The gentleman from New Jersey says we misrepresent our const.i.tuents.
How does he know that? Who gave him the right to place himself between our const.i.tuents 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 a.s.sure the gentleman that I know the people of that State far better than he. We will undertake to answer to our const.i.tuents; 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 a.s.serts 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. G.o.d forbid! It is a truth which we cannot and ought not to conceal.
Why will not New York and Ma.s.sachusetts 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, Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 Const.i.tution? 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 a.s.sembly of statesmen met to consider const.i.tutional 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 Const.i.tution 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 const.i.tutional 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 antic.i.p.ate 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 a.s.sert the right to overthrow the Const.i.tution and destroy the Government at pleasure--we should not, by all means, pa.s.s 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 a.s.signing 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 Const.i.tution? 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 Const.i.tution, or grows out of it. If it exists at all, it is higher than, and above all Const.i.tutions. 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 Const.i.tution, 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 Const.i.tution, it may be well enough. But will the a.s.sertion that such is the purpose of the Const.i.tution 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, Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 subst.i.tute 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 Const.i.tution, 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 un.o.bstructed, 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 a.s.sert 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, Ma.s.sachusetts, and New York--6.