EVENING SESSION—SEVENTEENTH DAY.
Washington, Monday, February 25th, 1861.
The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. Alexander in the chair.
Mr. SMITH, of New York:—I move that a committee of two be appointed by the President to arrange for the printing of the Journal.
The motion of Mr. Smith was adopted, and the President appointed as such committee, Mr. Smith, of New York, and Mr. Howard, of Maryland.
The Conference then proceeded to the consideration of the order of the day, being the third section of the article reported by the committee.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I move to amend the third section by striking out the words "or Territory of the United States," occurring after the words "within any State."
I think we shall make the amendment more satisfactory by limiting the prohibition to States alone; still leaving the power in Congress to be exercised in conformity with the other provisions that regulate slavery in the Territories.
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I have the same objection to this as to other amendments. It may not be important, but I do not want to commence by adopting amendments at all.
The question was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. Hitchcock, and was agreed to by the following vote:
Ayes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Kansas—10.
Noes.—Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri—9.
Mr. SUMMERS:—I now desire to call up for consideration the amendment proposed by myself on the evening of the 23d instant. The state of the case is this: Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, moved an amendment to my proposition, which was accepted; my amendment was then rejected by a vote of the Conference, and on the 25th the Conference reconsidered the vote by which the amendment was rejected. I will not now repeat what I said, when the amendment was offered, in favor of its adoption. I would only call the attention of gentlemen to the remarks I then made, and say in addition, that I earnestly hope the Conference will now adopt the amendment. It will make the proposition much more acceptable to the South, and, certainly, not more objectionable to the North. The amendment is offered to the second section, and is as follows:
"No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty."
The amendment of Mr. Summers was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes.—New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—12.
Noes.—Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas—6.
The PRESIDENT:—No further amendment being offered to the second and third sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration of the fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to that section.
None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section.
Mr. SEDDON:—I move to strike out the whole of the section. It has been heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section was under consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch as existing laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibition of the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South does not. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out.
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I think it very important to retain this section; it can, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that the foreign slave-trade should not be revived.
The amendment offered by Mr. Seddon was rejected by the following vote:
Ayes.—Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri—4.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—17.
Mr. BRADFORD:—I move to amend the fifth section by inserting after the words "slave-trade," the words "by citizens of the United States."
In proposing amendments to the Constitution, it seems to me improper that we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoption of the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook to prohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens of other countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have the constitutional provision expressed in appropriate terms.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:—I object to this amendment. It would nullify the operation of the section entirely. There are in the United States thousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such a provision of the Constitution, would revive the slave-trade and infuse into it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better to have no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. The amendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibit the slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it by those who are not citizens.
Mr. COALTER:—I am in favor of the amendment.
Mr. BRADFORD:—I do not desire to embarrass the action of the Conference, and I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. JAMES:—I move to amend this section by striking out the following words: "from places beyond the limits thereof."
The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not need explanation.
The amendment of Mr. James was agreed to by the following vote:
Ayes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kansas—17.
Noes.—Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri—3.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I move that the vote just passed striking out the words "from places beyond the present limits thereof," be rescinded.
I think the action of the Convention in passing this vote was hasty, and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important question to determine, what are "the present limits thereof." Upon one construction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the States which have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, which assumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognize their secession, it would not cut off the trade between those States and the others. I do not like to have such a question raised.
Mr. BACKUS:—I am against this reconsideration. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize the secession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State to withdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. And beyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentleman asserts.
Mr. RUFFIN:—I think the clause is better as it is. By striking out the words "from beyond the present limits thereof," we do not establish any territorial limitation. And whether these States come back or not, no question of territory is raised. But if this reconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return to the Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of their continued secession we cannot get back from those States those of our slaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back those slaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there.
Mr. GRANGER:—I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argument of Judge Ruffin is conclusive.
Mr. COALTER:—This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Why not leave it as we have to leave many others—to the discretion of Congress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cut off the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others. Nobody is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage this question. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men. They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Those families may at times become separated. A portion of them may now be in the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it often happens that during one season of the year the planter, with his family and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; and at another season, removes with his family and slaves to a plantation farther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding of this kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is one involving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves are interested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as it does, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress.
Mr. GRANGER:—I have always stood up against all the societies and organizations which have been established at the North to carry on crusades against slavery. My position in that respect is still unchanged. I hold that the people of the free States have nothing to do with slavery; that they are not responsible for it, and that it is their duty to let it alone. At the same time I have just as steadily opposed the slave-trade. I think it inhuman and atrocious, and I am the last man that would consent to its restoration. This section as it stands, in my judgment, cannot be improved. I think we had better leave it, and not raise these troublesome questions which will inevitably be suggested if these words are restored.
Mr. MOREHEAD:—This is a matter which requires some reflection, and, on the whole, I am inclined, for the present, to withdraw my proposition.
Mr. SEDDON:—I do not like this plan of legislating in the Constitution. The Constitution ought to be an instrument defining and limiting the powers of Congress. We had better leave to Congress, or rather, to assign to Congress the power to exercise this prohibition. I, therefore, move to amend by inserting at the commencement of the section these words: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit," and to strike out at the end of the section the words "are forever prohibited."
Mr. ALLEN:—This would be a most effectual way of reviving the slave-trade. It would remove the constitutional prohibition, and permit Congress to prohibit or permit it, as that body may choose. Would that ever hereafter be considered a crime which Congress had power to permit? No. I cannot conceive it possible that any State should seriously wish to see a traffic resumed which has been stigmatized by the whole civilized world as worse than piracy. This is a question which I would not leave to Congress. We know how immensely profitable this trade is—that fortunes are made by a single successful voyage. Don't let such an inducement to corruption creep into our Constitution.
Mr. COALTER:—I am in favor of this amendment, not because I am in favor of the slave-trade, but because such a section is out of place in the Constitution. The Constitution is a bill of rights, an instrument which defines and settles the rights of citizens. It is not a law. I have no fear that if we leave this to Congress the slave-trade will be revived.
Mr. DONIPHAN:—I cannot agree with my colleague. I am opposed to the foreign slave-trade in every form. I would not even make a treaty with a nation or a State that would permit it. If the seceded States are to be regarded out of the Union, I would not treat with them; I would not invest Congress with such a dangerous power. Nothing will suit me but an unqualified prohibition of this trade in the Constitution itself.
Mr. HOUSTON:—The gentleman from Missouri has expressed the views of Delaware. His argument is conclusive.
Mr. HOWARD:—The intervention of Congress will be necessary whether this amendment passes or not. The section as adopted makes no provision for the punishment of any one who violates it. If a vessel should be seized while engaged in the trade, this section does not provide for her forfeiture or condemnation, or the punishment of her officers or owners. The section would be inoperative without the action of Congress. Why not let Congress have all the power?
Mr. DODGE:—Congress will declare the punishment.
Mr. SEDDON:—If you cut off the slave with the seceded States, they will do the same with you. I think the Border States should at all events adopt the amendment.
The Conference refused to agree to the amendment of Mr. Seddon by the following vote:
Ayes.—Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri—5.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—16.
Messrs. Johnson and Doniphan, of Missouri, dissented from the vote of that State.
Mr. MOREHEAD:—I move to strike out the whole of this section, and insert a new one of the following tenor: "The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof."
Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I like the amendment proposed better than the original, but I wish to suggest an amendment to it myself.
We are aware that certain countries which are much exercised over the criminality of slavery and the slave-trade, have recently adopted a system, the horrors of which are not surpassed by those of the middle passage. I refer to the importation of coolies and other persons from China and the East. In my judgment, this is the slave-trade in one of its worst forms. I think if we prevent the importation of slaves at all, the provision ought to be made to cover such a case. I therefore move to amend the proposition of Mr. Morehead, by inserting after the words "importation of slaves," the words "or coolies, or persons held to service or labor."
Mr. MOREHEAD:—I accept the amendment of Mr. Wickliffe, and should have inserted it myself had it occurred to me. My proposition as it now stands, covers both the points here made; it declares the entire prohibition of the slave-trade, and it makes it also the duty of Congress to pass laws effectually to prevent it.
The amendment offered by Mr. Morehead was agreed to by the following vote:
Ayes.—Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois—11.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Kansas—8.
Mr. Hoppin, of Rhode Island, Messrs. Orth and Ellis, of Indiana, and Mr. Stockton, of New Jersey, dissented from the votes of their respective States.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:—I move to strike out the whole section. I had rather have no section at all, and no provision upon the subject, than such a one as we have now adopted. The requisition upon Congress making it their duty to enact laws, will be considered as a necessary one; the consequence which must result is, that until Congress legislates, there is no law against the importation of slaves.
The motion of Mr. Crowninshield was rejected by the following vote:
Ayes.—Massachusetts, Virginia, and Tennessee—3.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas—18.
The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the sixth section.
No amendment being offered thereto, the Conference proceeded to the seventh section.
Mr. TURNER:—I move to strike out the whole of the seventh section, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."
The seventh section, as it now stands, will encounter more serious objection at the North than all the remaining portion of the article. It is objectionable for many reasons: it looks to the actual exercise of violence and intimidation by mobs and unlawful assemblies at the North. Although such may have occurred in one or two sections only, generally the provisions of the fugitive slave law have been observed and carried out. The whole subject is very distasteful to the North. I think if we keep it out of the article, and in its place secure that respect for the privileges of citizens in the various States, to which, indeed, under the Constitution, they are entitled, we shall do much better.
Mr. LOGAN:—There are various reasons peculiar to some of the free States why this provision should not be adopted. The laws of several of the Western States do not recognize negroes as citizens. I move to amend the amendment proposed by my colleague, by inserting the words "free white" before the word "citizens."
The amendment offered by Mr. Logan was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes.—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois—10.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa—8.
Mr. Orth, of Indiana, dissented from the vote of his State.
Mr. TURNER:—I suppose the purpose of my colleague has been attained. If there is a delegation willing to make such a distinction in the Constitution, they will, of course, support the amendment as it is now amended.
The vote was then taken upon the amendment, as amended, with the following result:
Ayes.—None.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana—18.
Mr. WILMOT:—If the seventh section is adopted, I think the North should have some compensation therefor. I think citizens of the North have as much occasion for complaint on account of the action of mobs and riotous assemblies in the slave States, as the slave States have of the occurrence of those mobs and assemblies in the North. I therefore move the following as an addition to the seventh section:
"And Congress shall farther provide by law, that the United States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, in his person or property, or in the deprivation, by violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution."
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am opposed to this amendment upon the general principles I have so often stated. I oppose it for another reason. I am not in favor of an amendment which encourages mobs and riots at the North, and I will not consent to one which, like this, encourages seditious speeches at the South.
Mr. WILMOT:—Such is not the effect of my amendment. It does not protect a man in making seditious speeches in the slave States. It only secures to the citizen his rights without regard to the State to which he belongs. We have a provision of the Constitution on that subject now, but it is not effective.
Mr. COALTER:—I am in favor of the amendment. There is great necessity for it.
Mr. SEDDON:—I think gentlemen entirely misconstrue the intent and purpose of the present provision of the Constitution on that subject. It grows out of and rests upon that provision which requires the return of fugitive slaves. It imposes an obligation upon Congress to secure to the owner, when he pursues his slave into a free State, the right which he enjoys as a citizen of his own State. In all other respects it is unnecessary. If a man is injured in his person or his property, he has his redress in the State courts; or if he is a foreigner or a citizen of another State, he may go into the Federal courts and get his redress there. In this respect the citizens of both sections are amply protected.
Mr. STEPHENS:—I earnestly hope this amendment may be rejected. We have come here to arrange old difficulties, not to make new ones. Adopt this, and you lay the foundation stone of disunion. It is an encouragement to seditious speeches and purposes. The clause is well enough as it is. We do not wish to encourage men to come among us and excite discontent among our slaves. We will not permit them to do it. Our safety requires that we should not. Our own citizens do not connive at the escape of slaves. None do it who have any business in our States. We are here for peace. When half a dozen States are out, whose return we wish to secure, shall we put such a clause as this into the Constitution? Do it, and a half dozen others will follow. I am not at all sure that the report of the majority, if adopted, will satisfy my State. It certainly will not if it is mangled and frittered away. I have not occupied time in making speeches here. I say to you gentlemen, beware! If I thought the spirit of the North was truly represented in this Conference, I would go home and advise my State to secede; and if she did not, I would abandon her forever.
Mr. RUFFIN:—I am opposed to the amendment because I think it unnecessary, and because it opens a new and very serious controversy. The rights of Northern men are fully protected now. There is not a court in the South in which a Northern citizen cannot find a lawyer to advocate his cause. If he is poor, he may even sue in forma pauperis, and incur no liability even for costs.
Mr. WILMOT:—I am claiming no more than I have a right to claim under the decision of the Supreme Court. That court, in the case of Prigg vs. The State of Pennsylvania, decided that the Constitution imposes the duty upon Congress of carrying this provision into effect. I insist upon making it plain. Rights upon both sides are sought to be protected by this article. They are correlative.
Mr. Logan favored and Mr. Ewing opposed the amendment, in a few brief remarks.
Mr. ORTH:—I do not think we shall accomplish much by protracting our present session longer. I move that the Conference adjourn, and ask a vote by States.
The Conference refused to adjourn, by the following vote:
Ayes.—Maine, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—7.
Noes.—New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—14.
The PRESIDENT:—The question recurs upon the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The vote upon the question of agreeing to the motion of Mr. Wilmot, resulted as follows:
Ayes.—Maine, New York, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Iowa—8.
Noes.—Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—11.
And the motion was rejected.
Mr. BARRINGER:—I now move to amend the seventh section, by adding thereto the following words:
"And in all cases in which the United States shall pay for such fugitive, Congress shall also provide for the collection by the United States of the amount so paid, with interest, from the county, city, or town in which such arrest shall have been prevented, or rescue made."
I am certain that no objection can be made to the equity of this amendment. If a municipal corporation shall permit the rights of a slave owner to be disregarded by the rescue of a slave, it not only fails to perform its duty under the Constitution, but becomes an active participant in the crime. Shall the consequences of its own fault be visited upon the people of the whole country? Those who acknowledge and carry out their obligations under the Constitution, as well as those who do not? This would inflict a punishment upon the innocent for the crime of the guilty. It is not right to leave it in that way. It would present an inducement to these violations of law which the provision is intended to prevent. We ought to make the guilty party pay the penalty.
Mr. HACKLEMAN:—If such a proposition were to come from a free State, the mover would be charged with attempting to destroy all hope that the committee's report could be adopted by the people. However, if the friends of the report are willing to adopt it, I do not know that I ought to object. It places the Government in a position where it is bound under the Constitution to prosecute a municipal corporation for the acts of its individual members. It is certainly novel, and introduces a new system into the jurisprudence of the country. Is the mover serious in his proposition?
Mr. BARRINGER:—I am certainly serious. I would like to hear some substantial argument against my motion.
The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Barringer, resulted as follows:
Ayes.—Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas—3.
Noes.—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa—17.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DENT:—I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Maryland. I consider the amendment as eminently just and proper.
Mr. CLAY:—I dissent from the vote of Kentucky.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I have an amendment which I intend to offer at some time, and I may as well propose it now. The people of the free States have complained, and not without good reason, that one clause in the Constitution is not carried into effect in some of the slaveholding States. Their complaints are similar to those made on the part of the South, which it is the purpose of the seventh section to remove. If there have been instances at the North where mobs and riotous assemblies have obstructed the administration of justice in the case of fugitive slaves, so there have been instances at the South where mobs and riots have disregarded the rights of citizens of Northern States. I propose to deal fairly by all sections. Let us remove both causes of complaint. I move to amend the seventh section by adding thereto the following words:
"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I repeat my objection to all these amendments. If our work here is to have any efficacy, we must adhere to the report. Why bring in another bone of contention?
Mr. ORTH:—Will you not extend the same protection to free citizens which you do to slaveholders?
The question was taken on the motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen, with the following result:
Ayes.—Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas—16.
Noes.—Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—4.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. Roman dissented from the vote of Maryland.
Mr. AMES:—I move an amendment which will make the section more explicit. I move to strike out the word "force," and to insert instead thereof the words "violence or intimidation."
The motion was agreed to without objection.
Mr. ORTH:—I move to amend the seventh section by adding at the close thereof the following words:
"And such fugitives, after such payment, shall then be discharged from such service."
I am opposed to this whole business of making compensation for fugitive slaves; but if this section is to be adopted, and the Government pays the owner the whole value of the fugitive, upon every principle of equity and justice the fugitive should be discharged, and the master should have no right to reduce him again to slavery. You make the measure of the owner's damages in such a case the value of the slave. Do you intend, after he has secured that, he shall still have the right of capture—that after the damages have been fully paid, he may still call on the courts of law for the slave's surrender? This would be a double compensation indeed. I shall insist upon this amendment, and ask a vote by States.
Mr. ROMAN:—I have not hitherto addressed the Conference, but I should do myself injustice if I remained silent any longer. I came here in good faith, encouraged with the hope that this Conference would do something which would indicate a purpose to protect and acknowledge the rights of the slaveholding States. I have patiently attended your sittings, and little by little that hope has faded, until to-night it has almost passed away. What good can come of these deliberations, when upon every question which is presented the lines of sectionalism are tightly drawn, and with one or two exceptions every northern State is arrayed against us? Suppose these proposals of amendment as reported by the committee are adopted, there is evidently a purpose manifested here by a large delegation from the free States, to prevent their adoption by the people. I know the opposition which in any event will be arrayed against them. It is an opposition which nothing but unanimity among the moderate conservative men of the country can overcome. Believe it or not, gentlemen, I assure you we are in earnest, in our determination to have our rights under the Constitution defined and guaranteed. Our safety, as well as our self-respect, requires this. I have not been satisfied with the majority report, but if I had been disposed to accept it—if the South would accept it now, you will not concede even that. You insist upon weakening its provisions by amendments, and by amendments which are insulting to us.
It is now seriously proposed under the Constitution, by an express provision, to deprive us of our property in slaves against our consent, and to emancipate them by making compensation. What other effect can be given to such an amendment? One of our slaves escapes into a free State. He is arrested by the marshal and discharged by a mob. Does this act discharge him from his service? Does this lawless violence make him free? And if the town or city where the mob occurs is made to pay a slight penalty, does this also divest the owner of his right? This is nothing but an inducement to mobs and riots. Pass this provision, and no fugitive slave will ever again be returned from a free State. There will always be abolitionists enough to pay for a slave, and this payment will set the slave free, and will constitute the only penalty for this violence. For one, I would prefer to have no provision at all on the subject than to have one encumbered with such an amendment.
I have but little more to say. If the peace of this country is to be hereafter established on a permanent basis, and the Union is to be preserved, you, gentlemen of the North, must recognize our rights, and cease to interfere with them. You have nothing to do with this question of slavery. It is an institution of our own. If it is a crime, we are responsible for it, and will bear the responsibility. We have never interfered with your institutions. You must now let us alone.
Mr. ORTH:—The objection of the gentleman from Maryland may be answered in a word. It is for the owner to elect whether or not to accept compensation and set his slave free. If he still chooses to pursue him, he need not accept compensation; but if he does not, and receives payment for him, the slave should go free. As to mobs and riots, we punish men at the North who engage in them.
Mr. CRISFIELD:—I entirely agree with my colleague in this respect. We could not accept the section if such an amendment was adopted. The report of the committee is the very least that will satisfy our people. Do not destroy it by such amendments as these.
The vote was then taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. Orth, with the following result:
Ayes.—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kansas—10.
Noes.—Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia—11.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CLAY:—I move to amend the report by adding a section to be numbered Section 8, as follows:
"The second paragraph of the second section of fourth article of the Constitution shall be so construed that no State shall have the power to consider and determine what is treason, felony, or crime, in another State; but that a person charged in any State with treason, felony, or crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."
I do not think discussion necessary upon such an amendment as this. It is well known to the Conference that great difficulties have been found to exist in carrying into effect this provision of the Constitution. So far as the slave States are concerned, it is a perfect nullity. Unless it is amended it may as well be stricken from the instrument. I believe the tenor of the decisions at the North has been to permit the executive upon whom the requisition is made, to determine whether the offence charged is a crime under the law of the State to which the person charged has fled. If it is a crime, the fugitive is delivered up. If not a crime in that sense, he is discharged. The decisions of the courts have been to the same effect; whenever the fugitive has been brought upon habeas corpus, the decision has been the same. It is obvious that under this construction of the Constitution no fugitive will be hereafter returned for an offence in which the question of slavery is involved. This is only one of the many evasions of the Constitution which have been practised in the free States. I deem the amendment very important.
Mr. BRONSON:—The gentleman from Kentucky is entirely mistaken in his statement of the decisions of the northern courts or northern governors. The decisions are uniform so far as I know, that where the offence charged is either a crime at common law, or under the statutes of the State from which the fugitive has fled, he has been delivered up.
Mr. CLAY:—Did not the Executive of New York refuse to deliver up a fugitive on the demand of the Governor of Virginia?
Mr. BRONSON:—In that case I think there was no evidence that the offence charged was a crime under the statutes of Virginia, and it certainly was not at common law.
The vote was taken upon Mr. Clay's amendment, and resulted as follows:
Ayes.—Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—5.
Noes.—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas—16.
And the amendment was rejected.
And on motion, at two o'clock a.m., the Conference adjourned.
EIGHTEENTH DAY.
Washington, Tuesday, February 26th, 1861.
The Conference, pursuant to adjournment, was called to order at eleven o'clock.
Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Gurley.
The President informed the Conference that in consequence of the length of the Journal of yesterday, the Secretary had not been able to write it out, and that it would be necessary to omit the reading thereof this morning.
Mr. McCURDY:—There was a vote taken in the confusion near the close of the session last evening, in which Connecticut, according to the minutes of the Secretary, appears to have voted in the negative. It was upon the amendment of Mr. Orth, declaring that the slave should be free whenever his master had accepted payment for him. On that amendment the vote of Connecticut was Yea. As the vote is recorded Nay by mistake, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BRONSON:—The motion to reconsider is not necessary. Connecticut can record her vote as she wishes to have it stand. It will not change the result.
The PRESIDENT:—I think the motion is in order, if made by Connecticut.
Mr. BATTELL:—I will move to reconsider. I voted with the majority.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—No individual delegate can make such a motion. States vote here, not individuals. I submit that the motion is out of order, unless made by a majority of the delegation.
Mr. BALDWIN:—The question is not complicated at all; neither is the motion out of order. A majority of the delegation from Connecticut cast the vote of that State in favor of Mr. Orth's amendment. By mistake that vote was recorded against the amendment. The same majority whose vote is made to do them injustice by a mistake for which its members are not responsible, now moves to reconsider the vote.
The question was then taken upon Mr. McCurdy's motion, and resulted as follows:
Ayes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and Kansas—11.
Noes.—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—10.
And the motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered.
The PRESIDENT:—The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by Mr. Orth. On this amendment the vote will be taken by States.
Mr. WHITE:—I consider this amendment as entirely unnecessary. The result which it seeks to attain is only the announcement of a well-understood provision of the common law. By the common law, if an action is brought for a trespass, and judgment recovered for that trespass, and the damages under that judgment paid, the property which is the subject of the action, and which may have originally been wrongfully taken, becomes transferred; the damages take the place of the property, the defendant has paid for his wrongful act, or, in other words, has paid for the property. The same principle applies to the case of the fugitive slave who is rescued from the custody of the law, when his owner has consented to accept payment for him. The legal right of the owner in the slave is satisfied by such payment; the money takes the place of the slave. But if this were not so, we ought not to encumber the Constitution with such provisions. Congress will undoubtedly make the proper provision both for the protection of the slave and his master. Congress will not permit payment to be made for a slave, and then suffer him to go back to bondage. This would be both unlawful and unjust. I can see no necessity for adopting the amendment.
Mr. ORTH:—I understand there is some difference of opinion between members of the Conference as to the effect of the phraseology of my amendment. I will change that phraseology, and make the amendment read as follows:
"And such fugitive, after the master has been paid therefor, shall be discharged from such service."
Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I am opposed to this amendment upon every ground. I would rather see some direct scheme of emancipation adopted and inserted in the Constitution. Adopt this amendment, and the result is inevitable. It would amount to emancipation upon the largest possible scale. Our slaves would escape, you would rescue and pay for them, and that would be the end of them. Why not leave it to Congress to pass the necessary laws upon this subject? The adoption of this amendment would destroy all hope that our labors would be acceptable to the South. I say again, we had better establish emancipation at once.
Mr. DENT:—If this amendment is to be adopted, I hope we shall at the same time reconsider the vote by which we rejected the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, requiring the payment by the county, city, or town wherein the slave is rescued from the custody of the law. This provision would make the General Government pay for the crimes of a few citizens in one section. In that case the General Government ought to own the negro. It has paid for him, and the property in him ought to be transferred.
Mr. WILMOT:—There is nothing in this. We do not wish to have the Government own the negro. It is bad enough to have individuals own slaves. We do not propose to turn the Government into an extensive slave owner.
But let me ask the gentleman seriously, who is to own the negro, in such a case, after he has been paid for? Certainly not the former owner, because his right is gone. This amendment only states a conclusion of law; the right of the owner being gone, the negro is free.
Mr. CHASE:—I think a single word will settle this. By the Constitution as it now stands, the escaped fugitive is not discharged from service or labor. The original section, as proposed, requires that the slave should be paid for, when he is rescued. Now, he might be rescued three or four times. Shall he be paid for as often? Do gentlemen claim that his owner shall receive compensation more than once? I cannot see why gentlemen interested in slavery should object to this amendment.
Mr. RIVES:—I think if gentlemen would look at this proposition seriously, there would be no difference of opinion among us. Such a proposition would foist into the Constitution a most injurious, pernicious, and troublesome doctrine. By the most ultra abolitionists of the free States the power of emancipating our slaves has been disclaimed. From the organization of the Government, no such right has been claimed by any respectable party or body of men. The question arose in the first Congress, I think, upon the petition of the Quakers of Pennsylvania. It was decided almost unanimously against the power, even when exercised by Congress. But there is no need of multiplying or citing precedents. From that time to this, no political party has claimed the power of emancipation. Such is the universal doctrine now.
The right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia is now claimed by some. I think that is the doctrine of Mr. Chase. But upon what argument is it founded? Simply this: That the States, by the act of cession, have surrendered this power to Congress. This is the only argument I have ever heard in favor of the right, even in the District.
But this amendment proposes a most comprehensive scheme of emancipation. It accomplishes emancipation in every one of the slave States. It amounts to forcible emancipation upon the principle of compensation.
The point has been well stated by gentlemen who have preceded me. Place this in the Constitution, and there is an end of returning fugitives. The very courts will act upon it. They will say that if any one will come forward and pay the value of a slave when arrested, all the requirements of the Constitution are satisfied, and he shall go free.
What is the object of our Conference? Why are we here? We are here to bury out of sight all the causes of our difference and trouble. And yet you propose to insert a new principle into our fundamental law, which, however you may look upon it, will be regarded at the South as totally inconsistent with our independence. Our people will not consent to it.
There is another view which I would suggest. This is eminently a matter of legislative regulation. If the slave is paid for, Congress will at once recognize the impropriety and injustice of permitting the owner to receive payment for, and also receive his slave. Congress may say with great propriety that the owner shall give a bond to return the money upon the restoration of his slave. I hope no principle will be implanted in the Constitution which will be more troublesome—more productive of difficulties than any which has heretofore been made the subject of discussion.
Mr. EWING:—If we do any thing of this kind, perhaps we had better say that if the owner accepts compensation for his slave, he shall execute a deed of manumission. This will make it a matter of consent on the part of the owner. Put the amendment in that form and I will vote for it.
Mr. COALTER:—This amendment would offer a most powerful inducement to our slaves to run away. It would be dangerous in the extreme. When a fugitive has been paid for, and thus emancipated, he can come back and settle by the side of his master. What effect would that have upon the rest of his slaves? Would they not attempt the same thing? It may be said that the States can pass laws which will prevent their return. But this power will not be exercised. I know many free negroes in the slave States who are respectable persons, who own property, and have their social and domestic ties. These examples are bad. A fugitive who has been set free is not a safe man to return and settle as a free negro among those who were his co-slaves.
Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—By this amendment you are inaugurating a system of covert emancipation to which the South can never submit. We protest against its adoption. The argument upon which you seek to sustain it is a false one. How can the owner receive the full value of his rescued slave when he himself, as a citizen and tax-payer, pays a part of the price?
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I move to amend this amendment by adding thereto these words:
"And the negro when thus emancipated shall not be permitted to leave the State in which the emancipation takes place."
We know from past experience what the abolitionists of the free States would do under such a provision as this in the Constitution. There will be an underground railroad line along every principal route of travel. There will be depots all along these lines. Canoes will be furnished to ferry negroes over the Potomac and Ohio. John Brown & Co. will stand ready to kill the master the very moment he crosses the line in pursuit of his slave. What officer at the North will dare to arrest the slave when John Brown pikes are stacked up in every little village? If arrested, there will be organizations formed to rescue him, and you may as well let the "nigger" go free at once. You are opening up the greatest scheme of emancipation ever devised.
Mr. BACKUS:—I move to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. Orth by the substitution of the following:
"And the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to said fugitive."
It is claimed that this is a scheme of emancipation. It is nothing of the sort. It is not intended that the owner shall be obliged to accept compensation for his slave. That is left optional with him. He may take it or not as he likes. The effect of accepting compensation would be just the same as if he sold his slave to the North. The gentleman from Virginia raises a curious objection; that the owner does not receive a full compensation because he pays a portion of it himself. Well, I suppose the owner would pay the one hundred and thirty-millionth part of the price! Does not the same objection lay against the payment of any tax whatever? It is asked, Does this payment transfer the legal title to the slave? Well, it probably goes to the party who pays for it. If the payment is made in a free State, where slavery is not tolerated, the title would not pass at all. I submit to our friends from the South, whether they wish to have the Government become a slave-trader, to set it up as a huckster of slaves in the shambles. My amendment imposes the responsibility upon Congress. I have no doubt Congress will legislate properly upon the subject.
Now let me say one word to gentlemen, friends of the South, in all kindness. I have appreciated your position, and it has influenced my action. I have not refused to give you any reasonable guarantees, and I shall not refuse them. But I submit to you, whether it is in good taste for you to declare that, if we do not yield all these little points to you, the Government is to be broken up; that that is the only alternative?
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope this amendment will be adopted. As a Southern man, I declare that it is acceptable to me. Let us adopt it, and end the matter. [Cries of "Agreed.">[
Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I have a very serious objection to putting any bid in the Constitution to induce slaves to run away. I firmly believe that if this amendment should ever become a part of the Constitution, it would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. The State of Missouri is surrounded on three sides by free States. When one of our slaves escapes and crosses the border, he finds himself at once among a people, some of whom will vindicate his freedom with their lives. I am willing to leave this whole subject to Congress. Congress will not permit the owner to get his money, and also retain his slave. In the name of God I ask that no such provision may be put into the Constitution!
Mr. MOREHEAD:—I will agree to this. The difference between the two is as wide as the poles.
The vote was then taken upon the amendment as amended, and resulted as follows:
Ayes.—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont—17.
Noes.—Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia—3.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Messrs. Clay, of Kentucky, Dent and Roman, of Maryland, Stephens and Totten, of Tennessee, dissented from the votes of their respective States.
Mr. BRONSON:—It is evident under the rules, as they now stand, that this debate is not to close within a month. I move to amend the rules as follows:
"Before reaching the final question on the plan to be submitted to Congress, no member shall be allowed to speak more than three minutes on any proposition."
Mr. SEDDON:—I rise to a question of order. I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not in order.
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion of Mr. Guthrie prevailed without a division.
Mr. FIELD:—I move to add an additional section to the report, as follows:
Section 8. The Union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
In offering this amendment as an additional section, I propose very briefly to state the reasons for its adoption. I shall not anticipate any of the objections that may be urged against it, for, as I understand the rule, I shall have the right to speak in reply. I will only state one or two arguments in favor of the article.
We have been discussing the means of removing the symptoms of the disease called secession. This amendment attacks the disease itself. The doctrines of Calhoun, originated and advocated by him, have now been taken up by his followers, who are striking at the very foundation of our Government. The doctrine of the North is, that no State can secede from the Union. This amendment asserts that doctrine. Before we begin to amend, we ought to know whether we have any Constitution to amend. The people of my section wish to know whether we can compel obedience of a State, if every man in it undertakes to refuse obedience. They believe that power to exist in the Constitution now. If there is any doubt about it, they wish that power distinctly asserted.
Mr. EWING:—I move to lay the amendment on the table at present, without affecting the section of the report under consideration.
Mr. FIELD:—This motion is debatable.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not an amendment; that it is an addition, and may be laid on the table without affecting the remainder of the report.
Mr. BRONSON:—We have now gone through with the propositions, and are ready to take a final vote upon them. Mr. Field's amendment is properly an addition, and relates entirely to other subjects. Laying that on the table does not carry the whole subject there.
The motion of Mr. Ewing prevailed by the following vote: Ayes, 11; Noes, 10.[6]
Messrs. Meredith, Wilmot, and Chase dissented from the votes of their respective States.
Mr. FIELD:—I now offer it as an amendment to the 7th section.
Mr. BRONSON:—I rise to a point of order. My colleague has proposed this amendment as an additional section, and it has been laid upon the table. He now proposes to put the same thing in another place. That is certainly not in order.
Mr. FIELD:—I now offer it distinctly as an amendment to the 7th section, to avoid the quibbling by which a direct vote was avoided before. It may as well be understood that other than slave States have certain rights upon this floor, and that those rights will be asserted. I wish gentlemen to understand that I shall resist, as well as I may, every attempt to avoid or dodge this question.
The PRESIDENT:—In the opinion of the Chair it is not in order.
Mr. FIELD:—Then I offer one-half the amendment as follows: "The Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble."
Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Is it necessary to put this into the Constitution? Does not the gentleman think the Constitution prohibits secession now? If so, let him offer a resolution to that effect, and I will vote for it.
Mr. DENT:—I rise to a point of order. The amendment is not germane to the section.
The PRESIDENT:—That is entirely a matter of opinion. The Chair cannot rule out an amendment on that ground.
Mr. FIELD:—If gentlemen will give us a square vote on my proposition, I will not debate it.
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I believe every word that is stated in that proposition. It is all in the Constitution now; but the South thinks differently, and this is one of the great obstructions in our path. There is not a man here who does not believe that this provision is already in the Constitution. I hope, therefore, that we shall vote at once, and vote it down.
Mr. EWING:—The amendment proposed, implies the existence of the right of secession, under the present Constitution. I do not believe in that, and shall therefore vote against it.
Mr. FIELD:—I desire to obtain a clear vote upon this question, and not have it pass off upon any technical points. I will withdraw my amendment, and now move to amend the 7th section by striking out the whole of it, and inserting in its place the following:
"No State shall withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the States, given in a Convention of the States, convened in pursuance of an act passed by two-thirds of each House of Congress."
Mr. GOODRICH:—I do not quite like the language of the amendment, for it might seem to give the implication of a right to secede. I move the following as a substitute:
"And no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligations of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—There is no objection on my part against the gentleman from New York taking any course he pleases, and as much time as he likes; but I should regret extremely to have this amendment adopted, and to have the Constitution made practically to assert a right of secession. I have denied that right always in my State, in public and in private. I am aware that on this point I differ from the general sentiment of the South, and I hold there is no right of secession, and on the part of the General Government no right of coercion. I claim that a State has no right to secede, because that right is not found in the Constitution, and the theory of the Constitution is against it.
The PRESIDENT:—I think the amendment of Mr. Goodrich is not in order.
Mr. FIELD:—As suggested by a friend, I will modify my motion, and state it in this way, which certainly will avoid all these objections:
"It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the present Constitution, that the Union of the States under it is indissoluble."
Mr. COALTER:—Does the gentleman mean this as a substitute for the entire report of the committee, for all that we have hitherto done?
Mr. FIELD:—Certainly not.
Mr. COALTER:—We have not met here for any such purpose as that indicated in the present amendment. We are not here to discuss the question of secession. We are here because the Border States are alarmed for their own safety. We wish them to remain in the Union. The purpose of our consultations is to make an arrangement under which they can stay in the Union. If we do not confine ourselves to that purpose, and leave these questions alone, our differences may be submitted to a greater than any human judge. I hope, in Heaven's name, they will not be submitted to the arbitrament of battle. No practical good whatever can come from debating this amendment. I move to lay it on the table; but if that motion will have the effect to carry the whole report on the table, I will not make it.
Mr. CRISFIELD:—I shall vote against this amendment. I believe the Constitution is endowed with sufficient authority to accomplish its own preservation, and to carry into execution its own laws; and, believing so, I deny the right of secession, but the right of revolution is a natural right possessed by every people. They may revolutionize their governments when they become oppressive. The Constitution was adopted as the logical consequence of this idea. There is no use now in discussing the abstract question of secession. We must treat the present condition of the Gulf States as a revolution in fact accomplished. We must meet them fairly. I vote against this amendment, and wish to stand right upon the record. If the history of this Convention is to be written, I do not wish to be handed down to posterity as one who favors the right of secession, which I believe to be a radical error.
Mr. WILMOT:—Pennsylvania is agreed in principle upon the doctrine of this amendment. I believe the whole North agrees also that the right of secession cannot be conceded, but my colleagues and myself differ essentially as to the manner in which we shall make our doctrine most effective. I think the true way is, to vote for this plain proposition, and not vote against it.
Now, all the North agrees that there is no right under the Constitution to interfere with slavery where it exists. No one has ever asserted such right, or believed in it. We are now asked to give a declaratory provision on that subject—to give it in order to quiet the slave States. One of my colleagues—Mr. Pollock—was willing to give that declaratory clause, which was necessary. I went with him in that; I now ask him to go with me, not against a mere shadow, but against what is the doctrine of a large portion of the people of the slave States; a doctrine of that proportion which proposes to overthrow the Constitution of the country. It is a demoralizing doctrine. My colleague proposes to vote against it. Did my colleague believe that any one proposed to interfere with slavery in the States?
Mr. POLLOCK:—No, I do not believe there was any such intention entertained by any considerable party. But there was an apprehension upon this subject in the slave States, caused by the action of a few radical men at the North. I was willing to vote for a declaratory resolution to quiet that apprehension.
Mr. WILMOT:—This amendment points to something more than an apprehension. It deals with an existing fact. Seven States have already gone out of the Union, asserting that the principal allegiance of their people is to the State, and not to the General Government. I think it high time that the Constitution was made unequivocal upon this subject of secession.
Mr. PRICE:—I occupy even a few minutes of time with much reluctance. Time is precious to us—too precious to be used in debate. I believe in the doctrine of the gentleman from New York. That is the doctrine of my State; but I believe in a great many other things which it is not necessary to insert in the Constitution. We came here to treat a fact, a great fact. There is a Southern Confederacy—there is a President Davis—there is a Government organized within the Union hostile to the United States. I came here, as the gentleman from Illinois has said, to act as if I had never given a vote or united with a political party. I say, with my colleague, that when the country is in danger my political robes hang loosely upon my shoulders.
There is an element in this Conference which, from the first day of our session, has opposed any action. Its policy has been to distract and divide our counsels, to put off every thing, to prevent all action. How different this is from what I expected when I came here. Shall we sit here debating abstract questions when State after State is seceding? I hope not. I trust the patriotic spirit which animates a majority of this Conference will to-day send forth a proposition which will restore peace to the country. We all agree to the principle contained in this amendment; but if we adopt it and make it a part of the Constitution, we could never, under it, bring back the seceded States. They will not admit the principle. What is to be gained, then, by adopting it? Why will gentlemen insist upon propositions which will nullify our action? New Jersey occupies high constitutional ground. She is ready to do any thing that is fair, and she goes for these propositions of the majority because they are fair. She will adopt these, and I believe every State will adopt them—New York as quickly as any. I do not think the gentleman properly represents the wishes of his constituents. He misrepresents them. Let us act, then, promptly, and act now. Every moment is precious. I know the trembling anxiety with which the country is awaiting our action. Do not let us sit here like the great Belshazzar till the handwriting appears on the wall. Let us set our faces against delay. Let us put down with an indignant rebuke every attempt to demoralize our action or destroy its effect.
Mr. BUCKNER:—I move to amend the amendment of Mr. Field, by adding the following:
"But this declaration shall not be construed so as to give the Federal Government power or authority to coerce or to make war directly or indirectly upon a State, on account of a failure to comply with its obligations."
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—I hope the gentleman from New York will withdraw his resolution. The view of this Convention is against secession, and we all know that the Union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble. We know just as well that it is not necessary to assert this principle now. It is not expedient to assert it. We want to get back the seceded States. If we are earnest in this, is it best to call them traitors? I ask the gentleman whether the rejection of his proposition will not tend to weaken the Government and the Union? It will stand as a naked vote of rejection; the reasons why we vote against it will not go before the world.
Mr. BRONSON:—With the exception of a few minutes between eleven and twelve o'clock, a few nights since, I have not occupied the time or attention of the Conference. I will not now occupy but a few minutes. I came here to do something. I supposed we could accomplish something. We learned very soon after our arrival here that my colleague was opposed to any amendment of the Constitution. The same is true of several of my colleagues; perhaps a majority of them are here to do nothing. I supposed that something ought to be done to quiet the country. Instead of that an amendment is now offered asserting that we do not believe in the right of secession, that we do believe that these States which have seceded have done wrong. Suppose we do not believe in secession, what relevance has that to the present subject? Such an amendment may be used to delay or embarrass our action. There are a good many ways to defeat the project, a good many ways to suppress secession. My colleague looks to force alone. He proposes to bring back the seceded States by force. I contemplate the use of force in this connection with horror. It can never be used successfully.
We are here to agree upon something which will give peace to the country. Our committee has submitted a report which they think will accomplish that. My colleagues are skilful; they know how many ways there are to accomplish their purposes. One way to defeat any action here is by making long speeches, by loading down the propositions of amendment to the Constitution with other amendments, which will make the whole thing offensive to the country.
I stand here for my country. I would leave politics and political parties in the back ground. I would vote for nothing here which is not pertinent to the Constitution, and which will not help us in our attempts to quiet the apprehensions of our fellow-citizens. My colleague now brings forward a proposition which may be true in itself, but it is not pertinent and amounts to nothing. I am sorry he is not in his seat to hear what I have to say. He shot his arrow, and, I understand, has left for New York.
I am ready to vote down his proposition. I wish to see it voted down. I am prepared to take all the consequences of voting it down, here and elsewhere. But I have drawn an amendment myself which I offer in lieu of his. Permit me to read it:
"While we do not recognize the constitutional right of any State to secede from the Union, we are deeply impressed by the fact that this Government is not maintained by force, but by unity of origin and interest, inducing fraternal feelings between the people of different sections of the country; and our labors have been directed to the end of giving a new assurance to our brethren, North, South, East, and West, of our determination to stand firmly by all the compromises of the Constitution."
I think we can vote for this amendment. It denies the right of secession as explicitly as the amendment of my colleague. But it has no coercion about it, and it asserts, as I understand it, the true principle upon which our Government is founded. I offer it as an expression of my own views. I have sat here for eight or ten days and have voted, except in a few instances, with the delegation from my own State. There is a bare majority of that delegation against the propositions of the committee. That majority ordinarily casts the vote of our State. I cannot express my views by my votes, and for that reason I undertake to express them in this amendment.
Mr. KING:—Like my colleague, I have taken but little part in the discussions in this Conference. I cannot be justly charged with having occupied time unnecessarily, as I have spoken on but one occasion, and then very briefly. I would not speak now if I did not sincerely believe this amendment to be eminently proper for the consideration of this body.
Myself and the majority of my colleagues differ from the majority of the Conference. That difference is an honest difference of opinion. It is based upon principle. If we consulted policy only, it would give us pleasure to yield to the wishes of the majority. But our first duty is to our constituents, and we must represent their opinions here. We should do it because our opinions coincide with theirs; and it was because we entertained these opinions that we were selected to represent New York in this body. When we are called upon to vote, we shall vote to carry out those opinions; and even when we differ from some of our colleagues, we are entitled to the same consideration from this body that they are. We do not intend to be driven from our position by threats or by intimidation. We believe that it is eminently proper for this Conference to express its decided convictions upon the question of secession. We are told here that secession is a fact. Then let us deal with it as such. I go for the enforcement of the laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution. I will never give up the idea that this is a Government of the people, and possessing within itself the power of enforcing its own decrees. This I shall never do. This Conference could perform no nobler act than that of sending to the country the announcement that the union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and that secession is but another term for rebellion.
The gentleman from New Jersey says we misrepresent our constituents. How does he know that? Who gave him the right to place himself between our constituents and ourselves—to sit in judgment upon us? He will find that statement a very adventurous one. I should know something about New York and the people of New York. I have lived in that State all my life. I have been honored by the confidence and support of my fellow-citizens. Let me assure the gentleman that I know the people of that State far better than he. We will undertake to answer to our constituents; let him answer to his.
I will occupy no farther time. I wish to live in peace and harmony with our brethren in the slave States. But I wish to put upon the record here a statement of the fact that this is a Government of the people, and not a compact of States.
Mr. PALMER:—It is no part of my business or duty to vindicate the motives or conduct of the gentleman from New York, who is charged by one of his colleagues with interposing his amendment only for the purpose of delay. But that amendment meets my approval, and will have my support without regard to such imputations. Of what consequence are the gentleman's motives to us if his motion is right and proper? Are we to be gravely told that secession and treason are not proper subjects for our consideration? To be told this when every mail that comes to us from the South is loaded with both these crimes? Sir, we have commenced wrong. The first thing we ought to have done was to declare that these were crimes, and that we would not negotiate with those who denied the authority of the Government, and claimed to have thrown off their allegiance to it. Far better would it be for the country if, instead of debating the question of slavery in reference to our Territories, we had set to work to strengthen the hands of the Government, and to put down the treason which threatens its existence.
You, gentlemen of the slave States, say that we of the North use fair words, that we promise fairly, but you insist that you will not rely upon our promises, and you demand our bond as security that we will keep them. I return the statement to you with interest. You, gentlemen, talk fairly also—give us your bond! You have been talking fairly for the last dozen or twenty years, and yet this treason, black as night, has been plotted among you, and twelve years ago one of your statesmen predicted the very state of things which now exists. I am willing to give bonds, but I want our action in this respect to be reciprocal. I want your bond against secession, and I ask it because seven States in sympathy with you have undertaken to set up an independent Government—have placed over it a military chieftain who asserts that we, the people of the United States, are foreigners, and must be treated with as a foreign nation.
You charged John Brown with treason. You convicted and executed him; and yet among you are thousands of men guilty of treason, beside which that of John Brown was paltry and insignificant. If we are to act at all, gentlemen, we must act upon reciprocal terms. I am willing to make every reasonable concession. Will you do the same? Will you, gentlemen of the South, declare that you will stand by the Union, and brand secession as treasonable? If you will, you must vote for this amendment.
Mr. HOWARD:—I am sure no member of this Conference could have listened to the remarks of the two gentlemen who have last spoken without the deepest regret. It has been intimated here that Maryland will secede unless she secures these guarantees. I do not know whether she will or not. I know there is danger that she will.
I agree that there is no right of secession. I think that secession is revolution. But the right of revolution always exists. It has always been maintained by statesmen North and South. It was admitted by Webster in his reply to Hayne. I would read a quotation from his speech if time was not so valuable.
Yes, gentlemen, we are all in danger. The storm is raging; Virginia has hung her flag at half-mast as a signal of distress. If Virginia secedes our State will go with her, hand in hand, with Providence as our guide. This is not intended as a threat. GOD forbid! It is a truth which we cannot and ought not to conceal.
Why will not New York and Massachusetts for once be magnanimous? Why will they not follow the glorious example of Rhode Island? If they will, I should still have hope. But if those two great States are against us, I can see nothing but gloom in the future.
Mr. SMITH:—I hope the true state of the question will not be lost sight of. The first question is on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri, to amend the proposition of my colleague. On that I rise to a point of order. The motion of the gentleman from Missouri is a distinct proposition, and inconsistent with that offered by Mr. Field.
The PRESIDENT:—I do not think the point of order is well taken.
The question upon agreeing to the amendment of Mr. Buckner was then taken by States, with the following result:
Ayes.—Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia—5.
Noes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas—15.
So the amendment was lost.
Mr. BRONSON:—My motion is now in order as an amendment. I insist that the question should be taken upon its adoption.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Does the gentleman propose to put this into the Constitution? If the gentleman wishes to publish it as his speech, I will agree to it.
The question on the adoption of Mr. Bronson's motion was taken viva voce, and the amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT:—The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York—Mr. Field.
Mr. RIVES:—I hope the Conference will pardon me for saying a few words upon this motion. I feel so sensibly the gravity of the consequences involved in the result of this vote, that I ask for a few minutes only in which to beseech the Conference not to act now upon a mere abstraction.
Gentlemen, what have we come here for? We have come at a time when the Government of our country is in great peril; and after a long session of diligent labor, and when we are just upon the point of arriving at the satisfactory adjustment of our differences, we have these abstract questions thrust upon us. They do not belong here. They ought not to be considered here. They would better befit a debating society than an assembly of statesmen met to consider constitutional questions. The gentleman (Governor King) of New York announces his theory that this is a Government of the people and not a compact of the States. While I should agree with him upon his conclusions, we should differ widely as to the premises from which they are derived. It is a compact. All the authorities say so; and like any other compact, it is one from which each independent party may withdraw.
Now, what is this proposed amendment but an abstraction? In theory, the union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble. But how is it in fact? It is now a fact that the Union is disrupted, is dissolved, because certain of the States composing it have withdrawn. But this is no time to discuss these questions. While we are talking about abstractions, we are wasting our time. I do not propose to enlarge upon the observations I have already submitted. But I beseech you, one and all, recognizing every member of the Conference as a brother of a common family, that now, after the labor of three weeks, and upon the very verge of adjustment, you should not destroy all we have done by interposing questions of this kind. Do not let us be seen engaged in the idle labor of Sisyphus. Do not let us now, just as we are about placing on the top of the mountain the block of constitutional adjustment, suffer that block to rebound. Dismiss the amendment with, I pray you earnestly, all questions of this sort, and let us proceed to the practical matters involved in the report, and its adoption.
Mr. NOYES:—If my colleague who offered this amendment, was not at this time absent, I should not address the Conference at all. I should like, however, to know what possible dangerous consequence we may anticipate from the adoption of this clause. Whether this Union is a compact of the States or a Government of the people, is equally unimportant in this connection. In either case it is not to be broken up at pleasure. If it is claimed either that the right exists already—if it is apprehended that the people themselves may assert the right to overthrow the Constitution and destroy the Government at pleasure—we should not, by all means, pass this amendment.
The slave power has now had possession of the Government in all for more than fifty years. A President has been elected belonging to the opposing party. For that cause alone, and without claiming or assigning any other, the slave States, under the powerful protection of Virginia, have come here for guarantees. We are told, over and over again, that seven States have left the Union. There is a fact with which we have to deal. On our side, we are merely dealing with apprehensions. If you have a right to guarantees to quiet your apprehensions, have we not a right to insist that secession shall be put down and condemned by an explicit clause of the Constitution? It is this claim of the right of secession which has brought all the trouble upon the country. We are right in our claim that it should be dealt with in this Conference. If we, as delegates, should prove faithless to our trust, should yield you all the guarantees you ask, and should insist upon nothing on our side, such action would not avail you any thing.
The North and the people of the North must be satisfied upon this point. Much has been said here about the right of revolution. I do not propose to discuss that right. At all events that is not a right which depends upon the Constitution, or grows out of it. If it exists at all, it is higher than, and above all Constitutions. The statement in this amendment does not controvert the right of revolution. It is simply a statement that the Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble. I regard the adoption of this amendment as both expedient and essential.
Mr. TURNER, of Illinois:—I do not think this amendment very important either way. If this is intended as a mere declaration of the purposes of the Constitution, it may be well enough. But will the assertion that such is the purpose of the Constitution preserve that instrument and the Government under it? No, sir. We may call spirits from the vasty deep; but the question is, will they come?
If the right of secession exists at all, it is not confined to the South. If it is conceded at all, it must be conceded in much broader terms—in terms that are common to all the States. This amendment secures to the States no practical benefit. I protest against being bound to harmonize on all abstract questions. This is an abstraction. Gentlemen schooled in deduction could spend weeks in argument over it.
The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. Field, and resulted as follows:
Ayes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kansas—10.
Noes.—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—11.
So the amendment was disagreed to.
Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now submit that we ought to take the vote on the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut. I trust we are through with speeches, and hope we shall now get to some result. We may as well vote upon all these propositions within the next hour.
Mr. SOMES:—I desire to move an amendment by adding the following, to be numbered
Section 8. "That the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall not be abridged; but that the people of any Territory of the United States shall be left perfectly free to discuss the subject of slavery."
Mr. BRONSON:—I move to lay that amendment on the table.
Mr. SOMES:—Is not that motion debatable?
The PRESIDENT:—It is not debatable.
The motion to lay the amendment offered by Mr. Somes upon the table, prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes.—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas—13.
Noes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont—5.
Thus the amendment was laid upon the table.
Mr. VANDEVER:—I move to amend the report by the addition of the following section:
"The navigation of the Mississippi River shall remain free to the people of each and all the States; and Congress shall provide by law for the protection of commerce on said river against all interference, foreign or domestic."
The importance of this proposition can be seen at once. It is one in which the whole country is interested, especially that portion of it in which I reside, which is drained by the upper waters of the Mississippi and Missouri. On this subject we have our apprehensions, and they are better founded, too, than any which I have heard from the South. We believe that our right to the navigation of this great national highway is imperilled. I submit whether we are to be cavalierly treated in this matter, and whether a subject of so much importance is to be laid upon the table? We may at all events, with perfect propriety, go this far, and make it, under the Constitution, the duty of Congress to protect the free navigation of the Mississippi River by law. We want it understood that the navigation of that river should be free and unobstructed, and that the faith of the nation is pledged to enforce that right. Henry Clay once stated that nothing upon earth could induce him to agree to any thing that should impede the free navigation of that river. I assert and repeat his declaration. We of the Northwest ask that this right should be guaranteed to us.
Mr. CRISFIELD:—I am as anxious for the free navigation of the Mississippi River as the gentleman. I wish simply to say that it is made the duty of the people of Iowa, and of other States bounded by this river, to protect that right of navigation. But the amendment is not germane to the report of the committee. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion of Mr. Crisfield prevailed by the following vote:
Ayes.—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia—14.
Noes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York—6.
So the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. BALDWIN:—I move that my substitute be taken up, and ask that it may be read.
It was read as follows:
Whereas unhappy differences exist, which have alienated from each other portions of the people of the United States, to such an extent as seriously to disturb the peace of the nation and impair the regular and efficient action of the Government within the sphere of its constitutional powers and duties;
And whereas, the Legislature of the State of Kentucky has made application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States;
And whereas, it is believed to be the opinion of the people of other States that amendments to the Constitution are, or may become, necessary to secure to the people of the United States, of every section, the full and equal enjoyment of their rights and liberties, so far as the same may depend for their security and protection on the powers granted to or withheld from the General Government in pursuance of the national purposes for which it was ordained and established:
This Convention does therefore recommend to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, or to Conventions therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with the provision in the fifth article of the Constitution.
I propose to avail myself of the privilege of a short reply to the arguments against my proposition; and in order that I may occupy as little time as possible, I have reduced my reply to writing. At the risk of repeating some of the remarks I made at the opening of the discussion, I wish to recur to the facts on which my report is based.
The resolution which I have moved to substitute, recommends to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application for the calling of a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.
On the 28th day of January, seven days before the assembling of this Conference Convention, the Governor of Kentucky transmitted to the President of the United States the joint resolutions of the General Assembly of that Commonwealth, "recommending a call for a Convention of the United States," with a request that the President would lay the same before Congress; and on the 5th of February, the day after the assembling of this Convention, they were, by a special message of the President, communicated to Congress, with the expression of great satisfaction in the performance of that duty, and of confidence that Congress would bestow upon those resolutions the careful consideration due to the distinguished and patriotic source from which they proceeded, as well as to the great importance of the subject which they involve. The resolution requesting the call of a Convention I have already read to the Conference.
There are, sir, but two modes provided by the people of the United States for altering the fundamental law of their Government, both of which are specified in the fifth article of the Constitution:
1. Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution; or,
2. On the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures, or by Conventions in three-fourths of the States.
The first mode is recommended by the majority of the committee, in the expectation that Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, will propose, on the request of this Convention, for ratification by the States, the several amendments they have reported.
The second mode is the one proposed by the Legislature of Kentucky, and which, in accordance therewith, I have moved to substitute for the recommendation of the committee.
There are now but few days remaining before the termination of the functions of the present Congress. If it were within the fair scope and interest of the constitutional provision that Congress should act, in the proposing of amendments, on the recommendation of this Conference Convention, no one, I think, can reasonably expect them to consider and deliberately act on such recommendation during the few remaining days of the present Congress. Other questions, of engrossing interest, now pending before them, and the acts of necessary legislation at the close of the session, will prevent it. It must, therefore, go over to the next Congress. Assuming that during the term of that Congress the amendments recommended by this Convention shall, by two-thirds of both houses, be deemed necessary, and be proposed to the States for ratification; there would probably be no earlier final action by the requisite number of States, than in the mode proposed by Kentucky, and recommended by the resolution which I have moved to substitute for the mode of amendment reported by the committee. But the great objection, in my mind, to the mode of amendment contemplated by the majority report, is that it is not in accordance with either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. The people of the United States intended, when they adopted the Constitution under which we have for more than seventy years enjoyed a higher degree of prosperity than has fallen to the lot of any other people, that it should remain in full force and unchanged, except in one of the two modes prescribed in that sacred instrument for its own amendment.
It is a Constitution which binds the people of every State, as the supreme law of the land, until it can be changed by the action, in the first instance, of those who are sworn to support it. No amendments can, consistently with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, be proposed by Congress, unless two-thirds of both houses, acting under the responsibility of their official oaths, shall "deem them necessary." No interference or pressure by any extraneous body unknown to the Constitution, was contemplated, or can be allowed with safety to the people, to impair the exercise of this function under all the responsibilities and official sanctions that properly appertain to it. The judgment of two-thirds of both houses of Congress in regard to the necessity of the amendments, must precede their proposal to the States for ratification.
The Government of the United States, in its sphere of duties, is supreme. The State Governments, when they consented to its formation by the people of the United States, surrendered so much of their separate sovereignties as was essential to its strength and efficiency. To that extent we became one people. This Government, for all national purposes, took the place of the State Governments, as well in regard to the paramount allegiance as to the duty of protection of the people of every State in the enjoyment of all their federal rights. Its powers can neither be enlarged nor diminished, except in the constitutional mode, without violating the rights of the States as well as of the people.
Any attempt from without, by combinations and associations not responsible to the people, to coerce or overawe Congress, or in any way to impair the free and deliberate exercise of its judgment in proposing amendments "as deemed necessary" by Congress, is a palpable violation of the privileges of the people. They elected the members of the House of Representatives with the intention that they should freely and deliberately, under their official oaths, propose amendments, or not, to the Constitution, as they might deem necessary, and not at the dictation of States even, who cannot themselves propose amendments, but can only require of Congress to call a Convention of all the States for that purpose. Much less can a convention of delegates from the Legislatures, or the Executive of a part only of the States—a body unknown to, and unauthorized by, the Constitution—assume to exercise, or dictate to Congress the exercise of this high prerogative.
We do not represent the people of the United States. This Government, for every purpose for which it was established, is a separate, and in some sense a foreign government to the States. It operates directly on the people, and is itself their true protector in all their Federal rights.
Any number of States, less than two-thirds, have no more right to call into action the power of Congress either to call a Convention, or to propose amendments, than the individual members of their Legislatures in their private capacities; and Congress might as well, and probably would, treat our interference with their official duties as an usurpation; as much so as if we should seek to interfere with the appropriate duties of the Legislatures of Virginia or Massachusetts. And, sir, I cannot but regard it, so far as the free action of Congress should be influenced by the recommendations of this body, as in the nature of a revolutionary proceeding for which there is no sufficient cause or justification. Sir, all the States are not here represented. All have not even had an opportunity to be here. And yet we are endeavoring to influence the action of Congress in a manner which may deeply affect their interests. If, under any circumstances, a body so convened, would have a right to act upon Congress, by the expression of our opinions as a Convention of States, ought not all to have an opportunity to participate in our deliberations? Most certainly they ought.
But it is said some of the States are threatening to secede from the Union; others have seceded, and must be induced to come back, by the speedy action of Congress on the amendments recommended by the committee. Does the Constitution authorize amendments under such circumstances, with less care and deliberation than in time of peace and tranquillity?
This Government, sir, cannot recognize the fact that States have seceded. It is not a Government over States, but over the people of the United States, irrespective of the State in which they live. This Government, and not the States, protects them in their Federal rights, and requires allegiance and obedience from the people in every State, to the Constitution and laws of the United States as the supreme law of the land, any thing in the laws or ordinances of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is the people and not the States that are governed by that law, within the sphere of its constitutional operation.
I have said that the course proposed by the majority of the committee is, in my judgment, not only against the letter, but the spirit of the Constitution. The State of Kentucky, ever patriotic and conservative, must have so regarded it, when, instead of asking Congress to propose the amendments they desired, they requested their sister States to unite with them in an application in the mode prescribed by the Constitution to Congress to call a Convention for that purpose.
Our fathers, who framed that Constitution, and the people of the United States, who ratified it, set it forth in the preamble as their first great purpose "to form a more perfect Union." They intended to establish thereby a Government of perpetual obligation and of self-sustaining vigor. They did not contemplate the necessity of amendments for any other causes than such as, after calm, deliberate, undisturbed consideration should be judged necessary. They did not intend that it should be exposed to the danger of hasty action under the influence of excited passions or timid and groundless apprehension. They would not trust the entire people even with the right of amendment, except in the mode prescribed, with all the delays incident to that mode; and then only by the action, in every stage of the proceeding, of persons bound by solemn oath to support it.
The Constitution, in prescribing the modes of proposing amendments, endeavored to provide against irregular combination of a part only of the States to effect them. Hence it prohibited all agreements or compacts between the States; and it made no provision for the recognition of any action by a convention, except when called on the recommendation of two-thirds of the States applying to Congress, by separate action of their Legislatures, for that purpose.
Any interference with the duty of Congress by such a body as we are, representing only a portion of the States in any form, and some of us only the executives of the States from which we come, would be as much at variance with the Constitution as with the counsel of that illustrious American—I will not say Virginian—for Washington belonged to his whole country—in the Farewell Address which he dedicated to the people of the United States on his retirement from the public service, and which ought to be cherished in the heart of every patriot. In addition to what I have already read from that address let me read this passage:
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive to this fundamental rule, and of fatal tendency."
Let me read it again. "All obstructions," &c. "All combinations," &c.
This address is replete with words of true wisdom. Let us heed them; for they are eminently adapted to the present occasion. There is no exigency which should be allowed to overawe Congress in the performance of its constitutional duties. No State intervention, no combination or association of representatives of States in a manner unknown to the Constitution, can be recognized as authoritative by those to whom, on their own responsibility, the people of the United States have conferred their national interests and the guardianship of their fundamental law. "We owe," in the language of the illustrious statesman of Kentucky, "a paramount allegiance to the Government of the United States—a subordinate one to our State."
Sir, while I am willing to perform all my constitutional duties—all my fraternal duties toward the people of every section of our common country, I, for one, feel bound to abstain from any encroachment on the duties which the Constitution of my country has delegated to others to be performed, in the modes, and with the responsibilities, which the people for their own security have deemed it proper to prescribe.
With these opinions, I should be unfaithful to my own convictions of duty, and recreant to the trust which has devolved on me as a citizen of the United States, and by inheritance from an ancestor who took a part in the deliberations of the Convention which framed our Constitution, and to whose public services, you, sir, so kindly alluded at the opening of the Conference, were I to unite with the majority of the committee in urging upon Congress the amendments they have proposed.
Entertaining as I do for the members of the committee who have concurred in that report a profound respect, it has been with a feeling of unaffected diffidence and self-distrust that I have ventured to express my sentiments on this occasion. But as I must act on my own convictions of duty, which are in harmony with those of my associates from Connecticut, so far as in the brief period which has elapsed since the report was submitted I have had opportunity to ascertain them, I felt bound to make known to the Convention the reasons which will govern my action.[7]
The vote was then taken by States on the substitute proposed by Mr. Baldwin, and the substitute was rejected by the following vote:
Ayes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont—8.
Noes.—Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas—13.
So the amendment was not agreed to.
The following gentlemen disagreed to the vote of their respective States:
Mr. Bronson, of New York; Mr. Granger, of New York; Mr. Dodge, of New York; Mr. Corning, of New York; Mr. Orth, of Indiana; Mr. Hackleman, of Indiana.
Mr. SEDDON:—I suppose it is now in order for me to move my substitute for the report of the majority of the committee.
Mr. TUCK:—I also have a substitute to offer. I shall not discuss it.
Mr. SEDDON:—The substitute which I propose embodies the Crittenden resolutions, with the modifications suggested by Virginia. These are principally confined to the first section, which is made to apply to our future as well as our present territory. I have modified the form of the substitute in several particulars, and now offer it without farther introduction. These are the amendments which I understand the delegation from Virginia is instructed to insist upon: