Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians, with Illustrations and Speeches

by Unknown

Sir, the idea of a separation of these States into distinct confederacies was thought of, and considered, and spoken of before the adoption of this Constitution. At the time that the question was before the American people, whether the Constitution proposed by the Convention should be adopted, it was then spoken of. It is probable—yea, certain—consequences were referred to by the writers of that admirable series of papers denominated the "Federalist"; and I beg the indulgence of the Senate while I read a very brief extract, conveying the views of those eminent men:

"If these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, a man must be far gone in utopian speculation who can seriously doubt that the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests, as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties, situated in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages."

If this was a just view of the probable—the certain—results of a separation of these States at that time, and under the then existing circumstances, I pray you, sir, upon what, at the present day, can we found a better hope? Then the States were fresh from the conflict of the Revolutionary war. Then, not only had they a lively remembrance of the contest in which they had fought and in which they had gathered victory and honor together, but the leading men of that time were those choice spirits who had carried them through that recent conflict, who had established the independence of the country, and who exercised an influence in public affairs proportioned to their patriotism, their valor and their wisdom. Then they might have separated without the same causes of hostility and alienation which must exist in any separation of these States at the present day. If we separate now, we do it with feelings of mutual distrust and bitterness. We divide, not by common consent, as partners who can no longer carry on their joint business with mutual profit, each to pursue, for his own separate advantage, that course of business in which he thinks he can best succeed, but we part with the feelings of those who consider themselves mutually wronged. A sense of injustice and oppression rankles in the hearts of one portion of the new confederacies, and a sense in the other of defiance and indignity.

Under such circumstances, "what can ensue" (to borrow the language of the great English moralist) "but a continual exacerbation of hatred, an unextinguishable feud, an incessant reciprocation of mischief, a mutual vigilance to entrap and eagerness to destroy?"

The question has been asked, What can the States do, supposing them to be divided—separated into distinct subdivisions or independent sovereignties? Allow me to answer that question in the words of one of the most eminent men whom my State has ever produced: a man of clear and comprehensive intellect, of a sound heart and enlarged and ardent patriotism, who shed a glory around his native State, and whose name is held in just veneration by every one who acknowledges himself a North Carolinian. At another period of our history the same question was asked. In the years 1831 and 1832 it had become an inquiry, a subject of disquisition in my State, and the late Judge Gaston, in an address delivered in 1832 before the Literary Societies of the University, thus treats of the subject:

"Threats of resistance, secession, separation, have become common as household words in the wicked and silly violence of public declaimers. The public ear is familiarized with, and the public mind will soon become accustomed to, the detestable suggestion of disunion. Calculations and conjectures—what may the East do without the South, and what may the South do without the East?—sneers, menaces, reproaches, and recriminations—all tend to the same fatal end. What can the East do without the South? What can the South do without the East? They may do much; they may exhibit to the curiosity of political anatomists, and the pity and wonder of the world, the disjecta membra—the sundered, bleeding limbs of a once gigantic body instinct with life, and strength, and vigor. They can furnish to the philosophic historian another melancholy and striking instance of the political axiom, that all republican confederacies have an inherent and unavoidable tendency to dissolution. They will present fields and occasions for border wars, for leagues and counter leagues, for the intrigues of petty statesmen and the struggles of military chiefs, for confiscations, insurrections, and deeds of darkest hue. They will gladden the hearts of those who have proclaimed that men are not fit to govern themselves, and shed a disastrous eclipse on the hopes of rational freedom throughout the world. Solon, in his code, proposed no punishment for parricide, treating it as an impossible crime. Such, with us, ought to be the crime of political parricide—the dismemberment of our 'fatherland.'"

To me, sir, these sentiments convey a just representation of what will be the future and unavoidable result of a separation of the people of this great country into distinct and independent confederacies. And when I look at the prospect before us it is one so dark, filled with such horrid forms of dread and evil, that I willingly close my eyes upon it, and desire to believe that it is impossible it should ever be realized. * * * * * * * *

Nor, Mr. President, must I forget that, in considering the effect which this proviso [the Wilmot Proviso] is likely to have upon the condition of the Southern mind, we must look to what has been said by Northern gentlemen in connection with this subject. Permit me to call the attention of the Senate to a very brief extract from a speech delivered in the other end of the Capitol:

"In conclusion, I have only to add, that such is my solemn and abiding conviction of the character of slavery, that, under a full sense of my responsibility to my country and my God, I deliberately say, better disunion, better a civil or a servile war, better anything that God in His providence shall send, than an extension of the bounds of slavery."

Several Senators. Whose speech is that?