time. AVhile 
 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 Con- 
 federacy, should have a like recognition in the Territories, and 
 be guarantied, protected, and secured in its full integrity, to the 
 owner thereof. That this should be so, was the intent of the re- 
 volutionary fatherg-'who shaped and framed the Constitution ; and 
 it was this principle, more, perhaps, than any other, which called 
 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 re^ 
 suit 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 maintain- 
 ed — 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 princi- 
 ple 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. 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towers, at ?;2 00 per hundred copies. 
 
and I 30 notified the Senator from Tennessee, who arraigned me 
 lu-re as votinj; against protecting pro]»erty, and who did nie will- 
 ful and gross inju&tice in it — for I voted fur it and he voted against 
 it. That is to say, 1 voted against the resolution introduced by 
 Mr. Clingman declaring '* that slave ))ro])erty did not need',pro- 
 tection in the Territories," while the Senator from Tennessee voted 
 for it; and when the motion was n)ade to reconsider the vote 
 adopting it in lieu of the fourth resolution of the Davis series, I 
 voted tn reconsider, and the Senator from Tennessee voted against 
 it, showing clearly that he was against affording that protection 
 to slave projjcrty which the fourth resolution provided for. Did 
 I not nuiintain the truth ? "Was I not j^rophetic in the announce- 
 ment 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. 
 
 ]>ut, 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 Davis resolutions — the series of which I speak— were 
 i!p, various ])roposilions were made to amend them, and I voted 
 against all amendments. There are Seiuitors 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 
 boldi}' and in jdain 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 aban- 
 don his etjuality, his right in the common territory, then, if alone, 
 I would staTid and protest against it ; jjrotest 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 8h<nild never surrender it with my 
 permission. (Jn the other hand, I said that if every northern 
 man in the Senate Chamber — nay, but even every northern citi- 
 zen — expressed a desire to surrender his right, his equality, his 
 privilege, to go to the common territories with his property, I 
 fehould enter my solemn protest against it, and insist that he had 
 a constitutional right to go there which he should never surren- 
 der with my consent. Then, how any man could assert that I 
 ever entertained the opinion that slavery did not need protection 
 from agu^ression, is to me the strantrest, falsest thing in nature. I 
 said, as 1 have shown yon, tiiat I had voted ai^ainst all amend- 
 ments, and woidd continue to vote against all amendments, or 
 any attemjjt whatsoever calculated to obstruct the passage of tho 
 resolutions; for they asserted the right of the peoj»le to go to the 
 Territories, asserted the })ovver of the court to protect them in the 
 possession of tiieir property, and that if the court failed to pro- 
 tect them, Congress should afford the necessary authority to do so. 
 BiJt, sir, allow me to observe: there was a resolution that I 
 Dover voted for, and that uo man can charge me with ever having 
 
voted for. Senators will recollect — and whoever lias read tlie 
 proceedings of the Senate will recollect — that an amendment was 
 offered as a substitute to the fourth resolution, in these words: 
 
 "That the existing condition of the Territories does not require the intervention 
 of Congress for the protection of property in slaves." 
 
 I did not vote fur that resolution ; but the Senator from Ten- 
 nessee 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 : 
 
 "I wish simply to say that I voted for that resolution, because I believed the con- 
 dition 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." 
 
 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. Wilson on that occasion : 
 
 "I desire merely to tender my thanks to the honorable Senator from Massachu- 
 setts. The series of resolutions, as introduced by the honorable Senator from Mis- 
 sissippi, 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." 
 
 The motion was put, and on the yeas and nays the vote was re- 
 considered. 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 recon- 
 sideration were Messrs. Benjamin, Bkown, Chesnut, Clay, Davis, 
 FiTzPATRicK, Geeen, G^VIN, Hammond, Harlan, Hunter, Iveeson, 
 Johnson of Arkansas, and Lane. Among those who voted against 
 it, I find Johnson, 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 pa- 
 raded to show the vote on Mr. Brown's amendment to Mr. Cling- 
 man's amendment. I said, in several speeches, that I should vote 
 against all amendments, because the series had been considered 
 not only here, but in a caucus composed of the Democratic Sena- 
 tors 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. Brown's and I voted against Mr. Cling^lan's, 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 anv moi-. ^'u^ 
 can read, can say that the fourth resolution, for w 
 
and for which I strnggled and contended, does not declare that 
 slave iiroperty fthall be protected in the comrtion Territories of onr 
 cuuntrv. 1 will read it again : 
 
 " Retolveil, Thiit neither Conjjjress nor a Territorial Legislatnrc, whether by direct 
 legifllation or l«?i,'ij-lation of au iiiJireet and unfriendly nature, possess the power to 
 annul oi luipitir the eonetitutiouai right of any citizen of the United i;tute» to take 
 his slave i>roporty into tlie cuiiimoti territories, but it is th« duty of »he Federal 
 Governnit-nt tiiere to afford for that, a? for other species of property, the needful 
 protection ; and if experienes should, at any time, prove that the judiciary does not 
 poesess power to insure adequate protection, it will then become the duty of Con- 
 gress to suppl}' such deficiency. 
 
 Could anything be stronger? Could any man desire a more 
 direct declaration of principles than this? Upon the yeas and 
 nays I voted for it. I voted against the amendment that was 
 adopted, and afterwards reconsidered, iiow, then, can a man 
 arraign me befure the country as having said upon oath, on the 
 25th (}i May last, that slave property should not be protected in 
 the common Territories with other property ? I have always held 
 that all ]»roperty should be protected, slave as well as otlier pro- 
 perty ; 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 Constitu- 
 tion proposed by the peace conference. They are ambiguous, 
 loose, and dece})tive. I do not know that the people can com- 
 prehend them. There will be no certainty under them ; and they 
 would, if adopted, result in endless troubles and litigation. I 
 trust no amendments will ever be made to the Constitution, unless 
 they are made u])on 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 witii 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 Constitu- 
 tion 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 L^nion 
 indeed. Without it, wa 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, un- 
 less 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 particle 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 har- 
 monv, no security, and no ])erpetuity of this Confederacy. Such 
 amendments to the Constitution, securing these objects and })riu- 
 ciples, are indispensable to the nuiintenance of the (Tovernment 
 as it was formed. 
 
 Tlien why not do right? Why nr)t every sontheru 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 hfs 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. 
 
 The doctrines asserted in the series of resolutions offered by 
 Mr. Davis have not been maintained ; and, as a consequence, 
 events have since transpired detrimental to the public peace and 
 welfare of the country, and destructive of its unity. The Union 
 has been in fact broken up. But, although the ship is wrecked, 
 the principles that guided her survive — live, even in the heart of 
 New England. The very doctrines wdiich I have enunciated or 
 advocated are laid down in the resolutions of the late Democratic 
 convention of the State of Connecticut. I send them to the Sec- 
 retary, and request that they be read. 
 
 The Secretary read, as follows : 
 
 "Resolved, That it is the opinion of the Democracy of Connecticut, in conven- 
 tion assembled, that this Government is a Confederacy of sovereign and independent 
 States, based and founded upon the equal rights of each ; and any legislation trench- 
 ing upon the great principle of their equality, is a wanton violation of the spirit 
 and letter of the constitutional compact. 
 
 "Resolved, That the present lamentable condition of the country finds its origia 
 in the unconstitutional acts and sectional spirit of a great northern party, the prin- 
 ciples of whose organization deny to the people of one class of States the enjoj-ment 
 and exercise of the same political rights claimed and demanded by another class of 
 States; thus ignoring and desiroying the great political truth which is the founda- 
 tion of our Government, and the vital principle of the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 "Resolved, That the per-nicious doctrine of coercion, instead of conciliation, to be 
 applied to the seceding States, which is now advocated and urged by the leaders of 
 the northern sectional party, is utterly at war with the exercise of right reason, 
 matured judgment, and the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and 
 should be strongly resisted h\ every lover of our common couritry, by every well- 
 wisher to the best interests of the human race, as opposed to the progress and civil- 
 ization of the age, as the sure precursor of an internecine war, in which would be 
 sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens, the expenditure 
 of countless millions of treasure, the destruction of the moral and commercial inter- 
 ests of our people; and not only utterly fail of its avowed object, the restoration of 
 the Union, but defeat forever its reconstruction. 
 
 "Resolved, That a restoration of good feeling between the inhabitants of our 
 common country should be, and is, the paramount fueling in every patriotic heart ; 
 to that great object sliould be sacrificed sectional prejudice and the spirit of partisan- 
 ship; therefore the Democracy of Connecticut earnestly commend to the attention 
 of Congress the propositions of the venerable and distinguished Senator from Ken- 
 tucky, believing that the adoption thereof, or those of a similar character, would 
 greatly conduce to harmonize the opinions of the North and the South, stay the 
 progress of secession, and to the reconstruction of a now dissevered Union." 
 
 Mr. La.ne. Mr. President, in the State of Connecticut the De- 
 mocracy assert the correct principle, and they charge the trouble 
 in the country to the right quarter. I stated, on a former occa- 
 sion, that the Democracy ot 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 
 
8 
 
 again, what I eaid before, that thev, like the Democracy of Ore- 
 gon and of every other northern State, will never join a party 
 that has refused justice; that has refused ecjuality and right; that 
 has refused to protect projtorty in the Territories, or wherever the 
 jurisdiction of the United States extends, in ]>utting down those 
 ■who contended for their rights and for the ecjuality to which they 
 were entitled. Sir, the loyal Democracy of this country fully 
 understand the question, and they assert the right. 
 
 Now, sir, these great ))rinciples 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. 1 will say to the Senator who has boasted of 
 his ett'orts in Tennessee in behalf of the Breckinridge 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 suc- 
 ceeded. We should then have had those principles indorsed 
 upon which the (Tovenuiient is established, and the country would 
 Lave been at peace. For that alone I wished it to succeed ; for, 
 sir, I say in your presence, and in the presence of all here, and 
 before the country, that I never saw the day when I would have 
 tossed a coj>per for either the Presidency or Vice Presidency, 
 unless it could be obtained upon principles indispensable to the 
 maintenance of this Union. For the sake of the country, then, 
 I say I regret the ticket did not succeed ; otherwise, I have no 
 feeling about it. 
 
 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. 1 know his patriotism 
 and his devotion to the Union. I know his willingness to take 
 anything, however small, however trifling, however little it might 
 be, that would, in his opinion, give peace to the countr}'. Sir, I 
 am actuated by no such feeling. We should never compromise 
 principle nor sacrifice the eternal philosophy of justice. AVhen- 
 ever the Democratic party compromised principle it laid the 
 foundation of future troubles for itself and for the country. Wlien 
 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 ])ro{)Ositions, and I will do so ;igain, if we can get 
 a vote, because there was something in them ; something that I 
 could stand by; but there is nothing in the amendments pro])osed 
 by the peace conference, lie proposed to establish the line of 
 3G° 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 liereafter 
 ac<julred. In that proposition there was something like justice 
 and right; but there is nothing iji the amendments ])roposcd by 
 the peace conference that any man, north or south, ought to take. 
 Tliey 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. 
 
9 
 
 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 " compro- 
 mising" 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 ,//'(3<? 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, hap- 
 piness, and eternal Union. 
 
 Then the Senator from Oregon comes. He talked flippantly 
 about " his" people and " his" State, and what they would do. 
 Mr. President, I have lived a long time in Oregon — longer than 
 that Senator — and I have never claimed that the people of Ore- 
 gon belonged to me. I have never assumed to call them " my 
 people." I am their servant, and I desire to represent them hon- 
 estly and faithfully, as I have done at all times, and under all 
 circumstances. I pledge them nothing. " My State !" " My 
 people !" Good God, sir ! has it come to this, that a Senator who 
 has been there but a short time ; who can hardly claim a resi- 
 dence there ; who owns no house or land there ; who has paid no 
 taxes there, or even worked upon the public roads ; who was 
 simply imported like a machine, to political order; who never 
 fought a battle to protect the emigrants and settlers, or to prevent 
 the Indians from committing depredations and outrages there, 
 should have the assurance to get up in his place in the Senate 
 and claim that his " people" would trample upon the rights of 
 the South, and join with the Senator and his confreres in their 
 fanatical ranks? I pledge the people of Oregon to nothing. 
 They are a free people ; they are a gallant people ; they are a 
 sensible people ; they are a patriotic people. They had the kind- 
 ness to send me to Congress, and I have served them faithfully. 
 They are my masters. I shall soon be one of them. We shall 
 soon balance accounts, and I will return and be with them and 
 of them — an honest, industrious farmer, as most of them are. I 
 shall pay my taxes, and discharge all my duties, as a citizen 
 should ; and I will be with them whether I am in Congress or 
 out of Congress. 
 
 These observations, relative to my colleague, have been a devi- 
 ation from the regular line of my argument ; but I could not 
 avoid noticing the anxiety of the Senator from Kentucky to ac- 
 cept anything, and the readiness of the Senator from Oregon to 
 pledge his people — ''my people" — to anything that he chooses. 
 ]^ow, 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 in- 
 timately, the gallant men of Oregon — that they will not be found 
 
10 
 
 ready or inclined, at tlie Senator's and liis master's beck, to im- 
 brue their hands, tor a godless cause, in tVaternal gore. 
 
 Mr. President, the principles asserted in the resolutions adopted 
 by this Senate, last winter, have not been carried out. We see 
 the conpequences. We see a dissevered country and a divided 
 Union. A number of the States have gone oft", have formed an 
 independent Government; it is in existence, and the States com- 
 posing it will never come back to you, unless you say in plain 
 English, in your amendments to tlie 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 disuuionist, I am for the Union upon the princii)le8 of 
 the Constitution, and not a traitor. None but a coward will even 
 think mc a traitor; and if anybody thinks I am, let him test me. 
 This Union could exist upon the ]>rinciples that I have held and 
 that are set forth in the Davis resolutions ; but upon no other 
 condition can it exist. Then, sir, disunion is inevitable. It is 
 not g"ing 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 
 trilling and chicanery no longer. Neither will North Carolina 
 sutler it. None of the slave States will endure it; for they can- 
 not separate one from the other, and they M'ill 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. 1 know that 
 gallant Old Dominion will never put up with less than her 
 rights; and if she should, I should entertain for her contempt. 
 I should feel contempt for her if she were to ask for anything 
 more than her rights; and so I would if she were to put up with 
 anything less than her constitutional rights. Then, sir, secession 
 has taken place, and it will go on unless we do right. 
 
 Ml-. President, in the remarks which I made on the PJth 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 e([ual footing with 
 the other States; in other words, when her continuance as a 
 member of the Confederacy involved the sacritiee of her con- 
 stitutional rights, safety, and honor. This right 1 deduced from 
 the theory of e(iujility of the States, ujion which rests the whole 
 fabric of our unrivaled system of Government — unrivaled, as it 
 came from the hands of its illustrious framers — a model as ]>er- 
 fect, perhaps, as human wisdom could devise, securing to all the 
 
u 
 
 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 benificent 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 funda- 
 mental 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. 
 
 A certain distinguished Senator, (Mr. Trumbull,) in language 
 which, though parliamentary, was not remarkable for good taste, 
 took me to task, a few days ago, for my frequent allusions to 
 " State equality." I will not again, if I can help it, incur the 
 displeasure of that Senator by referring to a principle of the Con- 
 stitution which he aifects to treat as unworthy of being_ discussed, 
 or even alluded to in this august body. It may be quite unsena- 
 torial for a member of this body to refer to a great principle of 
 the Constitution. If so— and iii the judgment of the Senator it 
 seems to be so — I have committed a mistake. ^ My excuse is, that 
 I forgot at the moment that I was speaking since the adoption of 
 the Chicago platform, which seems, in the opinion of gentlemen 
 on the other side, to have superseded the Constitution. I hope 
 this will be received as a sufficent apology for violating the rules 
 of this body, as understood on the Republican side of the Cham- 
 ber. 
 
 I propose, Mr. President, to confine what I have to say in re- 
 gard to the right of secession to the question : who must judge 
 whether such a right exists, and when it should be exercised? 
 According to the theory of every despotic government of ancient 
 or modern times there is ho such right. A province of an em- 
 pire, 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 his- 
 tory 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 inte- 
 gral part of the empire, according to the theory of the Austrian 
 Government, she must so remain forever. Austrianot having 
 the power to enforce an acquiescence in this doctrine, Russian 
 
legions were called to her aid ; and Hungary, on whose gallant 
 Btrnggle for independence the liberty-loving people of this coun- 
 try looked with so much aduiinition and sympathy, soon lay pros- 
 trate ;ind hleeding at the tyrant's feet. You may cull this attempt 
 of llungar}^ tu regain her indejjendence revolution. That is 
 precisely what Austria called it. I call it an effort on lier part 
 to peaceably secede — to ])eaceably dissolve her connection with a 
 Government which, in her judgment, had beconie intolerably 
 unjust and oppressive. Iler oppressors told her it w;i8 not her 
 province but theirs, to judge of her alleged grievances; that to 
 ackncmdedge the right of secession would strike a fatal blow at 
 the integrity of the empire, which could be maintained only by 
 eidorcing the perfect obedience of eacli and every |iart. 
 
 We have, in the recent struggle of the Italian States, an instruc- 
 tive commentary on the now mooted question of secession and 
 coercion. Indeed, history, through all past ages, is but a record 
 of tlie etforts of tyrants to prevent the recognition of the doctrine 
 that a people, deeming themselves oppressed, might peaceably 
 absolve themselves from allegiance to their oj)pressors. 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 wliich he ab- 
 horred 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. 
 
 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, tlie 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 
 Buch right exists. They and they oidy, must judge whether their 
 rights are protected or violated. If protbcted, every considera- 
 tion of interest and safety, impels tluMn to consent to live under 
 a government which secures the blessin^^s they desire. If, on the 
 other hand, in their judgment, their most sacred riglits are vio- 
 lated, interest and hoiKu-, aiid the instinct of self ]>rescrvation, all 
 conspire to impel them to withhold their consent, which being 
 ■withheld, the govermnent, so far as they are concerned, ceases. 
 
 Here I would call the attention of the Senate to the tirst of the 
 Kentucky resolutions of 1T98-'*J9, written by Mr. Jefterson, in 
 which he says distinctly that the parties to a political com]>act 
 must judge for themselves of the mode and measure of redi-css, 
 when they consider the compact violated and their rights invaded. 
 
 " Kenolved, Thnt the aevernl States compoainc; the United States of America, are 
 not uiiitfil on tlie |)riii'-i|>lc of (iiiliiiiited (•ubini.^sinn to thi-ir General <;ovt'riinK'nt ; 
 but that hy compact, iitult-r the style and title of a Constitution for the United 
 States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Govermuent for epe 
 
13 
 
 cial purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving, eacli 
 State to itself, the residuarj'^ mass of right to their own self-government; and that 
 whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are im- 
 authoritative, 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 com- 
 mon judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infraction as 
 of the mode and measure of redress." 
 
 Here Mr. Jeflerson asserts that a State aggrieved shall judge 
 not only of the mode, but the measure of redress. Is this trea- 
 son ? If the measure of redress extends to secession, how can the 
 Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Johnson) do less than denounce the 
 great apostle of liberty — as Mr. Jefferson has been called — a 
 traitor ? 
 
 No less clear and explicit on this point, is the language of Mr. 
 Madison, 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 : 
 
 "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 stabilitj' and diijnity, 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 par- 
 ties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be 
 of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." 
 
 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 whensoever 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. Web- 
 ster, distinctly recognizing the right of the people to change 
 their government whenever their interest or safety require it. 
 He says : 
 
 "We see, therefore, from the commencement of the Government under which we 
 live, down to this late act of the State of Kew York" — 
 
 To which he had just referred — 
 
 "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." 
 
 If the people of a State, believing themselves oppressed, un- 
 dertake to establish a government, independent of that to which 
 they formerly owed allegiance, and the latter interferes with the 
 
14 
 
 movement, and employs force to prevent encli a consummation, 
 no one who acknowledi^es the great truth tliat 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 sjiirit of Metternich 
 and Bomba than of Jetfers<>n and Madison, -will attempt to justify, 
 palliate, or excuse such violation of the sacre<l rights of the peo- 
 ple. I have observed that often the noisiest champions of popu- 
 lar 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 agrarianisra, 
 80 zealous has he been in advocating the rights, so entirely de- 
 voted is he to the interests, of the ''dear people." But now, 
 when the jjeople oi' the seceding States have i)ronounced, in tones 
 of thunder, the tiat which absolves them from allegiance to a 
 Government which they no longer respect or love, these same 
 gentlemen all lift their hands in hf)rror, roll up the ^diites of their 
 eyes, as did old Lord North many years ago, and exclaim "Trea- 
 son I" "Treason!" Then, boiling with ])atriotic 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 
 George and Lord North when the colonies renounced their alle- 
 giance 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 aris- 
 tocracy of that period and of all other periods of the world's his- 
 tory. Their errors were the natui-al onspring of incapacity and 
 the false teaching received in their youtii. While, therefore, we 
 cannot admire or approve of 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. 
 
 But wliat excuse can we find for the peculiar champions of 
 pojtular 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; vox poind i vox DeiP'' 
 Sir, I say, too, let the voice of the people be heartf and respected. 
 And I think, for the sake of consistency with all my past profes- 
 sions 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 in- 
 dej)eiident government. AVluitever the causes may have been 
 which imj)elled them to a separation from the other States, I am 
 bound to respect the exjjression of their sovereign will ; and I 
 heartily rej)robate the policy of attempting to thwart that will 
 under the pretence of "punishing treason" and "enforcing the 
 laws." Wo are told that the design is to attempt nothing more 
 
15 
 
 tlian to collect the revenue in the ports of the seceded States. 
 To saj nothing of the justice or injustice of the attempt so to do, 
 I ask Senators from the North and the Senator from Tennessee, 
 will it pay f "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 otf of 
 my shoulder?" 
 
 One of the framers of the Constitution, 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, imprac- 
 ticability, and inefficacy of force as a means of coercing States 
 into obedience to Federal authority. The subject being under 
 consideration in the convention which framed the Constitution — 
 
 " Mr. Madison observed, that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more 
 he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to 
 people collectively, and not individually. A Union of the States containing such 
 an ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against 
 a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, 
 and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all pre- 
 vious compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would 
 be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be 
 postponed." — Madison Papers, Debates in the Federal Convention, vol. 5, p. 140. 
 
 Among the statesmen of the Revolution — those who partici- 
 pated 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 Hamilton. He was a consoli- 
 dationist. 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 concilia- 
 tion towards refractory States, and deprecated a resort to force as 
 madness and folly. He said, in a debate on the subject: 
 
 "It has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that 
 was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. 
 This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massa- 
 chusetts, or any large State, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel 
 them, would tliey not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those 
 States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea 
 present to our view ? A complying State at war with a non-complying State ; Con- 
 gress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State col- 
 lecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal head. Here 
 is a nation at war with itself Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards 
 a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — 
 a Government which can exist only by the'sword ? Every such war must involve 
 the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be suflicient to dis- 
 pose every peaceable citizen against such a Government." — Elliot's Debates, vol. 2, 
 p. 233. 
 
 I might cite other authorities on this point. But these are 
 enough. If the great names of Madison and Hamilton have not 
 suflicient weight to restrain the madness of those who urge a 
 coercive policy against the seceding States, then, indeed, I see 
 
16 
 
 no escape from that most dreadful of all calamities which can 
 befall a nation — e'lvW war. If those in this Cliamber who talk so 
 flippantly of war had seen, as it lias been my lot to see, some of 
 its actual horrors, they might, perhaps, heed the warhiugs and 
 respect the counsels of the sages and jiatriots whose language I 
 have cpioted. They would at least refrain from ungenerous in- 
 sinnations against the patriotism of those northern Democrats, 
 wlio, like myself, reprobate the policy of coercion as destrnctive 
 of the peace, the prosperity, and happiness of every part of the 
 conntry, north as well as south. 
 
 But to return to the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. 
 In the pamphlet report of his speech, page 7, Jefferson is quoted; 
 but the concluding part of the quotation is repeated in the Globe 
 report, and not in that of tlie pamphlet. That part is : 
 
 " Wlien two parties make a compact, tbere results to each a power of compelling 
 the other to execute it." 
 
 Jett'ei-son is here quoted to show that the Confederation has a 
 power to enforce its articles on delinquent States. But the cita- 
 tion is unfortunate for the Senator from Tennessee. lie had just 
 previously asserted that Vermont and other States had, by per- 
 sonal liberty bills, violated the Constitution. Well ; can he tell 
 ns how Virginia and South Carolina could enforce the Constitu- 
 tion on Vermont in that respect? It cannot be done. What 
 follows? Why, as Mr. Webster said at Capon Springs, " a com- 
 pact broken by one party is broken as to all." Ilence, according 
 to the doctrines of Jefferson and Webster as to the actual case 
 which, according to the Senator, has occurred, the compact hav- 
 ing been broken, the southern States have a right to retire — are 
 absolved from further obligations under the constitutional com- 
 pact. 
 
 Again : at page 9 of his pamphlet, the Senator from Tennessee 
 asserts the identity of the secession of a State with the whiskey 
 insurrection in Pennsylvania. My God ! Mr. Presi<lent, what 
 can I say to a man that likens the secession of a State to the 
 whiskey insurrection? What argument can you make that would 
 reach such a Senator as this? IIow can you approach his intel- 
 lect? How can you get at his understanding? A Senator upon 
 your floor likens the solemn action, the sovereign action of a State 
 in her sovereign capacity, to the whiskey insurrection that oc- 
 curred in Pennsylvania in Washington's time; an insuricction 
 against the laws of the State when it was attem])ted to collect rev- 
 enue. The Governor called on General AVashington, then Presi- 
 dent of the United States, for aid in supjiressing the insurrection 
 and enforcin<ij the laws; and the Senattir likens that to the action 
 of a State in her sovereign capacity, withdrawing from the Union, 
 meeting in convention and dissolving her connection with her 
 former confederates. Having done tliis, having passed an ordi- 
 nance of secession, her delegates go home; no Governor calls 
 upon the President for aid to put down the insurrection or rebel- 
 lion, for robellion or insurrection there were none. It was not 
 
insurrection ; it was not rebellion ; it was the solemn act of sov- 
 ereign States in their sovereign capacities ; and the Senator gets 
 up and likens their action to the whiskey insurrection in Penn- 
 sylvania. He tells us that he thinks one ought to be put down 
 as well as the other ; but he does not call this coercion ; it is only 
 the execution of the laws. All the powers of the Government, 
 he holds, must be used in enforcing the laws ; the laws must be 
 enforced whether the State has seceded or not ; whether she is in 
 the Union or out of the Union. Well, sir, I am not inclined to 
 argue with a Senator confessedly incapable of discriminating be- 
 tween an insurrection in a State and the secession of a State. I 
 will merely add, parenthetically, that if the new allies of the gen- 
 tleman from Tennessee had, as good citizens in the previous past, 
 been obedient to the laws instead of having openly violated them, 
 therie would now be no necessity of their enforcement by war 
 and extermination against men loyal and brave as ever existed. 
 
 He then goes on to assert that the case of South Carolina nulli- 
 fication was identical in principle with the whiskey insurrection ; 
 and as the first was quelled by General Washington, by a display 
 of military force, so the latter was by General Jackson. 
 
 Now, sir, I will tell you what I think. Whenever it takes a man 
 six weeks to study, and two days to disgorge, he never has a cor- 
 rect idea of what he has been cogitating. He fails to comprehend 
 the simplest problem. 
 
 South Carolina passed an ordinance to nullify the tarift' laws on 
 and after a certain day. Did General Jackson undertake to en- 
 force those laws on or after that day? No; he approved and 
 signed a bill passed by Congress hefore that day arrived^ repealiTig 
 those laws and adopting the very principles of revenue contended 
 for by South Carolina. So that, as there was no resemblance in 
 the cases, there was none in the adjustment. The State prevailed. 
 Coercion may have been contemplated by General Jackson at 
 first, but his opinions afterward underwent a radical change. 
 Every man who is well acquainted with the history of the coun- 
 try knows that he never would have struck a blow ; he never 
 would have fired a gun. His heart had relented after he had 
 made his proclamation. He had approved the law, and then sent 
 a commission, as we all know, to South Carolina, to use all possi- 
 ble means to avert bloodshed. If the question had to be decided 
 by the bayonet, he never would have used it, in my judgment. 
 
 Still denying that he is for coercion, the Senator proceeds to 
 assert that what South Carolina has done is treason; and treason, 
 we know, is punishable with death. And yet he proposes to 
 make us believe that to inflict death on a people is not coercing 
 them. 
 
 As to the argument founded on the purchase of Louisiana, 
 Florida, California, and the cession of the ground on which the 
 Federal forts stand — that secession cannot be resorted to as appli- 
 cable to them — the simple answer is, that the right of secession 
 being fundamental and paramount, all those Territories and sites 
 
of forts have been acquired subject to that right, and must abide 
 bv it. And in buying, ac<]uiring, or annexing Territories or peo- 
 ]>Io, it must always be done subject to the first |)rinciplcs of our 
 Gcvernnient, for they are niore precious than even the golden 
 sands of California, or the sugar islands of the West Indie?: 
 
 But the Senator does not avoid the difficulties he refers to by 
 denying the right of secession, for they would all result, and 
 with tenfold aggravation, from his principle of the right of 
 revoliiti(»n. For, as that is a right involving force, each ]»arty 
 would, of course, seek foreign alliances, and that would bring 
 the armies and navies of P^urojie to our shores. Is that the 
 grand result of his policy, which he says is not coercion, but only 
 the execution of the laws? Why, the policy of the Senator does 
 not rise one degree above that of the most survile and barbarous 
 Government. The execution of the laws, as he proposes, is otdy 
 the collection of tribute by force from a conquered people. That 
 is the Turkish system. 
 
 I might say here, Mr. President — for there are gentlemen now 
 on this fioor that know it as well as myself — I have seen this 
 policy of collecting tribute carried out on the Pacific coast. I 
 haj^pened once to be present when a great Indian tribe came and 
 demanded the tribute it had received annually from the Umpqna 
 people. I saw the process of collection. The chief went all over 
 the country. He divided his bands and sent them to every vil- 
 lage and forced them to pay the amount of tribute that he desired ; 
 and when they failed to pay it, he carried the delinquents away, 
 and reduced them to slavery. I witnessed that myself. The 
 idea of the Senator collecting tribute or taxes or revenue from 
 the States that have seceded from this Union is not one iota above 
 the barbarous polic}'' of the Clickitats. 
 
 Such is the grand result at which a Senator of the United' 
 States from a southern State has ai'rived, backed by the anti- 
 slavery, universal-equality, peace-loving, and super-enlightened 
 liejniblican organization! 
 
 Waiving, now, Mr. President, the references made by the Sena- 
 tor to the extravagant and intemperate expressions of a very few 
 persons in the seceding States, and to which I might oppose those 
 of a multitude of presses and distinguished men in the North, I 
 come to meet his denumd to learn the wrongs infiicted on the 
 South, lie, himself, admits that the Constitution has been tram- 
 pled under foot by many of the northern States. Is not that 
 enough? No, he says; he will approach them ii) a proper man- 
 ner and request them to abstain. Well, sir, have they not been 
 requested and urged for more than ten years to abstain? J low 
 have these re(|uests been treated i Thc>' have been met hy further 
 outrages. What new ])rocess of recjuest, of persuasion, of en- 
 treaty, has the Senator discovered that is to stay the torrent and 
 turn back the tide i Is he so profound, so conciliatory, so mighty a 
 nuister of magic, as to be able to say to the advancing tlood of 
 fanaticism : '^ Thus far and no further shalt thou come ; and here 
 
19 
 
 sliall thy proud waves be stayed?" He has been in public life 
 for several years. What has been his success in this undertaking ? 
 Why, the thiug has been continually getting worse ; and are we 
 to inter, from his failures thus far, that he is to lead us to future 
 success and safety? 
 
 I have the honor of knowing the honorable Senator for ten 
 years, and I have never known him to try to do anything but to 
 give away the public lands, and he has not even succeeded in 
 doing that. I recollect the impression he made on my mind when 
 I first heard him advocate the so-called homestead bill. He will 
 pardon me for mentioning it with all respect. I was then a Dele- 
 gate. It was on a hot summer day, in the House of Representa- 
 tives, and there was the distinguished Senator, with his sleeves 
 rolled up, delivering himself of a flaming and characteristic 
 speech. " Land for the landless and homes for the homeless'' was 
 then his cry. The Senator has not succeeded in giving away all 
 the public lands ; neither has he been fortunate in staying this 
 torrent of fanaticism that has been rolling over the country, and 
 I am afraid he cannot. I am willing to give him the balance of 
 his life to work in, and I hope he may succeed in rolling it back. 
 I hope he will have better success than he has had in depriving 
 the country of its public lands, and giving them away to those 
 that do not deserve them. " Land for the landless, and homes 
 for the homeless !" has been his constant cry. 
 
 But while, in one part of his speech, he distinctly charges on 
 the Xorth a trampling of the Constitution under foot, in another 
 part, turning to the South, he exclaims: "Why should we go out 
 of the Union; have we anything to fear? What are we alarmed 
 about '<" What, sir ! a people like the South, numerically inferior 
 to their associate section in the same Government, have nothing 
 to fear from trampling on the Constitution, the only defence in 
 that Government for a minority against the majority ! 
 
 But let us be more specific. Let us answer the oft-repeated 
 question as to what the South complains of, and what she fears. 
 
 She complains, then : 
 
 1. Tliat, having $4:,000,000,000 of property in slaves, and 
 $4,000,000,000 more of real and personal property connected with 
 it, the right to that property, and the protection thereof, are de- 
 nied by the party that- now, under the forms of the Constitution, 
 claims the control of the common Government. 
 
 2. That having an immense interest in the common territory of 
 the Union, not only as to its market value, but as to the right of 
 occupation and settlement, that party now claiming the Govern- 
 ment has distinctly pronounced for its confiscation, unless the 
 southern emigration shall renounce their own institutions, and 
 adopt those of the North — and this with the avowed design and 
 inevitable eflect of overthrowing, gradually, the entire system of 
 southern property, prosperity, and civilization. 
 
 3. That the plainest stipulations of the Constitution for the res- 
 titution of slave property have been practically set at naught by 
 
the action of State Legislatures, and tlio perverted public senti- 
 ment in the free States. 
 
 4. That, while anti-slavery new States are forming rapidly to 
 he admitted into this Union, States like their own are to be ex- 
 cluded altogether hereafter; aiul they hold that if such States as 
 theirs have no right to be atlmitted among us, there would be no 
 honor nor safety in their remaining any longer. 
 I 5. That, in consequence of the intense and faJiatical hostility 
 •that prevails in the North against their institutions, many zeah^ts 
 from that region, abusing the freedom of intercourse which the 
 present Union atfords, have been, and are now, going among them 
 to stir up insurrection, thus destroying their projterty, and en- 
 dangering the safety of their homes, their families, and their 
 firesides. 
 
 And in this place — having shown to the Senator from Tennessee 
 what are the complaints of the South — it is proper to refer to an 
 article of the treaty for the cession to us of Louisiana, which the 
 Senator cites to j)rove tliat, somehow or other, the people of that 
 State have less right than those of the original States, I have 
 already answered that argument. But this very third article 
 which he quotes, while it does not avail him, shows specifically 
 that the people of Louisiana had a special treaty right, besides 
 the constitutional one, to go with their property into the Terri- 
 tories ; tlie right now denied by the Chicago platform. The ar- 
 ticle says : 
 
 "The inliabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of 
 the United Stales, and admitted as soon ta possible, according to the priiioij)les of 
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of the rights, advantages, and immuni- 
 ties of citizens of the United States; and, in the mean time, they shall be main- 
 tained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, propert}-, and the re- 
 ligion they profess." 
 
 Now, before Arkansas was admitted, her people were, by the 
 compromise of 1820, cut ofi" from emigrating with their property 
 to any of their Louisiana territory north of 30° 30'. And when 
 the treaty of 1803 was made, all Louisiana territory was slave- 
 holding, and the right was undisputed of migrating from one part 
 of it to another, with slaves ; nor was there any pretence of right 
 asserted in this country to exclude slavery from any part of it ; 
 80 that the people of Louisiana have a peculiar right, or a special 
 provocation, to secede. 
 
 '^\r. President, the Senator from Tennessee complains of my 
 remarks on his speech. lie complains of the tone and temper of 
 what I said. He complains that I rejtlied at all, as I was a north- 
 ern Senator. Mr. President, I am a citizen of this Union, and a 
 Senator of the United States. My residence is in the North, but 
 T have Tiever seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse 
 justice as readily to the Soutli as to the North. I know nothing 
 but my country, the M'hole coimtry, the Constitution, and the 
 equality of the States — the equal right of every man in the com- 
 mon territory of the whole country ; an^l Ijy that 1 shall stand. 
 
21 
 
 The Senator complains that I replied at all, as I was a northern 
 Senator, and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last elec- 
 tion for a high office. Now, I was, as I stated at the time, sur- 
 prised 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 exe- 
 cution of the laws and the protection of the Federal property. 
 Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, when- 
 ever 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 at- 
 tempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases of "execu- 
 ting the laws" and " protecting public property" for coercion, for 
 civU war, we have an important concession, i. e., that this Gov- 
 ernment dare not go before the 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. But the Senator is 
 surprised that I, as a northern Senator, should have replied to 
 him at all. It was because I was astonished that he, as a southern 
 Senator, should make the speech he did. He is surprised that I, 
 as a Democrat, should reply to him. It was because I was mor- 
 tified that he, as a Democrat, should make the speech he did. 
 
 But in the very close of his speech, he referred to the northern 
 Democrats, of whom I am one, and complimented us on our de- 
 fence of southern rights, and urged that we should not be deserted 
 by the secession of our southern friends. But then he left the 
 inference very clear that we were to aid this Government, soon 
 to be Black Republican, in enforcing the laws against what I be- 
 lieve to be the constitutional rights of the southern seceding 
 States. Sir, I thought no time was to be lost in giving him and 
 the country notice that we vx^ould do no such thing ; that we were 
 not going to be the tools, the hangmen, or the executioners of 
 brethren for the gratification of fanatics ; that we would not be 
 their allies, or his allies, in the incendiary and unnatural scheme 
 of desolating the South, our fellow-men and fellow-Democrats. 
 As for the services which the Senator from Tennessee parades 
 and recites, in the late presidential canvass in his State, so far as 
 they were rendered to our party, or in any degree for my personal 
 benefit, I am duly grateful ; but I must be permitted to say, that 
 if in his speeches in that contest he advanced such doctrines as 
 he now proclaims, I am not so much surprised that we were de- 
 feated in that State. And as for the intimation of the Senator, 
 that in replying to him the other day I acted at the instance of 
 other Senators here, or persons elsewhere, or that I had any un- 
 derstanding or concert with them, it is utterly unfounded. 
 
 Now, sir, I want it distinctly understood, as I have already 
 •shown, that during the last session I stood firmly by the Davis 
 
resolutions. I voted against every amendment. I voted against 
 an amendment that he vt»ted f<»r, because I believed it was partial, 
 iiud (lid not do justice. That Senator, with those declaration<i be- 
 fore him, sniii»orted the ticket on which I ran in Tennessee. He 
 ought not t<» have deceived the })et)ple, or himself, and it was not 
 my fault if he did ; for he saw published in every paper here a 
 telegraphic dispatch from me to one of the delegates from Oregon 
 at Charleston, during the sitting of the Charleston convention. 
 He asked me what Oregon should do ; and in that dispatch I told 
 him to go with the States that stocjd by the Constitution ; to stand 
 by them to the last. That was the bjisis on which I stood.- The 
 Senator knew what I said here; he knew the nature of my votes 
 here ; he knew what I said in that dispatch ; he knew what I 
 said in my speeches, and in the letter accepting the nomination. 
 If he told the people that I was in favor of submitting to the 
 rule of a party that would refuse justice and e(]uality in this 
 country, he deceived the people. I contend for the right, and 
 will not submit to wrong. If the Senator, in his sj^eeches in 
 Tennessee, represented me as a submissionist to a wrong, to in- 
 jury, to inequality, he presented me in a cowardly position, that 
 I would not occupy for any consideration. I speak for myself. 
 I say it is a position I would never occupy in Tennessee, Oregon, 
 or anywhere else. I intend to stand by the right. If every man 
 in every State should be servile enough to refuse to contend for 
 their rights, I alone will contend for all they are entitled to ; 
 nothing more and nothing less. 
 
 The Senator on that occasion looked at me, pointed in my di- 
 rection, and made remarks not becoming a Senator — remarks 
 that have been too often made on this floor, and that no gentle- 
 man ever would make. He said he had struck treason a blow. 
 The mighty Senator from Tennessee struck treason a blow ! To 
 whom did he allude? He said he saw the commotion on this 
 side of tlie House; he saw the books being brouglit in ; he saw 
 that I was to reply to him. Sir, if the word "treason'' was to be 
 ajiplied by him or any other man to me, I would say, you are a 
 coward that cannot maintain it. Sir, I cannot express my con- 
 tempt of the man who would so insinuate, even in thought. A 
 drop of treason never raii in my veins. At an hour's notice, M'hen 
 working in a conilield for the sup])ort of niy family, when I heard 
 that Indiana had been called on for troops, I otlered my services; 
 and I did not look up()n my family tVom ten minutes after I had 
 received the notice until I had gone through bloody battles; un- 
 til I had carried home with me evidence of my devotion to the 
 Union. Does the Senator dare to charge trcfison npon me? I 
 think not; for no gentleman would have the temerity to do it. 
 I might go on and say that I entered that service as a private, 
 M'ith my knapsack on my back, and I came home out of the ser- 
 vice with the rank of Major (leneral in the Army. 1 earned it 
 on the battle-field. On the battle-iield I lost almost the last drop 
 of my blood witiiout a murmur, in the service of my country. 
 
23 
 
 Who, then, is he that would dare have the brazen effrontery to 
 charge me with treason to my country — a country which I have 
 loved from my infancy, which my father fought for, and which I 
 have never failed to fight for myself? I never will fail to meet 
 the foe of my country, or to bleed in her cause, while I am able. 
 
 Though my arm is not as strong as it once was, though my 
 limbs may not be now supple or elastic as in youth, I am yet able, 
 when my country shall need my services, to offer them ; and I 
 shall be the first to do it on any just occasion; but never against 
 one of the States of this Union who has left it because justice 
 has b'een denied to her. No, sir ; never ! 
 
 Then, sir, whom could the Senator from Tennessee refer to. 
 Could he allude to my friend Davis? Sir, I saw him on the bat- 
 tle-field. I was looking right in his face when he was wounded. 
 I saw a shudder pass over him as the bullet struck him, precisely 
 at the side-end of his spur, and passed through the center of his 
 heel. There was perceptible simply a shudder ; but not a mur- 
 mur; just a shudder for the instant, when struck by the bullet ; 
 but never, for a moment, did he lose sight of the enemy or the 
 flag, but struggled on through the battle to the end, following the 
 glorious stars and stripes, that emblem of the Union, that emblem 
 of the Constitution, that emblem of protection to every State of 
 the Confederacy under the Constitution, as gallantly as ever did 
 mortal man; and jet upon this floor there are some base enough 
 to allude to him as a traitor. Mr. President, I have not words to 
 express my contempt for any man that can apply such a term to 
 such a man as Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis a traitor! 
 Treason applied to him! He, the purest and bravest of patriots! 
 He fought for his flag and country when the cowards and poltroons 
 that now dare villify him were supine at home. He will live 
 glorious in history when they are earth and forgotten. Sir, this 
 "treason" of our seceding brethren does not fall within the defi- 
 nition given by Hudibras to that crime ; for the South flourishes 
 and pro.:;pers. The people who have seceded from the Union, and, 
 have formed a government of their own, are charged with treason. 
 I will tell gentlemen they will have more than ordinary difficulty 
 to coni'Ojid with when they invade the rights of that government. 
 But to ni'oceed with my argument. 
 
 Now, !^ir, in reference to that speech of the Senator, it was, as 
 I regard it, an unnatural speech. It was a bad speech ; and did 
 more to strengthen the Black Republican party than all the 
 speeches of all the Senators on the other side of the Chamber 
 during this session. But for that speech, we should have had a 
 settlement of the difliculty before this. It went to the country, 
 and made the people believe that the "giant" Senator from Ten- 
 nessee was for coercion. It was complimented and eulogized by 
 the Republican press, and in pamphlet form circulated by hun- 
 dreds of thousands throughout the North. And the distinguished 
 Senator from New York speaks of him as the "noble" Senator 
 from Tennessee. Noble for what? Noble for his abandonment 
 
24 
 
 of the rifflits of the States; iioMe for the abandonment of the 
 rights of his section ; noble i'ov aitliiii^ and assisting a party who 
 refuse justice to the citizens of the South? 
 
 But the Senator from Tennessee proceded with an air anil tone 
 of great triumph to bring forward my vote on the amendments 
 proposed to tlie Davis re.sohitions. I tliink I liave said all that it 
 is necessary for me to say uj)on that subject. I have shown that 
 I voted for them under all circumstances, and against every 
 amen<hiient. Tho,<e resolutions assert the right of properly in 
 the Territories, and that when the courts fail to aftbrd protection, 
 then it is the duty of Congress to come forward and provide that 
 protection. I wished to put slave property npon the same foot- 
 ing as other })roi)erty. That is wliere I then stood, where I now 
 stand, and where I intend to stand. The Senator asks, with a 
 kind of triumphant air, what has hai)})ened since that day? Mr. 
 President, I have said that I have done all in my power, by stand- 
 ing tirm to the resolutions agreed to by the Democratic party, to 
 alford protection. The Senator misrepresented my vote on those 
 resolutions. I never voted against the Davis resolutions, nor did 
 their substitute ever come up as a separate proposition. It was 
 an amcndnieut to one of that series of resolutions I voted against; 
 and I would vote against anything and everything that would 
 embarrass their passage, for they contained just what I thought 
 w^as right, and just what he did not vote for; but, as I have 
 already shown, he voted to substitute instead thereof a proposition 
 which was unsatisfactory and inade(iuate — neither satisfactory to 
 me, to the Democratic masses and Ilepresentatives, nor to the 
 South. 
 
 The Senator from Tennessee, with great exultation, asks, if pro- 
 tection was not necessary then, wdiat has happened since to make 
 it so, and to break up the Union for the want of it? What has 
 hapj)ened since? Why, a thing has happened that never hap- 
 pened 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 proj>erty to any of them has been proclaimed and 
 atRrmed at the ballot-box by a nuijority of the States and a ma- 
 iority of the electoral votes of this Union. And yet the Senator 
 has the coolness to ask what has lia})pened, and to make merry 
 with the question, and have the sympathetic merriment of the Re- 
 publican Senators. AVhat has happened i Why, the thing has 
 Iiappened that has been three times before attempted, and three 
 times before failed ; the first attempt having endangered the for- 
 mation of the Union, and the second and tiiird its continuance. 
 The lirst attempt was made in 1784, to exclude slavery tVom all 
 the Territories. It was abandoned in 1787 by excluding it <uily 
 from the territory lujrthwest 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 the 
 Missouri line. The third attempt was made in 1850, as to the 
 
25 
 
 territory acquired from Mexico ; and then also the Union nar- 
 rowly 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 compro- 
 mises and warnings, have voted on the question, and every north- 
 ern State has pronounced for the spoliation ; and there stood the 
 Senator from Tennessee and asked, with an air of triumphant ig- 
 norance and exulting stupidity, what has happened ? 
 
 Oh ! but we are told that although the people of the North 
 have so voted, and so elected, and thereby are about to seize the 
 gigantic power of this Government to accomplish the flagitious 
 design, they have not accomplished it yet. We must wait for 
 the overt act! 
 
 What! if a man proclaims his intention to burn my barn, and 
 I see him approach with a lighted torch, am I to wait for the 
 overt act? If some military chieftain was about to bombard this 
 splendid edifice, and had drawn out his artillery to lay these mar- 
 ble columns in ruins, and level yon proud dome with the ground, 
 must we wait for the thing to be done ? But if there are some 
 people not quite so blind as not to see what has happened, and 
 not quite so servile or so base as to %vait until that still more splen- 
 did fabric, the Constitution, is tailing in ruins around them, from 
 the torches of frenzied fanatics, and amid their exultant shouts, 
 but conclude to separate themselves from such brethren, they show 
 that they at least know not only what has happened, but what 
 would be likely to happen next, if they had no more perception 
 nor foresight than the Senator from Tennessee. 
 
 But, we have been told by the Senator, as we have often been 
 told by others, that the secession movement is a sudden and vio- 
 lent excitement, caused by the plans and harangues of artful and 
 ambitious leaders ; and that it must soon subside. A sudden and 
 precipitate movement! Why, it is now more than twelve years 
 since all the southern States, Tennessee included, decided by the 
 almost unanimous vote of both parties in their Legislatures, that 
 they Avould at all hazards, and to the last extremity, resist the 
 adoption of the Wilmot proviso. Now, the North has resolved 
 upon it by the unanimous vote of all her States, and has the 
 power, according to the forms of the Constitution, to execute that 
 resolve ; and yet, for preparing at once to resist this aggression, 
 three times solemnly attempted before, and three times before re- 
 pulsed by the South, we are now told that the South is precipi- 
 tate — is mad. 
 
 I know it is said that there are still some Senators and Kepre- 
 sentatives from the North in Congress who will oppose this Re- 
 publican design, and that it may be ultimately defeated by their 
 votes in connection with that "^of the South. But, in the mean 
 time, the Chicago convention, Avith consummate cunning, declares 
 that there is no right for slavery to go into the Territories ; and 
 hence, if it does go, the new Executive will aiford it no protec- 
 
26 
 
 tion if assailed; and it is well known that many of the support- 
 ers fur tlie Presidency of tlie ^Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) 
 who, together with the lie])nblicans, make up a large ]>ortion of 
 the North, also deny that slavery has any right to protection in 
 the Territories; the decision of the Supreme Court, that it has 
 the right to go there, to the contrary notwithstandiTig, 
 
 For the South, then, to wait would l)e to 6ul)mit until her forts 
 were arn.ed and garrisoned against her, and the guns turned land- 
 ward ; to wait until her share of the public arms were placed in 
 possession of her enemies ; to wait until the Federal Army is 
 stationed to act with promptitude to subdue her; to wait until 
 Kepublican })ostmasters are stationed throughout her villages and 
 cross-roads, to circulate the works of Greely and of Helper; to 
 w^ait until servile insurrection is organized; and all these things 
 the Tresidcnt alone can do. The South is to wait for all this; 
 while southern Senators sit, blind as moles and deaf as adders, or, 
 having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things that 
 pertain to her temporal salvation. 
 
 Mr. President, ])erhaps the most signal instance of the evils of 
 coni]>ulsory union between dissimilar ])eople, is that of Ireland 
 and England. The peo})le 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 minori- 
 ty in tliat body, have no power to protect themselves from the 
 aggressions of England. The consequence is, that they have been 
 excluded from the common benetits of British legislation, com- 
 mercially, and even religiously, to say nothing of their exclusion 
 from oiiicial station in the Empire. And, accoi-dingly, Ireland 
 has been impoverished, degraded, and discontented. She has 
 been trampled ui)on, outraged, insulted, treated like Cinderella. 
 The people of this country have alwaj'^s 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 o])inion and feeling. Nevei'theless, it 
 is ])r()poscd to hold the South in |)olitical 8ubjecti(ui to the North, 
 and for that ])urpose to employ naval and military force. 
 
 Sir, I migiit 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 bases we have sympathized 
 with, and, in many of them aided, the secession from the com- 
 mon government, by contributions and individual service. Yet 
 those Goveriimeiits were not luunded on consent, and there was 
 no coni])act conceding the right of secession. 
 
 And now, Jifter I have shown that modern history abounds in 
 Buch cases, and after ])r()vino: that our opinions and sympathies 
 have invariably been with the seceding parties, it is deliberately 
 proposed and proclaimed that the northern section of this Union, 
 60 devoted to liberty, so exalted in civilization, so pure in morals, 
 and devout in religion, shall imitate the most despotic policy of 
 
27 ■ 
 
 England, Austria, Turkey, Spain, and Russia? Is it reserved for 
 this enlightened age, and this land of the free, for that section 
 which arrogates to itself the preeminence in piety and civiliza- 
 tion, to show itself capable of imitating the worst crimes of the 
 Governments of the Old World, to emulate the most atrocious 
 examples of the very worst Governments, whether civilized or 
 semi-barbarous? But, sir, while I have referred to the several 
 cases of people heretofore undertaking to secede from oppressive 
 Unions, I do not for a moment compare the ability of the South, 
 or the probable issue of the impending struggle, to the cases cited. 
 Not at all, sir. The southern States will not be conquered. They 
 may be destroyed, but never subjugated. Let me beg the party 
 who are soon to take charge of this Government to let the seceded 
 States alone, and by no means to attempt to collect revenue in 
 their ports ; that would result in a bloociy, terrible war ; but, on 
 the contrary, acknowledge the independence of the Confederate 
 States of America, and treat with them as an ally and friendly 
 nation. 
 
 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. (Jur 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 unjustifia- 
 ble, is an accomplished fact ; and it presents to us no less an al- 
 ternative 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 interests of 
 the country, without any exception, would be involved. How 
 much better, Mr. President, that, in so fearful a crisis as the pre- 
 sent, instead of passing " force bills," and preparing for war, in- 
 stead 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 
 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. 
 
 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 
 
38 
 
 by cultivating friendly relations with those States which have 
 dissolved their coniiectioii with that Union, and established a 
 separate government. Though we and they may nut, and per- 
 haps, in the nature of things, caniiot live harmoniously under the 
 same CTOvernnient, it is our interest, no less than theirs, that we 
 should at once endeavor to estaldish between our Government 
 and theirs those amicable relations which should ever exist be- 
 tween two neighboring Republics. War, with its attendant hor- 
 rors, 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 bo restored ; a new impetus given to every variety of indus- 
 try ; the march of improvement accelerated, and the cause of 
 humanity, of civilization, and of Christianity, advanced through- 
 out the world. The people of Europe, accustomed to refer the 
 settlement of their slightest dilferences 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 po- 
 litical communities, not hostile, discordant, beligerent: but each, 
 animated with a spirit of generous rivalry towards the other, pur- 
 suing a more successful and prosperous career in its own chosen 
 patii. than when, nnited under the same Federal head, they pain- 
 fully sought together the same common destiny. 
 
 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 ])ress, 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 <»f ultimate extinction. We have the announcement 
 of the party that the foot of a slave shall never press the soil of 
 one of tiie 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 ]iarty as that? Who ever knew 
 anything 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 ])lacing 
 slavery in tiie course of ultimate extinction. They want to keep 
 the slave States in for their beneiit — to foot the bills, to })ay 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 par- 
 ty, in all kindness; for I shall not trouble them again on this 
 subject. I shall be a ]n-ivate, inde])endent 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 thein 
 
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 — hut the other soutliern State also. I am afraid Repub- 
 licanism will not^do this. I know those old Kentucky people 
 from terrace to foundation. They will endure much — very inuch 
 — peaceabl}'' 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. Bigler,) who has 
 labored harder to patch up the 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. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I owe it to myself to say a few words upon 
 another subject. I am sorry it is necessary ; but the supercilli- 
 ousness of the honorable Senator from Tennessee in taking me to 
 task the other day in a manner that I thought was unparliamen- 
 tary, to say the least, on the subject of the navigation of the Mis- 
 sissippi river, renders it indispensable that I should do so. I de- 
 sire to say but a few words relative to that point, and leave the 
 Senate to decide between us. By the way, before I commence, I 
 will say that I have been borne out in all I have said in rehition 
 to that matter by the action of Louisiana, and by the action of 
 the confederated States. I look upon that government as one of 
 the finest experiments on the face of the earth, or in the liistory 
 of mankind, embodying the purest patriotism, the highest order 
 of statesmanship, and the greatest amount of talent and adminis- 
 trative capacity that can be found among the same number of 
 people in any Government on the face of the globe. They, by 
 their action, have indorsed all that I said upon the subject of the 
 navigation of the Mississippi river. The Governor of the State 
 of Louisiana had the kindness, seeing what I said, and that the 
 Senator from Tennessee had doubted the chivalry, the general 
 honesty, and patriotism of the people of LonisianaJ^ to send me — 
 and I have had it here for the last two weeks, but have not had 
 the opportunity of presenting it before — the ordinance of seces- 
 sion, and accompanying it a resolution on the subject of the navi- 
 gation of the Mississippi river, which is in these words : 
 
 ''Resolved, That we, the people of Louisiana" — 
 
 in their sovereign capacity, mark you ; not a little whiskey in- 
 surrection, but the people in their sovereign capacity, as a State 
 in convention assembled : 
 
30 
 
 " Jiesolvecl, That we, the people of Louisiana, recognize the right of the free navi- 
 gation of the 31ississipj)i river and its tributaries by all friendly States bordering 
 thereon. And we also recognize the right of ingress and egress of the mouths of 
 tlie Mississippi by all friendly States and Powers; and we do hereby declare our 
 willingness to enter into any stipnlations to guaranty the exercise of said rights." 
 
 Since Louisiana has passed tliis resolution, the government of 
 the confederate States, by its Congress, has passed a siniihir reso- 
 lution, resolving, as they ought to do, and as I said they would 
 do, that the navigation of the Mississippi river should be free to 
 all friendly States, and free to all States bordering on it or its 
 tributaries, lint I will go into a little history of the Senator's 
 remarks on the occasion of his last two days' speech. God save 
 the country from such speeches! 
 
 Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee expressed his dis- 
 approbation at what I said as to the navigation of the Mississippi, 
 and misrepresented me, when he said that I spoke of the right 
 to navigate the Mississii)pi, as if I had great familiarity with in- 
 ternational law. I affected no such familarity. AVhat I did say, 
 I spoke rather donbtingly, and I cannot understand how a mind 
 not inclined to perversion could give such an interpretation to 
 my words. His words I will read. Referring to me, with a 
 marked manner, he said : 
 
 " He seemed to show great familiarity with international law." 
 
 In the next sentence he repeated this, and said : 
 
 "He spoke about it with great familiarity, as if he understood it well." 
 
 Now, sir, this is not the truth. I will here repeat the words 
 "which I used, that elicited the criticism of this new expounder of 
 international law. I said : 
 
 " I believe it is recognized as the law of nations, as the law of all civilized nations, 
 that a great inland sea, running through several Governments, shall be open equally 
 to all of them." 
 
 I did not speak like a lawyer, confident in his knowledge, but 
 I spoke rather donbtingly, and without assurance or ])retence, 
 and just as I felt became one who was not professionally informed. 
 In relation to what I said as to the rule of national law, as ap- 
 plied to the Mississippi, I used the i>hrase "I believe," certainly 
 not a presumptuous term. The Senator goes to work and ])on- 
 ders for several weeks over my speech, made without j)remcdita- 
 tion, and the speeches of other Senators, scra})es up as many 
 fragments as possible for the manufacture of his own, and then 
 conies into the Senate with what he thinks, no doubt, is a very 
 learned tlisplay. With the air of a learned giant, burdened witli 
 •wis<lom and knowledge, he undertakes to rebuke me by a super- 
 cilious sneer at my alleged familiarity with international law. 
 He assumes to rebuke me, also, for not knowing what he knew; 
 which wa.s, that the navigation of the Mississippi river had been 
 the subject of negotiation for '' years and years, ' as well as other 
 rivers throughout the world. This was all very wise and very 
 triumphant, if there were not two sides to the question. He 
 quotetl from Mr. AVheaton's Klements, in order to show, as I sup- 
 pose, his own deep research in the ntatters of international law. 
 
31 
 
 As nsnal, the Senator understood very little of what he quoted. 
 He utterly missed the true point, and, of course, failed to state 
 the case as it really stood. 
 
 Now, mark you, sir, I say, " I believe" I am right. I will state 
 it, aud I do so believing it will be understood, as I have hereto- 
 fore represented it, and would be indorsed by professional men 
 of eminence. As to the Mississippi having been the subject, for 
 years, of negotiation, is a fact I was aware of. But, sir, notwith- 
 standing the Senator's lengthy quotations, I think I can demon- 
 strate to the satisfaction of others, if not to him, that my view of 
 the question is correct. He has made a quotation at great length 
 from Mr. Wheaton, which has no special application to this case, 
 like most of the law quotations he selects. 
 
 I spoke of the law of nations, of course, as relative to the inci- 
 dents of the subject-matter adverted to — an inland sea, (or great 
 river,) under the circumstances of the Mississippi ; of course, not 
 under adverse circumstances. Rome once claimed the right to 
 shut up the navigation of the entire Mediterranean ; but such 
 cases decide nothing. She held the control of its entrance. So, 
 at one time, in a less enlightened day, Rnssia claimed despotic 
 mastery over the mouth of the Danube. The other great river of 
 western Europe, the Rhine, rising in Switzerland, passing France 
 and Baden, Prussia, Belgium, and the ISTetherlands, was, under a 
 less liberal policy of national law than now prevails, subject to tolls. 
 
 But, sir, what are the facts. Austria, and other powers, never 
 conceded that Russia had the right of controlling the mouth of 
 the Danube. In 181 J:, as I understand it — I may be wrong — the 
 navigation was settled to be free. The demonstration of "Russia 
 afterwards, to change this, was resisted by Austria ; and the other 
 Powers of Europe interposed and prevented its disturbance, upon 
 the ground that it was the true rule of national law, as between 
 their Governments, that the river should remain free to its mouth. 
 The same western powers, as I believe, further enforced that 
 principle in the treaty which lollowed the capture of Sebastopol. 
 The navigation of the Rhine was finally adjusted upon the same 
 basis, as the true rule of national law under the circumstances, 
 and as between the parties. When I say, therefore, an inland 
 sea — or river, if you please — passing through several nations, is 
 open to the navigation of all, it is not meant that any fixed and 
 acknowledged right is to be violated. What is meant is simply 
 that which is correspondent with the circumstances and the his- 
 tory of the case. If all the parties had claims, no greater nation 
 possessing the mouth of the river, is at liberty, by a mere exercise 
 of power, to violate those rights because of that power. In this 
 sense has been established, and now exists, the rules of national 
 law which govern the Danube and the Rhine, No tolls, I believe, 
 are collected on either. A state of war, for the time being, sus- 
 pends those rights, but does not abolish them. 
 
 Now, sir, as to the principles laid down among the highly civil- 
 ized nations of Europe, at this day, as applicable to the Missis- 
 
32 
 
 eippi, I am right, and he is wrong. He has no principles about 
 it. He goes back to an old fogy land for his precedent. He is 
 a long way behind tlie times, in my opinion, just as he was in re- 
 lation to the rights of the southern States, and as he will be in 
 relation to the action of his own. Now, sir, bear in mind this 
 diagram of national principles, as I have tried to state it, and as 
 now adjusted among the great Powers of western Europe, which 
 is the great source of ascertaining national law, and it necessai-ily 
 follows, that the States of this Confederacy — I believe I am right 
 in that — having been equally interested with Louisiana in the 
 navigation of the Mississippi, by the law of nations, they retain that 
 equal right, and are not attected by a change of Government. It 
 is such a right, as having been always equally enjoyed, it cannot 
 be disturbed except in two wa3'8: first, by treaty; and second, by 
 war. The latter only suspends it. This, sir, is the explanation as I 
 understand it, and as I believe it to be right. I hope the reporter 
 •will put down the words " I believe ;" that is the word I intend 
 to use on this subject. What a j^ageant — what a ridiculous page- 
 ant — has tlie Senator made by stuffing himself (it only took six 
 weeks) with inapplicable scraps of law of learned lengtli, as if 
 specially to be exhibited before this Senate, to prove nothing, and 
 to fit nothing. I, sir, will not deal in either inuendoes or irony; 
 but I will plainly say that, if the Senator would quote only a little 
 law, and understand all that little well, it would be better, im- 
 measurably better, than to quote so much, and comprehend so 
 ver}^ small a portion of what he does quote. 
 
 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 1 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 riglitly — 
 amendments to the Constitution, placing all the States upon an 
 equality in tlie 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.