!
<
mMAMY
ithrmttg af California
REFERENCE.
fim
No...
Division
Range
Shelf.
Received 187.
DOCUMENTS OCPT.
JOU RIST AL
PROCEEDINGS
IP^ottri Jltate Confrente,
HELD AT
JEFFERSON CITY AND ST. LOUIS,
Marcli, 1861.
ST. LOUIS,
GEORGE KNAPP & CO., PRINTERS AND BINDERS, 1861.
•tfr
ffiOtf
.A 1ST A. O T
TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING A
STATE CONVENTION.
Whereas, In the opinion of the General Assem- bly, the condition of public affairs demands that a Convention of the people be called, to take such action as the interest and welfare of the State may require : Therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows: Section 1. That an election for delegates to a Convention of the people of the State of Mis- souri, shall be held at tho several places of voting in this State, on Monday, the 18th day of Feb- ruary, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, which election shall me managed and conducted by the Sheriffs, or other proper officers of the counties respectively, in the same manner, and according to the same rules and regulations, as are now prescribed by law for the election of members of the General Assembly. And it is hereby declared to be the duty of the Governor to issue his proclamation to the several sheriffs of the State, immediately after the passage of this act, requiring them to hold and conduct said election according to law; and the said sheriffs shall advertise the time and place of holding said election for as long a time as practicable, by publication in the several newspapers of their respective counties, and by posting notices at ten public places in each county.
Sec. 2. Each State Senatorial District, as now constituted by law, shall be entitled to elect three times as many delegates to said Convention as said district is now entitled to members in the State Senate.
Sec. 3. No person shall be a member of said Convention who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-four years, who shall not be a free white male citizen of the United States, who shall
I not have been a citizen ot this State two years, and of the district which he represents one year next before his election.
Sec. 4. In all districts composed of two or more counties, the Clerks of all the counties shall transmit to the Clerk of the county first named by the law now forming said districts, on the day succeeding said election, or as soon as possible thereafter, a certificate under their hands of the number of votes given for each candidate in each respective county ; and said returns shall be sent by special messengers, who shall receive the sum of five dollars a day for their service, to be paid out of the Treasury of the county from which said returns may be sent. The Clerk of the coun- ty to which returns shall be made, after examin- ing the same, shall give to the persons showing the highest number of votes, according to the number of delegates to which each district is en- titled, certificates of election under the seal of his office; and said clerks shall also certify said re- turns to the Secretary of State, as now provided by law in case of the election of Senators.
Sec. 5. The delegates elected under the pro- visions of this act shall assemble at Jefferson City, on Thursday, the 28th day of February, 1861, and organize themselves into a Convention, by the election of a President, and such other officers as they may deem necessary; and shall proceed to consider the then existing relations between the Government of the United States, the people and Governments of the different States, and the Government and people of the State of Missouri; and to adopt such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State and the protection of its institutions, as shall appear to them to be demanded.
Sec. 6. Said Convention shall adopt such rules and regulations for its government, and the pro- per transaction of business, as they shall think proper. They shall have the same privileges as the members of the General Assembly now have, by law; and the officers, members and assistants of said Convention shall receive the same com- pensation as is now allowed by law to the offi- cers, members and assistants of the House of Representatives; and said compensation shall be allowed and paid them in the same manner.
Sec. 7. In cases of contested elections to said Convention, the contending candidates shall pur- sue the same course and be governed by the same rules, as are now prescribed by law in relation to contested elections for members of the General Assembly; and the Convention shall be the judge of all such contested elections for membership therein.
Sec. 8. In case of vacancy occurring in said Convention, by death, resignation, or otherwise, of any member, the same shall be filled in the same manner as now prescribed by law for filling vacancies in the State Senate.
Sec. 9. All persons qualified to vote for mem- bers of the General Assembly, under existing laws, shall be entitled to vote for delegates to said Convention.
Sec. 10. No act, ordinance, or resolution of said Convention shall be deemed to be valid to change or dissolve the political relations of this State to the Government of the United States, or any other State, until a majority or the qualified voters of this State, voting upon the question, shall ratify the same.
Sec. 11. The County Clerks of the several counties, immediately after the returns shall be made to his office, on said act or ordinance of
said Convention, so submitted, shall certify the same to the office of the Secretary of State, when the Governor shall announce, by proclamation, the result of said election.
This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
Approved January 21, 1861.
I, B. F. Massey, Secretary of State, do hereby certify that the foregoing act, entitled "An act to provide for calling a State Convention/' is a true and correct copy of the original roll of said law now on file in this office.
/^=^ss In testimony whereof, I have here- (SEAL J unto set my hand, and affixed the seal v^lT^ of office.
Done at the city of Jeffer son, the 21st day of January, 1861.
B. F. MASSEY, Secretary of State.
To the Sheriff of
County :
In conformity with the requirements of the foregoing law, I, C. F. Jackson, Governor of the State of Missouri, hereby direct and command that you cause the notice of the time and place of holding said election within and for the coun- ty, of which you are the Sheriff, to be given in accordance with the provisions of said law.
In testimony whereof, I have here- ;o set my name, and caused to be
(SEAL)
^TT^ affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri. Done at the City of Jefferson, this 21st day of January, A. D. 1861; of the Inde- pendence of the United States the eighty-fifth, and of the State of Missouri the fortieth.
By the Governor: C. F. JACKSON.
B. F. Massey, Secretary of State.
NAMES OF THE DELEGATES
OF THE
STATE CONVENTION OF MISSOURI
WITH THE
NATIVITY, AGE, PROFESSION AND POST-OFFICE ADDRESS.
Names of Members. Nativity Age. Profession. Post office Address.
Sterling Price, President. . Virginia 51 Bank Commissioner.Brunswick, Chariton county.
Sam. A. Lowe Secretary.. Maryland 41. . . .Clerk of Courts Georgetown, Pettis county.
E. A. Campbell^ss'J. Sec. Missouri 26 Lawyer Bowling Green, Pike county.
C. P. Anderson, D'r A^er.Tennessee 42 Editor California.
B. W. Grover, SergH-at- A. Ohio 49 Farmer Warrensburg.
And. Monroe, Cliaplain. .Virginia 68 . . .Minister Fayette.
Allen, J. S Tennesse 46 Merchant Bethany, Harrison county.
Bartlett, Orson Virginia 61 Merchant Bloomfield, Stoddard county.
Bass, EliE..» Tennessee 54. ...Farmer Ashland, Boone county.
Bast, George Y Kentucky 48 Farmer Rhineland, Montgomery county.
Birch James H Virginia 57. . . Lawyer Plattsburg, Clinton county.
Bogy, Joseph Missouri 54 Farmer St. Mary's Ld'g, Ste. Genevieve co
Breckinridge, Sam. M Kentucky 32 ... Judge Circuit Court,St. Louis.
Broadhead, Jas. O Virginia 41 Lawyer St. Louis.
Bridge, Hudson E. New Hampshire 50 Merchant St. Louis.
Brown, R. A Tennessee 51. . . .Farmer Harrisonville, Cass county.
Bush, Isidor Austria 39 Merchant St. Louis.
Calhoun, Robert Ireland 57 Farmer Concord, Callaway county.
Cayce, Milton P Virginia 56 Merchant Farmington, St. Francis county.
Chenault, Jno. R Kentucky 51 Judge Circuit Court,Carthage, Jasper county.
Collier, Sam. C Missouri 35 Lawyer Fredericktown, Madison county
Comingo, A Kentucky 41 ...Lawyer Independence.
Crawford, Robert W Virginia 49 Lawyer Mt. Vernon, Lawrence county.
Doniphan A. W Kentucky 52 Lawyer Liberty, Clay county.
Donnell, R. W North Carolina 42 Merchant & Banker,St. Joseph.
Douglass, William Virginia 32 . . .Lawyer Boonville, Cooper county.
Drake, Charles Kentucky 32 — Lawyer California, Moniteau county
Dunn, George W Kentucky 45 Judge Circuit Court Richmond.
Eitzen,Chas. D Bremen 41 Merchant Hermann.
6
Names of Members. Nativity. Age.
Frayser, Robert B Virginia 65. .
Flood, Joseph Kentucky 48. .
Foster, John D Kentucky 40. .
Gamble, Hamilton E Virginia 62. .
Gantt, Thos. T District Columbia. . 46. .
Givens N. F Kentucky 52. .
Gorin, Henry M Kentucky 48. .
Gravely J. J Virginia 82. .
Hall, Willard F Virginia 40 .
Hall, William A Maine 45. .
Harbin, A. S North Carolina.. . . 60. .
Hatcher, Robert A Virginia 42. .
Henderson, John B Virginia 34. .
Hendrick, Littleberry Virginia 61 .
Hill, V. B Kentucky 32. .
Hitchcock, Henry Alabama 31. .
Holmes, Robert Pennsylvania 45. .
Holt, John Kentucky 66. .
Hough, Harrison Kentucky 49. .
How, John Pennsylvania 50. .
Howell, Wm. J Kentucky 47. .
Hudgins, Prince L . . Kentucky 49. .
Irwin, Joseph M ..Virginia 42. .
Isbell, Z Virginia 48..
Jackson, Wm Tennessee 38. .
Jamison, Robert W. Kentucky 49. .
Johnson, James W Virginia 49. .
Kidd, Christopher G Kentucky 40..
Knott, J. Proc Kentucky 30..
Leper, Wm. T Tennessee 38. .
Linton, M. L Kentucky 52...
Long, JohnF Missouri 44. .
Marmaduke, Vincent Missouri 28..
Marvin, Asa C New Hampshire 46. .
Matson, James T Missouri 39. . ,
Maupin, A. W Missouri 33..
McClurg, J. W Missouri 43..
McCormack, Jas. E Missouri 36 ..
McDowell, Nelson Illinois 59...
McFerran, James ... Maryland 41. . .
Meyer, Ferdinand Prussia 34. ..
Morrow, W. L Tennessee 43
Moss, James H Missouri 85 .
Noell. James C Virginia 29. .
Norton, E. H Kentucky 39..
Orr, Sample Tennessee. 44..
Phillips, John F Missouri 26..
Pipkin, Philip Tennessee 46. .
Pomeroy, William G New York 46. .
Rankin, Chas. G Missouri 53 .
Ray, RobertD Kentucky 44..
Redd, John T Kentucky 44. .
Ritchey, M. H Tennessee 49. ..
Profession. Post office Address
• -Farmer Naylor's Store, St. Charles county .
. .Farmer Fulton, Callaway county.
. .Lawyer Kirksville, Adair county.
..Lawyer St. Louis.
. .Lawyer St. Louis.
. .Lawyer Waterloo, Clark county.
. .Merchant Memphis, Scotland county.
. .Farmer Bear Creek, Cedar county.
. . Lawyer St. Joseph, Buchanan county.
. .Judge Circuit Court,Darksville, Randolph county.
. .Farmer Washburne Prairie, Barry county
. .Lawyer New Madrid, New Madrid county.
. .Lawyer Louisiana, Pike county.
. Lawyer Springfield, Greene county.
. . Lawyer Waynesville, Pulaski county.
..Lawyer St. Louis.
. .Lumber Dealer St. Louis.
. .Farmer Dent Court House, Dent county-
. .Judge Circuit Court,Wolf Island, Miss, county
..Tanner St. Louis.
. .Lawyer Paris, Monroe county.
. .Lawyer Savannah, Andrew county.
. . Lawyer Shelby ville, Shelby county.
. .Farmer. Linn, Osage county.
. .Farmer Newtown, Putnam county.
..Farmer Marshfield, Webster county.
. . Farmer Bolivar.
. . Lawyer Calhoun, Henry county.
. . Lawyer Jefferson City, Cole county.
. Farmer Grenville, Wayne county.
. . Physician St. Louis.
, . . Civil Engineer St. Louis.
..Farmer Marshall, Saline county.
, . . Farmer Clinton, Henry county.
. .Physician Saverton, Ralls county.
. . Blacksmith Union, Franklin county.
. . Merchant Linn Creek.
. .Physician Appleton, Perry c.ounty.
. . Farmer Greenfield, Dade county.
..Judge Circuit Court Gallatin, Daviess county.
Leather Dealer St. Louis.
...Merchant Buffalo, Dallas county.
. Lawyer Liberty, Clay county.
. . Lawyer Greene P. O., Bollinger county.
. . Lawyer Platte City.
. .Lawyer Springfield, Green county.
. .Lawyer ... Georgetown, Pettis county.
. .Lawyer Ironton, Iron county.
. .Lawyer Steelville, Crawford county.
. . Merchant Peveley, Jefferson county.
. .Lawyer Carrollton.
. .Lawyer Palmyra, Marion county.
..Farmer Newtonia, Newton county.
Names of Members. Nativity. Age.
Ross, James P Maryland 48...
Rowland, Frederick North Carolina 56. .
Sawyer, Samuel L New Hampshire.. . .46. .
Sayre, E. K New Jersey 51 .
Scott, Thomas. Y Kentucky 44. . ,
Shackelford, Thomas Missouri 39. .
Shackeliord, John H Kentucky 57. .
Sheeley, James K Kentucky 46. . ,
Smith, Jacob Kentucky 44. .
Smith, Sol New York 59..,
Stewart, Robert M New York 43
Tindall, Jacob T Kentucky 34. . ,
Turner, W. W Illinois 24 ..
Waller, Joseph G Virginia 58. . .
Watkins, N. W Kentucky — . . .
Welch, Aikman Missouri 33. . .
Wilson, Robert Virginia 58
Woodson, Warren Virginia 64. . ,
Woolfolk, Alexander M. .Kentucky 25. . .
Wright, Uriel Virginia 55. . .
Vaubuskirk, Ellzey Ohio 39. . ,
Zimmerman, George W... Virginia 67. . .
Profession. Post office Address.
. Lawyer Versailles, Morgan county.
• Farmer Macon City.
.Lawyer Lexington, Lafayette county.
. Farmer Monticello, Lewis county.
• Farmer Tuscumbia.
.Lawyer Glasgow, Howard county.
.Farmer.. Florissant, St. Louis county.
.Judge Com Pleas Ct Independence.
.Lawyer Linneus, Linn county.
. Lawyer St. Louis.
. Lawyer St. Joseph, Buchanan county.
.Lawyer Trenton, Grundy county.
.Lawyer Lebanon, Laclede county.
.Farmer Marthasville, Warren county.
.Lawyer Jackson, Cape Girardeau county,
.Lawyer Warrensburg, Johnson county.
.Lawyer St. Joseph.
.Farmer. Columbia, Boone county.
.Lawyer Chilicothe, Livingston county.
.Lawyer St. Louis.
.Circuit Clerk Oregon, Holt county.
.Farmer New Hope. .**
JOURNAL
OF THE
STATE CONVENTION,
Begun and held in the City of Jefferson, on Thursday, the 28th day of February, A. D. 1861.
In pursuance of the 5th section of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, entitled "An Act to provide for calling of a State Convention," approved January 21, 1861, the delegates to a Convention of the peo- ple of the State of Missouri, elected from the several Senatorial Districts of the State, as provided by said law, met at the Court House of Cole county, in the city of Jefferson, on Thursday the 28th day of February, A. D. 1861, that being the day fixed by law for that purpose.
On motion of Hon. Sample Orr, Hon. Ham- ilton K. Gamble, of the county of St. Louis, was called to the chair as President pro tempore.
On motion of Mr Wilson, of Andrew coun- ty, James L. Minor was requested to act as Secretary pro tempore.
On motion of Mr. Sheeley, the Rev. An- drew Monroe opened the Convention with prayer.
The roll of the Convention being called, the following gentlemen answered to their names :
From the First Senatorial District — Joseph G. Waller, of St. Charles county; George W. Zimmerman, of Pike ; R. C. Calhoun, of Au- drain.
From the Third Senatorial District — War- ren Woodson, of Boone county; Eli E. Bass, of Boone ; Joseph Flood, of Callaway.
From the Fifth Senatorial District — Henry M. Gorin, of Scotland county; E. R. Sayre, of Lewis ; N. F. Givens, of Clark.
From the Sixth Senatorial District — Thomas Shackelford, of Howard county; Sterling Price, of Chariton ; William A. Hall, of Randolph.
From the Seventh Senatorial District— Fred- erick Rowland, of Macon county; Joseph M. Irwin, of Shelby; John D. Foster, of Adair.
From the Eighth Senatorial District— A. M. Woolfolk, of Livingston county; Jacob Smith, of Linn ; William Jackson, of Putnam.
From the Ninth Senatorial District— Jacob T. Tindal, of Grundy county; John S. Allen, of Harrison; James McFerran, of Daviess.
From the Tenth Senatorial District— Robert D. Ray, of Carroll county; James H. Birch, of Clinton; George W. Dunn, of Ray.
From the Eleventh Senatorial District — Rob- ert Wilson, of Andrew county.
From the Twelfth Senatorial District.— Wil- lard P. Hall, of Buchanan county.
From the Thirteenth Senatorial District — James H. Moss, of Clay county; Elijah D. Nor- ton, of Platte.
From the Fourteenth Senatorial District — Robert A. Brown, of Cass county; James K. Sheeley, of Jackson; Abraham Comingo, of Jackson.
10
From the Fifteenth Senatorial District — Asa C.Marvin, of Henry county; Aikman Welch, of Johnson ; Christopher G. Kidd, of Henry.
From the Sixteenth Senatorial District — J. F. Phillips, of Pettis county; Samuel L. Saw- yer, of Lafayette ; Vincent Marmaduke, of Saline.
From the Seventeenth Senatorial District — John R. Chenault, of Jasper county; Nelson McDowell, of Dade ; J. J. Gravely, of Cedar.
From the Eighteenth Senatorial District — Robert W. Crawford, of Lawrence county; A. S. Harbin, of Barry.
From the Nineteenth Senatorial District — Sample Orr, of Greene county ; Robert W. Jamison, of Webster ; Littlebury Hendrick, of Greene.
From the Twentieth Senatorial District — W. W. Turner, of Laclede county; James W. Johnson, of Polk ; William L. Morrow, of Dallas.
From the Twenty -First Senatorial District — Z. Isbell, of Osage county; Charles D. Eitzen, of Gasconade.
From the Twenty-Second Senatorial Dis- trict— William G. Pomeroy, of Crawford coun- ty; John Holt, of Dent.
From the Twenty-Third Senatorial Dis- trict— Joseph Bogy, of Ste. Genevieve county; Charles S. Rankin, d Jefferson ; Milton P. Cayce, of St. Francois.
From the Twenty -Fifth Senatorial District — Robert A. Hatcher, of New Madrid county; Orson Bartlett, of Stoddard.
From the Twenty-Sixth Senatorial District — Nathaniel W. Watkins, of Cape Girardeau coun- ty; James R. McCormack, of Perry.
From the Twenty-Seventh Senatorial Dis- trict— J. Proctor Knott, of Cole county; Thos. Scott, of Miller ; J. W. McClurg, of Camden.
From the Twenty-Eighth Senatorial Dis- trict— Charles Drake of Moniteau county; Wil- liam Douglass, of Cooper; James P. Ross, of Morgan.
From the Twenty-Ninth Senatorial Dis- trict— Sol. Smith, of St. Louis couty; John H. Shackelford, of St. Louis ; M. L. Linton, of St. Louis ; Henry Hitchcock, of St. Louis ; John How, of St. Louis ; James 0. Broadhead, of St. Louis; Samuel M. Breckinridge, of St. Louis ; Hudson E. Bridge, of St. Louis ; Ham- ilton R. Gamble, of St. Louis ; Robert Holmes, of St. Louis; Uriel Wright, of St. Louis; Isadore Bush, of St. Louis ; Ferdinand Meyer, of St. Louis; John F. Long, of St. Louis.
In all seventy-nine.
On motion of Mr. Watkins, it was
Resolved, That the Chair appoint a commit- tee of five to receive and examine the credentials of the members of the Convention, and that the committee be directed to report at ten o'clock on to-morrow morning.
Whereupon the Chair appointed on said committee Messrs. Watkins, Birch, Hall of Randolph, Linton and Orr.
On motion of Mr. Rowland, it was
Resolved, That a committee of seven be ap- pointed to report what officers shall be neces- sary and requisite for the future action of the Convention ;
Whereupon the Chair appointed on said com- mittee Messrs. Rowland, Price, Welch, Hen- drick, Hatcher, Broadhead and Wilson.
On motion of Mr. Holt, John E. Davis, of Crawford county, was requested to act as tem- porary doorkeeper.
On motion of Mr. Birch, the Convention adjourned to meet in conclave at ten o'clock to morrow morning.
SECOND DA-Y.
FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1861.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Andrew Monroe.
The journal was then read by the secretary.
The following named members of the Con- vention appeared and took their seats :
From the First Senatorial District — George Y. Bast, of Montgomery county; Robert B. Frayser, of St. Charles.
From the Second Senatorial District — John B. Henderson, of Pike county.
From the Fourth Senatorial District — Wil- liam J. Howell, of Monroe county; John T. Redd, of Marion ; James T. Matson, of Ralls.
From the Eleventh Senatorial District — Prince L. Hudgins, of Andrew county; Ellzay Vanbuskirk, of Holt.
11
From the Twelfth Senatorial District— Robt. M. Stewart, of Buchanan county; Robert W. Donnell, of Buchanan.
From the Twenty-First Senatorial District — Amos W. Maupin, of Franklin county.
From the Twenty-Fourth Senatorial Dis- trict— Philip Pipkin, of Iron county; William T. Leeper, of Wayne ; Samuel C. Collier, of Madison.
From the Twenty-Sixth Senatorial District — James C. Noell, of Bollinger county.
From the Eighteenth Senatorial District — Mathew II. Ritchey, of Newton county.
From the Twenth-Ninth Senatorial Dis- trict— Thomas T. Gantt, of St. Louis county. Mr. Watkinr, from the Committee en Cre" dentials, made the following report :
Mr. President : — The special committee o^ five, to whom was referred the subject of the credentials of the members of this body, have had the same under consideration, and in- structed me to report, that from the certificates furnished them, and the official returns in the office of the Secretary of State, they find the following named persons duly elected :
From the First District — Joseph G. Waller, Robert B. Frayser, George Y. Bast.
From the Second District — George W. Zim- merman, 11. C. Calhoun, John B. Henderson.
From the Third District — Warren Woodson, Eli E. Bass, Joseph Flood.
From the Fourth District — Wm. J. Howell James T. Matson, John T. Redd.
From the Fifth District — Henry M. Gorin, E. K. Sayre, N. F. Givens.
From the Sixth District— William A. Hall, Thomas Shackelford, Sterling Price.
From the Seventh District; — Joseph M. Irwin, John D. Foster, Frederick Rowland.
From the Eighth District— A. M. Woolfolk, Jacob Smith, William Jackson.
From the Ninth District— Jacob T. Tindall, John S. Allen, James McFerran.
From the Tenth District— Robert D. Ray, James H. Birch, George W. Dunn.
From the Eleventh District— Robert Wilson, Ellzay Vanbuskirk, Prince L. Hudgins.
From the Twelfth District— Robert W. Don- nell, Robert M. Stewart, Willard P. Hall.
From the Thirteenth District— Elijah D. Norton, James H. Moss.
From the Fourteenth District — Robert A. Brown, James K. Sheeley, Abraham Comingo. From the Fifteenth District— Asa C. Mar- vin, Aikman Welch, Christopher G. Kidd.
From the Sixteenth District— John F. Phil- lips, Samuel L. Sawyer, Vincent Marmaduke From the Seventeenth District— John R' Chenault, Nelson McDowell, J. J. Gravely.
From the Eighteenth District— Robert W. Crawford, A. S. Harbin, Mathew H. Ritchey. From the Nineteenth District— Sample Orr, Robert W. Jamison, Littlebury Hendrick.
From the Twentieth District — W. W. Tur- ner, James W. Johnson, William L. Morrow. From the Twenty-First District— Z. Isbell Amos W. Maupin, Charles D. Eitzen.
From the Twenty-Second District— William G. Pomeroy, John Holt, V. B. Hill.
From the Twenty-Third District— Joseph Bogy, Charles S. Rankin, Milton P. Cayce.
From the Twenty-Fourth District— Philip Pipkin, Samuel C. Collier, William T. Deeper. From the Twenty-Fifth District— Robert A. Hrtcher, Orson Bartlett, Harrison Hough.
From the Twenty-Sixth District— Nathaniel W. Watkins, James C. Noell, James R. McCor- mack.
From the Twenty-Seventh District— Thos. Scott, J. Proctor Knott, J. W. McClurg.
From the Twenty-Eighth District— Charles Drake, William Douglass, James P. Ross.
From the Twenty-Ninth District — Sol. Smith, John H. Shackelford, M. L. Linton, Henry Hitchcock, John How, James 0. Broad- head, Samuel M. Breckinridge, Hudson E. Bridge, Hamilton R. Gamble, Robert Holmes, Uriel Wright, Isador Bush, Ferdinand Meyer, John F. Long, Thomas T. Gantt. All of which is respectfully submitted.
N. W. WATKINS, Chairman. On motion of Mr. Foster, the report of the committee was received and the committee dis- charged from the further consideration of the subject.
Mr. Rowland, from the select committee of seven to report officers and rules for the Convention, presented the following report :
Mr. President : — The committee which was appointed to report what officers may be neces- sary for the Convention, and also to report rules for the government, respectfully report :
That, in the opinion of the committee, the said officers should consist of a President, Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Doorkeeper.
Your committee Avould further report, that they recommend the adoption of the rules adopted by a State Convention, which assem- bled in the city of Jefferson on the 17th day of November, 1845, and found on pages 11, 12,
12
13, 14 and 15 of the journal of said Conven- tion, except rules numbered 41, 42 and 44, and the following words in rule No. 49, to wit : "And no member shall be allowed pay for any day that he shall be absent from the session of the Convention, unless he shall be prevented from attending by sickness."
Your committee would further recommend that one hundred and fifty copies of said rules be printed for the use of the Convention. Your Committee would further recommend the adop- tion of the following resolutions :
Resolved, That each delegate elected to this Convention, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, and faithfully demean him- self in office.
Resolved, That each officer of this Conven- tion, except the President and Vice President, before entering upon the discharge of the du- ties of his office, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and faithfully demean himself in office. And that when the Convention shall be in secret session, he will not divulge or make public to any person, anything which may be said or done in said Convention. All of which is respectfully submitted.
P. ROWLAND, Chairman.
On motion of Mr. Welch, the report of the committee was adopted.
Mr. Pomeroy moved to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the resolutions contained in the report of the Committee of Seven, rela- tive to the oaths of office.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved to lay the motion to reconsider, on the table.
Mr. Pomeroy having withdrawn his motion, Mr. Howell renewed it ; pending which, Mr. Birch asked to have the order made by the Convention yesterday, to meet in conclave, exe- cuted by the President.
Mr. Sayre, of Lewis, moved to amend the Journal of yesterday, by striking out the words " to meet in conclave " in the resolution of adjournment, which was decided in the affirmative.
The Convention having resumed the consid- eration of the motion of Mr. Howell to recon- sider the vote on the adoption of the report of the committee relative to the oaths of office, was laid upon the table, on the motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded :
Ayes. — Messrs. Allen, Bass, Bogy,. Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Donnell, Dunn, Eitzen,Flood, Poster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Bu- chanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Lee- per, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Price, Rankin, Ray. Ritchie, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of St Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Welch, Wilson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, and Zimmer- man— 65.
Noes. — Messrs. Bartlett, Bast, Birch, Brown, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Prayser, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Marmaduke, Matson, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Shack- elford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller Watkins and Woodson — 80.
All the delegates present, on motion, then came forward and the oath of office was ad- ministered to them by the Hon. George W. Miller, Judge of the first Judicial Circuit of the State.
The rules reported by the committee for the government of the Convention were adopted, and are as follows :
OF THE PRESIDENT.
First. He shall take the chair every day at the hour to which the Convention shall have adjourned, shall immediately call the members to order, and on the appearance of a quorum, shall cause the Journal of the preceeding day to be read.
Second. He shall preserve order and deco- rum ; may speak to points of order in prefer- ence to the members, rising from his seat for that purpose; and shall decide all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the Convention, by any two members ; on which appeal no member shall speak more than once, unless by leave of the Convention.
Third. He shall rise to put a question, but may state it sitting.
Fourth. When a question has been put, if the President doubts, or if a division be called for, the Convention shall divide ; those in the affirmative shall arise from their seats, and afterwards those in the negative. The Presi- dent shall then arise and state the decision of the Convention.
Fifth. All committees shall be appointed by the President, unless otherwise specially direc- ted by the Convention, in which case they shall be appointed by an open vote of the Con- vention.
Sixth. The President shall examine and correct the Journal before it is read ; he shall have a general superintendence of the Hall ; he shall have the right to name any member to perform the duties of the Chair, but such sub- stitution shall not extend beyond an adjourn- ment.
Seventh. In case of any disturbance or dis- orderly conduct in the lobby he (or the Chair-
13
man of the committee of the Whole Conven- tion,) shall have power to order the same to be cleared.
Eighth. No person shall be admitted within the bar but members and officers of the Con- vention, and such other persons as may be in- vited by a member of the Convention to a seat within the bar.
OF DECORUM AND DEBATE.
Ninth. When any member is about to speak in debate, or deliver any matfer to the Conven- tion, he shall rise from his seat and respectfully address himself to the President.
Tenth. If any member, in speaking or oth- erwise, shall transgress the rules of the Con- vention, the President shall, or any member may call to order ; in which case the member so called to order shall immediately sit down, unless permitted to explain ; and the Conven- tion, if appealed to, shall decide on the case, but Avithout debate ; if there be no appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be submitted to. If the decision be in favor of the member called to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed ; if otherwise, and the case require it, he shall be liable to the censure of the Convention.
Eleventh. When two or more members shall rise at once, the President shall name the per- son who is first to speak.
Twelfth. No member shall make use of any intemperate, personal, or improper language, nor commit any breach of order during the session of the Convention.
Thirteenth. No member shall speak more than twice on the same question without leave of the Convention ; nor more than once, until every member choosing to speak shall have spoken.
Fourteenth. Whilst the President is putting any question, or addressing the Convention, no person shall walk out of, or across the Hall ; nor in such case, or when a member is speak- ing, shall entertain private discourse ; nor whilst a member is speaking, shall pass be- tween him and the Chair.
Fifteenth. No member shall vote on any question in the event of which he is immedi- ately and particularly interested, or in any oth- er case when he was not present when the question was put, without leave of the Con- vention.
Sixteenth. Upon a division and count of the Convention on any question, no member with- out the bar shall be counted.
Seventeenth. Every member who shall be in the Convention when a question is put shall vote, unless the Convention, for special rea- son", shall excuse him.
Eighteenth. All motions and propositions shall be in writing, and signed by the mover, except motions to adjourn, to refer, to postpone, to print, to lay on the table, or for the previous question, or leave of absence ; and every mem- ber making a proposition shall in his place read it distinctly to the Convention.
Nineteenth. When a question is made and seconded, it shall be stated by the President, or being in writing, it shall be handed to the Secretary, and by him read aloud before de- bated.
Twentieth. After a motion is stated by the President, or read by the Secretary, it shall be deemed to be in possession of the Convention, but may be withdrawn at any time before a decision or amendment.
Twenty-First. When a question is under de- bate, no motion shall be received but to ad- journ ; to lay on the table ; for the previous question ; to postpone to a day certain ; to commit or amend ; to postpone indefinitely ; which several motions shall have precedence in the order in which they are arranged ; and no motion to postpone to a day certain, to com- mit, or postpone indefinitely, being decided, shall be allowed again on the same day, and at the same stage of the proposition,
Twenty -Second. A motion to adjourn shall always be in order, and shall be decided with- out debate.
Twenty -Third. All questions except those enumerated in rule 21st, shall be put in the order they are moved, except that in filling up blanks, the largest sum, and the longest time, shall be first put.
Twenty -Fourth. The previous question shall be in this form, " Shall the main question be now put V It shall only be admitted when de- manded by two-thirds of the members present ; and until it is decided shall preclude all amend- ments and further debate of the main question, * and must be decided without debate.
Twenty-Fifth. When the Convention ad- journs, every member shall keep his seat until the President leaves his seat.
Twenty-Sixth. Any member may call for a division of the question when the sense will admit of it.
Twenty -Seventh. A motion for commitment till it is decided, shall preclude all amendments of the main question.
Twenty -Eighth. Motions, reports and other business may be committed at the pleasure of the Convention.
Twenty-Ninth. No new motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consid- eration, shall be admitted under color of amendment, or as a substitute for the motion or proposition under debate.
Thirtieth. When a motion or proposition has been once carried in the affirmative or negative, it shall be in order for any member of the pre- vailing party to move for the reconsideration thereof at any time within three sitting days after such decision ; provided, that the propo- sition which may be adopted or rejected, shall always be subject to reconsideration after two days notice being given thereof.
Thirty-First. When the reading of a paper is called for, and the same is objected to by any member, it shall be determined by a vote of the Convention.
Thirty- Second. The unfinished business in which the Convention was engaged at the time of the last adjournment, shall have the prefer- ence in the orders of the day ; and no motion, or any other business, shall be received without special leave of the Convention, until the for- mer is disposed of ; but any business that is made the order of a particular day, shall have the preference over other business on that day.
14
Thirty-Third. Any seven members shall be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, when there is no quorum present.
Thirty -Fourth. Any two members shall have the right to call for the ayes and noes on any question.
Thirty -Fifth. No member shall absent him- self from the Convention, unless he have leave, or be sick and unable to attend.
Thirty-Sixth. There shall be a committee of elections, whose duty it shall be to examine and report upon the credentials of the mem- bers returned to serve in this Convention.
Thirty -Seventh. No standing rule shall be re- scinded or altered, without one day's notice being given of the motion therefor.
Thirty-Eighth. The Secretary of the Con- vention shall attend during its sessions ; shall make out and keep its Journals ; seasonably record all its proceedings ; keep regular files of the papers ; attest all process issued by the Convention, and execute the commands of the Convention.
Thirty -Ninth. The Secretary shall not suf- fer any records or papers to be taken out of his custody by any member or other person.
Fortieth. No standing rule or order of the Convention shall be suspended or dispensed with, without the concurrence of two-thirds ot the members present.
Forty-First. Every member addressing the Convention, shall confine himself strictly to the subject matter under debate.
Forty- Second. All select committees shall consist of three members, unless otherwise or- dered.
Forty-Third. All committees shall be ap- pointed by the President, unless otherwise or- dered.
Forty-Fourth. All questions relating to the priority of debate, shall be acted on without debate.
Forty-Fifth. No member or other person shall be permitted to smoke within the hall or lobby at any time whatever.
Forty-Sixth. A committee of three members shall be appointed by the President, who shall scrutinize and pass upon all accounts and keep in a book a correct statement thereof, and shall take the necessary steps to prevent the allow- ance of all improper and unjust claims.
Forty-Seventh. In all cases not provided for in these rules, the Parliamentary practice con- tained in Jefferson's Manual, shall govern the Convention.
On motion, the Convention adjourned until three o'clock p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention assembled pursuant to ad- journment.
On motion, the Convention proceeded to the election of permanent officers of the Conven- tion as prescribed by the resolution heretofore adopted ; whereupon
Mr. Broadhead nominated for the office of President of the Convention, the Hon. Ster- ling Price, of Chariton county.
Mr. Hatcher nominated Hon. Nathaniel W. Watkins, of Cape Girardeau county. No other nominations having been made, and the roll of the Convention having been called there appeared for
Mr. Price, 75.
Mr. Watkins, 15.
The members proceeded to vote as follows :
Eor Mr. Price. — Messrs. Allen, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Chenault, Comingo, Crawford, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Erayser, Elood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Knott, Linton, Long, Marma- duke, Marvin/ Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ray Redd, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of St Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbus- kirk and Zimmerman — 75.
For Mr. Watkins : Messrs. Bartlett, Cayce, Collier, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell, Leeper, Noell, Pipkin, Price, Rankin, Sayre and Woodson — 15.
Mr. Price, having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected Presi- dent of the Convention.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the President appointed a committee of three, con- sisting of Messrs. Hall of Buchanan, Broad- head and Chenault, to wait upon Mr. Price and inform him of his election.
The committee proceeded to discharge that duty, when Mr. Price came forward and the oath of office was administered to him by the Hon. George W. Miller.
Whereupon, having thanked the Convention, in a short speech, he entered upon the discharge of his official duties.
Nominations for Vice President being in or- der, Mr. Brown nominated Hon. Robert Wil- son, of Andrew county.
There being no other nominations, Mr. Hall moved that Mr. Wilson be declared unani- mously elected Vice President of the Conven- tion, which motion was carried, and Mr. Wil- son came forward and took the oath of office.
Nominations for Secretary being in order, Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, nominated Jeff. Thompson, of Buchanan county.
Mr. Gamble nominated Robert J. Lackey, of Cole county.
Mr. Sawyer nominated Samuel A. Lowe, of Pettis county. •>
Mr. Welch nominated Benjamin W. Gro- ver, of Johnson county.
15
Mr. Knott nominated Mr. J. C. Fox. Mr. Rowland nominated Mr. R. Cullen, of St. Louis county.
No other nominations being made, and the roll having been called, there appeared For Mr. Cullen— 16. " " Thompson— 12. " " Lackey— 22. '•' " Lowe— 26. " " Grover— 13. " " Fox — 5. No person having received a majority of all the votes cast, the Convention proceeded to a second ballot, when, the roll having been called, there appeared For Mr. Cullen— 15. " " Thompson— 11. " " Lackey— 27. " u Lowe— 27. " " Grover — 11. « " Fox— 3. The members present voted as follows :
For Mr. Cullen : Messrs. Bartlett, Bast, Birch, Cayce, Frayser, Foster, Hatcher, Lin- ton, Pipkin, Rowland, Smith of Linn, Tindall, Watkins, Woolfolk and Wright— 15.
For Mr. Thompson : Messrs. Chenault, Crawford, Donnell, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hudgins, Matson, Norton, Stewart, Wilson and Vanbuskirk — 11.
For Mr. Lackey : Messrs. Bass, Breckin- ridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Dunn, Eitzen, Flood, Gamble, Gantt, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Johnson, Leeper, Long, Maupin, Mc- Clurg, McCormack, Mayer, Moss, Rankin, Ray, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of St. Louis, Turner and Mr. President — 27.
For Mr. Lowe : Messrs. Allen, Bogy, Col- lier, Douglass, Drake, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hendrick, Holt, Howell, Isbell, Jami- son, Kidd, Marmaduke, McDowell, Morrow, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Redd,Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott and Woodson. — 27.
For Mr. Grover : Messrs. Brown, Calhoun, Irwin, Jackson, Marvin, Ross, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller, Welch and Zimmer- man— 11.
For Mr. Fox : Messrs. Henderson, Knott, and Noell— 3.
Sick — Mr. McFerran.
No Candidate having received a majority of all the votes cast, the Convention was proceed- ing to a third ballot, when
Mr. Knott withdrew the name' of Mr. Fox, and Mr. Hall, of Buchanan,withdrew the name of Mr. Thompson.
The names having been called there ap- peared :
For Mr. Cullen : Messrs. Bartlett, Bast, Cayce Collier, Donnell, Frayser, Hatcher,
Hudgins, Irwin, Leeper, Linton, Pipkin, Row- land, Smith of Linn, Stewart and Woolfolk— 16.
For Mr. Lackey : Messrs. Birch, Breckin- ridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Dunn, Eitzen, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Johnson, Knott, Long, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, Meyer, Moss, Norton, Rankin, Ray, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Wright, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President — 34.
For Mr. Lowe : Messrs. Allen, Bass, Bogy; Chenault, Comingo, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Flood, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hendrick, Holt, Howell, Isbell, Kidd, Marmaduke, Matson, McDowell, Morrow, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Sheeley, Watkins, and Woodson — 35.
For Mr. Grover : Messrs. Calhoun, Jack, son, Jamison, Marvin, Ross, Shackelford o,. Howard, Waller, Welch, Wilson and Zimmer man — 10.
No candidates having received a majority of all the vates cast the Convention proceeded to the fourth ballot, when
Mr. Rowland withdrew the name of Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Welch withdrew the name of Mr. Grover.
The roll having been called there appeared :
For Mr. Lackey — 44,
For Mr. Lowe — 51.
The members present voted as follows :
For Mr. Lackey : Messrs. Birch, Breckin- ridge. Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Don- nell, Dunn, Eitzen, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hender- son, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Hudgins, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Linton, Long, Mau- pin, McClurg, Meyer, Moss, Norton Rankin, Ray, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Wilson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President — 44.
For Mr. Lowe : Messrs. Allen, Bartlett* Bass, Bast, Bogy, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Har- bin, Hatcher, Hendrick, Holt, Howell, Isbell? Jamison, Kidd, Leeper, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, Morrow, No- ell, Orr, Phillips, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Redd, Rit- chey, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson and Zimmerman — 51.
Mr. Lowe, having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected Secretary of this Convention, and came for- ward; was sworn in by Hon. George W. Miller, and entered upon the discharge of his officia duties.
Nominations for Assistant Secretary being next in order :
16
Mr. Knott nominated James E. McHenry.
Mr. Orr nominated L. I). Shellady.
Mr. Irwin nominated A. L. Gilstrap.
Mr. Henderson nominated Robert A. Camp- hell.
Mr. Douglas nominated John T. Bankhead.
Mr. Holt nominated Lyle Singleton.
Mr. Long nominated David R. Risley.
Mr. Chenault nominated Richard Kerr.
No other nominations having been made the roll was called when there appeared :
For Mr. McHenry — 13 votes. " " Shellady— 12 votes. " " Gilstrap — 24 votes. " " Campbell— 28 votes. " " Bankhead — 6 votes. " " Singleton — 2 votes. " " Risley— 1 vote. " " Kerr — 8 votes.
The members present voted as follows :
For Mr. McHenry : Messrs. Bass, Birch, Flood, Hendrick, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Mar vin, Maupin, Ray, Shackelford of Howard, Stewart and Mr. President — 13.
For Mr. Shellady : Messrs. Bartlett, Hat- cher, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, McClurg, Morrow, Noell, Orr, Ross, Scott and Turner-12.
For Mr. Gilstrap : Messrs. Allen, Brown, Comingo, Donnell, Dunn, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Irwin, Jackson, McCormack, Meyer, Moss, Norton, Rowland, Sayre, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Wilson, Woolfolk and Vanbuskirk — 24.
For Mr. Campbell : Messrs. Bogy, Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Eitzen, Frayser, Gantt, Hen- derson, Hitchcock Holmes, How, Howell, Isbell, Linton, Matson, Rankin, Redd, Shackel- ford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson and Zimmerman — 28.
For Mr. Bankhead : Messrs. Douglass, Drake, Marmaduke, Phillips, Sawyer and Wright— 6.
For Mr. Singleton : Messrs. Holt and Pomeroy — 2.
For Mr. Kerr: Messrs. Bast, Chenault, Crawford, Gravely, Harbin, McDowell, Pipkin and Ross — 8.
For Mr. Risley : Mr. Long.
No Candidate having received a majority of all the votes cast the Convention proceeded to the second ballot, when
Mr. Douglas withdrew the name of Mr. Bankhead, and Mr. Holt withdrew the name of Mr. Singleton.
The roll having been called there appeared :
For Mr. McHenry — 14. " " Shellady— 9. " " Gilstrap— 33. " « Campbell— 33.
For Mr. Risley— 2. " «• Kerr— 4.
All the members present voted as follows :
For Mr. McHenry : Messrs. Bass, Bast, Hendrick, Holt, Kidd, Knott, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, Phillips, Pomeroy, Sawyer, Shackelford of Howard, and Mr. President-14.
For Mr. Shellady : Messrs. Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, McClurg, Morrow, Orr, Ross, Scott and Turner — 9.
For Mr. Gilstrap : Messrs. Allen, Bartlett* Birch, Brown, Comingo, Donnell, Dunn, Fos- ter, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hudgins, Irwin, Jackson, McCormack, Mayer, Moss, Noell, Norton, Pipkin, Ray, Ritchie, Rowland, Sayre, Smith of Linn, Tindall, Wilson, Wool- folk and Vanbuskirk — 33.
For Mr. Campbell : Messrs. Bogy, Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Drake, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Gantt, Henderson, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Howell, Isbell, Linton, Matson, Rankin, Redd, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson, Wright and Zimmerman — 33.
For Mr. Risley : Messrs. Long and Doug- lass— 2.
For Mr. Kerr : Messrs. Chenault, Crawford, Gravely and McDowell — 4.
Sick — Mr. McFerran
No candidate having received a majority of all the votes cast, the Convention proceeded to a third ballot, when
Mr. Long withdrew the name of Mr. Risley, and Mr. Chenault withdrew the name of Mr. Kerr.
The roll having been called there appeared :
For Mr. McHenry— 9. " " Shellady— 9. " " Campbell— 42. " " Gilstrap— 33.
All the members present voted as follows .
For Mr. McHenry : Messrs. Bass, Bast, Hendrick, Holt, Kidd, Knott, Pomeroy, Shackelford of Howard and Mr. President — 9.
For Mr, Shellady : Messrs. Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, McClurg, Morrow, Orr, Ross, Scott and Turner — 9.
For Mr. Gilstrap : Messrs. Allen, Bart- lett, Brown, Birch, Chenault, Comingo, Craw- ford, Donnell, Dunn, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Irwin, Jackson, Marvin, McDowell, Moss, Noell, Norton, Pipkin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Sayre, Smith of Linn, Tindall, Wil- son, Woolfolk and Vanbuskirk — 33.
For Mr. Campbell : Messrs. Bogy, Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Douglass, Drake, Eitzen, Fray- ser, Flood, Gantt, Hatcher, Henderson, Hitch- cock, Holmes, How, Howell, Isbell, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Matson, Maupin, McCor- mack, Meyer, Philips, Rankin, Redd, Sawyer, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of
17
St. Louis, Stewart, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson, Wright and Zimmerman — 42.
Sick— Mr. McFerran.
No Candidate having received a majority of all the votes cast the Convention proceeded to the fourth hallot.
Mr. Knott withdrew the name of Mr. McHenry, and Mr. Orr withdrew the name of Mr. Shellady.
The roll having heen called there appeared :
For Mr. Campbell— 58. " " Gilstrap— 35.
All of the members present voted as fol- lows :
For Mr. Gilstrap: Messrs. Allen, Bast, Birch, Brown, Chenault, Comingo, Crawford, Donnell, Dunn, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Gravely^ Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hendrick, Irwin, Jackson, Knott, Marvin, McDowell, Moss, Norton, Pipkin, Ray, Rit- chey, Rowland, Sayre, Shackelford of Howard, Smith, Tindall, Wilson, Woolfolk and Vanbus- kirk— 35.
For Mr. Campbell: Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Douglass, Drake, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Gantt, Hat- cher, Henderson, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Isbell, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Matson' Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, Meyer, Mor- row, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of St. Louis, Stew- art, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wood- son, Wright, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 5b.
Absent— Messrs. Gamble and Hudgins. Sick— Mr. McFerran.
Mr. Campbell having received a majority of all the votes cast was declared duly elected Assistant Secretary of the Convention. He then came forward and received the oath of office, administered by the Hon. G. W. Miller, and entered upon the discharge of his duties. Nominations for Doorkeeper being in order Mr. Brown nominated C. B. Anderson. " Pomeroy " John E. Davis. « Harbin « Andrew J. Russell.
' Flood " Thomas J. Ferguson
" Bartlett " John J. Jackson. " Stewart " Wm. Vanover. 1 Wright « McDaniel Dorris.
The roll having been called there appeared For Mr. Dorris— 8. " " Russell— 11. u " Anderson — 28. " " Davis— 10. " " Ferguson— 12. " " Jackson — 8. " " Vanover— 16.
All the members present voted as follows :
For Mr. Davis: Messrs. Allen, Cayce, Givens, Holt, Maupin, McClurg, Meyer, Pome- roy, Rankin and Sayre — 10.
For Mr. Dorris : Messrs. Hall of Buchan- an, Hall of Randolph, Hitchcock, Knott, Long Norton, Ray and Wright — 8.
For Mr. Russell : Messrs. Bast, Calhoun, Chenault, Crawford, Donnell, Harbin, Mc- Dowell, Redd, Ritchey, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 11.
For Mr. Anderson : Messrs. Birch, Brown Comingo, Douglass, Drake, Gravely, Hender- son, Hendrick, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Marmaduke, Marvin, Morrow, Moss, Orr, Phillips, Ross, Sawyer, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Tind- all, Turner, Waller, Welch and Woolfolk— 28.
For Mr. Ferguson : Messrs. Bass, Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Eitzen, Flood, Gantt, How, Howell, Isbell, Sheeley and Woodson— 12.
For Mr. Jackson : Messrs. Bartlett, Bogy, Collier, Hatcher, Leeper, Matson, Noell and Pipkin — 8.
For Mr. Vanover : Messrs. Bush, Dunn, Frayser, Foster, Gorin, Holmes, Hudgins, Ir- win, McCormack, Rowland, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Watkins, Wilson, and Vanbuskirk — 16.
No candidate having received a majority of all the votes cast the Convention proceeded to a second ballot,
When there appeared : For Mr. Dorris— 2. " " Russell— 6. " " Anderson— 52. « « Davis— 6. " " Ferguson — 5. " " Jackson— 9. " " Vanover— 12. All the members present voting as follows : For Mr. Dorris : Messrs. Long and Wright— 2.
For Mr. Russell: Messrs. Chenault. Crawford, Harbin, Hitchcock, McDowell and Ritchey— 6.
For Mr. Anderson : Messrs. Birch, Breck- inridge, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Co- mingo, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Eitzen, Frayser Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Henderson, Hendrick, Hoav, Howell, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Knott, Lin- ton, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McCormack, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Philips, Ray, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Welch, Woolfolk, Zimmerman and Mr. President— 52.
For Mr. Davis: Messrs. Givens, Holt, McClurg, Meyer, Pomeroy and Rankin— 6.
For Mr. Ferguson : Messrs. Bass, Bast, Flood, Sheeley and Woodson — 5.
18
For Mr. Jackson : Messrs. Jackson, Bart- lett, Bogy, Collier, Hatcher, Leeper, Noell, Orr, Pipkin and Watkins — 9.
For Mr. Vanover : Messrs. Bartlett, Dunn, Foster, Gorin, Holmes, Hudgins, Irwin, Row- land, Smith of Linn, Stewart, Wilson and Vanbuskirk — 12.
Mr. Anderson having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected Doorkeeper of the Convention. He came forward, was sworn, and entered upon the dis- charge of the duties of his office.
Mr. Hall, of Randolph, offered the follow- ing resolution :
Resolved, That when this Convention ad- journs to-day, it will adjourn to meet at the Mercantile Library Hall, in the city of St. Louis, on Monday next, at 10 o'clock, A. M.
Mr. Harbin moved to lay the resolution upon the table, which motion was decided in the negative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded :
Ayes — Messrs. Bass, Bast, Bogy, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hendrick, Jackson, Jamison, John- son, Knott, McClurg, McDowell, Morrow, Orr, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Stewart, Waller, Welch, Wilson, Woodson and Zimmerman — 38. Noes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Collier, Co- mingo, Donnell, Dunn, Eitzen, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Hen- derson, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McCormack, Meyer, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phil- lips, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Redd, Rowland, Saw- yer, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Watkins, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President — 55.
Absent— Messrs. Birch and Gamble.
Sick — Mr. McFerran.
Mr. Knott moved a postponement of the further consideration of the resolution until Monday next, which motion was decided in the negative.
The resolution was then adopted.
The President of the Convention laid be- fore the Convention a communication from Luther J. Glenn, enclosing his commission as a Commissioner from the State of Georgia to the Convention or Legislature of the State of Missouri.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the communication was laid upon the table and or- dered to be printed.
Mr. Wilson offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the Rev. Andrew Monroe be requested to act as Chaplain to this Conven- tion.
Mr. Wilson offered the following resolu- tion, which was passed over informally :
Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- pointed to contract with two persons duly qual- ified to report the debates and proceedings of this Convention.
Mr. Birch offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due to Gen. James L. Minor, for his cour- teous compliance with its request to act as its Secretary during its organization, and for the prompt and able manner in which he discharged that duty.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the Convention adjourned.
THIRD
The Convention assembled in the Mercantile Library Hall, in the city of St. Louis, pursuant to the resolution of adjournment adopted on Friday last, and was opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the Convention, the Rev. An- drew Monroe.
The Journal was read by the Secretary and approved.
The President laid before the Convention the following communication, which was re- ceived :
DA.Y,
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861.
St. Louis, March 4, 1861. To the Convention of the State of Missouri :
Gentlemen : I have the honor to inform you that I am authorized by the Board of Di- rectors of the Law Library Association of St. Louis, to tender to the officers and members of your body free access to the library of the As- sociation during the sittings of the Convention. The regulations of the Association (which the Board have no power to dispense with,) do not allow the books to be taken out of the Court
eg n
House, but so far as the use of the same in the library is concerned, every facility and conve- nience in the power of the Board will be cheer- fully afforded The library room, which is in the second story of the south wing of the Court House, is kept open during the day and until 10 o'clock at night.
I have the honor to be,
Very respectfully, your ob't serv't,
CHAS. D. DRAKE, Pres't.
Also the following communication, which was also received and read :
St. Louis Mercantile Library, March 4, 1861. To the Hon. Sterling Price, President of the General Convention
of the State of Missouri : Sir : I am instructed by the Board of Di- rectors of this institution to offer, through you, to the members of the honorable body over which you preside, the privilege of our library and reading room, a duty which I perform with the greatest pleasure.
I have the honor to be
Your very ob't serv't,
ALFRED CARR, Pres. St. Louis Mer. Lib. Association. Alexander W. Doniphan, member elect from the Thirteenth Senatorial District, and James McFerran, member elect from the Ninth Sena- torial District, as delegates to this Convention, came forward and were sworn in as members by Hon. Samuel M. Breckinridge, Judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court.
Mr. Gamble offered the following resolu- tions :
Resolved, That a committee of seven be ap- pointed, to be called the Committee on Federal Relations, which shall consider and report on the relations now existing between the Gov- ernment of the United States, the Government and people of the different States, and the Gov- ernment and people of this State.
Resolved, That all propositions or resolutions that may be moved by any member of the Con- vention, touching the relations of Missouri with the Federal Government, shall be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Birch offered the following as a substi- tute for the resolutions offered by Mr. Gamble :
Ordered, that a committee be appointed to take into consideration the relations between the Government of the United States, the peo- ple and Government of the different States, and the Government and people of the State of Missouri, and to report to this Convention
such an exposition and address as shall proba- bly denote the views and opinions of those who look to the amicable restoration of the Federal Union upon such adjustment of the past, and such guaranties for the future, as shall render it fraternal, permanent, and enduring.
Mr. Knott offered the following, as an amendment to the substitute :
Amend by adding " and all propositions and resolutions involving the relations of this State to the General Government, and the oth- er States of the Confederacy, shall be referred to said committee."
The question being upon the adoption of the amendment to the substitute, it was decided in the negative.
The question recurring upon the adoption of the substitute, it was also decided in the nega- tive.
Mr. Gantt then offered the following amend- ment to the original resolutions :
Amend by inserting " thirteen " in place of " seven."
Mr. Ritchey offered the following amend- ment to the amendment, as follows :
Amend by striking out " thirteen," and in- serting "one, to be chosen from each Senato- rial district, to be agreed on by the delegation from said district." Which amendment was rejected.
The original amendment was then adopted, and the question recurring upon the passage of the resolutions, as amended, it was decided in the affirmative.
Mr. Dunn offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That William M. Burris be, and he is hereby appointed page of this Convention.
Mr. Long offered the following, which was adopted:
Resolved, That the vacant seats inside the bar be tendered to the use of the ladies who may be pleased to attend the session of this Convention.
Mr. Pomeroy offered the following :
Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- pointed to wait upon the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, Commissioner from the State of Georgia, and to invite him to occupy a seat within the bar, and also to request him to signify at what time it will suit his convenience to communi- cate his message to the Convention.
Mr. Wright offered the following substi- tute for the resolution :
Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- pointed by the Chair, to take into considera-
20
tion the communication received from the Hon. Luther J.' Glenn, Commissioner from our sis- ter State of Georgia, and to report to this body what action shall be taken thereon.
Mr. Redd offered the following, as an amend- ment to the substitute :
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to wait upon the Commissioner accredited to this State, by the State of Georgia, and to inform him that this Convention will receive him at 12 o'clock, this day, and hear what he may choose to communicate upon the subject of his mission.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved the previous question, which motion was sustained. The question being, " Shall the main question be now put?" it was decided in the affirmative.
The question being the adoption of the amendment to the substitute, it was adopted by the following vote, the ayes and noes be- ing demanded by Mr. Doniphan :
Ayes— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Don- nell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Bu- chanan, Harbin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell, Hud- gins, Kid.i, Knott, Marmaduke, Marvin, Mat- son, McCormack, McDowell, MoFcrran, Moss, Noel, Norton, Phillips, Pipkin, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Shack- elford of Howard, Mieeley, Stuart, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 62
Noes — Messrs. Bogy, Breckinridge, Broad- head, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jack- son, Jamison, Johnson, Lecper, Linton, Long, Maupin, McClurg, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Pomeroy, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner and Wright — 35.
The President appointed upon said com- mittee, Messrs. Pomeroy, Wright and Pipkin, who conducted Mr. Glenn inside of the bar ; he was there introduced to the Convention by the President, and addressed them upon the subject of his mission.
On motion, the resolution, for the appoint- ment of two reporters, introduced by Mr. Wilson, on Friday, was taken up and adopted. The President appointed upon said com- mittee, Messrs. Wilson, Birch and Hall of Randolph. Mr. Foster offered the following : Resolved, That W. D. Bartlett be, and he is hereby, declared to be the sergeant-at-arms for this Convention.
Mr. Sheeley offered the following as a sub- stitute, which was adopted :
Resolved, That this Convention will proceed to elect a sergeant-at-arms for the Convention. Nominations then being declared in order, Mr. Foster nominated L. D. Bartlett, of Macon county.
Mr. Collier nominated John Stove, of St. Louis county.
Mr. Flood nominated Dr. Martin, of Calla- way county.
Mr. Long nominated Calvin Parrish, of St. Louis county.
Mr. Brown nominated B. W. G rover, of Johnson county.
There being no other nomination, the Sec- retary proceeded to call the roll, when there appeared :
For Mr. Stove — 1. " " Bartlett— 07. " " Martin— 14. " " Parrish— 2. " Grover— 38. All the members present, voted as follows : For Mr. Bartlett— Messrs. Bartlett, Birch, Bogy, Bush, Cayce, Foster, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Ir- win, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Leeper, McClurg, McCormack, Morrow, Noell, Ran- kin, Redd, Rowland, Sawyer, Scott, Smith of Linn, Stewart, Watkins, Woolfolk, and Mr. President — 87.
For Mr. Stove— Mr. Collier— 1. For Mr. Martin — Messrs. Allen, Bass, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Calhoun, Chenault, Crawford, Eitzen, Flood, Henderson, How, Linton, McFerran and Woodson — 14.
For Mr. Parrish— Messrs. Gantt and Long —2.
For Mr. Grover — Messrs. Bast, Brown, Co- mingo, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Hall of Buchanan, Holt, How- ell, Hudgins, Jamison, Kidd, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McDowell, Meyer, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Shackelford of Howard, Shack- elford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of St. Lou is, Tindall, Waller, Welch, Vanbuskirk and Zimmerman — 38.
No candidate having received a majority of all the votes cast, the Convention proceeded to a second ballot, when Mr. Holmes with- drew the name of Mr. Martin, and Mr. Col- lier withdrew the name of Mr. Stove. The roll having been called, there appeared For Mr. Bartlett— 39. " " Grover — 54. All the members voted as follows : For Mr. Bartlett — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Birch, Bogy, Broadhead, Bush, Cayce, Col-
21
Her, Eitzcn, Foster, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Hen- drick, Hitchcock, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Leeper, McClurg, McCor- raack, McFerran, Morrow, Noell, Rankin, Rowland, Sayre, Scott, Smith of Linn, Tur- ner, Watkins, Woolfolk and Mr. President —39.
For Mr. Grover — Messrs. Bast, Breckin- ridge, Bridge, Brown, Calhoun, Chenault, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Doug- lass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Gamble, Hall of Buchanan, Harbin, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Howell, Hudgins, Jamison, Kidd, Lin- ton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson,
Maupin, McDowell, Meyer, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Ray, Redd, Ritchev, Ross, Saw- yer, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheelev, Smith of St. Louis, Stew- art, Tindall, Waller, Welch, Woodson, Van- buskirk and Zimmerman — 54.
Mr. Grover having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected sergeant-at-arms for this Convention.
On motion of Mr. Huncixs, the Conven- tion adjourned until to morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
FOUET
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Andrew Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yester- day was read and approved.
The President announced the appointment of the following members on the Committee on Federal Relations :
Messrs. Gamble, Henderson, Redd, Hall of Randolph, Tindall, Doniphan, Hall of Buchan- an, Watkins, Hough, Sawyer, Douglass, Che- nault and Pomeroy.
Also, the following members on the Com- mittee on Claims:
Messrs. Shackelford of Howard, Pipkin and Harbin.
Harbison Hough, a Delegate from the Twenty -fifth Senatorial District, presented his credentials, and was sworn in as a Member of the Convention by Hon. S. M. Breckin- ridge, Judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court.
Mr. Howell offered the following, which was read, and, under rule adopted by the Convention, was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Resolved, That we, the people of the State of Missouri, by our delegates in Convention as- sembled, being ardently attached to the Union of the States of this Confederacy, and desirous of maintaining and transmitting it to succeed- ing generations according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which we regard as the highest effort of statesmanship yet made; in view of the fact that seven of the States of said Confederacy have, in their sovereign ca pacity, adopted ordinances declaring their con- nection with the General Government dissolved, and have further declared to the world a con- federated government among themselves ; and
H T) A.Y,
TUESDAY. MARCH 5, 1861. sevei-al other States are deliberating as to with- drawing from the Union ; and that, in our opin- ion, any force employed against said States that have declared themselves withdrawn from the Union (or that may so declare,) by the General Government would destroy all hope of reconstructing or preserving the Union, do earnestly remonstrate and pro- test against any and all coercion, or attempts at coercion, of said States, or any of them, into submission to the General Government, whether it be clothed with the name or pretense of exe- cuting the laws of the Union or otherwise, and declare that in such contingency Missouri will not view the same with indifference.
Resolved, That the President of this Conven- tion cause a copy of the foregoing resolution to be respectfully laid before the President of the United States.
Mr. Redd offered the following resolution, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved by the People of the State of Missouri in Convention assembled, That we are unalter- ably opposed to the doctrine of coercion, be- lieving that any attempt to carry it into prac- tice would inevitably result in civil war, and would forever destroy all hopes of preserving or reconstructing the Union ; and, so believing, we deem it due to our Northern brethren, to de- clare that it is the determination of the people of Missouri, that in the event that any South- ern State is invaded for the purpose of carry- ing such doctrine into effect, to take their stand by the side of their Southern brethren and re- sist the invader at all hazards.
Mr. Gantt offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
22
Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms he di- rected to cause all persons present as specta- tors to he seated, and that when the seats for the accommodation of the spectators are ex- hausted, no further spectators be admitted.
Mr. Henderson offered the following reso- lution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That a committee of seven members be appointed by the President, to whom shall be referred the communication made to this Convention by the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, Com- missioner from the State of Georgia, and that they report to the Convention such action as they may deem a respectful and suitable re- sponse thereto on the part of this State.
The President appointed Messrs. Henderson, Birch, Howell, Stewart, Wright, Marvin and Knott as said committee. On motion of Mr. Pipkin, Resolved, That Master J. Fielding Long be appointed a page of this Convention.
Mr. Kitchey gave notice that on to-morrow he would move to rescind that part of the eighteenth rule, for the government of this Convention, making it the duty of each mem- ber making a proposition to read it in his place to the Convention.
On motion of Mr. Breckinridge, Resolved, That Capt. E. D. Couzens be re- quested to act as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Con- vention until the arrival of the Sergeant- at- Arms elect.
Mr. Wilson moved that the Convention now adjourn, which motion was decided in the nega- tive.
Mr. Henderson offered the following reso- tion, which was adopted :
Resolved, That a committee be appointed b}' the President, whose duty it shall be to con- tract for any and all printing that may be or- dered by the Convention, and that they report as early as practicable.
The President appointed upon said commit- tee Messrs. Hendrick, Howell and Woolfolk.
Mr. Welch offered the following, which, on motion of Mr. Hatcher, was laid on the table : Be it ordained and declared by the people of the State of Missouri, in Convention assem- bled, as follows :
The Legislature shall have no power to pass special laws for the following purposes :
First, To establish, change or vacate any State road.
Second, To declare minors of age for any purpose.
Third, To authorize the sale of real estate, except such as belongs to the State.
But the Legislature shall have power to pass laws to authorize courts to do and perform the various matters herein prohibited ; provided, all such laws shall be general and uniform through- out the State.
Mr. Gantt offered the following resolution, which was read and referred to the committee appointed to take into consideration the com- munication of the Commissioner from the State of Georgia :
Resolved, That this Convention, having re- spectfully heard the address of the Commis- sioner from our sister State of Georgia, and having thus manifested the disposition of the people of Missouri to listen with fraternal kind- ness to any voice proceeding from any of their fellow-citizens of this Union, feels that its duty to the sovereignty which it represents requires an unequivocal declaration of the dissent of the people ot Missouri from the proposal of Avhich the Commissioner from their sister State of Georgia is the messenger.
Mr. Ray offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That Col. Doniphan be requested to address the Convention in reference to the action of the Peace Congress.
Col. Doniphan, being present, came forward and addressed the Convention as suggested in the resolution.
Mr. Allen offered the following resolution :
Resolved, That the regular session of this Con- vention, unless otherwise ordered, shall com- mence at ten o'clock in the morning and three o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. Sayre moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words, " and three o'clock in the afternoon," which was agreed to, and the resolution as amended was adopted.
Mr. Allen offered the following, which, on motion of Mr. Smith, of St. Louis, was laid on the table :
Resolved, That the Secretary of this Conven- vention be authorized to purchase and furnish postage stamps for each of the members and officers of this Convention.
Mr. Comingo offered the following, which was adopted.
Resolved, That all the resolutions offered and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations be printed for the use of the Convention.
Mr. Phillips offered the following resolu- tion, which was adopted :
23
Resolved, That Judge Hough be invited to address the Convention upon the subject of the Peace Congress.
Mr. Birch offered the following, which was adopted :
Ordered, That the Committee on Federal Relations, and the committee to which was referred the communication of the State of Georgia, as made through her Commissioner on yesterday, have leave to sit during the ses- sion of this Convention.
Mr. Sheeley offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That Gen. Coalter be requested to address the Convention in relation to the Peace Congress.
Gen. Coalter, being present, came forward and complied with the request of the Conven- tion.
Mr. Long offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That Judge John B. Henderson be requested to address this Convention upon the condition of the Union.
Mr. Pomeroy offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the officers and members of the present General Assembly of this State, when visiting the city during the sitting of this Convention, be invited to seats within the bar.
On motion of Mr. Gamble, the Convention adjourned.
FIFTH DAY,
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. Hatcher offered the following preamble and resolutions, which were read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Whereas, it is the deliberate opinion of this Convention, that, unless the unhappy contro- versy, which now divides the States of this Confederacy, shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevit- able ; and this Convention, representing the wishes of the people of Missouri, is desirous of employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity, and determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the Consti- tution in the spirit in which they were estab- lished by the Fathers of the Republic ; There- fore,
Resolved, That on behalf of the State of Mis- souri, an invitation is hereby extended to the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas, to unite with Missouri in an earnest effort to ad- just the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to secure to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights ; and for this purpose to appoint Commissioners to meet, on the 15th day of
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1861.
April next, in the city of Nashville, Tennes- see, similar Commissioners appointed by Mis- souri, to consider, and, if practicable, agree up- on some united coui'se of action to be pursued by said States in securing these ends.
Resolved, That Gen. A. W. Doniphan, Ay- lette Buckner, John D. Coalter, Waldo P. Johnson, Harrison Hough, Hamilton R. Gamble, and Nathaniel W. Watkins, are hereby appointed Commissioners, whose duty it shall be, when notified by the President of this Convention that two or more of said States have accepted this invitation, to repair to the city of Nashville, Tennessee, on the day desig- nated in the foregoing resolution, to meet such Commissioners as may be appointed by any two or more of said States, in accordance with the invitation herein contained.
Resolved, That if said Commissioners, after full and free conference, shall agree upon any plan of adjustment, or any course of action to be pursued by said States, in accordance with these resolutions, the Commissioners hereby appointed shall report the same to an adjourned session of this Convention, to be held at such time as the Convention may hereafter deter- mine.
Resolved, That the President of this Conven- tion send copies of these resolutions to the Ex- ecutives of the several States herein mentioned, with a request that the said Executives inform him as soon as practicable, of the action of their respective States in this regard, and that when
24
informed that two or more of said States have responded to this invitation, by the appoint- ment of Commissioners, as herein requested, he shall forthwith inform the Commissioners herein appointed of that fact.
Mr. Hatcher moved to suspend the rules requiring the resolutions to be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, and refer them to a select committee of five, which mo- tion was decided in the negative.
The Resolutions were then referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, and ordered to be printed. j
Mr. Sayre offered the following, which was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, and ordered to be printed :
Resolved, That this Convention express the sentiment of the people of Missouri, in declar- ing their undiminished and unalterable attach- ment to the Union of these States, under our glorious Constitution. That a guarantee of our rights upon the subject of slavery, giving an equality to the citizen, and protection to his property that shall secure us against the threat- ened perversion of the Constitution of the United States, from the interpretation which it has received in all the departments of the Fed- eral Government, up to the present time, is in- dispensably necessary ; and is indispensably necessary to the existence of the union of these States. Without guaranties upon that sub- ject to that effect, our Constitution and Union could not have been made, and they cannot exist without them.
That in the construction of our government, the idea of the use of force, as between the States, in holding them together, was wholly discarded. It will not only not avail for that pm-pose, but the undertaking of it would be usurpation.
That this Convention appoint — '■ Commis- sioners, and that we recommend that the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Car- olina, Tennessee, and Kentucky, to appoint
Commissioners to meet at in the State of
on the day of to confer to- gether, and set forth such amendments to the Constitution as will be sufficient for our honor and protection of our rights, and to urge upon the States which have seceded, and upon the Northern States, to accede to and adopt them.
Mr. Dunn offered the following, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations and ordered to be printed.
Resolved by the People of the State of Missouri in Convention assembled, That we are in favor of
the adjustment of our national troubles, upon the basis of the amendments to the Constitu- tion of the United States proposed by Senator Crittenden, thereby arresting the progress of revolution, and securing our constitutional rights in the Union, and removing forever from the arena of party politics the dangerous sec- tional questions that have brought us to the verge of ruin.
Mr. Woolfolk offered the following, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations and ordered to be printed.
Resolved, That the present crisis demands that the rights of the Slave States should be secured to them by amendments to the Consti- tution, and that this Convention recommends to the Legislature of Missouri that they apply to Congress to call a general Convention of all the States in the manner provided by the Con- stitution for the purpose of making such amend- ments thereto as will secure the rights of the Slave States, restore peace, and" relieve the Southern mind of apprehension for the future.
Mr. Long offered the following resolution, which, on motion of Mr. Foster, was laid on the table :
Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-arms furnish each member of this Convention, except the St. Louis delegation, with twenty-five postage stamps.
Mr. Stewart offered the following resolu- tion, which was read and referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations and ordered to be printed.
Resolved, That in the opinion of this Con- vention a Convention of the people of the Bor- der States for the purpose of presenting a plan of Compromise to a Convention of the people of all the States, would be the most sure and efficacious method of adjusting in a fraternal spirit the alarming discords which threaten the disruption of the Government.
Mr. Linton offered the following, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That there exists no adequate cause why Missouri should secede from the Union, and that she will do all that she can to restore peace to the same by satisfactory compromises.
Mr. Hendrick offered the following, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
1. Resolved, That at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution it was the under- standing and intention of the people of the United States that they were thereby united
25
together for all the purposes expressed and con- templated in that instrument as one people, in- separable and forever.
2. Resolved, That the provisions of the Fed- eral Constitution were understood and intended by the people of tne United States to be the supreme law of the land, and not a mere com- pact; and for violations and infractions thereof by the Federal or any State government, disin- tegration was not contemplated, but remedies as provided in the Constitution to be sought and obtained in the Union.
3. Resolved, That while the right of revolu- tion, for adequate cause, is not denied, yet the Constitution of the United States, and acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof for the admission of new States into the Union as in- tegral parts of the United States, being the su- preme law of the land, no Ordinance of Seces- sion adopted by a State government can abro- gate them.
4. Resolved, That the Ordinances of Secession adopted by the several States of the Union are unauthorized in law and without adequate cause in fact, and when we are called upon to follow their example it is right and proper for us to consider the legality and propriety of do- ing so.
5. Resolved, That the action of several of our sister States, in adopting Ordinances of Seces- sion, is no justifiable cause for Missouri to se- cede.
Mr. Ritchey, in pursuance of notice given on yesterday, offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That that portion of the eighteenth rule by which this Convention is governed, re- quiring each member making a proposition to read it distinctly to the Convention, is hereby rescinded.
Mr. Foster offered the following, which was read and referred to the committee heretofore appointed to take into consideration and reply to the Commissioner from the State of Georgia as made through her Commissioner.
Whereas, The State of Georgia, in Con- vention assembled, appointed Mr. L. J. Glenn a Commissioner to the State of Missouri, to present to the Convention of this State the Ordinance of Secession of the State of Georgia, , and to invite the co-operation of the State of Missouri in the formation of a Southern Con- federacy ; and whereas, by invitation of this Convention, the said Luther J. Glenn appeared in Convention and presented his commission
and the Ordinance of Secession of the State of Georgia . Be it therefore
Resolved, By the delegates of the State of Mis- souri, in Convention assembled, that we respect- fully decline considering the Ordinance of Se- cession of the State of Georgia, as to the pro- priety of forming a Southern Confederacy.
Mr. Stewart offered the following, which was read and referred to the Committee on Fed- eral Relations :
Resolved, That in the opinion of this Conven- tion no overt act has been committed by the General Government sufficient to justify either secession, nullification or revolution.
Mr. Turner offered the following resolu- tion :
Resolved, That a committee of seven mem- bers of this Convention (one from each Con- gressional District,) be appointed, to whom shall be referred all proposed alterations or amendments to the Constitution of the State of Missouri.
Mr. Sayre moved to lay the resolution on the table, which was decided in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes being demanded by Mr. Turner :
Ayes — Messrs. Bass, Bast, Birch, Breckin- ridge, Bridge, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Linton, Long, Marma- duke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, Mc- Ferran, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Row- land, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of Si. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Stewart, Tindall, Watkins, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President — 70.
Noes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Broadhead, Push, Calhoun, Eitzen, Gravely, Hendrick, How, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Leeper, Mar- vin, Maupin, McClurg, Rankin, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Waller, Welch, Wright and Zimmerman — 24.
Absent — Messrs. Henderson, Meyer and Redd.
Sick — Messrs. Crawford and Pipkin.
Mr. Dunn offered the following resolution, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, By the people of the State of Mis- souri, in Convention assembled : That we are opposed to military coercion for the purpose of subjugating the States that have withdrawn from the Union, and we would regard any at- tempt at such military coercion, under any pretext whatever, as an act of war, which, if
26
successful, would lead to the establishment of a military despotism upon the ruins of the Con- stitution. We are also opposed to any act of war against the United states by the States that have withdrawn from the Union. The preservation of the Union depends upon the preservation of the peace.
Mr. Allen introduced the following resolu- tion, which was read and referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Kelations :
Resolved, That the border free and slave States be requested by this Convention to co- operate together for the settlement of the ques- tions that now agitate this country.
Mr. Orr offered the following resolution, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That we have the best government in the world, and intend to keep it.
Mr. McFerran offered the following resolu- tions, which were read and referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That Missouri deplores the section- al strife and alienation existing between the North and the South, and regards the same as inimical to the dearest rights of Missouri and the peace and perpetuity of our Federal Union.
2. Resolved, That Missouri is an integral part of the great West, and declares her fealty and attachment to her own interests and sec- tion, and invites her sister States of the West to ignore the dogmas of New England on the one hand, and the Gulf States on the other ; and at once to inaugurate a Western policy,
loyal to the Federal Constitution and the Union of the States.
Mr. Wilson offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts be instructed to allow the door-keeper and ser- geant-at-arms each five dollars per day, and the pages each two dollars and fifty cents per day's services.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts be instructed to allow the Chaplain of this Con- vention five dollars per day during the sitting of this Convention.
Mr. Turner offered the following resolution, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That the people of Missouri de- plore the existence in some of the Northern States of acts known as "Personal Liberty Bills," designed to nullify the fugitive slave law, and giving the Southern States just cause of complaint for the violation of the compact exist- ing between the States ; which personal liberty bills are admitted to be unconstitutional even by the Executives of the States having such laws ; and we equally deplore the state of feel- ing in the South, and the passage of Ordinan- ces of Secession by the Southern States, de- claring themselves dissolved from the obliga- tions and bonds imposed upon them by the Con- stitution of the United States.
On motion of Mr. Norton, the Convention adjourned.
SIXTH DA.Y
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. Norton offered the following resolution, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Con- vention, that the country and confederacy could at once be relieved from its present deplorable condition, if the great conservative heart of the people of all sections could be appealed to independent of the influence of the dema- gogues, fanatics and politicians, who sprung the present tests for their own benefit ; and thus believing, we suggest that the Legislature
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1861. of the State of Missouri recommend the Crit- tenden compromise propositions to Congress as amendments to the Federal Constitution, or recommend Congress to call a National Con- vention, to which these or similar propositions shall be submitted as amendments to the pres- ent Constitution.
Mr. Zimmerman offered the following reso- lution, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That this Convention appoint a committee of five to confer with the border slave and free States upon the subject of the preservation of the Union upon just and prop- er principles, and that a Convention of the border slave and free States be called for the purpose of forming a Middle Confederacy in
27
the event of the failure of the preservation of the present Union.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, offered the following resolution :
Resolved, That each member of the Conven- tion be requested to hand to the Committee on Accounts, without delay, a statement of the number of miles travelled by each, to the City of Jefferson, that the same may be examined and the proper allowance for mileage be made by the Committee.
Mr. Welch moved to amend by striking out the words " to the City of Jefferson," which motion was rejected by the Convention.
The question then being on the original re- solution, the same was adopted.
Mr. Wilson, from the Committee heretofore appointed, presented the following report which was agreed to :
Mr. President : The committee to which was referred the resolution requiring said commit- tee to employ two competent persons to report the proceedings and debates, report that they have discharged that duty, and have employed L. L. Walbridge and E. Schrick, gentlemen well qualified to discharge the duties required, and have agreed to pay said Reporters, each, six dollars per day, during the sitting of the Convention. All of which is respectfully sub- mitted.
Mr. Brown offered the following resolutions, which were read, and on motion of Mr. Welch laid on the table and ordered to be printed :
Resolved, That when this Convention shall have finished the business for which it assem- bled it shall adjourn to meet in the Represent- atives' Hall, in the city of Jefferson, on Mon- day, the first day of July, 1861.
Resolved, 2d, That a Committee of Seven, composing one from each Congressional district of the State of Missouri, be elected by ballot, whose duty it shall be to convene the said Convention prior to the time designated as above, should the exigencies of the time re- quire it to be done, by giving fifteen days' no- tice in some one of the public newspapers pub- lished in each one of the Congressional districts of the State of Missouri of the time and place of holding the said Convention.
And be it further Resolved, That the said Com- mittee, as soon as practicable after their elec- tion, meet together, appoint their Chairman, and establish their rules by which they are to be governed in convening said Convention, or de- ciding upon the practicability of so doing.
Mr. Breckinridge offered the following resolutions, which were read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved by the People of Missouri in Convention Assembled, That secession is a dangerous polit- ical heresy, finding no warrant in the constitu- tion or laws which lie at the foundation of our systems of government.
Resolved, That Missouri will do nothing to sanction, support or countenance the pretended right of secession, since its approval by the people involves the destruction of all our insti- tutions, whether State or Federal.
Resolved, That the government which our fathers formed, and which for nearly three quarters of a century has failed in nothing to answer the ends for which it was established, is suited to the habits, and adapted to the wants of the American people, and that every dictate of wisdom requires us to direct our efforts rather to its preservation than the formation of any substitute for it.
Resolved, That we deplore the action of some of our Southern brethren in adopting ordi- nances of Secession, and assuming a hostile attitude towards the Federal authorities. In asserting that secession is a remedy for the grievances of which the South complains ; in seeking to destroy the Federal government, which is of itself guiltless of wrong ; and in forgetting that in and through the Union are better means and ampler facilities for redressing all grievance than out of it — they have com- mitted grave errors ; and whilst Missouri will exhaust all efforts in restoring harmony and securing justice, she recognizes no obligation to support them in these proceedings, believing that thereby she would prejudice rather than promote the best interest of all concerned.
Resolved, That it is essential to the existence of government that some authority should be charged with the duty of executing the laws, and that the proper action of the constituted authorities should be supported and obeyed ; and although we deprecate any collision be- tween the Federal government and our disaffec- ted Southern brethren, it is the opinion of this Convention that these duties and obligations, as prescribed by and under our Federal Consti- tution, cannot be annulled or impaired consist- ently with the peace, dignity, or existence of the governments, State or Federal.
Resolved, That for the thorough and final re- moval of all cause of complaint against our brethren of the Northern States, we desire the enforcement of the Constitutional guarantee
28
concerning the rendition of fugitives from service, a renunciation of any purpose to inter- fere with slavery in the States or in the District of Columbia, or with the inter-state slave trade, and some equitable and complete adjustment of the territorial question based upon an aban- donment by the North of any purpose to use the power of the General Government to re- press or extinguish slavery, and by the South of any purpose to use the power of the Gen- eral Government to perpetuate and extend it ; and that we confidently rely upon the justice of our Northern brethren to aid by appropri- ate legislation, or by adequate constitutional amendments, in producing these results, and in securing their enforcement and observance by a cordial compliance with their spirit.
Resolved, That we appeal to our sister States of Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Car- olina, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, whose interests are so closely identified with our own, to stand firmly with us in the posi- tion we assume, asking of our Northern breth- ren the full recognition of our just claims, and of our Southern brethren a reconsidera- tion of their hasty action — that so may be re- stored the old relations of peace, prosperity and perfect union.
Mr. Moss offered the following resolutions, which were read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That believing there is no hope left for a settlement of our present difficulties, except by the action of the people at the ballot box, we recommend the calling of a National Conven- tion, to be composed of delegates elected by the people ; and believing further that it is of the last importance to have unity and concert of action on the part of the friends of the Union, and being satisfied that a large majority of the people of the United States are in favor of what are known as the Crittenden resolutions as a basis of setlement, Missouri will occupy that ground, and we call upon the friends of peace and the Union in the slaveholding and non- slaveholding States to take position with Mis- souri, and, if possible, instruct their delegates to the National Convention to make the Crit- tenden resolutions the basis of settlement of our difficulties.
Resolved, That being unalterably opposed to any attempt on the part of the General Gov- ernment to coerce a seceding State, Missouri will never furnish men and money for that pur- pose.
Mr. Comtngo offered the following resolu- tions, which were read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Whereas, under our Federal Government we have been one of the greatest and one of the most prosperous nations of the earth ;and, where- as, said government, if faithfully administered, will ultimately secure to its subjects a degree of happiness and greatness never yet attained by any other people; and, ivhereas, there are strong reasons for fearing that the conflicting views and feelings of the people of this Con- federacy may result in the subversion of the Government under which we have so greatly prospered, and plunge our nation into the vor- tex of civil war, and drench the land with fra- ternal blood : Therefore, we, the people of the State of Missouri, in Convention assembled, do hereby
Resolve, 1st. That under the Federal Govern- ment the people of the United States of America have hitherto been greatly prospered at home and respected abroad ; and that to it they are mainly indebted for the high position they have attained among the nations of the earth.
2. Resolved, That we are warmly attached to the Federal Union, and that we will not cease our efforts for its preservation, until hope that we may obtain an honorable settlement of our difficulties ceases to be rational.
8. Resolved, That we believe all our national difficulties may be settled, and that peace and fraternal feeling will be again restored, if the people of the North should be allowed the time, and can obtain the privilege of uttering their voice at the ballot box.
4. Resolved, That without the further exer- cise of a spirit of forbearance, conciliation and compromise, there can be no hope of an adjust- ment of our national difficulties ; and that unless they be amicably adjusted, civil war will inev- itably ensue ; and, as a necessary consequence, financial and social and moral ruin must follow, together with scenes of carnage and violence without a parallel in the history of our race.
5. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Con- vention, the compromise resolutions offered by Senator Crittenden, at the late session of Con- gress, present a basis of adjustment that is at once honorable and permanent; that it is not unreasonable to hope that the seceded States would ultimately return into the Union on that basis were it adopted ; and that no propositions, materially differing from those above indicated, will be so well calculated to restore peace, and dispel the darkness that overshadows the land.
29
6. Resolved, That whatever may be our views touching: the action of the seceded States ; how- ever much we may regret their haste, and how- ever much we may feel the injustice which they have done their sister slave states, we believe any attempt on the part of the General Govern- ment to coerce them back would involve the whole nation in civil Avar, and would forever preclude the possibility of a reunion of the States.
7. Resolved, That whether Missouri shall con- tinue to occupy her present status, or shall hereafter be compelled to seek other alliances, she will not submit to, nor tolerate, but will resist and oppose any attempt that may point to the coercion of the seceded States.
8. Resolved, That, in order further to carry forward our efforts to procure our liberties and union, we recommend a Convention of the peo- ple of the border States for the purpose of pre- senting a plan of adjustment to be submitted to the people of all the States that have not seceded.
Mr. McDowell presented the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That Hon. John Reynolds, late Governor of Illinois, be invited to address this Convention, in this Hall, on next Friday eve- ning, at 7 o'clock.
Mr. Gantt offered the following resolutions, which were read and referred to the Commit- tee on Federal Relations .
1. Resolved, That the Government which is the birthright of the citizens of this Union, resulting from the combined action of the Fed- eral Constitution and those of Federal States, is, beyond any of which history speaks, calcu- lated for the promotion of the great ends for which governments were established among mankind.
2. Resolved, That the physical peculiarities of our widely extended country, and its varie- ties of soil and climate, necessitating a diversi- ty of pursuits and a division of labor, and sec- onding most auspiciously the far-reaching and long-sighted wisdom and patriotism of those who laid the foundations of the American Un- ion, have raised this country, in the short space of three score years and ten, to the full stature of a first-rate power, differing from other na- tionalities of equal rank chiefly in this : that whereas centuries of struggle, of misfortune, and painful vicissitude have brought them to their present state, our happy condition is the achievement of hopeful and expanding youth, a few years of prosperity uncheckered with re-
verse, and the blessing of Heaven upon the best system of government which the wisdom and piety of mankind ever devised for the wel- fare of the human race.
3. Resolved, That while nothing which is the work of living man is free from imperfec- tion, it may be said, without unbecoming pre- sumption, that the successful solution by the fathers of our nation, of the great problem of government, ("which never before was able to hit and maintain the golden mean between des- potism and anarchy,) has not only made the United States the envy of the universe, but has been, and, despite the dangers that threat- en us, still is, the pole-star and the watch word throughout the world of those who are strug- gling for liberty.
4. Resolved, That while this is the benign aspect which this country wears towards op- pressed and struggling nationalities, our flag, which now waves over every sea, carries to the governments of the remotest regions of the earth, a warning that wherever the humblest American citizen is found, the protection of a mighty, vigilant and proud nation accompanies and watches over him.
5. Resolved, That the enjoyment of the in- numerable blessings which flow from our Na- tional Union is a boon, for gaining which, the most spiritless of mankind would gladly barter their blood ; and that the people of the United States, on pain of being condemned as unwor- thy and degraded men, standing in most hide- ous contrast with their heroic forefathers, must transmit this sacred inheritance unimpaired to their children.
6. Resolved, That coercion in the sense of civil war waged by one section of the country upon the other with the design of bringing any State or States into subjection, and holding them as conquered provinces, is not only a moral, political and military impossibility, but is subversive of the central idea on which the Union of these States was formed ; but that the same word in the sense of a faithful execution of the supreme law of the land (of which the fugitive slave law and the law for the suppres- sion of the African slave trade are examples) means no more than what is inseparably bound up with the very nature of government— and that government deprived of its healthful func- tions, is the idlest of all solemn mockeries.
7. Resolved, That the present is a crisis, the importance of which no language can exagger- ate. That our national existence, our civil lib- erties, the right of every peaceful and orderly
30
citizen to enjoy the fruits of his toil, and free- dom from the tyranny of tumultuary violence, all depend upon what the next few months may bring forth. That in the conclusions which may then be reached will be found the answer to the inquiry, whether this proud and power- ful nation shall become a hissing and a re- proach, furnishing one more theme for the ex- ultation of the friends of arbitrary govern- ment ; or shall vindicate our claim to be con- sidered as the faithful depositaries of the best hopes of mankind.
Mr. Moss offered the following order, which was, on motion of Mr. Irwin, laid on the table :
Ordered, That the Inaugural Address of the President of the United States be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, to be de- nominated a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.
Mr. Flood offered the following resolutions, which were referred to the Committee on Fed- eral Relations :
Whereas, Seven of our sister States have withdrawn from the General Government and have formed a new Confederacy ; therefore
1. Resolved, That it is the wish of the State of Missouri that the officers and soldiers of the Forts, and the officers of the Custom Houses belonging to the United States, within the lim- its of said seceding States, be Avithdrawn.
2. Resolved, That the President of this Con- vention make known our wishes to the Presi- dent of the United States.
Mr. Phillips offered the following resolu- tion :
Resolved, That a committee of two be ap- pointed by the President to wait upon the Hon. John B. Clark, member of Congress from the Third Congressional District of Missouri, and invite him to address this Convention at sueh time as may suit his convenience.
Mr. Bogy moved to amend by adding the name of Hon. John W. Noell, which motion was agreed to by the Convention.
Mr. Dunn moved to amend by adding the name of Captain Craig.
Mr. Sheeley moved to amend the amend- ment by adding all the members of the present Congress now in the city.
And thereupon, by leave of the Convention, Mr. Phillips withdrew the original resolution.
Mr. Brown offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the resolution requiring all resolutions referred to the Committee on Fed- eral Relations to be printed be rescinded.
Mr. Matson offered the following resolution, which, on motion of Mr. Phillips, was laid on the table :
Resolved, That this Convention invite Hon. A. H. Buckner to address it on the subject of his mission to the Peace Conference.
Mr. Irwin offered the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Fed- eral Relations :
Resolved, By the people of the State of Mis- souri, in Convention assembled, that the basis of settlement proposed in the resolutions of the Hon. John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, had the same been adopted, would have met with our hearty approval, believing at the same time that they contained nothing to which the South is not justly entitled; yet in view of the dan- gers which surround us, and which threaten the disruption and final overthrow of our glo- rious Republic, involving interests the value, yea, the preciousness of which can never be estimated, we will approve of any other fair and honorable plan of adjustment that will bring peace to our distracted country, and fur- nish proof to the world that, as a nation, we are one great people — one in name, one in interest, one in destiny.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, moved a re- consideration of the vote on the adoption of the resolution inviting Hon. John Reynolds to ad- dress the Convention, which was agreed to, and thereupon the resolution was laid on the table by the Convention.
Mr. Wilson offered the following resolution : Resolved, That the people of Missouri, by their delegates assembled in this Convention, do hereby tender to the Hon. John J. Critten- den, of Kentucky, and the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, their thanks for their pa- triotic, able and untiring efforts, during the last session of Congress, to settle and adjust the sectional difficulties which now, so unhap- pily, distract the people of this great Confed- eracy ; and, although they have been as yet unsuccessful, yet we feel assured that the labors of these distinguished patriots will be grateful- ly remembered by every true friend of Liberty and Union in all time to come.
Which was adopted by the following vote, the ayes and noes being demanded by Mr. Ritchey :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Comin- go, Crawford, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hatcher, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Hud-
31
gins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marma- duke, Marvin, Matson, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, MeFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Turner, Waller, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 83.
Noes — None.
Absent ox leave — Messrs. Chenault, Don- iphan, Douglass, Gamble, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hough, Ponie- roy, Sawyer, Redd and Watkins.
Absent — Messrs. Maupin, Sayre and Tin- dall.
Sick — Mr. Pipkin.
On motion of Mr. Sheeley, the Convention adjourned.
SEVENTH EA.Y
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. Calhoun offered the following resolu- tions, which were read and referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That the difference existing between the Northern and Southern States can be better adjusted in the Union than out of it, and that it is only to be done by a spirit of mutual for- bearance and concession.
Resolved, That whenever we exhaust all efforts to compromise the existing differences, and have given the people in Southern and Northern States time to reflect and act, and we see that on the part of the free States and the extreme Southern States that they do not love the Union sufficiently to make concessions suffi- cient to prevent it, then it will behoove us, with the border States— that is, those States border- ing on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers — with North Carolina, to meet in Convention and de- termine what will be best for them to do in the premises.
Mr. Harbin offered the following resolution, and moved that the rule requiring it to be re- ferred to the Committee on Federal Relations be rescinded, which motion was decided in the negative. The resolution was then read and referred according to the rule :
Resolved, That this Convention earnestly de- sire an early settlement of the questions which have unhappily estranged the people of the dif- ferent sections of the United States from each other, and we earnestly hope that measures may soon be inaugurated to allay the present excitement, and restore peace and harmony among the several States ; and that, in the
FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1861.
opinion of this Convention, any attempt on the part of the Executive of the United States to coerce, by force of arms, the seceding States again into the Union, will be both unwise and impolitic, tending to force the border States to secession, and all the States into civil war.
Mr. Turner offered the following resolu- tions, which were read and referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations.
1. Resolved, That we, the people of the State of Missouri, are immovably attached to the Constitution of the United States, and that while we have a veneration for the patriotic names of Washington, Jefferson and Madison, we will ever uphold and defend that sacred instrument from the violence, treason and fanaticism of either Northern or Southern traitors.
2. Resolved, That we deny the existence of the right of secession in government affairs, be- lieving that the existence of such right would be destructive to the permanency of our na- tional government, which we understand to have been intended to be perpetual by the framers of the Constitution.
3. Resolved, That while we deny the right of secession, we hold to the inalienable right of revolution, whenever the Government under which we live becomes so oppressive or tyran- nical that the evils of revolution can better be borne and endured than the oppressions com- plained of.
4. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Con- vention the General Government is the palla- dium of the liberties of the people of the United States, and as long as it continues to protect and defend the liberties and rights of the citizens of Missouri, so long will Missouri stand true and loyal to the Union and Consti- tution, regardless of what other States may see proper to do in the premises.
32
Mr. Cayce offered the following resolution : Resolved, That the Committee for Publication be requested to have three hundred copies of the roll struck, with the postoffice address of each member, for the use of the members of this Convention.
Mr. Dunn moved to amend by striking out " three hundred " and inserting five hundred, which amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Sheeley moved to amend the resolu- tion by inserting county, age, place of nativity, post office address and profession, and that each member be requested to furnish the Secretary with the information, which was agreed to.
Mr. Crawford moved to amend after the word " nativity " by adding "antecedents in politics," which was rejected.
The resolution, as amended, was then adopted.
Mr. Howell offered the following, which, on motion of Mr. Sheeley, was laid on the table :
Resolved, That the Committee on Printing
procure the printing and binding of copies
of the debates in, and proceedings of, this Con- vention.
Mr. Bush offered the following, which was read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
Resolved, That the history of all nations, from the ancient to the modern times, has proven that the dismemberment of any one nation into several governments, or confederacies, has re- sulted in anarchy, despotism and ruin, and that as in Union there is strength, so in disunion there is destruction.
Mr. Ray ofiered the following resolution, which was adopted:
Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be requested to inquire into the propriety and probable cost of having copies of the de- bates in, and proceedings of, this Convention published in pamphlet form, and report the same to this Convention for future action.
Mr. Leeper offered the following resolu- tions, which were read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations :
1. Resolved by the People of Missouri, in Con- vention assembled, Whereas, great disquietude exists in this Government, in the Gulf States of the South, by the aggressive acts of the extreme Northern States; therefore
2. Resolved, That this Convention condemns the aggressive acts of the North, and the hasty and precipitate action of the Southern or se- ceded States.
3. Resolved, That the course pursued by South Carolina and other seceding States is no reason that Missouri should follow their example.
4. Resolved, That it is the duty of Missouri and the other border States to take a firm posi- tion for the maintenance of the Union, the pre- servation of our Constitution, and the honor of our flag ; and, if necessary, to form a central republic of the border States, both North and South, adopting the Constitution as our supreme law, the stars and stripes as our ensign, and invite our wandering sister States to assume their original position in the family of States forming this great confederacy.
5. Resolved, That this Convention is opposed to the present Executive attempting to force or coerce the seceding States back into the Union, and that this Convention is equally opposed to South Carolina, or any or all of the seceding States, attacking or inaugurating a war for the purpose of capturing any fort, fortification or other public property belonging to the United States.
Resolved, Qth, That the people wish all the na- tional difficulties settled by some just and hon- orable compromise, and would for this purpose recommend those resolutions known as the Crittenden Resolutions, or any other plan that would do justice both to the North and South.
Mr. Long ofiered the following resolution, which on motion of Mr. Crawford was laid on the table by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded by Mr. Long : Resolved, That the inaugural address of President Lincoln is a message of peace and not of war.
Ayes. — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Don- nell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Jamison, Mar- mad uke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, Noell, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Redd, Ritch- ey, Sawyer, Sayre, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Wilson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President —52.
Noes. — Messrs. Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Ei^zen, Foster, Gantt, Hender- son, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Howe, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Ray, Rowland, Scott, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Welch, Woodson and Wright — 37.
Absent : Messrs. Knott, Ross, Stewart and Tindal.
Absent on Leave : Messrs. Douglass, Gam- ble, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph.
33
Sick : Messrs. Birch and Pipkin.
Mr. Turner moved to take up the resolu- tion introduced by him on yesterday, and laid on the table, for the appointment of a Commit- tee of seven members, (one from each con- gressional district,) to whom shall be referred all proposed alterations or amendments to the Constitution of the State of Missouri, which motion was decided in the negative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded by Mr. Comingo.
Ayes. — Messrs. Bass, Bast, Bogy, Breckin- ridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eit- zen, Frayser, Gantt, Gravely, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Howell, Hudgins, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Lee- per, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, Meyer Mor- row, Orr, Rankin, Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith
of St Louis, Turner, Welch, Wilson, Wright and Zimmerman — 39.
Noes. — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Flood, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Irwin, Jamison, Linton, Long, Mar- maduke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, MeFerran, Moss, Noell, Norton, Fhiliips, Pom- eroy, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayer, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeky, Waller, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President — 19.
Absent on Leave — Messrs. Gamble, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hough and Watkins.
Absent — Messrs. Knott, Stewart and Tin- dall.
Sick — Messrs. Birch and Pipkin.
On motion of Mr. Welch, the Convention adjourned.
EIGHTH DA.Y.
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the Proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
The Committee on Printing submitted the following report :
The Committee on Printing respectfully re- port that they have made diligent inquiry in relation to the printing to be required by the Convention, and find it difficult to specify the precise kind of work necessary ; and it is al- most impossible to give a schedule of prices.
The Committee have, therefore, made ar- rangements with George Knapp & Co., who agree to execute the printing for the Conven- tion, on the same basis as that adopted in the Revised Statutes of Missouri, and applicable to Public Printing.
All printing in book form, to be done on good, strong paper, in such type as may be di- rected by the Committee or Officer having superintendance thereof. All documents and other job work, with such type and paper as may be directed by the proper officer. The printing to be done promptly, in a neat and workmanlike manner.
Price for blank forms, 62i cents for the first eight quires, each ; and for every additional quire, 50 cents.
For public documents, the price to be 50 cents per thousand ems, for the first hundred 3a
SATURDAY MARCH 9, 1861.
copies, and 10 cents per thousand ems for each additional hundred copies.
For pressing sheets, folding and stitching, and covering with strong paper cover, not over 5 cents per volume, for less than 82 pages for each volume ; substantially half bound, leather covers and backs, and lettered, 30 cents.
The Committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions :
1. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Con- vention be instructed to have the printing done by George Knapp & Co., on terms as above.
2. Resolved, That the Secretary be instruct- ed to have printed at least 5,000 copies of the Debates and Proceedings, in pamphlet form, for the use of the members of the Convention.
LITTLE BERRY HENDRICK, WM. J. HOWELL, ALEX. M. WOOLFOLK.
Mr. Sheeley moved to strike out the sec- ond resolution in said report, which motion was agreed to. The report of said Committee was then adopted by the Convention.
Mr. Irwin offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Whereas, A resolution was introduced into this body, on yesterday, declaring that the In- augural of President Lincoln is one of peace, and not of war, which resolution was, on mo- tion, laid on the table,
34
And, Wiikreas, it has been represented that the action of the Convention may he view- ed in the light of a test vote, therefore,
Resolved, That the action of the Convention, in laying said resolution on the table, cannot, with the least propriety or show of truth, be considered as any test whatever of the sense of this Convention, relative to the sentiment enun- ciated in said resolution.
Mr. Dunn offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the committee on printing shall contract for printing five thousand copies of the proceedings and debates of this Conven- tion, in pamphlet form, and one thousand cop- ies, to be bound, as soon as the General Assem- bly shall make an appropriation to pay for the same.
Mr. Gamble, from the Committee on Feder- al Relations, presented the following report, which was read, and on motion of
Mr. Doniphan, was laid on the table, order- ed to be printed, and made the special order of the day for Monday, at half-past ten o'clock, a. M.
Report and Resolutions of Committee on Federal Relations :
The Committee on Federal Relations beg leave to report. On looking to the present condition of our late prosperous, happy and united country, we see seven of our sister States by the action of their Conventions declaring themselves separated from the United States, and organizing for them- selves a distinct national government; while others are in a disturbed condition, looking anx- iously to the future, and uncertain about all that is to come.
If, in our astonishment at the sudden disrup- tion of our nation, we attempt to trace the causes that have produced the disastrous result, we rind that the origin of the difficulty is rather in the alienated feelings existing between the Northern and Southern sections of the country, than in the actual injury suffered by either; rather in the an- ticipation of future evils, than in the pressure of any now actually endured.
It is true that the people of the Southern States have a right to complain of the incessant abuse poured upon their institutions by the press, the pulpit, and many of the people of the North. It is true that they have a right to complain of legis- lative enactments designed to interfere with the assertion of their constitutional rights. It is true that the hostile feeling to Southern institutions entertained by many at the North have mani- fested themselves in mob violence interfering with the execution of laws made to secure the rights of Southern citizens. It is true that in one
instance this fanatical feelinehas displayed itself in the actual invasion of a Southern State by a few madmen, who totally misunderstood the in- stitution they came to subvert. It is true that a sectional political party has been organized at the North, based upon the idea that the institution of Southern slavery is not to be allowed to extend itself into the Territories of the United States, and that this party has for the present possessed itself of the power of the Government.
Whilst it is thus true that the people of the South have well-grounded complaints against many of their fellow-citizens of the North, it is equally true that heretofore there has been no complaint against the action of the Federal Government in any of its departments, as designed to violate the rights of the Southern States.
By some incomprehensible delusion many Northern people have come to believe that in some manner they are chargeable with complici- ty in what they are pleased to consider the sin of slavery, and for which, as existing in the South- ern States, they are just as much responsible as they are for the same relation existing in the heart of Africa. This morbid sensitiveness has been ministered to by religious and political agi- tators for the purpose of increasing their own importance and. advancing their own interests* and the natural consequences have followed : out- bursts of mob violence and of political action against the owners of slaves.
While the prejudice thus existing in the North- ern mind is latent, not exhibiting itself in action, Ave may lament its existence and the estrange- ment it produces; but we trust in such case, as in all others of similar character, that a better knowledge of the subject will remove the preju- dice. Already the awakened attention of the Northern people gives promise that the miserable agitators will be stript of their power over the public mind, and that reason and a correct sense of duty and of justice will ultimately prevail, and dispose our Northern fellow-citizens to fulfill all the duties they owe to us as citizens of the same country, living under the same Constitution, inheritors of the same blood, and sharers in the same destiny.
So far as the prejudice complained of has manifested itself in legislative action, the com- plaint is not merely that such action violates the Constitution of the United States, because our own State has passed acts which have been de- clared by our own judicial tribunals and by the Supreme Court of the United States to be viola- tions of the Constitution of the United States; and those familiar with the judicial history of the country know that many, if not all the States of the Union, have at times passed laws which have been held to be inconsistent with that Constitu- tion. Some of these acts related to land titles, some to contracts, some affected commerce with
35
foreign nations and between the States ; but all such laws as they were, not produced by any sec- tional feeling, were left to be decided upon by the tribunals of the country with an ultimate appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the final arbiter on all cases arising under the Con- stitution. Such cases produced no excitement in the public mind, and all confidence was reposed in that elevated tribunal that it would vindicate the supremacy of the Constitution.
There is no reason to apprehend that that tribunal would shrink from declaring the class of enactments of which we are now treat- ing, which are aimed against the rights of slaveholders, repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore void. There is, therefore, an ob- vious remedy for the grievances arising out of this unconsttutional legislation, and that, too, a remedy provided by the Constitution itself for an evil foreseen when it was made. Moreover, there are indications of a returning sense of justice in the Northern States, from which we may hope for the voluntary repeal of these obnoxious en- actments.
Upon the subject of the violent interference by mobs with the execution of the fugitive slave law, and the forcible abduction of slaves when with their owners in the Northern States, it is proper to observe there reigns throughout this land a spirit of insubordination to law that is probably unequaled in any other civilized coun- try on the globe. While this is true, it is a fact of which we can still be proud that the judicial tribunals of the Federal Government have not failed in any case brought before them to main- tain the rights of Southern citizens, and to punish the violators of those rights.
When Southern soil is invaded by Northern madmen for the purpose of overthrowing the in- stitution of slavery, they meet their death by the law, and that is the end of their scheme.
The fact that a sectional party avowing oppo- sition to the admission of slavery into the Terri- tories of the United States has been organized, and has for the present obtained possession of the Government, is to be deeply regretted, because it opens before us all the dangers against which the Father of his Country so earnestly warned us.
But the history of our country for a few years back instructs us in the truth that politcal par- ties, even when coming into power with over- whelming popularity, soon melt away under the influence of internal jealousies, and disappoint- ments and the attacks of vigilant opponents.
When a party comes into power upon the basis of a single question of policy, there is soon found the truth, that government can not be ad- ministered upon a single idea, and its supporters become divided upon the questions which affect their own interests.
There is every reason to hope that the party which has just assumed the reins of government will feel that the vast interests entrusted to their management are of much greater importance than the question whether slaves shall or shall not be admitted into all the territory that now belongs to the United States. There is reason to hope that when the masses of that party under- stand that the admission of slaves into a Terri- tory does not increase the number of slaves in being, they will be prepared to make any ar- rangement with their Southern brethren which shall assure to them equal rights in the common Territories.
Under the state of facts now existing it would seem almost needless to speak of the propriety of the State of Missouri engaging in a revolution against the Federal Government. Secession is the word commonly employed when the revolu- tion now in progress is mentioned; but as the Constitution of the United States recognizes no power in any State to destroy the Government, the word " secession," when used in this paper is to be understood as equivalent to revolution.
To involve Missouri in revolution, under present circumstances, is certainly not demanded by the magnitude of the grievances of which we com- plain, nor by the certainty that they cannot be otherwise and more peacefully remedied, nor by the hope that they would be remedied or even diminished by such revolution.
The position of Missouri in relation to the ad- jacent States which would continue in the Union, would necessarily expose her, if she became a member of a new confederacy, to utter destruc- tion whenever any rupture might take place be- tween the different republics. In a military as- pect, secession and a connection with a Southern confederacy is annihilation for our State.
Many of our largest interests would perish un- der a system of free trade.
Emigration to the State must cease. No South- ern man owning slaves would come to the fron- tier State; no Northern man would come to this foreign country avowedly hostile to his native land.
Our slave interest would be destroyed, because we would have no better right to recapture a 6lave found in a free State than we now have in Canada. The owners of slaves must either re- move with them to the South or sell them, and so we would, in a few years, exhibit the spectacle of a State breaking up its most advantageous and important relations to the old Union, in order to enter into a slaveholding confederacy and having itself no slaves.
The thought of revolution by Missouri, under present circumstances, is not, we believe, serious- ly entertained by any member of this Convention.
But what is now the true position for Missouri to assume? Evidently that of a State whose in-
36
terests are bound up in the maintenance of the Union, and whose kind feelings and strong sym- pathies are with the people of the Southern States, with whom we are connected by ties of friendship and of blood. We want the peace and harmony of tho country restored, and we want them with us. To go with them as they are now, to leave the Government our fathers builded, to blot out the star of Missouri from the constellation of the Union, is to ruin ourselves without doing them any good. We cannot now follow them ; we can- not now give up the Union ; yet we will do all in our power to induce them to take their places with us in the family from which they have attempted to separate themselves. For this purpose we will not only recommend a compromise with which they ought to be satisfied, but we will unite in the endeavor to procure an assemblage of the whole family of States in order that in a General Con- vention such amendments to the Constitution may be agreed upon as shall permanently restore har- mony to the whole nation.
While attempts are being made to heal the present divisions, it is a matter of the highest im- portance that there should occur no military conflict between the Federal Government and the government of any of the seceded States. Such conflict will certainly produce a high state of ex- asperation and very probably render abortive all attempts to adjust the matters of difference.
While it is admitted that every government must possess the power to execute its own laws, and that the Government of the United States is no exception to this necessary and universal rule, still, in a case such as that with which we are now dealing, it is all-important that those in au- thority should remember that such power is not given to be exercised for the destruction of the Government, under the guise of maintaining its authority. The question of exercising such pow- er is to be determined with a view to all existing circumstances ; and while the power itself cannot be abandoned, the greatest patience and forbear- ance may often be required in order to prevent evils in the highest degree dangerous to the peace of the nation.
Placed as Missouri is in the very centre of the Confederacy, united to all its parts and interested in the prosperity of each part, she would speak to the Government of the United States and to the Governments of the seceding States, not in the language of menace but of kindness, not threatening but entreating; and with this feeling she would ask all concerned in the Governments to avoid all military collisions which would with- out doubt produce uncontrollable excitement, and very probably ruinous civil war. Civil war among the American people, the citizens of the freest nation of the world, blest of God, envied of man, would be a spectacle at which Humani- ty wou$ shudder, over which Freedom would
weep, and from which Christianity affrighted would flee away.
If it be the glorious mission of Missouri to aid in arresting the progress of revolution and in re- storing peace and prosperity to the country ; if she shall be instrumental in binding together again the hearts of the American people, and thus restoring the union of affection as well as the union of political and individual interest, she will but occupy the position for which nature de- signed her by giving her a central position, and endowing her with all the elements of wealth and power. And why should she not? — she was brought forth in a storm and cradled in a com- promise. She can resist the one and recommend the other.
In order to express her opinion and wishes, the following resolutions are submitted :
1. Resolved, That at present there is no ade- quate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union, but on the contrary she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as wQl secure the peace, as well as the rights and equality of all the States.
2. Resolved, That the people of this State are devotedly attached to the institutions of our country and earnestly desire that by a fair and amicable adjustment all the causes of disagree- ment that at present unfortunately distract us as a people may be removed, to the end that our Union may be preserved and perpetuated, and peace and harmony be restored between the North and the South.
3. Resolved, That the people of this State deem the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Hon. John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, which the extension of the same to the territory hereafter to be acquir- ed by treaty or otherwise, a basis of adjustment which will successfully remove the causes of dif- ference forever from the arena of national poli- tics.
4. Resolved, That the people of Missouri be- lieve the peace and quiet of the country will be promoted by a Convention to propose amend* ments to the Constitution of the United States, and this Convention therefore urges the Legisla- ture of this State to take the proper steps for calling such a Convention in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution, and for provid- ing by law for an election of one delegate to such Convention from each electoral district in this State.
5. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Conven- tion, the employment of military force by the Fed- eral Government to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of military force by the seceding States to assail the Govern- ment of the United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely ex- tinguish all hope of an amicable settlement of the
37
fearful issues now pending before the country ; we therefore earnestly entreat, as well the Federal Government as the seceding States, to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever bring upon the nation the hor- rors of civil war.
6. Resolved, That when this Convention ad- journs its session in the city of St. Louis, it will adjourn to meet in the hall of the House of Rep- resentatives at Jefferson city, on the third Mon- day of December, 1861.
7. Resolved, That a Committee of be
elected by this Convention, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together at such time prior to the third Monday In De-
cember, and at such place as they may think the public exigencies require, and the survivors or survivor of said Committee shall have power to fill any vacancies that may happen in said Com- mittee by death, resignation, or otherwise, dur- ing the recess of this Convention.
GAMBLE, Chairman.
Mr. Redd, from same Committee gave no- tice that he would, on Monday next, present a minority report, and asked leave for that pur- pose ; and also, to have said report printed, which was granted.
On motion of Mr. Shackelford, of How- ard, the Convention adjourned.
NINTH DAY,
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of Saturday was read and approved.
Mr. Birch offered the following, which was read :
Whereas, An article appeared in the Missouri Republican of this morning, of which the fol- lowing is a copy :
"A Plot to precipitate Missouri into Disunion exposed.
"Mr, Editor : — Within the last four days, a prominent gentleman of this city, who was a candidate for this Convention on the Consti- tutional ticket, was waited upon by several gentlemen, who stated that the Convention which is now in session was unsound, and that it was necessary to take measures to have this State secede ; and to bring about that re- sult, the gentleman to whom I allude, was in- vited to meet his visitors on a certain designa- ted evening and at an appointed place, to take the preliminary steps to force the State into secession.
"The gentleman above referred to answered his visitors by informing them that they had mistaken his views, that he was not a seces- sionist, and was opposed to secession. His visitors charged him with changing his grounds which charge was denied, and the matter was cut short by the gentlemen being distinctly and emphatically informed that if they held their meeting there they would be exposed. The meeting was not held at the place indicated,
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1861.
and it is not known whether it was held at any other place or not.
"The gentleman who gave me the foregoing information, is the same who was waited upon by the party of secessionists ; and although I have not attempted to give his language, I give the substance of the facts he told me, and I doubt not they can be substantiated if need be ; my informant is a man of truth and will not eat his words."
Be it therefore Resolved, That a committee be appointed to specifically enquire into the facts and circumstances connected with so daring a conspiracy as the one therein foreshadowed ; and that the said committee have the power to send for persons and papers, and to sit during the session of this Convention.
Mr. Knott moved to lay the resolution on the table, which motion was decided in the neg- ative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr. Birch :
Ayes. — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, Collier, Comingo, Craw- ford, Donnell, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Matson, Noell, Redd, Sayre, Shackel- ford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller and Watkins —30.
Noes. — Messrs. Birch, Breckinridge, Broad- head, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Gravely, Hender- son, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, John- son, Deeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Mar- vin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDow. ell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton Orr, Phillips, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland' Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith of St Louis,
38
Turner, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk,Zimmerman and Mr. Presidcnt-56.
Absent on Leave : Messrs. Chenault, Doni- phan, Gamble, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Ran- dolph, Pomeroy, Sawyer and Tindall.
Absent : Messrs. Rankin, Stewart and Welch.
Sick : Mr. Pipkin.
The resolution was then agreed to by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded :
Ayes. — Messrs. Birch, Breckinridge, Broad- head, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun.Douglas*, Drake, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Gravely, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Bee- per, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin Mau- pin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFer- ran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phil- lips, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Scott,Sm:th of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Woodson, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 52.
Noes. — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, ('oilier, Comingo, Craw- ford, Donnell, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Matson, Noel, Sayre, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley and Waller —30
Absent on Leave : Same as before.
Absent : Messrs. Rankin, Shackelford of St. Lous, Stewart, Welch and Woolfolk.
The President appointed Messrs. Birch, Zimmerman and Drake on said committee.
The Convention proceeded to the considera- tion of the special order for the day, viz : the report of the Committee on Federal Relations when
Mr. Redd, from said Committee presented the following Minority Report :
Minority Report of the Committee on Federal
Relations :
The undersigned, members of the Committee on Federal Relations, being unable to agree to the report presented by the committee, desire to pre- sent for the consideration of the Convention the views that they entertain, and that they believe the people of Missouri entertain in relation to the causes that have led to the present alarming con- dition of our beloved Union, and the course that, if pursued, would most likely lead to an amicable adjustment of the issues involved in the present crisis, preserve the Union from further disinteg- ration, and restore peace and harmony to our di- vided and distracted country.
Within the lifetime of many now living, our Federal Government, the best that the wisdom of man ever devised, was created and put in suc- cessful operation; its first President was inaugu- rated in March, 1789, and from that time through
a long series of years it continued to increase in territory and population, in wealth and power, with a rapidity hitherto unparalled in the history of nations, until twenty sovereign States were ad- mitted as members of the Union, formed by the original thirteen ; and until a comparatively re- cent period these States were all one people, one in sympathy, one in fraternal feeling, one in pa- triotic devotion to that common Union, of which all were proud. How is it now? Fraternal feel- ing has fled ; a spirit of bitter and determined hostility has taken its place; State stands arrayed against State and section against section, arming for a deadly conflict; seven of the States have withdrawn from the Union that their fathers made, and made a Union of their own, and a fed- eral government of their own; that government, with one of the most clear-headed and sagacious statesmen of the age at its head, is organized, in full operation, exercising all the powers of sovereignty, and prepared to defend its sovereign- ty by military power.
Other States, alarmed for the safety of their slave institutions, are preparing to follow their example ; the din of preparation for civil strife is heard on every hand, and that once glorious Union, so dear to the heart of every American patriot, is now in the progress of its dissolution.
There is cause for all this ; a free people capable of self-government do not destroy institutions of which they were once so proud, and incur all the risks of civil strife, without some adequate cause; all experience demonstrates that mankind are more disposed to bear with great and pressing evils, than to resort to revolution with all its attendant horrors.
It is our duty to examine into the causes that have environed the Union with penis and threatened its utter destruction, and, if possible, devise a plan to save it from further disintegra- tion. When we look back over the hi>tory of our country, we see arising in the Northern States an anti-slavery party, whose sole cohesive principle was a bitter hostility to the slave institutions of the Southern States. At first that party was weak, its members few, and scattered abroad, and con- sidered by the Northern people themselves as mischievous fanatics : it continued gradually, but steadily, to increase, until political parties began to court its aid; from this time it progressed ra- pidly in numbers, and increased in its virulence and hatred to Southern slave institutions and to slave holders. Political demagogues, to promote their own selfish ends, pandered to its prejudices from the political rostrum. Sensation preachers, to increase their own importance, Sabbath after Sabbath, proclaimed its incendiary doctrines from the pulpit, instead of preaching peace on earth and good-will among men. It seized on the lite- rature of the North and corrupted it in all its channels.
39
Books written to inculcate its destructive her- esies were introduced into its Sabbath schools, common schools and institutions of learning of higher grade.
A large portion of the Northern press, literary, religious and political, teemed with articles mis- representing and denouncing Southern institu- tions and Southern men.
Nourished and fostered by these means, this anti-slavery party obtained the control of the governments of the free States, and as those States came under their control they violated the compact that united them to their sister States of the South. By that compact, they had cove- nanted that a fugitive slave found within their borders should be delivered up upon demand of his master. They violated that compact,
1st. By failing to enact laws providing for his delivery.
2d. By refusing the master aid and permitting their lawless citizens to depiive him of his prop- erty by mob violence.
3d. When Congress interposed for his relief by the enactment of the fugitive slave law, they trampled that law under foot, and nullified it by deliberate State legislation.
By the compact that united the Northern States to their Southern sisters, they covenanted that they, upon demand made, would deliver up for trial any fugitive from justice charged (by in- dictment) with treason, felony or other crime.
They have willfully and deliberately violated this covenant. They have (without passing laws to restrain them) permitted their citizens to in- vade the soil of the Southern States, steal the slaves, and incite them to insurrection; and when the felon has been indicted and demanded, they have refused to give him up, and, to add insult to injury, they have justified the act by enuncia- ting a proposirion that strikes at the foundation of slave institutions, that as man cannot hold property in man, therefore slave stealing is no crime; and while there has been hitherto no just ground of complaint against the Federal Govern- ment, that Government has been powerless to remedy the evil.
This anti-slavery party, after having divided church organizations and destroyed the noble old "Whig and the gallant young American party, has upon their ruins erected (in disregard of the warning voice of the Father of his Country) a purely sectional party called the Republican party.
We do not desire to do that party injustice. It should be judged as all other parties are judged, by its platform and the principles enunciated by its representative men, and upon the enunciation of which the party elevates them to power.
That party through its chosen leader proclaim- ed the dangerous and destructive heresies that our Federal Government cannot continue to exist as our fathers made it, part slave and part free ;
that in that condition it is a house divided against itself and cannot stand; that it must become all one or all the other; that an irrepres.-iblc conflict is progressing between freedom and slavery, and that it must continue until the public mind can rest satisfied in the belief that slavery is in the process of extinction; that hereafter the slave property of Southern men shall be taken from them by Congressional legislation, if they take it with them into the Territories, the common pro- perty of all the States.
The free States, deaf to the earnest remonstan- ces of their Southern sisters, regardless of the warning voice of a people jealous of their rights, indorsed the doctrines of that party and elevated its leader to the Presidential chair by large major- ities in all the free States, except one, thus plac- ing the Federal Government, to which the South had hitherto looked as its friend, in the hands of its enemies.
These are the causes that have dissolved the Union, and have driven State after Stale beyond its pale; and these are the causes that will drive the remaining slave States out of the Union, un- less these sectional issues can be settled upon some basis consistent with security to their slave institutions.
This Convention was called for no ordinary pur- pose, it has assembled upon no ordinary occasion : while the people of Missouri will never surrender their slave institutions at the bidding of any earthly power, they ardently desire the preserva- tion of the Union and the preservation of their slave institutions in the Union; this is the high mission to which this Convention is called; this can be accomplished only by action, prompt de- cided action. Delay is dangerous ; we know not, no human sagacity can penetrate the dark vail that hides the future and tell us at what hour the country may be aroused from its repose by the clash of arms. The plan proposed by the Committee is, that this Convention request the Legislature to pass an act calling on Congress to call a National Convention, to propose a basis of settlement in the shape of amendments to the Constitution, to be afterwards submitted to the States for ratification or rejection. This amounts to doing nothing, literally nothing; if the plan was practicable, it would require eighteen months or two years to carry it into effect. But is it practicable, is there a reasonable ground to hope that it Avould save the Union? Let us see: Con- gress can only act when called on by two thirds of the States; Congress takes the po>iiion that the seceded States are yet in the Union. On this basis it would require the action of the Legisla- tures of twenty-three States uniting in the call. Several of these Legislatures have already taken their position against any amendments, conse- quently would not unite in the call, and the plan would fall still-born.
40
But even if such a Convention should assemble, how would matters stand? Eight slave States (if they remained in the Union, which is exceed- ingly doubtful) would go into convention with nineteen free States, and take such amendments as those States, controlled by an anti-slavery party, might be disposed to grant.
The preservation of the Union, in the opinion of the minority, should be the earnest desire not only of every American patriot but also of every friend of civil liberty throughout the habitable globe; that this may be done is the earnest prayer of every American mother throughout this great Republic; that it shall be preserved is the fixed determination of a large majority of the citizens of the border slave States whose cit- izens have ever been not only loyal to the Con- stitution and the Union, but also among the fore- most in times past, when their country was in danger, to peril their lives to uphold her institu- tions. These States by assuming the position of mediators between the hostile sections, and tak- ing a decided position, and proclaiming to those sectional parties who are now arming for frater- nal strife, that they shall keep the peace— these States by meeting each other in convention, and agreeing on measures of compromise and ad- justment, founded on the principles of equal rights and justice to all, and by firmly, yet in a spirit of fraternal kindness, insisting upon the compromises so agreed upon as the basis on which all irritating differences shall be settled, can, in the opinion of the undersigned, be the means of preserving the Union, reconstructing it upon a permanent basis, reconciling conflict- ing interests, and restoring peace and tranquility to the country.
Resolved, by the People of the State of Missouri, in Convention assembled:
1. That the State of Missouri invites the States of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Ken- tucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Delaware, to send Commissioners to meet in Convention with Commissioners appointed by Missouri, at the city
of Nashville, Tennessee, on the day of
, next, to agree upon a basis of settlement,
by way of constitutional amendments that will preserve the Union, and afford an adequate guar- antee for the preservation of their slave institu- tions and the constitutional rights of their citi- zens, and to take such steps as they may deem necessary to have such amendments presented to the people of the free States for ratification or rejection.
2. That be and they are hereby ap- pointed Commissioners to represent the State of Missouri in said Convention.
3. That is hereby appointed a Commissioner
to tlie State of Virginia; Commissioner to
North Carolina; Commissioner to Mary- land; Commissioner to Kentucky;
Commissioner to Tennessee; er to Arkansas, and
Commission-
— Commissioner to Delaware; and said Commissioners are hereby authorized by the State of Missouri to present to the proper authorities of the said States, re- spectively, a copy of these resolutions, and to urge upon them the appointment of Commission- ers to the Convention contemplated therein.
4. Resolved, That the Commissioners ap- pointed to said Convention by Missouri are di- rected to present to said Convention for their con- sideration the resolutions commonly known as the Crittenden compromise measures, extending the provisions with reference to Territory south of the line, to after-ac- quired Territory, and to say, on behalf of Mis- souri, that those resolutionss, or any other basis of settlement upon which the border slave States can agree will bo satisfactory to Missouri.
The people of the State of Missouri being sat- isfied that the plan proposed in these resolutions will (unless interrupted by civil strife) not only preserve the Union, but afford a fair prospect for a reconstruction by bringing back the seceded States ; they, therefore, earnestly appeal to the General Government and the seceded States to stay the arm of military power and preserve the peace until the plan proposed can be fully tried. And, to enforce such appeal, they would state it as their settled conviction, that an attempt at co- ercion, under any pretext, would result in civil strife, and forever destroy all hope for the preser- vation or reconstruction of the Union.
JOHN T. REDD, H. HOUGH.
Mr. Moss offered the following amendment to the report of the Committee :
Amend the fifth resolution by adding as fol- lows, viz : And further, Believing that the fate of Missouri depends upon a peaceable adjust- ment of our present difficulties, she Avill nev- er countenance or aid a seceding State in ma- king war on the general Government, nor will she furnish men or money for the purpose of aiding the general Government in any attempts to coerce a seceding State.
Pending the consideration of the amend- ment, on motion of Mr. Stewart, the Conven- tion adjourned until three o'clock p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment.
The Convention having under consideration the amendment offered by Mr. Moss, after dis- cussion,
On motion of Mr. Doniphan, the amend- ment was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
41
The President laid before the Convention the following communications, which were read and laid on the table.
Hall of the Convention, ) St. Louis, March 11, 1861. J To the President of the Missouri Convention:
I beg leave to call the attention of the mem- bers of the Convention to the enclosed opinion of my legal adviser, and the law officers of this State, as to my duties, as Auditor of the State, in auditing and allowing the per diem and mile- age of the members and officers of your body, under the provisions of an act entitled "An Act to provide for the calling a State Convention, approved January 21st, 1861."
I regret that I am unable, under the law, to issue warrants for the payment of members, &c. I will be happy at any time, when it suits the pleasure and convenience of the Conven- tion, to audit the claims and issue certificates to the members, believing that the present General Assembly will soon pass an appropria- tion act for the pay of the Convention and its officers.
Very respectfully.
Your obedient servant,
WM. S. MOSELEY, Aud. of Pub. Accounts of Mo.
St. Louis, Mo., March 11, 1861.
Hon. W. S. Moseley, Auditor of Public Accounts :
Sir : — In reply to inquiry as to your duties in relation to the accounts of members, officers and assistants of the Convention now in session, I would respectfully say that, in my opinion, as the act calling the Convention provides that their compensation shall be the same as now provided by law for members, officers and as- sistants of the House of Representatives, you are authorized to audit their accounts and issue certificates, as in other cases, where there has been no appropriation ; but where the ap- propriation has been exhausted, or until an ap- propriation shall have been made you can not draw warrants in their favor for the amounts respectively due them. Respectfully,
JAS. PROCTOR KNOTT.
On motion of Mr. Doniphan the Conven- tion adjourned.
TE^TH
D A.Y,
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1861.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. Norton called up the amendments, of- fered by Mr. Moss, to the fifth resolution of the Committee on Federal Relations, and pend- ing the consideration of which,
On motion of Mr. Welch, the Convention adjourned until two o'clock p. it.
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and resumed the consideration of the amendments offered by Mr. Moss.
Mr. Ritghet offered to amend the first line by adding the word " prosperity " in lieu of "fate," which amendment was rejected.
Also, the following : In the third line after the word "never," "while she stays in the Union," which was rejected.
Mr. Douglass offered the following as a sub- stitute for the amendment, which was rejected by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr. Douglass :
"And, entertaining these views, we hereby declare that Missouri will not countenance or aid a seceding State in making war on the Fed- eral Government, nor will she countenance or aid the General Government in any attempt to coerce the submission of a seceding State by military force."
Ayes — Messrs. Birch, Chenault, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Gamble, Giv- ens, Gorin, Hatcher, Hough, Irwin, Knott, Mar- maduke, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Ray, Redd, Sayre, Shackelford of St. Louis, Shackelford of Howard, Watkins and Mr. President — 25.
Noes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Comingo, Crawford, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Grave- ly, Hall of Buchanan, Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Hudgins, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison,
42
Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, Mc- Dowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Orr, Pomeroy, Rankin, "Ritchey, Rowland, Sawyer, Scott, Sheeley, Smith of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Wood- son, Woolfolk Wright, Vanbuskirk and Zim- merman— 68.
Absent — Messrs. Collier, Hall of Randolph, Ross, Welch and Wilson. Sick — Mr. Pipkin.
Mr. Howell offered the following amend- ment to the amendment of Mr. Moss :
Amend the amendment by striking out the word "fate" in first line, and inserting the word "welfare," in the place thereof; and by striking, out the word "never," in the third line, and inserting the word "not" in place of the same, pending which,
On motion of Mr. Hudgins, the Convention adjourned.
ELEVENTH DAY.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The journal of the proceedings was read and approved.
Mr. Moss accepted the amendment offered by Mr. Howell, on yesterday, to his amend- ment to the fifth resolution of the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Birch, from the committee appointed under a resolution of the Convention, adopted, to inquire into the conspiracy foreshadowed in the article which appeared in the Republican of the 11th inst., on leave of the Convention made the following report :
Report of Committee on Conspiracy :
The committee appointed under a resolution of the Convention, adopted on the 11th instant, to inquire into the conspiracy which was deemed to be foreshadowed in a communication that had appeared in the "Republican," of that morning, report herewith a communication from Louis V. Bogy and from William J. Chester, and respect- fully submit themselves to such further directions (if any) as the Convention may see fit to give them.
If, however, it shall be believed from these statements that any purpose which may have ex- isted to wrest the State from its legitimate rela- tions to the Federal Government, by illegal, per- verse, or revolutionary agencies, has been aban- doned in deference to the unfaltering and over- whelming public sentiment with which it has been confronted, it is then further respectfully submitted whether the interests of the public re- quire that any further steps be taken, or any fur- ther investigations be prosecuted, under the reso- lution of the Convention.
JAMES H. BIRCH, CHARLES DRAKE, GEORGE W. ZIMMERMAN. Committee.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1861.
St. Louis, March 12, 1861. Messrs. Birch, Zimmerman and Drake, Com- mittee— Present :
Gentlemen : I was summoned, yesterday, to appear before you as a committee, appointed by the State Convention, now in session in this city, to testify to certain facts supposed to be within my knowledge.
In appearing before you, I wish it distinctly un- derstood that I do so voluntarily, as I deny both the power of the Convention, or that of the com- mittee appointed by it, to summon any citizen of the State to appear before it as a witness; this power belongs to the Grand Juries of the coun- try, and is a power used to ferret out crime by them; but entertaining as I do the greatest re- spect for the Convention, as a body, called into existence under a law of the State, and also for the members thereof personally, I waive what I consider my right as a citizen, and accordingly appear.
The publication Avhich appeared in the "Mis- souri Republican" over the signature of "E," is not substantially correct as containing the sub- stance of a conversation between me and the per- son who is supposed to be author of it.
I have read the resolutions of the Convention and the speech of the mover of them, and I must confess that I am at a loss to understand how either could justify the charge made, based on this communication. In justice, However, to the per- sons who called on me, and who are charged with the crime of treason, I must say that I know nothing whatever to sustain the charge. Certain gentlemen of standing in this city, and who arc my personal and political friends, did call on me last week, with a paper Avhich was very well written, setting forth that the time had come— in view of the fact, that Virginia had or would soon join the Southern Confederacy, and carry with her Kentucky and the other horder States— for the friends of Southern rights to come together for consultation, and with a view of agreeing on some
43
line of policy required by the exigencies of the times. The conversation between these gentle- men and myself was of a desultory and general character, and it is with hesitation that I consent to trouble you with it, for it really amounts to nothing beyond a legitimate purpose of party or- ganization, in which there was nothing improper or wrong, and only with a view of making their action efficient. Although I dissented from them as to the propriety of their course, yet my objec- tion was not because there was anything wrong or improper in the proposition, but because I thought tie movement was calculated to do harm, in view of the efforts now being made to unite the Democratic and Bell parties on some common conservative ground, to defeat the Black Republicans at the next April election.
I furthermore explained to them, that accord- ing to my understanding of the interests of Mis- souri, with twenty millions of State bonds, and six to eight millions of city and county bonds on the markets of the world, and the great interests of the mercantile, manufacturing, and industrial portion of our people, we should move in a mat- ter of this magnitude with the greatest caution and prudence. Some of the gentlemen present charging me with inconsistency, and as a blind follower of the Missouri Republican, I replied that the charge was not true; that I was a Southern man, and always had been, and was as much opposed to Black Republicanism as any- body could possibly be ; but, looking upon their effort as calculated to bring defeat upon us again at the next April election, I -was opposed to then- movement, and would do all in my power to defeat them in their purpose. Much more might be repeated of the same nature, but the matter is too trivial to engage the attention of anybody. I certainly did not understand that any proposition was made to me, looking like treason or conspiracy, or that can by any distor- tion of language or confusion of ideas amount to the highest crime known to civilized nations. The subject was fair and legitimate as a purpose for party organization by gentlemen of good stand- ing, and as such I understood it and opposed it for the reasons already given. My object in speaking of this occurrence to other parties was to get them to unite with me to prevent the proposed organi- zation, believing, if successful, it would again lead to our defeat. No one regrets this occur- rence more than I do, as it is calculated to place other parties as well as myself in an unpleasant position. The facts do not, in the least, justify the action of the Convention, the speech of the mover of the resolutions, or the comments of one of the city papers.
Repeating my sentiments of respect for the Convention, I am, &c,
LEWIS V. BOGY.
P. S. As the action of the Convention in rela- tion to this matter has been the occasion of a good deal of talk in this city to my prejudice, I have concluded to send a copy of this paper to the "Missouri Republican" for publication to- morrow morning, so that the matter may be set right before this community at once.
LEWIS. V. BOGY, St. Louis, March 13, 1861. To Messrs. Birch, Drake and Zimmerman,
Committee of the Convention, &c:
Gentlemen : Having Appeared before you in compliance with your subpoena, I proceed to make such a statement as you have requested of me, omit- ting the name of the person to whom I shall allude, and also declining to swear to my statement at the present time; but will not refuse to surrender the name of the person, or to swear to what I shall here state, if required to do so by an order of the Convention.
On the second or third day of the session of your Convention in this place, I met with a gentle- man residing in one of the interior counties of the State, and whom I had known as a friend and admirer of Mr. Yancey of Alabama, and, like that gentleman, a thorough and undisguised seces- sionist. He told me that your Convention was too conservative, and that, in case you passed no secession ordinance, there would be a concert of action agreed upon, throughout the State, where- by the State would nevertheless be got out of the Union. He further said that there were at that time delegates or committees in the city from nearly all the principal towns in the State, and that he understood there was to be a meeting of them for the purpose of agreeing upon a defi- nite course and concert of action. He mention- ed especially the name of a distinguished citizen of this State who had encouraged the movement, but whose name, for the reason already stated, I decline to give at present.
Two days after this, I met the same gentleman and the conversation was renewed. He then said that he believed the plan above stated had been abandoned, as it would be useless to attempt to carry it out at present, against what seemed to be the strong Union sentiment that had taken hold of the public mind.
In this statement I have given but the substance of the conversations alluded to, and do not pre- tend to have stated the words, but the substantial facts. Very respectfully,
WM. J. CHESTER.
The report was read and laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Welch moved that the Convention ad- journ until three o'clock p. M., which motion was decided in the negative.
On motion of Mr. Dunn the Convention ad- journed until two o'clock p. m.
44
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and resumed the consideration of the pending amendment.
Mr. Gantt moved that, until otherwise or-
dered by the Convention, the hour of adjourn- ment be three o'clock p. m., which was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Gamble the Convention adjourned.
TWELFTH
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. Gamble, from the Committee on Feder- al Kelations, presented the following, which was, by leave of the Convention, read, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Whereas, It is probable that the Conven- tion of the State of Virginia, now in session, will request a meeting of Delegates from the Border States, for the purpose of devising some plan for the adjustment of our National diffi- culties,— and, Whereas, The State of Missouri participates strongly in the desire for such ad- justment, and, desiring to show respect for the wishes of Virginia, therefore, be it
Resolved, That this Convention will elect
Delegates, whose duty it shall be to attend, at such time and place as may be designated by the. Convention of the State of Virginia, for the meeting of Delegates from the Border States ; and if there should assemble then and there Delegates duly accredited from a majority of the States invited to such conference, then the Delegates from this Convention shall enter into conference with them, and shall endeavor to
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1861. devise a plan for the amicable and equitable adjustment of all matters in difference between the States of this Union. And the Delegates appointed under this resolution, shall report their proceedings, in such conference, and any plan that may there be agreed upon, to this Convention, for its approval or rejection.
The question before the Convention being the adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. Moss,
When the President laid before the Conven- tion the following communication :
Office of the St. Louis Agricultu- ral and Mechanical Association. St. Louis, March 14, 1861. Hon. Sterling Price,
President of the State Convention. Sir : The Directors of the St. Louis Agri- cultural and Mechanical Association, would be pleased to present to each member of the Mis- souri State Convention, a copy of their Fifth Annual Report.
If acceptable to the Convention, said report will be sent to the Secretary of the Conven- tion for delivery. Very respectfully,
CHAS. TODD, President. On motion of Mr. Broadhead, the Conven- tion adjourned.
DO "I
THIRTEENTH DAY,
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
The question before the Convention being on the adoption of the amendment to the fifth res- olution of the report of the Committee on Fed- eral Relations,
Mr. Gantt moved that the Convention do adjourn until half past three o'clock this after-
FRIDAY MORNING, March 15, 1861. noon, which motion was decided in the nega- tive.
On motion of Mr. Wright, the Convention adjourned until 3 o'clock, p. M.
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and resumed the consideration of the question which was before them at the hour of adjournment.
On motion of Mr. McCormack, the Conven- tion adjourned.
45
FOURTEENTH DAY,
SATURDAY MORNING, MARCH 16, 1861.
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and -was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. Sayre offered the following1, as a sub- stitute for the pending amendment of Mr. Moss :
Add to fifth resolution, as follows: "That the commencement of hostilities, by either, must necessarily be regarded by Missouri as unfriendly and offensive/' which was disa- greed to.
Mr. Redd offered the following amendment, to the pending amendment, which was disa- greed to :
Amend the amendment by adding to the end thereof, after the word " State," the following words: "while any hope of such adjustment remains."
The question recurring upon agreeing to the amendment of Mr. Moss, it was decided in the negative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been previously demanded :
Ayes — Messrs. Bass, Bast, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Donnell, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatch- er, Hill, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Matson, Moss, Norton, Ray, Redd, Sawyer, Sayre, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins and Woodson— 30.
Noes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Cal- houn, Cayce, Douglass, Drake, Foster, Gam- ble, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jack- son, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Deeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, McClurg, McCor- mack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ritchey, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shack- elford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President —61.
Absent — Messrs. Doniphan, Eitzen, Mau- pin, Ross, Stewart, Welch and Wilson.
Sick — Mr. Pipkin.
Mr. Phillips offered the following resolu- tion, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due, and are hereby tendered, to the offi- cers of the St. Louis Agricultural and Mechan- ical Association for their kindness and liberali- ty in presenting to the Convention the St. Louis Fair report, for 1860.
Mr. Wright moved the adoption of the first resolution of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.
Convention adjourned.
FIFTEENTH E^Y,
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of Saturday last, was read and approved.
Mr. Doniphan, by leave of the Convention, was allowed to record his vote in the affirma- tive, on the adoption of the amendment to the fifth resolution, as offered by Mr. Moss.
The question before the Convention, being the adoption of the first resolution of the series
MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1861.
reported by the Committee on Federal Rela- tions, when,
On motion of Mr. Welch, the Convention adjourned until 2 o'clock, p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and resumed the consideration of the question which was before them at the hour of adjournment, when,
On motion of Mr. Watkins, the Conven- tion adjourned.
46
SIXTEENTH DAY,
TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 19, 1861.
The Convention met, pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.
The Convention, on motion, proceeded to the consideration of the first resolution, when
Mr. Redd offered the following amendment:
Amend by striking out the word " cause," and inserting in the place thereof the word " motive," which was rejected.
The question recurring on the adoption of the resolution, it was decided in the affirma- tive, by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded by Mr. Hough.
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Co- mingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Doug- lass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Erayser, Flood, Eoster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Grave- ly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatch- er, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes. Holt, Hough, How, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Deeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, Mc- Clurg, McCormack, McDowell, McEerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ray, Rankin, Redd, Ritch- ey, Rowland, lawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackel- ford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zim- merman, and Mr. President — 89.
No— Mr. Bast— 1.
Absent — Messrs. Harbin, Henderson, Hill, Ross, Stewart and Wilson.
Sick — Messrs. Chenault, Knott and Pipkin.
Mr. Hough moved to amend the report of the committee, by adding to them, after the fifth resolution, the following as an additional resolution, which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed :
Resolved, That in order to secure our just rights in the Union under the Constitution, it is of the greatest importance that the public peace should be preserved, and it is the opinion of this Convention that it cannot be done if the General Government continues the occupation of the forts in the States which have seceded. We, therefore, request the President of the United States to withdraw the troops of the General Government from those forts.
The question being on the adoption of the second resolution of the report, it was decided
in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes being called for by Mr. Bast.
Ayes. — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Hush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Comin- go, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Erayser, Flood, Eoster, Gamble, Gannt, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Marmaduke, Matson, Maupin, Mc- Clurg, McCormack, McDowell, McEerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritch- ey, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 90
Noes — None.
Absent — Messrs. Chenault, Harbin, Hen- derson, Hill, Ross, Stewart and Wilson.
Sick — Messrs. Knott and Pipkin.
Mr. Bast then offered the following :
Amend the third resolution of the Report of the Committee on Federal Relations by ad- ding: "And in the event of a refusal by the Northern States of this Union to agree and consent to such an adjustment or settlement of the slavery question, and our sister States, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas, determine to change the relation they now hold to the Gen- eral Government, the State of Missouri will not hesitate to take a firm and decided stand in favor of her sister slave States of the South."
Which was decided in the negative by the following vote, the ayes and noes being de- manded by Mr. Hatcher :
Ayes — Messrs. Bartlett, Bast, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Eray- ser, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Matson, Noell, Redd, Sawyer, Sheeley Waller, Watkins, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 23.
Noes. — Messrs. Allen, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Cal- houn, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Flood, Eoster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitch- cock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jack- son, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McEerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St.
47
Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tin- dall, Turner, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, and Vanbuskirk — 70.
Absext — Messrs. Harbin, Ross, Stewart and Wilson.
Sick — Messrs. Knott and Pipkin.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved the pre- vious question on the adoption of the third res- olution.
Pending which, on motion of Mr. Breckin ridge, the Convention adjourned.
SEVENTEENTH D_AY,
WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 20 1861.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The journal of the proceedings was read and approved.
The motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, for the previous question being the order, the question was : " Shall the main question be now put?" It was decided in the affirmative.
The question being on the adoption of the third resolution, it was adopted by the follow- ing vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr Hall, of Buchanan :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge. Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chonault, Collier, Craw- ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Erayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Bu- chanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Henderson, Hendrick, Holmes, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jam- ison, Kidd, Knott, Deeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCor- mack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbus- kirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 90.
Noes — Messrs Broadhead, Hill Hitchcock and How — 4.
Absent — Messrs. Linton and Stewart.
Sick — Messrs. Comingo, Johnson and Pip- kin.
Mr. Gamble offered the following as a sub- stitute for the fourth resolution :
Resolved, That the people of Missouri be- lieve the peace and quiet of the country will be promoted by a Convention, to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and this Convention therefore ur^cs the Legislature of this State, and of the other States, to take the proper steps for calling such a Convention, in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution ; and for providing by law for an election by the people of such number
of delegates as are to be sent to such Conven- tion.
Mr. Gamble moved the previous question ; the question being : " Shall the main ques- tion be now put V It was decided in the af- firmative.
The question then being on the adoption of the substitute to the fourth resolution, it was agreed to.
The question recurring upon the adoption of the fourth resolution as substituted, it was de- cided in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded by Mr. Hall, of Buchanan :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Ba«t, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge Bush; Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Crawford, Don nell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Erayser Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holt Holmes, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Deeper, Long, Marma duke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, Me Cormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Mor row, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips. Pome roy, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner Waller, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr President — 85.
Noes — Messrs. Brown, Chenault, Doniphan, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Redd and Watkins — 9.
Absent — Messrs. Linton and Stewart.
Sick — Messrs. Comingo, Johnson and Pip- kin.
Mr. Donnell offered the following as an amendment to the fifth resolution :
Amend fifth resolution by adding as follows : "In view of the existing state of affairs, in order to avoid and more effectually prevent a conflict with the seceding States, which would forever close the door to compromise, we be- lieve it to be the duty of the Executive to with- draw all government troops from their borders, and abstain from the collection of the revenue,
48
thereby depriving them of any plea for bring- ing on a hostile engagement, with a view of engaging the sympathy and co-operation of the remaining slave States."
Mr. Hough withdrew the resolution offered by him on yesterday, which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, offered the follow- ing as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. Donnell :
This Convention is not sufficiently acquaint- ed with all the facts concerning the forts of the United States within the limits of the seceding States, as to be able to give an opinion with re- ference to the best course to be pursued by the Federal Government, but this Convention ear- nestly hopes that such action may be taken by the United States and the seceding States as will avoid all hostile collision between the Uni- ted States and said seceding States.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, offered the following as an amendment to the pending sub- stitute :
That it is the opinion of this Convention, that our cherished desire to preserve our coun- try from the ruins of civil war and its devas- tating influence, and the restoration of harmo- ny and fraternal feeling between the different sections, would be greatly promoted by the withdrawal of the Federal troops from such forts within the borders of the seceding States, when there is danger of a collision between the State and Federal troops, and we recom- mend that policy.
Mr. Hall called for the previous question, which was sustained, the question being : " Shall the main question be now put?" De- cided in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr. Knott:
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Co- mingo, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Ran- dolph, Ilarbin, Hatcher, Henderson, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Deeper, Long, Mar- maduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Van- buskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 77.
Noes — Messrs. Crawford, Gamble, Gravely, Henderson, Hill, How, Hudgins, Knott, Nor-
ton, Pomeroy, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Turner and Welch— 15.
Absent — Messrs. Sayre,Stewart and Wright.
Sick — Messrs. Bast, Johnson, Linton and Pipkin.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment to the substitute, it was agreed to by the following vote, the ayes and noes hav- ing been demanded by Mr. Moss :
Ayes — Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Gamble, Given?, Gorin, Grave- ly, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Kidd, Knotf, Mar- maduke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Pome- roy, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Saw- yer, Sayre, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 57.
Noes — Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Henderson, Hendrick; Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Ir- win, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Leeper, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Orr, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall and Turner — 36.
Absent — Messrs. Linton, Stewart and Wright.
Sick — Messrs. Bast, Johnson and Pipkin.
The question then being on the adoption of the substitute as amended, was decided in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes being demanded by Mr. Moss :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Douglass, Eitzen, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Noell, Orr, Phil- lips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Turner, Wilson, Van- buskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 54.
Noes — Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doni- phan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgin?, Knott, Matson, Moss, Nor- ton, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre, Shee- ley, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Waller, Wat- kins, Welch, Woodson and Woolfolk — 39.
Absent — Messrs. Linton, Stewart and Wright.
Sick — Messrs. Bast, Johnson and Pipkin.
Mr. Henderson moved that the Convention adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, which motion was decided in the negative.
The question then being on the adoption of the amended substitute as an amendment to
49
the original (fifth) resolution, it was decided in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr. Redd:
Ayes— Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hatch- er, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Kidd, Marmaduke, Matson, McDowell, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, VVatkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbus- kirk and Mr. President— 51.
Noes— Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Frayser, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Bu- chanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hen- drick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, Long Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Orr, Pomeroy, Rowland, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Wrighl and Zimmerman — 44.
Absent — Messrs. Linton and Stewart.
Sick — Messrs. Bast and Pipkin.
The question then recurring upon the adop- tion of the original fifth resolution, as amend- ed, it was decided in the affirmative by the fol- lowing vote, the ayes and noes having been de- manded by Mr. Hough :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Giv- ens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hirbin, Hatcher, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Leeper, Long, Marma- duke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, Mc- Cormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Mor- row, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Ran- kin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Saw- yer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 89.
Noes — Messrs. Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Hitchcock and How — 6,
Absent — Messrs. Linton and Stewart.
SrcK — Messrs. Bast and Pipkin.
The Convention having proceeded to the consideration of the sixth resolution of the Re- port of the Committee on Federal Relations,
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, called for the pre- vious question, which was sustained. The question being : " Shall the main question be now put?" which was decided in the affirma- tive.
4a
The question being on the adoption of the sixth resolution, it was decided in the affirma- tive by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr. Redd :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen. Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Mor- row, Moss, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ran- kin, Ray, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of >t. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Wood- son, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmer- man and Mr. President — 76.
Noes — Messrs. Chenault, Comingo, Craw- ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Givens, Gorin, Grave- ly, Harbin, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Matson, McDowell, Norton, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer and Sayre — 19.
Absent — Messrs. Linton and Stewart,
Sick — Messrs. Bast and Pipkin.
Mr. Phillips moved that the Convention adjourn until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock, which was decided in the negative.
The Convention proceeded to the considera- tion of the seventh resolution of the report, when
Mr. Dunn offered the following amendment:
Amend the seventh resolution by filling the blank with '"seven," and by adding after the word "seven," "one from each Congressional district," which was agreed to.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, offered the follow- ing as an additional amendment, which was also agreed to :
Strike out all after the word "and," and in- sert "in case any vacancy or vacancies shall happen in said committee during the recess of this Convention, by death, resignation, or oth- erwise, the remaining members or member of said Committee shall have power to fill the same."
Mr. Leeper moved the Convention now ad- journ, which motion was decided in the nega- tive.
Mr. Redd offered the following amendment to the pending resolution, which, on motion, was rejected :
Amend the seventh resolution by striking out the words "at such place as they may think the public exigencies require," and insert the words "at the city of Jefferson" in the place thereof.
50
Mr. Birch offered the following amend- ment :
Amend the seventh resolution by adding these words : "And if the said committee shall be of opinion hereafter, that there is no longer a necessity for the re-assembling of this Con- vention, and shall so declare by public commu- nication, then and in that case the Convention shall not re-assemble on the third Monday in in December, 1861, but may be called together by a majority of said committee at any subse- quent period."
Mr. Knott called for the ayes and noes on agreeing to the amendment of Mr. Birch.
Mr. Wilson offered the following substitute, which was accepted by Mr. Birch :
That by request of a majority of all the mem- bers of this Convention, in writing, delivered to said committee prior to said third Monday in December next, the said Committee shall on that day adjourn this Convention sine die.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, offered the following amendment to the accepted substitute of Mr. Wilson :
Provided, that if the Convention does not as- semble on the third Monday in December, 1861, the Convention shall stand adjourned sine die.
Pending which, on motion of Mr. Sheeley, the Convention adjourned until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock.
EIGHTEENTH DAY,
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1861.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
The Journal of the proceedings of yester- day was read and approved.
Mr. Henderson, from the Committee here- tofore appointed, to whom was referred the communication from the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, Commissioner from the State of Georgia to this Convention, made a report which was read.
Majority Report of Committee on Commissioner from Georgia.
Mr. President : Your Committee, to whom was referred the communication of the Hon. Lu- ther J. Glenn, who appeared before the Conven- tion as a Commissioner from Georgia, and hav- ing presented the ordinance of secession adopted by said State, was pleased to "invite the co-ope- ration of Missouri with Georgia and the other seceding States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy," have had the same under consid- eration, and beg leave to report as follows :
The Committee sincerely regret that the com- mission under which Mr. Glenn was accredited to our State, was limited in its scope to a mere invitation to withdraw from the Government of our fathers, and form a distinct confederacy with the Gulf States. His mission seems to contem- plate no plan of reconciliation — no measure of redress for alleged grievances, which being adopt- ed would prove satisfactory to Georgia. Having chosen secession as the only remedy for existing ills, Georgia, through her Commissioner, sup- poses that similar interests, connected with the
exigency precipitated upon us by the action of the Cotton States, will impel Missouri to with- draw from the Union and cast her lot with them .
The reasons assigned by Mr. Glenn for this ac- tion on the part of his State are : First, that the laws of Congress imposing duties on imports have been so framed as to discriminate very in- juriously against Southern interests; Second, that a great sectional party, chiefly confined to the Northern States of the Union, whose leading idea is animosity to the institution of negro slavery, has gradually become so strong as to obtain the chief executive power of the nation, which is regarded as a present insult to the. South; and, Third, that the ultimate object of this party is the total extinction of slavery in the States where it now exists by law, and the placing upon terms of political equality, at least, the white and black races; and to prevent evils of such magnitude, as well as to preserve the honor and safety of the South, Georgia and some of her sister States have deliberately re- solved to withdraw from the Union, never to re- turn.
Your Committee trust that they duly appreci- ate the gravity of the communication thus made to the people of Missouri.
Missouri entered the Union at the close of an angry contest on the subject of slavery. Her geographical position, the variety of the branch- es of industry to which her resources point, her past growth and future prospects, combine to de- mand that all her councils be taken in the spirit of sobriety and conciliation.
Your Committee waive for the moment the consideration of the moral aspect of what they
51
conceive to be the heresy of secession, because if they entered, in the first instance, upon this examination, its results would preclude any in- quiry into the material consequences of the ac- tion to which Missouri is solicited.
The peculiar position of our State is different from that of Georgia or any other of the cotton- growing States. If it be true, as represented, that the revenue laws of the country operate oppressively upon them— and this objection is now heard for the first time after an interval of nearly thirty years— it can not be pretended that any part of this particular grievance touches Missouri.
Acknowledging as we do the power of Con- gress to impose such duties for revenue purposes at least, and trusting to the wisdom and justice of that body for impartial legislation, we are un- willing to seek, in a step promising nothing but the most unequivocal calamities, a refuge from imaginary evils.
In reference to the more important matter pre- sented as a reason for the action of Georgia, your Committee would say, that Missouri has watched with painful anxiety the progress of a great sec- tional party in the North based upon the exclu- sion of slavery from the Territories, which are the common property of the whole Union. Do- ing the Republican party the justice to believe that it means to carry out the articles of its polit- ical creed, as stated in its platform and indicated by its recent votes in Congress, we deem it incor- rect to declare that it cherishes any present inten- tion to interfere with slavery in the States of the Union. Any such attempt would justly arouse the highest exasperation in every slaveholding State; but it is considered unwise to go out of our way to denounce hypothetically a design which, so far from being threatened, is disavowed by that party.
We are awave that individual members of the Republican party have at times enunciated most dangerous heresies, and that some of its ex- tremists ha\e, with apparent deliberation, em- bodied in the form of resolutions and published to the world, sentiments which would fully authorize, if regarded as the views of the whole organization, the condemation due to principles at war with the security of rights of property in nearly half the States of the Union; but we must guard ourselves against the double error of imagining that all the bad rhetoric and uncharit- able speech of orators whose highest aim is to produce a sensation, are to be taken as the true exponent of the sober views of their party, and that language recklessly used by a party seeking to obtain power is a faithful index of the con- duct it will pursue when power has been once obtained.
In support of these views, your Committee may instance the adoption of a constitutional amend-
ment by the requisite two-thirds vote of each branch of the last Congress, after the representa- tives from seven Southern States had withdrawn, providing against all interference by Congress with the institution of slavery, as it may exist in any State of the Union— a provision irrevocable without the consent of every State. From this it may be seen that the extremists attached to the Republican party have so far been unable to con- trol it.
In proof of the proposition that parties are more radical in the acquisition that in the exercise of power, we may refer to the recent organization of three several Territorial Governments, upon the principles contained in the compromise measures of 1850 — and afterwards applied, upon demand of the South, to the provisional governments of Kansas and Nebraska.
But notwithstanding these evidences denoting thus far a proper appreciation of the rights and wishes of the people of the South, the Honora- ble Commissioner was pleased to assure us that Georgia had lost all confidence in the North. Such, Mr. President, is not the sentiment of Missouri. That many of the citizens of the North, including the turbulent demagogues who incite to treason, and their deluded followers who exe- cute their teachings, by invading other States, with a view of inaugurating revolution or setting at defiance by forcible resistance the Federal laws on their own soil, have forfeited our confidence, will not be denied. But to denounce the innocent with the guilty, and charge whole communities with the crimes or bad faith of a few, does not accord with the moral or political ethics of Mis- sourians.
It is true that some of the Northern States have enacted laws, the provisions of which seem de- signed to impede the prompt and faithful execu- tion of the fugitive slave law, but such enact- ments are void. They disgrace the statute books on which they appear, and serve no other pur- pose than to weaken the fraternal ties that should bind together the people of different sections of the Union. These enactments are fast disap- pearing; and the hope may be indulged that, in the course of a few months, this source of irrita- tion will be permanently removed.
So far, then, from having lost all confidence in the North, Missouri is assured, by the history of the past, that every right she may constitutional- ly claim will be accorded to her. Let the pas- sions of the day, engendered by political conflict, subside, and the ultra dogmas of party leaders will be discarded. Let the American mind once more be directed to the importance of perpetuat- ing the blessings of a good government, instead of indulging vain hopes of establishing a better one, at the close of the most dangerous and crim- inal revolutions, and then the peace of the coun- try will have been restored.
52
We are not advised that concessions demanded by the Southern people, on the subject of slavery, have been heretofore refused by those of the North. No Federal legislation, discriminating against the institution, has ever been imposed upon the South by the sectional power of the North. The ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in the Northwest territory, ceded to the General Government by the State of Virginia, was proposed and advocated by one of the most distinguished sons of the " Old Dominion." The proposition was seconded and supported by Southern men, and, though the result of the measure was the exclusion of slavery from the soil of five large States ef the Union, yet the South should not be so unjust as now to com- plain of the deed.
The Missouri Compromise was agreed upon by the representatives of both sections of the coun- try, and neither should now reproach the other. It was proposed by a Southern man, received the assent of the South, and acquiesced in by the people of the nation.
And though, it may be said, the compact was made in ignorance of the law, as recently de- clared by the Supreme Court, the people of the South will scarcely now sacrifice their high sense of honor, so long claimed as a leading character- istic, in eager and unnatural desire to find causes of quarrel with their brethren of the North.
At a subsequent period the South demanded a repeal of the Missouri compromise line, and the adoption of the principle of non-intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. The de- mand was acceded to, and territorial government established in accordance with their wishes. That portion of the Territory, once covered by the re- striction of 1820, was thus opened to the intro- duction of slavery, and now, for the first time since the organization of the Federal Government, has slavery become lawful upon every part of the public domain. Georgia and Missouri united in this appeal to the patriotism and justice of the North. The concession was made, and Missouri would be false to every principle of honor should she find in the act a pretext for the charge of bro- ken faith.
The operation of this principle having become distasteful to some of our Southern friends, it was thought by them advisable to make yet another demand upon the people of the North. The doc- trine of Congressional protection of slavery in the Territory was urged as a substitute for that of popular sovereignty, so recently adopted at their own instance and request. The demand, however, is only made in a political convention, and admitted, by the parties urging it, to be an unnecessary and impracticable abstraction. When attempted to be engrafted upon the legis- lation of the country, it is repudiated by nearly the entire South, and even by Georgia herself.
Your Committee are by no means satisfied that even this request would be refused by a large proportion of the Northern people, were it neces- sary to preserve the Union, or secure the rights of their brethren. But, until it shall be acknowledged as a vital and living principle by the South, and refused by the North, Missouri will be slow even to complain of injustice, much less to enter into any schemes for the destruction of the Govern- ment.
Missouri is not yet ready to abandon the ex- periment of free government. She has not lost all confidence in the people of any section of the nation, because the past furnishes assurance to the contrary; the present is cheered by her un- shaken faith in the capacity of man to govern himself-— and the future invites to peace and con- tinued Union, for the prosperity of all.
If evils exist under the Constitution and laws, as they are, let the proper appeal be addressed to the American heart, both North and South, and these evils will be removed. If, in the heat of partisan rancor, the expressions or deeds of the vicious shall point to future aggressions, the patriotism of the masses needs only to be invoked for new guaranties against anticipated wrong.
From what has been already said it will be seen that the views of Georgia, as expressed by her Commissioner, and those of your Committee, in reference to the policy to be pursued by the Southern States in the present emergency, are essentially different. We believe that Missouri yet relies upon the justice of the American people, whilst Georgia seems to despair. The one re- cognizes friends in the North, whose lives, if ne- cessary, will be devoted to her defense; the other regarding them as unworthy of her confidence, spurns their friendship and defies their enmity. Missouri looks to the Federal Constitution to pro- tect the rights of her citizens, whilst Georgia un- necessarily rushes into revolution and hazards all upon a single issue. Georgia, seeming to regard the Union as the source of imaginary ills, adopts secession as a remedy; Missouri, feeling that she is indebted to the Union for the prosperity of her citizens, her power and wealth as a State, yet clings to it with the patriotic devotion of earlier days.
Your committee, so far, have confined them- selves to an examination of the causes alleged for the revolution in the Southern States, and the ap- parent want of necessity for so extraordinary a movement, at the present time. Indeed so rapid and ill-advised has this action been, that it seems rather the execution of meditated conspiracy against the Government by restless and uneasy demagogues, than the slow and determined movement of a reflecting people. We see many of the dangerous men who controlled the nulli- fication plot of South Carolina in 1832, the promi- nent actors in the present desperate experiment
53
against the peace and happiness of the country. Feeling, as we do, the total inadequacy of the causes presented for this ruinous policy, your Committee will be excused in the expression of some doubt as to the deliberation and wisdom with which the Honorable Commissioner was pleased to assure us Georgia had acted in the premises. And in this connection we will be fur- ther excused for commending to the serious con- sideration of the good citizens of Georgia, and other seceding States, who may for the moment have been seduced from the paths of safety by the artful schemes of bad men, the following memo- rable words from one whose patriotism will not be doubted, and whose unerring sagacity is being daily verified in the history of the Republic :
" Washington, May 1, 1833. " Mt Dear Sir : * * * * I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked de- signs to sever and destroy the only good Govern- ment on the globe, and that prosperity and hap- piness we enjoy over every portion of the world. Hainan's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwind and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked dema- gogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known was a mere pretext. The next pretext w 'ill be the negro or slavery question.
"ANDREW JACKSON.
"Rev. Andrew J. Crawford."
The Commissioner was pleased to invoke the identity of interests and feeling between the peo- ple of Georgia and Missouri, as a reason that we should abandon the Government of our fathers and take our position with the seceding States. It will be borne in mind that this proposition was urged, not with a view of securing such guaran- ties as might ultimately lead to a reunion of the States and the establishment of fraternal peace, but for the purpose of constructing permanently a separate and distinct confederacy.
If the union of these two great States, under the same government— and we admit the fact- be so desirable to Georgia, we will be pardoned in the expression of astonishment that she saw fit to dissolve that connection, which had been peace- ful and happy for the last forty years, without consulting the interests or wishes of Missouri. It may not be intended, but the inference is forced upon us, that longer to enjoy the beneficial re- sults to flow from union with our revolting sisters, we must surrender our own convictions of duty
and follow the imperative behests of others.— Missouri must resign her place in the present gal- axy of States, where the lustre and brilliancy of each but add harmony and beauty to the whole, and accept such position as may be assigned her in the new constellation, whose light, we fear, may never penetrate beyond the southern skies. The importance of the accession of Missouri to any confederacy formed upon the ruins of the present Union will be readily granted; but before accepting any such invitation without any guar- anty for the future, it behooves us now to exam- ine the character of the remedy proposed, and also its inevitable consequences upon the people of Missouri. Should the Government become destructive of the ends for which it was insti- tuted, and oppression become the established rule of its action, we presume that none will de- ny the revolutionary right of redress. This, however, is a remedy outside of the provisions of the federal constitution and one that must neces- sarily address itself to the moral sense of the civ- ilized wrorld. It depends for its success upon deep convictions of wrong by citizens of the re- volting district, claiming, when justifiable, the encouragement and sympathy of other nations. It is the last remedy of injured man to obtain in violence and bloodshed, if need be, the establish- ment of an incontestible right. It presumes the total inefficiency of his government to redress his wrongs. It supposes that all the efforts of peace have been exhausted, and that present evils are beyond endurance.
If it be true "that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes/' it occurs to your Committee that a proper appreciation of this truth will at once dispel all ideas of present revolution.
Secession, on the other hand, is claimed as a right resulting from the nature of our Govern- ment; that the Constitution is a mere compact between the States, not subject even to the ordi- nary rules governing contracts; that it is a con- federation of States, not a government of the peo- ple.
It will be observed that no attempt of a serious character has ever been made to overthrow the Government without adopting this theory as the best means to accomplish the end. The reason is obvious; for although it is declared in the instru- ment itself, that "this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall b3 made in pursu- ance thereof, and all treaties made under the an" thority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitu- tion or laws of any State to the contrary notwith- standing," this doctrine interposes State author- ity between the rebellious citizen and the conse- quences of his crime. Hence the delegates from
54
the five New England States who met at Hart- ford, Connecticut, in 1814, in response to the call of the Massachusetts Legislature, saying "it was expedient to lay the foundation for a radical reform in the National compact, and devise some mode of defense suitable to those States, the affinities of whose interests are closest and whose intercourse are most frequent," after enumerating their grievances against the Government, declare that "in cases of deliberate, dangerous and palpable infractions of the Con- stitution, affecting the sovereignty of a State, j and the liberties of the people, it is not only the \ right but the duty of such a State to interpose its j authority for protection, in the manner best cal- j ciliated to secure that end. When emergencies ! occur which arc either beyond the reach of the | judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their forms, States which have j no common umpire must be their own judges and execute their own decisions."
Looking forward to the ultimate dissolution of the Union and the erection of a Northern Confed- eracy as one of the means to secure that end, they recommended amendments to the Constitu- tion which they must have known would not be adopted. Their rejection it was hoped, no doubt, would "fire the Northern mind and precipitate" the New England States "into a revolution." Seeing the enormity of their proceedings and that merited punishment would likely be visited upon them by the Government, they too entered their solemn protest against coercion, and de- clared "if the Union be destined to dissolution by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad admin- istration, it should be if possible the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent," and that "a separation by equitable arrangement will be preferable to an alliance by constraint among nominal friends but real enemies."
We pause but to remark that the amendments to the Constitution proposed by this sectional Convention were never adopted, the New Eng- land States remained in the Union, peace and prosperity again blessed the land, and the con- spirators, abhorred and shunned by men, silently passed along to a grave of infamy.
At a subsequent period a movement somewhat similar in its nature was inaugurated in some of the Southern States, and your Committee hope that the allusion will give no offense to Georgia. The grievance complained of was the tariff act of 1828. South Carolina took the incipient step and declared the Cons: itution to be a compact between States as independent sovereignties and not a gov- ernment of the people— that the Federal Govern- ment was responsible to the State Legislatures, when it assumed powers not conferred — that not- withstanding a tribunal was appointed under the Constitution to decide controversies where the United States was a party, there were some ques-
tions that must occur between the Government and the States, which it would be unsafe to sub- mit to any judicial tribunal; and finally, that the State had a right to judge for itself as to infrac- tions of the Constitution. Alabama, Virginia, and Georgia having yielded assent to this exposi- tion of the principles of the Government, a Con- vention was assembled in South Carolina, which at once declared the obnoxious law to be null and void and of no binding force upon the citizens of that State. It was further resolved, that in case of an attempt by the General Government to en- force the tariff laws of 1828 or 1832, the Union was to be dissolved, and a Convention called to form an independent government of that State ; and in order that the nullification might be thorough and com- plete, it was provided, that no appeal should be permitted to the Supreme Court of the United States in any question concerning the validity of the ordinance or of the laws that might be passed by the Legislature to give it effect. In pursuance of this scheme, the Governor was authorized by the Legislature to call on the militia of the State to resist the enforcement of the Federal laws; arms and munitions of war were placed at his disposal, and the State judiciary was to be exon- erated from their oaths to support the Federal Constitution. Treason to the Union became sanc- tified with the name of patriotism, and itshideous deformity was attempted to be shielded by the mantle of State sovereignty.
At this juncture appeared the proclamation of Jackson, explaining the nature of the American Government, denying the pretended right of sov- ereignty and claiming the supremacy of the Fede- ral Constitution. A military force was ordered to assemble at Charleston, and a sloop of war was dispatched to the same point, to protect the Fed- eral officers in the discharge of their duties. False theories were exploded; the tide of revolution that threatened to engulf the entire South wras checked; the passions of the moment subsided; the public mind that had been maddened by the unlicensed declamation of the demagogue, was remitted to calm reflection, and soon the whole country responded to the patriotic sentiment of the iron-nerved statesman : " Our Federal Union- it must be preserved."
We pause but to remark, that the revenues were collected, peace was preserved, the country was saved, and a new batch of restless men con- signed to oblivion by an indignant people. Other instances might be given in which false con- structions of the Constitution have been urged with the obvious intention ultimately to destroy it; but your Committee feel assured that the instrument itself, when viewed in connection with the history of its adoption, cannot be so tortured as to sanction the right of secession. It is an instrument of delegated powers, granted by "the people of the United States, in order to form a
55
more perfect Union, establish justice, insure do- mestic tranquility, provide for the common de- fense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity."
All legislative powers granted in the Constitu- tion are vested in a Congress, composed of a Senate and House of Representatives. After an express enumeration of grants of power that may be exercised by that body, it is further provided that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Gov- ernment of the United States or in any depart- ment or officer thereof."
It is then provided, that "the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance" of these grants of power, "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State," in their administration of justice, "shall be bound thereby," notwithstanding the Constitution and laws of their own State may be to the contrary.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec- tively, or to the people." If the framers of the Constitution had stopped at this point and fur- nished us no tribunal before which the humblest citizen may obtain redress when the limitations of the instrument shall be exceeded by the law- making power, the pretext for the assumed right would be infinitely more plausible. But such is not the case. The powers delegated having been granted by the people for purposes of permanent and perpetual government, cannot be withdrawn by any State or any number of States, except in the mode indicated in the Constitution itself. These grants of power were at the time supposed to be essential to the common good ; that being of a general nature, it were best to confer their exer- cise upon a national government. This having been done, the several States cannot be regarded as perfect sovereignties. The people of the whole Union having surrendered to the General Govern- ment a portion of their powers— which are mate- rial attributes of sovereignty— and having de- clared that Government to be the supreme law of the land, it cannot be seriously urged that any number of the people organizing a State Govern- ment, may confer upon it powers with which they have already parted.
But, in order to protect the people of each and every State against encroachment by the Federal authority; to prevent interference by the States with powers delegated to the Federal Government, and to preserve to each its appropriate rights for all time to come, a wise provision was made which so far, it must be admitted, has answered all the ends for which it was adopted.
Controversies must necessarily spring up in the administration of governments, so complicated in their nature, for each may be said to be sove- reign within its appropriate sphere, and in or- der that a peaceable solution may be had in every possible case that can arise, our forefathers pro- Aided an arbiter in the judiciary department of the government; its power extending "to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Con- stitution, the laws of the United States, and trea- ties made or which shall be made under their authority;" "to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State claim- ing lands under grants of different States, and between a State or citizens thereof and foreign States, citizens or subjects."
This, in connection with the other provisions of the Constitution referred to, renders our Govern- ment, in the judgment of your committee, the best ever established by man. Whether Georgia and her sister seceding States may be able to de- vise a better tho future alone can determine.
If we were disposed further to demonstrate the heterodoxy of secession as a right deducible from the Constitution, we might refer to other plain provisions of that instrument, and ask pertinent questions as to the reason of their adoption, and the consequences flowing from an admission of the right.
Why grant the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States," if the State, perhaps receiving the benefit of the fund, can withdraw and absolve her citizens from all obligation to pay? Why the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general wel- fare of the United States," if a simple ordinance of secession excuses the citizen and nullifies the provision for calling "forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union?" Why the power "to de- clare war," if, in the midst of hostilities, the State whose representatives may have voted for the declaration, but, now, wearied of its calamities, may seek peace in secession, and leave the Gov- ernment to struggle with its dangers and its bur- dens? Why declare that "no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;" that "no State shall enter into any agreement or com- pact with another State, or with a foreign power/' if all these things can be done in perfect accord- ance with the Constitution?
We might also refer to the acquisition of Flori- da, the purchase of Louisiana, the payment of* the Texas debt, and the boasted "indemnity for the past and security for the future," supposed to be realized at the close of the war with Mexico, all of which were mere "promises to the ear," if the doctrine of secession be true.
56
But were your Committee disposed to abandon the dictates of patriotism and forget for the mo- ment their loyalty to the Constitution of the na- tion, a proper regard for the local interests of our own State would demand at our hands an exami- nation of the probable consequences of the ac- tion proposed. We are told by the Commissioner that Georgia acted for herself, and adopted such course as she deemed best calculated to protect her honor and secure the welfare of her citizens.
If it be true that each State possesses the right to judge for itself, and its own peculiar interests should control its policy in emergencies like the present, and that Georgia in the exercise of that right has acted with an eye single to her own welfare, it may well be doubted whether a simi- lar instinct of self-preservation on our part should be influenced by the conduct of others.
It is urged that the Northern mind has become go corrupted, by the anti-slavery mania of the day, as to render this species of property inse- cure. If secession could remoA^e our State beyond the reach of this morbid sentiment, or build mountains and seas upon our borders to arrest the operation of its influence, the remedy pro- posed might at least be regarded in a more favor- able light. Our State is surrounded by territory which, in the event of separation, will pass un- der the jurisdiction of a foreign government; and if it be once admitted that fraternal regard and a sense of mutual dependence, cemented by the associations of the past and the hopes of the fu- ture, are now insufficient to check the insubordi- nate citizens of adjacent States, what limit to outrage may be anticipated when these restraints are removed !
Supposing that a peaceable separation could be accomplished, new and important questions would be precipitated upon us. The present ele- ments of our prosperity as one people would be- come the sources of bitter strife. What gives power as a nation would bring about conflicts be- tween its different societies, as independent sov- ereignties, that must soon terminate in the de- struction of the weaker and the comparative ruin of the stronger. The great rivers of our country, now floating: the commerce of a happy people, would daily present questions for angry contro- versy between rival republics. There being no common arbiter for the adjustment of these ex- citing differences, an appeal to the sword will be made to settle them. Treaties will likely fail to secure what now is claimed as a constitutional right. In this view of the case, Missouri having withdrawn from the Union to obtain greater secu- rity in negro property, would suddenly find her- self surrounded by territory affording for the fu- gitive slave an asylum as safe as the Canadian provinces. Secession does not commend itself to Missouri as a proper solution of the problem, in-
volved in political strife upon the territorial ques- tion.
It has been already remarked that the idea of excluding slavery from the Territories, as enter- tained by the Republican party, is in conflict with an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and was wholly aban- doned by that party in the recent organization of territorial governments. The right to carry slaves into all the public domain is to-day clear and undisputed, and ir' the soil and climate be such as to forbid the permanent existence of the institution therein, secession will scarcely be re- garded by Missouri as a remedy for the supposed grievance.
Again we may ask, if the Southern States with- draw from the Government, will it not be argued that they have abandoned all interests in the pub- lic property ? We waive the question of right, for evidently it resolves itself into one of power, and it is at least certain that such will be the view of those from whom we have separated. This of itself will inaugurate a contest of the most vio- lent character; and whether the institution of slavery may be safely planted upon any soil in the midst of hostilities, originating from these causes, is a question deserving our serious consid- eration.
In conclusion, Mr. President, your Committee desire to express the hope that the errors of the day, both North and South, will soon be aban- doned, that fraternal love will be restored by ad- justment, honorable alike to every section, and that Georgia and Missouri may continue in the Union of our fathers, to bless and be blessed, in in the great family of States.
In every point of view in which we have been able to examine the communication soliciting our withdrawal from the Union, whether viewed as a constitutional right, a remedy for existing evils., or a preventive of anticipated wrongs, we find it in conflict with our allegiance to a good Govern- ment, and wholly inefficient to accomplish the ends designed.
We therefore recommend to the Convention the adoption of the following resolutions : Resolved by the people of Missouri, in Conven- tion assembled:
1st. That the communication made to this Con- vention by the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, as & Com- missioner from the State of Georgia, so far as it asserts the constitutional right of secession, meets with our disapproval.
2d. That whilst we reprobate in common with Georgia, the violation of constitutional duty by Northern fanatics, we cannot approve the seces- sion of Georgia and her sister States, as a measure likely to prove beneficial either to us or to themselves.
3d. That in our opinion the dissolution of the Union would be ruinous to the best interests of
57
Missouri, hence no effort should he spared on her part to secure its continued blessings to her people, and she will labor for an adjustment of all existing differences on such a basis as will be compatible with the interest and the honor of all the States.
4th. That this Convention exhorts Georgia and the other seceding States to desist from the re- volutionary measures commenced by them, and unite their voice with ours in restoring peace and cementing the Union of our fathers.
5th. Resolved, That the President of this Con- vention transmit a copy of these resolutions, to- gether with a copy of those concerning our Fede- ral relations adopted by the Convention, to the President of the Convention of Georgia, or if the Convention shall have adjourned, then to the Governor of said State.
JOHN B. HENDERSON, Chairman Com. on Commissioner from Ga.
Mr. Birch, (of the same Committee,) desired to have the following resolutions read for infor- mation, laid upon the table and printed, with the understanding that, at the proper time, he would offer them as a substitute for the resolutions which accompany the report of the Committee.
Resolved, That, whilst denying the legal right of a State to secede from the Union, (as assumed in the communication which has been made to this State by the Commissioner from the State of Georgia,) we recognize in lieu thereof the right of revolution, should sufficient reason arise there- for.
2. That, whilst in common with the State of Georgia, we deplore and reprobate the sectional disregard of duty and fraternity so forcibly pre- sented by her Commissioner, we are nevertheless undespairing of future justice; nor will we des- pair until our complaints shall have been specific- ally and unavailingly submitted to the Northern People.
3. That we concur with the Commissioner of the State of Georgia, that the possession of slave property is a constitutional right, and as such ought to continue to be recognized by the Federal Government; that, if it shall invade or impair that right, the slaveholding States should be found united in its defense; and that in such events as may legitimately follow, this State will share the dangers and the destiny of her sister slave States.
4. That, relying upon the restoration of frater- nal relations on the basis of adjustment thus and otherwise denoted in the action of this Conven- tion, the President is requested to communicate to each of the seceding States a copy of its re- solves, and to invoke for them the same earnest and respectful consideration in which they are submitted, and which restrains this Convention from any further criticism upon the mode or man-
ner, the motives or the sufficiency for the action of the seceding States, than to add, that it has elicited our unfeigned regrets.
Mr. Welch moved to lay the report of the Committee, and the report of the minority on the table, and to make them the special order for the third Monday in December next.
Mr. Sheeley called for a division of the question which was ordered.
The first question, to lay the reports of the majority and minority on the table was deci- ded in the affirmative.
The second question, to make them the spe- cial order of the day for the third Monday in December next, was decided in the affirmative by the following vote, the ayes and noes hav- ing been demanded by Mr. Welch.
Ayes.— Messrs. Bartlett, Pass, Bast, Bogv, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Hough, Hudgins, Howell, Irwin, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Marma- duke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, Mor- row, Moss, Noell, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Redd, Ritcheyjloss, Rowland, lawyer, Sayre, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk and Zimmerman — 56.
Noes.— Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Foster, Gamble, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hen- drick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Mau- pin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Norton, Orr, Ray, Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall,Turner,Wilson,Wright, Van- buskiik and Mr. President— 40.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, withdrew the amendment offered by him on yesterday, to the accepted substitute of Mr. Wilson to the seventh resolution of the report of the Committee an Federal Relations.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, offered the follow- ing as an amendment to the pending amend- ment, by adding as follows : 'The President of this Convention shall be added to, and be ex officio Chairman of said Committee.
Mr. Birch moved that the seventh resolu- tion, and all pending amendments be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, with instructions to report to the Convention this day, at two o'clock p. m., which was agreed to.
Mr. Gantt offered the following resolution, which was adopted.
Resolved, That two hundred copies of the report of the Committee on the Communica- tion from Georgia, together with both sets of
58
resolutions accompanying the same, be printed for the use of the Convention.
On motion of Mr. Welch, the Convention adjourned until 2 o'clock p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment.
Mr. Gamble from the Committee on Eederal Relations, to whom was referred the seventh resolution and pending amendments, reported the following :
Resolved, That there shall be a committee consisting of the President of this Convention, who shall be ex officio chairman, and seven members, one from each Congressional district of the State, to be elected by this Convention, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together at such time prior to the third Monday in December next, and at such place as they may think the public exi- gencies require ; and in case any vacancy shall happen in said committee by death, resigna- tion, or otherwise during the recess of this Convention, the remaining members or mem- ber of said committee shall have power to fill such vacancy — which on motion was adopted.
By the unanimous consent of the Convention the following amendment wras adopted :
Add to the fifth resolution as Mr. Sactcel- *ord's amendment : "And in order to restora- tion of harmony and fraternal feeling between the different sections, we would recommend the policy of withdrawing the Federal troops from the forts within the borders of the sece- ding States where there is danger of collision between the State and Eederal troops."
Mr. Gamble called up the following resolu- tion heretofore introduced by him from the committee on Eederal Relations as an addi- tional resolution to the report of said commit- tee :
Whereas, It is probable that the Convention of the State of Virginia, now in session, will request a meeting of the delegates from the border States or border slave States, for the purpose of devising some plan for the adjust- ment of our national difficulties ; and Whereas, the State of Missouri participates strongly in the desire for such adjustment, and desirous to show respect for the wishes of Virginia, Therefore
Resolved, That this Convention will elect seven delegates, one from each congressional district, whose duty it shall be to attend at such time and place as may designated by the Con-
vention of the State of Virginia for the meet- ing of delegates from the border States or bor- der slave States ; and if there should assemble then and there, delegates duly accredited from a majority of the States invited to such confer- ence, then the delegates from this Convention shall enter into conference with them, and shall endeavor to devise a plan for the amicable and equitable adjustment of all matters in differ- ence between the States of this Union. And the delegates appointed under this resolution, shall report their proceedings in such confer- ence, and any plan that may be there agreed upon to this Convention for its approval or rejection.
Mr. Redd offered the following as a substi- tute for the resolution :
Whereas, The Convention of the State of Virginia, now in session, has adopted a resolu- tion in the following words, to wit : " The pe- culiar relations of the States of Delaware, Ma- ryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas to the other States, make it proper in the judgment of this Convention, that the former States should consult together and concert such measures for their final action, as the honor, interest, and the safety of the people thereof may demand, and for that purpose the proper authorities of those States are requested to appoint Commis- sioners to meet Commissioners, to be appointed by this Convention, on behalf of the people of this State, at Frankfort, in the State of Ken- tucky, on the last Monday in May next ; And Whereas, this Convention approving of said resolutions, and being desirous of co-operating with the States named therein for the purpose named ;
Therefore, Resolved, That seven Commission- ers be appointed by the President of this Con- vention to meet the Commissioners from the States named in this resolution, at the time and place therein named ; and said Commis- sioners are hereby instructed to report their action, and the action of said Convention to this body at the next meeting thereof.
Mr. Sawyer offered the following amend- ment to the substitute :
Strike out all after the word 'resolved,' and insert the following : That one delegate from each Congressional district be elected by the qualified voters of the respective districts, whose duty it shall be to attend at the time and place designated by the Convention of the State of Virginia, for the meeting of the dele- gates from the border States ; and if there
59
shall assemble then and there, delegates duly accredited from a majority of the States invited to such Convention, then the delegates from this State shall enter into conference with them, and shall endeavor to devise apian for the ami- cable and equitable adjustment of all matters in difference between the States of this Union ; and this Convention urges the Legislature of this State to make provisions by law for the elections of said delegates by the people, and in the event, the Legislature shall fail to make such provision by law, for such election, then, that the President of this Convention shall ap- point said delegates, and the delegates selected under this resolution shall report their proceed- ings in such conference, and any plan that may there be agreed upon, to this Convention for their approval or rejection.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, moved the previous question which was ordered, the question then being, "shall the main question be now put V it was decided in the affirmative.
The question then being on the adoption of the amendment to be substituted, it was deci- ded in the negative by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been called for by Mr. Brown :
Ayes.— Messrs. Bartlett,Bast, Birch, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Frayser, Givins, Gorin, Harbin, "Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Hough, Hudgins, Jamison, Marmaduke, Mat- son, Rankin, Redd, Ritch^v, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins and Zimmerman. — 37.
Noes. — Messrs. Allen, Bass, Bogy, Breck- inridge, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelv, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Howell, Irwin, Is- bell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Lon<r, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Nor- ton, Orr, Phillips, Pomerov, Ray, Ross, Shack- elford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smirh of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall. Turner, VWlch, Wilson, Woodson, Wool folk, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President— 57.
Absent : Messrs. Broadhead, Wright and Knott.
Sick : Messrs. Comingo and Pipkin.
By leave of the Convention, Mr. Redd with- drew his substitute, and offered the following amendment, which was rejected by the follow- ing vote, the ayes and noes having been de- manded by Mr. Welch :
Amend by striking out the words, "this Convention will elect delegates," and insert in the place thereof, the word?, "the President is authorized to appoint seven delegates. n
Ayes — Messrs. Bass, Bast, Brown, Drake, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Hudgins. Mat- son, Redd, Sawyer, Sayre, Turner and Wood- son— 15.
Noks — Messrs. Allen, Bartlet', Biich, Bogy, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault. Crawford, Doniphan, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Foster. Gamble, GrHiit, GravHy, Hall of Buchanan, Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Manna- duke, Maivin, Maupin, McClu g. McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss,
I Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ran- kin, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Scott,
! Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St.
! Loui*, Sheeley, Sinilh of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Stewart, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, W>o!folk, Wright, Vanbus- kirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 76.
Absent — Messrs. Broadhead, Collier, Co- mingo, Donnell, Douglass, Hall of Ranlolph, and Knott.
Sick — Mr. Pipkin.
The resolution was then adopted by the fol- lowing vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Craw- ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Bu- chanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Honoh, How, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Knott, Linton, Long, Maimaduke, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Mos=, Noell, Nor- ton, Phillips, Poraeroy, Ray, Rankin, Redd, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shack- elford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk. Zimmerman and Mr. President — 93.
Noes — Messrs. Leeper, Orr and Ritchey — 3. Absent — Mr. Broadhead. Sick — Comingo and Pipkin. Mr. Irwin offered the following resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn its session in the city of St. Louis on Friday, the 22d inst., at 3 o'clock p. m.
Mr. Dunn offered the following resolution, which, on motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, was laid on the table :
Resolved, That the delegates from each Con- gressional district be requested to recommend a suitable person for delegate to represent Missouri in the border State Convention, and
60
that they report such recommendation to this Convention to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Birch, from the Committee heretofore appointed to inquire into the conspiracy to
take the State of Missouri out of the Union, asked to be and was discharged.
On motion of Mr. Norton, the Convention adjourned until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock.
NINETEENTH DAY,
The Convention met pursuant to adjourn- ment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Monroe.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the reading of the journal was dispensed with.
On motion of Mr. Birch, the Convention proceeded to the election of the members of the committee of seven, provided for in the seventh resolution, when
Mr. Long nominated Mr. Thomas T. Gantt of the First Congressional District. There being no other nomination, on motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, he was declared unani- mously elected.
Second District — Mr. Woodson nominated Mr. J. T. Matson, who was declared elected.
Third District — Mr. Woolfolk nominated Mr. J. T. Tindall.
On motion of Mr. Birch he was declared unanimously elected.
Fourth District— Mr. Hall of Buchanan, nominated Mr. Robert Wilson, who, on motion of Mr. Doniphan, was declared unanimously elected.
Fifth District — Mr. Marvin nominated Mr. J. Proc. Knott, who, on motion of Mr. Shee- ley, was declared unanimously elected.
Sixth District — Mr. Isbell nominated Mr. McClurg, who, on motion of Mr. Meyer, was declared unanimously elected.
Seventh District — Mr. Bogy nominated Mr. Jas. R. McCormack.
Mr. Watkins nominated Mr. M. P. Cayce.
The roll having been called, there appeared for Mr. McCormack:
Messrs. Allen, Bogy,, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, Mc- Dowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Phil- lips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ritchey, Ross, Row- land, Shackelford of St. Lous, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Welch, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President— 56.
FRIDAY MORNING MARCH 22, 1861.
For Mr. Cayce — Messrs. Bartlett, Bush, Birch, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Matson, McCormack, Moss, Noeil, Norton, Redd, Sawyer, Sayre, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins and Woodson— 32.
Absent — Messrs. Bas', Broadhead, Doug- lass, Gamble, Knott, Ray, Shackelford of How- ard, Stewart and Wilson.
Sick — Messrs. Comingo and Pipkin.
Mr. McCormack having received a majori- ty of all the votes cast, was declared duly elect- ed from the Seventh Congressional District.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the Convention proceeded to the election of dele- gates to the border States Conversion, one from each Congressional District, in their reg- ular order.
First District — Mr. Bridge nominated Ham- ilton R. Gamble. There being no other nomi- nation made, on motion of Mr. Hall, of Bu- chanan, he was declared unanimously elected.
Second District — Mr. Zimmerman nomina- ted John B. Henderson. Mr. Howell nomi- nated Warren Woodson.
The roll having been called, there appeared
For Mr. Henderson — Messrs. Allen, Bogy, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Doug- lass, Foster, Eitzen, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hendrick, Hitch- cock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jack- son, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin. McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shack- elford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Woodson, Wool- folk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President— 52.
For Mr. Woodson — Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Brown, Chenault. Collier, Craw- ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Fray- ser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Henderson, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Marmaduke, Matson, McDowell, Moss, Noell, Norton, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre, Shee- ley, Walier, Watkins and Welch — 37.
Absitnt — -Messrs. Broadhead, Cayce, Gam- ble, Knott, Ray, Shackelford of Howard, Stewart and Wilson.
Sick — Comingo and Pipkin.
61
Mr. Mends rson having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elect- ed delegate from the Second Congressional District.
Third District — Mr. Rowland nominated Wm. A. Hall. Mr. Givens nominated E. K. Sayre.
The roll having been called there appeared
For Mr. Hall — Messrs. Allen, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Douglass, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Grave- ly, Hall of Buchanan, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Ir- win, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of How- ard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 66.
Fr. Mr. Sayre — Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Ba-t, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Knott, Mat- son, Redd, Sawyer, Waller and Watkins --26.
Absent — Messrs. Broadhead,Gamble, Moss, Ray and Sheely.
Sick — Comingo and Pipkin.
Mr. Hall having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected.
Fourth District — Mr. Birch nominated Jas. H. Moss. There being no other nomination, on motion of Mr. Gantt, Mr. Moss was de- clared unanimously elected.
Fifth District — Mr. Phillips nominated Wm. Douglass. Mr. Brown nominated Abra- ham Comingo
The roll having been called, there appeared for Mr. Douglass :
Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Birch, Bogy, Breck- inridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Doniphan, Drake, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Knott, Kidd, Leeper, Lin- ton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, Mc- Clurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Wat- kins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wnght, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President — 71.
For Mr. Comingo. — Messrs. Bast, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Donnell, Dunn, Given*, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Matson, Redd, Sawyer, Sayre and Sheelev — 20.
Absent : Messrs. Bass, Broadhead, Doug- lass, Gamble, Moss and Ray.
Sick : Messrs. Comingo and Pipkin.
Mr. Douglass having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected from the Fifth Congressional District.
Sixth District : Mr. Morrow nominated Lit- tlebury Hendrick ; there being no other nom- ination, on motion of Mr. Marvin, Mr. Hen- drick was declared unanimously elected dele- gate from the Sixth Congressional District.
Seventh District : Mr. Hatcher nominated Nathaniel W. Watkins.
Mr. Bogy nominated William G. Pomeroy.
The roll having been called, there appeared
For Mr. Watkins— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Doug- lass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, H^ibin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough. Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Marmaduke, Matson^ McCor- mack, Noell, Pomeroy, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Sheeley, Waller, Woodson—
For Mr. Pomeroy— Messrs. Bogy, Breckin- ridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Foster, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holr, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Phillips, Rankin, Row- land, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Watkins, Welch, Woolfolk. Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President —51.
Absent : Messrs. Broadhead, Gamble, Moss, Norton, Ray, Shackelford of Howard, and Wilson.
Sick : Messrs. Comingo and Pipkin.
Mr. Pomeroy having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared duly elected delegate from the Seventh Congressional Dis- trict.
Mr. Woolfolk, from the Committee on Printing, presented the following report and resolution which were adopted :
The Committee on Printing beg leave to re- port that, in accordance with instructions, the Secretary of the Convention has had the print- ing, required by the Convention, executed by George Knapp, & Co., the expense for which has been less than two hundred dollars.
The Committee also report, that in accord- ance with the resolution proposed by Mr. Dunn on the 9th of March, and which was adopted by the Convention,they contracted with George Knapp & Co., to print the proceedings of the Convention, at rates not to exceed five hun- dred dollars, for five thousand copies of one
62
hundred pages. At the time the contract was made, it was thought that not more than one hundred pages would he required j but as the proceedings are now nearly printed, they will extend over about two hundred and fifty pages. As a book of reference the committee deem it invaluable. The proof sheets have been sub- mitted to the members intereste I, for revision, and it will be the only authorized record for public use of the proceedings of the Conven- tion.
The committee respectfully ask that their action be endorsed by the Convention, and that the following resolution be adopted :
Resolved, That the account of George Knapp & Co., for printing five thousand copies of the proceedings of the Convention, be audited by the Commitee on Accounts, and that the same be considered as printing for the Convention, the payment for which, is provided for out of the funds appropriated by the Legislature of the State, for the contingent expenses of the Convention.
Mr. Welch offered the following resolution, which was rejected :
Resolved, That if the Legislature of this State, shall, at or about the time designated in the sixth resolution of the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations, be called to meet, either by a resolution of adjournment, or by proclamation of the Governor, then, and in that event, the committee provided for in the seventh resolution, i3 hereby authorized to change the time and place of the meeting of this Convention, to such other time and phce as said committee may deem most suitable, and shall notify each member of the time and place so selected.
On motion of Mr. Wright. Resolved, That the resolution of this commit- tee requesting the General Assembly of this State to call for a national Convention in pur- suance of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, be communicated officially by the President of this Convention, to the Legislature of this State. On motion of Mr. Birch. Resolved, That of the bound volumes of the proceedings and debates of this Convention, a
[Attest.]
SAM. A. LOWE,
Secretary.
copy be forwarded by the publishers, to the Clerk of each county Court, and to the State Librarian, for preservation in iheir office, re- spectively ; to each member of the General As- sembly now in session, and to each member of the Executive Government, and Judges of the Supreme Court, at Jefferson ; to the Librarian of each State in the Union, and of the Con- gressional Library at Washington ; and that after reserving a copy for each of the officers of this Convention, and for the Law and Mer- cantile Library and Agricultural and Mechan- ical associations, the remainder shall be for- warded in equal and proper proportions to the address of the members of this Convention. On motion of Mr. Sheeley. Resolved, 'I hat the President transmit a copy of the resolutions adopted by this Convention, to the President of the United States, and to each of the Governors of the States, as well as the Governor of Missouri. On motion of Mr. Birch. Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are thus respectfully tendered to the Mercan- tile Library Association, for the use of their Hall, and to the Public Institutions of this city, and the proverbial hospitality of its citi- izens for having rendered our session as agree- able as it could any where have been. On motion of Mr. Brown. Resolved, that the thanks of this Convention are thus tendered to the President and Direc- tors of the Pacific Railroad Company for their courtesy to the members and officers of this Convention. On motion of Mr. Foster. Resolved, That J. E. D. Couzens, and J. P. Camp be allowed, each, five dollars per day, and G. W. Godford, two dollars and fifty cents per. day for their services during the sitting of this Convention.
On motion of Mr. Gantt. Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are eminently due to the President for the able, impartial, and courteous discharge of his ar- duous duties.
On motion of Mr. Sheeley, the Convention adjourned until the third Monday in December next.
STERLING PRICE,
President.
INDEX.
Adjournment of Convention to St. Louis • • 18 An Act to provide for calling a State Con- vention 3
Amendment to third resolution of Commit- tee on Federal Relations, and vote ■ • 46 to fifth resolution of Committee on Fed- eral Relations, by Mr. Moss 40
and substitutes to fifth resolution of Committee on Federal Relations, and
vote — rejected 41
to fifth resolution of Committee on Fed- eral Relations, and vote 45
to fifth resolution of Committee on Fed-
ral Relations, by Mr. Hough 46
to fifth resolution of Committee on Fed- eral Relations 47
and substitutes to fifth resolution of Committee of Federal Relations and
vote on same 48
to seventh resolution of Committee on
Federal Relations 49
Appointment of Page 19
Assistant Secretary, election of 17
Border States Convention, election of De- legates 60
Chairman, pro tempore 9
Chaplain, appointment of 18
Committee on Accounts, instructions to • • • 26
on Claims, members of 21
on Communication from Georgia Com- missioner 22
on Conspiracy, appointed 38
on Credentials 10
to contract with Reporters 18
on Federal Relations, and on Georgia Commissioner, to sit during session
of Convention 23
on Federal Relations, members of 21
on Printing 22
Committee on Printing ordered to enquire
into cost of printing proceedings 32
on Printing to contract for 5000 copies
of proceedings 34
to report on Officers and Rules 10
of Seven, members elected 60
to wait upon Georgia Commissioners • • 19
Communicatian from Alfred Carr, Esq. 19
from C. D. Drake, Esq. 18
from Chas. Todd, Esq. 44
from Committee on Federal Relations 44 Correspondence between State Auditor and
Jas. Proctor Knott 41
Doorkeeper, election of 18
Eighth day's proceedings 33
Eighteenth day's proceedings 50
Eleventh day's proceedings 42
Fifth days' proceedings 23
First day's proceedings 5
Fourth day's proceedings 21
Fourteenth day's proceedings • • • • 45
Fifteenth day's proceedings 45
Georgia Commissioner, Communication of 18
Hour for meeting of Convention 22
List of members, to be printed 32
Meeting of Convention at Jefferson City • • 9 Meeting in Mercantile Library Hall, St.
Louis 18
Minority Report of Committee on Federal
Relations 38
Minority Report of Committee on Commis- sioner from Georgia 57
Names of the Delegates to the State Con- vention 5
Ninth day's proceedings 37
Nineteenth day's proceedings 60
Oath of office, and vote on same 12
Officers for Convention, Election of 14
President, election of 14
64
Printed proceedings, how to be distributed 62 Report of Committee on Commissioner
from Georgia 50
(minority) of Committee on Commis- sioner from Georgia 57
of Committee on Commissioner from Georgia — made special order of day, for 3rd Monday in December 57
of Committee on Conspiracy 42
of Committee on Credentials 11
of Committee on Federal Relations (majority) 34
of Committee on Federal Relations (minority) 38
of Committee on Federal Relations — adopted • - 58
of Committee on Officers and Rules — adopted » 11
of Committee on Printing 33
of Committee on Printing — adopted-.. 61 Resolution inviting Col. Doniphan to ad- dress Convention 22
inviting Judge Hough to address Con- vention ■ 23
inviting Gen. Coalter to address Con- vention 23
inviting Judge Henderson to address Convention • 23
inviting members of Legislature to seats 23
inviting Hon. John Reynolds to address Convention 29
inviting members of Congress to ad- dress Convention — withdrawn 30
(first) of Committee on Federal Rela- tions— adopted 4G
(second) of Committee on Federal Re- lations— adopted 46
(third) of Committee on Federal Rela- tions— adopted 47
(fourth) substitute to — adopted 47
(fifth) of Committee on Federal Rela- tions, as amended — adopted 49
(sixth) of Committee on Federal Rela- tions—adopted 49
(seventh) and amendments, referred back to Committee on Federal Rela- tions 57
to appoint Committee on Federal Re- lations 19
to print resolutions offered and referred to Committee on Federal Relations • • 22
in regard to postage stamps for mem- bers • 22
on miles travelled by members — adopt- ed 27
Resolution for delegates to border States,
and amendments to same 58
to elect delegates to Border State Con- vention— adopted 58
to recind resolution to print resolutions referred to Committee on Federal Re- lations 30
withdrawn inviting Hon. Reynolds to address Convention 30
adopted by Convention to be sent to President of the United States and Governors of States 62
to print reports of Committee on Com- missioner from Georgia 57
by Mr. Allen, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 26
by Mr. Brown for adjournment — printed 27
by Mr. Breckinridge, referred to Com- mittee on Federal Relations 27
by Mr. Bush, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 32
by Mr. Calhoun, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 31
by Mr. Comingo, referred to Commit- tee on Federal Relations 28
by Mr. Dunn, referred to Committee on Federal Relations •• 24
by Mr. Dunn, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 25
by Mr. Flood, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 80
by Mr. Foster, referred to Committee on Georgia Commissioner • • • • 25
by Mr. Gantt, referred to Committee on Georgia Commissioner 22
by Mr. Gantt, to seat spectators 22
by Mr. Gantt, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 29
by Mr. Harbin, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 31
by Mr. Hatcher, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 23
by Mr. Hendrick, referred to Commit- tee on Federal Relations 24
by Mr. Howell, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 21
by Mr. Irwin, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 30
by Mr. Irwin on vote on President's message 34
by Mr. Irwin to adjourn Friday, March 22nd— adopted 59
by Mr. Deeper, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 32
by Mr. Long, laid on table 24
65
Kesolution by Mr. Long, on President's
message 32
by Mr. Linton, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 24
by Mr. McFerran, referred to Commit- tee on Federal Relations 2G
by Mr. Moss, referred to Committee on Federal Relations • 28
by Mr. Moss, laid on table 30
by Mr. Norton, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 26
by Mr. Orr, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 26
by Mr. Redd, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 21
by Mr. Sayre, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 24
by Mr. Stewart, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 24 !
by Mr. Stewart, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 25 I
by Mr. Turner, on Constitution of the State of Missouri — tabled 25
by Mr. Turner, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 26
by Mr. Turner, referred to Committee on Federal Relations 31
by Mr. Turner, on State Constitution — rejected 33
by Mr. Welch in regard to powers of Legislature 22
by Mr. Welch, to call a meeting of Con- vention should the Legislature as- semble— rejected 62
Resolution by Mr. Woolfolk, referred to
Committee on Federal Relations 24
by Mr. Zimmerman, referred to Com- mittee on Federal Relations 26
to recind Rule 18 25
Roll call 9
Rules for Convention 12
Second day's proceedings 10
Secretary pro tempore 9
Secretary, election of 15
Sergeant-at-Arms, election of 21
Sergeant-at-Arms -pro tempore 22
Seventh day's proceedings 31
Seventeenth day's proceedings 47
Sixth day's proceedings 26
Sixteenth day's proceedings 46
Substitute to fourth resolution of Committee
on Federal Relations — adopted 47
Third day's proceedings 18
Tenth day's proceedings 41
Twelfth day's proceedings > 44
Thirteenth day's proceedings 44
Thanks of Convention to Hon. John J. Crit- tenden and Hon. Stephen A. Doug- las 30
to Gen. Jas. L. Minor • • 18
to officers of St. Louis Agricultural and
Mechanical Association 45
to Mercantile Library Association- •• 62 to Directors of Pacific Railroad Com- pany 62
to President of Convention 62
Vice President, election of 14
Withdrawal of federal troops, where danger
of collision, recommended 58
PROCEEDINGS
MISSOURI STATE CONVENTION
Jefferson City, February 28, 1861.
The Convention met in the Court House at 11 o'clock.
On motion of Judge Orr, Judge Gamble was called to act as Chairman pro tern.
Judge Gamble on taking the Chair spoke as follows :
"Gentlemen of the Convention: You have called me to assist in the permanent organization of this body. While I preside over you as tem- porary Chairman, we shall have nothing to do with the momentous questions which are finally to come before this tody and be settled by its de- termination. I shall, therefore, in taking the po- sition, not allow myself to dwell upon the topics and subjects which are thus to be considered and determined. One thing is certain, namely : that the interest of this land, of the State of Missouri, and, in a large measure, probably, the liberties and interests of the United States of America, may depend upon the action of this body ; and, | therefore, I trust that there shall be not only har- | mony in its deliberations, but that spirit which will give assurance to the land that here are as- sembled those who are wise and true men . In the selection of the officers who are to be perma- nent, the Convention can be at no loss, for there are within it those who, by experience and ele- vated position, are familiar with the discharge of the duties necessary to facilitate the business of the Convention. I apprehend there will be no diffi- culty in that respect, and that the Convention will find itself able to select from its members those whose action as the presiding, and other officers, will meet with the entire approval of the body. I suppose, gentlemen, that the nomination of a temporary Secretary is next in order."
Mr. Wilson nominated Col. Minor, of Cole county. The nomination was concurred in by the Convention, and Col. Minor called to act as Secretary pro tern.
On motion of Judge Sheeley, the Rev. An- drew Monroe was requested to come forward and open the proceedings with prayer.
Rev. Mr. Monroe thereupon came forward, and invoked the blessings of Almighty God in the fol- lowing words— the Convention rising:
"Almighty God ! We bow down in Thy presence ; we present ourselves before Thee, great Jehovah, God over all; forever blessed. We humble our- selves., as sinful creatures. In thus coming into Thy presence, we remember our origin ; we feel our weakness and dependence ; we desire to come to Thee, blessed God, for aid at this time of need and trouble. Forgive our many sins, and oh ! God, forgive the sins of the country gensrally — of our portion of the country — of the State which we inhabit; blot out our iniquities, and purge us of all our sins, and lead us in paths of righteous- ness, we entreat Thee, for Thy name's sake ; and let Thy blessing, merciful God, rest upon this body, now assembled to consult the great inter- ests of the State and country generally. Oh! God, let Thy blessings rest upon this Convention ; preside over the deliberations of the bod3r; and grant that wisdom, and prudence, and forbear- ance, and conciliation, may characterize all their proceedings.
" Grant Heavenly Father, that Heavenly wis- dom may rest upon them ; that they may be guided in all their deliberations to do the greatest good. Bless our national country— bless this State and the States severally; and grant, Merciful Father, that we may be kept back from violence, war and
bloodshed, and that all things may come to a happy termination for us, and redound to the glo- ry of God. Pour out upon us the healthful influ- ence of Thy spirit of grace and Heavenly wisdom. Guide us all by Thy counsel and save us finally, through Christ. Amen."
The Secretary called the roll, when the follow- ing gentlemen answered to their names :
Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Casey, Comingo, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Lin- ton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, McClurg, Mc- Cormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Moss, Morrow, Norton, Orr, Philips, Pomeroy, Price, Rankin, Ray, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tin- dall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Zimmerman— 73.
Absent — Messrs. Bast, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Fray- zer, Gantt, Henderson, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Johnson, Leeper, Matson, Mau- pin, Noell, Pipkin, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Stewart, and Vanbuskirk — 26.
A quorum declared present.
On motion, the members present were re- quested to come forward and hand the Secretary their credentials.
On motion of Gen. Watkins, the President was instructed to appoint a Committee of five to examine credentials and report to the Conven- tion.
Agreed to, and Messrs. Watkins, Birch, W. A. Hall, Linton, and Orr, appointed as such Com- mittee.
Mr. Orr moved to adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Wilson requested the gentleman to with- draw his motion, as it was proper to appoint a temporary door-keepGr.
Mr. Orr withdrew his motion.
Mr. Rowland moved that a Committee of seven be appointed to report on Permanent Offi- cers.
Mr. Welch suggested that the motion was premature. Permanent officers could not be nom- inated until after the Committee on Credentials had reported.
Mr. Rowland said his motion was not to pre- sent names to the Convention, but merely to de- signate the offices which it might be necessary to fill.
Mr. Broadhead suggested as an amendment to the motion, that the committee be required to re- port rules for the government of the Convention.
Amendment accepted by Mr. Rowland.
Mr. Rowland's motion was then put and car- ried.
The President appointei Messrs. Rowland, Price, Broadhead, Welch, Wilson, Hatcher, and Hendricks as the Committee.
Mr. Pomerot moved that J. A. Davis be ap- pointed temporary doorkeeper. Agreed to.
Mr. Welch moved to adjourn till 10 o'clock, but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. Birch.
Mr. Birch moved that the Convention adjourn until 3 o'clock, then to meet in conclave for the purpose of determining whether the subsequent sessions should be open or what was called secret sessions. He said he had sufficient reasons in his own mind for making the motion, and trusted it would be agreed to by common consent.
Several member-; suggested the hour of 10 o'clock on Friday, instead of 3 o'clock, r. m.
Accepted by Mr. Birch, and Convention ad- journed until 10 o'clock to-morrow (Friday) morning.
SECOND DAY.
Jefferson City, March 1, 1861.
Met at 10 o'clock. Opened with prayer.
The journal was read by the Secretary.
Mr. Birch remarked that if no gentleman de- sired to amend the record, he would move to ex- ecute the order of yesterday, in regard to secret session.
Mr. Wilson. Would it not be better to re- ceive the credentials of gentlemen who have ar- rived since yesterday ?
Mr. Watkins. I understand the members who came in since yesterday, have handed in their credentials already.
Mr. Birch. I was aware of that, and in mak- ing the motion now, to execute the order of yes- terday, I renew the statement of the reasons which actuated me then. It is for the simple pur- pose of determining in conclave, whether our proceedings shall be in secret session or conclave, or open. I suppose the motion will scarcely meet with any opposition, that being the sole object.
Mr. Wilson. It occurs to me that rerhaps it would be better before the Convention proceeds to execute the order for a secret session, that we should elect our permanent officers. That having been done, the Convention, if deemed advisable, could resolve itself into a secret session, for the purpose of considering the propositions made by the gentleman. I therefore move, if I can meet a second, that the Convention proceed to re- ceive the report of the Committee on organiza- tion, which I understand is ready, and that then, if that report is approved, the Convention may further proceed to provide itself with the officers therein recommended, or such of them as they think necessary.
3
Mr. Birch. I regret exceedingly as the gen- tleman from Andrew is so near to my room that I had not conversed with him more freely, as to the objects. I am sure it would have prevented his motion. All I will say in that respect is that with the views I entertain of our duties here, and the hopes I entertain of the result of the delibera- tions of the Convention, I think that we should commence the good work right at the veiy point of electing our officers. I will but say here that I came here in the spirit of conciliation as a Mis- sourian, meeting gentlemen, as I am aware, of almost every grade of opinion; that I anticipate that we shall leave here all of one mind, and I think that we should commence the work right at the starting point. I will not be more specific in addressing myself to such intelligence as this Convention represents. If it will be the pleasure of the Convention, however, that we should pro- ceed publicly, and forego the execution of the order for the purpose of seconding the motion of the gentlemen from Andrew, I shall not complain. Mr. Watkins. On yesterday a committee of five was appointed upon credentials, with instruc- tions to report at ten o'cloek this morning. That Committee has performed its duty and is now pre- pared to make its report. I will suggest to the gentlemen if it would not be more proper that that report should come in first. We shall then have official knowledge of who are the members of the body, but until that report is received we cannot have that knowledge.
The Chair. That is the natural order of pro- ceeding.
Mr. Watkins. I will suggest to the gentle- man then to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Birch. I will do anything whatever in courtesy to the gentleman, but I will suggest to the gentleman from Cape Girardeau, that in or- der to obtain his object he must move to forego the execution of the order for secret session.
Mr. Watkins. I would observe to the gentle- man that I am acting icithin the order. This committee was appointed by the Chair, and has orders to report at 10 o'clock. We are now pre- pared to make the report. If it is the pleasure of the Convention we will report.
The Chair— The Chair is at a loss to know whether the motion of the gentleman from Clin- ton has been seconded ?
Mr. Birch— I will state very briefly, that I made that motion merely in form. I suppose it to be imperative on the Convention to execute the order of yesterday, and although there ap- pears to be a conflicting motion, yet it was, of course, contemplated that we should hear the re- port in conclave. I will not press the motion further, as I have no wish, whatever, to hear my- self talk.
The Chair. If that motion is not pressed the report of the committee will be in order.
Mr. Watkins. Then, Mr. President, I will state that the special committee appointed yester- day to examine credentials, have performed that duty and instructed me to make the following re- port, which I desire the Secretary to read.
The Secretary read the report, which presents the same names as those contained in yesterday's dispatch.
Mr. Foster moved that the report be received, and the committee discharged.
Mr. Irwin. Before that report is acted upon, I desire to say that there are members of this Convention whose credentials have not been pre- sented. The effect of this motion is that the committee will be discharged, and cannot here- after examine credentials.
Mr. Watkins. I will observe that besides the evidence which the Committee on Credentials had before them, I went to the Secretary of State's of- fice for the purpose of ascertaining from the re- turns who is elected, and found that there were counties which have not yet been heard from. So we were not enabled to make a full report.
The Chair. The Chair considers it the right of any gentleman who is elected, and has the evi- dence of his election with him, to present his credentials now and be admitted. I will ask the Secretary to perfect the roll accordingly.
Mr. Foster's motion was then agreed to and the Committee discharged.
Mr. Rowland, from the Committee who were instructed to designate the offices of the Conven- tion and report rules for its government made a report which was read by the Secretary. The Committee recommend that the following offi- ces be filled: 1st, President; 2d, Vice President; 3d, Secretary; 4th, Assistant Secretary; 5th, Door-keeper.
Also, that the rules adopted by the State Con- vention assembled in Jefferson City on the 17th of November, 1845, be adopted as the rules of the Convention, excepting rules numbered 41, 42 and 44, and all but the following words of rule 49 : No member shall be allowed pay for any day that he shall be absent from the session of the Convention, unless prevented by sickness.
Also, that 150 copies of these rules be printed for the use of the Convention.
Also, that each delegate, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, be required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of Missouri.
Also, that each officer of the Convention, ex- cept the President and Vice-President, be required to take such an oath, and besides, to swear that they will not divulge anything that has transpir- ed in secret sessions.
Mr. Welch moved that the report be adopted. Agreed to.
Mr. Welch. I would inquire if the vote taken on the adoption of the report is considered as an
adoption of the rules recommended by the Com- mittee? If so, 1 would move that the Hon. Judge George W. Miller be requested to administer the oaths.
The Chair said that by adopting the report of the Committee, the Convention had agreed to the rules recommended therein.
Mr. Watkins. I am not aware that it has been the practice of Conventions of this kind to take an oath of this sort. It strikes me as a little singu- lar that we should be called upon to swear to sup- port a Constitution which we may be called upon to alter as we please. I think no such action was taken in the Convention of 1845. I would inquire of the Chairman of the Committee whether he is aware that such an oath was taken by that Con- vention.
Mr- Rowland — I am not certain about whether they swore to support the Constitution of Mis- souri or not; but I suppose, when we act under the Constitution, we have the right to declare our allegiance to it.
Mr. Broadhead — I was a member of the Con- vention, and I will state also that 1 am one of three members present who were members of the Convention of 1845-46. I am aware the journals of ^hat Convention show that the members of that body were qualified and took their seats, but nothing appears on the journals to show exactly what that qualification was. My recollection is that they took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri.
I know the question was discussed in that Con- vention as to whether that was an extra constitu- tional body convened within the purview of the Constitution, and we came to the conclusion, I be- lieve, and it was the generally admitted opinion at that time, that that Convention, whicn pro- posed to change the Constitution, and actually undertook to change the law of the land, and to make a Constitution, which was submitted to the people, was within the purview of the Constitu- tion, and that we had a right to make such alter- ations as we thought proper. It is true it did not come within the special provisions of the Constitution itself, but within the bill of rights which authorizes the people to change their form of government from time to time, as the emergen- cies of the case may require. We took the ground that it was within the purview of the bill of rights, and that until after the new Constitution was framed, we were still bound by the Constitution of the State of Missouri, and the United States, which every officer had sworn to support. That was the view taken by the Convention, and my recollection is, that the oath was taken to support both Constitutions. If Governor Stewart is pres- ent he can give his recollection ; I may not be cor- rect.
Mr. Stewart. My recollection is, we took an oath to support both Constitutions. I recollect I had doubts at the time whether it was necessary, and I have those doubts to a certain extent yet, for it occurs to me that, if this body can, or has the power to, amend the Constitution, although done in a constitutional manner, yet it is not nec- essary to take an oath to support the Constitution which it is desired to alter or amend. But I think the object of this Convention was not only to amend the Constitution, but to disrupt our whole connection with the several States of the Union and Avith the General Government. My opinion is, that we did take that oath, and I believe I op- posed it at the time, and I can see no reason for it, yet I don't see how we can upset the Constitu- tion and support it at the same time. [Applause in the galleries. 1
Mr. Birch— I have made up my mind, and am as ready to take the oath as any man, but as the question has been raised, I concur entirely with the gentleman who has signified his reasons for believing that that act which called us together contemplated no oath. I supposed from the wording of that act that it was anticipated that we might pass an ordinance of secession that would be extra constitutional, and in derogation of the Constitution of the Union. I therefore think the Convention will conform to the legislative en- actment if they decline to swear at all. Such would comport with my taste, but I have no doubt my conscientiousness will be the same in each case. I don't believe the oath was ever contemplated, and I think would be criticised and liable to great criticism if we took an oath.
The Chair. There is no proposition before the Convention. The discussion has been made in reference to the resolution which has been adopted.
Mr. Pomeroy. I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted.
Mr. W. P. Hall. I move to lav the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. Sayer. I call the ayes and nays.
The Chair. I believe there are no rules for that pm-pose.
Mr1 Welch. The Convention has adopted certain rules which require the roll to be called.
Mr. "Watkins. I suggest if every member has not the right to demand the ayes and nays.
Mr. Welch. The 34th rule which has been adopted, declares any member shall have the right to call the ayes and noes on any question.
The Chair. Not having read the rules, was not aware of that fact.
Mr. Steavart. Is it proper to make a remark before the roll is called? If so, I wish to say I was called upon for an explanation in reference to my opinion concerning that Convention. I stated that I believed Ave Avere compelled to swear to support the Constitution of the United States
and of Missouri. I thought it would be proper not to take that oath, because I do not believe that in a body of this kind we are bound to take the oath. I think it would be proper however in order that the people of the State may know that we are governed by the same rules that govern *« Legislature and other deliberative bodies. I sfcall therefore vote against a reconsideration.
Mr. Pomeroy. By leave of the Convention I will withdraw my motion to reconsider.
Mr. Howell. Then I will renew it. I am a pretty good Union man, but I do not desire to be sworn to passive obedience at the start. I am a part of the people in that district, here,and I hold myself to be a member of this Convention, with or without an oath. Suppose I refuse to take an oath, is there any means of enforcing it, of turn- ing me out of the Convention, any means of de- barring me or any other member of the Conven- tion, from its privileges? If we should refuse to take the oath, I hold there is no law by which it can be done, and I think there is, therefore, an impropriety in adopting a rule which cannot be enforced. I therefore renew the motion to reconsider. I am as good a Union man as any in this Convention, yet at the same time a con- tingency may arise so that this oath would em- barrass me, there being no means of enforcing it whatever. I therefore renew the motion to re- consider.
Mr. Wright. I shall vote against a reconsid- eration, sir, and I will say a word or two in re- gard to the value of this obligation. I will not go into the question whether it can be eniorced or not, because independent of that I see some valu- able results that will flow from the application of this touch-stone of patriotism to the minds of the delegates of this body. I hope no man will refuse to support the Constitution of the United States. I think this body is unlimited, save by the Constitution of the United States, and the only objection I have to that limitation is that it is not strong enough to hold everybody in the Union. I was glad to sec it, because I look upon it in the light of a test question. If there is an unsound secession spot in the heart of any person, this oath will be apt to feel about him and occasion some flinching when he is called upon to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I was glad the committee furnished that sort of practical test of how far men had gone out of the Union, either in imagination or intention. I am glad the oppor- tunity has been presented for gentlemen to re- new expressions of unequivocal allegianee to the Union of the States. In regard to the other portion of that oath, if I had had the framing of the rules, I should have dispensed with it entirely; but still I do not think there is any incompatibili- ty in taking an oath to support the Constitution of this State by a body that may or might, (I do
not say would,) upset the Government, and frame a new Constitution for the people of the State, because the Constitution of the State expressly recognizes that right in a plain provision of the declaration of rights, by which the people can change, alter, or modify their form of government as they may think proper, provi- ded they take a republican form, and provided they do not hurt something more sacred still — the Constitution of the Union. (Applause in the galleries.) I am therefore for this oath, especial- ly for the first and larger oath, an oath that in- volves the widest circle of patriotism, and without which there can be no successful patriotism any- where.
Mr. Givexs. lam in favor of a reconsideration and opposed to laying on the table, as it occurs to me from the act calling this Convention that the whole matter is thrown open. I supposed the object of this Convention was to consider the relations of this State to the General Government. I perhaps may be mistaken in regard to the matter, but I have been laboring under that im- pression. So long as no difficulties had arisen in the Government, of course, if we had been called here to form a new Constitution for the State of Missouri, then I grant that the oath to support the Constitution of the United States would have been proper; but when we are called to consider the relations which this State may sustain towards the General Government, relations in which, in some events at least, it was contemplated that there might be a seve- rance of the State from the General Govern- ment, and I do not say now in advance that I would be in favor of such a project; but I say distinctly that events may arise, how long I know not, within ten days perhaps, within a month perhaps, which would make it necessary for this State to dissolve its connection with the General Government. This may be language too strong, but I make it on this preliminary motion, not that I am committed to this course of action, but that I believe a state of ease may arise during the sitting of this Convention, that we may be called upon to dissolve that connection which binds the State to the General Government. Under that impresion, I would hesitate to take an oath which no one is asked to take. There can be nothing inconsistent in the position which I occupy. I stand here as a citizen called from a remote part of the State to act the part which has been imposed upon me, and I say there ought to be no obligation in view of the circumstances which surround this occasion, there ought to be no obligation in re- gard to this matter.
Mr. Wilson. As I look at the matter, there were two reasons which actuated those who vo- ted for this Convention. Some voted for it for the object, as I believe, of disrupting the relations
6
that now exist between the people of Missouri and the Government of the United States. Others, I am persuaded, aided in the calling of this Con- vention, for the purpose, if possible, of settling all the difficulties that have existed and do exist be- tween the people of Missouri, and the people of the United States and the Government thereof. But I do not regard this Convention as a revolutionary Convention. This Convention was called by the Government existing, and therefore to all intents and purposes, cannot be revolutionary. When- ever the people of the Government desire to over- turn their Government, whenever in their wisdom they shall deem it expedient to upset the Govern- ment under which they live by revolutionary effort, I think in all probability they will not go to the government for the power to hold their Conven- tion, but they will proceed without any authority from the existing government to put the machine- ry of the new government in operation to super- sede the old government. Now I am ready to take the oath, and I hold it is not inconsistent with any duties that may arise in the discharge of my duties as a member of this Convention. I do not suppose it is contemplated by the members of this Convention to meddle with the State Con- stitution; but if they should determine to do so it will not be inconsistent with the oath which they are required to take by the recommendation of this committee. If they determine to frame a new Constitution and submit it to the people, that act as contemplated by the existing Constitution is not in violation, and hence it is Mr. President that I think it is eminently proper that the mem- bers on this great occasion— perhaps the greatest that ever existed in Missouri— should show the people of this State, and of the whole Union of States, that they are loyal to law and order— [ap- plause in the galleries J— and all the precedents which has heretofore sustained our happy rela- tions, not only with the people of Missouri, but with the people of the United States. I do not hold that, because we take this oath as members of this Convention, that Ave shall submit to a wrong from the General Government or from the government of the State of Missouri, or from any other quarter. We swear to support the Consti- tution of the United States and of the State of Missouri, as they exist at present. We say noth- ing about the execution of the laws passed under this Constitution ; we do not take into considera- tion the violations of this Constitution that may exist, or that may hereafter arise, but we swear simply to the fact that we will uphold the princi- ples of the Constitution as they exist, both State and National. [Applause.]
Mr. Redd. So far as I am concerned, I think a state of case may arise — I hope it will not — in which this State will be driven to one of two ex- tremities, to surrender her institutions or a sever-
ance of her connection with the Northern States of this Confederacy. [Slight applause in the galleries.] I say, taking that view of it, I have no objection to taking this oath, for this plain, palpable reason, that I believe if Missouri is placed in that position and may thus elect to sever her connection with the Northern States, that she is not violating the Constitution, but that she is ex- ercising an inherent right, a part of her original sovereignty reserved to her by that instrument. But I know there are gentlemen who are for the Union as much as myself, and ready to do any- thing for its preservation, but yet, when we are driven, either to a surrender of these constitution- al rights, or a severance of our Union with the Confederacy, will go, like myself, for a sev- erance of that Union. They differ with me in this. They believe the exercise of that right inconsistent with the Constitution, and in violation of it, and for the reason that they enter- tain that view I am in tavor of this motion to reconsider and leave them to act as their constit- uents wish them to act, and as the safety of the institutions of the State may require them to act. I shall therefore support this motion.
Mr. Birch. Would it be in order to renew the motion to execute the order of yesterday for a se- cret session. If it would be I think we have had demonstrative evidence in the hissses or applause which we have heard, to show why that order should be executed.
The Chair. That depends upon whether the mover of the motion now pending will withdraw it.
Mr. Birch. I ask the gentleman if he will withdraw his motion, in order that I may renew mine. I offer no vindication for so doing, except what has proceeded around us. In saying this I make no reflection upon gentlemen in the gal- lery. I know what human feeling is ; but I think we should be removed from its influence.
Mr. Howell. To give the gentleman an op- portunity to test the sense of this Convention, I will withdraw my motion, with the understanding that I will renew it.
Mr. Birch. Then I renew my motion for the purpose of determining whether our sessions shall be held hereafter publicly or privately.
Mr. Bogy. I wish to inquire if reporters are to be excluded.
The Chair. Every person not an officer will be excluded.
Mr. Bogy. I wish to amend by including the reporters in the House. [Laughter.]
A Voice. I move the ladies be included, also.
Mr. Birch. I will remark that we can settle all that in secret session, whether we will exclude or admit reporters or ladies.
Mr. Welch. I wish to inquire if it is in order, pending the calling of the ayes and noes, to with- draw a motion.
The Chair. The Chair has not examined the rules.
Mr. Price. It can be if there is no second to the proposition.
Mr. Kxott. As the convention resolved yes- terday to go into secret session, is not that the standing order.
The Chair. The proposition was made by the gentleman from Clinton yesterday, that the con- vention should adjourn until 10 o'clock, this morn- ing, to meet in conclave for the purpose of con- sidering certain questions that is whether the sit- ting of this convention shall be secret or open. One part of the proposition was that the convention should adjourn until to-day, at 10 o'clock.
The Chair regarded the object stated by the gentleman from Clinton, to meet in conclave, as a suggestion made to the minds of the Convention , of the proposition that would be met on this morning at ten o'clock, and not as a direct motion, and I submitted the question to the Convention in that form, but I find that the Sec- retary in recording the motion, has recorded it in the language of the gentleman from Clinton, and not as understood by the Chair. The Chair is therefore in the condition of hav- ing put the motion without reference to the language employed by the mover. I ask therefore, that the Convention solve the difficulty whether the journal shall be corrected as un- derstood by the Chair, or whether the provisions of the motion, there recorded, shall be enforced.
Mr. Sayer. The question was put to me yes- terday, whether we would adjourn until to-day, at 10 o'clock, and not whether we should meet in conclave. I did not vote yesterday to meet here in conclave to-day, and I think it would be more proper if that word was stricken from the journal. I do not think it constituted a part of our action yesterday. If it is competent, I move to strike out the word "conclave" in the journal. I be- lieve we can determine in open session whether we shall meet in secret or open session.
Mr. Moss. For the purpose of relieving the Chair and shortening debate, I make a point of order. I contend these motiors are all out of order; I contend the motion was to adjourn to meet to-day in conclave. I raise that question. The motions that have been made are all out of order, and it was our business to meet in con- clave, and it was the duty of the Chair to exclude all persons not members.
Mr. Watkixs. I think it is due to the gentleman from Clay to make a statement. On yesterday evening, the gentleman from Clinton made a motion to go into secret session. At the instance of several gentlemen he withdrew the motion for the time being, to give the Committee on Credentials time to report, but said he would renew it. The drift of his propo- sition was to go into secret session. Afterwards
he renewed his motion in a different shape, and that motion was that the Convention adjourn to ten o'clock this morning, when we would go into secret session.
Mr. Moss. I merely made my motion at the suggestion of the Chair. I understood he desired an expression as to whether we had adjourned to meet privately.
Mr. Wilson. It occurs to me that the motion to correct the journal will have precedence over all other motions.
The Chair. The Convention then will regard the question before it as amotion to correct the journals, by striking out the words, "to meet in conclave."
Mr. Birch. It is suggested to me that I state my motion. I made the original motion to ad- journ until 3 o'clock, so that we could go into conclave, and determine whether we would have a secret session. Some one suggested 10 o'clock, and presently two or three others suggested that the Committee could not report at three o'clock. For that reason, the motion to adjourn to 10 o'clock, was adopted, and I know it was not the intention of the Chair to cut me out of my motion by stating it in different lan- guage. I am willing that the question shall be taken on amending the journal, but I would suggest that those who were not here yesterday cannot vote understanding^, and that, therefore, the question will be more directly reached by some member moving to postpone the subject of holding a secret session.
Mr. Moore, it seems to me the motion I made brings this question directly up.
Mr. Stewart. In order to get at the matter, I move the resolution of yesterday be postponed. I do not think it necessary that we should go into a secret session. "We are met here as the repre- sentatives of the people, upon the most important question that ever has or ever will be gotten up — a proposition whether we will stand by the Union, or in a contingency dissolve our connection with it.
The Chair. The question is on amending the journal. Those who consider that the vote of yesterday was to meet in conclave will vote against the correction of the journal, and those who understood that we were to meet in open session will vote for the correction of the journal.
Mr. Gantt. I suggest that those who were not here yesterday shall not be allowed to vote.
Mr. Smith. It is a matter of fact that there was no such motion put to the Convention as to meet in conclave. Now, if the gentleman had made the motion to adjourn to St. Louis, and the Chair had put the motion to simply adjourn, would we have been bound to have adjourned? All we have got to do is to vote what the action of the Convention was,
8
The vote was taken and the motion to correct the journal was sustained — Ayes 48, noes 39.
The vote was then taken on the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution requiring the members to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri was adopted.
The motion was laid on the table ; ayes 65, noes 30, as follows :
Ayes — Messsrs. Allen, Bass, Bogy, Breckin- ridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Busch, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Donnell, Dunn, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jameson, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDow- ell, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Nocll, Norton, Orr, Philips, Price, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, TinkalL Turner, Welch, Wilson, Woolfolk, Wright, Van Buskirk, Zimmerman — 65.
Noes— Bartlett, Bast, Birch, Brown, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Frayser, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, M.irmaduke, Matson, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Saver, Shackelford of How- ard. Shecley, Warren, Watkins, Woodson — 30.
After the vote was announced Mr. Hudgins said, I desire to be informed if it is obligatory on members who are not willing to take the oath if they are to be sworn in. I understand this law calling a Convention, but I did not understand it as requiring an oath. I do not know but my duty as a member of the Convention may require me to give votes that might come in conflict with that oath. I know but little of the future, and if this is obligatory I should not like, at this stage of affairs, to take an oath. I desire to say that I do not want it to be understood that I am in favor of severing the relations of this State to the General Government, but I know not what may be the result. I understand this to be a Peo- ple's Convention ; I understand that I will have the right to ask of the General Government a change of the constitution of the United States, which we are required to be sworn to support; for the proposition for peace looks to that point, that the constitution is not sufficient, as construed by one portion of this confederacy, t© make peace in this Union ; to require members of the Conven- tion to take an oath, is, as I understand it, taking the oath of a submissionist.
Mr. Orr. For the information of gentlemen, we are not going to take an oath because of any law passed by the Legislature, but because of a rule that has been adopted this morning by a vote of 65 to 30.
Mr. Sheeley. I was one of those who voted against laying on the table. Twenty-five years ago, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, and that oath is now upon record. I consider the first oath just as binding, as though I were to take one to-day, and should the event occur to which the gentleman alludes, that war may be declared and the State of Missouri called tip on to seek protection , or aid from coercion, I for one am ready to fall back on the revolutionary rights of the fathers, and afford such aid.
Mr. Price. The gentleman inquires whether he would be bound to take an oath under the resolution. That resolution is the lawr of this Convention, and binding upon every member, but any member has the right to violate that law. Yet it becomes the imperative duty of the pre- siding officer to impose it, if not by one way to do it in another. I am surprised that the gentleman from Andrew should have any hesitation. If I recollect aright, it oc- curs to me that he is a practicing lawyer, and every lawyer in the land takes an oath to sup- port the Constitution of the State and the United States. We are bound to obey and support that Constitution as long as it exists. I have taken an oath to support the Constitution, and that oath is binding upon me now, yet I have no compunc- tions of conscience about renewing it.
Mr. Knott. I voted against laying the propo- sition to reconsider on the table, because I con- ceived the practical question involved should be first considered, and that is, suppose any dele- gate here refuses to take the oath, we cannot com- pel him to do it — are youthen to disfranchise him and the disirict he represents ? So far as I am con- cerned, I am under obligations to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and, whether under that obligation or not, I expect to support those Constitutions, and no act of mine will violate either one of them. I voted against laying on the table, because I wanted this other question settled be- fore hand. I do not know that any gentleman will refuse, but we ought to consider what to do in case he does.
Mr. Wilson. I do not see much dif- culty in the whole matter. Every one of these gentlemen who has a license to practice law is already under this very oath. I took it some thirty years ago, and I think it still rests upon me, but I have not the slightest hesitancy to renew that oath upon this occasion or any other occasion as the necessity may require. I see nothing inconsistent about it. — Every member of this honorable Convention is already under this oath, because I see there are a great many lawyers here.
Mr. Hudgins. If the lawyers' license spoken of binds me to support the Constitution, the ques-
tion presents itself to every la <vyer, Why swear him over again if this oath is the same as the oath he practices law under? The action of this Con- vention, then, will be none other than the action between a lawyer and his client; then why swear him over again?
A Voice. You can't swear a lawyer too hard.
Further discussion here closed and the delegates then came forward and were sworn in by Judge Miller, after which the Convention adjourned.
AFTERNOON SESSION*.
Convention re-assembled at 3 o'clock p. m.
Mr. Sheelet moved that the Convention now proceed to the election of permanent officers. Agreed to.
The Chair announced nominations for Presi- dent to be in order.
Mr. Broadhead nominated the Hon. Sterling Price.
Mr. Hatcher nominated Gen. Nathaniel W. Watkins.
Mr. Turner nominated the Hon. Sample Orr.
Mr. Orr. I believe for about forty years I have had the presumption that has enabled me to undertake anything, almost, I have been called upon to do; but upon this occasion, having never been a member of any deliberative assembly, I shall have to beg the gentleman to withdraw my name, after thanking him kindly for the partiality manifested in my behalf.
Mr. Turner. I will withdraw the name of Judge Orr in accordance with his own sugges- ion. I did not consult the Judge, but I supposed the Convention wanted some good locking man for President, and so I nominated him. [Laugh- ter.]
No other nominations being made, a vote was taken with the following result :
For General Price. — Messrs. Allen, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Chenault, Co- mingo, Crawford, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Ran- dolph, Harbin, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Knott, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormick, McDow- ell, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ray, Redd, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Scott, Shackleford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheele, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Walker, Wat- kins, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk and Zim- merman— 75.
For General Watkins — Messrs. Bartlett, Cayce, Collier, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell. Leeper, Noell, Pipkin, Price, Rankin, Sayers and Woodson — 15.
Hon. Sterling Price having received a ma- jority of all the votes cast, he was declared duly elected President.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved that a com- mittee of three be appointed to inform Mr. Price of his election, and conduct him to the chair. Agreed to.
The President appointed Messrs. Hall, Broad- head and Chenault as such committee, who there- upon conducted Mr. Price to the chair amid much applause.
Mr. Price, on taking the chair, spoke as fol- lows :
I thank you, gentlemen of the Convention, for the honor you have thought proper to confer upon me, in selecting me to preside over your delibera- tions. It is under no ordinary circumstances in the history of our State and of the Union, that we have assembled in Convention. It may re- quire a life-time to retrace one false step. Hence the necessity of calm, deliberate and dispassionate thought and action on the part of this Conven- tion, which cannot be had without order and de- corum in this body. I shall, hope, gentlemen, to be able properly to apply the rules which you have adopted for your government, with your kind forbearance and assistance. Without your assistance, your presiding officer can accomplish nothing. I again thank you, gentlemen, for the h mor you have been pleased to confer upon me. [Applause.]
The Chair announced nominations for Vice President to be in order.
Mr. Brown nominated Mr. Robert Wilson.
Mr. Hall moved that the nomination be con- curred in unanimously.
Agreed to, and Mr- Wilson announced duly elected Vice President.
Nominations for Secretary being next in order,
Mr. Rowland nominated Mr. M. R. Cullen, of St. Louis.
Mr. Sawyer nominated S. A. Lowe, of Pettis county.
Mr. Hall nominated M. J. Thompson, of Bu- chanan county.
Mr. Gamble nominated R. J. Lackey of Jeffer- son City.
Mr. Welch nominated Col. Grover of John- son county.
Mr. Knott nominated Mr. Fox of Callaway county.
Ballots were taken with the following result.
First Ballot— Cullen, 16; Lowe, 20; Thompson, 12; Lackey, 22; Grover, 13; Fox 5.
Second Ballot— Cullen, 15; Lowe, 27; Thomp- son, 11; Lackey, 27; Grover, 11; Fox, 3.
Names of Thompson and Fox withdrawn.
Third Ballot— Cullen, 16; Low, 35; Lackey, 34; Grover, 10.
Names of Cullen and Grover withdrawn.
Fourth Ballot— Low, 51 ; Lackey, 44.
10
Mr. Low having received a majority of all the votes cast, he was declared duly elscted Secretary and qualified by taking the oath.
Nominations for Assistant Secretary being next in order, the following gentlemen were nom- inated :
By Mr. Knott, James McHenry of Cole county.
By Mr. Orr. Mr. Shellady, of Camden county.
By Mr. Irwin. Mr. Gilstrap, of Macon county.
By Mr. Henderson. R. A. Camel, of Pike county.
By Mr. Douglass. T. Baknhead, of Coopei county.
By Mr. Holt. M. Singleton, of Phelps county.
By Mr. Long. D. R. Risley, of St. Louis.
By Mr. Chenault. D. Kerr.
Ballots were taken, with the following result :
First Ballot : McHenry 13, Shellady 12, Gilstrap 24, Camel 28, Kerr 8, Bankhead 6, Singleton 2, Risley 1.
The names of Bankhead and Singleton with- drawn.
Second Ballot: McHenry 14, Shellady 9, Gil- strap 33, Camel 33, Kerr 4, Risley 2.
The names of Kerr and Risley withdrawn.
Third Ballot : McHenry 9, Shellady 9, Gilstrap 33, Camel 42.
Names of Shellady and McHenry withdrawn.
Fourth Ballot : Gilstrap 35; Camel 58.
Mr. Camel was declared duly elected Assis- tant Secretary.
Nominations for Doorkeeper being in order, the following gentlemen were nominated :
C. P. Anderson, John E. Davis, Andrew J. Russell, Thomas J. Ferguson, John D. Jackson, William Vanover, Nathaniel Dorris.
First Ballot: Anderson 28; Davis 10; Russell 11; Ferguson 12; Jackson 8; Vanover 16; Dor- ris 8.
Mr. Anderson receiving 52 votes at the second ballot, he was declared duly elected Doorkeeper.
The President declared the permanent organi- zation of the Convention complete.
Mr. Hall, of Randolph, offered the following resolution :
Resolved, that when this Convention adiourns to-day, it will adjourn to meet in the Mercantile Library Hall, of St. Louis, on Monday morning next at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Hall, in explanation, spoke as follows :
I understand, Mr. President, that the use of the Library Hall has been tendered us by the proper authorities in St. Louis, and that it is very well adapted for the purposes of this Convention. I have also understood that we have been tendered our passage free to St. Louis on the Railroad. This room, I think we must all see, is very ill suited to the discharge of our business. I am in- formed that, in point of convenience, comfort to the members, and economy, we shall gain by
going to St. Louis. On that account I have of- fered that resolution.
Mr. Harbin — I hope that this resolution will not be adopted. There have been arrangements made here at the cost of the State for the accom- modation of the members of this Convention, and now, sir to adjourn from this place to St. Louis, or any other place, and waste time, which is money to the State, is out of the question. I am opposed to adjourning from this to anyplace, and, sir, I move to lay the resolution on the table.
The motion to table was put and lost by the fol- lowing vote.
For Tabling — Messrs. Bass, Bast, Bogy, Cal- houn, Cayce, Chenault, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Giyens, Gorin, Gravelly, Harbin, Hendricks, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Knott, McClurg, McDowell, Morrow, Orr, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Sayer, Scott, Shacklcford of Howard, Stewart, Waller, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Zimmermann.
Against Tabling — Messrs. Bartlett, Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Collier, Comingo, Dunn, Eitzen, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Henderson, Hitch- cock, Holmes, Holt, How,Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McCormack, Meyer, Moss, Noell, Norton, Philipps, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Price, Redd, Rowland, Sawyer, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Watkins, Woolfolk, Wright and Vanbuskirk.
The Chair. The question is now on the adop- tion of the resolution.
Mr. Hatcher. If this movement involved any additional expense to the State, I for one should vote against the resolution, but as I un- derstand it will cost the State not one additional dollar, the Hall being tendered free of expense, and our passage over the railroad being free, I can see no objection to it. The Convention see how we are situated here. There are no desks, and we cannot write out a resolution or an amend- ment, should any of us feel disposed to do so. I will attach no blame to the Commissioner of Pub- lic Buildings, as he has no doubt done the best he could under the circumstances, but when we take into consideration the inconvenience of doing business here, and the facilities which I under- stand will be afforded us in St. Louis, I think we are fully justified in adopting the resolution.
Mr. Knott. I shall oppose this resolu- tion. I believe the seat of Government is the proper place for holding the Conven- tion. Although we may be put to some in- convenience here, I think there are consider- ations which, if properly weighed, ought to induce us to reject this resolution. While I admit that this Convention has the power to adjourn to any place in the State, it may see proper, while I
11
feel thankful to the citizens of St. Louis, and es- pecially the officers of the Mercantile library As- sociation, for offering us their hall. Still, I must say sir, (and gentlemen here are aware of the fact, that there is a jealousy existing between St. Louis and the country, and by going there, this Convention will subject itself, unjustly I admit, but still will subject itself to censure by a large portion of the people living throughout the coun- try. I am furthermore aware that there are many who seek occasion, seek a pretext to find fault with the action of the Convention, and I, for one, am not in favor of taking any step that will give them any additional pretext at all for saying anything in reference to the action of the Con- vention. Just as sure as we adjourn this body to St. Louis, we will subject ourselves to this cen- sure, and I, for one, rather than that I should see that action made a pretext for any censure at all, will put up with great personal inconvenience, and I hope that the Convention will look at the matter in the same light. As to the matter of cost, I think it should not be taken into consider- ation at all; but we should have proper regard to the manner in which the country at large looks at the thing. Now the country at large cannot see and appreciate the fact as we do; it is impos- sible that they should ; and however many our inconveniences may be here, I tell you the coun- try cannot see them, and they expect us to hold our deliberations here.
Mr. Breckinridge. I rise to say onlv a word. I wish expressly to disclaim any purpose to take the smallest part in any discussion that may arise upon the proposition before the Con- vention. For myself, and I believe I may say al- so for the whole delegation of which I have the honor to be a member, we have thought it our duty scrupulously to abstain from saying a word calculated in any respect to influence the action of any member of the Convention touch- ing this matter which, as we all know, has been somewhat discussed for a day or two. After say- ing this much, I wish simply to add that at the re- quest of some members from the country, I tele- graphed to St. Louis on the day before yesterday, and had early yesterday morning an answer to this effect, that I was requested, as were the other delegates from St. Louis, to offer to the Conven- tion the free use of either one of the halls belong- ing to, and controlled by the Mercantile Library Association. One of these halls has a capacity of, I believe, from fifteen to eighteen hundred per- sons, and the other, I think, from five to eight hundred, being much larger than this room. At- tached to both are several large and commo- dious rooms, which can be used for various purposes, such as the assembling of committees, which the body will no doubt need. I can only add that the offer is made in all sincerity;
that the Mercantile Library Association, I am sure, would deem it a great honor if the Conven- tion will accept their offer; and that for myself and my associates, and I may add also, for the whole people of the city of St. Louis, we will es- teem it not only a pleasure, but an honor to have the sesions of this body in our city.
Mr. Knott. I should like to ask the gentle- man if one or the other of these halls is supplied with writing desks ?
Mr. Breckinridge. I can say, that, though neither of them is at this moment supplied with desks, still, I am willing to be responsible that either one will be supplied with all possible con- veniences for the Convention, and that, too, with- out expense.
Mr. Knott. I would make motion that this resolution lie over until next Monday morning. I desire to remark that I have understood the House of Representatives will adjourn, and give their hall to this Convention, rather than see them go to St. Louis. [Laughter.] I therefore move to postpone the further consideration of this resolu- tion until Monday.
The motion to postpone was put and lost.
The question recurring on the adoption of Mr. Hall's resolution, it was adopted.
The Chair. I have a communication from a gentleman who has come here as Delegate from the State of Georgia, which I desire to lay before the Convention . [Cries of "Read! read!"]
The Secretary read the communication, in which Mr. Luther I. Glenn announces himself as a Com- missioner to the Missouri State Convention from the Georgia Convention, and desires the Conven- tion to designate the manner in which he is to discharge the duties devolved upon him. The communication was accompanied with the follow- ing certificate from the officers of the Georgia State Convention.
State of Georgia— Whereas : The people of Georgia in Convention assembled, having autho- rized the appointment of a Commissioner to the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Ten- nessee, North Carolina, Kentucky and Missouri, to present to the Legislatures or Conventions, or in the event neither shall be in session, to the Governors of said States, the ordinance of the secession of Georgia, and to invite their co-opera- tion with her and other seceding States in the for- mation of a Southern Confederacy : Be it there- fore known that I, the President of said Conven- tion, do hereby appoint Luther I. Glenn as Com- missioner to the State of Missouri, with authority then and there to act, in conformity to said reso- lution.
In witness whereof, I, George W. Crawford, have hereto set my hand this 29th day of Jan- uary, 1861. GEO. W. CRAWFORD, Pres.
Attest: A. R. Lamar, Secretary.
12
Mr. Hall. I understand that communication to suggest some very important considerations. I do not know what course to pursue in regard to it, except to lay it on the table, so that we can take it up and consider it next week. I move to lay it on the table, and that it be printed for the use of the Convention.
Mr. Sheeley. Would it not be well to add that the Commissioner be requested to address the Convention ? [Cries of no ! no !]
Mr Orr. Mr. President, I beg leave to say that we will do our own addressing here, if they will let us. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hall's motion was then put and carried.
On motion of Mr. Wilson, the Rev. Andrew Monroe was requested to act as the Chaplain of the Convention.
Mr. Wilson offered the following resolution, which was ordered to lay over informally :
Resolved, That a Committee of three be ap- pointed to contract with two persons duly quali- fied to report the debates and proceedings of the Convention.
Mr. Birch offered the following resolution, which was adopted.
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due to Gen. James Minor, for his courteous compliance with its request to act as Secretary pro tern., and for the prompt and able manner in which he has discharged that duty.
Mr. Welch. The Convention, in opposition to my vote upon that question, has determined to adjourn to St. Louis. The resolution, I believe, fixes the hour at 10 o'clock, on Monday morning, but as we learn from the gentleman from St. Louis that the Hall is not ready for the Conven- tion, and as it cannot, perhaps, be ready before Tuesday, I would move a reconsideration in order to amend it.
Mr. Hall moved that the Convention now ad- j ourn.
The motion to adjourn was put and carried.
Convention declared adjourned to St. Louis, to meet again on Monday morning, at 10 o'clock.
THIRD DAY.
St. Louis, March 4th, 1861.
Met at 12 1-2 o'clock.
Mr. President Price in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Mr. Monroe.
Journal of Friday read and approved.
Mr. Gamble. I desire to offer the following resolutions :
Resolved, That a committee of seven be ap- pointed, to be called the Committee on Federal Relations, who shall consider and report on the relations now existing between the Governmen t of the United States, the government of the peo-
ple of the different States and the government of the people of this State.
Resolved, That all propositions and resolutions that may be moved by any member of the Con- vention, touching the relations of Missouri with the Federal Government, shall be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Birch. In view of the attaining the same object contemplated by the resolutions, I had pre- pared a resolution at Jefferson Cit3r, which I now offer as a substitute for the gentleman's resolu- tions :
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the relations between the Gov- ernment of the United States, and the people of the Government of the different States, and the Government pf the State of Missouri, and to report to this Convention such exposition and address, as shall properly denote the views and opinions of those who look to the amicable restoration of the Federal Union, upon such adjustment of the past, and such guarantees of the future as shall render it eternal, permanent and enduring.
Mr. Birch. I will say at this time, in defense of my proposition, that with all proper respect to the mover of the previous resolution, we may as well come to the point set forth in my res- olution, so that we may act expeditiously and understandingly. I suppose the words of my resolution need scarcely any explana- nation. I wrote it, supposing it would meet most probably the views of a majority of this entire Convention, and might go out as a glad sound through Missouri. I will add no more in view of the fact that we should decide at once.
Mr. Gamble. It will be perceived in reading the original resolution, and the substitute which is offered, that the original resolution comprehends the duty of considering and reporting on the rela- tions between the Government of the United States, and the government of the people of this State. The substitute proposes simply to direct the committee that it proposes to have appointed to report an address.
I imagine that the first resolution, which I had the honor of offering to the Convention, compre- hends all that is in the substitute, and a great deal more. This is a committee having power to report precisely such an address as the substitute contemplates, and to make any other re- port that the relations between the United States, and the people and the Govern- ment of this State may require. The second resolution is designed to create a standing body to which shall be referred all the propositions that may be suggested by gentlemen in relation to our Federal relations. This is the course adopted in the Virginia Convention. I think there is, in re- ality, no necessity for the substitute, except as it affords direction.
13
Mr. Knott. I offer the following as an amend- ment to the substitute : Amend by adding " and all propositions and resolutions involving the rela- tions of this State to the General Government and to the other States of this Confederacy shall be referred to said committee." The amendment was rejected, 40 to 43. Mr. Birch. If it be in order, inasmuch as the substitute has been rejected, I will offer my reso- lution as a substitute for the first resolution offered by the gentleman from St. Louis. I am willing to vote for the adoption of the resolution offered by the gentleman from St. Louis. And now, I wish to say, that I merely desire the sense of this Convention at the start, whether they desire this mode of adopting such a meas- ure as will look to the amicable preservation of this Federal Union, as contemplated by the lan- guage of my resolution. I hope my resolution will be adopted, as it will test the sense of the Convention and economize time.
The vote was taken, and the substitute of Mr. Birch disagreed to.
Mr. Gantt. I move to amend the first reso- lution by inserting "13," in place of "7." The object of the amendment requires explanation. In appointing such a committee, I think it is de- sirable that it should be composed of as large a number of persons as is consistent with the dispatch of business.
Mr. Ritchie. I move as a substitute for the amendment, to strike out thirteen and insert, one from each Senatorial District, to be agreed upon by the delegation from each district. Lost.
The amendment offered by Mr. Gantt was then agreed to, and the resolutions adopted.
The President laid before the Convention let- ters from Charles D. Drake, Esq., President of the Law Library, and Alfred Carr, Secretary of the Mercantile Library Association, inviting the mem- bers of the Convention to visit each Library dur- ing the session of the Convention.
A resolution appointing Wm. M. Burris, as page, was taken up and adopted.
Mr. Long. I understand there are many ladies who desire to be present during the session of the Convention, and as there are a number of vacant seats inside of the bar, I offer the following resolution ;
Resolved, That the vacant seats inside the bar be tendered to the ladies who may desire to attend the Convention. Adopted. Mr. Pomeroy. I offer the following: Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- pointed to wait upon the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, Commissioner from Georgia, and invite him to occupy a seat within the bar; and, also, to request him to signify his convenience as to when he can communicate with the Convention.
Mr. Wright. I offer the following as a substi- tute :
Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- pointed by the Chair, to take into consideration the communication received from the Hon. L. J. Glenn, Commissioner from our sister State of Georgia, and report to this body what action shall be taken thereon.
Mr. Redd. I offer a substitute to the substi- tute:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to wait upon the Commissioner accredited to this State by the State of Georgia, and inform him that this Convention will receive him at 1 o'clock, this day, and hear what he ma)r choose to com- municate on the subject of his mission.
I wish to state my reasons for offering this, Mr. President : I understand that the Georgia Conven- tion assembles on Tuesday next; and it is the de- sire of Mr. Glenn to be present; and if the State of Missouri intends to extend to him that courte- sy which every sovereign State owes to itself, in the reception of a Commissioner accredited by another State, it ought to do it now, for the reason that I have stated. He will be unable to remain with us the term, as I have been informed he in- tends to leave on the cars, this evening.
Mr. Sayer. I have a resolution which I desire to offer, with the hope that it may be accepted by the gentlemen from Marion. The Chair. It is not in order. Mr. Sayer. I will read it for information. Resolved, That the Commissioner from the State of Georgia be invited to a seat within the bar of the house, and that the Convention desig- nate this evening at 7 1-2 o'clock, in this Hall, as a fit time and place for the duties specified in his communication, and that a committee be appoint- ed to execute the foregoing resolution.
Mr. Broadhead. I do not wrant to consume any unnecessary time on a point of order, but I submit that the proposition of the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Redd) is not in order. The gentle- man from St. Louis offered a substitute for the resolution. The gentleman from Marion offered a substitute for the substitute. According to my recollection of the rules of parliamentary law, this is out of order, for it simply destroys the original proposition.
The Chair. The gentleman certainly has the right to introduce an amendment to the substi- tute and strike out all after the word "resolved" and insert the following.
Mr. Broadhead. Of course, sir, I do not ques- tion the right to amend the substitute.
The Chair. The gentleman desires to amend the substitute. I stated the question erroneously, I confess, sir.
Mr. Doniphan. I desire to know whether the gentleman from Marion is willing to accept the time as suggested — whether seven o'clock this evening will be acceptable to Mr. Glenn, and whether he desires to leave to-morrow.
14
Mr. Redd. I will state that I have had no communication with Mr. Glenn on that subject, but I have been informed that he desires to leave on the evening train.
Mr. Doxiphax. This Convention has been called, not for anything in Missouri, not in rela- tion to our own domestic condition, but called in view of the circumstances that surround us in this Union, in view of the rapid disintegration of this Government, to see if that cannot be arrested ; and one of the means to arrest this disintegra- tion, is to restore back the seceded States, and produce the harmony and homogeneousness that existed six months ago. This Ave can only do by according sympathy with the South. I do not agree with the doctrines of secession. I am far from being a secessionist, but if they come back, it will only be through fraternal feeling, cour- tesy, kindness, and respect. We are standing here between the North and the South as media- tors, and as mediators, we cannot reject the pro- position sent here by the State of Georgia, desig- nating herself only as the State of Georgia, and sending her Commissioner to us; and the sooner we act upon this proposition, the bet- ter it will be for the purposes of harmony and Union. Mr. Glenn can say nothing but what ev- ery man can weigh and consider. I have been at Washington, where I have heard everything from Abolitionism to Secessionism, for the last forty days, and no man, who is a man, and acting here in a manly way, but is willing, I think, to hear what can be said. I am, therefore, for the origin- al proposition, and hope that the hour of 12, to- day, will be designated as the time to hear him.
Mr. Wilsox — I desire to vote for a resolution that will suit the gentleman's convenience, and if 12 o'clock will accommodate him, I am in favor of agreeiug to that hour.
The Chair. Does the gentleman accept of the amendment ?
Mr. Redd. I accept.
Mr. Pomeroy. I will state that while at Jeffer- son City, I roomed with Mr. Glenn, and con- versed with him as to the time when he could ad- dress the convention. He designated that two o'clock to-day would suit him the best. I have introduced a resolution.
The Chair. Mr. Glenn informed me at 8 o'clock last night that he preferred 12 o'clock to-day.
Mr. Pomeroy. Then I have nothing further to say.
Mr. Orr. I am as able to withstand the ar- guments of a gentleman from Georgia, or an abolitionist from the North, as any gentleman here, but I am here representing in part a district composed of a people who are as liberal and as virtuous and as hospitable to strangers, as any other gentleman that is here to-day. I am also here to discharge the duties that I have voluntarily placed myself under in relation to the oath I took
the other day. I have taken an oath that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Missouri. I hold in my hand here a communication from Mr. Glenn, in which he says the people of Georgia, in Com^ention assembled, appointed commissioners to sev- eral States now in this Union, for the purpose of forming a Southern Confederacy. Now, from his communication I understand the mission of this gentleman to be to ask us to vio- late the oaths we have voluntarily taken — to ask us to co-operate with the Southern seceding States in doing — what ? In perpetuating the bless- ings of this Government? No, sir; but to aid in tearing to pieces the best Government the sun has ever shone upon. He is here to-day, and called an ambassador by some. By others a commis- sioner. If he is an ambassador he has missed the right city. He should have gone to Washington. If he is here as a commissioner from a sister State, then the oath we have taken forbids that we should form an alliance with any other State in the Confederacy. Therefore, I shall oppose, for one, hearing this gentleman in Convention at all. I am willing to hear the gentleman, and treat him with all the respect that a citizen of a State that has long acted with us demands. Now, I am asked by some gentlemen, "Would you be so discourteous as to refuse to allow a citizen of another State to enter your house ?" I say the citizen of a sister State, whether born in this or in a foreign land, who comes to my house in the image of his God, and I, not knowing anything of his intentions, the latch-string will always hang out for him, and he can come in; but if he comes to my house, and sends in a communication which shoAvs to me that he intends to break up the peace of my family, he won't come in if I can help it. [Loud cheering outside the bar, and a few hisses.]
The Chair. (Rapping loudly Avith his ham- mer.) I will have the lobby cleared if there is any more cheering.
Mr. Orr. I hope no demonstrations Avill be made on one side or the other. We stand here probably in the most eventful day that has ever been known in our history. EArents Avill date from this day Avhich Avill long be remembered. To-day the inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln will be delivered, and much of the weal or A\roe of this nation depends on that address to-day; and in all probability the action we may take during the next hour Avill not only seal the destinies of Missouri, but blight the prospects of civiliza- tion. We stand here on the banks of the great- est river in the world, and a river I never will con- sent to have cut in twain by this government. We stand here to-day, in the midst of a city that will one day be the great commercial and manu- facturing city of civilization, and I am unwilling to do anything which will blast its progress in
15
the future. Now in regard to this gentleman from Georgia, I am willing to do what is right. I in- tend to vote against hearing this gentleman make a speech in our body, because I believe I am right, and that in so doing I am not acting dis- courteously. I do not believe the district I rep- resent on thin floor would have ever sent their representatives here, if they had declared to the people when before them as candidates, that they were coming to receive a proposition from seceding States, in order to go out and form a Southern Confederacy. I do not believe, if they had told the people that they were coming here to haul down the stars and stripes and run up the Palmetto flag, that they intended to swap the American eagle for the pelican, that they had de- termined to barter off " Yankee Doodle" for the African song " Dixie"— I do not believe, if they had done this, that a solitary individual would have been elected. Then, Mr. President, I shall vote against receiving this commissioner from Georgia, or from any State whatev- er. We are here — for what purpose ? Not for secession — not for the purpose of tearing up this Government, because the people that have elected us have given, I don't know what majority, but Mr. Vest says in his speech a majority of 80 ,000, for the Union. I am not fearful this body is going to be influenced by the gentleman from Georgia, or any gentleman that may come from South Carolina, Florida, or any of the seceding States, or even from Great Brit- ain, which, I believe, seceded seventy- five or eighty years ago. Then I am not afraid this body is going to vote a secession ordinance, for if they do, the people of Missouri will vote it down. Without occupying further time, but acting in view of the responsibility resting upon me, I shall vote against receiving this Commission- er. I am willing he shall come here, and I am perfectly willing to adjourn and hear him speak, but if we invite a gentleman from a seceded State to address us, who asks this Convention to assist in breaking up this Union and form a Southern Confederacy, I shall vote against it, whether any other gentleman does so or not.
Mr. Smith, of St. Louis. I think the practical way to get at this matter will be to lay the sub- stitute on the table, until we reach the substitute we are willing to vote for, if we can get at it.
The Chair.— I would remark to the gentleman that we will not be able to get at it in that way as the propositions will all go together.
Mr. Smith— I shall move to lay them all on the table except Mr. Wright's.
The Chair— Gentlemen cannot do that.
Mr. Smith — I have not made the motion. I agree with the last speaker, that in the first place this Convention has no right to hear this Com- missioner at all, as a Convention, because he has avowed what he intends to say here,
and we are not here for the purpose of listening to arguments in favor of dissolving this Union and joining any other Confederacy. While I am up, I wish, although it may not be strictly in order, but I am following the example of the House of Representatives last Saturday, when a gentleman was permitted to speak on this very subject that I now wish to speak upon; and, with such a precedent before me, I may be permitted to say a few words in regard to the re- moval of this Convention from Jefferson City.
The Chair. I will remark to the gentleman he is not in order; I hope no gentleman feels in- clined to throw mud at any gentleman belonging to the General Assembly. [Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. I bow to the decision of the Chair, but I thought that a little answer to Mr. Vest would be allowed.
The Chair. I could not allow it.
Mr. Smith. I bow to the decision of the Chair. I for one protest against receiving that man in any shape whatever. But I am perfectly willing that the method proposed by the gentleman from St. Louis (Mr. Wright) should be adopted, and I think it as respectful as could be adopted. I do not see what better can be done, and that is the course I advocate— appoint a committee to con- sider and deliberate upon the subject, and report. It has been suggested by one gentleman that we should receive this gentleman, and then go on with our business. I propose that we go on with our business first. That is what we come here to do, and not to receive ambassadors from foreign States or from States in the Union even. If I am in order, I move to lay the last substitute on the table.
The Chair. That of course takes the whole subject,
Mr. Smith. Well then I move to lay the whole subject on the table.
The Chair. The better plan would be to take a vote on the amendment — either to vote it down or adopt it. If it is not adopted, then Mr. Wright's will be in order.
Mr. Smith. In the spirit of my remarks that we should not receive this Commissioner at all, I move to lay the whole subject on the table.
Mr. Doniphan. On that I call the ayes and noes.
Mr. Knott. I second it.
Mr. Breckinridge. I only wish to ask my friend to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Smith. At the request of my colleague, I will withdraw it.
Mr. Wright. I asked leave to so submit a proposition, without any word of explanation; but after what has transpired in this body, I deem it due to myself to intimate the purpose of that substitute to the original proposition. I regret, very much that the mode adopted by me for meeting and determining the relations of this
16
body to the distinguished gentleman from Geor- gia, should have occupied so much time. But I had supposed, in point of fact, that a Commit- tee appointed by this honorable body, would, in twenty minutes, determine this matter, I adopt- ed this mode of receiving this Commissioner from Georgia, because I deemed it respectful to that State, and respectful to us,— because it would show that this body had not acted with that pre- cipitancy which has, unfortunately, become an epidemic in this land in all matters touching the integrity of our great Commonwealth and the perpetuity of these States, because it would show that we had acted with that coolness and wisdom which would become statesmen. I will add that the substitute I offered had no such design as to cast a slur or ignominy upon this Commissioner from our sister State. That is not my object. My object was to treat him with the greatest re- spect and treat ourselves likewise with becoming consideration. My purpose was so to manage this affair as that we could maintain our self- respect — maintain whatever views we have in re- gard to the present condition of public affairs and the relation in which we stand to the Gen- eral Government and our sister States. That we could maintain that position with due respect to ourselves and becoming courtesy to our sister States, and at the same time have a due regard to that allegiance to the banner that hangs above us. My purpose, therefore, as will be seen in this resolution, was to show to our sister State of Georgia that we did not regard her as theoret- ically and legally outside of the pale of empire — that whatever her views might be, we regarded her in the bond of sisterhood, and, so treating it, we could hear what she had to say, and so treating it as that nothing that could come from her would be regarded by the most ardent as so- licitation to treason. It was with this view that I proposed that mode of proceeding, which would be respectful to Georgia, to ourselves, to our flag, and to those high obligations under which we have recently renewed our patriotic allegiance to our country. If such a resolution be passed we can then receive this gentleman at the earliest hour that may accommodate him.
The gentleman from Clay (Mr. Doniphan) says this matter demands grave and important con- sideration. I believe so too. I believe it to be so grave on all sides as to require at least a moment's deliberation, so that we may not follow in the footsteps of that precipitancy which unfortunately has brought about that disintegration of which he complains. Sir, I hold it especially to be the duty of Missouri to be calm, prudent and wise in this emergency. Her yery history speaks the power in regard to this position of mediator and pa- cificator which she should take. She should occupy a middle ground in the temperate zone of politics, which she occupies in a geographical point of
view; she should speak mildly and respectfully to all members of this sisterhood and brother- hood; she should speak mildly and fraternally to the North, erring as it has been ; she should speak kindly and fraternally to the South, erring as it has been; and, at the same time, maintain the integrity of her allegiance to the Union, and show, by her wise and prudent counsel, that madness ought not to rule the hour, but that we should practically follow the example of our fa- thers, and entitle ourselves to the consideration of statesmen, by that cool, clear-headed, practi- cal philosophy which distinguished them above the men of that time in all parts of the earth. The office of Missouri is that of a pacificator. She is entitled to it by her historical position in the family of States. She came in on one of those civil feuds that shook the nation's centre. As a sufferer, she is, perhaps, the greatest; and that very suffering ought to give her power to speak potentially. Thus much, sir— without de- siring to occupy the attention of this honorable body— I have deemed proper to say in behalf of my proposition. I say that my sympathies are with the erring sisters of the South; and I know the delicacy of the position occupied by this gen- tleman from Georgia; and I wish to put him in such a position as that what will come from him will not be treated as solicitations for treason or enmity to the flag of our Union. If these views obtain, I see how the conflict may be reconciled. Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. It is now but a few minutes of 12 o'clock, and I therefore call the previous question.
Mr. McClurg. I would inquire, Mr. Presi- dent— The Chair. The gentleman is out of order. Mr. McClurg. I simply rise for inquiry. I desire to know if the previous question should not be sustained, what would be the effect ? Would it not make the whole subject lie over until to- morrow ? The Chair. Such would be the effect. Mr. McClurg. Then I trust that the gentle- man will withdraw his motion for the previous question.
The motion for the previous question was put and sustained.
The question next being on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. Redd, it was answered affirmatively by the following vote :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Cormingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglas Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Gravely, Hall of Buchanan, Harbin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell, Hudgins, Kicld, Knott, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, McCormick, Mc- Dowell, McFerran, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Pipkin, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Saw- yer, Saver, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley,
17
Stewart, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wil- son, Woodson, Wool folk, Vanbuskirk, Zimmer- man and Mr. President — 62.
Noes— Messrs. Bogy, Breckinridge, Brodhead, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Irvin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, Linton, Long, Maupin, Mc- Clurg, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Pomeroy, Rowland, Shackleford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner and Wright— 35.
Substitute declared adopted.
The Chair appointed Messrs Redd, Wright and Pipkin as the committee to wait upon Mr. Glenn.
Mr. Redd asked to be excused.
Excused, and Mr. Pomeroy appointed in his stead.
The committe retired to give notice to Mr. Glenn of the action of the Convention.
Mr. Birch said as the Convention had deter- mined to have open session, he would deem it es- sential that the proceedings should be correctly reported. He was therefore in favor of secur in^ the services of well qualified reporters.
Mr. Wilson called up the resolution offered by him on Friday, in regard to the same subject.
The resolution was read by the Secretary.
Mr. Sheelet rose to inquire whether the Con- vention was authorized to appoint and pay its Re- porters.
Mr. Wilson*. I understand the law calling this Convention gives them all the power as to officers and servants which the Legislature of the State has. It has been customary under the rules, for a number of sessions, to pay reporters. I suppose, therefore, there is no question as to the authority of the Convention to employ and pay reporters if they think proper. And while I am up, Mr. President, I may as well say that I think it very important that this Convention should take the proper means to be reported correctly. It is sup- posed—in the country at least— that we are a body of an important character, and if we are reported at all, it is very proper and right that we should be correctly reported. For this reason I have offered the resolution.
Mr. Hatcher. I would ask, Mr. President, how and when the reports shall be published— whether in newspapers or pamphlet form, or how?
The Chair. The reports will be made for the use of the Convention, and the Convention may make any disposition of them, I imagine, which it chooses
The question was then taken on the resolution, and answered affirmatively.
Resolution declared adopted.
The Chair appointed Messrs. Wilson, Birch, and Hall, of Randolph, as the Committee.
2
Mr. Foster offered a resolution declaring W. D. Bartlctt Sergeant-at-arms for the Convention, and said :
In presenting this resolution, Mr. President, I think it must be very apparent to this Convention that a Sergeant-at-arms will be necessary. Al- though the Committee, in making their report, thought proper, for reasons I suppose satifactory to themselves, not to designate such an officer as necessary in Jefferson City, yet it is evident we shall need one here. I have simply to add that Mr. Bartlett is well qualified to discharge the du- ties of Sergeant-at-arms. He is a worthy, respec- table citizen, and resides North of the Missouri river, but is, notwithstanding, a good sound man. Laughter.]
Mr. Sheeley offered as a substitute for Mr. Foster's resolution, that the Convention now pro- ceed to the election of a Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. Chenault. I will call the Chair's atten- tion to the thirty-seventh rule. It seems to me that our action is in conflict with that rule.
The Chair. The Chair is aware of that rule. This does not violate that rule.
The substitute was thereupon adopted, and the Convention proceeded to the election of Sergeant at Arms.
The following gentlemen were put in nomina- tion :
W. D. Bartlett, of Macon county, John Stove, of St. Louis, Dr. J. M. Martin, of Callaway county, Calvin Paris, of St. Louis county, and Col. Grover, of Johnson county.
A ballot was taken with the following result :
Bartlett, 37; Stove, 1; Martin, 14; Paris, 2; Grover, 38.
The names of Martin and Stove were with- drawn.
The Convention was proceeding with a second ballot, when the committee arrived with the Hon. L. J. Glenn, Commissioner from the State of Georgia.
Mr. Glenn, after having been introduced to the President and the Convention, spoke as fol- lows:
commissioner glenn's speech.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Missouri Convention : On the 19th day of January, a Con- vention of the people of the State of Georgia adopted an ordinance of secession, which I beg leave to read and present to this Convention. They also adopted a resolution appointing com- missioners to the various States, which I "will read. [Mr. Glenn here read the ordinance of se- cession passed by the State of Georgia, and the resolution referring to his appointment as Commis- sioner.] Under that resolution, gentlemen of the Convention, I had the honor to be appointed a Commissioner from the State of Georgia to the State of Missouri, and having read and presented to you the ordinance of secession and the resolu-
18
tion, my duty might be considered as having been performed. It is, perhaps, however, due alike to the State which I represent, and the State of Mis- souri, that, with your permission, I shall accom- pany the execution of my duty with a few brief remarks. I propose to trespass upon your pa- tience but a short time.
Georgia has not assumed this position because of any dissatisfaction with the Constitution, be- cause of any dissatisfaction with the General Government when administered in accordance with the spirit of that Constitution. If her North- ern confederates had been true to that instru- ment, if they had carried out the Federal Consti- tution according to its spirit and letter, Georgia, having been among the first to adopt the Federal Constitution, would have been among the last to have abandoned the General Government. The causes which have operated to induce and impel the State of Georgia, one of the old thirteen States, one of those which passed through the fire and blood of the Revolution, to sever the ties th at bound her to the Government of her fathers, have been enunciated, and read and understood of all men.
I do not, gentlemn, propose to enter into any- thing like a detailed history of the rise and pro- gress, and present position of the anti-slavery feel- ing of the North. To do so would be a reflection upon yuor intelligeuce — an abuse of your indul- gence, and an assumption on my part of an un- necessary task.
The first occasion upon which this feeling of hostility among the people of the Northern States assumed a position of hostility was, I believe, the application of your own people, then a Territory, for admission into the Federal Union. With the history and result of that struggle you are fa- milar. I need not recite it. Without assuming a political aspect or organization, the Abolition- ists a few years after this event formed societies; they established newspapers at different points. In New York, Boston and other places, they began to teach the mind of the rising generation. They began to preach their doctrines from the puipit, and but a few years elapsed before this anti- slavery feeling had so far overcome and taken possession of the religious mind of the North that (as you remember in 1844) they deposed from office one of their ablest men, to-wit : Bishop An- drew, of Georgia, for no other reason than that he had intermarried with a lady in Georgia who was possessed of a few negroes in her own right. It was then, you recollect, that the Southern Methodists dissolved their connection with their fanatical brethren of the North. The same feeling and spirit of opposition to the Southern interest and institutions — the same fan- atical spirit if you please— entered into the Bap- tist church and soon after brought about an effective separation of that denomination. And,
in truth, gentlemen of Missouri, so far has this feeling taken possession of the mind of the North, that at this time there are but few places and few churches to be found on the Northern soil, where the Southern church, however pure and upright and devoted to its cause, would be allowed to proclaim its holy mission. As might have been expected, this feeling entered into the political organ ization of the country. The Abolition party of the North, for many ye-irs, only held the balance of power between tho political organ- izations of the country, but it soon took pos- session of one of them and you know, aa every man knows who has read the histoiy of the political parties of the country, that the untimely end of the old Whig organization was attribut- able alone to this cause. Even Mr. Clay, with all his power, and with all his influence could not save the Whig organization from the withering effects and influence of this party. Gentlemen, some years thereafter another political organiza- tion, the American party, arose — as was said, on the ruins of both the old political organizations, discarding the evils of both, and combining the virtues of both. It lived for a while, so long as it was confined within the limits of State Govern- ments, and you remember that no sooner than the delegates of this party from the North and South, in 1856, met in convention in the city of Philadelphia, than they disagreed and differed in reference to the slave question, and it was then that the delegates from the North- ern States, or most of them withdrew and went into a convention with those of more congenial principles and tastes in the city of Pittsburgh, and there Mr. Fremont was nomi- nated. You remember the platform upon which he was nominated, I will not take up your timu by reading it. You will remember that the prin- ciple therein advocated was that it was the duty, the right and power of Congress to exclude the men of the South with their property from the common territory of the Union. You will further remember, gentlemen, what a contest there was in the election that followed. You vividly recol- lect that struggle, and that it was only after the most superhuman effort on the part of the Demo- cratic party, the conservative portion of the peo- ple of the North, that Mr. Buchanan was elected.
Well, gentlemen, four years passed away. Within that time does the anti- slavery feeling o. the North subside? Is there any abatement of hostility of the Northern people towards the insti- tutions and rights of the South ? Why, within those four years what have the people of Georgia seen and witnessed? They have witnessed tho formation of Emigrant Aid Societies for the pur- pose of sending men into the common Territories of the country for no other object than to exclude the men of Georgia and men of Missouri there-
19
from with their property. In that same time they have witnessed their own and your own people shot down, and the soil of Kansas moistened with the blood of your own people, for no other crime than the assertion and vindication of their own constitutional rights. Within that time, gentle- men, we have seen the Governor of a non-slave- holding State refusing to deliver a fugi- tive from justice upon the demand of the Governor of the State of Kentucky, for the reason, as they hold, that it is no crime to entice your slaves to leave you. Within that time Georgia has witnessed more than sixty Re- presentatives of this organization at the North, endorsing and recommending the infamous senti- ments contained in the Helper Book, and but for I the indomitable perseverance of one of the Mis- : souri Representatives in urging his resolution to i that effect, she would have witnessed one of the j men who endorsed the book elevated to the Speakership. She has witnessed, moreover, with- in these four years almost every State North of Mason and Dixon's line pass under the influence . and power of the Republican organization of the North. She has seen within that time the true men, the constitutional men of the North cut down one after another, and in every case and on every occasion where the opportunity has oc- curred, every true and constitutional man in the Senate of the United States, with but one excep- tion within the last four years, has been swept 1 away and his place filled and occupied by a Re- presentative of the Republican party.
She has seen within that time, as I have al- ready stated, the States of the North pass under the influence and into the hands of this organiza- tion. It has seen their Executive, their Judicial and their Legislative Departments— all their of- fices, from the highest to the lowest, from the constable up through every intermediate grade to the Executive— filled with the representatives of the Republican organization. Not only so, but, within these four years, Georgia has seen an or- ganized band descending upon the soil of Virgin- ia, taking possession of the arsenal and property of the Government, and there pouring out the blood, shedding the innocent blood, of Virginia's citizens, for the avowed purpose of liberating the slaves of the South.
But, gentlemen, these four years have passed away, and the Republican organization — a sec- tional organization — existing alone in the North- ern States ; with the exception of a few thousand votes in the South ; I say this organization, sec- tional, geographical — an organization against the formation of which, the^Father of his Country warned the American people, met in Convention at the city of Chicago, and there proclaimed and published a platform of principles to the world. And, gentlemen, this same platform is to be found one in spirit and in object, to the one which was
adopted in Pittsburgh in 1856 ; whereby it is as- serted that Congress has the power and right, aye, and that it is its duty, to exclude the South- ern man and his property from the Territories, belonging alike to the North and the South, to the East and the West. They nominated their candidates on this platform. They go before the people— the ides of November roll around— what is the result? Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Hamlin are elected by an overwhelming majority of the pop- ular vote in the North.
Now, gentlemen, we have not only to look to the platform of this party for the principles and objects which they avow, but we must also look (and so the State of Georgia has done) to the principles and objects avowed by the candidates who have been elected by the Republican organ- ization. Mr. Lincoln, the President elect, sub- scribes to the platform adopted in Chicago. Not only so, but he avowed the principles contained in it long before he was nominated, and enuncia- ted the doctrine that Congress had the power to exclude the Southern man from going into the Territories with his property. He said that if he were a member of Congress he would vote to effect this exclusion, regardless of the decisions of the Supreme tribunal of the country. Not only so, but he has avowed the irrepressible conflict. Georgia saw all this and declared that the North- ern mind would never become easy and quiet upon this question until it was satisfied that slavery was put in a course of ultimate extinction. Georgia has looked to his published declarations and opinions in order to ascertain the objects and views and opinions of the Republican organiza- tion. Not stopping there, she has looked to the declarations of the representative men of the Re- publican organization. She has looked to the views and opinions as expressed by Mr. Seward, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Wilson and others, both in and out of Congress, for the purpose of arriving at and ascertaining what was the ultimate object of the Republican organization in reference to the insti- tution of slavery. She has not confined herself to them, but in order to ascertain more clearly, if you please, the object, she has gone into the county meetings and State Conventions, whieh may pro- bably be a more true reflex of the principles and objects of the party, than the declaration of its representative men, and considered their action and resolutions. Looking at all these things — looking at the national platform; at the county and State platforms; at the declarations published of Mr. Lincoln himself; at the declaration and avowals of the representative men of the party, Georgia came to the conclusion that it was the avowed object of the Republican organization to put slavery and the government upon such a track as that slavery might ultimately be put in a course of ultimate extinction — that it was their object to surround the slaveholding
20
States with a circle of free States, and thereby cause the institution (to use their own language) to sting itself to death. Seeing these things, be- lieving, gentlemen of Missouri, that there was no hope in the future — looking to the end and seeing nothing but danger and destruction to her people and hee best interests — aye, seeing that there was an antagonism, an irreconcilable antagonism, if you please, between the two sections of the coun- try—believing, if you please, that there is a dif- ference of principles, of civilization between the North and South, and feeling that this dif- ference would never be reconciled, Georgia thought it was best there should be a peace- able separation. Hence, gentlemen, she has adopted her ordinance of secession, and she invites all slaveholding States to unite with her, and among them the State of Missouri — to unite with her in forming a Southern Confed- eracy— believing that, if they all will unite in forming a Southern Confederacy, we shall thereby have a government combining, as it were, every variety of soil and climate, embrac- ing, as it will, a people homogeneous in views, in feelings, in sympathies and interests. With a government securing equal rights to all and every State and every citizen, she thinks that a future will be presented full of power and greatness to the Union, of happiness and prosperity to the people.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Conven- tion: In the name of my State and for myself individually, I beg you to accept my grateful ac- knowledgment, for the kind reception and re- spectful hearing you have given me, (mingled applause and hisses among the audience, which lasted for some time, and was subdued with some difficulty by the President.)
The Secretary read the result of the second ballot for Sergeant-at-Arms, as follows : For W. D. Bartlett, 39; Col. Grover, 54. Col. Grover having received a majority of all the votes cast, he was declared duly elected.
On motion of Mr. Welch, the Convention ad- journed to meet again on Tuesday, (this) morn- ing, at 10 o'clock.
FOURTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 5th, 1861.
Met at 10 o'clock, a. m.
Mr. President in the chair.
The President. I will observe to the gentle- men of the lobby that good order should be pre- served— that no cheering will be allowed on an3r occasion — that however disagreeable it may be to the presiding officer of this body to clear the spec- tators from the lobby, it will become his impera- tive duty to do so, unless order is preserved.
Mr. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, read the journal of yesterday.
The President announced committees as follows :
Committee on Federal Relations. — Messrs Gamble, Henderson, Redd, Hall of Randolph, Tindall, Doniphan, Hall of Buchanan, Watkins, Hough, Sawyer, Douglass, Chenault and Pome- roy.
Committee on Accounts. — Messrs. Shackle- ford of Howard, Pipkin and Harbin.
Mr. Hatcher suggested that the Hon. Harri- son Hough, delegate from the 25th district, be sworn in.
The President requested Judge Breckinridge to administer the oath, who thereupon came for- ward and administered the oath to Mr. Hough,
Mr. Pomeroy. I rise for the purpose of stating to this Convention that Mr. Hill of Pulaski, a member of this Convention, is disabled from at- tending by sickness. I make this mention in justice to Mr. Hill.
The Chair. Does the gentleman make a motion?
Mr. Pomeroy. I suppose the mere mention of the fact is sufficient. I, therefore, have no motion to make.
Mr. Howell presented the following resolu- tions, for reference to the Committee on Federal Relations, which were read by the Secretary :
Resolved, That we, the people of the State of Mis- souri, by our delegates in Convention assembled, being ardently attached to the Union of the States in this Confederacy, and desirous of maintaining and transmitting it to succeeding generations according to the letter and spirit of the Constitu- tion, which we regard as the highest effort of statesmanship yet made.
In view, however, that seven States have in their sovereign capacity adopted ordinances de- claring their connection with the General Gov- ernment dissolved, and have further declared that they are a confederated Government among themselves ; and several other States are delibera- ting as to a withdrawal from the Union, and that in our opinion any force levied against said States that have declared this withdrawal, or that may so declare, by the General Government, would destroy all hope of reconstructing or pre- serving the Union;
Do earnestly remonstrate and protest against any and all coercive measures or attempts at co- ercion of said States into submission to the Gene- ral Government, whether clothed with the name or pretext of executing the laws of the Union, or otherwise, and we declare that in such contin- gency Missouri will not view the same with in- difference.
Resolved, That the President of the Conven- tion cause a copy of the foregoing resolution o
21
be respectfully laid before the President of the United States.
The Chair. The resolution goes to the com- mittee without a motion.
Mr. Redd offered the following :
Resolved, by the people of the State of Mis- souri, in convention assembled, That we are un- alterably opposed to the doctrine of coercion, be- lieving that any attempt to carry it into practice would inevitably result in civil war, and forever destroy all hopes of preserving or reconstructing the Union.
And so believing, we deem it due to our North- ern brethern to declare that it is the determina- tion of the people of Missouri, in the event of any Southern State being invaded for the purpose of carrying such doctrine into effect, to take their stand by the side of their Southern brethren to re- sist the invaders at all hazards. [Applause in the lobby.]
The Chair. The Doorkeeper will require those persons who have been cheering to leave the lobby. The resolution just read will go to the committee without a motion.
Mr. Gantt. I think it would be very expedi- ent that this Convention should give direction to the Sergeant-at-Arms to require all spectators to be seated, and not to admit any more as soon as all the seats are filled.
Mr. Breckinridge. I am informed that the Sergeant-at-Arms elect is not yet in the city.
The Chair. I received a telegraphic dispatch from him, stating that he would be here in the afternoon.
Mr. Breckinridge. The gentleman no doubt will be here as soon as he can, but in the mean- time I would suggest the propriety of appointing Captain Couzins temporary Sergeant. Captain Couzins is well-known to all of us who are resi- dents of this city and to his kindness we are al- ready largely indebted. I have no doubt he would prove efficient.
The Chair. The gentlemen will please reduce their propositions to writing.
Messrs. Gaktt and Breckinridge thereupon offered their propositions in writing, and they were severally adopted by the Convention.
The adoption of Mr. Gantt's resolution was the signal for a general rush for seats in the lobby.
Mr. Henderson offered the following resolu- tion, which was adopted :
Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the President, to whom shall be referred the communications made to the Con- vention by the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, Commis- sioner from the State of Georgia, and that they report to the Convention such action as they may deem a respectful and suitable response thereto on the part of this State.
On motion of Mr. Pipkin, Master Long was appointed as a page of the Convention.
Mr. Ritchey ffave the following notice in writing: "I now give notice to the members of this Convention that I will on to-morrow move to rescind that part of the ISth rule adopted, mak- ing it the duty of each member making a propo- sition to read it in his place to the Convention.
Mr. Smith, of St. Louis : Mr. President, I hold a resolution in my hand, providing for a new Committee, which I believe, will be of essential service to this Convention. There must be a great anxiety felt throughout the State, to know what this Convention will do, and what powers it possesses. Now, sir, there is a great anxiety also to know what it will not do. I am disposed by this resolution, to put matters in such a train that all will learn what the Convention will do in a very short time, that is, as soon as the commit- tee has reported.
Sir, in the calling of the Convention, there are eertain matters laid down that this Convention shall attend to, and although I do not acknow- ledge that the creator, as the Legislature has been recently called, has any power to say to us what we shall do and what we shall not do, still we are called under an act of the Legislature, and I take it that whatever the people understood we were to do — whatever powers the people under- stood they were giving to us at the time they elected us, those we have, and no others —
The Chair. I will say to the gentleman that there is no question before the House at all until his proposition is read by the Secretary.
Mr. Smith. I believe it is proper I should ex- plain my resolution, and conclude by moving its adoption.
The Chair. You can read your resolution if you choese to do so, or you may send it to the Secretary to be read by him. As it is now, the Chair does not know whether you are confining yourself in your remarks to the subject under con" sideration or not
Mr. Smith thereupon handed the Secretary his resolution, who read as follows :
Resolved, That a committee of seven members, one from each Congressional district, be consti- tuted, whose duty it shall be to take into consider- ation and propose to this Convention such action as the welfare and interest of the State shall re- quire, and also to report what measures, if any, are demanded under existing circumstances for vindicating the sovereignty of the State and the protection of its institutions.
Mr. Smith read from the call of the Legisla- ture for a Convention, and contended that the ap- pointment of a special committee, in accordance with his resolution, would be highly appropriate. My reason, he continued, for offering this resolu- tion is that we find various opinions prevailing throughout the State, particularly in the interior, in regard to what the Convention shall do. It has been asserted in an interior town that I
22
lately visited, and in a very respectable assembly, that it was proposed by this Convention to swal- low the Legislature of Missouri — to swallow it up, sir. [Laughter.] It was said by a very respectable gentleman that they had created a great Le- viathan that was to swallow up the inferior insects- including of course all those gentlemen that com- pose that respectable body of which I now speak. This gentleman seemed to express great fears that such would be the case. Now, sir, I wish it un- derstood that so far as I am concerned, I have no such idea — and I suppose that this Convention has no such idea as to perform that wonderful act of deglutition. [Laughter.] But if it is the in- tention of this Convention to swallow up that Le- gislature, I beg leave to excuse myself from par- taking in that act. I have a very sore throat, sir, and my physician tells me that I must not swal- low anything that is calculated to irritate, and if I have to swallow my share of that very respecta- ble body, I should beg to be excused from having that very peppery gentleman who made this re- mark passed upon me as my portion. [Great laughter.] I do not Avish to swallow him at all. All that is of peppery is disagreeable to my throat, but red pepper particularly. [Renewed laugh- ter.]
Now, sir, I have another reason for not wishing to perform that portion of the duties which may devolve upon this Convention. I am very certain that if I should swallow that very fiery and pep- pery gentleman, he would not stay swallowed. I am sure that he would kick, and would not stay there. But whether he would operate on me emeti- cally or cathartically, I would leave that for my friend here, (Dr. Linton,) who is in the medical line, to determine. [Laughter.] At any rate, I do not wish to have anything to do with it.
Now, sir, as for the Legislature being the crea- tor and we the creatures, I have nothing to say about it. That may be so. As to the Convention moving from Jefferson City to this city, to a softer place, as the gentleman — the peppery gen- tleman— remarked, I confess the soft impeach- ment. It is a softer place than Jefferson, and I hope it always will remain so. It is said, sir, that we are fugitives from justice because we did not choose to stay in the small hall of justice that was selected for us at Jefferson. Let them say what they like about that. I am sure that I was satisfied with the accommodations that had there been provided, but we saw very plainly that the Legislature could not go on while we were th ere The Sergeant was kept busy all the time, bring- ing in the members.
Mr. Gamble. I rise to call the gentleman to order. "The discussion he is now engaged in has no relation to the subject before the house.
Mr. Smith. What is the decision of the Chair?
The Chair. The Chair holds that the point of order is well taken. The gentleman is discussing
a subject wholly irrelevant to the subject under consideration.
Mr. Smith. "Well, sir, I am willing to abide by the Chair's decision. I have said about all I have to say, [laughter,] and I will conclude by just saying one thing which I suppose will be in order, and that is, that I do not wish to take any lead- ing part in the proceedings here. I came here more to say no on one great question that I sup- posed would come up than to say anything affirm- , atively. Sir, I could not resist the temptation to | say a few words in regard to the remarks which I heard in Jefferson City the other day, and now that I have accomplished my purpose, I will with- draw the resolution, because I do not wish to be on that committee. [Laughter.] If any one wishes the resolution to pass (and I think it a very proper one) he can easily renew it.
Mr. Foster. Some of my friends in this part of the Hall would desire the resolution to be read again . They did not hear it distinctly when it was read the first time, and they think they are enti- tled to know the nature of a resolution which has been before the House.
The Chair. The resolution is already with- drawn.
Mr. Wilson. As there seems to be no further business before the Convention, and in order to give the committees time to report, I move to ad- journ until 4 o'clock. Lost. Ayes 22; noes not counted.
Mr. Henderson. I understand it will be neces- sary to have some printing done for the Conven- tion, and I desire to offer a resolution upon the subject.
Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- pointed by the President, whose duty it shall be to contract for any and all printing that may be ordered by the Convention, and that they report their action as early as practicable. Adopted.
Mr. Irwin. I move to adjoura to 3 o'clock, p. M.
Mr. Broadhead. Before that motion is put, I would inquire whether the committee moved by the gentleman sometime ago has been appointed ?
The Chair. It has not. The Chair will now announce the committee :
Committee on Printing— Messrs. Hendricks, Howell and Woolfolk.
Mr. Welsh. I desire to offer the following:
Be it ordained and declared by the people of the State of Missouri in Convention assembled, as follows :
The Legislature shall have no power to pass special laws for the following purposes :
First — to establish, change or vacate any State road. Second — to delare minors of age for any purpose. Third— to authorize the sale of any real estate except that belonging to the State. But the Legislature shall have power to pass laws to au- thorize courts to do and perform all the various
23
matters herein prohibited : Provided, all such laws shall be general and uniform throughout the State.
Mr. Hatchek. I move to lay it on the table. Motion sustained.
Mr. Gantt. I desire to offer a resolution in order that it may be referred to the committee to be appointed under the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pike, (Mr. Henderson.)
Resolved, That this Convention have respect- fully heard the address of the Commissioner from our sister State of Georgia, and having thus man- ifested a disposition of the people of Missouri to listen with fraternal kindness to any voice from any of their fellow citizens of this Union, feel it is due, and the sovereignty which it represents re- quires an unequivocal declaration of dissent of the people of Missouri from the proposal which our sister State of Georgia offers through her mes- senger.
Referred to committee to be appointed under Mr. Henderson's resolution.
By Mr. Gray.
Resolved, That Col. A. TV Doniphan be re- quested to address the Convention in reference to the action of the Peace Conference.
Adopted.
Mr. Doniphan. I hardly know what gentle- men desire I shall address them about. As for the action of the Convention, its conclusions and the amendments proposed to the Constitu- tion of the United States, all these have been published in all the journals, and, of course, have been subjected to the inspection of the gentlemen of this Convention. If it is desired to know the attitude Missouri assumed there, why, of course, if it be the pleasure of the conven- tion, Judge Hough, a member of this Conven- tion, or Judge Coalter, whom I see in the lobby, or myself, can give the Convention our opinion in relation to the matter now or any other time.
Voice — Now!
Mr. Doniphan. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention : I was appointed as one of the delegates from the State of Missouri to go to a Conference that has been called a Peace Con- gress—a Confereuce recommended by the State of Virginia, in which she had asked a conference with her sister States in relation to the difficulties and embarrassments that now surround this Government, and the Legislature of my State thought proper to designate me as one of the in- dividuals to represent the interest and honor of our State in that Convention. I went there en- tertaining an opinion that I presume is in accord- ance with the opinions of a large majority of the members of this Convention : namely, that the disintegration, or rather the revolution in pro- gress in this Government now, was caused by one single element of strife — that we have no other cause for the difficulties that now agitate
and disturb the country save the question of negro slavery — that our nation was never more prosperous in all the great elements that constitute a free and happy people than it is now; that our commerce was extending and a? prosperous as it ever has been; that our sails whitened every sea, and our flag floated under every sky; that we were respected at home and abroad, and involved in no conflict with any foreign nation; that while we were standing in peaceful relations to all the rest of the world ; while we were in the most prosperous condition that a nation could enjoy; while we were blessed with abundance at home ; wdiile the great Valley of the Mississipppi in which we live, and whose centre we occupy, extends from the crest of the Alleghanies to the crest of the Rocky Mountains, and now feeds starving millions of the world from overflowing granaries, and clothes the naked with its cotton; that while, therefore, we were in the most prosperous condition, with our commerce, agricultures and manufactures continually in- creasing, there was nothing to interrupt this prosperity with the exception of this solitary question agitating us at home — the question of negro slavery. It naturally occurs to every re- flecting mind that in order to restore harmony and union, that question must be removed from the arena of politics — that there can be no restoration of harmony, peace and quiet unless that question is removed. That question has interposed be- tween the North and the South and created a di- vision, and you may plaster it together as you please; you may try Spalding's glue or anything else in the world but you cannot bring it together until this question is removed, and when this question is removed it will unite itself. The ques- tion has been raised, what is the best plan to re- move this difficulty? It is well known that in all governments like this, originating in equality, having that as the very essence and foundation of our institutions — for this government, in its revo- lution, was unlike that of any other, for the rea- son that but one single sentiment pervaded the hearts of our fathers — one single, vital sentiment, and that was that all men are born free and equal, that are capable of self-government— that is what distinguished it from all other revolutions in the world, and on that principle the Government was framed, the principle of equality among States and individuals, and of equal protection to property; and .when wre have this removed, of course the very essence, foundations and pillars of this Government are destroyed and it can no longer exist. Now, if there is a truth in all gov- ernments, it is that nationality and sectionalism cannot exist at the same time; they are entirely antagonistic and cannot flourish healthfully in the same body politic. Sectionalism itself de- stroys, withers and crushes out nationality. If there is sectionalism at the South in the shape of
24
slavery propagandism, or at the North in the shape of abolitionism, nationality cannot exist, and the vital element of the whole Union is crushed out. This sectionalism does exist. For twenty years it has been growing upon us North and South. There have been fiery spirits in one portion of the Union who have administered aliment to discontented spirits in another por- tion of the Union, and tins has gone on until a gulf has been created between the North and South which has broadened and deep- ened until a revolution has now seperated one portion from the other. The object, therefore, is to destroy sectionalism. It has now assumed a gigantic shape. It has now calumniated in the election of two men to power, both of whom live in the North, and have been placed on a platform which is antagonistic to the'South — entirely, in its whole aspect, antagonistic to one portion of the nation. And take out from that platform this an- tagonism to the South and the essence of that par- ty is destroyed. I do not say that the whole blame devolves upon the North. I admit many imprudent men have done many imprudent tilings at the South, calculated to inflame the minds of men at the North. But we must take matters as they are — we must take this revolution as it is — and we And that this revolution has grown out of the triumph of sectionalism,and that triumph has weakened the cords that bind us together, and disintegration is the natural consequence.
We talk of the revolution inaugurated at the South, but no revolution has been inaugurated there. The revolution in this Government has been progressing for the last twenty years, and it has progressed until it culminated last fall in the triumph of this sectional party. That is the rev- olution that has destroyed our nationality and equality — a revolution that was successful on the 6th day of November last — a revolution that has caused the falling off of States in the South and the disintegration of this Government. The fall- ing off of these states is not the cause but the consequence of the revolution that preceded it — it is nothing: more. As well or as logical wouid it be to say that when the lightning cleaves its way through the forest and destroys the branches and rich foliage of so me mighty oak that the falling away of its branches and the withering of its foliage is the cause of the destruction of that tree. It is not the withering of this foliage or the falling away of these branches that causes the destruction of that oak, but it is the bolt from heaven that shattered and destroyed its elements of vitality. It is this sectionalism that has stricken down the nationality of this Govern- ment; it is this sectionalism that has grown up like a upas and poisoned everything around it, which has been the cause of the revolution that is now destroying the vitality of this Government. And in order to restore it back, and unite the
parts that have been thrown off, you must re- move this apple of discord upon which this sec- tional party have fed and fattened, during its en- tire progress. To do that, we felt that it was es- sential that amendments should be adopted to the Constitution that should settle this question no w and forever. The Crittenden amendments were offered, and I deemed these amendments as be- ing the thing properly suited to remove this ques- tion now and for all time, to settle this question of the Territories on the basis of 36 dc<r. 30 min., and to remove this whole subject beyond the arena of politics. We first had Mr. Crittenden's amend- ment, but it was voted down; then we had Mr. Guthrie's proposition — that was the Crit- tenden proposition with the backbone out of it — and Mr. Johnson's amendment, which took out a few more bones, and destroyed its shape, and then Mr. Franklin's amendment, which we may call a boned turkey — the whole thing being a sort of shapeless mass, without a bone in it — and that was presented and Missouri voted against it, I giving the casting vote myself, two of my colleagues voting one way and two anoth- er, none of the delegation, however, being in fa- vor of it. I desired the amendment should con- tain an acknowdedgment of the right in slave property and its ample protection, but not one word could we get into it in regard to master or slave, or protection, but all these things were stricken out, leaving it entirely to the judicial de- cisions ; and therefore I preferred the Constitution of the United States as it stands now to any sense- less interpretation to be decided hereafter. These judicial constructions are always for the strong and never for the weak, and if minorities are to be protected, it must be by specific enactment. Majorities can always find sufficient provisions in the Constitution to create Banks or a tariff, or de- stroy them, but at the same time not find authority for that protection to the insti- tutions of a minority, which may be required. We desired these guaranties but they were re- jected. In rejecting this proposition which was offered us, we did not necessarily say Mis- souri must go out of the Union. We said nothing ., except i; was better to live under the Constitution that we had than to make up patchwork about in- definite compromises. I desire to have nothingof that sort. If we are to have our rights, I desire to know it fully, entirely and expressly; but not to accept this proposition, and thereby be pre- cluded from any other indemnity. I am not will- ing to take a dry bone. I voted against it, and I would do it again. These were the motives that governed us and our votes. We had but one object in view, and that was to remove this question entire- ly from the arena of politics, and give such guaran- tees to slaveholding States that are now in to re- main, and induce the States that are now out eventually to come back. I believe, if Congress
25
had passed such an amendment, and the North had acquiesced, the Southern States would come in, not at the present, perhaps, hut in the course of time.
The Chair. Under the resolution offered hy the gentleman from Pike (Mr. Henderson) the Chair will appoint the following committee: Messrs. Henderson, Birch, Howell, Stewart, Wright, Marvin and Knott.
By Mr. Allen. A resolution that the sessions of the Convention shall henceforth commence at 10 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock, p. m.
On motion of Mr. Sayer, 3 o'clock was strick- en out and the resolution adopted.
By Mr. Allen. Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention he authorized to furnish pos- tage stamps for each of the memhers and officers of this Convention.
Mr. Orr. On that I call the yeas and nays.
Mr. . I move that the blank he filled with
one hundred.
M. Smith. I move to lay the resolution on the table. Motion sustained.
By Mr. . A resolution that all resolutions
offered and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations be printed, for the use of the Conven- tion. Adopted.
By Mr. . A resolution that Judge Hough
be invited to address the Convention on the sub- ject of the Peace Congress.
It was announced that Judge Hough was in- disposed, and that his address would be post- poned for the present.
By Mr. Birch. Ordered, that the Committee on Federal Relations, and the Committee to which -was referred the communication of the State of Georgia, as made through her Commissioner on yesterday, have leave to sit during the session of this Convention. Adopted.
By Mr. Siieelt. A resolution that Gen. Coal- ter be requested to address the Convention on the subject of the Peace Congress. Adopted.
Mr. Coalter came forward and spoke as fol- lows :
gen. coalter's remarks. I thank you, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, for the call which you have been pleased to make upon me. I came here with no expectation of addressing you, but deem it my duty to add a few remarks to the remarks of the gentleman who has just preceded me, and who has very properly given you a history of the proceed- ings of the Peace Congress. There is one point in which, according to my recollection, he does not speak exactly according to the record, and that is this : At the first ballot, the proposition of which he speaks, was rejected, Missouri voting in the negative. There was then a motion for recon- sideration, which was carried, and on that recon- sideration Missouri did not vote, as I understand.
(To Col. Doniphan)— I am correct in that, I am not?
Mr. Doniphan. On the test vote as to whether Missouri would support that proposition or not, Missouri voted against it. On the motion to re- consider Missouri did not vote at all, according to my recolection. When the question came up a second time, Missouri having placed herself right on the record, was perfectly willing that this proposition should go to the country (not with her sanction) and therefore by the unanimous consent of her delegation she declined voting.
Mr. Coalter. That is true. If Missouri had voted against the propositions the second time, they would have been rejected. But we all thought that it was better that they should go before the country for what they were worth. It was the best we could get there. The responsibi- lity thereafter devolved upon Congress, who might accept or reject them or on the people who might pass upon them. So that there was no diversion of opinion in the Missouri Delegation, as would seem from the first statement of the gentleman. Upon the final vote Missouri was unanimous that the proposition should go before the people for what they were worth, not believing them to amount to anything, but still holding that it was the best they could get.
Gentlemen of the Convention: My colleague has very properly stated to you, that we felt how important was the occasion which had called us together, in Washington. We felt the condition of the country was such that peace was needed, in order to bring about any good and valuable results. We were met there by distinguished gentlemen from every part of the Union— twenty- one States in all— and we found one great difficulty in the beginning, and that wa that gentlemen from the Northwest had come to the Convention, thinking themselves pledged to a particular platform and in other ways. They thought they had gained a great victory and they must reap the fruits of it. That seemed the pre- vailing sentiment. They said, "We are well satis- fied to have peace, yet it must be peace on our own terms; and although we are willing for peace, yet we tell you at the same time that we abhor your institutions." Well, gentlemen, when any of us could get the floor, we defended our institutions with what ability was at our com- mand. We told them : "This is a prejudice on your part. (And I must say that in this position we were sustained not only by the delegates from the South, but very ably, too, by some of the dele- gates from the North.) Your hostility to slavery has prejudiced you, and the sooner you get rid of that prejudice the better." We asked them moreover, the pregnant question "If you abhor our institutions, how long a step will it be before you abhor us? if you abhor slavery, how long before you abhor slaveholders?" This, we rep-
26
resented te tliem, was the very point which had roused the Southern mind. It was the idea that they were hostile to us in feeling, and that this hostility could not be reconciled, but would show itself again and again, and produce per- petual dissension. We told them in submitting our propositions, it was not so much our object to gain anything valuable from them, as to see that the Northern mind could be reached upon them, that we wanted to go behind them to their con- stituents, that we wanted to have something upon which the Northern mind could vote, showing its readiness to acknowledge and guarantee the rights of the people of the South. We said : Do not let us, in view of this object, quarrel about little things; do not let us disagree on minor points ; do not cavil with us upon the ninth part of the breadth of a hair, but show at once by your action that you do recognize the rights of the South. The people of the South, of which Missouri is a part, want to understand whether they can live in peace with you or not ? If there is any settled hostility on the part of the North against the South, then we are two people inevi- tably; and God forbid we should be two people. We desire union; we desire this Union shall subsist, but we want to understand that you are not hostile to us, and therefore we ask you to come forward in the spirit of liberality of magnanmity, if you choose, (because you are the victorious party) and grant what is liberal, and grant it freely and frankly. Do not squab- ble with us about the ninth part of the breadth of a hair. Let us get at the minds of your people and let them vote on the propositions, and in that way let us see whether you will regard us as hos- tile or as friends!"
Gentlemen, in that spririt we were not met. They would cavil with us about everything; be- lieving that we were trying all the time to take some advantage of them; insisting upon the great victory, and that they must reap the fruits of it, and they gave us nothing better than the resolu- tions my colleague has spoken of.
I am sorry, gentlemen, that those resolutions, even such as they were, were not sanctioned by Congress. Congress did not choose to adopt them and what will now be adopted, God only knows. It is with you to say what course Mis- souri will take. I know the cause of Missouri is in good and able hands. Missouri will take her course for herself, not feeling herself bound to look to any other State, but looking to her own true interests. And, gentlemen, it has been well said by some philosopher, (Paley, I think,) that nations do not act on notions of honor, but upon considerations of their true interest. I should say, however, that that rule is subject to another con- dition, and that is, that sometimes the truest and best interest of a nation is to assert her honor.
While I am upon this subject another idea suggests itself to me. It is this, that a great deal of the trouble now existing in the Northern mind is based on its blindness to the true nature of our institutions. The North- ern people forget that this is not a consoli- dated government. They forget we are a Con- federacy of sovereign, independent States ; and, therefore, a man living in Massachusetts is apt to feel his conscience hurt from the fact that sla- very is existing in Missouri or Arkansas. If they fully recognized and acted upon the true theory and principle of our Government as regards Southern institutions — if they were thoroughly imbued with the idea that each and every State is entirely sovereign, they would not be so sensi- tive with regard to those institutions. I do not understand that the Northern mind is very much troubled about the existence of slavery in Turkey, or Russia, or Cuba, but it is troubled about it in the United States, because they consider themselves partly responsible for its ex- istence in the United States. Now let them fully recognize the true theory and principle of our Government, and they can no more be re- sponsible for slavery in the United States than they can for slavery in Japan. We all, gentle- men, have been so much in the habit of looking to our General Government with pride and satis- faction, (and it was right that we should, because it has been a grand and glorious Government,) that we seem to forget that the greatness of our Union is not due to the circumstance that we are one great people, but that we are thirty-three great peoples. We are not one great people, but we are now thirty-four great peoples, and the greatness results from the fact that the General Government acts as the agent for thirty-four peo- ples. Let us fully recognize that fact— the fact that we are composed of sovereign peoples, each having its own control, and I think that our Government is destined to go on harmorniously to the end of time ; and, gentlemen, if that prin- ciple were fully acted upon, I believe the South- ern States would be satisfied, and we could ulti- mately hope to get them back. Those wise men who framed our institutions, knew that a con- solidated government was not fit for a widely extended country, and by a wise division of power, placing in the hands of one central Fede- ral agency the administration of such duties as were necessary to be administered for the benefit of the whole, and leaving in the hands of the several States all those powers necessary for their independence and self-control — I say, they framed a system of government which alone is competent to extend and secure the blessings of freedom over a widely extended country. I can see only one hope of reconstructing this Government, and that is upon the basis of an acknowledgment of the true principles of our Government. I hope to
27
sec us come back to that yet. Otherwise there will always he danger of minorities being op- pressed by majorities, and the strife between ra- rious sections of the country will never cease. I do not know that any good will result from the action of the Peace Congress. At any rate, how- ever, we who met together freely interchanged our opinions and understood ourseives there. There were gentlemen of frankness and can- dor from every part of the Union, and they expressed themselves freely and frankly. They were ho doubt extremely desirous of having this matter satisfactorily and amicably arranged. But there were also those who did not want to act promptly upon the mat- ter. We were met by various abstract proposi- tions, which we had to ward off, because they would have led to interminable discussions. One of these was that no State had a right to secede. We naturally asked, "What is the use of arguing such a question as that? Here we sit down in solemn conclave and consume hours and perhaps days in trying to arrive at a conclusion, and when we have Anally arrived at a conclusion, we look around and find that seven States have already seceded. Then what do we gain by the discus- sion?" Other abstract propositions were offered to carry us off from the true purpose of our meeting.
Gentlemen of the Convention, I have thus hastily thrown before you a few suggestions which have occurred to me as the result of my experience in Washington City. I feel very thankful to you for the attention with which you have listened to me, and shall not trespass any more on 3-our time at present. I may, at some future time, present my views in connection with the deliberations of the Peace Convention to the citizens of Missouri more fully in writing.
By Mr. Long. Resolved, That Hon. John B. Henderson, be requested to address the Conven- tion, on the subject of the Union to-day, or at any other time. Adopted.
By Mr. Pomeroy. Resolved, That the officers and members of the Present General Assembly, when visiting this city during the setting of the Convention, be invited to seats within the bar. Adopted.
By Mr. Linton. Resolved, That Maj . Wright of St. Louis, be requested to address the Conven- tion, on the subject of the Union now. Adopted.
Mr. Wright. I trust sir, that I shall have an opportunity to address this honorable body, on the important subject of this Union, — I trust there will be an opportunity to go into the nature of our Government— I trust there will be an op- portunity to elaborate the idea set forth in the thirty-four stars upon that banner and to show that there is something more in them than the mere motto, E Pluribus Unum. But I rise at present only to cay,that I do not desire to addres
the Convention at this time, but will hold my- self in reserve, to aid in supporting the standard of my country. In regard to all doctrines calculated to sap, undermine and over- throw all government, I will reserve to myself these questions, and give my views upon them at the proper time.
Mr. Henderson. I return my thanks for the honor conferred upon me by the passage of that resolution. Like my friend, Major Wright, I shall reserve to myself, and every member of the Convention will reserve the right, when these questions come before the Convention. And I trust every member of this Convention, sent by his constituents to his seat here, will feel it not only his privilege, but his duty, to aid in giving to the State of Missouri the opinions of every part of the State of Missouri. Sir, I come here from a portion of the State that is, perhaps, exposed more than any other portion — or, at least, as much as any other portion- to those very troubles that, unfortunately, have brought about the difficulties in which the country is now involved. Sir, I have come here, bearing with the two aged gentle- men who are with me, feeling loyal to the Con- stitution of our country, andloyal to the great interests of this wide spread land of ours. I am here determined to do anything in my power to preserve and perpetuate the liberties handed down to us by our forefathers. And, sir, so help me God, I shall do nothing while a member up- on this floor, that shall be tinctured with disloy- alty to the Federal Constitution, (cheering, check- ed by the President,) when I say that, I say further, that allied to the interests of Missouri, allied to the interests of the South, I feel when I look to the protection of the interests of Missouri, when I look to the protection of the institutions of the South, which gave me birth, that I cannot be disloyal to that Constitution, without being a traitor, and one who is determined at heart to de- stroy the institutions of this State and the entire South. These sir, are my sentiments, and believing that— believing that if this Union of ours shall be dissolved— believing that when hostile Confede- racies shall be built up amongst the present happy, free and prosperous States of the Union, thac nothing but war — eternal and everlasting war and bloodshed will be the consequence— and believing instead of protection to constitutional rights that the last vestige of hunan liberty will have passed away — that, instead of being secure in our property, that our lives and liberties will become the mere scoff and scorn of the world, I have come here, sir, determined to live true to the Union of these States, and to do everything in my power to bring back our erring sisters of the South. I have come here determined to protect their interests, and, sir, when that shall have been done, I want them once more to return to
*>*
the happy family of States, for in that happy family alone can be the preservation of every right we enjoy.
Sir, I again return my thanks to this Conven- tion, and shall improve the opportunity at some future time to express my views more fully.
Mr. Gamble. I move that the Convention ad- journ till 10 o'clock, a. m., to-morrow. Motion sustained.
FIFTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 6th, 1861.
Convention met at 10 o'clock, a. m.
Mr. President Price in the chair.
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain.
The Journal was read and approved.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. President, I desire to say that my colleague, Mr. Hill, from Pulaski, has arrived.
The Chair. Mr. Hill will please come forward and be sworn. If Judge Breckinridge is present, he will oblige the Convention by administering the oath.
On motion, Col. Grover, Sergeant- at- Arms elect, was also requested to come forward and be sworn.
Judge Breckinridge thoreupon administered the oath to both.
The Chair. (To the Sergeant-at-Arms.) You will take your position at the lobby and see that order is preserved; and that no cheering is in- dulged in on any occasion ; and that gentlemen of the lobby do not injure the furniture by placing their feet upon it.
Mr. Hatcher offered the following resolution :
Whereas : It is the deliberate opinion of this Convention that, unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dis- solution of the Union is inevitable; and this Con- vention, representing the wishes of the people of Missouri, is desirous of employing every reason- able means to avert so dire a calamity, and deter- mined to make a final effort to restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic. There- fore,
Resolved, That on behalf of the State of Mis- souri, an invitation is hereby extended to the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas, to unite with Missouri in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to se- cure to the people of the slaveholding States ade- quate guarantees for the security of their rights, and for this purpose to appoint Commissioners to
meet on the 15th day of April next, in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, similar Commissioners ap- pointed by Missouri, to consider, and if practica- ble, agree upon some united course of action to be pursued by said States in securing these ends.
Resolved, That General A. W. Doniphan, A. II. Buckner, J. D. Coalter, W. P. Johnson, Har- rison Hough, H. R. Gamble and N. W. Watkins, are hereby appointed Commissioners, whose duty it shall be when notified by the President of this Convention that two or more of said States shall have accepted this invitation, to repair to the city of Nashville, Tenn., on the day desig- nated, to meet such Commissioners as may be ap- pointed by any two or more of said States in ac- cordance with the invitation herein contained.
Resolved, That if said Commissioners, after full and free conference, shall agree on some plan of adjustment, or any course of action to be pursued by the said States, in accordance with these resolutions, the Commissioners hereby ap- pointed shall report the same to an adjourned session of this Convention, to be held at such time as the Convention may hereafter determine.
Resolved, That the President of this Conven- tion send copies of these resolutions to the Exe- cutives of the several States herein mentioned, with the request that the said Executives inform him, as soon as practicable, of the action of their respective States in this regard, and that when informed that two or more of said States have re- sponded to this invitation, he shall forthwith in- form the Commissioners herein appointed of that fact,
Mr. Hatcher — I do not know, sir, that the Chair would decide that these resolutions as a matter of course go to the Committee on Federal Relations, inasmuch as one of them requires the appointment of Commissioners who are on the Committee on Federal Relations. The members of that Committee are thereby interested in these resolutions, and I therefore move that they be re- ferred to a special committee of five.
Mr. Bartlett— I second the motion.
Mr. Hall of Buchanan — If the motion is re- jected, I suppose the resolutions will go as a mat- ter of course, to the Committee on Federal Rela- tions ?
The Chair. That will be the order of proceed- ing.
Mr. Hatcher. My reasons for making the motion, I hope, will be understood. I made it merely from the fact that members of that com- mittee are interested in the passage of these reso- lutions and therefore will feel some delicacy in acting upom them impartially.
The Chair. The question will be on dispens- ing with the rule requiring the resolutions to go to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Broadhead. I desire to hear the motion.
The Chair re-stated the motion.
29
Mr. Broadhead. I understand it requires a two-thirds' vote to carry a motion to suspend the rules.
The Chair. Yes sir.
The motion to suspend the rules was put and rejected.
The Chair. The resolution will go, as a matter of course, to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Sayer offered the following resolution :
That this Convention expresses the senti- ment of the people of Missouri in declaring their undiminished and unalterable attachment to the Union of these States under our glorious Consti- tution.
That a guarantee of our rights upon the sub- ject of slavery, giving equality to the citizen, and protection to his property, that shall secure us against the threatened perversion of the Consti- tution of the United States, from the interpreta- tion which it has received in all the Departments of the Federal Government up to the present time, is indispensably necessaiy, and is indispensably necessary to the existence of the Union of these States— without guaranties upon that subject, to that effect, our Constitution and Union could not have been made, and they cannot exist without them.
That in the construction of our government, the idea of the use of force, as between the States, in holding them together, was wholly dis- carded—it will not only not avail for that purpose but the undertaking of it would be usurpation.
That the Convention appoint Commis- sioners, and that we recommend that the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Caroli- na, Tennessee and Kentucky, appoint Commis- sioners to meet at in the State of on
the day of to confer together and set forth
such amendments to the Constitution, as will be sufficient for our honor and the protection of our rights, and to urge upon the States which have seceded, and upon the Northern States, to accede to, and adopt them.
The Chair. The resolutions will go to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Dunn offered the following resolution :
Resolved, By the people of the State of Mis- souri in Convention assembled, that we are in favor of the adjustment of our national troubles, upon the basis of the amendments to the Consti- tution of the United States, proposed by Senator Crittenden, thereby arresting the progress of revo- lution, securing our constiutional rights in the Union, and removing forever from the arena of party politics, the dangerous sectional questions that have brought us to the verge of ruin.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Smith suggested that the Secretary read the name of each mover of a resolution when reading the resolution.
Mr. Woolfolk offered the following:
Resolved, That the present crisis demands that the rights of the slave States should be secured to them by amendments to the Constitution, and that this Convention recommends to the Legis- lature of Missouri, that they apply to Congress to call a General Convention of all the States, in the manner provided by the Constitution, for the purpose of making such amendments there- to as will secure the rights of the slave States, restore peace, and relieve the Southern mind of apprehensions for the future.
Referred as above.
Mr. Long offered the following :
Resolved, That the Seargent-at-Arms furnish each member of this Convention, except the St. Louis delegation, with twenty-five postage stamps.
Mr. Long. I am aware, Mr. President, that a similar resolution was voted down, yesterday, but I cannot but think that members from the country are desirous of corresponding with their constituents and families, and inasmuch as the motion to table, yesterday, was made by a mem- ber from St. Louis, I now deem it proper to re- new the resolution, and hope that it will pass. Let us not deprive others of a privilege which, if we were away from home, we should not wish to be deprived of ourselves.
Mr. Foster. Mr. President, I do not think that this resolution ought to pass. We men that live out in the backwoods are under many obli- gations to our friends here, but still we are not seventy-five cents men. [Laughter.] We care just as little for postage stamps as any other gen- tlemen, and, therefore, I move that this resolntion be laid on the table.
Motion sustained and resolution tabled.
By Mr. Stewart. Resolved, That, in the opin- ion of this Convention a Convention of the peo- ple of the border States, for the purpose of pre- senting a plan of compromise, would be the most sure and efficacious method of adjustment, in a fraternal spirit,, of the alarming discords which threaten the disruption of the Government.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. Linton. Resolved, That there exists no adequate cause why Missouri should secede from the Union, and she will do all she can to restore peace to the same by satisfactory compromises.
Same reference.
By Mr. Hendricks. Resolved, That at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution it was the understanding and intention of the peo- ple of the United States that they were thereby united together for all the purposes expressed and contemplated in that instrument, as one people, inseparable and forever.
Resolved, That the provisions of the Federal Constitution were understood and intended by the people of the United States to be the supreme law of the land, and not a mere compact and for
so
violations and infractions thereof by the Federal or any Stale government, disintegration was not contemplated, but remedies, as provided in the Constitution, to be sought and obtained in the Union.
Resolved, That while the right of revolution for adequate cause is not denied, yet the Consti- tution of the United States and acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof, for the admission of new States into the Union as integral parts of the United Siates, being the supreme law of the land, no ordinance of secession adopted by a State government can abrogate them.
Resolved, That the ordinances of secession adopted by several States of the Union, are unauthorized in law and without adequate cause in fact, and when we are called upon to follow their example, ii is right and proper to consider the legality of doing so.
Resolved, That the action of several of our sister States in adopting ordinances of secession, is no justifiable cause for Missouri to secede.
Mr. Irwin. I suggest that when the Secretary reads a resolution, he announce th® name of the gentleman offering it.
The Chair. It will be so ordered unless objec- tion is made.
By Mr. Eitchey. Resolved, That that portion of the eighteenth rule, by which the Convention is governed in its action, requiring each member to read his proposition distinctly to the Convention, be, and the same is hereby rescinded. As many of us have bad voices and as we cannot be dis- tinctly heard when we read our propositions, and as the nineteenth rule makes it the duty of our Secretary, (who has a clear and distinct voice which can be heard distinctly through the Hall,) to read each proposition before it can be acted upon by the Convention : I therefore, sir, offer this resolution.
The resolution was adopted.
By Mr. Foster. Whereas, the State of Georgia, in Convention assembled, have appoint- ed Rufus J. Glenn as a Commissioner to the State of Missouri to present the ordinance of secession of the State of Georgia and invite the co- operation of the State of Missouri in the formation of a Southern Confederacy, and: Whereas, By invitation of this Convention, said Rufus J. Glenn appeared in Convention and presented, as Commissioner, the ordinance of se- cession of the State of Georgia; therefore, be it
Resolved, By the people of the State of Mis- souri in Convention assembled, that we respect- fully decline considering the ordinance of seces- sion of the State of Georgia, as to the propriety of forming a Southern Confederacy. Referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. Stewart. Resolved, That in the opin- ion of this Convention, no overt act has been committed by the General Government sufficient
to justify either secession, nullification or revolu- tion. Same reference.
By Mr. Turner. Resolved, That a committee of seven members of this Convention, one from each Congressional District, be appointed, to whom shall be referred all proposed alterations of or amendments to the Constitution of the State or Missouri. I suppose that it is in the power of the Convention to alter or amend the Constitution of the State of Missouri, in case they deem it proper to do so, and I therefore hope the resolution will be adopted, m order that if such amendments are proposed, they can first be acted upon by a com- mittee.
Mr. Sayer. I do not think it was contemplated that we should either alter or amend the Consti- tution of Missouri, and I therefore move to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. Turner. I demand the yeas and nays.
The vote was as follows :
Ayes— Messrs. Bass, Bast, Birch, Breckin- ridge, Bridge, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Ran- dolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Or, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayer, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Stewart, Tindall, Watkins, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbus- kirk, Mr. President— 70.
Noes— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bogy, Broad- head, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Gravelly, Hen- dricks, How, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Leeper, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, Rankin, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Waller, Welch, Wright, Zimmer- man— 24.
The resolution was laid on the table — ayes 70, noes 24.
By Mr. Dunn. Resolved, By the people of Missouri in Convention assembled, that we are opposed to military coercion for the purpose of subjugating those States that have withdrawn from the Union, and we would regard such an at- tempt at military coercion under any pretext whatever, as an act of war which, if successful, would lead to the establishment of a military des- potism on the ruins of the Constitution.
Resolved, That we are opposed to any act of war against the United States, by any of the States that have withdrawn from the Union. The preservation of the Union depends upon the preservation of peace. Referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. Allen : Resolved, That the border free and slave States be requested to meet in Conven- tion and co-operate together in the settlement of
31
the questions now agitating the country. Referred to Committee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. Orr : Resolved, That, we have the best Government in the world, and intend to keep it. [Applause, checked by the President.]
Mr. Smith.— I move the adoption of that reso- lu ion.
The Chair.— It will be referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. McFerran : Resolved, That Missouri deplores the existing sectional strife and aliena- tion existing between the North and the South, and regards the same as inimical to the dearest rights of Missouri, and to the peace and perpe- tuity of the Federal Union.
Resolved, That Missouri, as an integral part of the great West, declares her fealty and attach- ment to our union of interest and action, and in- vites her sister States of the West to ignore the dogmas of New England on the one hand, and the Gulf States on the other, and to at once in- augurate a Western policy, loyal, to the Federal Constitution and the Union of the States.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Rela- tions.
By Mr. Birch. Ordered, That the Inaugural Address of the President of the United States be committed to a committee of the whole house, to be designated a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.
I do not desire to have the resolution deferred, Mr. President. In the first place, by the action of this Convention, a Committee on Federal Rela- tions has been appointed to receive all proposi- tions respecting the difficulties that now exist, and while these propositions are in the hands of that committee the great body of the Convention is cut off from information which otherwise might be derived from the> passage of this resolu- tion. If this resolution be agreed to, to go into a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, then the President's Message and the whole subject will be in order for discussion, and we can attain the same end, and come to a mate- terial understanding with each other.
2d. The Convention, I apprehend, will have seen that we have little or nothing to do, nearly all its business having been referred to the Com- mittee.
3d. I suppose the message of the President of the United States, and the views he entertains, are more important to be considered just now, or of ~"iite as much importance, in consideration of the amplications that surround us, as any or every thing else. If there be any objection to this course, I shall most certainly listen to it, but I am not able to perceive how it will elicit any objection whatever.
Mr. Broadhead. I hope the resolution will not be adopted. The House appointed a Committee to whom all such sub-
jects have been and will be referred, and when that Committee makes its report, this body will have something tangible upon which it can act. I should be opposed at this time to take up any proposition of this character which may not be submitted to us by that Committee, and to go into any indiscriminate discussion upon politi- cal subjects such as would be elicited by the adoption of this resolution. I hope therefore the resolution will not be adopted.
Mr. Birch. I ought to say a single word in response. I confess my entire indifference so far as I am concerned whether the resolution is adopted or not, but it seemed to me that we might as well come to an understanding now in relation to the doctrines announced and indicated in the President's message. The Convention would thus obtain the views in relation to this entire question of those complications without waiting for the Committee to report. With these remarks I am indifferent as to the result.
Mr. Foster. I do not design to enter into a political discussion. I came here for a better purpose. I can see, in my judgment, no good that will result from the investigation of the sub- ject mentioned in the resolution. My opinion is, it would bring about difficulties, and I therefore move to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. Birch. To save all trouble I will, by leave, withdraw the resolution. The resolution was withdrawn. Mr. Wilson. Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts be instructed to allow the door- keeper and Sergeant-at-Arms, each, five dollars per day, and the two pages, each, two and one half dollars per day for services.
Mr. Broadhead. Before the vote is taken, I call the attention of the Convention to the law under which the Convention is called.
The Chair. I think the resolution is in ac- cordance to the law, or I should have called at- tention to it. The resolution was adopted. By Mr. Shackelford, of Howard : Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts be instructed to allow the Chaplain of the Convention five dollars per day during the sitting of the Convention. Adopted.
By Mr. Turner : Resolved, That the people of Missouri deplore the existence in some of the Northern States of acts known as personal liberty bills, designed to nullify the fugitive slave law, and giving the Southern States just cause of com- plaint for the violation of the compact existing between the States; which personal liberty bills are admitted to be unconstitutional by the Execu- tives of the States having such laws; and we equally deplore the state of feeling in the South, and the passages of ordinances of secession, by which the Southern States declare themselves absolved, from the obligations and bonds imposed
32
upon them by the Constitution of the United States.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr. Pomeroy. I believe this body invited Judge Hough to address the Convention on yes- terday, and that he failed to do so on account of ill health. I hope we shall have the pleasure of hearing him to-day.
Mr. Hough. You will excuse me, sir, until I recover from my hoarseness, as I speak with great difficulty.
Mr. Norton. As there is nothing before the Convention, I move we now adjourn.
The Convention, then, at 11 1-2 o'clock, a. m., adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow.
SIXTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 7th, 1861.
Convention met at 10 o'clock, a. m.
Mr. President Price in the chair.
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain.
The journal was read and approved.
Mr. Norton. I desire to offer a resolution.
The Chair. The resolution is in order, and the Secretary will read it.
The Secretary read as follows :
Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Con- vention that the country and Confederacy could at once be relieved from its present deplorable con- dition, if the great conservative heart of the peo- ple of all sections could be appealed to independ- ent of the influence of demagogues, fanatics, and politicians who sprung the present tests for their own benefit. And thus believing, we suggest that the Legislature of the State of Missouri re- commend the Crittenden compromise proposi- tions to Congress as amendments to the Federal Constitution; or recommend Congress to call a National Convention, to which these or similar propositions shall be submitted as amendments to the present Constitution.
Mr. Norton. I desire to inquire, sir, whether it has been determined that resolutions of this character should go to the Committee on Federal Relations as a matter of course, without debate. I do not desire, sir, to discuss these resolutions myself. I have introduced them more for the purpose of eliciting discussion, as there may be, and doubtless are, gentlemen of this Convention desirous to discuss the points that are brought forward in these resolutions. I am aware that we have adopted a resolution requiring propositions of this description to go to the Committee on Federal Relations. The question to be deter- mined is, whether these resolutions go there as a matter of course without debate, or, whether they are subject to debate. I desire that point to be now determined by the Chair.
The Chair. Some few days since the Con vention adopted a resolution requiring that such resolutions should be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. That resolution, however, does not say that they shall be referred without debate. If gentlemen choose to discuss the reso- lutions, I suppose they are at liberty to do so.
No one seeming desirous to debate the resolu- tion at present, the Chair ordered its reference.
Mr. Zimmerman offered the following resolu- tion, which was referred :
Resolved, That this Convention appoint a Com- mittee of five, to confer with the border slave and free States, upon the subject of the preservation of the Union upon just and proper principles, and that a Convention of the border slave and free States, be called for the purpose of forming a Middle Confederacy, in the event of the failure of the preservation of the present Union.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, offered the following :
Resolved, That each member of the Conven- tion be requested to hand to the Committee on Accounts, without delay, a statement of the num- ber of miles traveled by each to the city of Jeffer- son, that the same may be examined and a prop- er allowance per mileage re made by the Com- mittee.
Mr. Shackelford. I would merely remark that the object of that resolution, is that the members may hand in their statement, and by doing so they will greatly facilitate the business of that Committee, and will doubtless assist in adjusting accounts speedily after the adjourn- of this Convention.
Mr. Siieeley. I desire to hear the resolution read.
The Secretary read the resolution.
Mr. Welch. Mr. President, it occurs to me, sir, that the resolution will not do all the mem- bers of this Convention justice. I sec the resolu- tion provides that the mileage of the members shall be determined by their distance to and from the city of Jefferson. The act which calls the Convention does not say, I believe, anything in regard to that, except that they shall have the same pay per mile that the members of the Legis- lature are entitled to under the existing law. Now, sir, in the adoption of that resolution, my friend from Howard will be entitled to receive his pay from Jefferson City through the city of St. Louis up to the North Missouri Railroad home, while, so far as the gentlemen are concerned who live in the Western portion of the State, (and I am one of them,) we are to receive our mileage from the western part of the State to Jefferson and back again, and nothing is said at all of the distance between the city of Jefferson and here. We are required to travel from Jefferson City here and back again, for nothing, while the gen- tleman who offered the resolution gets paid both
33
ways, from here to Jefferson and back. The adoption of that resolution, then, will do injustice to all of those delegates who reside in the western and southwestern portion of Missouri. I think that that portion of the resolution which confines the mileage to the city of Jefferson and back, should be stricken out, and shall offer an amend- ment to that effect.
Mr. Shackelford. The gentleman entirely misapprehends the object of my resolution. Its object is for the members to present their account for mileage to the committee, in order that the committee may adjust it; and I expressed the sentiment of the committee when I said that it should be to and from Jefferson City, and I will state for the information of that gentleman, and of the Convention, if they want to know the opinion of the Committee or of a majority of the Committee in reference to that mileage system, that it is this, that it will be calculated so far as this Committee is con- cerned, unless the Convention otherwise order, from Jefferson City to the homes of the different members, or, to express myself more clearly, to and from Jefferson City by the nearest practi- cable route. If the gentleman alludes to me in that respect, it shall not be by St. Louis, ut it will be from my home to Jefferson City, and thence back by the nearest practicable route, without any reference to St. Louis on my pas- sage. That is the object and that is the sense of the resolution. If the Convention otherwise order the Committee will be governed by it, but not without.
Mr. Welch. Mr. President—
The Chair. The gentleman will submit his proposition in Writing.
Mr. Welch. The gentleman who offered that resolution seems to misapprehend the law of the land as it now is. If he has correctly stated the opinion which the Committee have arrived at in regard to the allowance of mileage of the mem- bers of this Convention, by the most direct route from Jefferson City home, the committee mistake the law of the land as it now is. For that law declares that they shall be entitled to this mileage, not by the most direct route, but by the most usually traveled route, and that, I appre- | hend, from the City of Jefferson to the county of I Howard or Chariton, would be by the way of the ! City of St. Louis. I hold that the delegation from that part of the State, are legally entitled to claim under the law of the land, from the City of Jef- ferson , through this city, to their respective places of abode. The point of injustice, sir, was this: We have been compelled, (those who reside in the western part of the State, and I among them,) forced, as it were, to come to this city from I Jefferson, against our will. I voted against that proposition, and I hold it is not riuht and just, j after the Convention has forced the delegation
from the Avestern portion of Missouri here, that they should then be denied the mileage under the law of the land. That law gives them mileage from the place of their residence to the place where their business is transacted. So far as the Legislature is concerned, the law fixes their place of business at the capital, but it is not so with regard to the Convention. I hold the members of the Convention here are en- titled to mileage from their places of abode to this city. All the Delegations who reside upon the northern side of the river, and who reside in the southeast of Missouri, and down from the Iron Mountain Railroad and the Arkansas line, under this resolution are entitled to their mileage from Jefferson Ctty, home, and in coming to this city they are on their way home — while we in coming to Sr. Louis have gone further away from home and are entitled to no mileage at all from here to the capital of the State. I think there is manifest in- justice in the resolution and, therefore, will write out an amendment.
Mr. Welch then offered his amendment which was as follows :
Strike out the words "to the city of Jefferson."
The Chair. The question will be on the adop- tion of the amendment.
The amendment was rejected by 14 ayes, noes not counted.
The Chair. The question next is on the adop- tion of the resolution.
Mr. McFerran. I am writing a substitute which I will present directly.
Mr. Smith. While the gentleman is writing his substitute I will read that part of the act of the Legislature referring to the mileage. (Pro- ceeded to read from the Legislative act. )
Mr. McFerran offered the following substi- tute:
Resolved, That the Committee on Accounts be requested to procure a copy of the act of the Gen- eral Assembly, now in session, fixing the mileage of members of the General Assembly, and that the mileage of members of the Convention be audited according to the provisions of said act.
The Chair. I will remark to the gentleman that that is already the law.
Mr. McFerran. Yes, sir; but I understand that the General Assembly, during the present session, has changed the law.
The Chair. The new law, I understand, will not go into effect until the first of May.
Mr. McFerran. Then I withdraw my sub- stitute.
The question recurring on the original resolu- tion, it -was adopted.
Mr. Wilson, from the Committee appointed a few days ago to contract with two competent per- sons to report the proceedings of the Convention, made the following report which was adopted :
3
34
Mr. President: The committee to which was referred the resolution requiring said committee to employ two competent persons to report the proceedings and debates of the Convention, re- port that they have discharged that duty, and have employed L. L. Walbridge and Ernest Schrick, gentlemen well qualified to discharge the duties required, and have agreed to pay said re- porters each six dollars per day during the sitting of the Convention, all of which is respectfully submitted. WILSON, Chairman.
By Mr. Brown :
Resolved, That when this Convention shall have finished the business for which it was convened, it shall adjourn to meet in the Representatives' I [all, in the city of Jefferson, on Monday, the 1st of July, 1831.
Resolved, That a committee of seven be elected by ballot, to be composed of one from each Con- gressional District, whose duty it shall be to con- vene the said Convention prior to the day herein designated, should any exigency require such proceeding; and this shall be done by giving fif- teen days' notice in one newspaper in each Con- gressional District of the time and place of hold- ing such Convention.
Resolved, That the committee, as soon as prac- ticable after their election, meet together to appoint a Chairman, and establish the rules by which they are to be governed in convening said Convention or deciding upon the practicability of so doing.
Mr. Welch. I move to lay the resolutions on ! ihe table until to-morrow and have them printed. Mr. Breckinridge offered the following: Resolved by the People of Missouri in Conven- tion assembled, That secession is a dangerous political heresy, finding no warrant in the Consti- tution or laws which lie at the foundation of our systems of government.
Resolved, That Missouri will do nothing to sanction, support or countenance the pretended right of secession, since its approval by the peo- ple involves the destruction of all our institutions, whether State or Federal.
Resolved, That the Government which our fathers formed, and which for nearly three quar- ters of a century has failed in nothing to answer the ends for which it was established, is suited to the habits and adapted to the wants of the Amer- ican people, and that every dictate of wisdom re- quires us to direct our efforts rather to its preser- vation than the formation of any substitute for it. Resolved, That we deplore the action of some of our Southern brethren in adopting ordinances of secession, and assuming a hostile attitude toward the Federal authorities. In asserting that secession is a remedy for the grievances of which the South complains ; in seeking to destroy the Federal Government, which is of itself guiltless of wrong; and in forgetting that in and through
the Union are better means and ampler facilities for redressing all grievances than out, of it— they have committed grave errors; and whilst Mis- souri will exhaust all efforts in restoring har- mony and securing justice, she recognizes no obligation to support them in these proceedings, believing that thereby she would prejudice rather than promote the best interest of all concerned.
Resolved, That it is essential to the existence of government that some authority should be charged with the duty of executing the laws, and that the proper action of the constituted authori- ties should be supported and obeyed; and al- though Ave deprecate any collision between the Federal Government and our disaffected South- ern brethren, it is the opinion of this Convention that these duties and obligations, as prescribed by and under our Federal Constitution, cannot be annulled or impaired consistently with the peace, dignity or existence of the governments, State or Federal.
Resolved, That for the thorough and final removal of all cause of complaint against our brethren of the Northern States, we desire the enforcement of the constitutional guarantee con- cerning the rendition of fugitives from service, a renunciation of any purpose to interfere with slavery in the States or in the District of Colum- bia, or with the inter- State slave trade, and some equitable and complete adjustment of the territo- rial question; based upon an abandoment by the North of any purpose to use the power of the General Government to repress or extinguish slavery, and by the South of any purpose to use the power of the General Government to perpet- uate and extend it; and that we confidently rely upon the justice of our Northern brethren to aid by appropriate legislation, or by adequate con- stitutional amendments, in producing these re- sults, and in securing their enforcement and ob- servance by a cordial compliance with their spirit.
Resolved, That we appeal to our sister States of Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Caro- lina, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, whose interests are so closely identified with our own, to stand firmly with us in the position we assume, asking of our Northern brethren the full recog- nition of our just claims, and of our Southern brethren a reconsideration of their hasty action ; that so may be restored the old relations of peace, prosperity and perfect Union.
Mr. Comingo offered the following:
Whereas, under our Federal Government we have been one of the greiitest and one of the most prosperous nations of the earth; and, whereas, said Government, if faithfully adminis- tered, will ultimately secure to its subjects a de- gree of happiness and greatness never yet attain- ed by any other people ; and, whereas, there are strong reasons for fearing that the conflicting views and feelings of the people of this confeder-
35
cy may result in the subversion of the Govern- ment under which we have so greatly prospered, and plunge our nation into the vortex of civil war, and drench the land with fraternal blood; Therefore, we the people of the State of Missouri, in Convention assembled, do hereby
Resolve, That under the Federal Govern- ment the people of the Uuited States of America have hitherto been greatly prospered at home and respected abroad; and that to it they are mainly indebted for the high position they have attained among the nations of the earth.
2. That we are warmly attached to the Federal Union, and that we will not cease our efforts for its preservation, until hope that we may obtain an honorable settlement of our diffi- culties, ceases to be rational.
3. That we believe all our national difficul- ties may be settled, and that peace and fraternal feeling will be again restored, if the peo- ple of the North should be allowed the time, and can obtain the privilege of uttering their voice at the ballot box.
4. That without the further exercise of a spirit of forbearance, conciliation and com- promise, there can be no hope of an adjust- ment of our national difficulties ; and that unless they be amicably adjusted, civil war will inevita- bly ensue; and, as a necessary consequence, finan- cial and social and moral ruin must follow, to- gether with scenes of carnage and violence with- out a parallel in the history of our race.
5. That in the opinion of this Convention the compromise resolutions offered by Sena- tor Crittenden at the late session of Congress, present a basis of adjustment that is at once hon- orable and permanent; that it is not unreasona- ble to hope that the seceded States would ulti- mately return into the Union on that basis were it adopted ; and that no propositions, materially differing from those above indicated, will be so well calculated to restore peace, and dispel the darkness that overshadows the land.
6. That whatever may be our views touching the action of the seceded States ; however much we may regret their haste, and however much we may feel the injustice which they have done their sister slave States, we believe any attempt on the part of the General Government to coerce them back would involve the whole nation in civil war, and would forever preclude the possibility of a re-union of the States.
7. That whether Missouri shall continue to oc- cupy her present status, or shall hereafter be com- pelled to seek other alliances, she will not submit to, nor tolerate, but will resist and oppose any at- tempt that may point to the coercion of the seced- ed States.
8. That in order further to carry forward our efforts to procure our liberties and union, we re- commend a Convention of the people of the bor-
der States for the purpose of presenting a plan of adjustment to be submitted to the people of all the States that have not seceded.
Mr. McDowell offered the following:
Resolved, That the Hon. John Reynolds, late Governor of Illinois, be invited to address this Convention in this Hall, next Friday evening.
Adopted.
By Mr. Moss. Ordered, That the Inaugural Address of the President of the United States be committed to a committee of the whole House, to be denominated "The Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union."
Mr. Moss. I am aware that a motion of this sort was made by the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. Birch) yesterday, and withdrawn. But I hope the Convention will pass this resolu- tion. I think, sir, that it is a harmless subject which the Convention can discuss during the leisure hour. Our Committees have not made any reports to the Convention calculated to elicit any debate, and I find a good many of the mem- bers of the Convention desire to discuss this mat- ter, and I hope the resolution will therefore be adopted. There are, sir, I believe, ninety-nine members of the Convention, when all are present, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, I believe there are ninety-nine different opinions as to what that message means. I think, therefore, that no harm can grow out of a discussion on that message. It is a matter of some importance that we should know what it does mean. The country has looked forward to it with great inter- est. Those who have been in favor of taking Missouri out of the Union and of breaking up the Confederacy, have declared that message would be in favor of war, while others who are friends of the Union have look- ed forward to it as the harbinger of peace; and, sir, it is surprising to see what dif- ferent impressions are made by that message, not only upon different members of this Conven- tion, but upon all our fellow-citizens throughout the country. The telegrams, sir, that reached this city yesterday announced that in various parts of this Union that message was looked up- on as the messenger of peace, while in other por- tions it was thought to have nothing upon its face but war; and, sir, the people of Missouri are anxious to have it understood what that message does mean, for upon the tone of that document and upon the policy recommended therein, de- pends, in a great measure, the action of the peo- ple of Missouri. And, sir, they will look with great anxiety to see what interpretation we put upon it. Without further discussion, I hope the Convention will pass the resolution.
Mr. Hatcher. I differ with the gentleman from Clay that, this will be a harmless measure. From his own argument we learn that there would be ninety-nine different opinions with regard to the
36
Inaugural. I believe it is necessary for the success of any measure in order to secure its adoption, that there should be perfect harmony in regard to it. We have referred all important measures to the Committee on Federal Eolations— everything that touches our relations to the Federal Govern- ment. That Committee will in due time make a report, and then every member of the Convention will have an opportunity of making known his sentiments to this Convention as to what our re- lations are to the General Government. I believe the adoption of this resolution would be an apple of discord thrown into this Convention which would unfit us for calm consideration on the re- port of the Committee on Federal Eelations, and therefore I hope this resolution will not pass.
Mr. Irwin. I object to the passage of this res- olution, and move to lay it on the table.
Motion sustained.
Mr. Gantt offered the following resolution :
1. Resolved, That the Government which is the birthright of the citizens of this Union, resulting from the combined action of the Federal Con- stitution and those of Federal States, is, beyond any of which history speaks, calculated for the promotion of the great ends for which govern- ments were established among mankind.
2. That the physical peculiarities of our widely extended country, and its varieties of soil and climate, necessitating a diversity of pursuits and a division of labor, and seconding most auspi- ciously the far-reaching and long-sighted wisdom and patriotism of those who laid the foundations of the American Union, have raised this country, in the short space of three score years and ten, to the full stature of a first-rate power, differing from other nationalities of equal rank chiefly in this : That whereas centuries of struggle, of mis- fortune, and painful vicissitude have brought them to their present state, our happy condition is the achievement of hopeful and expanding youth— a few years of prosperity uncheckered with reverse — and the blessing of Heaven upon the best system of government which the wisdom and piety of mankind ever devised for the welfare of the human race.
3. That while nothing which is the work of liv- ing man is free from imperfection, it may be said, without unbecoming presumption, that the successful solution by the fathers of our nation, of the great problem of government, (which never before was able to hit and maintain the golden mean between despotism and anarchy,) has not only made the United States the envy of the universe, but has been, and, despite the dan- gers that threaten us, still is, the pole star and the watch-word throughout the world of those who are struggling for liberty.
4. That while this is the benign aspect which this country wears towards oppressed and strug- gling nationalities, our flag, which now waves
over every sea, carries to the governments of the remotest regions of the earth warning that wherever the humblest American citizen is found, the protection of a mighty, vigilant and proud nation accompanies and watches over him.
5. That the enjoyment of the innumerable blessings which flow from our national Union is a boon for gaining which the most spiritless of mankind would gladly barter their blood ; and that the people of the United States, on pain of being condemned as unworthy and degraded men, standing in most hideous contrast with their heroic forefathers, must transmit this sacred in- heritance unimpaired to their children.
6. That coercion, in the sense of civil war waged by one section of the country upon the other with the design of bringing any State or States into subjection, and holding them as con- quered provinces, is not only a moral, political and military impossibility, but is subversive of the central idea on which the Union of these States was formed ; but that the same word in the sense of a faithful execution of the supreme law of the land (of which the Fugitive Slave law and the law for the suppression of the African slave trade are examples) means no more than what is inseparably bound up with the very na- ture of government — and that government de- prived of its healthful functions is the idlest of all solemn mockeries.
7. That the present is a crisis, the importance of which no language can exaggerate. That our national existence, our civil liberties, the right of every peaceful and orderly citizen to enjoy the fruits of his toil and freedom from the tyranny of tumultuary violence, all depend upon what the next few months may bring forth. That in the conclusions which may then be reached will be found the answer to the inquiry, whether this proud and powerful nation shall become a hissing and a reproach, furnishing one more theme for the exultation of the friends of arbitrary govern- ment, or shall vindicate our claim to be consid- ered as the faithful depositories of the best hopes of mankind.
Mr. Flood offered the following :
Whereas, Seven of our sister States have with- drawn from the General Government, and have formed a new confederacy; therefore,
Resolved, That it is the wish of the people of the State of Missouri that the officers and soldiers of the forts, and the officers of the custom houses belonging to the United States, within the limits of the seceding States, be withdrawn.
Resolved, That the President of this Conven- tion make known our wishes to the President of the United States.
The foregoing resolutions were severally referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
Mr, Phillips offered the following :
37
Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed by the President to wait upon the Hon. John B. Clark, and invite him to address this Convention.
Mr. Broadhead. The Convention has already extended an invitation to an Ex-Governor of Illi- nois. I voted against that proposition, and I would like to know where this thing will end. How many distinguished men from different parts of the country are we to listen to upon these sub- jects ? It was altogether proper that we should hear the views of gentlemen who were Delegates to the Peace Conference at Washington, because their action is allied to the action of this Conven- tion, but I do not think it is proper to go outside, and solicit citizens from different parts of the country to address us.
Mr. Bogy. I want to make a motion to amend the resolution, if in order, by adding the name of John W. Noell. Motion sustained.
Mr. Dunn. I move to add the name of Hon. Mr. Craig.
Mr. Orr. It does seem to me that if we have nothing to do but invite men from various por- tions of the State to address us, we had better ad- journ and go home. The people of Missouri are to-day being taxed to pay for deliberative assem- blies and oificers of State as much as $2,000 per day. I am very fond of hearing men talk, but I am willing to hear them at my own expense. When I undertook this job, I did not suppose that the people of the district sent me here for the pur- pose of inviting men from various counties to speak. I thought we were here for the pur- pose of transacting business, if there is anything to do, but it seems to me there is noth- ing. We sit here two hours every day and have done nothing, when we ought to have gone home long ago, and I think it is due to the people that sweat and toil throughout Missouri that this thing should be brought to a close— and if we have nothing to do but to hear men speak, I shall, before to-morrow night, move an adjourn- ment.
Mr. Sheeley. I move to amend the amend- ment, if in order, so as to include all the repre- sentatives of the present Congress that may be in the city. [Laughter.]
Mr. Turner. If it will be in order, I suggest that we insert the names of the members of the Legislature. [Renewed laughter.]
Mr. Long. I move to insert the name of Clai- borne F. Jackson in the amendment.
Mr. Phillips. I did not suppose that the ad- dresses of these gentlemen would infringe upon the deliberations of this body. We have been waiting for the last two days for the repoi'ts from the various committees, and I merely offered this resolution as a matter of courtesy to distinguish- ed gentlemen present, believing we could not better appropriate our leisure time than by listening to addresses from these gentlemen. —
The impressions of what they have seen in Washington would not infringe upon the delib- erations of this body, and I should not have offer- ed the resolution if I had supposed that it would have interfered with the duties we are called upon to discharge. But inasmuch as there seems to be objection to it, if it be in order, I ask leave to withdraw.
The Chair. It is not in order without leave of the Convention.
Voices. Leave!
The Chair. Does the gentleman ask leave?
Mr. Phillips. I do.
The resolution was then withdrawn.
By Mr. Brown. Resolved, That the resolution requiring all resolutions to be referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations to be printed, be re- scinded.
Mr. Welch. Is it in order to rescind a rule without one day's notice?
The Chair. It is a resolution, sir, and not a rule.
Mr. Welch. I understand this rescinds a rule of the house already adopted.
The Chair. My impression is, it rescinds a re- solution and not a standing rule.
The resolution to rescind was adopted— ayes 39, noes 27.
By Mr. Mat son :
Resolved, That this Convention invite Judge A. H. Buckner to address us on the subject of his mission to the Peace Congress.
Mr. Gravelly. I desire to amend by insert- ing the name of Waldo P. Johnson, who was also a member.
Mr. Phillips. I move to lay the resolution on the table. Motion sustained.
By Mr. Irwin :
Resolved by the People of the State of Missouri in Convention assembled, That the basis of set- tlement proposed in the resolutions of the Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, had the same been adopted, would have met with our hearty approval, believing at the same time that they contained nothing to which the South is notjnstly entitled; yet in view of the dangers which sur- round us and which threaten the disruption and final overthrow of our glorious Republic, involv- ing interests the value, yea, the preciousness of which can never be estimated, we will approve of any other fair and honorable plan of adjust- ment that will bring peace to our distracted coun- try, and furnish proof to the world that as a nation we are one great people, one in name, one in interest, and one in destiny.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard. Having voted in the affirmative on the resolution inviting ex- Governor Reynolds to address the Convention, I move a reconsideration of the vote.
The vote was reconsidered, and the resolution then laid on the table.
38
By Mr. Wilson. Resolved, That the people of Missouri through their Representatives in this Convention assembled, do hereby tender to the Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, and the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, their thanks for their patriotic, able and untiring efforts, during the past session of Congress, to adjust the sectional difficulties which now dis- tract the people of this great Confederacy, and, although they have been as yet unsuccessful, yet wo feel sure that the labors of these noble patriots will be gratefully remembered by every true friend of liberty and Union in all time to come.
Mr. Birch: Mr. President, as we seem to have nothing to do, and as it occurs to me it would be advantageous to us to understand, as far as prac- ticable, the respective opinions of each other, upon the great questions that have brought us together, I yield to the desire that has been manifested by many that I should indicate the views I entertain, not only in regard to the resolution which has been offered by the gentleman from Andrew — but, going probably a step beyond it, to glance at the questions which will alone divide us (if in- deed we shall be ultimately divided) in respect to our action here. My remarks must, neverthe- less, be less connected than I would desire them to be — seeing that I speak thus from the impulse of the moment, and without cither notes, or books, or preparation of any kind.
As to the resolution, it proposes simply to ten- der the thanks of Missouri to two illustrious statesmen — one from a slave and the other from a free State — for their noble and patriotic ex- ertions to perpetuate the Union of these States. The resolution is not stronger — nor is it indeed as emphatic in their favor, as history will by and by be; for while others have faltered— whilst men on the right and men on the left, of all sections, have stood awe-stricken at the portents of the last few weeks at Washington— whilst the telegrams of the despondent and the treacherous were sent over the Union to the effect that " all was lost," the telegrams of the next day, over the signatures of those brave and hopeful Senators, would reassm-e the drooping heart of the country, that it might yet be saved; and bidding those who loved it to continue to "standfast." All honor to those noble men! There maybe a possible diversity of opinion in respect to the plans they respectively matured, each looking to the same glorious end, but I will not anticipate that the vote which will be taken, after the subject has been discussed, will embody the record of a single dissenting voice.
Passing to a very brief review of some of the more general points of controversy and of prejudice with which our duties here are complicated, I trust I may be pardoned for premising, that when gentle- men permit themselves to speak of the aggressions of our Northern brethren during the last forty
years, and of the election of Mr. Lincoln as the culminating point of those aggressions, I am con- strained to interpose at least "the truth of his- tory" to mitigate, if it may not avert, so indis- criminate an inculpation. I will not say, there- fore, that the accusation is the very reverse of the truth, but this I will say, and respectfully challenge thereto a respectful denial : I say, then, that during this entire and exact period of "forty years," whilst we have had much to complain of in the conduct of the North, my recollection of political history is that the South have never been united in a single demand upon the justice and fraternity of the North that was not ultimately written down in our Statute books by the aid of their votes in Congress.
To commence with the question of admission into the Union of the noble State we are here honored to represent in its highest final preroga- tive of political sovereignty, who does not re- member that after it had been kept out of the Union for an entire session of Congress, in con- sequence of the preponderance of extreme opin- ions in opposition to the extension of slavery, (then as now,) the question was finally ad- justed, at the instance of the South, and with the concurrence of its leading states- men, by the admission of Missouri, and the division of all the remaining territory by what has been since known as the "Missouri Line," of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. I am not here to inquire to-day whether this Southern "compromise" was a judicious or an injudicious one, but to adduce it as evidence of an ultimate concession by the JYbr;£7i,after she had apparently reached as determined an opposition to the exten- sion of slavery then as she has now. If it be re- plied that she subsequently objected to the exten- sion of the Missouri line to the Pacific, so as to cover and include our acquisitions from Mexico, it is but just to add that she soon acquiesced in the Southern demand for the repeal of the Missouri line, and the restoration of the great principle of "non-intervention" — and that by the aid of her lion-hearted Democracy we carried the subsequent election of Buchanan against Fremont, as we would have carried the last one against Lincoln had we but stood by our platform and a single candidate, instead of dividing amongst ourselves, and thus dispiriting our allies. I am not going into that now, however, and hence pass on.
The next instance in which truth and candor compels me to regard the action of the North in a light very different from that which has been so undiscriminatingly imputed to her, has reference to the annexation of what is called the Platte country. It is a noble region, Mr. President, and nobly represented here to-day by slaveholders— including the new Con- gressman from Platte— a circumstance to which I advert for no other purpose than to add, that
39
one of the strongest anti -slavery men in all New England wrote and brought in the report from the Committee on Indian Affairs, in favor of thus adding a Congressional district then covered by slavery exclusion to the slaveholding State of Missouri. That man was Horace Everett, of Vermont, and he put it in his report, (copying from the legislative memorial of our State,) that it was expedient and necessary to do so, in order the better to protect Missouri from the incursions of the Indians, who (by the same report) were to be removed across the river, into the then unor- ganized Territory of Nebraska. Speaking simply what I know, Mr. President, I leave this act of the North to speak for itself in refutation of the wholesale denunciations of the flippants, by whom the more sober men of the country are sometimes maligned and misrepresented,, and the less informed correspondingly misled or misdi- rected.
What next, Mr. President, in this unintermitted crusade of forty years, according to the allega- tions of those who seek alone to "fire the South- ern heart," and "precipitate" its too impidsive people into all the horrors of "revolution?" What next? Look yonder to that cotton empire in Texas — of area sufficient to employ every slave this day in North America — and let the man who reads only the newspapers (if nothing else) an- swer to himself who it was that gave the most votes for "Polk and Dallas, Oregon and Texas" — the men of the North or the men of the South?
What next? Who was it in 1850 that gave re- pose to the country, after an agitation that had shaken it from its centre to its circumference on this same question of slavery ? Need I point you, gentlemen, to the immortal committee of thirteen, with Henry Clay as its Chairman, and Lewis Cass, a Northern Democrat, on his right, and Daniel Webster, a Northern Whig, on his left, and Douglas next, and so on, Whirrs and Demo- crats—pro-slavery men and anti-slavery men- North and South, and East and West — forgetting for the time, as I trust we have forgotten here, that they were party men, and intent alone, as American Senators, to save the country by doing justice to all its sections and to all its interests. They did save the country by the series of meas- ures they agreed upon in committee, and which were passed by Congress and accepted by the people, amongst which was the Fugitive Slave Law, of which I shall perhaps speak more fully in another connection.
Another accusation which is unjust to the North as a section, however reprehensive m too many Northern localities, has relation to the ob- structions which have been interposed to the exe- cution of the fugitive slave law. I speak not of the legislative enactments of many of the North- ern States, being gratified to find that they are in- cluded in the accepted report of the Committee of
Thirty-three, and that they are otherwise in the course of being satisfactorily modified or wholly repealed. I speak therefore of the abuse to which the conduct of bad men in Chicago and elsewhere is perverted by the partizans of secession in this State, who print or tell only so much of this story of our wrongs as will influence the less in- formed and unreflecting to the point of believing that a majority of the citizens of the free States, are "negro thieves at heart," and that the "res- cuers" at Chicago, Cleveland and elsewhere, are but the representatives of the general public sen- timent. Gentlemen, we all know that this is disingenuous and untrue, and we should all have moral courage and firmness to so proclaim it to our constituents and the country. If I believed this, I would treat the Government and people of Illinois, and the other free States, as a hostile and an alien people, at once and forever. When I have seen, however, that even in the most recent and audacious rescue case at Chicago, the ring- leaders were all speedily indicted by a Chicago grand j ury, and, j udging from all the past,that they will be visited with the final penalties of the law they violated, I am no more in favor of breaking up the Government, and giving it over to the lawlessness of those bad men in Chicago and elsewhere, than I would be in favor of breaking up the Methodist Church South, of which I am an humble member, because bad men are occa- sionally found even within its hallowed precincts. No : I would use the discipline of the Church to deal with its offending members, just as I would use, and as we are now using, the Fugitive Slave Law to punish those who violate it. My word for it, if we but "hold on," the bad men in both cases will get "tired" first.
It is brought forward as the crowning ele- ment wherewith to dispirit us, that the North- ern people have at last elected a sectional candidate upon a sectional platform, and that we have no reason to hope that they will change their verdict. I scarcely know how to address myself to a proposition of that kind, and will hence simply present such countervailing facts as may present themselves to my mind, and will leave the Convention, wrbcn they retire, to reflect upon what I have thus desultorily thrown to- gether, and put the disjointed fragments into the proper connections of a speech. My purpose will be to array the authority of the men of the North against the politicians of the North — it being the people of that section whom it will be our duty to address in the name and by the authority of the people of our own section. To the alleged decla- ration of Mr. Sumner, therefore, whose authority has been invoked by the despondent and the treacherous amongst us, that the Crittenden prop- ositions were an insult to Massachusetts — to this insolent and summary disposition of the proposi- tions of the senior Senator, whom it is the inten-
40
tion of our resolve to honor — it is deemed suffi- cient to reply that whilst the Senator from Bos- ton was thus speaking for the edification of dis- nnionists North and South, the people of Boston — 14,000 out of 18,000 or 19,000— were signing and transmitting a memorial to Congress, wrapped in the American flag, praying the fraternal adjust- ment of all our complications, upon the basis of the Crittenden proposition. I speak in presence of our returned Congressmen, who honor us with their presence to-day, and they will correct me if I have fallen into any error in the statement I have thus repeated. If it be true, then, that even in fanatical Boston — the home of Sumner — three-fourths of the people are opposed to the ex- treme opinions and purposes of Sumner, when brought practically in contact with the great pur- pose of preserving the Union upon the basis sug- gested by the Senator from Kentucky, how dare we draw the inference that the Northern people are determined to hold us to their Northern plat- form—Union or no Union. I therefore appeal from Sumner to Sumner's constituents; from the men who disgrace the Senate carpet to the men who honor the furrow and the workshops; and taking hope, accordingly, I proclaim myself " a Union man," because I have an abiding confi- dence that such adjustments of the past and such guarantees for the future, as will enable us to plow and to sleep as securely and enjoyingly as our brethren of the North do, will be accorded to us under the forms of the Constitution and the sanetion of the laws.
Having thus denoted that I have yet faith in the manly justice of a majority of the people of the North, it is but proper to add, that so far as my counsel can avail in this body, they shall be appealed to as m-e-n — men with like infirmities of temper and of pride, but yet with like percep- tions of justice and of duty that we claim to possess ourselves. If we but thus interrogate our own natures, and ask of each other the ques- tion as to how we would desire or expect to be addressed ourselves, we will be at no loss in so shaping our expostulations as to obtain for them n frank and fair hearing; and I feel just as cer- tain that the complications which now so ear- nestly summon us to counsel will be properly ad- justed in the Union, as that the people of the Union are capable of just and rational self-go- vernment. Sir, that feeling has been so inter- woven in the texture of all my political educa- tion, that at the age of fifty-seven I may safely assume it is the last reliance that will forsake me. It is upon that reliance, I repeat, that I am " a Union man;" and that although Southern— "to the manor born, and to the manor bred" — a na- tive of Virginia, educated into manhood in Ken- tucky, and having worn out that manhood in Missouri — neither my education nor my observ- ation has been such as to cause me to abandon
my reliance upon the ultimate justice of any por- tion of my countrymen, North or South.
But I have been inquired of, upon a point of consistency, in this wise: "If, as you assume, disunion be no remedy for any of the wrongs or which we complain, how does it come to pass that even you, in a given contingency, will no longer stand up for the Union?" My answer shall consist of an analogy which will render it at least appreciable by those who have neighbors in the country, upon adjoining estates, as I have. With such it is not only convenient but profita- ble to live upon terms of reciprocal respect and mu- tual good will, and so I shall ever expect and strive to live. But if instead of reciprocating (as I know he does) the kindly offices of good citizen- ship and good neighborhood, even the estimable and distinguished colleague who is so honoring me with his attention in the course of these wholly unpremeditated remarks, were to so tar forget his own just and fraternal nature as to poison my springs, or fire my barns, cast dovm my fences, and destroy my stock, I might suffici- ently subdue myself to expostulate with him, as I propose that this Convention shall do with even the worst men of the North. If my neigh- bor were to relent, it wovdd be my duty to for- give him, and we would continue to be neigh- bors, with no other remembrance of the past than the infirmities of the past. If, instead of relenting, however, of past injustice, the man who calls himself my neighbor shall turn upon me the glance of defiance or the leer of disdain, and it shall thus or otherwise be- come apparent that the evil and unncighborly practices, of which I had the right to complain, are to be kept up, then I will have no more to do with that man — come what may ! So of the association of these States, Mr. President, if a majority of the people of the now dominant sec- tion shall become deliberately unjust, persistently annoying and hopclesdy unfraternal.
Having thus, perhaps, sufficiently indicated my judgment (or more properly my feelings) that such a point may be reached between neighbor- ing States, a1- well as neighboring citizens, that the long- wronged party will no longer consult the mere question of interest in determining his fu- ture association or dissociation, I dismiss the proposition by reiterating the opinion and the hope that we shall never be ealled to dep'ore so unhappy a period in our history as a nation. Wrongs there will occasionally be, for (as re- marked upon another occasion last summer) these are incident to all things human. They may, however, be redressed in the future, as in the past, and all move on again together under the Government of our fathers, as well as under any other government — for let it never be forgotten, on the contrary, let the axiom be ever present, that as no government can be better than the
41
people who institute it and the people who carry it on, the conflicting opinions and interests which sway mankind must he composed and " compro- mised" in any and every Government where men are recognized as equals.
Mr. President, weary and unfit as I find myself to be to continue these remarks— disobeying, as I have done, the injunctions of my physician in having spoken too long already — I feel, neverthe- less, strengthened to continue them yet a little longer, in order to denote the estimate which is formed of those who stand by the flag and the laws of their country, by those who have no other merit than the earnest facility with which they counsel resistance to both. For this pur- pose I will read a paragraph from the organ of the Secessionists in my county town — and I do this Avith the less reluctance, as for once the edit- or writes and prints the truth ! In a copy of the paper which some friend has forwarded me through the post office, and which has been handed to me since I came in this morning, there occurs this paragraph :
"Judge Birch started out in the canvass, in- dorsing the doctrine of coercion, that is, he said that the United States Government had the right to place ship's outside the different Southern ports, and there collect all revenues ; and if that is not coercing, we would like to know what is. Judge Birch asserted this doctrine as being right and just."
Well, Mr. President, I did say that the Gov- ernment of the United States had the right to collect its revenues in that manner, and I then said, and I yet say, that in my judgment it would be the mildest and least offensive manner in which the Government could assert an authority which she has never abnegated, and which (looking to equal justice in the enforcement of all other laws — the Fugitive Slave law included,) T trust she will 7iot abnegate. Unless Congress grant the power to the President so to collect the revenue m the disturbed districts, he will of course be thrown upon other expedients ; and al- though I may come presently to speak of his in- augural message more fully than is necessary at this point, I congratulate the Convention and the country that he stands pledged "in every case and exigency" to use his "best discretion," "ac- cording to circumstances actually existing, with a view and a hope of the peaceful solution of the national troubles." To those who so flip- pantly deride the proposition to so far respect the feelings of our misguided brethren in Charleston as to collect the national revenues on shipboard, beyond the reach of their guns, I but common ■! the special message of Andrew Jackson, eight and twenty years ago, in reference to the same snbjcpt, and which I had the honor to read from \Vv proper public volume before the two Houses o£ rhe General Assembly on the
evening of the 7th of January last. It was unan- swered then, and I think it unanswerable now, except by including the soldier-statesman of the Hermitage and a majority of both Houses of Congress of that day, in the same category of disrespectful denunciation which we now hear in respect to every proposition which looks even to the theoretical assertion of the authority of the Government.
Sir, I am of those who do not regard South Carolina, or the other States which, think they have absolved themselves from allegiance to the Government in which they have so long shone as cherished and resplendent members, as being either out of the pale of the Government author- ity or the Government protection. And whilst I would forbear, as already indicated, any undue or injudicious exercise of the authority alluded to, I would resent with even a keener sensibility, and redress with even a less relenting hand, any in- dignity or any wrong which may come upon her from those who may imagine she is alien from the sympathy of her sisters. I cannot better de- note my feelings in this respect, Mr. President, than by reference to a case in the domestic family, and which I am thereby the more able to bring home to myself, as doubtless it will go home to the heart of every father and every mother in this crowded hall. Away off in the old historic city of Alexandria, on the eastern edge of the " Old Dominion," I have a son at school, prepara- tory to entering him at the University, where some friends premonish me he will be taught "secession," but where I simply expect him to graduate in the Madisonian school of " State Rights." Semi-annually I send that son the means of defraying his expenses — the troublous times upon which we have fallen having reduced me to the necessity of making his last remittance, last week, through one of the financial institu- tions of this city, the President of whom is a member of this Convention, and is now honoring me wdth his ear. Well, sir, suppose that son, when receiving his father's draft, shall yield either to bad counsels or to the impulse of young and wild adventure, and instead of handing the pro- ceeds to the good old President, (of whose family I have also made him a member,) shall determine to use it in transporting himself beyond the reach or the influence of parental authority — to Mexico or some of the islands of the seas, there to set up for himself. I need not say that I would be deeply grieved, Mr. President — for that would be an expression too tame for either your feelings or mine — but this I say, and claim for it a response in every father's breast, that more than ever before I would continue to remember that with all his waywardness he was still my child ; and if wTetch so craven, or coward so presuming, should dare to strike or wrrong that wandering, unprotected boy, I would
42
hunt him to the ends of the earth that he should feel the last might of the old and withering arm of his outraged father. And so of the wronged yet precipitate sisterhood of States, from whom we have heard through the public prints, and more recently face to face, in this hall, through the ac- credited representative of one of them. Be their ultimate destiny what it may, we can never for- get that with us they have given a historic and glorious renown to the flag of a common coun- try— and as allusion is sometimes made to the in- tervention of France and England, on the one side or the other, in respect to the unhappy com- plications by which we are environed and im- perilled, I hut speak the sentiments of the brave and loyal men who sent me here — as I believe I speak the sentiments of every man (who is a man) in this great broad State— that any foreign government which shall intervene to wrong the weakest or the most erring of the American sis- terhood shall feel the outraged arm of every American citizen.
And now, Mr. President, with such an allusion to the Inaugural Address of the new President as may become a citizen who perhaps expended at least as much time and strength in an earnest and an ardent effort to defeat him as any other in the State — with such an allusion to that message as may become the high place from which I am thus honored to speak, I will trespass upon the sustaining courtesy of this intelligent and bril- liant assembly no longer. I trust I may be able to speak of that paper with becoming consider- ation and candour— remembering only that I am henceforward a tribune of the people, and no longer a political partizan. If so, Mr. President, I will have accomplished that most difficult of all political achievements, namely, the high and holy duty, in times like these, of rendering jus- tice—simple justice — to a political adversary. I know that it requires not only a high, but an elevated and a self-abnegating courage to do this, and I pray for strength accordingly.
What, then, is the sum of the message which the country has received from the new President since our assemblage in this Hall ? I have not only read it carefully and criticisingly, but so often as to have almost committed it to memory; and the men of the furrow and the workshop, who sent me here, will at least bear me record, that it is substantially such a message as I pre- dicted, against all clamor to the contrary, it had to be. In respect to the execution of the constitutional provision for the rendi- tion of fugitive slaves, and in the total ab- negation of either official authority, or of personal inclination, to interfere with the existing institutions of the South, would it not be both disingenuous and ungenerous to meet the appa- rently total unreserve of the Executive with even an affectation of distrust in regard to his sin-
cerity? I not only think so, Mr. President, but, for one, I should feel that I was compromising my own character for sincerity, were I thus cause- lessly to atiempt to impugn the sincerity of the highest functionary of my government — albeit my last choice, even for the nomination which resulted in his election. Such a line of opposi- tion might possibby be pardonable under the law of the hustings, but we occupy here a different fo- rum, and I shall attempt to address myself ac- cordingly. \
Having next demonstrated that the Union is not dissolved, the message but naturally ap- proaches the great question of executive duty in respect to the execution of the Government laws, which directs the collection of the Government revenues. Concurring with the judgment of those who reduce all that is said upon that subject to the theoretic assertion of the right to collect the Federal revenue, and the duty to do so, or to for- bear to do so, for the time being, as the one course or the other may best promote "the peace- ful solution of the national troubles," may it not be inquired whether a more considerate and del- icate forbearance of a mere "legal right" could be indicated by an executive officer, with- out formally surrendering the right itself? We have but to read upon this point the words of the message itself, for, un- less they be intended to deceive, they must bo regarded as conclusive of the purpose to employ the executive discretion "in every exigency, ac- cording to the circumstances actually existing, with a view to the peaceful solution of our na- tional troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections."
If, Mr. President, under words like these any President of the United States could be supposed cowardly and base enough to cloak the purpose of unnecessary or unfraternal civil war, there might even yet be doubt of the policy of Mr. Lincoln. As, however, the double depravity implied in such a purpose is too monstrous for human credulity, I dismiss the thought — hold the new Administration to their bond — and as between the theory of fraternal and legal "Union," upon which they place themselves, and the opposite theory of secession and aggressive war, upon which (if it be so) the new govern- ment reposes, I scruple not to avow, here in my place, that the sympathies and judgment of my people are with my own — on the side of the govern- ment of the "United States" and in opposition to the Government of the "Confederate States."
It will of course be with the latter government to determine whether it will listen to the counsels of those of its own section, and elsewhere, who are looking to such adjustments of the past, and such guarantees for the future, as shall render the benefits and burdens of the Union reciprocal, and its continuance correspondingly fraternal and
43
enduring— for, if Mr. Lincoln shall keep his word, in the sense in which he intended it should be understood by all his countrymen, it will be neither from the fault or the folly of his Admin- istration if the menaced disintegration which as yet has been without result in blood, shall wear on to that decisive and final extremity. God of our Fathers ! may the orisons of a whole people ascend to Thee as grateful incense; and wilt Thou mercif ully avert from them the horrors of a brothers' war!
But I may be asked, as I have been, what I would have the new Government to do in respect to the redelivery of the public forts, and the col- lection of the public revenue. As I may answer the latter branch of that question here, without the presumption of supposing that it will be lis- tened to elsewhere, unless embodied in the ad- dress which I think should be issued by this Con- vention, I will remark, with the greatest defer- ence to the judgment of others, that in my opin- ion it would well become the approved soldier and statesman who is at the head of the Provisional Government at Montgomery, were he so to exert the influence to which he is but justly entitled, as to avoid any conflict of jurisdiction with the Gov- ernment out of which he claims to have sprung, during the period whilst millions of men, as brave as he is, are exhausting themselves to avert it. If, after such an appeal as will be made by this Con- vention, in conjunction with others, it shall be found that a majority of the people of the North are as unreflecting or as obstinate as many of those whom they have heretofore chosen to repre- sent them — if, contrary to all my expectations and belief, and the expectations of the " Union men" who sent me here, there is reserved for us the humiliation of finding ourselves deceived in respect to such guarantees for the future as will enable us to toil with the same hope, and to sleep with the same security as our brethren of the North do— then, Mr. President, but not till then, let the conflict come which is to decide the contro- versy of rival Governments, and a thenceforth rival and embittered peoples. Until then, let the new Government at least go no further than to so far maintain its organization — not in unnecessary menace or annoyance, which I am sure would not comport either with the taste or the inclination of its Executive— but holding itself ready to resolve itself again into the Federal Union, if the causes for which it went out are properly adjusted, or to assert its full and final independence if they are not. In the event last supposed (but which I will not suppose) the new government would not only be strengthened to at least double the number of its present array of States, but it would enter upon its career of absolute and unconditional independ- ence with the sympathy and the prayers of good men, the world over. 0 ! who can overestimate the worth of that.
Of such a government and people as that, Mr. President, I should have no fears. It would have been inaugurated in patient patriotism, for the redress of the wrongs of outraged humanity, and the God of justice and the God of battles would be with them as he was in the wilderness with our fathers. Timid as I always have been, and growing still more timid as I grow old and grey, even / would not be afraid to fight in such a cause as that — for it would be the last resort of the dis- equalized and the oppressed against what would then have been written down as deliberate, per- sistent injustice ! But, gentlemen of the Con- vention,! dare neither fi ght myself, nor invoke oth- ers to a field of fraternal strife, upon such an is- sue as has been thus far presented to the coun- try, or as I believe will be presented. I dare not, whilst relying that a majority of the people of the North will as readily redress all our substan- tial grievances as the forms of the Constitution and of legislation will permit them to do— I dare not fight them, nor encourage others to do so.
"I dare do all that may become a man—
Who dares do more is none."
The Chair. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Ritchey called the ayes and noes.
Mr. Orr. I desire the resolution read again.
The Secretary read the resolution.
The yeas and nays were then called, and the resolution adopted unanimously.
Mr. Linton offered the following resolution :
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due to Judge Birch for his patriotic and im- mortal speech.
Mr. Birch. I hope, Mr. President, the gentle- man will withdraw the resolution. It is not usu- al to offer such a resolution as that, and I fear it may constitute a precedent which will embarrass gentlemen in the future.
The Chair. I will decide that it is unusual to introduce such a resolution, and I will not enter- tain it without the consent of the house.
Mr. Sheeley moved that the Convention now adjourn.
Mr. Orr desired the gentleman to withdraw his motion for a moment, so as to enable him to offer a resolution.
Motion to adjourn withdrawn.
Mr. Orr offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That it is the wish of this Conven- tion, that the resolution rescinding the resolution to print, shall not affect the resolutions offered previous to its passage,
Mr. Sheeley renewed his motion to adjourn. Motion sustained, and Convention adjourned un- til to-morrow morning.
44
SEVENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 8th, 1851.
The Convention met at 10 o'clock.
President Price in the Chair.
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain.
Assistant-Secretary Campbell read the jour- nal, which was approyed.
Mr. Calhoun offered the following resolu- tions :
Resolved, That the differences existing be- tween the Northern and Southern States can be better adjusted in the Union than out of it; and that it is only to be done by a spirit of mutual forbearance and concession.
Resolved, That whenever we exhaust all ef- forts to compromise the existing differences, and have given the people in Southern and Northern States time to reflect and act, and we see that on the part of the Free States and the extreme Southern States, that they do not love the Union sufficiently to make concessions to preserve it, then it will behoove us, with the Border States — that is, those States bordering on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, with North Carolina — to meet in convention and determine what will be best for them to do in the premises.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Rela- tions.
By Mr. Harbin. Resolved, That this Conven- tion earnestly desire an early settlement of the questions which have unhappily estranged the people of the different sections of the United States from each other, and we earnestly hope that measures may soon be inaugurated to allay the present excitement, and restore peace and harmony among the several States, and that, in the opinion of this Convention, any attempt on the part of the Executive of the United States to coerce by force of arms the seceding States again into the Union, will be both unwise and impolitic, tending to force the Border States to seces- sion and all the States into civil war.
Mr. Harbin. "Would it be in order for the Con- vention to take action on that resolution ?
The Chair. I think not under the resolution that was adopted.
Mr. Harbin. Is the resolution debatable? The Chair. Well, sir, the resolution adopted some days ago does not say that resolutions should be referred without debate. If gentlemen desire to debate, I will not undertake to cut it off. Mr. Harbin. I desire to say that that resolu- tion is the sentiment of the people whom I have the honor to represent upon this floor. It con- tains my sentiments, sir, and one great object I have in offering it is to get the sense of the Con- vention upon those sentiments. I, sir, desire to
represent my constituents upon this floor accord- ing to their will. I believe their sentiments upon these subjects are engrafted in that resolution, and the reason why I desire that this Convention should take action upon it, if it is in order, is that I believe that there is so much business now be- fore the Committee on Federal Relations that pro- bably the Committee will not be able to report in several days.
The Chair. The gentleman will effect his ob- ject by making a motion to dispense with the rules. Mr. Harbin. I make that motion. Mr. Hatcher. I ask that the resolution be read. The Secretary read it.
The Chair, to Mr. Harbin. Do you desire to debate further before the question is taken. Mr. Harbin. I desire to suspend the rules. The question on suspending the rules was then put, and answered in the negative.
Resolution referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. By Mr. Turner:
Resolved, That we, the people of Missouri, are immovably attached to the Constitution of the United States, and that while we have a venera- tion for the patriotic names of Washington, Jef- ferson and Madison, we will ever uphold and de- fend that sacred instrument from the violence, treason and fanaticism of either Northern or Southern traitors.
Resolved, 2d. That we deny the existence of the right of secession in governmental affairs, believ- ing that the existence of such a right would be destructive to the permanency of our national government, which we understand to have been intended to be perpetual by the framers of the Constitution.
Resolved, 3d. That while we deny the right of secession, we hold to the inalienable right of rev- olution whenever the government under which we live becomes so oppressive or tyrannical that the evils of revolution can better be borne and endured than the oppression complained of.
Resolved, 4. That in the opinion of this Con- vention, the General Government is the palla- dium of the liberties of the people of the United States, and as long as it continues to protect and defend the liberties and rights of the citizens of Missouri, so long will Missouri stand true and loyal to the Constitution and the Union, regard- less of what other States may see proper to do in the premises.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Rela- tions.
By Mr. Catce. Resolved, That the Committee on Publication be requested to have three hun- dred copies of the roll struck with the postoffice address of each member for the use of the mem- bers of the Convention.
45
Mr. Orr suggested that the resolution include counties.
The Chair. Does the gentleman make the motion to so amend ?
Mr. Orr. I simply make the suggestion to the gentleman.
Mr. Dunn. I move that the number of five hundred be substituted for three hundred. Mo- tion sustained.
Mr. Sheeley. I will suggest, if such a thing is to be done, that I would add an amendment to insert the profession or calling of each member in the Convention.
Mr. McDowell. I will ask the gentleman whether it would not be better to insert the State of their nativity, also, so as to show how many Black Republicans are here? [Laughter.]
Mr. Sheelet. I shall improve your suggestion, sir— I am writing out my amendment.
Mr. Sheeley thereupon offered his amend- ment, including the age, place of nativity, post- office address and profession of each member, and requesting the members to furnish the Secre- tory with the necessary information.
Mr. Crawford. I would move to amend the amendment by adding the political antecedents of each member. [Laughter.]
The Chair. The gentleman will submit his amendment in writing.
Mr. Turner. I have an amendment which I should like to offer. The Chair. You are not in order. Mr. Orr. I ask the Chair, if it is in order to offer a substitute? The Chair. No, sir.
The question being taken on the adoption of the amendment to the amendment, it was re- jected.
The question recurring on the adoption of the amendment, it was adopted. The resolution, as amended, was then adopted. By Mr. Howell :
Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be authorized to contract for the printing and bind- ing of blank copies of the debates in and pro- ceedings of this Convention.
Mr. Howell. I will remark, Mr. President, that -k e have provided for the reporting of the debates and proceedings of this Convention, but there has been no provision whatever for the publication of these reports, and before the Com- mittee act on the subject I think they should have authority given them by the Convention. I suppose it is the sense of the Convention, that the debates should be published in some perma- nent way, together with the proceedings of the Convention, and in order to ascertain the sense of the Convention on that subject, and authorize the Committee to take action, I present this resolu- tion. I will remark further, that if the debates are to be published, it is highly proper for the
purpose of economy, that we should know it at an early period. The debates are published in ft city paper, and they can be printed for perma- nent use much cheaper each morning, as I am in- formed by the printer the types being up, than at a future period, or after the adjournment of the Convention.
The Chair. What number does the gentleman propose to fill the blank with ?
Mr. Howell. I have no definite number in my mind. I will suggest 5,000 copies.
Mr. Sheeley. Mr. President, I do not know that we possess the authority of publishing the debates of this Convention, but if I recollect the law calling this Convention aright, there was no provision made whatever for this purpose. There is no provision authorizing this Convention to have even reporters employed for the purpose of preserving the debates. If my recollection serves me right, the Convention which sat in Jefferson City in 1845 did employ reporters. They did not undertake to have the debates published, but left it for future legislation on the part of the Legislature. I do not think these debates have ever been published yet. I may be wrong in my recollection, but such it is at present. Then, sir, I am opposed to this Convention undertaking to spend the money of the State, unless we have the authority of the Legislature to take it out of the treasury at once. We have no authority to bind the State of Mis- souri to these reporters, nor have we any author- ity to bind the State to a publisher of these de- bates, and if we do, the Legislature may repudi- ate our action. We cannot spend money under the Constitution, and the only chance we have for getting at the State's money independent of the Legislature, is to revolutionize the State and adopt a new Constitution. I therefore move to lay the resolution on the table. It is suggested to me around here, that the printing proposed will cost at least $10,000.
Mr. Howell. Mr. President —
The Chair. The gentleman is not in order. A motion to table is before the House.
Mr. Howell. I only wish to correct the gen- tleman in regard to a portion of his argument. I remarked that I offered the resolution in order to test the sense of the Convention at this early period, as it would be a matter of economy that the proceedings should be printed now, if printed at all. [Here the hammer fell.]
The Chair. The question will be on laying the resolution on the table. Motion to table sus- tained.
By Mr. Bush:
Resolved, That the history of all nations, from ancient to modem times, has proven that the dismemberment of one nation into several gov- ernments or confederacies, has resulted in anar- chy, despotism and ruin; and that, as "In union
46
there is strength," so in disunion there is de- struction.
Referred to the Committee on Federal Rela- tions.
By Mr. Ray :
Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be requested to inquire into the propriety of having
number of copies of the debates published
in pamphlet form, and report the same to the Convention for further action.
Mr. Rat. I presume the resolution sufficiently explains itself. It simply authorizes a Commit- tee to inquire into the propriety of having the de- bates published.
The resolution was adopted.
By Mr. Lee per :
Resolved, By the people of Missouri, in Con- vention assembled : Whereas, great disquietude exists in this Government, in the Gulf States in the South, by the aggressions of the extreme Northern States, therefore
Resolved, That this Convention condemns the aggressive policy of the North, and the hasty and precipitate action of the Southern or seceding States.
Resolved, That the course pursued by South Carolina and the other seceding States, is no rea- son that Missouri should follow their example.
Resolved, That it is the duty of Missouri and the other Border States to take a firm position for the maintenance of the Union, the preserva- tion of our Constitution, and the honor of our flag, and, if necessary, to form a Central Republic of the Border States, both North and South, adopting the Constitution as our supreme law, the 8 tars and stripes as our ensign, and invite our wandering sister States to assume their original places m the family of States forming this great Confederacy.
Resolved, That this Convention is opposed to the present executive attempting to coerce or force the seceding States back into the Union, and that this Convention is equally opposed to South Carolina attacking, or inaugurating a war, for the purpose of capturing any fort, fortifica- tion or other public property belonging to the United States.
Resolved, That the people wish all the nation- al difficulties settled, by some just and honorable compromise, and would for this purpose recom- mend those resolutions known as the Crittenden resolutions, or any other plan that would do jus- tice both to the North and the Sonth.
Referred to Committee on Federal Relations.
By Mr. Long :
Resolved, That the Inaugural Address of Pres- ident Lincoln is one of peace, and not of war.
Mr. Howell. I move to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. Moss. Is that motion debatable?
The Chair. No sir, it is not.
Mr. Moss. Then I wish the gentleman to with- draw the motion for a moment.
Mr. Howell. I will do so as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. Moss. I arose yesterday in my seat, 6ir, and advocated the proposition to submit the Pres- ident's message to this House for discussion, and I did so, sir, from the best motives. I did so, sir, knowing the effect that this document would have upon the people of Missouri, in the hands of designing men, whose hearts are bent upon break- ing up this Confederacy. Sir, I hail from a coun- ty in which Lincoln did not get a single vote, and, sir, when the secessionists raised their flag in that county, and went to the ballot box they did not get two hundred votes in the county. My constituents, sir, are Union men— devoted to the Union — and they lean to no sectional party. They are men that dare, in this hour of trial, to stand between the two sections and demand peace. And, sir, I tell the friends of Union in this Assembly, that if that message, in the hands of sharp and designing politicians, is permitted to be used as a lever to force the war question in Missouri, the friends of the Union will melt away like snow-flakes. I now tell you, Union men, if you desire to hold your forces together, you must give encouragement to your friends in the country. They are looking to you for counsel. They have sent men to this Convention in whom they have faith, and I tell you the construction put upon that message will have a telling influence upon the fate of this Union, and decidedly upon the fate of Mis- souri, and I hope that the Union men in this Convention — men of age and experience- men who have got a reputation in Missouri — men whose voices will be heard and counsel relied upon — will come to the rescue this day, and send out to the people of Missouri a proper interpretation of this message. I am one of those, gentlemen of the Convention, who believe that the message looks to peace. I am a Southern man in every sense of the word. Every impulse of my heart beats in unison to the interest and cause of the South, and I desire to protect South- ern institutions, and in doing so, to preserve this Union as the greatest guarantee of protection for those institutions. I desire the friends of the cause I advocate, to come forward to-day, and let the people of Missouri understand what this Con- vention thinks of that message. I believe, sir, that any man of common sense can demonstrate that Lincoln is inclined for peace, and that posi- tion can be sustained by reference to his message; and now, without further discussion, I hope that you will pass this resolution, for, I tell you, friends of the Union, that upon what is done here to-day will depend greatly the fate of Missouri. This, as I remarked before, will be a prominent lever in the hands of the enemies of the Union, and I
47
warn you to head off" their operations by sending out to the people a proper interpretation of this message. [Slight applause.]
Mr. Hendricks. I believe I shall express the sense of ray constituents if I vote for that resolu- tion.
Mr. C B a w ford . I move to lay it on the table.
Mr. . I call for the ayes and noes.
EXPLANATION OF VOTES.
Mr. Bogy. I wish before voting on this pro- position to explain my vote. I do not wish to be understood by my vote as expressing an opinion in regard to the resolution. I shall vole to lay the resolution on the table because I look upon it as being rather a firebrand than otherwise.
Mr. Comingo. I wish to state my reasons in favor of laying the resolution on the table, and I would be willing to discuss this matter this morn- ing if I thought by so doing we could give quiet to the country, but I believe the construction we might put upon it would throw no light upon the subject, and I think we have no more power or ability to construe that instrument than our constituents have who sent us here. I presume they have their opinions in regard to it. I pre- Bume our opinions would give but little assurance to the people in regard to the character of that message. Then, sir, we have no more right than our constituents have to interpret this message. We may have more light upon the subject by the President's own acts in a few days. The Presi- dent may unmistakably interpret the meaning of this Inaugural message. Although we may have the power to interpret it, yet I trust if we have the power that the Convention will —
The Chair. The gentleman must merely give a brief statement as to the reason why he casts his vote. Mr. Comingo. Well, sir, I vote aye. Mr. Crawford. I made the motion to lay this resolution on the table, not because I have any fear of expressing my opinions in regard to the message of President Lincoln, but because I thought this Convention had better meet here, and continue to meet in the same spirit of con- ciliation and compromise, in which we have heretofore met; because I thought that if that message was debated hero this morning, and befoie we proceeded to consider the report of the Committee on Federal Relations that we might feel towards each other, not so much like Union men :<s we now tfeeL I wish to state emphatically ;h:U I am not in favor of any gag law, and I did not offer this proposition for that purpose, but because I believed that by bringing up this sub- ject we should bring up dis.-ension and destroy compromise
Mr. Foster. Perhaps I should say a word in explanation of my vote. I find, sir, there is a disposition on the part of certain gentlemen on
this floor to enter into an investigation of that message, and, sir, as they have manifested a dis- position to consult on the subject, I am not dis- posed, sir, as an humble representative of this body to shrink from a responsibility of any char- acter whatever. I am alone responsible to my constituents for my action in this body, together with my colleagues, who represent more sovereign people than any other three gentlemen on this floor. I shall therefore vote against laying the resolution on the table.
Mr. Gantt. 1 wish briefly to state the reasons why I shall vote against laying this resolution on the table. It has been said that the message is not definite, and many are doubtful as to its meaning. In what better way can we arrive at the true construction of that message than by comparing our views each with the other and discussing the different interpretations that may be put upon it. In the hope that an opportunity may be offered to do that, and that the discus- sion may be carried on in a fair, candid and fraternal spirit, and that the message may be considered in all its parts, that we may look to the whole for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of each sentence, so that we may arrive at the best construction, and upon the most sure basis come to a conclusion as to what is the meaning of the man who now sits as Ch'ef Executive in his seat at Washington, I shall vote against stifling debate and laying the reso- lution on the table.
Mr. Gravelly. I desire to remark, that in voting upon this question, on laying it on the table, that in voting in the affirmative, I do not desire to be understood as declaring the Inaugu- ral address is significant of war, but in order that this Convention may proceed with the busi- ness which I think now directly requires its ac- tion. I shall vote aye.
Mr. Hatcher. Believing that there is much truth in the statement made by a gentleman on this floor yesterday, that there are about as many opinions in regard to the Inaugural Address as there are delegates to this Convention, and be- lieving that this Convention cannot easily con- strue its real meaning, I think it is best to let the President's actions construe the President's words. And as "actions speak louder than words," I pro- pose to wait until action on the part of the Presi- dent will speak the meaning of those words. I therefore vote aye.
Mr. Irwin. I shall vote for laying the resolu- tion upon the table, sir, and I shall do it for the same reason which I gave yesterday — against go- ing into a Committee of the Whole upon the In- augural Address. I believe, sir, a discussion on this Inaugural Address will lead to a purely po- litico.! dis-ussioa, and that there will be an unbe- coming exhibition of party feeling and party spirit. I take occasion to remark, sir, that how-
48
ever much I may indorse the sentiments of that resolution, yet for the reasons I have given I shall vote aye.
Mr. Linton : Regarding the Inaugural as I do, as a message of peace, I shall vote no.
Mr. Makmaduke : In voting in the affirmative on this question, sir, I do not wish to be under- stood that it is offered for the object of shuffling off the responsibility of the resolution on the one hand, or obviating it on the other. I have fre- quently expressed my opinion upon the Inaugu- ral. I regard it as a peace message; but whether it is for peace or war, I think the discussion now will have an unhappy tendency and an unhappy result on the action of the Convention, and as I think the resolution is premature, I shall there- fore vote aye.
Mr. Norton : In voting against laying the res- olution on the table, I do so for the purpose of showing my feelings in favor of assuming the re- sponsibility of expressing my views in regard to the construction to be placed on that address. I shall vote no.
Mr. Orr. It is stated here that the bringing up of this discussion will necessarily awaken party feeling. I hope this is not so. We shall certain- ly have to meet this issue before we leave here, and I know no better time to meet it than the present. I vote against laying the resolution on the table, because I believe the message to be a peace measure, and because I believe that the people should know what we think about it. It has been stated that the people are as competent to form their conclusions as we are, but we are sent here to take into consideration our Federal relations, and for this reason, I vote no.
Mr Phillips. I will just state that I do not re- gard the message as being a war message; yet, sir, believing, as I do, that ample opportunity will be afforded before the Convention adjourns, for members to discuss this message in all its de- tails, and thinking that no harm can result from waiting until the proper time arrives to discuss it, I shall vote aye.
Mr. Rat. Understanding that a refusal to lay the resolution on the table will leave the question open for discussion, I vote no.
Mr. Redd. I view this message as a decla- ration of war against the institutions of the South. In my judgment, it involves the doc- trines of George III, and declares war in the same way he declared war against the colonics. He avowed the purpose to execute the law with- in the limits, and the same kind of a law, the law for the collecting of taxes.
The Chair. I will remark to the gentleman that he cannot enter into a discussion of the merits of the resolution. He can only give, in a brief manner, his reasons why he votes for or against laying the resolution on the table.
Mr. Redd. I was not about to enter into any argument to show my views ai-e correct. That was not my purpose. I was merely stating my belief as to whether this was a war or a peace measure.
The Chair. That, the gentleman has not the right to do; he has the right to give his reasons why he will vote for or against it, but he must not enter into a discussion on the merits of the subject.
Mr. Redd. I submit to the ruling of the Chair, but I followed only the example of a gentleman who preceded me on that subject.
The Chair. The gentlemen did not take as much latitude as the gentleman now on the floor, but he was stopped by the Chair.
Mr. Redd. I will say then that I will vote aye, and that I do not believe Missouri is prepared to take up the gauntlet.
Mr. Ritchet. Believing as I do that the people we have the honor to represent here, in part, have the ability and the right to interpret that message for themselves, and believing it to be my duty, sir, to try and transact business here that they have not the power to do, I feel then, sir, it is my duty as one of their delegates to vote aye.
Mr. Rowland. I wish to give my reasons why I shall cast my vote against laying the resolution on the table. I believe, sir, that if the proposition is laid on the table, the impression will go to the country that this Convention has decided that Mr. Lincoln's Inaugural Address is a war meas- ure. I consider that this is a test question, and that it will have that effect upon the people of the country, if we vote to lay the proposition on the table — or to make them infer that we have most assuredly decided that Lincoln is to make war upon them. I agree with the gentleman from Clay — I believe this message is a peace measure, and I do not wish my constituents to hear that I have voted against it.
Mr. Shackelford of Howell : When- 1 voted yesterday and the day before, against committing this thing to a Committee of the Whole, I did it believing we were forestalling or endeavoring to forestall public opinion in advance of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations. Believ- ing so, I voted against considering it, and I am unwilling now to consider it, inasmuch as I think the vote amounts to nothing, and because I be- lieve my constituents can construe it for them- selves just as well as I can. I believe it will fore- stall the action of the committee, and as there will be opportunity offered every member of this house to make speeches upon questions whi h that committee will elaborate, after that commit- tee has reported, and as I am unwilling to be placed in the inconsistent position of doimr one thing one day and backing down the next, I therefore vote aye.
49
Mr. Turner. "Without giving any explana- tion of my opinions as to the message of Mr. Lin- coln, I propose to give a few reasons why I shall vote no. I say the people of Missouri are looking upon this Convention, and awaiting with breath- less anxiety the action of this body. This Con- vention may be for the weal or woe of the whole nation, and I think, sir, tlrat we are sitting here and doing nothing but favoring the weak knees and tender toes of the disunionists of the Legisla- ture, and the disunionists of Missouri, who are working in every possible way to make the peo- ple of Missouri believe that Mr. Lincoln has made a declaration of war upon the States that have seceded. I think we should face the music, and give the people of Missouri an expression of our views as to whether Mr. Lincoln has made a war or peace message. I shall, therefore, vote no.
Mr. Wooeeolk. It seems, sir, that Acre are different -views in regard to the Inaugural. Some regard it as a peace measure, and some as a war measure. Reports from the seceding States show that they regard it as a declaration of war. I, myself, individually, regard it as a .peace measure. I do not wish the Convention to hastily indorse the Inaugural, and, in my opinion we had best take no action at all in regard to it until Ave are satisfied as to its real character. If it is a peace measure, I indorse it. If a war measure I shall oppose it, but I do not desire this Conven- tion to indicate to the seceding States that we intend to indorse anything that they consider in- dicates coercion or a declaration of war. For these reasons I do not desire an expression of opinion as to the Inaugural, and I shall vote aye.
Mr. Doniphan. I will state Avhile the Clerk is casting up the vote that I have been requested by the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Re- lations to inform the House that we have got through with our business, and that Judge Gam- ble will present a report to-morrow, at 11 o'clock, and therefore it is unnecessary to offer any reso- lutions to be referred to that Committee.
The vote was then announced as follows :
Ayes— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast,Bogy, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Co- mingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Jamison, Marmaduke, McCor- mack, McDowell, Noell, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ran- kin, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Saver, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Wal- ler, Watkins, Wilson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk Zimmerman, Mr. President — 52.
Noes— Messrs. Breckinridge,Broadhead,Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Henderson, Hen- dricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Ray, Rowland, Scott, Smith
of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Welch, Wood- son, Wright— 37.
And the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. Turner. Mr. President— Some days airo I offered a resolution to appoint a committee to whom all proposed amendments to the Constitu- tion should be referred. It was laid on the table. If it is in order I move to take it up now.
Mr. Welch. I had the honor, sir, in the early part of this session, to offer to the Convention a proposed amendment to the Constitution of this State in regard to special legislation. That amend- ment, by a vote of the Convention, was laid upon the table. The proposition which is now before the Convention, viz., to take up the resolution which has been referred to by the gentleman, I hope will meet with the approbation of the Con- vention. There are a number of gentlemen, sir, in this Convention, who believe that this Conven- tion has the power, and that it is their duty, to make certain alterations in the fundamental law of this State, and there are other gentlemen who believe that this Convention either has not the power or should not assume the power of making an amendment to that Constitution. I am desir- ous that this committee shall be appointed by the President, that they may, whenever a proposition is referred to them, report back to the Conven- tion whether or not, in their judgment, the Con- vention either has the power to arrend the Con- stitution, or whether it is right and prudent that they should do so. In my judgment there are several amendments that are neces- sary to the Constitution of this State, which I be- lieve the people and the times demand, and I am exceedingly anxious, sir, that the committee shall be appointed and this proposition be referred to them, in order that we may ascertain the sense of the Convention as to whether they will entertain any such proposition at all or not. Now, those gentlemen upon this floor who have the honor, like myself, to hold seats in the Legislature, know, and your honor, from your recollection of the time when you filled the executive chair, well knows the utter abuse to which the Legislature of this State carries this system of special legislation. Your honor well knows that our statute books, for the last ten years, are filled with acts declaring boys of age— declaring county roads State roads- changing county roads, changing State roads, abolishing State roads, &c. They are also full of special acts authorizing the sale of real estate be- longing to minors, or persons not capable of man- aging their own affairs. Now, sir, I having had some experience in the Legislature, know the evil and the abuses to which this system of special legislation is carried. I know, sir, that in differ- ent sections of this State, where there are contro- versies— for instance, in a particular neighbor- hood where controversy exists, as to which is the proper route for a State road to run —
50
instead of making their application to the County Court, where both sides can be heard and full justice be done to both parties, one party sneaks off to the Legislature, unknown to the other party, and the first thing the commu- nity knows is that a bill has been passed changing or establishing a State road in direct opposition to perhaps a majority of the people of the neigh- borhood through which the road will run. So it is in regard to those bills and acts of the Legisla- ture authorizing or directing the sale of real es- tate belonging to little children. Why, sir, in the last Legislature there was an act introduced au- thorizing the sale of thirty-five hundred acres of land in my county, situated upon the line of the Pacific Railroad. I took it upon myself, in obe- dience to what I believed to be my duty, to aid in defeating that bill in the House when it came from the Senate, and I have received the hearty approbation of my constituents for that act. Sir, I believe this system of special legislation meets with universal condemnation all over the State. I am anxious that this Convention shall take that question up. It is useless to look to a reform from the Legislature itself. You might as well try to accomplish an impossible feat as to ask the Legislature of the State to remedy this great and growing evil. Why, sir, if you offer an amendment of this char- acter in the Legislature, almost every member on the floor has a railroad bill in his pocket, or a bill authorizing the sale of real estate by a minor, or a bill declaring some little boy of age, and every man on the floor almost is interested in the defeat of such an amendment. They are interested. Their constituents have re- quested them to introduce these measures for their relief and satisfaction, and every member having a bill of that kind, or perhaps a drawer- full, finds himself in this condition. He must cither oppose the proposition to amend the Con- stitute i so as to destroy that system of legisla- tion or else he violates the will of some few of his constituents.
Now, sir, this body comes here fresh from the people of the State. Every man on this floor, nearly— I may presume that every man upon this floor has had enough experience to know that this system of special legislation is an outrage upon the rights of the people of the Stale. In- stead, sir, as I have already remarked, of hav- ing these roads changed by the order of the Comty Court at their own expense, they go to the City of Jefferson and consume the time of the two Houses — which are conyened at an expense of more than $1,000 per day— they reqnire our clerks to enroll their bills, and our public printer to print them and our binder to bind them, and it all comes out of the State Treasury, when, sir, it is a matter of private in- terest to them, and they alone should pay for it.
Sir, this is a matter of some importance to the people of the State. I was not pleased when the Convention so summarily disposed of the amend- ment to the Constitution which I had the honor to offer a few days ago; but of course I am will- ing to be guided by the will of the body of which I may be a member. I hope, however, that this Convention will authorize the appoint- ment of that Committee. I hope the Committee will be composed of eminent legal gentlemen on this floor, (and there are many of them,) and let them decide, first, whether this Convention has the right, under the Bill of Rights and the Con- stitution of Missouri, to alter and abolish the Constitution itself; and, secondly, whether it would be wise and prudent to exercise it. For my own part, I do not for one moment doubt but what this Convention is fully empowered, under our Bill of Rights, not only to alter but abolish the fundamental law of the State, provided, that any instrument that they may substitute instead shall be republican in form.
Mr. Smith, of St. Louis. I rise to a point of order. A motion to take up a resolution from the table is not debatable. I submit that point. Any member, as I understand the rules, may object to taking it up, and then the sense of the Convention should be taken.
The Chair. I will remark that I have allowed more latitude to the gentleman than would be strictly proper, for the reason that there seemed to be nothing else before the Convention. Mr. Gantt. I desire the resolution read. The Secretary read the resolution. Mr. Gantt. I have an amendment which I desire to offer.
The Chair. The gentleman is not in order, as the resolution is not yet before the house. Mr. Turner. It is perhaps proper that I make
a remark here
The Chair. A point of order has been raised. All debate is out of order.
Mr. Turner. I rise to a privileged question. I understand it has been said that I proposed to interfere with the functions of the officers of the State of Missouri — that I am in favor of ousting them out of their office. I have this to remark in regard to that statement, that such was not my intention. The Chair. I have heard no such accusation. Mr. Turner. It was made outside of this body.
The Chair. Then you cannot reply to it here. The question is on taking up the resolution.
The resolution was then taken up by ayes 46 to noes 26.
Mr. Gantt. I think that a preliminary inquiry will be proper. Entirely agreeing with the senti- ments of the gentleman who preceded me, (Mr. Welch,) I offer the following resolution as a sub- stitute for that which is now pending :
51
Resolved, That a committee of seven be ap- pointed by the chair with instructions to report to the Convention respecting the powers of this body to effect a reform of the Constitution of the State of Missouri.
If this substitute is accepted by the gentleman offering the first resolution, I have nothing more to say.
Mr. Turner. I suppose there can be no doubt as to the power of the Convention to amend the Constitution. I do not think there is any such doubt, still I have no objection to the substitute.
Mr. Welch. It occurs to me that the original resolution is preferable to the substitute which has been offered by the gentleman from St. Louis. If the substitute is adopted, the committee, after having given us their legal opinion, will have nothing further to do — but if the original resolu- tion shall be adopted and the proposed amend- ments are referred to the committee, they can re- commend such of them as they may deem proper; and besides, sir, I can ask the Convention to again consider my proposition, which was re- jected a few days ago. I hold that the original resolution comprehends both the question of power and the question of propriety, whereas the substitute only comprehends the question of power.
Mr. Gantt. Will the gentleman give way for a moment?
Mr. Welch. Certainly.
Mr. Gantt. I see the course of his remarks, and will withdraw my substitute.
The Chair. The question is on the adoption of the original resolution.
Mr. Comingo. I call for the ayes and noes.
Mr. Dunn. If it is in order, I will make a single remark. My own opinion is that this Con- vention has unquestionably the power to amend our State Constitution. On that subject, how- ever, some very able gentlemen in this body differ with me. While I accord this power to the Con- vention, I must say that I deem it wholly inex- pedient to amend the Constitution, for the simple reason that we have been elected for the specific purpose of taking into consideration the rela- tions of the State of Missouri to the Federal Government and the sister States of the Union. We have been elected with reference to that sub- ject solely and exclusively. If I wish to sell forty acres of land in the county in which I live, and for that purpose send a general power of attorney to a friend in Richmond, authorizing him to sell the land belonging to me in that county, and with that power should write him a letter instructing him to sell these specific forty acres, nobody would doubt his legal power to sell every acre of my land, and yet I would think his conduct very strange if he went beyond my explicit instructions. I would think it very strange if, on returning to my wife and children, I should find that that
friend had sold my house and little farm, and turned them adrift on the world. I would state, furthermore, that I agree with the gentleman from Johnson, that our Constitution ought to be amended, and amended in the very particulai specified by him. This special legislation is growing to be an enormous evil, and there ought to be an amendment to the Constitution which would have the effect of checking it. But it is entirely within the power of the Legislature to check it. The Legislature can stop this special legislation without an amendment to the Constitution. Now, if the Legislature were compelled to go forward with this special legislation unless we did amend the Constitution, then I might perhaps be induced to enter upon the work, and introduce suitable amendments. But it is perfectly competent for the Legislature, as the Constitution now stands — and I presume the member from Johnson will agree with me in this— to eschew special legislation. They can do so to-day, they can do so any time, so that there is in fact no overwhelming necessity for enter- ing upon this subject by this Convention. Inas- much, therefore, as we have been elected with special reference to the relations existing between our State and the Federal Government and sister States, and with no reference whatever to any amendments to our State Constitution— although I believe we have the power to amend our State Constitution in any particular— still I deem it in- expedient to enter upon that subject at all. I pre- sume that in condemning special legislation the Convention would be unanimous, but if we un- dertake to entertain one amendment, there is no teling where we may end. Some other gentle- man may point out some other amendment which the exigency of the times may require, and another, another, and so on. Entertaining these views, I am opposed to taking up the sub- ject, and shall vote no to the resolution.
A vote was then taken, and the resolution re- jected by the following vote:
Yeas— Messrs. Bass, Bast, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Fray- ser, Gantt, Gravelly, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Howell, Hudgins, Is- bell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Rankin, Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, W'elch, Wilson, Wright, Zimmerman.
Nats— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Flood, Foster, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Ir- win, Jamison, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Mat- son, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Pomeroy, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayer, Shack- elford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Slice-
52
ley, Waller, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Mr. President.
Absent — Messrs. Birch, Gamble, Hall of Bu- chanan, Hall of Randolph, Hough, Knott, Pip- kin, Stewart, Tindall, Watkins.
On motion, the Convention adjourned until to- morrow morninsr., at 10 o'clock.
EIGHTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 9th, 1861.
Met at 10 a. m.
Mr. President Price in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
Journal read and approved.
Mr. Woolfolk, from the Committee on Print- ing, made the following report :
The Committee on Printing respectfully report that they have made diligent inquiries in relation to the printing to be required by the Convention, and find it difficult to specify the precise kind of work necessary, and it is almost impossible to give a schedule of prices.
The Committee have therefore made arrange- ments with Geo. Knapp & Co., who agree to ex- ecute the printing for the Convention on the same basis as that adopted in the Revised Statutes of Missouri, and applicable to Public Printer.
All printing in book form to be done on good, strong paper, in such type as may be directed by the Committee or officer having superintendence thereof. All documents and other jobwork with such type and paper as may be directed by the proper officers. The printing to be done prompt- ly, in a neat and workmanlike manner.
Price for blank forms, sixty-two and a half cents for the first eight quires, each, and for every additional quire, fifty cents.
For public documents, the price to be fifty cents per thousand ems for the first hundred copies, and ten cents per thousand ems for each additional hundred copies.
For book work, the price to be forty cents per thousand ems for the first hundred copies, and five cents per thousand cms each additional hundred copies.
For pressing sheets, folding and stitching, and covering with strong paper cover, not over five cents per volume for less than thirty-two pages. For each volume, substantially half bound, leather corners and backs and lettered, thirty cents.
That the Secretary of the Convention be in- I atructed to have the printing done by George j Knapp & Co., on terms as above.
Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to have printed five thousand copies of the debates in pamphlet form, for the use of the members of the Convention.
HENDRICKS, )
WOOLFOLK, > Committee on Printing.
HOWELL, )
Mr. Woolfolk. I will remark that it was im- possible for us to ascertain, definitely, what kind or quality of printing the Convention will require. We were necessarily then compelled to agree sim- ply on some standard, and we have adopted the standard of the State Printer. We regard that standard, when applied to this Convention, as cheaper than the standard of the Printer, because the printing required to be done by the Conven- tion will necessarily be considerably smaller than than that required by the State. We would fur- ther state, that we have engrafted on those reso- lutions, a proposition to print 5000 copies simply from the fact that it is important for the Conven- tion to determine now, if it intends to determine at all, whether it will have any copies print- ed. The type is up, and if it is taken down, of course it will cost the Conven- tion much more than it does now — perhaps double the amount. In answer to the resolution passed yesterday, instructing the Committee on Printing to inquire into the cost of printing the proceedings, I will state this, that the cost of printing one thousand copies, provided one hun- dred pages be filled, would be $200 ; of two thou- sand copies, $280; of three thousand, $360; of four thousand, $440; of five thousand, $500. Going upon the supposition that it will fill one hundred pages, it will only cost $500 for printing five thousand copies. I will add that the cost of printing, hitherto, has been more than $5 per day, making in all about $50.
The Chair. The question is on the adoption of this report.
Mr. Sheeley. What will be the effect of that adoption. If we adopt the report will the debates necessarily be printed ?
The Chair. I understand it so.
Mr. Sheeley. Notwithstanding the vote of yesterday ?
The Chair. The vote of yesterday was on the adoption of the resolution which was adopted, requiring the committee to ascertain upon what terms the reports could be printed in pamphlet form.
Mr. Sheeley. This report now authorizes the reports to be printed in pamphlet form for so much?
The Chair. It is a resolution recommending that the Secretary have the printing done.
Mr. Sheeley. Well, sir, I am opposed to the printing of the debates, and I don't know ex- actly how to proceed— whether to lay it on the table or to make some other motion.
The Chair. The report is subject to amend- ment.
Mr. Sheeley. Well, I trust this Convention will abide by the action of yesterday, and that so much of the report as relates to the printing of the debates will not be adopted.
53
The Chair. You move, then, to strike out that much of the report ?
Mr. Sheeley. I do; I believe it is the second resolution that I desire to be struck out, and I desire it for the reason given yesterday, to-wit : That this Convention has no power over the Treasury of the State. "We have no control over it and have no authority to pay one cent for the debates of this Convention. We can preserve them under the contract already made with re- ]>orters, and if they are of sufficient importance, the Legislature will hereafter, in all probability, have them published. As it is, they are subject to be deposited in the office of Secretary of State. Bat if we go on now and authorize the debates to be published, according to my understanding of the law, it will be done without any right what- ever to pay the publisher one cent. We have no fund appropriated for that purpose, and, as I un- derstand our authority, although we are the peo- ple of Missouri, yet if we use the money of the treasury, it must be appropriated according to the rules prescribed by the constitutional law. I trust, therefore, that the second resolution will be stricken out. Motion sustained— ayes 34, noes 26.
The report as amended was then adopted.
By Mr. Irwin :
Whereas, A resolution was introduced into this Convention on yesterday, declaring that the inaugural of President Lincoln is one of peace and not one of war, which resolution was, on motion, laid on the table, and
Whereas, It has been reported that the action of the Convention may be viewed in the light of a test vote ; therefore,
Resolved, That the action of the Convention in laying said resolution on the table, cannot, with the least propriety or show of truth, be consid- ered as any test whatever of the sense of this Convention relative to the sentiments enunciated in said resolution.
Adopted without debate and with but one dis- senting voice.
The Chair. I understand that there are seve- ral members who have not yet sent up their names and post-office addresses, &c, under the resolu- tion adopted yesterday. As there seems to be nothing else before the Convention now, I would request them to come forward and hand a state ment to the Secretary.
Several members then came forward and gave in their Postoffice addresses.
By Mr. Dunn: Resolved, That the Committee on Printing shall contract for printing five thou- sand copies of the proceedings and debates of this ConA-ention, in pamphlet form, and one thousand copies to be bound as soon as the General Assem- bly shall make an appropriation to pay for the same.
Mr. Dunn. It might be inferred by those who misunderstood the motives that influenced the ac- tion of the Convention and members on this floor, on the subject of printing the proceedings and debates of this Convention — it might be erroneous- ly inferred that this Convention was indisposed to let the people of the State and the United States know what we were doing, and the reasons for our action. But for the enterprise of the city pa- pers, the country would know nothing at all, even, of our debates, and but little of our pro- ceedings. We are indebted to the city papers for the means of communicating to the people of the State the proceedings of this Convention, and to the people of our sister States ; and I do think it is due to ourselves, and due to those who have sent us here, that we should send out our pro- ceedings to the people of this State, and of our sister States, in an authentic form. At all events, we should, at least, show that we are willing to do so ; and the only obstacle in the way of doing so is the apprehension existing on the part of some of the members of this Convention that we have not the power to make an appropriation from the Treasury, for the purpose of defraying expenses. Let us take the position indicated by this resolution, that we are ready and desirous that our proceedings and debates shall be pub- lished, and should go before our people and the people of our sister States, and then it remains with the General Assembly to determine whether they will make any appro- priation necessary to defray the expenses. I agree with my friend from Jackson that this Con- vention will not have the power to appropriate money out of the Treasury, and I acknowledge the force of his objection. But I doubt not my friend from Jackson will agree with me that it will be well to sustain this resolution which I have offered, and thereby place the responsibility of the publication where it properly belongs, viz. : the General Assembly. Surely, they will not wait a solitary moment in making the necessary appropriation. Trusting, therefore, that they will make this appropriation, I hope the resolu- tion which I have offered will be unanimously adopted by the Convention. It steers clear of all objections which have been urged against prece- ding resolutions, and places the Convention where it ought to be placed — in the attitude of being perfectly willing to submit our debates to the scrutiny of the people of our State and of our sister States. It is due to us that this should be done, and I offer this resolution in the hope that it will receive the unanimous concurrence of the Convention.
Mr. Orr. I desire to say that I believe the debates ought to be published. I have, however, voted against the adoption of the report of the Committee for a different reason than that staled by the gentleman from Jackson. I understand
54
the law calling this Convention, makes a provi- sion that all members and necessary officers shall have the same pay as those of the Legisla- ture. I understand that a Public Printer is an officer of the Legislature, and therefore, I under- stand that by the law we have the power already vested in us to pay for the printing. I voted against the resolution because I thought that the law of Missouri paid the Public Printer about one hundred per cent, more than he ought to have, and that the printing could be had on bet- ter terms than is now the case in accord- ance with the laws of Missouri. So far as ma- king any provision by the Legislature, or their appropriating money for this Convention is concerned, I presume we can have our printing done without asking the Legislature anything about it. I want it done on an econo- mical principle. I see from the statistics in the newspapers, (and I suppose they are correct,) that the public printing costs the State of Missouri $90,000 per year, while in New York it is only $30,000. I am, therefore, satisfied that we are paying too much for our public printing, and I want the matter so arranged as to have the print- ing done at the lowest rate that will pay a man to do it.
Mr. Dunn : I have only one additional word of explanation. The resolution contemplates no such thing as having this printing done by the Public Printer, but it authorizes the committee to contract for that printing. Of course, in con- tracting, for it they will be free to make a contract with any publishing establishment in the State, and are not confined to the Public Printer. One word of explanation in regard to myself. I want no member of this Convention to suppose that I am influenced to offer this resolu- tion in any expectation that I shall partici- pate largely in the debates. Thus far I have said but little, and I will remark that I expect to say but little during the remainder of the session. My position is, in one particu- lar, and has been for the last twelve years or more, similar to the position occupied by some of the fair ladies who have, during the sessions of our Convention, honored us with their pres- ence. I refer to the belles of the city, and I hope they will pardon, and the Convention will pardon me for saying that in one particular I will occupy their position, and have occupied it for the last twelve years. The announcement of this fact may seem a little strange, but when I state the point of resemblance between us — if I m ay so speak — it will no longer seem strange. For the past twelve years, as my friends know, I have presided as Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and the particular in which I re- semble the belles is that I have made but few speeches myself. Perhaps I should say in justice to them, that I have made no
speeches, for I presume they make no speeches — but during that time I have had the honor of listening to a great many speeches, so that, in these two particulars, I occupy the same position as they — making no speeches myself, but having a great many speeches made to me. [Laughter.] I hope, with this explanation, that the ladies will honor us with their presence, and take no excep- tion to my claim to occupy their position in these particulars. In saying this, however, I desire to say that, having been out of the habit of speak- ing for the last twelve years, I have sometimes got in the way of speaking by proxy, and I expect, on this occasion, that some of my neigh- bors and friends, and colleagues, who are more accustomed to speaking than myself, will speak my sentiments, and that although I may not indulge to any extent in the debates in person, I hope to do so more effectively by proxy. With this explanation, I hope the resolution will pass unanimously.
Mr. Foster. I am very proud that my friend from Ray is disposed to be in favor of printing the debates ; but if he will allow me to state as much, he need not be at all uneasy as to wheth- er his resolution is adopted or not, as I feel very sure that the Legislature will not make the ap- propriation. I even apprehend, from the dispo- sition manifested by the Legislature, that they will not make an appropriation to remunerate mem- bers of this Convention for their services here. In view of this fact, and in view of the further fact that so far as I understand the law, we have no power, as we can see, to take money out of the public treasury at all, I do not, therefore, see that any good can come from the resolution. So far as I am concerned, I should like very much to see the acts of this Convention go before the public, and if we can manage it in any way to get them before the public, I think it right to do so. But if we depend upon the Legislature of Missouri for bringing the facts of this Convention before the public mind, my word for it, we shall not get our action before the public at all. Although the Legislature of Missouri called this body into ex- istence, yet, sir, its complexion so very materially differs from the complexion of the Legislative body, that if they had the power, in my judg- ment, they would crush us out of existence to- day, and hence, so far as my acts are concerned, it shall be independent of that body, regardless of consequences.
Mr. Hudgins. I was sorry to hear one single voice against the resolution of the gentleman from Ray. I do not think, sir, that the Legisla- ture intends to pursue the course that the gentle- man (Mr. Foster) on my left here suggests. I am satisfied they will make an appropriation, and in justice to them I will state to-day that I have no doubt of it, sir. This Convention is an important one, and the eye of the people of the
55
State is looking to it. It ought to do nothing which they are not willing to go before the peo- ple. Whether the debates of this Convention will reflect the will of the Legislature of the State of Missouri or not, I know not, and I am not con- cerned in regard to that. I am satisfied they will do justice to us in regard to that matter, and that this resolution ought to pass, and that the de- bates of this Convention should go before the people. I expect to do nothing myself, so far as voting and speaking is concerned, that I shall have the least disposition to withhold from any citizen of Missouri or the Union. I am in favor, sir, of the resolution.
Mr. Birch. As to what has been said dis- trustive of the legislative action, it is but proper to remark that I consider it at least gratuitous, if not unj ust. We have in fact no reason to doubt but that the Legislature which called us together will readily recognize all the usual expenses of such bodies; and as about the best political reading I ever met with was in the published de- bates of the Virginia Convention, (when I was a young man,) lam unwilling to withhold from others, of the present day. whatever may, in like manner, tend either to their edification or enable them the better to hold us to a just and intelligent responsibility for our acts and utterances here. I shall, therefore, vote for the resolution of my colleague.
Mr. Sheelet. I should like to make an in- quiry. Was there not an order passed here some days ago, that the seats not occupied by the members of the Convention should be appropria- ted to the ladies ? I see a number of ladies that cannot be seated, as the seats are occupied by gentlemen. If it is in order, I ask that it be so arranged that the ladies can get seats.
The Chair. Gentlemen who are not members of the Convention, and who are occupying the seats of the Convention, will make place for the ladies. They are appropriated exclusively for the ladies.
Mr. Wilson. Something has been said, sir, in relation to an appropriation to pay the expenses of this Convention. Now, according to my un- derstanding, the Legislature supposed at the time, that they had provided fully for the necessary ex- penses of an independent body, and had placed it in the power of the Convention to defray all ne- cessary expenses, and I feel satisfied that, if there has been any omission in this particular, it will be readily supplied. I hope that provision will be made, in some form or other, for the publication of th3 proceedings and debates of this body. I think that it is due to the people of the State that our proceedings, so interesting to a large propor- tion, and perhaps to all the people of this State, should be sent broadcast all over the land. I. have no doubt but that, if legislative action shall
be necessary, it will be promptly rendered at an^ time.
Mr. Doniphan. I desire that this subject be passed over for a moment, in order to permit the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations to make his report, so that the report may be printed and laid on the table. If, however, this subject will elicit no further discussion, it may be disposed of at once and the report read after- wards.
The Chair. The question will be on the adop- tion of the resolution. The resolution was then adopted.
Mr. Gamble, from the Committee on Federal Relations, then made the following
REPORT.
The Committee on Federal Relations beg leave to report. On looking to the present condition of our late prosperous, happy and united country, we see seven of our sister States by the action of their Conventions declaring themselves sepa- rated from the United States, and organizing for themselves a distinct national government; while others are in a disturbed condition, looking anx- iously to the future, and uncertain about all that is to come.
If, in our astonishment at the sudden disrup- tion of our nation, we attempt to trace the causes that have produced the disastrous result, we find that the origin of the difficulty is rather in the alienated feelings existing between the Northern and Southern sections of the country, than in the actual injury suffered by either; rather in the an- ticipation of future evils, than in the pressure of any now actually endured.
It is true that the people of the Southern States have a right to complain of the incessant abuse poured upon their institutions by the press, the pulpit, and many of the people of the North. It is true that they have a right to complain of le- gislative enactments designed to interfere with the assertion of their constitutional rights. It is true that the hostile feelings to Southern institu- tions entertained by many at the North have manifested themselves in mob violence interfer- ing with the execution of laws made to secure the rights of Southern citizens. It is true that in one instance this fanatical feeling has displayed itself in the actual invasion of a Southern State by a few madmen, who totally misunderstood the institution they came to subvert. It is true that a sectional political party has been organized at the North, based upon the idea that the institu- tion of Southern slavery is not to be allowed to extend itself into the Territories of the United States, and that this party has for the present possessed itself of the power of the Government.
While it is thus true that the people of the South have well-grounded complaints against many of their fellow-citizens of the North, it is equally true that heretofore there has been no
56
complaint against the action of the Federal Gov- ernment in any of its departments, as designed to violate the rights of the Southern States.
By some incomprehensible delusion, many Northern people have come to believe that in some manner they are chargeable with complic- ity in what they are pleased to consider the sin of slavery, and for which, as existing in the South- ern States, they are just as much responsible as they are for the same relation existing in the heart of Africa. This morbid sensitiveness has been ministered to by religious and political ag- itators for the purpose of increasing their own importance and advancing their own interests, and the natural consequences have followed : out- bursts of mob vioknce and of political action against the owners of slaves.
While the prejudice thus existing in the Northern mind is latent, not exhibiting itself in action, we may lament its existence and the estrangement it produces ; but we trust in such case, as in all others of similar character, that a better knowledge of the subject will remove the prejudice. Already the awakened attention of the Northern people gives promise that the mis- erable agitators will be stript of their power over the public mind, and that reason and a correct sense of duty and of justice will ultimately pre- vail and dispose our Northern fellow-citizens to fulfill all the duties they owe to us as citizens of the same country, living under the same Consti- tution, inheritors of the same blood, and sharers in the same destiny.
So far as the prejudice complained of has mani- fested itself in legislative action, the complaint is not merely that such action violates the Con- stitution of the United States, because our own State has passed acts which have been declared by our own judicial tribunals and by the Supreme Court of the United States to be violations of the Constitution of the United States; and those familiar with the judicial history of the country know that many, if not all the States of the Union, have at times passed laws which have been held to be inconsistent with that Constitu- tion. Some of these acts related to land titles, some to contracts, some affected commerce with foreign nations and between the States ; but all such laws as they were, not produced by any sectional feeling, were left to be decided upon by the tribunals of the country with an ultimate ap- peal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the final arbiter on all cases arising under the Constitution. Such cases produced no excite- ment in the public mind, and all confidence was reposed in that elevated tribunal that it would vindicate the supremacy of the Constitution.
There is no reason to apprehend that that tri- bunal would shrink from declaring the class of enactments of which we are now treating, which are aimed against the rights of slaveholders, re-
pugnant to the Constitution and therefore void. There is, therefore, an obvious remedy for the grievance arising out of this unconstitutional le- gislation, and that, too, a remedy provided by the Constitution itself for an evil foreseen when it was made. Moreover, there are indications of a re- turning sense of justice in the Northern States, from which we may hope for the voluntary repeal of these obnoxious enactments.
Upon the subject of the violent interference by mobs with the execution of the fugitive slave law, and the forcible abduction of slaves when with their owners in the Northern States, it is proper to observe that there reigns throughout this land a spirit of insubordination to law that is probably unequalled in any other civilized country on the globe. While this is true, it is a fact of which we can still be proud that the judi- cial tribunals of the Federal Government have not failed in any case brought before them to maintain the rights of Southern citizens and to punish the violators of those rights.
When Southern soil is invaded by Northern madmen for the purpose of overthrowing the in- stitution of slavery, they meet their death by the law, and that is the end of their scheme.
The fact that a sectional party avowing opposi- tion to the admission of slavery into the Territo- ries of the United States has been organized, and has for the present obtained possession of the Government, is to be deeply regretted, because it opens before us all the dangers against which the Father of his Countrv so earnestly warned us.
But the history of our country for a very few years back, instructs us in the truth that political parties, even when coming into power with over- whelming popularity, soon melt away under the influence of internal jealousies, and disappoint- ments, and the attacks of vigilant opponents.
When a party comes into power upon the basis of a single question of policy, there is soon found the truth, that government cannot be administered upon a single idea, and its suppor- ters become divided upon the questions which affect their own interests.
There is every reason to hope that the party which has just assumed the reins of government will feel that the vast interests intrusted to their management, are of much greater im- portance than the question, whether slaves shall or shall not be admitted into all the Territo- ry that now belongs to the United States. There is reason to hope that when the masses of that party understand that the admission of slaves into a Territory does not increase the number of slaves in being, they will be prepared to make any arrangement with their Southern brethren that shall assure to them equal rights in the common Territories.
Under the state of facts now existing, it would seem almost needless to speak of the propriety of
57
the State of Missouri engaging in a revolution against the Federal Government. Secession i s the word commonly employed when the revolu- tion now in progress is mentioned; but as the Constitution of the United States recognizes no power in any State to destroy the government, the word "secession," when used in this paper, is to be understood as equivalent to revolution.
To involve Missouri in revolution, under present circumstances, is certainly not demanded by the magnitude of the grievances of which we complain, nor by the certainty that they cannot be otherwise and more peacefully remedied, nor by the hope that they would be remedied or even diminished by such revolution.
The position of Missouri in relation to the ad- jacent States which would continue in the Union, would necessarily expose her, if she became a member of a new confederacy, to utter destruction whenever any rupture might take place between the different republics. In a military aspect, se- cession and a connection with a Southern Con- federacy is annihilation for our State.
Many of our largest interests would perish un- der a system of free trade.
Emigration to the State must cease. No South- ern man owning slaves would come to the fron- tier State ; no Northern man would come to this foreign country avowedly hostile to his native land.
Our slave interest would be destroyed, because we would have no better right to recapture a slave found in a free State than we now have in Canada. The owners of slaves must either re- move with them to the South, or sell them, and so we would in a few years exhibit the spectacle of a State breaking up its most advantageous and important relations to the old Union, in order to enter into a slaveholding confederacy, and having itself no slaves.
The thought of revolution by Missouri, under present circumstances, is not, we believe, serious- ly entertained by any member of this Convention.
But what is now the true position for Missouri to assume? Evidently that of a State whose in- terests are bound up in the maintenance of the Union, and whose kind feelings and strong sym- pathies are with the people of the Southern States, with whom we are connected by ties of friendship and of blood. We want the peace and harmony of the country restored, and we want them with us. To go with them as they are now, to leave the government our fathers builded, to blot out the star of Missouri from the constella- tion of the Union, is to ruin ourselves without doing them any good. We cannot now follow them; we cannot now give up the Union; yet Ave will do all in our power to induce them to take their places with us in the family from which they have attempted to separate themselves. For this purpose we will not only recommend a
compromise with which they ought to be satisfied, but we will unite in the endeavor to procure an assemblage of the whole family of States in order that in a General Convention such amendments to the Constitution may be agreed upon as shall permanently restore harmony to the whole na- tion.
While attempts are being made to heal the pre- sent divisions, it is a matter of the highest im- portance that there should occur no military con- flict between the Federal Government and the government of any of the seceded States. Such conflict will certainly produce a high state of ex- asperation and very probably render abortive all attempts to adjust the matters of difference.
While it is admitted that every government must possess the power to execute its own laws, and that the Government of the United States is no exception to this necessary and universal rule, still, in a case such as that with which we are now dealing it is all important that those in authority should remember that such power is not given to be exercised for the destruction of the govern- ment, under the guise of maintaining its authority. The question of exercising such power is to be determined with a view to all existing circum- stances, and while the power itself cannot be abandoned the greatest patience and forbearance may often be required in order to prevent evils in the highest degree dangerous to the peace of the nation.
Placed as Missouri is in the very centre of the confederacy, united to all its parts and interested in the prosperity of each part, she would speak to the Government of the United States and to the Governments of the seceding States, not in the language of menace but of kindness, not threatening but entreating; and with this feeling she would ask all concerned in the governments to avoid all military collisions which would with- out doubt produce uncontrollable excitement, and very probably ruinous civil war. Civil Avar among the American people, the citizens of the freest nation of the Avorld, blest of God, envied of man, Avould be a spectacle at Avhich humanity Avould shudder, over Avhich freedom Avould Aveep, and from Avhich Christianity affrighted would flee away.
If it be the glorious mission of Missouri to aid in arresting the progress of revolution and in restoring peace and prosperity to the country; if she shall be instrumental in binding together again the hearts of the American people, and thus restoring the union of affection as Avell as the union of political and individual interest, she Avill but occupy the position for which nature designed her by giA'ing her a central position, and endoAving her AA'ith all the elements of Avealth and poAver. And Avhy should she not?— she Avas brought forth in a storm and cradled in a com-
58
promise. She can resist the one and recommend the other.
In order to express her opinions and wishes, the following resolutions are submitted :
Resolved, That at present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connec- tion with the Federal Union, but on the contrary she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure the peace as well as the rights and equality of all the States.
Resolved, That the people of this State are devotedly attached to the institutions of our coun- try and, earnestly desire that by a fair and amica- ble adjustment all the causes of disagreement that at present unfortunately distract us as a peo- ple may be removed, to the end that our Union may be preserved and perpetuated, and peace and harmony be restored between the North and the South.
Resolved, That the people of this State deem the amendments to the Constitution of the Uni- ted States, proposed by the Hon. John J. Crit- tenden, of Kentucky, with the extension of the same to the Territory hereafter to be acquired by treaty or otherwise, a basis of adjustment which will successfully remove the causes of difference forever from the arena of national politics.
Resolved, That the people of Missouri believe the peace and quiet of the country will be pro- moted by a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and this Convention therefore urges the Legislature of this State to take the proper steps for calling such a Convention in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution, and for providing by law for an election of one delegate to such Convention from each electoral district in this State.
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Con- vention, the employment of military force by the Federal Government to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of milita- ry force by the seceding States to assail the Government of the United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable settle- ment of the fearful issues now pending before the country; we therefore earnestly entreat as well the Federal Government as the seceding States to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretence whatever bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war.
Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns its session in the city of St. Louis, it will adjourn to meet in the Hall of the House of Representa- tives at Jefferson City, on the third Monday of December, 1861.
Resolved, That a Committee of be elected
by this Convention, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together at such time prior to the third Monday of Decem- ber, and at such place as they may think the pub-
lic exigencies require, and the survivors or the survivor of said Committee shall have power to fill any vacancies that may happen in said Com- mittee by death, resignation, or otherwise, dur- ing the recess of this Convention.
GAMBLE, Chairman.
Mr. Doniphan. That report is a long one, and is, perhaps, the most important business of the Convention. I therefore, move that it be laid on the table with an order to be printed, and made the especial order for Monday, at 10 1-2 o'clock. As one of the members of that Committee, I will say that I have differed, in some respects, from the Committee in the wording, agreements and propositions combined in the report, but not suf- ficiently so to induce me to offer any opposition. I understand, however, that some of the members of that Committee intended presenting a minor- ity report, and as Judge Gamble has failed to state it, at their request I consider it proper to make the statement.
Mr. Gamble. I intended to make the statement as soon as I should get the floor.
Mr. Doniphan. My object at present is simply to ask that the resolution be laid on the table and printed, and made the special order for 10 1-2 o'clock, on Monday.
Mr. Redd. Pending that motion I desire to say, as a member of that Committee, that whilst the temper and spirit of that report meets my hearty approval, while in its arguments and con- clusions, in the main, I concur, I must say that the plan of adjustment laid down, in my judg- ment, will not attain the end sought— namely, the preservation of the Union ; and with all due defer- ence to the superior aid, with all due deference to the vastly superior abilities of the majority of that Committee, I must say that I deem it my duty— a duty I owe to my country, a duty I owe to myself — to ask to present a minority report, setting forth the reasons that have led my mind to the con- clusion that the plan of adjustment pre- sented in that report will fail to attain the end sought, and to present the only plan that will, in my judgment, attain that end. There were others of the committee who differed with the majority in regard to that plan. Gentlemen of vastly superior ability to myself— gentlemen who are familiar with the proceedings of deliberative bodies, (as I am not and have never been,) and we relied upon these gentlemen, and I presumed that some one of them would prepare a minority report, presenting the plan that met our approval. It had not been done this morning, however, and so I sketched out a hasty report, and completed it in the committee room. It is not in a condi- tion now that I would desire to present it to this Convention. If there be no parliamentary rule that will prohibit it, I desire to present that mi- nority report on Monday next. If there be such a parliamentary rule, I will present the report in
59
the shape in which it now is, and present it now.
The Chair. The gentleman will have leave to bring in his minority report on Monday next, if no objection is made.
Voices. Leave.
The Chair. Leave is granted.
Mr. Redd. It will be entered then, Mr. Presi- dent, npon the journal, if you please.
Mr. Sheeley. I would ask whether it would be in order for the gentleman, when he has pre- pared his report, to hand it to the printer, so that we may have both reports printed.
The Chair. I see no reason why it should not be done.
Mr. Sheeley. Then, if in order, I will make that moiion.
Mr. Redd. If I get the report prepared in time, I will furnish it to the printer.
Mr. Breckinridge. I understand there is a "proposition by the gentleman from Marion, to have the report printed prior to its submission to the Convention. Is that so?
The Chair. That is the agreement on the part of the Convention. I put the question, and there was no objection, and it was so ordered.
The question will be on laying the report on the table and ordering it to be printed.
The motion of Mr. Doniphan was then agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, the Convention then adjourned.
NINTH DAY.
St. Lodis, March 11th, 1861.
Convention met at 10 o'clock, a. m.
President Price in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
The Journal was read and approved.
Mr. Birch offered the following resolution :
Whereas, an article appears in the Missouri Republican, of this morning, of which the fol- lowing is a copy :
For the Republican. A Plot to Precipitate Missouri into Dis- union Exposed !
Mr. Editor: "Within the last four days a promi- nent gentleman of this city, who was a candidate for the Convention on the Constitutional ticket, was waited upon by several gentlemen, who stated that the Convention which is now in session was unsound, and that it was necessary to take measures to have this State secede; and to bring about that result the gentleman to whom I allude was invited to meet his visitors on a certain designated evening, and at an appointed place, to take the preliminary 6teps to force the State into secession.
The gentleman above referred to answered his visi- tors by informing them that they had mistaken their man— that he was not a secessionist, and was opposed to secession. His visitors charged him with chang-
ing his ground, which charge was denied, and the matter was cut short by the gentlemen being distinct- ly and emphatically told that if they held their meet- ing they would be exposed.
The meeting was not held at the place indicated* and it is not known whether it was held at any oth- er place or not.
The gentleman who gave me the foregoing infor- mation is the same who was waited upon by the par- ty of secessionists; and, although I have not attempt- ed to give his language, I give the substance of the tacts he told me, and I doubt not that they can be substantiated, if need be. My informant is a man of truth, and will not eat his words. E.
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the facts and circumstances connect- ed with so daring a conspiracy as the one therein foreshadowed, and that said committee have pow- er to send for persons and papers, and to sit dur- ing the session of this Convention.
Mr. Birch. Ordinarily, Mr. President, no person pays less attention than I do to what may be termed the sensation dispatches, or the sensa- tion articles, of the political press. I have such information, however, in regard to the matter and the veracity of this article, that with the views I entertain of our duties here, I may not forego the corresponding duty I have risen to per- form. I have the information from unquestiona- ble sources— and this, without involving any breach of courtesy or of confidence — that the author of the communication embodied in my re- solution is Captain K J. Eaton, a name as fami- liarity and as favorably known to us as that of any citizen of the State; and that the gentleman in this city who was thus mistakenly approached by a deputation or committee from Jefferson (as I understand it) was Col. L. V. Bogy, a citizen of equal position, and of the same elevated order of unyielding patriotism. Under circumstances thus challenging our attention, it is but demanded of us that we look further into them, and that as men who have been selected and sworn to "see that the State suffers no detriment," we should shrink from no duty, however unpleasant or responsible, that may confront us, either here or elsewhere, now or hereafter. If the Committee, as the or- gan of the Convention, can do no more, it can at least draw forth and report the names and posi- tion of the desperate and reckless conspirators who thus, under the frown of the Legislature and the frown of this Convention of the People, are alleged to be devising secret and revolutionary means "to force the State into secession." I add no more, at present, except to repeat that, ac- cording to my estimate of our duties here, they reduce themselves, in this connection, to the max- im upon which the most illustrious of our heroes was but instinctively impelled to act upon a mem- orable occasion at New Orleans— "care, ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat"— not under the of- fensive designation of "dictators," as in Rome, where the words I have quoted constituted the
60
charge of the office, but as representatives of the people, who will he with us in all legitimate at- tempts to fathom and to frustrate the peril which has been thus foreshadowed to us, as they were with the illustrious hero to whom I have allu- ded, and that, in spite of the technicalities and the cavils which were then thrown in 7iis way, as they may now be thrown in ours. I trust, there- fore, that the resolution may be adopted, the com- mittee appointed, and go into session without un- necessary delay.
Mr. Sheeley. Are any members of the Con- vention implicated ?
Mr. Birch. Not that I am aware of or believe. Through the agency of the committee, however, we may examine members of the Convention as well as any other persons.
Mr. Knott. I desire to ask a question. What docs the gentleman propose to do with these men if he finds they are in favor of taking Missouri out of the Union. What will he do with them if he finds out that they are Catalines, delegated to carry us out of the Union, whether we want to go or not ?
Mr. Birch. Well, Mr. President, I would mea- sure my words and hence repress my feelings accordingly. I have said only on this floor, that I would present those names to this Convention, and I would trust the Convention ity any subse- quent or ultimate steps. We are called here, un- less our mission is a mockery, to see that this State suffers no detriment at the hands of any one whatever, and we have all the powers here that the people of Missouri have for that purpose. I answer the gentleman, therefore, that, if we should get the names, and if we should get such facts in connection with the names, as will justify any future or further action of this Convention, I fear not but that it will take such steps as may seem necessary to preserve the State. That is all I desire to say now upon this subject.
Mr. Knott. Does the gentleman believe that individuals can take this State out of the Union, if this Convention is not willing to go ?
Mr. Birch. I will answer that. I think this Convention can possibly prevent bad men from carrying out then- combinations — if it should be found they are in combination all over the State — that we may possibly arrest their , alleged pro- gramme of hoisting a secession flag on a given day in every village of the State, as the signal of general revolt. I think we may have the power to at least countervail them in their mad and traitorous career. But, as I have not anticipated these questions, I will not say what else it might become us to do ; but I doubt not the Convention will do whatever it may become it to do, alter its appropriate committee shall have collected and spread before it the facts which are alleged to ex- ist in this case.
Mr. McCormick. I ask for the reading of the resolution. The resolution was read by the Secretary. Mr. Knott. I do not think there is much dan- ger of Missouri being hurried out of the Union. I think the people of Missouri have very recently expressed their determination to stay in the Union by an overwhelming majority, and 100, 500, or 10,000 designing spirits cannot hurt us; and more than that, I cannot see any practical benefit to be derived from the adoption of this resolution to raise a committee. What is it de- signed for ? To put a mark upon those men, that they may be known for all time to come? If we are to descend from the business which we were sent here to transact to put marks on men, we may expect to continue in session five years to come ; and if we come down from the high posi- tion that the people of the State have given us upon this floor — if we descend to investigate aft the conjectures of any anonymous report in the newspapers — sir, we will have labor that will take us ten years to perform. I see no practical good to be derived from the raising of this committee. I, therefore, hope, sir, that the Convention will lay it immediately on the table, and I make that motion. Mr. Birch. I call for the ayes and noes. The roll was then called and the motion to table rejected by the following vote :
Ayes— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, Collier, Comingo, Craw- ford, Donnell, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Matson, Noell, Redd, Sayer, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins— 30.
Noes — Messrs. Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Drake, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Gravelly, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitch- cock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, MeCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Mor- row, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. Pres- ident—56.
explanation or votes. Mr. Bogy. Not being able to discover that any practical good can be derived from the adoption of the resolution, I shall vote aye.
Mr. Breckinridge. I would say, Mr. Presi- dent, that I cannot see how it could be possible for the Convention to refuse to consider a matter which reaches directly to the honor, peace, and safety of the State, and therefore vote against laying the resolution on the table.
Mr. Foster. I am not disposed to consume the time of this Convention unnecessarily, sir, but as the Convention has not been doing much
61
for a number of days, and as I am one of those individuals who are disposed, not only in this Convention, but everywhere else, to place the mark of condemnation on any individual who is plotting against my country, I shall vote ?io.
Mr. Redd. I was not in my seat when the resolution was read, and cannot, therefore, vote understandingly.
The Chair. The gentleman is excused.
Mr. Redd. I do not want to be excused, but would like to have the resolution read.
The Chair. The gentleman should have called for the reading of the resolution before the roll was called, if he was in the house. The question will be on granting leave to have the resolution read. [Voices — leave !]
Leave was thereupon granted, and the resolu- tion read again.
Mr. Redd. Mr. President— I shall vote aye on the question of tabling. My reason for so do- ing is simply this, that I don't believe this Con- vention is called for any such purpose as that contemplated in the resolution.
Mr. Shackelford of Howard. I feel mortifi- ed that this body of men should be exercised over sensation articles in newspapers. We all know that plans are on foot to lead Missouri out of the Union, and it needs not the action of this Convention to place the mark on so. disposed men. I think our constituents have already marked them. I am afraid the adoption of all such motions as the one under consideration will lead to unprofitable results. Having no appre- hensions that the people of Missouri can be frightened into a desertion of our glorious con- federacy by the tricks of politicians, I can, with perfect composure, vote aye on the question of laying this resolution on the table.
Mr. Sheeley. I admire this Union, and while perhaps I will stick in it as long as any man in the Convention who is not an unconditional Union man — and I have come here determined to do everything to save it— still I do not think it proper that I should act the part of a grand juror. Never having been on the Grand Jury in my life, I do not see proper now to be placed on it or be- come one of a Grand Inquest of Missouri, whose bur-iness it is to see who are and who are not traitors. I shall, therefore, vote aye.
Mr. Sol. Smith. In explanation of my vote I will say, that I will sit here to oppose secession in every form. If there is a plan to take Missouri out of the Union, I should like to know it. I shall, therefore, vote no.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
The question recurring on the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Comingo asked for its reading. Read by the Secretary. Mr. Crawford called for the ayes and noes.
Mr. Hudgins — I desire to say one word in re- gard to my vote. I am against this resolution, not because I favor any organization of that kind in the State, but because I do not believe it is a proper subject of investigation for this body. I do not believe the Convention ought to engage in it.
The resolution was then adopted by the follow- ing vote:
Ayes — Messrs. Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Douglass, Drake, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Gravelly, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, Mc- Cormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Ray, Ritchie, Ross' Rowland, Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Woodson, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman, Mr. President — 52.
Noes— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bo- gy, Brown, Cayce, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Donnell, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Matson, Noell, Sayer, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller— 30.
The President appointed Messrs. Birch, Sheeley and Ray as the committee.
Mr. Sheeley. I should like to be excused from serving on the committee. I cannot for my life see how any good can come from this inves- tigation.
Mr. Birch. I trust the gentleman will be ex- cused, if he presses it.
Mr. Sheeley was thereupon excused, and Mr. Drake substituted in his place.
Mr. Ray. I would also ask to be excused.
Excused, and Mr. Zimmerman substituted.
Mr. Moss. I would inquire if the hour has ar- rived for taking up the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations ?
The Chair. That report will now be taken up.
Mr. Moss. I will ask if amendments are now in order.
The Chair. The report must first be read.
The Secretary began to read the report, when,
On motion of Mr. Sheeley, the further reading was dispensed with.
Mr. Moss offered the following amendment :
Amend the fifth resolution by adding, "and further believing that the fate of Missouri de- pends upon the peaceable adjustment of our present difficulties, she will never countenance or aid a seceding State in making war on the Gen- eral Government, nor will she furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seceding State.
Mr. Sheeley. Will it be in order to consider the resolutions before taking action on the re- port? I trust we shall first take up the report
62
and, if we adopt that, we may then proceed to the resolutions.
The Chair. I hold the Convention can do in that respect as it pleases.
Mr. Sheeley. My impression is we had bet- ter take up the report. I am informed the com- mittee have some verbal amendments to offer to it, and it seems to me the committee should have leave to offer them now.
Mr. Breckinridge. I suggest, Mr. President, that, as I understand, the proper mode of pro- ceeding will be for the report of the Committee to be read, and the debate to be opened by the Chairman of the Committee, who as yet has had no opportunity to present his view of it to the Convention. If I am correct in this, the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Clay should be offered after the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations has spoken to the report.
Mr. Moss. I will say in reply to the sugges- tion made by the gentleman from St. Louis, that I am one of those who think that the best plan to amend a report is by offering amendments to that report. I do not believe in the policy of attempt- ing to reach the objection in this majority report by presenting a minority report.
Mr. Breckinridge. I hope the gentleman will not suppose that I expect to reach any objection to the majority report through the medium of the minority report. I understand, however, the Committee on Fed- eral Relations are out, and it seems to me that we ought to extend to them the courtesy of deferring action until they can be present. I therefore sug- gest that the report be read, so that, during the reading, the Committee may come in.
Mr. Moss. I will state that I will yield to the suggestion made by the gentleman from St. Louis, with the understanding that, after the re- port is read, I shall have the privilege of the floor for the purpose of advocating my amendment, if I see proper. The Secretary read the report. Mr. Redd, from the Committee on Federal Re- la ions, presented the following
MINORITY REPORT.
The undersigned, members of the Committee on Federal Relations, being unable to agree to the report presented by the Committee, desire to pre- sent for the consideration of the Convention the views that they entertain and that they believe the people of Missouri entertain in relation to the causes that have led to the present alarming con- dition of our beloved Union, and the course that If pursued would most likely lead to an amicable adjustment of the issues involved in the present crisis, preserve the Union from further disintegra- tion, and restore peace and harmony to our di- vided and distracted country.
Within the lifetime of many now living, our Federal Government, the best that the wisdom of
man ever devised, was created and put in success- ful operation; its first President was inaugurated in March, 1789, and from that time through a long series of years it continued to increase in territory and population, in wealth and power, with a rapidity hitherto unparalleled in the his- tory of nations, until twenty sovereign States were admitted as members of the Union, formed by the original thirteen ; and until a compara- tively recent period these States were all one people, one in sympathy, one in fraternal feeling, one in patriotic devotion to that common Union, of which all were proud. How is it now? Fra- ternal feeling has fled ; a spirit of bitter and de- termined hostility has taken its place; State stands arrayed against State, and section against section, arming for a deadly conflict; seven of the States have withdrawn from the Union that their fathers made, and made a Union of their own, and a Federal Government of their own; that Government with one of the most clear- headed and sagacious statesmen of the age at its head, is organized in full operation, exercising all the powers of sovereignty, and prepared to defend its sovereignty by military power.
Other States, alarmed for the safety of their slave institutions, are preparing to follow their example; the din of preparation for civil strife is heard on every hand, and that once glorious Union, so dear to the heart of every American patriot, is now in the progress of its dissolu- tion.
There is cause for all this ; a free people capa- ble of self-government do not destroy institutions of which they were once so proud, and incur all the risks of civil strife, without some adequate cause; all experience demonstrates that mankind are more disposed to bear with great and press- ing evils than to resort to revolution with all its attendant horrors.
It is our duty to examine into the causes that have environed the Union with perils and threat- ened its utter destruction, and, if possible, devise a plan to save it from further disintegration. — When we look back over the history of our coun- try, we see arising in the Northern States an anti- slavery party, whose sole cohesive principle was a bitisr hostility to the slave institutions of the Southern States. At first that party was weak, its members few, and scattered abroad, ynd con- sidered by the Northern people themselves as mischievous fanatics ; it continued gradually, but steadily, to increase, until political parties began to court its aid; from this time it progressed rap- idly in numbers, and increased in its virulence and hatred to Southern slave institutions and to slave-holders. Political demagogues, to promote their own selfish ends, pandered to its prejudices from the political rostrum. Sensation preachers, to increase their own importance, Sabbath after Sabbath, proclaimed its incendiary doctrines from
63
the pulpit, instead of preaching peace on earth and good will among men. It seized on the lit- erature of the North, and corrupted it in all its channels.
Books written to inculcate its destructive here- sies were introduced into its Sabbath schools, common schools and institutions of learning of higher grade.
A large portion of the Northern press, literary, religious and political, teemed with articles mis- representing and denouncing Southern institu- tions and Southern men.
Nourished and fostered by these means, this anti-slavery party obtained the control of the governments of the free States, and as those States came under their control they violated the compact that united them to their sister States of the South. By that compact they had covenant- ed that a fugitive slave found within their bor- ders should be delivered up upon demand of his master. They violated that compact,
1st, By failing to enact laws providing for his delivery ;
2d, By refusing the master aid and permitting their lawless citizens to deprive him of his prop- erty by mob violence;
3d, When Congress interposed for his relief by the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law, they trampled that law under foot, and nullified it by deliberate State legislation.
By the compact that united the Northern States to their Southern sisters, they covenanted that they, upon demand made, would deliver up for trial any fugitive from justice charged (by indict- ment) with treason, felony or other crime.
They have willfully and deliberately violated this covenant. They have (without passing laws to restrain them) permitted their citizens to in- vade the soil of Southern States, steal their slaves, and incite them to insurrection, and when the felon has been indicted and demanded, they have refused to give him up, and, to add insult to in- jury, they have justified the act by enunciating a proposition that strikes at the foundation of slave institutions, that as man cannot hold property in man, therefore slave stealing is no crime; and while there has been hitherto no just ground of complaint against the Federal Government, that Government has been powerless to remedy the evil.
This anti-slavery party, after having divided church organizations and destroyed the noble old Whig and the gallant young American party, has upon their ruins erected (in disregard of the warning voice of the father of his country) a purely sectional party, called the Republican party.
We do not desire to do that party injustice. It should be judged as all other parties are judged, by its platform and the principles enunciated by I
its representative men, and upon the enunciation of which the party elevates them to power.
That party, through its chosen leader, pro- claimed the dangerous and destructive heresies that our Federal Government cannot continue to exist as our fathers made it, part slave and part free ; that in that condition it is a house divided against itself and cannot stand ; that it must be- come all one or all the other; that an irrepressible conflict is progessing between freedom and slave- ry, and that it must continue until the public mind can rest satisfied in the belief that slavery is in the process of extinction ; that hereafter the slave property of Southern men shall be taken from them by Congressional legislation, if they take it with them into the Territories, the com- mon property of all the States.
The free States, deaf to the earnest remonstran- ces of their Southern sisters, regardless of the warning voice of a people jealous of their rights, indorsed the doctrines of that party and elevated its leader to the Presidential chair by large ma- jorities in all the free States, except one, thus placing the Federal Government, to which the South had hitherto looked as its friend, in the hands of its enemies.
These are the causes that have dissolved the Union, and have driven State after State beyond its pale; and these are the causes that will drive the remaining slave States out of the Union, un- less these sectional issues can be settled upon some basis consistent with security to their slave institutions.
This Convention was called for no ordinary purpose, it has assembled upon no ordinary oc- casion; while the people of Missouri will never surrender their slave institutions at the bidding of any earthly power, they ardently desire the preservation of the Union and the preservation of their slave institutions in the Union; this is the high mission to which this Convention is called; this can be accomplished only by action, prompt, decided action. Delay is dangerous; we know not, no human sagacity can penetrate the dark vail that hides the future and tell us at what hour the country may be aroused from its repose by the clash of arms. The plan proposed by the committee is, that this Convention request the Legislature to pass an act calling on Congress to call a National Convention, to propose a basis of settlement in the shape of amendments to the Constitution, to be afterwards submitted to the States for ratification or rejection. This amounts to doing nothing, literally nothing; if the plan was practicable, it would require eighteen months or two years to carry it into effect. But is it practicable, is there a reasonable ground to hope that it would save the Union ? Let us see : Con- gress can only act when called on by two-thirds of the States; Congress takes the position that the seceded States are yet in the Union. On this
64
"basis it would require the action of Legislatures of twenty-three States uniting in the call. Sev- eral of these Legislatures having already taken their position against any amendments, conse- quently would not unite in the call, and the plan would fall still-born.
But even if such a Convention should assemble, how would matters stand? Eight Slave States (it they remained in the Union, which is exceed- ingly doubtful) would go into Convention with nineteen Free States, and take such amendments as those States controlled by an anti-slavery party might be disposed to grant.
The preservation of the Union, in the opinion of the minority, should be the earnest desire not only of every American patriot, but also of every friend of civil liberty throughout the habitable globe; that this may he done is the earnest prayer of every American mother throughout this great republic; that it shall be preserved is the fixed de- termination of a large majority of the citizens of the Border Slave States whose citizens have ever been not only loyal to the Constitution and the Union, but also among the foremost in times past, when their country was in danger, to peril their lives to uphold her institutions. These States by assuming the position of mediators between the hostile sections, and taking a decided posi- tion, and proclaiming to those sectional parties who are now arming for fraternal strife, that they shall keep the peace.
These States, by meeting each other in conven- tion, and agreeing on measures of compromise and adjustment founded on the principles of equal rights and justice to all, and by firmly, yet in a spirit of fraternal kindness, insisting on the compromises so agreed upon as the basis on which all irritating differences shall be settled, can, in the opinion of the undersigned, be the means of preserving the Union, reconstructing it upon a permanent basis, reconciling conflict- ing interests, and restoring peace and tranquility to the country.
Resolved, by the People of the State of Missouri, in Convention assembled :
1st. That the State of Missouri invites the States of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Ken- tucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Delaware, to send Commissioners to meet in Convention with Commissioners appointed by Missouri, at the city
of Nashville, Tennessee, on the day of
next, to agree upon a basis of settlement by way of constitutional amendments that will preserve the Union, and afford an adequate guarantee for the preservation of their slave institutions and the constitutional rights of their citizens, and to take such steps as they may deem necessary to have such amendments presented to the people of the free States for ratification or rejection.
2. That be and they are hereby appoint- ed Commissioners to represent the State of Mis- souri in said Convention.
3. That is hereby appointed a Commis- sioner to the State of Virginia; Commis- sioner to North Carolina; Commissioner to
Maryland; Commissioner to Kentucky;
Commissioner to Tennessee; Commissioner
to Arkansas, and Commissioner to Delaware'
and said Commissioners are hereby authorized by the State of Missouri to present to the proper authorities of the said States, respectively, a copy of these resolutions, and to urge upon them the appointment of Commissioners to the Convention contemplated therein.
Resolved, That the Commissioners appointed to said Convention by Missouri are directed to present to said Convention for their consideration the resolutions commonly known as the Critten- den compromise measures, extending the provis- ions with reference to territory south of the line, to after- acquired territory, and to say, on behalf of Missouri, that those resolutions, or any other basis of settlement upon which the border slave States can agree, will be satisfactory to Missouri.
The people of the State of Missouri, being sat- isfied that the plan proposed in these resolutions will (unless interrupted by civil strife) not only preserve the Union, but afford a fair prospect for a reconstruction by bringing back the seceded States; they, therefore, earnestly appeal to the General Government and the seceded States to stay the arm of military power and preserve the peace until the plan proposed can be fully tried. And, to enforce such appeal, they would state it as their settled conviction that an attempt at co- ercion, under any pretext, would result in civil strife, and forever destroy all hope for the preser- vation or reconstruction of the Union.
JOHN T. REDD, H. HOUGH.
Mr. Redd. I desire to present that report as a substitute for the majority report, if it is in order.
The Chair. That would not be in order. The majority report is the first to be acted upon, and in the event of the failure of the majority report, the minority report comes up next, as a matter of course.
Mr. Moss. I now renew my amendment.
Mr. Gamble. If the gentleman will indulge me, I should like to offer a few opening remarks in regard to the majority report. I will state that I consider it due I should do so as Chairman of that Committee.
Mr. Moss. I shall yield the floor to the gentle- man.
Mr. Gamble. I am instructed, by those who are acquainted with parliamentary usage, that it is the duty of the chairman of the committee that hafl made a report on any subject to a deliberative body, to explain the principles upon which that
65
report has been recommended, without going in" to any extended argument, at first, in support of the propositions submitted to the body, reserving to the chairman the conclusion of the debate, and the presentation of those views at the close of the debate. Simply stating at full length the propositions which have been submitted by the committee: The first proposition which has been submitted is, that at this time there is no adequate reason for Missouri to secede from the Union— that there is no adequate reason for her cutting the cords that bind her to her sister States, and that she entertains and will manifest a disposition to compromise all difficulties that now distract the country, and that she will em- ploy all her power and influence to that end. In the beginning, Mr. President, I feel some embar- rassment in speaking upon such a question as this, and to a body chosen by the State of Mis- souri, such as is now assembled. To speak in favor of the Union — of its importance — of the ad- vantages which we derive from it, and of the glory which has been connected with it, to those who have been elected because they are friends of the Union, would seem to be entirely supererogato- ry. As far as my acquaintance with the gentlemen of this Convention extends, I know of no gentle- men who avow or insinuate, or in any manner admit that they entertain any unfriendly feeling to the Union. You may speak to any member of the Convention you please in reference to his position about the Union, and he will proclaim that he is in favor of the Union. How, then, in the introduction of this question before this body, shall I undertake to speak in favor of the Union, when there is a unanimity, an entire unan- imity, among all its members upon the very view which I would endeavor to take and enforce. I should continually be under the necessity of re- peating to gentlemen the very arguments which I am bound to suppose they used before their constituents, when they were candidates for elec- tion to this body. I am bound to suppose that, as they avow themselves friends to the Union, they entertain a deliberate purpose to do nothing that will in any de- gree endanger the continuance or the perma- nency of that Union or in any degree weaken the attachment of the people to the Union which is thus enshrined in their hearts. I am bound to suppose this, because I am bound to suppose that those who avow themselves in favor of the Union are sincere — as sincere as I am — as honest in the views they entertain and express as I am in the views I entertain and express, and therefore the difficulty is continually presenting itself to me, how discuss a question in which the friends agree with entire unanimity. If I speak to gen- tlemen of the Convention of the glories which cluster around that flag — if I speak to them of the pride that every American citizen in every
quarter of the globe has in the American Union, I speak but what I am bound to suppose every gentleman fully understands and appreciates, when he says he is in favor of the Union. I speak the sentiments that I am bound to suppose were the sentiments uttered before the people by gentlemen who were candidates for election to this Convention. Therefore, I shall be but wast- ing time, when, as I see, there is no expression antagonistic to the Union. I should be but wast- ing the time of the Convention if I should go through an enumeration of the blessings which we, as the people of Missouri, have derived from our connection with the common Government of our country. Sir, we are assembled here as the people of the State of Missouri. The position which we occupy, is a position in itself peculiar. We have our common history — we have the his- tory of our connection with this great Govern- ment of which we are a part; we have been the recipients of its beneficent action; we have grown up under its protection, and we have received nothing but blessings from it. I was here before it was born as a State — when it was weak and feeble — when the Indians were on our Western borders, and from whom our extreme frontier settlements apprehended difficulties — and were we left to ourselves ? were we left to protect our- selves against the savages who might desire to imbrue their hands in the blood of the wives and children of Missourians? No! The United States, at her own cost — under a Na- tional Government, for national purposes, and to carry out national obligations — maintained its own military forts, garrisoned by its own troops at its own expense, for our protection. Does our commerce meet with impediment or obstruc- tion in its national outlets to the ocean? then the United States expends its means in endeavoring to remove those obstructions. She does not leave us to protect ourselves, but freely expends her money, that we may have all the facilities that we may require, in order that our resources may be more rapidly and advantageously developed. To come to our land system. Has she shown any niggardly spirit towards us, or any disinclination at all to foster our highest interests. When the poor man settles his quarter section of land in any portion of the country., and is unable to pay for it, even at a mininiumn price, reduced as it is to a mere fraction of the actual value of the property, what does she do in reference to persons in that condi- tion ? She lays her hand upon those who would take this property for their own advancement or speculation, and compels them to yield to the man who has selected a portion of the public domain, in order that he may establish thereon a domicil and rear his children. When we wish to engage in any enterprise to develop the commercial and agricultural interests of the country, and are
66
unable to raise the money requisite to carry out such an enterprise, she says, "Here is a large domain we own within your territories; use it freely; we give millions in order to help you build your railroads," and so, gentlemen of this Convention, all tho action that the United States Government has taken in relation to Missouri, and the relations we sustain towards the United States, have been such as to benefit ourselves. Nothing of aggression on the part of the United States, composed as the United States is, of all the States — nothing of a disposition to hamper or crush out the energies of Missouri; nothing of a disposition to leave us to ourselves to encounter difficulties that are liable to arise in every new and growing State; but, on the other hand, every disposition to foster our interests as a State,
Sir, I am bound to suppose that every member of this Convention, as he avows himself in favor of the Union, and as he has avowed himself be- fore his constituents in favor of the Union, will do nothing to estrange the State from the General Government. How then shall I speak further, before a Convention that is unanimously in favor of the Union, in commendation of this fabric which our fathers have reared, and which was bequeathed to us from those who were peer- less in wisdom as in valor. In opening, therefore, , before the Convention the view which the commit- tee present in reference to the impolicy of taking any steps to sever our connection with the Gen- eral Government, I shall not detain fne Conven- tion in thus opening with any lengthy enumera- tion of the blessings which have flowed to us from our connection with the General Government. I shall not speak at length upon this subject, as there are others who can speak to the Convention and move the hearts of those who are true lovers of their country and in favor of the government under which we live. I shall expect to hear from members of this Convention, and if it becomes necessary to vindicate the propriety of the re- solution we have presented, to wit: That we shall remain longer in the Union— I shall ex- pect to hear that vindication coming from more eloquent lips and with greater power than I can employ before this body at this time.
Mr. President, it is true that there is discord now reigning in what was once, and very recent- ly, a happy family of States. It is true that there has arisen an alienation of feeling and it is true that that alienation is fait ripening into active hostility. But it is because there has been an entire misapprehension of the relations that the States bear to each other — the interests in and responsibility for each other's institutions; and I am glad to believe that a returning sense of the true measure of responsibility that the inhabitants of each State owe to the General Government, and to the inhabitants of every other State— that a true sense of that responsibility is beginning to
withdraw from the public mind all over the United States, and at the North particularly, that excitement that has been hurrying us on to ruin. I am glad to believe that in the Border States there is manifest a disposition sedulously to main- tain the Union, in order that there may be ulti- mately and permanently effected an agreement between the extremes, which shall result in the restoration of hannony, and in the perpetuation of this glorious confederacy.
After having passed beyond the question of whether there exists at this time any reason for our severing our connection with the General Government, we come forward to make a declar- ation of our desire for a friendly and amicable adjustment of all difficulties between the sections who differ in their feelings and views of policy. It is proper that Missouri shall avow this. It is proper she shall entertain such views, and shall do all in her power to encourage those who are divided in their sentiments in regard to the sub- ject of slavery, and some of whom have carried their action to the extent of attempting to sever their connection with the Government. That Missouri shall do all to restore harmony between the conflicting portions of our Union, and bring all back to amicable relations and national pros- perity, a scheme has been recommended by the Committee with a view to this object, and that is the calling of a National Convention, in which there shall be assembled the representatives of all the States of the Union. You have recently heard read a proposition that would seem to be adverse to the holding of such a Convention, be- cause it was likely to be futile. You have heard a proposition that looks to the holding of a Bor- der slave States Convention. The question has been before the Committee, as you learn by the minority report which has just been read. It did not meet with the favor of the Committee because it was regarded as in itself unnecessary, and involved in the proposition of a National Convention. The National Conven- tion which the Committee recommend, is an as- semblage of the representatives of all the States, free and slave — all that are in the Union. They come together for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and in the pres- ent case, inasmuch as amendments to the Con- stitution are demanded by the Border States, they come to consult upon these amendments and agree on their adoption. The Border States are the States that will demand the amendments — the whole are the States that pass upon the question whether that demand shall be granted or not. I say, therefore, that in the present condition of things, when the assembling of a National Con- vention is for the purpose of agreeing to the amendments that are demanded by the inhabit- ants of a particular section of the country, that Convention necessarily involves what is equiva-
67
ient to a Border States Convention. Suppose the members from all the States of the Union assemble in such general Con- vention for the purpose as before indicated, what then will be the proposition? The proposition to the members from the Border States will be: "Agree among yourselves as to what you want and we will pass upon it." Is not that the natural result of a General Convention, called under the circumstances such as we are now placed in, and having for its object the amending of the Consti- tution upon subjects upon which there is now division and complaint? If such is the object of that Convention, the first proposition that must naturally arise in the mind of any man participat- ing in it, would be : "You gentlemen who are from the Border States, agree upon any proposi- tions that you wish to submit and then we will take them into consideration, and if we deem them reasonable, wc will agree upon them." I say, therefore, that this General Convention involves the idea of a Border slave States Convention with this additional advantage: that there you have assembled the body that is at last to pass upon any proposed amendment and must agree to recommend or reject them. There they are, assembled from all the States, having the power under the Constitution of the United States to pass upon the question whether these proposed amendments shall be agreed to or not. On the contrary, the Border States' Convention is a body of men not known to law and the Constitution of the country, and it can do nothing but recom- mend; it can do nothing but agree upon amend- ments, which they may afterwards lay before a General Convention, for ratification by the whole country. It has no power to adopt amendments ; it has no power to act upon any person or law; it has no power to do more than agree upon and re- commend the amendments that they may sup- pose are needed by the Border States. Such be- ing the case, we perceive that by calling a Border States Convention we double the machinery with- out deriving any new advantage. There is no power to render emphatic what the Border States agree upon. Now, I ask, is it not more wise, more statesmanlike, to agree upon calling together a body which, when it does meet, is recognized by the Constitution, and capable of acting under the Constitution ? Is it not wiser and better to call a body whose action, when it goes forth before the people of the United States, shall carry with it a recommendation that no one can resist ? Such is the view that has been entertained by the Com- mittee in recommending a General Convention instead of a Border States Convention. We be- lieve that we can better attain our end by con- sulting the whole people of the United States in a General Convention assembled, than by con- sulting only one section, and that there is now a disposition manifest all through this country to
harmonize and settle existing difficulties, and re- store peace and order to the community.
You will notice that the measure chiefly recom- mended in the minority report, is a Border States Convention. You will also notice that in several parts that report contains the emphatic declara- tion of an attachment to the Union, and it would seem that the minority who presented it, chiefly bases its claim to the consideration of the Con- vention on the ground that a Border States' Con- vention will be more likely to bring about a con- ciliation and the concerted action of all par- ties, than the adoption of the majority report. But I apprehend, gentlemen of the Con- vention, when you come to see the compara- tive operation of the two bodies ; when you see that the one has power to recommend and the other to recommend and pass upon also; when you see that a General Convention involves the idea of a Border States Convention besides offering other advantages — when you see the evils that may arise by an assembling of those who are only on one side, and take only a one- sided aspect, and the good which must result from the commingling of men from all parts of the Union, amicably and fraternally disposed, you will give the preference to the majority re- port.
The Committee have gone further, taking their position as that of a pacificator, desirous of in- tervening between parties in hostile array against each other. They have put forth their hands and said to each party ; "Stay, be still until we can have an opportunity of settling the difficulty between you!" The Convention, we have taken it for granted, will look upon the policy of the employment of forces, the employment of arms of either one section or the whole government against a portion of the government, as an event greatly to be deplored, greatly involving in confusion and difficulty the differences which now exist between the different sections of the country, and rendering almost im- possible the reconciliation of the different parties. It still is a question of policy, not a question of constitutional right, upon which the voice of each part of the United States ought to be heard and considered by each of the parties who now stand in hostile array to each other. Our in- terests as a State are bound up inseparably with the maintenance of this Union; our sympathies, our personal sympathies, in a large measure, are with the people of the South. Neither party- ought to suppose that we would intentionally in- volve either of them in any compromise for arranging our difficulties that would touch its honor or materially injure its interests. They ought to know that the position which we occupy is one in which we can recog- nize the existence of any real fraternal feeling in every part of the country, and which enables us
68
to speak the language of conciliation. They ought to trust us, as those who desire nothing but what is for their good. We therefore speak to both parties : " Shed not the blood of your brothers; come not into hostile collision; wake not up the furious passions that burn in the American heart at the sound of the trumpet of war! Wait, wait, until all peaceful means are exhausted; wait un- til you can assemble in cooler moments, and with all the passions of our being lulled, so that we can rationally consider, and honestly and justly do whatever may be necessary for the interest of any one of the States."
Gentlemen, there is not a more warlike people on the face of God's earth than this American people. Every man is a soldier; even white hairs do not prevent a man from being a soldier. [Applause in the lobby, checked by the President.] I say, therefore, that the strife be- tween the different sections of the American peo- ple is a strife such as the world never saw and never will see again, because they will annihilate each other. I say, it is a time when every man who feels pulsating in his heart a love for the American brotherhood to which he belongs, ought to do all in his power to stay the hand of civil war, and it is with that impulse that the Committee here have, in the language of entreaty, not the language of menace, not ranging on one side or the other, but in the language of a body who would be mediators between conflicting parties, said: Shed not each other's blood — let us interpose as medi- ators, standing between 3rou and recommending what is for your interest and your honor; let us cast all our influence in the scale of justice and right, and we shall at last see harmony and una- nimity in this country restored. It is a glorious mission, if we can accomplish such an object.
Gentlemen of the Convention, the proudest moment that ever anyone of you shall look back to in your future life, will be when you participated in any act or in any course of action which was calculated to bring back a feeling of brotherhood among the different parts of this American Republic, and when you can still feel that you are united to all its parts, in all its glory, in all its prosperity, and in all its happiness ; when, after new glories and honors have clustered around the American flag, you will recollect that you have in any de- gree contributed to restore harmony among the American people in the past. It will be a feeling that will soothe you, in all cases of disaster, that will comfort and elevate you in all your walks of life.
Gentlemen, I consider that I have sufficiently explained the motives and objects of the commit- tee in submitting the majority report. I appre- hend that in relation to the question as to wheth- er we should sever our connection with the Union
or not, there will be a unanimous vote against any such course. Such unanimity would indeed be a great force and strength for all the purposes indicated in the report. I deem that I have now discharged the duty of opening the debate, as chairman of the committee, and shall close, re- serving to myself the privilege of again address- ing the Convention, should it become necessary in the course of the discussion.
On motion of Mr. Stewart, the Convention adjourned until 3 o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Convention re-assembled at 3 o'clock.
Mr. Moss asked that his amendment to the ma- jority report be read. It was read by the Secre- tary.
Mr. Moss. Gentlemen of the Convention : In offering this amendment to the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations, I do not de- sire to be understood as occupying a position hostile to that report. On the contrary, I con- tend that the amendment which I offer is in en- tire harmony with the doctrine laid down in the Committee's resolutions. I duly appreciate the importance of having this report go forth to the people of Missouri, indorsed by an overwhelm- ing majority of the members of this Conven- tion; and my own opinion is, that the fewei- amendments we offer to it, the better, provid- ed we reach the points that are desired to be al- tered in the report.
As I remarked in the outset, I do not consider the amendment just offered as in conflict at all with the main propositions contained in that re- port. My understanding of that report is, that it places Missouri upon this position: that she believes her fate depends upon the peaceful ad- justment of the present difficulties; and this is in accordance with my own sentiments. Holding such sentiments, the resolution I have offered is not at all in conflict with them. We say to the two contending sections, we are standing between you. We believe that our fate depends upon the maintenance of the position we occupy. We stand like the rock in the ocean, rolling back from us the waves that come from the North and the South. We say to our natural allies, our Southern brethren, you must not imperil our condition. Whilst we are struggling to get additional guarantees for the protection of our rights, you are not to assail the General Government, thereby precipitating us into revo- lution and ruining our cause. But whilst we speak to them in the solemn tone of remon- strance, we likewise say to the General Govern- ment, you shall not invade our Southern breth- ren. If you do, you can look for no aid from Missouri.
Gentlemen, it is urged by some of my friends — even those who occupy the same position in re-
69
gard to this great question that I do — that it is enunciating the doctrine of nullification; but you should remember that we are in the midst of a revolution: that it is folly to attempt to conceal that idea from the people, and worst of all, it is folly to attempt to conceal that idea from yourselves. And now, I submit it to every man in this assembly, of com- mon sense, to tell me whether Missouri will ever furnish a regiment to invade a Southern State for the purpose of coercion. Never! Never! And gen- tlemen, Missouri expects this Convention to say so. When our friends in the Northern States — those gallant patriots who, surrounded by our enemies, and the enemies of our common country— have dared to say that they will never lend their aid to the General Government to coerce a Southern State — is Missouri to take a position lower than that? Never! I believe it to be the duty of Missouri to stand by the gal- lant men of Southern Illinois, who have passed resolutions that they will never suffer a Northern army to pass the southern boundary of Illinois for the purpose of invading a Southern State. I believe it to be the duty of Missouri to come to the rescue of, and back up such men as the gal- lant Stockton of New Jersey, who has had the daring courage to plant himself upon a like plat- form. When I go home to my constitu- ents— when I go home to meet the se- cessionists, I want to go with a weapon in my hand with which I can conquer, and lead the Union men on to triumph at the polls, when they come to indorse what this Convention has done. But, gentlemen, if you send me there empty- handed — if you send me there with a document like that which has been given to us by President Lincoln, about which there are forty different opinions, and leave it for an argument — a learned and ingenious argument — to settle its meaning, I tell you that our defeat will be certain, when we come to submit our doings to the people of Mis- souri.
But, gentlemen, it is not from motives of this sort, entirely, that I have introduced this amend- ment; but because I conscientiously believe that it is demanded. It does not pledge Missouri to go out of the Union— not at all. I would never dream of such a resolution as that. I do not believe it to be the will of Missouri; but I believe that if the Union is to be preserved, it cannot be preserved by the sword, but by a peace- able adjustment and fair and equitable compro- mises. And occupying that position, I say ir is the duty of this Convention to plant Missouri be- tween these two warring sections, and say to each, you cannot look to us for aid.
That is my position, gentlemen, in regard to that point. Now, so far as the preamble is con- cerned, which is attached to the resolutions which have been presented to this Convention, I suppose
it to be a mere introduction, setting forth the reasons which have actuated the committee in submitting the resolutions, and not subject to any vote by the Convention. I hold that whatever may be our opinion in regard to the preamble, it is the resolutions, and not the pre- amble that we are to act on. Taking this view, I am indisposed to meddle with that preamble. It is a fine argument, and I agree with the senti- ments enunciated therein, as great truths. I have some objections to the way in which they are stated, and do not agree to some of the particu- lars ; but, taking it as a whole,I consider it a master- ly exposition of the present state of affairs, and history of the commencement and growth of the troubles now upon us ; I am disinclined to inter- fere with it IB any Avay.
Mr. Gamble. The gentlemen is right in say- ing that the preamble is not strictly before the Convention. It is to be looked upon merely as an introduction on the part of the Committee to the resolutions themselves.
Mr. Moss. Then I am correct in my position, and I regard the statement of the gentleman who is Chairman of the Committee as a further evi- dence that this amendment which I offered is not only not in conflict with the report of the Com- mittee, but in entire harmony with it. So much upon that point.
While I am up, gentlemen of the Convention, although perhaps it may not be strictly in order, yet I will briefly give my views in regard to this whole question. I do not know but what it is in order for me to do so. The majority report is now before the Convention, and I may be in- dulged in making my remarks, taking a wider range than is strictly included in my amendment. I will state that I have another amendment, which I shall offer at the proper time. But I will undertake to discuss it now, believing it to be in order.
The Chair. The gentleman will not discuss a resolution which has not been read by the Sec- retary.
Mr. Moss. Well, I will not say anything about this amendment at present, but confine myself to the majority report. I agree with the position taken in that report— the position taken by my worthy friend who is before me, as the Chairman of the Committee. I believe, gentlemen, that the hopes of the people of Missouri— yea, of the Union, of the Border States as well as of the Northern States— I say, I believe that their only hope of salvation now is with the people; and the sooner we go to them the better. And for that reason I am opposed to all preliminary proceed- ings by bodies of men whose work, when it is finished, amounts to nothing. I tell you the peo- ple have got tired of such things. They are sick, and they want a physician who can heal them.
70
They do not want to be compelled to swallow any more quack medicine.
It is urged by some of the friends of the Bor- der State propositions, that it would be advanta- geous to decline, for the present, holding a Na- tional Convention. And why? They say, in order that we might present an unbroken front. They say, fix upon an ultimatum. Well, now, gentle- men, I disagree with my friends in that respect. I disagree with them for this reason : if I am dealing with an enemy— and for the sake of il- lustration, I will call those gentlemen who are advocating " irrepressible conflict" our enemies — and I propose to him to compromise, and I have four or five different plans of compromise; then, if I see that he indicates that he is in favor of a certain one of these plans, and that plan suits me to the letter, I believe that good policy is to meet him at once, and not waste my time discussing the advantages of the other propositions. If I see that he will give me all that I ask, then, gentlemen, I feel it to be my duty as well as my interest, and the dictates of common sense, to accede to it at once. Now, how do we stand in regard to this ? Missouri says that she proposes the Crittenden resolutions as the proper basis for a settlement of the question. Do you doubt, that the Border States all indorse that proposition ? I presume not. How is it in the North ? Why, the Crittenden resolutions stand without a rival. Look at the memorials and petitions that have flooded our National Legis- lature. What object have they been presented for? Look at the 14,000 names from the city of Boston praying for the adoption of those reso rations.
Now, my idea of the policy of Missouri is this : lead out in this great conciliatory movement. Tell your brothers of the Border States that, be- lieving that a majority of the citizens of the Uni- ted States are agreed that the Crittenden resolu- tions present a fair and equitable basis of settle- ment, Missouri plants herself upon that position, and calls upon the Border States to follow her. There is no doubt but the Northern States can be made to accede to them ; and I tell you, gentle- men, we will go into that National Convention with four-fifths of her delegates instructed to oc- cupy them as a basis. That is what we will do, and we will do it without holding a Border State Convention; and I believe, honestly, we will reach that point more success- fully by Missouri's taking this ground right at the start, as she has a right to do, and determin- ing that she is not goiag to hold any further con- sultation with sister States except in National Convention, and that she will instruct her dele- gates to the National Convention to stand upon that platform, and will call upon her sister Border States to do likewise. Then, gentlemen, I b-'licve we will go into a National Convention—
I mean the friends of compromise — I mean the delegates that come from the people, from whom we look for salvation, will go there as a unit, and I believe all will go virtually satisfied with the Crittenden compromise.
As I remarked before, the impatient people — they are in the habit of traveling by railroad, and talking by telegraph, and they wish to see the great difficulty we have to contend with settled with dispatch. They are impatient. They have forgotten that it took eight long years of blood- shed, and suffering, and trial, to build up this magnificent edifice; and now, because they can- not stay its tottering walls, and re-instate it upon its ancient foundations in an hour, they get im- patient and cry out for revolution. Gentlemen, the sooner we can get to the people the better.
If I thought that in advocating a National Convention, I should be instrumental in bring- ing about a conflict between delegates from the Border States and from Northern States, I would have different views about the matter. I should not advocate it; but I believe our delegates will go there, and the Northern delegates will go there, and a great majority of all will be instruct- ed to vote forthe Crittenden resolutions.
Although it may be a little tiresome for me now to discuss the merits of the Crittenden resolutions, much as they have been discussed, yet I hope I shall be indulged, for this reason : that we have these battles to fight over again with the people; and I know the skill and ingenuity and masterly management of our enemies in Missouri; (when I say our enemies, I mean the secessionists per se, these gentlemen who think that Missouri's salva- tion depends upon going out now. I want the people of Missouri to understand the force of our position here. I know it will be contended by our enemies, when we have passed these resolu- tions, that we have done nothing— that what we have done amounts to nothing — and that Mis- souri has taken no position whatever; that we are submissionists, and all that sort of thing; and, recollecting these facts, recollecting the his- tory of the canvass, and the fight made hereto- fore, I think it not inappropriate, in this connec- tion, in a short way, to speak of the peculiar merits of the Crittenden resolutions as the basis of settlement.
In order to appreciate these merits, let us ask ourselves, in the first place, what are we seeking to remedy? What is it that has terrified the South in regard to the danger of her institutions? Is it the mere squabble about the Territories ? Far from it. It is the announcement of the celebrated doctrine that Mr. Lincoln claims to be the father of the "irrepressible conflict." I know that Republicans interpret that one way, but the South— the men of the South— the men of the slave States— all interpret it another way, and I think their interpretation is right.
71
How do they interpret it? They interpret it, gentlemen, to mean, not oul)T the exclusion of Southern men from the Territories, and the hedging in of slavery with a wall of fire, as has been remarked by some other gentleman. They may be wrong in this interpretation; but whether it be right or wrong, the general opinion enter- tained in the South is, that it means eternal and unceasing warfare upon the institution, and that, whilst the Republican party now, under our present Constitution, acknowledge that Congress has no power to invade a Southern State by legislation for the purpose of interfering with the institutions in the States, yet, when in some future time they have acquired sufficient strength, they will institute such interference. Whether that idea be erro- roneous or correct, is a matter I do not propose to investigate. Suffice it to say, that the great object in the outset of this conciliatory movement, is to give the Southern mind peace upon this great question. It is to satisfy them that they need no longer look with anxiety and dread to their Northern brethren.
Now, let us see whether the Crittenden resolu- tions reach that point. How doss Mr. Critten- den propose to remedy the evil ? How does he propose to give peace and safety to the South ? He says we will amend the Constitution in a cer- tain way, so as to deprive Congress of the power ever to interfere with the question of slavery in a State; and for a further guarantee, we will make that provision in the Constitution like a law of the Medes and Persians, unalterable.
Gentlemen, if there be any in this Conven- tion, who are secessionists, (and I hope there are none;) if there is a man here with a true Southern heart in his bosom, who is honest and candid, I ask whether he would propose to offer amendment to that ? Could we ask for a stronger guarantee than the one contained in the Critten- den resolutions reaching to that point ? I believe, gentlemen, that no other statesman has'offered an amendment to the Constitution that suits the peo- ple of the South better. We think it is as strong an amendment as we can get.
What is the next point? The next point, gen- tlemen, is to give protection to the four thousand millions of slave property in the States. You may talk about principles, your Territorial ques- tions, the theory of the Government, and all that sort of thing, but I tell you the men who have labored for a lifetime to build up a little fortune, and have got half of it in slave prop- erty, will not rest satisfied for a moment without sufficient guarantees that they can lie down at night and sleep quietly and in safety, and know that no robber dare break in and take their property from them. They want protec- tion for the four thousand millions of dollars of slave property. Now, how does Mr. Crittenden
propose to reach that point? Is there any im- provement which has ever been suggested upon his plan ? What does he propose to do ? Gen- tlemen, you are aware that we have upon our statute book, passed by our National Legislature, the Fugitive Slave Law. What has been the trouble in the South ? It was, that when a South- ern man undertook to pursue a slave into a free State a mob would arise and take his property from him, and he had no remedy — he was powerless. That needs rectifying. We need a stronger guar- antee in regard to that point than we have had heretofore. How are we to get it? Mr. Critten- den proposes that the General Government shall come in with her strong arm and deal with the Northern robber who dares to violate the law. He does not leave the individual to struggle with the law; but he proposes that the General Gov- ernment should pay the value of the stolen prop- erty to the owner, and that she shall undertake to deal with the offender according to his deserts.
Men of Missouri — slave holders — can you sug- gest an improvement on that? I believe none has ever been suggested that was more satisfacto- ry to the South than that.
Then, gentlemen of the Convention, the two great points are now disposed of. Peace and qui- et are restored to the South. They no longer look upon their Northern brethren as enemies, because they have not the power to do them injury.
All those startling fears upon which artful and designing men worked in order to cany them- selves into power, without reference to the effect that it is to have upon the nation, and which have in a great measure led us to our present unfortunate condition, they are rid of. We put an impassible barrier between the enemies of slavery and the owners of slave property in the States. We deprive the Abolitionist of the power ever to alter the American Constitution, so as to give Congress the power to invade a Southern State by legislation ; and we give full and ample protection to the four thousand millions of dol- lars worth of property in the States.
Well, those two material points are satisfacto- rily disposed of. The next question, and, gentle- men, the only question remaining to be consid- ered (for I believe that the people of the North agree that we are entitled, under the Constitution, to all those guarantees and to all the protection that we ask, so far as slavery is concerned in the States,) is that of the Territories. Well, what of the Territories ? It is unnecessary for me to ar- gue this question at length before this Conven- tion; but, gentlemen, as that is the point upon which our enemies hang the fate of Missouri, I will argue it. That is the great weapon ot war in the hands of our enemies. They say all is very well about the States, but the danger lies in the Territories. Well, now, this is not a question entirely of principle, but a question of fact — a
72
question of practicability. You go on to demonstrate to them that the God of Nature has put his veto on the introduction of slavery north of 36 degrees 30 minutes. Yet they will argue with you a day, and say they don't care whether that is true or false — whether the laws of nature have placed impas- sable barriers between them and that Territory or not; they will maintain that the abstract principle is right, and that there should be no con- cession upon that point. They say the Revolution was fought on a preamble, and they talk about a principle. Well, I apprehend, whenever the people can understand this principle in a practical light, they will make but poor headway with that prin- ciple. They insist that they have the right of going into any Territory and occupying every foot of ground that the God of Nature will allow them to occupy, and that they are not willing to abandon that right in any instance whatever. That is the argument of the secessionists.
Well, what does that amount to ? it amounts to just this— our Northern brethren now, and I be- lieve it sincerely, will give us the Crittenden Re- solutions whenever we can get at the sense of the people in a National Convention; they will give us guarantees for the protection of slavery in the States ; they will give us this impassable barrier to prevent men, hereafter, from carrying the war into Africa ; they will give us protection for everjT foot of territory where you can take slavery according to the laws of Nature; but the Secessionists say we will surrender all these guarantees offered us, and for what? for the sake of asserting an abstract principle that is barren— a right that is a barren abstraction— and they say further, that they consider this compromise altogether on one side, that we give up every thins, and that we get nothing.— Why, gentlemen, is that the manner in which the thing suggests itself to you; and right here, at the risk of being— as I remarked before— a lit- tle tedious, I will go slightly into the past political history of our country on the subject of slavery, and shall take, to some extent, the same line of argument pursued a day or two since by the gen- tleman from Clinton— Judge Birch. Let us look to the national legislation of the past, and see whether or not this is not a compromise we are getting. It will be remembered, and I will pass very rapidly over the history, that in 1820, Missouri sought to come in as a slave State but was opposed, but at last she did come in with her magnificent domain. Time rolled on, and Texas with her magnificent em- pire sought to come into the Union. It was still opposed by men of the North, with the exception of those of our Northern friends who have al- ways been willing to stand by our Constitutional rights, and they agreed to admit her. How? Texas has a territory of three hundred millions of
acres of land. And what were the conditions prescribed by Texas? They were that she should be admitted with the right to divide her territory into four great States, and she has the right to-day if she is not out of the Union. It was a part of the contract, as you will observe by reading the proceedings of Con- gress in 1845, and further, by reading Webster's great speech on the compromise measures of 1850, where he takes that ground and says: "Texas to-day has the right to divide her mag- nificent Territory into four slave States, and that it is a part of the contract under which she was admitted." Well, gentlemen, time rolled on, and New Mexico and California sought to come in. The same enemies in the Northern States attempt- ed to prevent the admission of those Territories, and what then took place? Why, the immortal Clay came fortward and offered a resolution which embodied the celebrated doctrine of non-interven- tion, by means of which men of the slave States, with their property, could go into those territories and stand side by side the men of the free States. By and by our Southern brethren said to the North, this will not satisfy us. Your citizens have been encroaching Upon us, and making war upon our institutions, and robbing us of our pro- perty, and we have no remedy. Give us the Fu- gitive Slave law. They did so. And while a Northern man was in the Presidential chair they executed that law. That was not all. Time rolled on again, and in 1854, when Kansas and Nebraska sought to come in, what was done then ? Our Southern brethren said this celebra- ted doctrine which was enunciated in the com- promise measures of 1850, the doctrine of non-. intervention, is cramped and trammeled in its full operation on account of the old Mis- souri Compromise, and we now ask you to do what by right and justice you should do to us. We ask you to remove the old Mis- souri restriction and give the people of the South the right to go into the common territory and say what institutions they shall have. Did they refuse? No, they gave it to us. What was done then? It was then sought to take the power of legislating on this subject of slavery in the Territories, as I before remarked, out of the hands of Congress. Our Southern brethren said : Take this away from Congress, and give us all a fair opportunity- Kentucky, Louisiana and Arkansas — and give us an opportunity to go there and take an equal chance with our Northern brethren, and let the people decide. We did go into Kansas Territory and passed laws for the protection of the slave, as we did in New Mexico, and which now stands on our statute book. That is the way the thing stands. I am now reciting this history for the purpose of showing that this is a compro- mise. I understand a compromise to mean a
73
yielding up on the part of both sides. Now, all this was right. I do not claim that the North has given us anything that we are not entitled to; but this Kansas-Nebraska bill was given to us upon our solicitation, and upon that platform we elected James Buchanan, a sworn friend of the South, by an overwhelming majority, and the astonishing spectacle is now presented that notwithstanding all this seven of our Southern brethren have deserted us and gone out of the Union. I undertake to show you that the propo- sitions contained in the Crittenden resolutions in reference to the territory are, in the truest sense of the word, a compromise, and I think I can demonstrate it. We have asked the fugitive slave law, and it was put upon our statute book. We asked that the power to regulate slavery in the territories be given to the people from Congress, and what do we find ? We find that we cannot be protected in the territories — that the arm of the territorial legislature is too weak — that our Northern enemies, those who are really our Northern enemies, have three men to our one, and that they can fill the territories and rob us of our protection. Now, what do we ask? We ask that this power shall be placed back in Congress; that it shall once more be restored to the General Government that she by her strong arm shall give us protection. Suppose they do it, don't they give us something? Don't they yield us something? Certainly; and, I contend, just what we are entitled to. We now ask that we shall not be left to our enemies who get the power in the Territories, but that the Government shall come to our rescue. Suppose they give it to us, is it nothing ? But they tell us about the guarantees they gave us for slavery in the States. There is the Fugitive Slave Law, and all you can ask. We are not responsible for its execution. The President has the power to exe- cute it, and we have done all we can. We say we admit that, and ask you to do more — to give us a remedy that will be of some practical utility to us. We ask you to let us go into this Territory with our slave property, and claim protection of the General Government. I do not know what other men's ideas of compromise are, but that fills my idea exactly. And mind you, when I say all this, I don't mean to say that they yield one thing that we are not entitled to. We are entitled to it all, and we should take it in the spirit of compromise. I have deemed it proper, gentlemen of the Conven- tion, to detain you thus long in the discussion of my views in regard to the Crittenden propositions. I have done so for the reasons that I suggested at the outset, that—
The Chair. I will say to the gentleman that he is out of order in discussing the Crittenden Impositions, and has been to my full knowledge, but it has been my disposition to indulge him,
and I hope the Convention will indulge him. He has cut off the whole merits of the subject by of- fering an amendment to a particular clause in the report. There being no objec tion, the gentle- man will have leave to proceed.
No objection was made.
Mr. Moss. I thank you, gentlemen, for the in- dulgence. I was aware of the fact, but as I stated at the outset that I did not contemplate again oc- cupying the time of the Convention, I desired to say what I thought in regard to the whole ques- tion. Now, gentlemen, as I remarked in the out- set—
[The speaker was here interrupted, by some one in the audience being seized with a fit. After the excitement had subsided he said:]
Gentlemen of the Convention, I take the posi- tion I now occupy for the reason that I have intimated: I have faith in the Northern people. As I remarked a few minutes ago, and as my worthy friend from Clinton remarked, we have never sought any protection at their hands that they did not grant, and when I say this, I do not mean the Abolitionists of the North ; I do not mean the men who avow no compromise and hostility to the institutions of the South, but I mean the noble patriots who have been willing to stand by the constitutional rights of the South in all times; but men now talk that they have no sympathy with Northern men ; they are too apt to class all Northern men alike; they say our sympathies are altogether with the South. Do you know, gentlemen of the Conven- tion, that in November, 1860, there was a quar- ter of a million more votes polled against Mr. Lincoln in the North than in the South? Are these noble men who stand up in the midst of your enemies, to suffer mar- tyrdom? Have they no claims on your sympa- thies ? Have you no hope of the vindication of your rights, and of obtaining additional guaran- tees from those noble men who are now struggling for you in the free States. Turn to the past his- tory of the country, to which I have referred, and remember that you have a stronger army fighting for you in the free States, than you have in the South. Such is the fact, and no man can deny it. Gentlemen who are with- out hope, and who have no confidence in the Northern people. I ask you to examine the result of the election of 1860, and see what a rev- olution you have got to produce. Take each State, and see how many votes you have got to take from the Repubbcan party to add to the friends of your Constitutional Rights party, and see what a revolution you have got to work. Some time ago, while I was making a canvass in my District, I took the trouble to do that; and right here I will state my position in regard to our Southern brethren withdrawing from us. I know gentlemen on this floor will say it is no
74
use now to talk about these things; but, gentle- men, I think it is. I think it is proper that the people of Missouri should understand this ques- | tion, as how we stand and why we stand as we [ do. Our sisters in the South, without consulta- tion with us, took the liberty of going out of the j Union and inaugurating a revolution, and left us , to our fate. I regret that. While I am disposed to complain of them for their arbitrary action, yet j I am not disposed to abuse them. But I think a ; calm, dignified and firm action of the people of ; Missouri should be taken in regard to the circum- i stances that have led us to our present troubles. How did we stand upon the election of Lincoln ? It was known that his hands were tied — that Congress was with us. How did it stand in regard to adopting constitutional amend- ments ? How would it stand to-day, in regard to the adoption of the Crittenden resolutions, if all our wandering sisters had staid in the Union? Gentlemen, I believe it would require but just eleven free States to give us a constitutional ma- jority to adopt amendments to the Constitution. But they have gone out, and how do they leave us ? They leave us so that we are now compelled to get fourte-n of the Northern States, to get a majority of those left, and a still larger number to get three-fourths of the original States in order to amend the Constitution. But look at the returns of the November election, and see the revolution necessary to be made, and you will be astonished ; for you will remember that when you take from the Republican side, and add to our side, the thing counts double. You will perceive that in order to get three-fourths of the States, you would not have to make a revolution exceed- ing 10,000 votes in any State, except Pennsylvania and New York. Don't you believe that revolution has already taken place? I do, and it is for that reason that I would go with confidence into a National Convention; but I want the delegates to that Convention to come from the people; and I intend to offer a resolution, at the proper time, reaching that point— that we ask that to be done, and why? Because I don't want to go through a solemn farce like that which was enacted a short time since in the Peace Congress. I have no faith in delegates sent from Abolition Legisla- tures and Governors, who go to meet secession delegates from secession Governors and Legisla- tures, [applause;] and I, for one, have never staked my hopes of salvation in the hands of such men. The Chair. The Sergeant-at-Arms will attend to his duties, and will clear the galleries, if there is any more cheering.
Mr. Moss. The question was put to me on every stump, by every Secessionist, Will you not he willing to go out if this Congress fail? No, gentlemen, for I look for it to fail, and, as a dis- tinguished member told us the other day, North- ern men came there with the idea that they had
to sustain the Chicago platform, without refer- ence to any other question. I am opposed to Missouri going into a Convention composed of delegates that shall be sent by any Legislature now in existence. But, say the Secessionists, your hands are tied; these Legislatures that are now in existence won't send delegates to a National Convention. What are you going to do ? Are you going to wait? Certainly I am. It took eight long years of blood and suffering to build this Government up, and I think it is worth twelve months delay or two years or five years to preserve it. And if thece Legislatures refuse to send delegates there, and refuse to subm t this question to the people ; if members of Congress refuse to do their duty and refuse to give the peo- ple what is right, I am in favor of waiting; but I don't want Missouri to go out. I want her to wait until she can reach our Northern brethren at the ballot box Then, when they turn their backs upon us and say they are no longer our brethren, th sn there will be time enough for Mis- souri to talk about going out of the Union. I am not inclined to break up this Government be- cause a few unprincipled politicians have got into our legislative halls by swindling the people, or because they refuse to give us our rights. I will stay in it until we can reach the people, and never raise my voice for secession until our Northern brethren have declared at the ballot box that they will no longer live with us as brethren. Then there will be time enough for Missouri to talk about going out.
I know that political I eaders of the South tell us that we cannot come together again, and my friends ask me if I have any hope ? Yes, I have. I have faith in the people of the South, but I have none in their political leaders. I have faith in the people of the North, but I have none in their political leaders. And I have a hope, it may be a sort of forlorn hope, a bitter hope, but it is this, that if these peaceable remedies fail, that at last the people, when they come to realize the fact that they have been trodden upon and oppressed by a set of unprincipled political ty- rants, that they will rise up and trample these men down and upon this bloody ground plant the old national banner. This is my hope. I look to a reconstruction of this great Republic.
I had to-day a conversation with a very in- telligent gentleman lately from the South, and a gentleman who is very warm in his attach- ment to the South, and he stated to me a fact that I have always believed, and that is that a large majority of the people of Louisiana, the day she went out of the Union, were against se- cession,and I tell you, men of the border States, you form the great backbone, the vertebral column, to which are attached these Northern and Southern ribs— some of which have been broken off, but they will be reunited, I trust, despite the enemies
75
of the country either North or South. I tell you, if you could get an adjustment of this question on what the Crittenden resolutions propose, we can once more be at peace. In spite of the agency of Orr, Jeff. Davis or others, there will be found men at the South who will build up Union par- ties that Avill revolutionize the South, and they will come back. They will stand out just as long as they can stand, and then they will rise up and bury their oppressors. God grant the day may soon come !
Gentlemen, a reign of terror is prevailing there. No man dare open his lips in favor of the Union, and men who have shed their blood upon the battle field, statesmen who have contributed em- pires to our Southern States, have been denounced in the South as traitors, and I declare my blood ran cold when I read the denunciations of those noble patriots. Look at Sam Houston— a man who, by his military prowess and statesman ship, has added to the Southern galaxy that great empire, Texas — Sam Houston ! Look at the trai- tor Wigfall— yea, I say traitor — talking about riding Sam Houston on a rail, and running him from a territory that he gave to us but a few years since. Sam Houston ! a man who has shed more patriotic blood on Southern soil, and in de- fense of Southern territory than ever flowed in the veins of all the traitor Wigfalls that ever lived. That is the way the thing stands at the South. — Noble men and patriots are denounced because they dare to love the Union. I tell you that reign of terror must have an end— it has had an end in all its past history. The history of the revolution in France, and of the world, point to a certainty that a revolution will overwhelm those who stand between the people and what they want. Gentlemen, I have occupied your time long enough. In conclusion, I only desire to state that I hail from a county where Lincoln did not get a vote, and where the secessionists got less than two hundred. My constituents are Union men, and they indorse my position, and they believe that all Missouri has is staked on the die — that she must have a peaceful settlement. — They do not want to go out of the Union, but they ask that their honor shall be safe in your hands. We occupy the middle ground, and we car extend to both sections a friendly hand, and say we want peace, and our salvation depends upon it. I hope the resolution will meet with a favorable reception.
Mr. Doxnell offered an amendment to the amendment, which being declared out of order he withdrew, for the purpose of offering it at the proper time.
Mr. Hall, of Randolph. I concur in most of the remarks made by the gentleman from Clay, (Mr. Moss,) but I am opposed to that resolution. I do not believe the fate of Missouri depends upon the question of coercion, but I do believe that the
restoration of this Union may be brought about, and I am therefore in favor of the resolution re- ported by the Committee, which opposes coercion on the ground that it would destroy the hope of a reconstruction. I do not believe the fate of Missouri is dependent upon the action of the States out of the Union, nor am I willing to take any action that shall tie me to their fate. They have selected their own course, whatever its results are to be to them, and however much I may deplore it — however much I may desire them to be restored, yet the course they have taken I am not prepared to take for Missouri; nor will I take a position which will draw me into the path which they have taken The gentleman says that we should show as much spirit in resisting coercion, as our brethren of the North. Threats of resistance to coercion coming from the North, have a good effect, but coming from the South, they have a far difffer- ent effect. Coming from the North, it shows they are willing to assume the part of pacificators, but coming from the South, it comes in the na- ture of a threat — and we have had too much of that. If the Federal Government calls upon us we must discharge our duties to that Govern- ment. Sir, I will not take the position that I am in a Government, and yet intend to resist its laws. I think it is not the proper course for this Convention to declare, this sentiment, what- ever they may think the action of Missouri should be. I will not make a pledge now which by a possibility can be construed to the effect that we will fight for those who have placed them- selves in the position of enemies to our country. Suppose there is a Constitutional demand upon this State, and an attempt to enforce it, what are we to do? Are we to resist, and, if necessary, by arms? What, then, is the consequence? Why we declare that peace is essential, and yet, for the sake of peace, inaugurate civil war — inau- gurate the very thing we attempt to avoid, and we ourselves inaugurate it for the pur- pose of avoiding it — it involves a practical ab- surdity. Mr. President, it would produce a great excitement throughout the Southern States if co- ercion were resorted to. Coercion, in the sense in which it was understood when this question first began to be talked of, is a different thing from what it means now. We now have con- structive coercion. We now hear that Maj. An- derson's holding on to Fort Sumter is coercion, and that South Carolina, in taking Fort Sumter, is but acting in self-defense, is but resisting coer- cion. Now, if I do not mistake the feeling of Missouri, as between South Carolina and Major Anderson, the sympathies of Missouri are in fa- vor of Major Anderson; and I will make no pledge that the people of Missouri will take up arms to resist the General Government, in dcfend- idg Major Anderson in the discharge of his duty.
76
Mr. President, it seems to me that this resolu- tion is at variance with the whole scope and spirit of the resolutions adopted by the majority of the committee. If I understand the scope of their ar- gument it is this — that we are not to resort to rev- olutionary remedies so long as we have a means of protecting our lights within the limits of the law, and we have reason to believe that we can have our rights protected within the limits of the law, and therefore there is no cause for revo- lutionary action at this time. That is the spirit of the resolutions reported by the majority com- mittee— that we recommend subordination and the noble spirit of submission to the laws. •But as I understand it in the resolution now before the Convention, we pledge ourselves to insubordination, — we place ourselves on ground which is wholly at variance with the spirit of the majority report. In that report I believe we take the only tenable ground that can be taken; that revolution should never be resorted to while there are means of preserving our rights in the Union. We have taken the ground and set the example, and I want to see no resolution in- troduced at all at variance with that or which is calculated to set the States example of insubordination. We take the high ground of mediators, and place ourselves on the impregnable basis of maintaining our le- gal rights by legal means while these legal means exist. I say our position as mediators depends upon the position we occupy before the country. If we occupy the position of threaten- ing insubordination, it will weaken the moral in- fluence which we shall exert in that capacity. I am, therefore, opposed to the resolution.
Mr. Redd. I desire to say a word or two on this amendment. If I understand it, it is this : that Missouri shall not furnish troops to the seceding States nor troops to the General Government. I am opposed to the passage of that amendment. I am opposed to it because I do not believe it speaks the voice of the people of Missouri. The peo- ple of Missouri love the Union as much as any people within the limits of this Union, and while the people of Missouri are willing to wait for the preservation of that Union, as long as there is a reasonable hope that it can be preserved, yet I believe the people of Missouri have made up their minds upon the subject embraced in that resolution. They have made up their minds, not as the gentleman from Randolph would have it, that they would aid the General Government to coerce their sis- ters of the South; not that they would respond to any call to march upon Southern soil to shed the blood of Southern men, because these Southern men have been driven out of the Union by the violation of their Constitutional rights. That is not, in my judgment, the de- termination of the people of Missouri. The
gentlemen says we have an adequate remedy by the law. Has that been true and is it true? I know that it is not. If we had an adequate remedy by the law our Union would not have been in danger. In my judgment the people have made up their mind, and they have made it up to use every effort to preserve the Union in every way in which it can be preserved. It cannot be preserved by coercion; it cannot be pinned together by bayonets; it cannot be ce> mented by blood; it can be preserved only in the way in which it was made by compromise and concession1. In that way the people of Missouri desire and will labor to preserve it. But if the General Government fol- lowing out the course indicated by him who has the control of its affairs — if the General Government attempts to send troops upon Southern soil to retake the forts now in the hands of those States — to retake the Custom House, either for the purpose of col- lecting the revenue, or for any other purpose — I say if the General Government does that, the Un- ion is gone. If it is dissolved ; c re-construction is impossible; because between these gaping sec- tions there will be a gulf of blood. In my judg- ment Missouri has made up her mind, and her determination is that if the General Government will not wait until the country can save the Un- ion by concession and by compromise, her deter- mination is to take her stand by the side of her Southern sisters; having failed to obtain her rights ; having failed to have any guarantee from that great anti-slavery party that has hitherto trampled under foot the Constitution; having failed to obtain this, her determination is to take her stand out of the Union— to take her stand with her sister border States; and when they go, they will take with them that Constitution they never have violated. They will take with them that glorious banner that they have baptised in the blood of a hundred battle fields, and if necessary, under its broad folds they will fight for their rights and institu- tions as their fathers fought, until the last drop of blood be spilled. In my judgment that is the determination of the people of Missouri. It is true, it is not the determination of all, for Missou- ri has within her broad limits thirty thousand men belonging to that party that has assailed the Constitution. If they are to control her destiny, if she is to remain in this Union at the sacrifice of her institutions and her rights, I have but one thing to ask, and I ask it as a matter of justice, that she change the device of her coat of arms- remove from it the grizzly bear, for its rugged na- ture was never animated by a craven spirit, and substitute in its place the fawning spaniel, cowing at the feet of its master and licking the hand that smites it. Missouri, in my judgment, will never take that position. I know the people
77
of Missouri. . I know the Southern men of Mis- souri, and I know that if it should ever arrive at ; that period when she has struggled for her rights, ! when she Ins tried every expedient to which : hnoorable men can resort to preserve the Union, j our institutions and our rights in the Union— j after she has done that, if the question is then i presented to her to submit to have the Chicago j platform ami the dogmas of this Republican party substituted in the place of the national constitution, to submit and surrender her insti- tutions at the bidding of a sectional party or go out of this Union— I know what Missouri will do, and the heart of every Southern man will tell you what she will do, that is, that she will go out of the Union. To one construction of this amen ImentI I have no objection. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying Missouri would not furnish any force to any seceding State to make war upon the General Government. She would do no such thing; and I have no hesi- tation in saying she would furnish no force to the General Government to make war upon the sece- ding States. I have no hesitation in saying that. If that be the extent of the amendment I give it my hearty approval^ but if it goes further, as I understand it to go, and takes the high ground, that when a conflict occurs that Missouri will be found fighting under the law and command of Abraham Lincoln, then I cannot go for any such amendment, because Missouri will never do it.
Mr. Doniphan. As very few gentlemen seem to understand the amendment, and as it is late in the evening, I move that the House adjourn till to-morrow morning, so that the resolution may be printed.
Before putting the motion, the Chair laid be- fore the Convention a communication from the State Auditor, together with an opinion of the Attorney General, to the effect that he did not feel authorized to pay out any money to meet the expenses of the Convention unless authorized to do so by special act of the Legislature.
A communieation was also presented from Chief Engineer Sexton, inviting the Convention to witness a display of the steam fire engines.
Adjourned.
TENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 12th, 1861.
Convention met at 10 o'clock.
President Price in the Chair.
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain .
The journal was read and approved.
The Chair announced the further considera- tion of the amendment to the fifth resolution, in the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations, offered by Mr. Moss, to be in order.
Mr. Norton. Mr. President, I have not an- ticipated to engage in any discussion which has been elicited by the introduction of the amend- ment offered by my colleague and friend from Clay. Nor do I now propose, in the remarks which I shall offer, to depart from the subject which is properlv and legitimately before this Convention, for its consideration and determina- tion. I came here, sir, not to talk, not to speak, but to represent, in part at least, by my vote, a constituency as loyal to the Union of these States, as unwavering in their patriotism, as devoted, sir, to the peculiar institution of the slaveholding States, as any constituency represented on this floor.
I propose, sir, to consider first the original res- olution to which the proposition of my friend is offered as an amendment, to enable me to de- monstrate with more facility and clearness the reasons which shall operate on and control me in my vote for that amendment.
That resolution, sir, enunciates that the em- ployment of military forces by the Federal Gov- ernment to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of military forces by the seceding States in assailing the Government of the United States, will inevitably plunge the country in a civil war and entirely extinguish all hopes of an amicable adjustment of the fearful issues now before the country. Therefore, we earnestly entreat as well the Federal Government as the seceding States, to withhold and stay the arm of military force, and on no pretext what eyer to bring upon the country the horrors of civil war. This, sir, is the resolution, as originally re- ported by the Committee on Federal Relations, to which now there is pending an amendment. It enunciates, sir, that if war is inaugurated by the Federal Government, or inaugurated by the se- ceding States in assailing that Government, we are plunged in civil war, and that all hope of peace is extinguished and forever gone. Sir, to the sentiment enunciated in this resolution my mind gives its most hearty and cordial assent.
If the course indicated in that resolution be pursued either by the Federal Government or by the seceding States, we become the subjects of two of the greatest calamities that can ever be- fall any people or any nation. We should pre- sent, sir, to the civilized world, the spectacle of a people with the freest and best government ever or- ganized for men, pulling it down, tearing it asun- der, breaking it up, and inaugurating and substi- tuting in its stead wild confusion, anarchy and misrule, while the other nations of the globe, op- pressed by despotism, aristocracies and monar- chies, are attempting to pull them down, and es- tablish and build up what we have blindly, ah! blindly, gentlemen of the Convention, been throwing away. Yes, sir, blindly throwing away, by inaugurating civil war, and lighting up its red
78
flame, and causing it to rage like a tempest of fire from one end of this confederacy to the oth- er, desolating the land, and tinging the waters of our own Missouri and of the mighty Mississippi with the blood of our countrymeu, to whom we are united by ties of a common country, common kindred, common hopes and common destiny.
Mr. President, I do not desire to live to see that day. I do not desire, sir, to live to see the time when we shall become denationalized, unchris- tianized and uncivilized, by the horrors of a civil war; nor do I believe that there is a single, solita- ry gentleman upon this floor, nor a gentleman in the State, who would desire to see such a result. The calamity which will be brought upon us in consequence of the inauguration of war by either section, is a fearful one, and the dictates of pa- triotism require us, as representatives of the sov- ereigns of Missouri to pursue in this Convention such a course as will best prevent that fearful calamity from taking place.
Now, sir, the next sentiment enunciated by this resolution as resulting from this state of things is this, that all hope of a peaceable adjustment of our troubles will be entirely and utterly extin- guished if this state of affairs should come upon the country. Why, sir, a man without hope, be- reft of that animating principle which impels him to action, with the future before him dark and dreary and blank, full of nothing but wretched- ness and woe, would be an object for the exercise of our profoundest pity and sympathy. In indi- vidual cases such a condition would be deplorable in the extreme ; but how much more so when ap- plied to a nation. A nation, sir, without hope, presents a spectacle which I will not contemplate, and a picture which I will not attempt to paint. How much more, then, does this hold true to a nation ! Sir, we are told in this resolution, not only that hope would be extinguished, but that it would be entirely extinguished; and not only that hope would be extinguished and entirely extin- guished, but that all hope would be entirely ex- tinguished! I believe that that sentiment is true — I do believe that all hope would be extin- guished.
Now, sir, how is it proposed to prevent these two great calamities from falling upon us ? Why, sir, Missouri, with a larger number of fighting men within her borders than any slaveholding State, sends out, through the original resolution, her voice of entreaty to the Federal Government and the seceding States, asking them to put back their swords in their scabbards, to dismantle their guns and keep the peace, while Missouri, in con- junction with the Border slave States, will at- tempt by every lawful and constitutional means to restore the Government back to what it was in temper and spirit in the time of our fathers, who made it. This, sir, is well, and I believe that the voice of the great State of Missouri, containing
within her borders one hundred and twenty thou- sand bold and valiant soldiers, ready and willing at all times and under all circumstances to do their duty in the cause of justice, truth and right —I believe, sir, that such a voice will be heard, especially so when Kentucky, the mother of Mis- souri, and Virginia, her grandmother, have added their united voices to the sentiments which are expressed in these resolutions. It is a step in the right direction, and if the amendment of my col- league had any degree of antagonism in it to the propositions contained in the fifth resolution, I should feel it to be my duty to oppose its adop- tion upon this floor. If, sir, that amendment de- stroyed the harmony of the resolution, marred its beauty or destroyed its principles, I, sir, would not be found here to-day advocating its passage, but would be found in my place asking this Con- vention to vote it down.
What, sir, does it propose ? It proposes, in ad- dition to entreating for peace, to send it out as an expression of the opinion of this Convention that, if our Federal head and the seceding States should disregard, spurn, contemn and despise the entreaty, and, like the war-horse, rush madly and blindly into battle, Missouri would not be engaged in the fight. That, sir, is the sentiment — that is the principle which I understand to be enunciated in the amendment. That Missouri would not be found in that contest either with her men or her money; that if she were in that contest, it would be as a pacificator endeavoring to part the combatants and put out the flame, instead of adding fuel to the fire. Gen- tlemen of the Convention, do you not believe that that is the sentiment of the people you repre- sent on this floor? I do.
I now, sir, desire to draw an argument in sup- port of the passage of this amendment from the Inaugural Address of President Lincoln. In that document is contained the following lan- guage :
"I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and laws, the Union is not broken, and to the extent I am able, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a sim- ple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary."
Now, sir, I deem it but an act of justice on my part to the President of the United States, here to declare in my place that I do not regard this Inau- gural as a war document. While it may proclaim in principle force, it disclaims utterly and entirely in my humble judgment war in practice. I be- lieve, sir, that it is a peace document; I cannot say, sir, how that Executive could have said much
79
less than he has said in that document. In the extrct to which I have called the attention of this Convention, there is a plain indication on the part of the President, inviting an expression from the people of the United States in regard to the polity that he should pursue in carrying out the theory which he declares. The President says that he will deem it to be his duty to execute the laws in all the States unless the requisite means are withheld by his masters— the American peo- ple. Now we compose, to say the least of it, Mr. President, apart of the American people. We have a right to speak and our voice ought at least to be heard if it is not considered. This resolu- tion proposes to speak to the President of the United States and impart to him this information that in the opinion of this Convention, if he does inaugurate war, Missouri will, so far she is con- cerned, withhold the requisite means to carry on that war.
I believe, sir, waiving the question which was raised yesterday by my friend from Rando lph, (Mr. Hall,) that it involves or implicates the doctrine of nullification — waiving that ques- tion, I state here in my place as a question of fact, that I believe that resolution announces precisely what will be the result in the event of this war taking place. Another reason, sir, and to my mind, a powerful reason for the adoption of the amendments offered by my friend, is found in the fact that in the Northern States there is a large body of sound and conservative men who have always been willing to discharge every constitutional obligation which has been imposed upon them. They have said to us in many of their State conventions that if war should be inaugurated by the Government of the United States against the seceded States, that they could not be found engaged in that war, either by their men or money. Now, sir, if these questions, which are agitating and troubling the country are ever to be brought to a solution, we must not refuse the hand which these gallant men are now extending; we must not repel them; we must do nothing upon this floor that would strike these gallant men down and place them completely and utterly in the power of their foes. Vote this amendment down and what will your friends across the river in Illinois, who have stood up in Convention and declared, as 1 am informed, and believe, sentiments as strong as those uttered in this amendment; how would that vote strike upon the ears of those friends, and in what con- dition would it place them? Shall they be told they have been repudiated by Missouri, certainly one of the largest States in the Confederacy, and more deeply interested in this question and the preservation of peace, than any other slave hold- ing State in the Union? I am opposed, sir, to placing them in that condition. It was not my design sir, nor my purpose, to proceed in this de-
bate without limitation. It has been my object to confine myself strictly to the proper subject before the Convention. I think I have done so, and have given the reasons which induced me to favor this amendment, I do not like the wording of the amendment, and that was one objection urged by my friend from Randolph. I would prefer some slight verbal changes, but I am willing to waive all these trifling objections, and expect to give it my vote.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. I indorse most cor- dially the views which have been presented by the gentlemen from Platte (Mr. Norton) and also by the gentleman from Clay, (Mr. Moss,) and I trust beiore I conclude my remarks I may claim their votes against this amendment. They have told the Convention, that when they could be made to believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clay was in conflict with the tenor, purpose and spirit of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations that they would be the first to vote against it. I claim, and de- mand that they shall act up to their pledge. What is the spirit and scope and meaning of the report of the Committee on Federal Rela- tions ? It is that in the opinion of that Com- mittee we should undertake to take care of the present. It is that we should pass no tensure on the past— that we shall make no pledge in ref- erence to the future, but that if we can take care of the difficulties which now surround us it will be as much as we shall be able to accomplish. We, therefore, sir, in the resolution which we have had the honor to present to this body, have declared what the gentleman from Clay and the gentleman from Platte admit to be true. We have declared that in our opinion the inauguration of civil war, either by the Federal Government or the government of the seceded States, would be destructive to the welfare of the American people, and therefore we appeal, therefore we entreat, and therefore we demand of the Federal Government, and the State governments, that they shall stay their hands.
Sir, as to the future we have not thought pro- per to speak; we know not what circumstances may surround us six months hence. What may be proper to-day, may be improper two weeks hence. We, therefore, have said, for the present and under existing circumstances, that we be- lieve our duty to be to preserve the peace of the country. The motives which impelled us to that conviction are manifest. We did not believe under the existing circumstances that it would be possible to execute the laws in the seceded States. You can only execute the laws of this country, under the Constitution, by civil process and by means of a civil tribunal. All the armies you can march on earth cannot, under the Con- stitution, execute the laws of the land. If you want to execute the laws in South Carolina, you
80
must have a judge, a marshal, and a grand jury- to indict, and a petit jury to convict. And while South Carolina is in her present condition, you can find no man in that State who will hold civil office under the Government; you can find no grand jury to indict men for violating the laws of the United States; nor a petit jury to convict men after they are indicted. And therefore, in the opinion of your Committee, it would be folly to undertake to execute the laws there. The Com- mittee believed that the true policy was to con- ciliate the people of those States, treat them with kindness, yield to their demands if necessary, and restore them to their former friendly relations to the Federal Government if possible; and then, and not till then, can you execute the laws of the United States.
And there is another consideration. We know, sir, that in the present state of excitement, any attempt to force civil officers upon the seceding States for the purpose of executing the laws, would meet with opposition — and not merely from the seceded States, but from every State in the Union to a greater or less degree. The very moment a hostile gun is fired in the seceding States, you will have civil war in every State of the Union, and destruction to the Government and to* our institutions will follow. Believing this, your Committee— friends of the Union— asked for peace. But the gentleman from Clay says we must go further than that — that we must not only, as patriots and friends of peace, beg the Government of the Union and the Government of these States to stay their arms, but that we must couple the demand with a threat, and that we must declare to that Government if it does undertake to embroil the country in civil war that we will not furnish men and means to carry it on. Stripped of its verbiage, what does it mean ? Nothing but this: That if the Federal Gov- ernment becomes involved in a war with the Governments of the seceding States, Missouri will secede from the Union. How do the peo- ple of Missouri furnish . means to the Federal Government? Why, the means of this Govern- ment are chiefly derived from the customs. *- The Government gets its money by collecting its duties at its Custom Houses. There is where the Federal Government derives its resources, and as long as the State of Missouri remains in connec- tion with the Federal Government, its duties will be collected from our citizens. But if we intend to carry out the threat contained in the proposi- tion of the gentleman from Clay, the first thing for us to do will be to secede from the Union and seize upon the Custom House of St. Louis. I am not willing to commit myself to any such posi- tion. I know not what I may be willing to do when that dire catastrophe shall come; but when civil war rages through the land, I want the people of Missouri to be free, to do just what
they believe their honor and their interest will re- quire. I want them hampered by no pledges and embarrassed by no action on our part; but I want the privilege left to them of doing what their honor and interest may demand. Suppose, sir, we should compromise the difficulties which are now dividing the country. Suppose the State of Georgia under such compromise should wish to return to the Union, and the Confederated Gov- ernment should undertake to coerce Georgia and keep her out of the Uniofi. Suppose the people of Georgia, placing themselves beneath the flag and upon the Constitution of theU. S., should ap- peal to the Federal Government for aid in secur- ing to them their Constitutional rights. The gen- tleman from Clay says we must fold our arms and look upon the struggle with indifference. — That may be so, sir; perhaps that will be the proper course to take, but I am not willing now to pledge myself to any such position. Suppose your Confederated States should undertake to block up the mouth of the Mississippi and im- pose such burdens on our commerce as would be an outrage upon us. Suppose our sisters, Ten- nessee, Kentucky, as well as Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, should demand of Federal Government that that great channel should be opened to us. Does the gentleman say that in a conflict such as that would produce, that we must fold our arms with indifference. I repeat, sir, that might be the proper policy, perhaps it will be the best policy, but I am not willing to bind myself to it until circumstances arise which will require us to do so. Now, sir, we have chosen to take care of the present; we have pro- vided in our report for an adjournment — so that, if any difficulties may hereafter arise, we may meet together, and then, with a full acquaintance of the circumstances, take such course as we may think proper. Let us not embarrass our future action as a peace-maker. Let us, in the language of Henry Clay, " send forth the olive branch, the harbinger of peace. We want no war, no civil strife, no collision commencing in South Caroli- na and ending God only knows where. We want no smoking ruins; we want no streams of Ameri- can blood shed by American hands ; but we do want to restore peace to a distracted country, con- cord to a divided Republic ; and we want, if pos- sible, to look once more upon the blessed spec- tacle of a united, happy and fraternal people." This is what the Committee on Federal Relations have sought to accomplish. All believe our resolu- tion tends to that end, and I believe the amend- ment of the gentleman from Clay tends to no- thing but mischief, and I therefore appeal to the friends of the Union to vote down the amend- ment.
Mr. Knott. In the few remarks I propose to submit upon the proposition before the Conven- tion, I shall endeavor to confine myself strictly
81
to the point under consideration. For one, sir, I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clay. Missouri occupies a posi- tion in relation to the other members of this Con- federacy, of a most peculiar character. Her citi- zens are those who have emigrated to her borders from every portion of the Union: some from the rocky hills of New England, some from the verdant valleys of Pennsylvania and New York, some from the Blue Mountains of the Old Domin- ion, some from the shades of the dark and bloody ground, and some from the broad savannahs of the sunny South. Her blood permeates the veins of every portion of the country, and if civil strife should raise its horrid head in our midst, espouse which side we may, some of us must in- evitably be forced into a position involving the dreadful neeessiiy of imbruing our hands in the life stream of our brethren. In view of this truth, I maintain it to be the duty of Missouri through her representatives on this floor, to raise her voice, a voice which the circumstances sur- rounding her should render more potent than any other, in the deliberations of our nation upon existing difficulties, in favor of the restora- tion of peace, and the preservation of the Union of these States, not only as the palladium of her own safety, but of the safety and prosperity of her sister States. That to effect this object, to stay the tide of revolution, and lure back her erring sisters to the great family of States from which they have wandered, she should not stand sim- ply as a trembling suppliant, imploring the other States to save her from ruin, but to say to every portion of the Confederacy, that while a disso- lution of the Federal Union would inevitably plunge her in the gulf of destruction, they too must go down in the terrible vortex. She should say to her sisters of the South, stay your mad ca- reer of revolution ; and to her sisters of the North, come and let us compromise our difficulties, and dwell together in eternal peace.' She should use every expedient that patriotism, humanity, and brotherly Jove can dictate, to remove forever the fruitful source of discord from our midst, and give back to the entire country the priceless boon of prosperity and peace. She should do all this, and more. Her highest and most sacred duty is the protection of her own citizens, who have ever been true to her interests, and loyal to her institu- tions; and when she discovers that all her noble efforts cannot aliay the distractions of the coun- try—when she sees that civil war is about to scat- ter, with its scorching breath, desolation and ruin al! over the country, like the simoon sweeps the deserts of Arabia, I hold that she should throw •round her own children the broad folds of her protecting mantle, and shield thorn from the pass- ing storm ; and when the hurricane of war shall have passe 1 away, let her collect again the scat- tered fragments of a once glorious Union, and
build a new and more enduring monument to lib- erty and peace. Such, sir, were the views which I frankly avowed in my circulars and speeches to the generous constituency that honored me with a seat on this floor; and I desire to represent them with all the fidelity with which I am capable. I, sir, was born upon Southern soil, and I may have inherited too much of the fervor usually attribut- ed to the people of that section of our country ; but I can conceive of nothing more revolting to the sentiments of humanity and religion which animate my bosom, than to be forced to that most horrible of all alternatives, fratricidal strife; and while I would consider it unjust and inhu- man to be compelled by the State of my adop- tion to imbrue my hands in the blood of my kin- dred, and those bound to me by all the ties of early friendship and association, I am not willing that any citizen of Missouri, whether he comes from a Northern or a Southern State, should ba placed in a like horrible predicament, when the State to which he has ever been loyal can save him from it.
By adopting this amendment, she promises that protection; and she does so with- out violating a single principle of loyalty to the Constitution of the General Government. She simply says to the seceding States, stay the hand of fratricidal strife, and to the General Gov- ernment do likewise; for while we discountenance a war to be inaugurated by the one, we will not lend our aid to subjugate and drive back the other to their allegiance.
It has been intimated that this amendment pledges the State to withhold her aid to the General Government in enforcing the law, but, sir, in my opinion, it does no such thing. It simply recognizes the difference between enfor- cing the law and making war upon a State, for while the Constitution of the United States gives the President power to do the one, it confers upon him no authority to do the other. The President of the United States is authorized and required by the Constitution to enforce the law. But how? Manifestly in the manner pointed out by the law, and not otherwise. When a law of the United States is violated, that violation must be ascer- tained by regular judicial proceedings, and when the sentence of the law has been formally pro- nounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, then if the execution of that judgment is resisted, and not till then can the President make bare the arm of military power for the enforcement. For instance, should an army of South Carolinians batter down the walls of Fort Sumpter, proceed- ing upon the hypothesis that South Carolina is still in the Union, the perpetrators of the deed would be guilty of treason. But will any one pretend that the President has power to punish that treason by sending an army to lay Charles- ton in ashes? No, sir, the guilty parties must bo
6
82
indicted by a Grand Jury, tried in a court of com- petent jurisdiction, sentenced and punished ac- cording to law; and should the execution of that sentence be resisted, the President would haAre the Constitutional power, and it would be his duty to use the military force at his disposal as a posse comitatvs to see that it was carried into effect. If this is not true, we live under a despotism of the worst possible description, a despotism in which the Chief Executive makes the law, admin- isters and executes it without the form of a trial. It would, therefore, be no violation of her fealty to the General Government for our State to withhold from the Executive of the nation the means of exercising an unconstitution- al power. Again, sir, it has been intimated that this amendment looks to secession, and pledges the State to withhold from the coffers of the Un- ion the custom to bo collected in our custom house, and if I thought so I should certainly oppose its adoption, for if I know a single pulsation of my heart, I know it is for the preservation of this Union, for upon that I know depends not on- ly all the prospects of my own State for future prosperity and happiness, but the prospects of all with whom she stands connected in this Con- federacy. But I cannot view it in that light. The State of Missouri, as a corporation, as a State, pays not one cent of duties collected in our cus- tom houses, nor does this amendment pledge her to deprive the General Government of anything that may be due to it from individuals. I can see no application in the cases assumed by the gentleman from Buchanan, whatever.
It has been frequently said on this floor, and just- ly said, that Missouri should occupy the position of mediator between the contending parlies. To that position I think, her peculiarly and admirably suited, under all the circumstances surrounding her, and for one I am anxious, and more thau anxious that she should do so; but when she un- dertakes this mediatorial office, I do not desire to see her assume the position of the vulture when called upon to arbitrate between the wolf and the lamb, and declare in the outset that she will be on the stronger side, for if anything is to be antici- pated from her office of pacificator it must be ef- fected by the strictest impartiality betwen the contending parties. There is nothing in this amendment inconsistent with the position Mis- souri holds in the Union, nor the tone and tenor of the report of the Committee on Federal Rela- tions. Let her, therefore, declare by its adoption that she desires no war, no bloodshed, but peace and compromise. Let her say to both sections of the country, let us bury our strifes, and again as a great brotherhood of empires go foward hand in hand in a career of prosperity and glory that shall challenge the admiration of all the nations of the earth in all time to come.
Mr. McFbrkan. The mateiial resolution re- ported by the committee declares that a peaceable solution of our difficulties requires that the Gene- ral Government, as well as the seceding States? refrain from a conflict. It says that a peaceable solution depends upon abstaining from a conflict, and the amendment says that the fate of Mis- souri d< pends upon it. I think therefore, sir, that this amendment docs materially propose to alter the original resolution, and therefore, sir, I am opposed to it. If the amendment is true, and an unfortunate collision should take place between the General Government and the sece- ding States, then Missouri will be at sea without rudder or compass. It is unwise, Mr. President, to underiake to deride an important question before it is necessary to do so. It is unwise to decide what should be done in a given case be- fore a contingency arises and all the facts and circumstances are known. I might easily, sir, imagine a case in which the seceding States might go to war with the Federal Government, and I might just as easily imagine a case why the General Government should go to war with the seceding States, and I might imagine a case when the State of Missouri would readily furnish her men in that war. For instance, sir, if the seceding States were to connect themselves with a foreign power, such as France or England, and make war upon the rights of the States of this Union, would not Missouri in a contingency like that, remaining in the Union, furnish her men? I therefore think it unwise to decide any question as important as this, until it is necessary to de- cide it. Again, can wo not safely leave this matter in the hands of the executive of a State, where the Constitution of the United States places it. I am aware that Missouri might assume a posi- tion of neutrality. Indeed that might be her true position, becau-e, sir, tin \er the Constitution of the United States, if the President calls on Missouri, the call has to be made on the executive of the State, and the executive may or may not respond affirmatively to that demand, afi cr a careful consideration of all the circum- stances that surround him at the time the demand is made. Hence I say there is ro necessity for this amendment. I deem it inexpedient and improper to decide a great matter here, before we know all the circumstances that may surround the case. Again, sir, I do not be- lieve that the fate of Missouri depends upon any conflict that is now threatened between the Gen- eral Government and the seceding States. Her interest and destiny rests mote upon a good un- derstanding and fraternal feeling between the States of the Mississippi Valley than any oth- er State of the Union. Missouri, sir, is em- phatically a Western Sta'e, and while .she remains on terms of peace with these Stiles of the Missis- sippi Valley her prosperity will not be materially
83
injured. Missouri ought to do everything in her power to preserve the old Union, with every star in its constellation. Yet, sir, I do not believe her fate depends upon any conflict that might ensue between the General Government and the seced- ing States. Again, I am not willing to place the General Government in the same position that we place the seceding States. We owe a duty to the Federal Government that we do not owe to the seceded States. Then, Mr. President, there is another reason why we should not pass this amendment : In the last four months Ave have beheld the politicians of this great nation threat- ening each other. We have beheld the great State of New York, in her Legislature, offering men and money to the Federal Government to coerce the seceded States. On the other hand, when these resolutions reached the Southern States, we have heard Kentucky and other Southern States declare that no Northern army shall ever cross their borders to coerce or engage in civil strife with any seceding Slate. This, Sir, is a melan- choly and deplorable condition for this great Government to be involved in. Many of the evils that now agitate the public mind exist but in threats upon abstract questions. The Govern- ment is threatened to be dissolved, and has been to the extent of seven States. I do not want this Convention, Sir, to engage in the business of threatening other States or the Federal Gov- ernment. I especially do not want it done until it is necessary so to do. The moral power of the State of Missouri will be great in the coun- cils of the nation, and that moral power depends upon the loyalty of the State to the Federal Con- stitution and Government that our fathers builded ; and if, Sir, we declare that we will not discharge our duties to the Federal Government, we at once destroy our moral power for good. Therefore, Sir, I am opposed to this amendment. It is un- necessary at the present time— it is out of place, and can do no good. It will destroy the moral power of our State in the great strife existing between the different sections of this Confederacy.
Mr. Shackelford of Howard. Representing as I do a consituency that has a large interest in the peculiar institution that has been the source n° all our troubles, I feel that I owe it to myself, as well as to them to state to this Convention the reasons why I shall vote against the amendment. Mr. President, when I see surrounding me gentle- men, perhaps from almost every State in this Confederacy, from the North and from the South, I feel that Missouri is properly entitled to the po- sition of mediator. Standing as I do upon my own native soil, I feel that I can raise a voice of warning to my fellow citizens who have chosen Missouri as the State of their adoption. When this resolution was read by my aged friend who is Chairman of this Committee, (Judge Gamble,)
I tell you that my j udgment gave it my approval, and my heart beat in solemn response to the prin- ciples therein laid down. Clearer and more dis- passionate deliberation has but confirmed me in my first impression. It is therefore due to the gen- tleman who has offered this amendment that I should state the reasons which will govern me in my vote here. I have no political record in the past I desire none in the future, sir. The lever which sometimes make politicians flutter, the question of calling the ayes and noes, has no terror for me. But, sir, in the consideration of this amendment it should be our design to discuss it alone on its merits. I come to this resolution, and I desire to discuss it on its merits. I desire, sir, to send forth my views in relation to the objects and pur- poses of this Convention. Gentlemen all agree, sir, that we should be for peace, that we should act as mediator. If we all agree as to that, then in the name of all that is good, in the name of our wives and children at home, shall we not act together here as a unit? Shall Ave differ merely about Avords ? No, sir. Let me tell you that the resolution as originally reported, to my mind, goes just as far as we ought to go. It. neither says more nor less than is necessary; and Avhile I might agree with the abstract proposition of any sentiment Avhich may be offered here, yet, sir, Avhen Ave look at the objects and purposes that Ave have to consider, Ave must perform our duties regardless of the consequencos, and Ave must not lose sight of the object for Avhich we aro assembled together. When I Avent before my con- stituents I told them I could not look forward into the future as to Avhat position I could or Avould take as circumstances might arise. I told them I could only judge of the circumstances as they might arise; but I told them all the powers and energies of my mind should be used to re- store fraternal feeling in this Union. Then the reason Avhy I object to that amendment is this : The language of "shall and shan't," wilt and Avon't," is not the language of peace. I am un- Avilling to say to any government, you shall and you shan't; and I am unwilling to say to our sis- ter Southern States and Southern friends, with Avhom my AA'holo sympathy lies, you shall and yon shan't. It is not the voice of bravery Avhich says you shall or you shan't. No, sir, it is a braA'c man that says, " this is my will, this is my opinion; if you violate or go contrary to my ex- press will, the consequences rest upon your own head." Then, it* our dearest rights arc to be in- A-aded by Northern fanatics, is it necessary for this ConArention to say to Missourians, you must do thus and so? No, sir; as a Mis- sourian I say it needs no A'oice of this Convention to tell me how I shall act. The promptings of my own heart, and the prompt- ings of the heart of every Missourian will tell him how to act, and he will act according to the
84
circumstances, and as his judgment shall dictate. Mr. President, this resolution breathes the spirit of peace. I favored this resolution because I felt it was pointing to peace. I felt, sir, it was actuated by that spirit of peace which ought to actuate and inflame every bosom. When He, who spake as man never spake, said to the ra- ging billows, "Peace, be still:" I would say, that the same spirit should govern and actuate the purposes and objects of this Convention. I would say, when the raging elements are surging around us, and passion, discord, and fury are the order of the day, in the language of Him, who controls the elements, " Peace, be still." I have no idea, sir, that I shall tie myself down to any proposi- tion, or plan of adjustment. I can only be gov- erned by present surroundings, and when I say that this or that may be a proper basis of adjustment, I do not tie myself down to it; but I say this — I am only willing to speak for the present. I confess I can see no further. I believe, sir, that our peace, and our harmony and fraternal Union, are not dependent upon the adoption of this or that measure; but I say to you, that if we will have a compromise we must first set our- selves right; we must discard passion, we must throw aside this spirit of recrimination, anger and passion, and get ourselves right, and then only can we see our wav clear, and then, and then only can we teach transgressors the way. Then, sir, I tell you, as one who believes that this is the only sentiment that will restore harmony in ©ur distracted country ; that when the people shall get together and consult about this matter; when the pure principles of Christianity shall predominate and overrule every heart; that when we shall meet our brethren of the North in Convention — I say then when these principles shall be uppermost, and we get together in Convention, they will be ready to concede more than we ask, and we shall be ready to take less than they will give. These being my sen- timents I am unwilling to mar the beauty of these resolutions. I am unwilling to vote for any re- solutions contrary to "our present mission." I am unwilling to give for;h threats as the lan- guage of peace. This is the sentiment I gave before my constituents. This is the sentiment they asked me to advocate before this body; and if I fail to do so, I shall not be discharging my duty. My constituents have more pecuniary interest, perhaps, than any district in the State in this matter, and they have said m language not to be misunderstood, "Peace, peace." I ex- pect that this will be my only political record ; but I say, sir, if dissolution and war shall come, and if by our efforts we cannot heal the discord in our country — then, I say, I am not willing to place myself in such an attitude that my children shall reproach me in after years, because I did not do
all I could to save them from the terrors, trials and struggles of civil war. But if peace shall reign, and my children shall stand under the ban- ner of our common country, as freemen, though they may be stripped of every vestige of pecunia- ry interest and reward in this world — even though stripped of every thing, I shall ever have the calm satisfaction of knowing that they stand there with clear heai-ts, honest hands, as freemen. Far bet- ter that they should stand thus, than that 'they should roll in the lap of luxury, as worshippers of mammon, slaves of avarice and contributing of their substance to the tyrant that rules over them. Then be this my only record— and I have the hope that it may be my only record — whereon my name shall stand, side by side with the many patriotic hearts that beat in this Convention in favor of these majority resolutions.
Mr. Henderson— Mr. President and gentle- men of the Convention : It really seems to me that since the beginning of the deliberations of this Convention, we have been disposed to mag- nify and to give an undue importance to many of the apparent difficulties of the present time- When we come to look at our condition it is not s o bad as at first blush we might anticipate. Five months ago, we all thought that we were the hap- piest people on earth. I care not what party a man may have belonged to, or what set of polit- ical principles he was attempting to establish upon the policy of the country, yet it must be ad- mitted that every man presumed that we had a Government the best that had been guaranteed to man, and that we enjoyed a prosperity never en- joyed by the people of any nation on the earth; and yet, by some strange delusion, by some unac- countable transformation of the human mind, we have come to the conclusion that we are just upon the ver^e of destruction. It is not so — not one word of it. There are loyal hearts in this country, from one end to the other, that beat steadily and responsive in their loyalty to that flag and the Con- stitution of our fathers ; and though for a short time party feeling may get the better of their judgment, though for a short time wild fanaticsim may take possession of the better feelings of the human heart, yet the day of peace and regenera- tion is at hand. I witnessed this thing once be- fore. I saw the very same States that have now seceded from Congress and from the Federal Gov- ernment secede from a Convention. I saw South Carolina secede. I then felt what must necessarily be the consequence. I saw Alabama leave, and Florida, and Mississippi, and Louisi- ana and Texas. I stood as I believed, the correct representative of the heart and feeling of my people. I said to them you may all secede, but I shall stand true to the State of Missouri. I let them go, and on returning I found that my State was unwilling to abandon me, and instead of so doing, stood true to the
85
principles of the Constitution, firm for the Union and true to the conservative platform laid down by the Democracy of the Nation. Not hav- ing been intimidated then, but having been sustained and supported by an honest yeoman- ry, the free people of this State, I can witness their departure again, feeling con- scious that nobody has been nurt except themselves. I would that they had never gone. I would that to-day a proper spirit and feeling animated their bosoms, that they might willingly and freely return back to the Union of our fath- ers. They must yet do it. Politicians of the Southern States— and I am going to talk plain- ly— the drunken demagogues of the present day, who unfortunately have possessed themselves of the power that ought to be in the hands of good and conservative men, have so far obtained the control in those States as to leave the people but little room for the expression of honest senti- ments. Those that are interested in the charac- ter and perpetuity of the Union are in danger if they make known their sentiments of loyalty. I had supposed that in the march of our Govern- ment, from its infancy on towards its decline, as other governments have declined before us, the day might come when a Marius or a Scylla might figure. I had supposed that when the nation should become degenera- ted and enfeebled by vice, in all probability there might bo an American Cataline, but I had not supposed that in the first eigh- ty years of our existence, a Yancey, with all the malignity of a Cataline, with a total dis- regard of all the blessings which now make us the happiest people on earth, would attempt to plunge the people into revolution, when the inev- itable result must, in the course of a few years — even though they depart in peace from us to- day— be utter ruin and destruction to that people. Is not this so? And yet some gentlemen, even in Missouri, hesitate to say that a man is a traitor, even after he has proven himself to be a traitor. Gentlemen are afraid to say what they really think about this matter : they are afraid of the people — of that people who are to-day as true to the Union and the Constitution as any living peo- ple upon earth. They seem to desire to engraft words of a certain meaning upon resolutions ; they hesitate about inarching up to the point that is now necessary to be reached to save the Govern- ment from ruin — and leave all in doubt and con- fusion. This will do us no good. This is no time for hesitancy. As some gentlemen refer to the political records, I say if I can make a record to save Missouri from impending ruin, I want no other record. No man in this proud State needs any other record than the record that he has con- tributed his mite to save us from the conse- quences that are now pressing upon us. New doctrines are being taught in the present day. A
robber in one of the Northern States, following out the bent of his mind, seizes upon my proper- ty, takes it and appropriates it to his own use, and deprives me of it. I go in pursuit of my property, and meet a band of free negroes and contemptible white men who are associated toge- ther for the purpose of carrying out the original design of the robber and of depriving me of the use of my property. All these things occur, but as a remedy for it we are taught the new doc- trine that all law must be repealed. Is that the true doctrine ? Is our government to be preserved by a doctrine of that character? Surely not. I was once taught, and I yet believe it, that when the law is defective, when its execution is not properly enforced, we can make the law more stringent and provide better remedies for its true and proper enforcement. That is the true doe- trine of the government, and when we depart from it ten thousand difncuLies will environ Missouri and this Union, consecrated by the wis- dom of an illustrious ancestry. Tell me not they made such a government — tell me not this is a new doctrine that is now being taught — tell me not that we owe our preservation so far and our prosperity, to the idea that we are thirty- four independent people, and not one people. It was supposed, when our institutions were found- ed, that in union there was strength. It was sup- posed that in union there was power to enforce the decrees of an honest judiciary. It was sup- posed, in the establishment of our Government that it would be perpetual, that it was to last not only to bless those who made it, but to bless fu- ture generations, and to open the door in our Gov- ernment, and make it the asylum of the op- pressed in all lands. But, as the great remedy for existing evils, the great remedy which is now advanced, is secession! Is this doctrine true? Some gentlemen are afraid of the people of Mis- souri. I am not. From my place here to-day I declare this doctrine of secession to be a dam- nable heresy! That expression is strong; but I declare my honest sentiments, and I am will- ing to trust an honest people to stand true to this declaration. It was never designed by our forefathers as a remedy for anything. It is but the destraction of the Government, un- fortunately, and this must be accomplished, only to establish the fact that there is a spirit of insubordination and reckless folly— a spir- it that disregards law and order— now prevail- ing from the Northern regions of our Republic to those of the South; a spirit that seems to delight in setting at defiance all that can tend to give us peace and prosperity, and we are looking upon that spirit of reckless disregard of law as a remedy for existing evils, and debating whether to plunge into this reckless disregard ourselves and offset one wrong against another. Is that the true doctrine ? So long as we practice
86
upon that — so long as we acknowledge it to be a truth in the government of the country, then the very evils we complain of impose upon us the necessity of revolution in order to redress our wrongs. What are our complaints? We com- plain that the fugiiive slave law has been violat- ed in the Northern States, and if we once admit the doctrine of secession to be time, then as an offset to an ordinance of secession, what is there to prevent the Northern States from at once pass- ing laws that no slave owner shall recapture slaves? And this is a remedy, not for any evil, but to plunge hastily into a movement without looking at the conse- quences that must flow from such a course. The people of Missouri expect us to act with- out fear. They expect an honest declaration of principles that will meet their views. What is the condition of our country? Seven stars of the constellation have shot madly from their or- bits. What is the duty of Missouri? This is an important, a very important consideration, and when we look at the Constitution and the design of our institutions, there is but one answer left in the patriotic heart; there can be but one. I am told that they have gone to secure their rights in slave property. Having been brought up as a Democrat of the strictest sect, I too might have been led into this delusion, if I had not had an opportunity to know better. They never left this confederacy — I mean the politicians who have governed and controlled this movement — on ac- count of any fear whatever as to their rights in negro property. It is a false idea of commercial greatness. They have, since 1832, inculcated a doctrine that a tariff upon imports is a mere bur- den upon exports; that their cities have languish- ed under the revenue laws of the Government; that their fields have become barren under the op- pressions and exactions of an unjust Government. The merchant of Charleston to-day, candidly and sincerely believes, in case his government can be established, that South Carolina can be separated from the Federal Union, Charles- ton in the course of ten years will become a New York. The merchants of Savannah have the same opinion, the merchants of Mobile and the merchants of New Orleans have the same opinibn, and unfortunately I must say this delusion of the day is entertained by some of the merchants of the West. The great city of St. Louis to-day owes its greatness and prosperity alone to the Union. But this delusion has seized upon some men of sense in Missouri and in the city of St. Louis, and they have come to the con- clusion that in case a Southern Confederacy is formed, Missouri must go with it and St. Louis will thereby become the great city upon this continent. This delusion upon the minds of some men of the South has caused this unfortunate state of affairs. But there is another thin? and
it is this : — in that country there are designing men, men who, in their estimation, have not been properly regarded with public favor in this country; men who have sought under the binding obligation of allegiance to oath-bound leagues, to go and take Cuba and subject its wealth to their rapacity; men who have formed or- ganizations year after year, to go in the spirit of Cortez and Pizarro, and sieze upon the wealth of Central American States, and to carry on a war of pillage upon the com- merce and wealth of their people. Thcro is a vast degree of feeling of that character, and these things combined with the idea that has been gravely inculcated on the Southern mind for a number of years, that the Government of the Union is oppressive: all these things have driven that people into a total disregard of their own interest and into that which must inevitably produce their ruin. This work has been done regardless of the consequences. The excuse that has been given for this movement is that which finds sympathy with the people of Missouri. We are left to believe that it is the fear of the great sectional and dominant party that has driven them to take this extraordinary step. Thousands of the very best Southern citizens have been driven out of the Union under the belief that the triumph of this sectional party was the real cause of their being thus driven out. Designing demagogues and politicians who to-day would rob them, if they could only conceal their plunder — and in the course of a few years they will be able to do it under the present state of affairs — have brought about this thing, and by and by they will be as secure as the soothsayers of Rome, who, when they met each other, winked and laughed at the delusions practised in an unsuspecting peo- ple. This is the present condition of things in the Southern States, and we arc called upon to follow them. The question, Mr. President, is whether Ave will recognize this as a constitution- al right. I came here already sworn to support the Constitution of my country, and after I came I again renewed that fidelity and placed my hand upon the book and swore again that I would support it ; and now, sir, I am ready to say that that instrument is the best instrument ever devised for the government of man. Sir, having been born in fidelity to it — having thus far enjoyed prosperity under it, such as I could not have enjoyed under any other government on earth — having thus far been protected in my rights, person and property— I love that govern- ment; I love its flag that has protected me and mine. I look forward with renewed hope to the brilliant prospects in the fu- ture, when I look to the hallowed as- associations of the past ; and I now again renew my faith in the good of my country, and no act of mine, from this day on, shall ever tend to
87
dissolve the union of Missouri with the Fed- eral Government. My mind has been made tip. I intend, sir, so tar as I am concerned, that every right shall bo guaranteed our Southern friends, and that every right shall be guaran- tied our Northern frends, and everything that can be done shall be done upon my part to restore alienated feeling and bring back once more those erring sisters that have gone off' in madness into the path of their own destruci ion. And, sir, looking at the best interests of Missouri — looking at my own fealty to the Constitution, I can never consent to follow.
Let us stand true. Do you want them back with you? Yes, says every man. How are you going to get them? By passing ordinances of secession — by passing anything that looks to their encouragement and support? Mr. Presi- dent, no. There are two sides to this question. I detest the action of the Northern States that have passed laws interfering with the execution of the Fugitive Slave law; and, sir, to remedy that I would have passed by the next Congress a law by which every right of a citizen of the South shall be guaranteed to him. I would so amend that law that when a mob in the Northern Slates undertook to interfere with the execution of it, a penalty would be imposed such as would effectually prevent such interfe- rence.
Mr. Welch. If the gentleman from Pike will give way, I will make a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Henderson. I will give way.
Convention then adjourned till 2 p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Convention re- assembled at 2 o'clock.
The Chair. The gentleman from Pike has the floor.
Mr. Henderson. Mr. President, inasmuch as the Convention is not at present full, and there will be a constant movement in the lobby as well as the house, caused by persons coming in, I move that the Convention take a recess until the noise has somewhat subsided— say fifteen min- utes. Motion agreed to.
After recess, Mr. Henderson took the floor and spoke as follows :
Mr. President : At the time of the adjourn- ment of the Convention, after having addressed myself to secession as a legal and Constitutional right, not as a revolutionary right, I was proceed- ing to speak in regard to what I thought was at the bottom of the difficulties of the present day; and now, lest I may be misunderstood upon this subject, I desire to say that all that I have said in reference to secession, has been said in reference to it as a legal right, and claimed to be a peacea- ble right under the terms of the Federal Consti- tution. I do not desire to be misunderstood, and
desire especially to apply the right terms, so that there can be no misunderstanding on the part of the people of the State of Missouri in refer- ence to the action of this Convention.
If secession be true, and if there be any gen- tleman upon the floor of this Convention who ap- peals to it as a peaceable and successful remedy for the redress of the evils under our system and form of government, I would like to hear the argument in favor of it. I have under all circum- stances given a patient hearing to every argu- ment addressed to me on this subject; and although I am not disposed to announce myself here, iu the language of some gentlemen, as a base submissionist, I have talked so far only about a legal and consiitutional right. Nothing else have I spoken of so far. Would it not be well for the people of Missouri, as a matter of principle upon this occasion, to adopt no line of policy, to make no declaration whatever, that may be used in the future as an estoppel against her lights. If it is expected of me that iu voting upon this floor I shall enforce a doctrine that may in the future be flaunted in my face when I am claiming a right at the hands of the Federal Government, it will be expected in vain.
If secession be true, what objection have you to the proceedings of the Hartford Convention? No man who held a seat upon the floor of that Convention is to-day willing to let his name be known before the American people. If secession be true, why were not the people of those States exclusively engaged in commercial pursuits, whose property, Avhose wealth, whose prosperity depended not upon the establishment of embar- goes upon their commerce— but depended exclu- sively upon the open navigation of the seas and speedy termination of a war that was ruining their best interests— tell me, if this doctrine be true, why they were not right, in consulting their interests, and meeting together upon the floor of that Convention with the view to separate them- selves from the Federal Government?
Is it not wrorthy, then, the consideration of Mis- sourians that we adopt nothing as a principle that may conflict with our interests in the future, or that may be used, even by the demagogue, for the ultimate extermination of the liberties of this country. Sir, under the Constitution, which is the chart of my liberty and yours, the power to declare war has been delegated to Congress; but if the doctrine of secession, as a peaceable remedy, be true, Congress may declare wTar, and in the midst of hostilities with the combined powers of Europe, I understand that any State in the American Union, looking forward to its own exclusive in- terests, to the utter overthrow of the interest of every other State of the Union, has a right to -vithdraw itself from the Federal Union, and leave the burden of war upon its brothers. Not
88
only so, hut they have the right to say, and that peaceably, too, although Congress possesses the power to levy taxes necessary to its continuance, or the payment of the debt that may be contracted thereby, that they will not share with their sister States in the payment of an honest obligation. Sir, if this doctrine be true, one-half of the States in the midst of a desolating war with Europe may withdraw from the American Confederacy, and leave the remaining States to be subjugated by the hand of power. Is this so? Is it not necessary that we should look to such a result as possible, and perhaps probable, in the future?
But a few days ago I noticed an article in a London paper announcing to the American people that the treaty of Paris would not be re- spected according to its obvious import and meaning in regard to the blockade of ports, be- cause of the fact that it would militate against the interest of Great Britain and France; and that, although Great Britain, with the States of America united, would be compelled to respect in the proper spirit treaties made, yet when our Government was shattered and torn to atoms, they were under no obligations to respect the technical wording of a treaty to their own lasting injury. It may be well for the members of this Convention— it may be well for the people of Missouri — to look to this thing, and adopt no principle that in the future maybe argued against our own rights.
Congress possesses the power to levy impost duties ; but, sir, if this right be a peaceable and constitutional right, any State of the Union may consult its own whims, or its own cupidity, in withdrawing from the American Union — any State may open its ports to the commerce of the world, and carry on a contraband trade against the interests of the remaining States. If this doc- trine be true, that Fugitive Slave Law which has been passed for the protection of Southern inter- ests, may be set at defiance by any Northern State, and the people of Missouri dare not, after having adopted secession as a remedy, complain against the contrary views of their Northern neighbors. Then, is it not the highest duty of the people of this State to look well to every de- claration of principle thattfiey may lay down in this Convention?
But, aside from it as a Constitutional question, I propose, sir, to examine it as a question of ex- pediency and propriety on the part of the people of this State. "What is the difficulty now exist- ing? It is, as I am told, the insecurity of slave property. Is that true ? Then do you propose that this Mississippi river, that rolls by your city, shall become the boundary line between Missouri and the Northern Confederacy, in order to pro- tect slave property? Can this be urged wirh any degree of reason ? I am told by gentlemen, and some of them in high quarters, (even the Govern-
or of the State of Missouri, in my presence, the other evening, so said,) that treaties may secure, and will secure, that which country, good neigh- borhood, respect for the Constitution and laws of the land, that which common interest and com- mon destiny will not grant to the people of the State.
How close are the ties that bind England and America. There is a common parentage — there is a common and mutual interest. There is eve- rything based upon commercial relations or good neighborhood between two countries, to justify us in exacting from Great Britain the recognition to us of every right. Tell me, then, why it is that the fugiiive slave in Canada is now secure. Why tlon't these gentlemen make treaties with Great Britain? Why is it, with our interests tied to- gether as they are, that England, dependant as she is, in the language of our Southern sisters who have seceded, upon King Cotton, has never yet granted, and never will grant, the rendition of a fugitive slave? Standing upon the old doc- trine of her statesmen and her poets, that when- ever a man touches her consecrated soil his shack- les fall, and he stands forth redeemed, regener- ated and disenthralled, she tells the nations of the world that that is her only ultimatum in regard to questions of this character— that no matter how long a man may have been a slave — no matter how intimate the relations between Great Britian and the country from which the man has come, yet when he touches her conse- crated soil, he becomes free as his master. Is it true that it would be better to separate from our Northern friends, and erect a Southern Confede- racy, and look to the protection of England, France and Russia, for those rights that are de- nied to us in this happy Government of ours ? Is that true ? If so, let me ask you, one moment, as to the probabilities, if you please, of securing trea- ties that will acomplish the ends that you design to acomplish. Are these men so hostile to slave- ry— are they so much arrayed in feeling and in principle against the institutions of the State of Missouri, that even now, with every inducement leading thereto, they will not render to us that which belongs to us? If so, wdien once j-ou have dissolved the ties between the North and the South— (can any be dearer between independent nations than those which bind together England and America?) — can you expect to secure by a treaty a right that is now denied? I say no. Every gentleman upon this floor will say to himself that it is an utter impossibility that such a treaty can be made.
Again, is this the only question that is likely to arise between independent nations? Why, sir, the very moment that the separation is once effected, all those causes that have heretofore divided, and brought on hostile collis- ion between the adjacent States will of course ex-
89
sit between the people of the North and South. Tiie very elements of our present prosperity will prove to be our destruction. This mag- nificent river, rising in the lakes of the North, its waters passing between the Northern and Southern soil, and emptying itself in the great ocean South of us, that eanics the commerce of the Union upon its bosom— the Ohio river that floats the commerce of many of the wealthiest and most powerful States — these two streams of themselves are sufficient to bring on hostile collisions between the inde- pendent republics that will end in the destruction of one or the other. Although this separation may be peaceable, (and God grant, if it is to come, that it may be peaceable, and all that I can do shall be devoted to that end,) you may avoid war for the first year or two, yet no man can close his eyes to the fact that war of the most direful character will soon spring up, and that war will not be terminated until every material and social interest of this country has been buried beneath its ravages. It is inevitable. Com- mercial questions, the making of treaties, all of the contracts that must necessarily exist between independent republics, must exist between these, and if we find occasion, upon the interpretation of words in a treaty, to go to war with foreign na- tions, why is it not likely that the same state of things will be brought on between the different portions of this now happy country?
It may do for the gentlemen not interested in this species of property to tell me, as they have told me, that my property is more secure within fifteen hundred yards of the soil of an independ- ent republic, but I believe it not. I do not believe that men who are interested in property of this character would believe it; and though I must listen to an argument of this sort, though I am giving ear to it, I never can give credence to it, and never can I be convinced of the propriety of it until it has been tried and demonstrated by experience to be the true and correct doctrine upon the subject.
But we are told that property is insecure in this countiy. Just one word in regard to that, if you phase. I am willing to admit, and I do admit, and not only do I admit, but I now take occasion to say, that, for many years, in the Northern States, a dangerous feeling has been growing up antagonistic to the institutions of the South. The Republican party has been supported by men who have enunciated heresies dangerous to the rights of the South, and the Republican party must get rid of that class of men. They must divest themselves of them forever and ever, or else, in my honest judgment, if their views are carried out, we may not be asked to resort to secession as a constitutional remedy, but may be compelled to resort to the more dangerous doc- trine of revolution.
I am not afraid, sir, to announce the proposi- tion that, if the doctrines of Wendell Phillips and Lloyd Garrison are to be the doctrines of this country, and the slave population of the Southern States should be turned loose by Federal en- actments, I do not hesitate to say, nor I do suppose the people of the State of Missouri would hesitate a moment to say, that in that case it would be better to resort to the revolu- tionary right — the last resort of injured man — and right themselves at the point or the bayo- net.
But, unfortunately, Mr. President, we find the extremes to meet. Garrison and Wendell Phil- lips are upon the same platform with Rhett and Yancey. They all claim that secession is a nsht; while Garrison and Phillips say they rejoice that secession has taken place because it is the death-knell of slavery in this country. The only difference between them is, that Yancey and Rhett say they have resorted to it for the protection of slavery. They agree upon the means, though they differ as to the re- sults to flow from the doctrine. Sir, the Repub- lican party have announced in their platforms doctrines that they must not and cannot stand to. They must leave them. They have upon many occasions announced doctrines that, in the legis- lation of the country, they do not propose to stand to.
Whilst I am upon this part of my subject, per- mit me to make one other remark. We are here for the purpose of reconciling conflicting inter- ests. We are here for the purpose of telling the truth. We are here for the purpose of calling up the wrongs of all sections of the country, and applying the remedy to redress them, if we possibly can. Are we guilty of no wrong ? Have we, as Southern men, done nothing that was wrong, and do we come before the American peo- ple to say that all the sectionalism is in the North, and the South has never been guilty of anything that conflicts with or militates against the general good of the country?
I am aware, sir, judging by what has been done heretofore, that from the utterances that I have made to-day, and will yet make, some gen- tlemen will be pleased to call me a Black Repub- lican. Mr. President, I never yet have cast a vote for a man claiming to be a Republican ; and unless their views upon this slavery question shall be changed, so that they are no longer the party of the present day, I expect never to cast a vote for one. But, sir, I have my rights in this country, and if the Republican party arc Union men, all I can say is that I will not abandon the Union because they cling to it. No, sir; that is not my policy, and I do not in- tend to adopt it.
At Charleston, my remembrance is, as I stated this morning, that I took a position that was in-
90
dorsed by the people of Missouri; and what was it? It was that the institution of slavery, not- withstanding Federal laws of an unconstitutional character, will go into Territories where the soil and climate invite it; that the Territories of the American Union ought to he thrown open to settlement by Northern and Southern men, that all might go there and slave proper- ty be recognised under the Constitution, until they themselves should agree to exclude it, finding it to be unprofitable under sui*rounding circumstances. Why, now, shall I abandon that doctrine? Have not the people of the State of Missouri indorsed it? But it was alleged there that a great sectional party in this country was about to get the reins of Government, and as an offset to that party another great sectional party must be built up in the Southern States. One party claimed, wrongfully, as I think, that the Federal Government ought to exclude slavery from the Territories. Another party took the ground that slavery must bz protected by the Federal Government. Upon that issue— a com- promise between extremes— wo went be "ore the people of the State of Missouri, and the' people indorsed our course, and in the election of dele- gates to this Convention they have once more in- dorsed it. They have indorsed the proposition that so long as the policy of the Government should be in accordance with the platform there adopted, they arc satisfied to remain in this Con- federacy.
But another proposition suggests itself to me. There was another party in the State of Missouri, and I refer to these things in order to see how far the public mind has been driven from the position it occupied four or five months ago. In view of the disruption of the Democratic party at Charles- ton and Baltimore, I understand that the Ameri- can party, as it was called, anticipated that some difficulty might arise in the affairs of the Govern- ment, that some obstacle would be presented to the enforcement of the laws, and they met to- gether at Baltimore, and decided what? That they were in favor of the Union, the Constitution and the enforcement of the laws. Where now is that American party? Does it j^et live? That party that cast about an equal number of votes with the Douglas men in the State?
Are they yet true and firm to the platform upon which they fought the canvass of last November? If so, I wish to know whether they can, upon tin's occasion, back out from the position they assum- ed, and which was inculcated upon the honest yeomanry of the country ? I apprehend not. Sec- tionalism has taken possession of this country. That is the true theory of the anticipated diffi- culties now before us. It is not from wrongs that we are now suffering, is it? Surely not. As I understand it, the Democratic party and the American party of this country, but a few years
ago, when in the majority in the Government adopted the doctrine contained in the compro- mise measures of 1850, in regard to the Territor- ial questions. It is true, that the Republican party, during their canvass, advocated the right and duty of the Government to exclude slavery from the Territories. So soon as they come into poAver, however, they pass three territorial bills abjuring their own doctrine, and coming up to the doctrine laid down by Henry Clay in 1850 — the same doctrine that was incor- porated in the Kansas-Nebraska measure — leav- ing the people in the Territories to settle this difficult question for themselves. There is not to- day a single law upon the statute books of the Federal Government denying the right of a citi- zen to enter into any territory belonging to the Union. Then there is not a real grievance upon that question, but the anticipated grievance that may hereafter come.
Since the present Congress has met, and in fact since the secession of a portion of the Southern States, if I am not incorrectly informed upon the subject, a proposition has been adopted by North- ern States, by a majority of Republican members of both Houses of Congress, by which an amend- ment is to be engrafted upon the Federal Consti- tution, to the effect that that instrument shall never be so amended as to permit Congress to in- terfere with the institution of slavery in any State without the consent of every State in the Union. If that be so, it is now in our power at least to close this difficult question for ever and ever. Then let our southern sisters come back into the Union. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, yea, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine, and even Vermont, will vote for the proposition, and let amity and that concord and that spirit of conciliation and harmony once more reign in this government that has been unnecessarily destroyed of late.
Now, Mr. President, one word in regard to this report and I am done. I am aware that men of all parties are in this Convention. It becomes our duty, sir, to do something to remove the apparent fears of the people. So far as I am concerned, I have no fear whatever that the dogmas of the Abolition party will ever find a place upon the statute books of this country. Never, sir, never! If it be their design to make the white and black races of this country equal, why, let me ask, are they not placed upon an equality in Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire, to-day? Why is it, where they have the power, that they do not put the negro upon an equality with the white man? We all know that it is not so. My impression is, and I give it merely as my impression, that tho combination of conservative Republicans, with the extreme and radical Abolition- ists, has upon the present occasion worked
91
out all the effects and consequences that it was ever intended to do. The object and design was to put out of power one party and put into power another. Parties are often radi- cal in the acquisition of power: but when they come to administer the government, they wilJ moderate their desires, and act not unlike Mr. Filinorc, when he was appealed to by his friends to know whether he had not abandoned his views upon the negro question, when he said that the Fugitive Slave Law should be executed in the streets of Boston — though they ran red with hu- man blood — and he ansAvered that whilst he an- nounced different opinions, he was a member of Congress from the Buffalo District, but he was now in power as President of the United States, and had sworn to support the Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof, and that was all the answer he had to giA-e.
Sir, parties may be extreme in their vieAvs in the acquisition of poAvcr, but in the administra- tion of it they have to obey a written charter of right; they have to confine themselves Avithin the limits of the law, and when that is the case Ave need haA-c no fears AvhateArer.
Again, gentlemen are often too prone to apply the terms, Republicans and secessionists. I haA'e heard them rung from one end of the State to the other. I have heard much said about that subject; and the man Avho talks about compro- mise, sometimes is denounced readily as a Black Republican. When I hear that term applied to men Avho are thus desirous of compromising our unfortunate difficulties, it is but an indication to me that the party using the term has secession proclivities. You may rely upon it, because it is essential for men who are in faAror of compro- mise, to plant themselves on a platform upon which all present difficulties can be adjusted, and this, of course, is in direct opposition to the pol- icy of the secessionists.
Mr. President, I Avas a member of the Commit tee who drew up this report. I Avent upon the committee determined to do everything within my power to bring about a state of feeling in this Convention, and before the people of the State, that would forever and ever put a quietus upon this thing of seces- sion or reA-olution for our present ills; and in doing so, it is necessarily the case that some- thing has gone into that report that has not my approval or cordial co-operation. I apprehend that, out of thirteen men who composed that committee, there is not a single member Avho gives his concurrence to e\Tcry line and every letter and every feature of the report. I have no idea of that, nor Can I for a moment imagine that you can find two members of the Conven- tion, to-day, AA'ho, if left to themselves, would have used the exact language of the report. But, Mr. President, I understand that we came
here for the purpose of restoring peace and quiet to the country, and, if possible, arresting the progress of thi i rcA-olution that must inevi- tably engulf us all in ruin unless it be speed- ily checked. Then, sir, I desired that that report should enunciate no doctrine in conflict Avith the Constitution of the country— that it should enun- ciate no principle that may hereafter estop the people of Missouri from claiming their just rights in this Confederacy; that nothing inimical to the Union of these States should appear in it, aud I feel satisfied that such is the case. I regret ex- ceedingly that it Avas thought fit by any gentle- man to undertake an amendment to it. I will state one circumstance in connection with the action of the Committee, in order to show the great reason on the part of members of this ConAremion Avhy avc should, if Ave can, A^ote for the report as it is. TI13 Committee of Thirteen adopted a resolution Avhich stool adopted to the satisfaction of every member of the committee for at least two days, when it Avas discovered that the peculiar Avordiag of the resolution contained an implication of the right of secession. It Avas then thought proper to amend it, and it was amended. An amendment to the resolutions Avhich are noAv before you may b3 offered, and read by the Clerk, and at first blush every man may think it is perfectly right, and in accordance with his OAAm views; but, sir, upon proper reflec- tion, it may even appear to the mind of the mover himself that it Avould be extremely dangerous to adopt it. And so in regard to this report; it seems to me that it is so avcII worded and exe- cuted in every respect as to admit of no amend- ment Avithout lessening its merits and injuring its harmony. If Ave can adopt the report as it is, I should be extremely glad.
Sir, Ave oavo a duty to ourselves and to the country at large. I see that Virginia has refused the very proposition offered by my friend from Clay, [Mr. Moss] and I regret exceedingly that so good a Union man as he is should haA-e thought fit to offer an amendment which, in my honest opinion, destroys the Avhole harmony and beauty of that report, if it possesses any. I ex- tremely regret that any apparent ultimatum should be attempted to be laid down by the people of Missouri on this occasion. I re. gret that the declaration should be made by Mis- souri, that her fate is dependent upon the non-en- forcement of the laAArs of this country. Sir, Avhy the necessity of such a declaration? We desire that existing difficulties should be settled. We have said that Missouri is opposed to an attempt on the part of the Federal Government to coerce the seceding States into submission. And here let me say one word further. Has it ever been supposed, by any member of this ConA'ention, that any man could be elected President of the United States Avho could so far disregard his duties under
92
the Constitution and forget the obligation of his oath as to undertake the subju- gation of the Southern States by military force ? Will the abstract principle of the enforce- ment of the laws ever be carried by the Presi- dent of the United States under existing circum- stances to the extent of military subjugation? If so, then you might as well declare that this Government is at an end. Will you tell me whether,, in your opinion, Mr. Lincoln will send down Don Quixottes into the Southern States to go around amongst the people with military power at their command and subjugate them or redress wrongs amongst them? Cer- tainly not. My understanding is that before you can enforce a law you must have an adjudication upon it; that the process must be put in the hands of the marshal or other officer charged with executing it. Then, if violence be interposed, of course it is the right and duty of the Federal Executive to see that the decrees of the courts are enforced. But is there any gentleman now afraid of anything of that sort in the seceding Slates ? I apprehend not. I understand there is no Federal Courts there. I understand there arc no Federal officers to execute the law; and he who dreams that this government was made or intended to subjugate any one of the States, dreams certainly against the spirit, against the intent, and against the whole scope of our institutions. But some gentlemen may say, it requires no adjudication to enforce the revenue laws, and it will be Mr. Lincoln's duty to send amongst the South- ern people Collectors of ports, in order to collect the revenue. One word in regard to that. Is there now a law of Congress, (I confess I am not familiar with the laws of Congress suffi- ciently to speak with certainty upon this subject, but I appeal to gentlemen in this Convention, whose duty it has been to examine them,) under which Abraham Lincoln can even collect the rev- enues at the Southern ports ? As I understand it, the revenues must be collected within the ports at the custom house; and if that be true, the Feder- al officers having resigned, the Federal Executive has no more p ^wer to use force than either you or I. Then why this extreme desire to express upon the part of Missouri a design that under no circum- stances will she lend means or money to the en- forcement of the laws by the Federal Govern- ment. I desire to give no encouragement to the Northern fanatics in the commission of wrongs upon the people of this State. I desire to give no encouragement to those men in the south who have seen fit either to nullify or set at defiance the laws of Congress — who, in my honest judg- ment have violated the great principle of constitu- tional law, and who, if they persist in their course, must bring ruin upon us.
I desire that our differences shall be compro- mised, and although there are gentlemen upon the
floor of this Convention who are unwilling to vote for the Crittendon Compromise, I appeal to them as Union men, inasmuch as, if slavery is permit- ted to go into the territories north of the line of 36 :30, it will yet not go there, being prevented in my judgment by climate, soil and production. If it is permitted South of that line, and the Fed- eral Government be pledged to protect it, gentle- men in this Convention will not surely do vio- lence to their feelings or their party attach- ments in assenting to this position, and putting themselves on the same basis of compromise with the border States. If the interests of the people South of that line demand it, let it go. Sir, it is necessary that those States should remain in the Union. It is necessary for the peace and quiet, and welfare of the people of this great na- tion, for all future time, that this unnatural rev- olution should be arrested, and time be given to the people in the North and in the South, to free themselves from the influence of demagogues and to shake off the shackles that have been placed upon them, and rise above party maligni- ty and party feeling, and again adjust all differ- ences as our forefathers adjusted them in the for- mation of the Constitution. There is a way un- der that instrument to remedy every evil. Are you yet satisfied of the incapacity of man to govern himself? Are you yet satisfied that this idea laid down by an illustrious ancestry is all a delusion and a cheat? I trust, Mr. Presi- dent, the members of this Convention are not disposed to abandon that great bulwark of hu- man liberty — the right, the power and capacity of the people for self-government. If there be any grievances in the South, the}r will be reme- died by the patriotic legions of the North. If there be any grievances in the North, we can guarantee that the patriotic legions of the South will come to their rescue and redress them. Then let us talk as patriots, and not as partisans.
Sir, there are periods in the history of every nation when every man should be willing to sink the partisan in the patriot* I know that I have been a partisan, perhaps of the straightest sect; but, sir, I now come before the representatives of a happy people — I come before the freemen of Missouri, who owe all that we are worth upon earth to that Union that our fathers made — I come before them and say that, for the time be- ing, I care not what may have been the antece- dents of any man, I am willing to bury the weapons of party strife, and do all that I can to preserve this Union. I am interested in slave property in Missouri. I am interested in land property and other species of property,and let me say to you that, in all candor as a man, I this day would most freely and wil- lingly lay upon the altar of my country every dollar that I am possessed of upon this earth in order to be satisfied that my country is safe. I,
93
sir, in the spirit of love for the institutions of America— in the spirit of devotion and attach- ment to that flag that has given honored protec- tion and character to the American citizen in every land and on every sea— would gladly lay down all that I have, and start anew in the world, could I thereby preserve the Union and perpetu- ate the best hopes of man.
The Chair. The question will be on the adop- tion of the amendment of the gentleman from Clay.
Mr. Henderson. Mr. President, I rise to a privileged question. My attention has been called to an article which appeared in the Sunday Herald. I will read it.
The Convention Printing.— The Convention's Committee on Printing appears to have assumed that the Republican office is the only printing es- tablishment in St. Louis, for we do not hear that it asked for Lids from other offices, or even applied to others to have the Convention Printing done. The Committee accepted Geo. Knapp & Co.'s proposi- tion at once, and reported it to the Convention, as though Geo. Knapp & Co. ought by right to have the job, without giving others even a chance for it. We had some difficulty to-day in procuring a copy of the Committee on Federal Relations, because it had to be hurried off to the Republican office to be offi- cially printed. Through the courtesy of the Secre- tary, however, we managed to be able to lay it before our readers.— [Evening N*W§;
"We take occasion to add to the above by saying that the Chairman of the Convention, Hon. Sterling Price, did not place Hon. John Henderson on the Committee on Printing, because Mr. Lowe, the Sec- retary of the Convention, informed him that Mr. Henderson did not desire the position ; yet, at the same time, Mr. Henderson assures us that he felt rather nettled at the slight, he not having authorized any such statement. We learn that the committee as appointed decided that the printing should be done by the /-republican, before they had a meeting.
I regret, sir, that any allusion whatever of this character, calculated to produce the impression, either upon the Honorable President of the Con- vention or the Secretary, that any action on their part, in any manner whatever, at any time during the sitting of this Convention, "nettled" me. I will state that the resolution spoken of in the article was originally offered by Dr. Linton, and drawn in my handwriting. Your Honor had placed me on two important committees, and I really did not desire the position. It may be that the gentleman who penned this article supposed, from the conversa- tion he had with me, that I did feci so "nettled." I may state that the question was asked, if it was not extraordinary that the President should ap- point another gentleman than the mover of the resolution as Chairman. I answered distinctly that I supposed he did it with a due regard to the other duties that he had imposed upon me. And, sir, I desired not to be Chairman of the committee. I recollect that the
Secretary wanted the printing done immediately.
' Dr. Linton was not in his seat, and so he request-
I ed me to present the resolution. The Secretary
! had the greatest reason in the world to believe
: that I did not desire to be on the committee.
| With this explanation I will dismiss the subject.
Mr. Ritchey offered the following amendment
to the amendment : Amend by striking out the
word "fate" and substitute "prosperity" there-
'. for.
[For the better understanding of the amend- ment, we reproduce the original amendment in- troduced by Mr. Moss :]
Amend the fifth resolution by adding, "and '• further believing that the fate of Missouri de- pends upon the peaceable adjustment of our : present difficulties, she will never countenance or ! aid a seceding State in making war on the Gen- j oral Government, nor will she furnish men and I money for the purpose of aiding the General i Government in any attempt to coerce a seceding I State."
The amendment to the amendment was lost. Mr. Ritchey further proposed to amend by adding, after the word "never," "while she stays in the Union."
Mr. Ritchey . In regard to this word "never,"
that is used in the amendment, it strikes me that
it continues a long time. I do not know that the
amendment of the gentleman from Clay will be
j adopted by this Convention, but if it should be,
| it strikes me that Missouri ties herself up for a
! good while. I, sir, have no idea that we will ever
j have to secede. I hope we never will; but there
! is a point where forbearance ceases to be a vir-
j tue— we may reach that point some time; our
I forefathers did; and if such a circumstance
| should ever come about, I feel, sir, that it is the
I duty of Missouri to place herself in a condition
i that she will not be tied up always. As I said
before, I do not know that the amendment of the
gentleman from Clay will be adopted, but if it
should be adopted, I prefer mine to go with ir.
The question being put on the amendment to the amendment, it was lost.
Mr. Douglass offered the following substitute for the amendment :
And entertaining these views, we hereby declare that Missouri will not countenance or aid a seced- ing Stato in making war on the Federal Govern- ment; nor will she countenance or aid the Gener- al Government in any attempt to coerce the sece- ding States by military force.
Mr, Douglass— I call for the ayes and nays on this substitute.
Mr. Birch— May I be informed of the effect of the adoption of the substitute?
The Chair— It will then take the place only of the amendment.
The substitute of Mr. Douglass was then re- jected, by the following vote :
94
Aves— Birch, Chenault, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Hough, Irwin, Knott, Marmaduke, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Ray, Redd, Sayre, Shack- elford, of Howard, Shackleford, of St. Louis, Watkins, Mr. President — 25.
Noes— Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bus-h, Calhoun, Cayce, Comingo, Crawford, Fitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall, of Buchanan, Harbin, Henderson, Hendricks, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Hud- gins, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Lecpcr, Linton, Long, Marvin, Matson, Maupin- McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFcrran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Orr, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ritchey, Rowland, Sawyer, Scott, Sheeley, Smith, of Linn, Smith, of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman — G8.
Absent— Collier, Hall, of Randolph, Pipkin, Ross, Welch, Wilson.
Mr. Howell offered the following amendment to the amendment pending :
Strikeout the word " fate" and insert the word " welfare" in the place thereof; also, strike out the word ''never" and insert the word "not" therefor.
Mr. Howell made a few remarks in support of his amendment, saying he desired that Mis- souri should not be tied in regard to her action in the future.
Mr. Stewakt declared himself in favor of the report as it came from the Committee on Federal Relations. He took strong grounds against seces- sion, and denounced it as a political heresy. Tho proper way for Missouri to redress her grievan- ces, was to stay in the Union. While he could not but acknowledge the abstract right of a Govern- ment to resort to coercion in enforcing its laws, still he regarded its exercise as inexpedient and productive of civil war, should the Federal Gov- ernment attempt to coerce the seceding States. It would be suicidal for Missouri to secede. A man might have the moral power and the phy- sical power to take his life, yet he would hardly commit the act provided no good would come from it. He held that Missouri could have her rights better protected in the Union than out of the Union, and concluded by paying an eloquent tribute to the stars and stripes.
Pending the consideration of Mr. Howell's amendment, a motion was made to adjourn, which was canied.
ELEVENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 13th, 1861.
Met at 10 o'clock.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
Journal read and approved.
Mr. Hudgixs. Mr. President —
Mr. Howell. Will tho gentleman give way for a moment and allow me to make a personal explanation.
Mr. Hudgins. I will do so.
Mr. Howell. I wish to remark that I was not well comprehended by the reporter last even- ing, in the explanation I gave of the amendment I offered to the amendment of the gentleman from Clay. I desire to remark here, that I am opposed to the secession of Missouri. I am opposed to any revolutionary action of Missouri under the j existing circumstances or under circumstan- ! ccs that we may reasonably anticipate in I the future. While I occupy this position, and was elected by my people upon this posi- tion, I protest against committing Missouri, in j all time to come, to passive obedience under all and every circumstance that may transpire. I am willing to vote that Missouri is now opposed to furnishing men and money, under existing I circumstances, or under the circumstances that I hope we may reasonably anticipate, to aid the Seceding States in any belligerent efforts toward the General Government. I am equally, sir, op- posed to any action by the General Government, with reference to coercing by military force, or otherwise, the Seceded States, or any State, back into obedience to that Government, If we de- clare that we are opposed for all time to come, to Missouri taking any action under any or all circumstances, in opposition to the General Government, I desire to be as limitless in re- ference to coercion against the States who are now acting as they may coneieve in vindication of their rights. If this Govvernment can be pre- served it will have to be by compromise and by additional guarantees to the rights of the slave- holding States.
Mr. Moss. With the permission of my friend from Andrew, (Mr. Hudgins,) I rise for the pur- pose of accepting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Monroe. In doing so I am not disposed to be arbitrary in a matter of this sort to my friends who advocate this amend- ment, and I am not disposed to prolong the debate of this Convention in reference to a mere play upon words. This amendment proposes to substitute "not" for the word "never," and "welfare" for "fate." Now, I do not think that materially changes my amend- ment, while I think my position in offering tho
95
amendment, just as it is, with the word "fate" in place of "welfare," &c. I, therefore, for the pur- pose of shortening the debate and gratifying some of my Mends, accept the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Monroe.
Mr. Hudgins. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention : I hope that it will be the pleasure of this Convention to hear me this morning, calmly and dispassionately, and to allow me the privilege of following the example of those who have preceded me in the discussion of this question, to debate to some extent the whole question submitted in the resolutions of the Committee on Federal Relations. I had as well, I presume, and better, 60 far as time is concerned, say what I have to say this morning, while I am up, if I may be indulged in doing so. But little, if anything, has been said from my district. I hail from that portion of country that is surrounded almost by free States — Kansas within five miles of my residence, aud Iowa within fifty miles, You might suppose, from my po.-i!ion, that I would be better prepared to go further North, even in pursuit of Sir John Frank- lin, among the icebergs of the cold regions, than other gentlemen who have preceded me.
The question, gentlemen of the Convention, that we have under consideration, is a very im- portant one. I indorse much that has been said by all the speakers that have addressed us upon this subject. We cannot estimate too highly the worth of the American Union. Missouri has a right to be heard, and she will be felt in the set- tlement of this controversy. Her appeals will not be disregarded by the North or by the South. We are not — as instructed by the resolutions that are before us this morning from the Committee on Federal Relations — we arc not ready now. to dissolve our connection with the General Govern- ment. Missouxi, of all the States in this Union, has the greatest interest in the perpetuity of the Government of these United States.
Cur position is such that we should use more effor; s and more exertions and be more conserva- tive and compromising than any other State; and hence, to use a common phrase, we should hasten leisurely upon a subject of so much importance. If we connect ourselves with a Southern Republic, we lo-e our central position and we become a border State at the extreme end of that Repub- lic, and our position will be unfavorable, as we have intimated in the report before us. If we connect ourselves— if a dissolution should take place, and this Government should be destroyed, and we should take our posh ion with the North- ern Republic, we should then have an unenviable position. We should then be a border State in that Republic, and we would necessarily have, if the other remaining States should withdraw from the Union, the remainining slave States, as a matter of course our constitution would have to
undergo a change, and a very important change. Of course, then, everything is to be gained by compromising. Our interest is, if possible, to stand as other gentlemen have been pleas- ed to say, between the North and the South.
Our position is to be a conservative position. We can take a position for compromise, such as will leave the integrity and honor of our people untarnished and uncompromised, and thereby reinstate the old Union and settle all difficulties, so that the Stars and Stripes of our country may once more wave over a united and happy people— North, South, East and West. We can do more, in my judgment, to accomplish this, and we can take less in the compromise, than any other State. The very thought of dis- solving the Union, the very thought of our not being American citizens — that the flag that has passed over all the sedi in the civilized world, is to be taken down, and this country, with all its privileges, all its advantages, civil and religious, to be blotted out— it would be like the sun dying in the heavens and the stars falling from their places. But we have been told by one of the gentlemen who addressed us on yesterday, the gentleman from Pike, (Mr. Henderson,) that there was no danger, that the probability of a dissolu- tion of the Union was not true, that our institu- tions were not imperilled at the present time to any great extent. Would to God that I could indorse that sentiment. I would be gratified to- day if I could feel that it was true— if I could feel that in the future toil and labor might be able to accomplish that result. This Government, with its Constitution, with its privileges, is too dear for us to contemplate surrendering. Its pillars were laid by our Revolutionary sires, baptised in their tears and prayers, and cemented in their blood. May Heaven forbid we should ever surrender it or give it up. The voices from the tombs of those who fought for our liberties, those who bled and obtained those privileges, rise up and speak to us as American citizens, as sons of that noble ancestry, and are saying: Save the coun- try; dash not that cup of so many millions of blessings, in a moment of passion and excite- ment, from your lips.
I am not surprised, Mr. President and gentle- men of the Convention, at the vast concourso of intelligent and respectable citizens, male and fe- male, that crowd from day to day this hall. We never can consent — the American people never will willingly consent — to give up all these privi- leges; and while our country is imperilled, while we feel there is danger, while anxiety hangs upon every countenance, and while every spark of in- telligence is looked forward to with the greatest interest, and while this is the condition of things it is not surprising that so many should collect themselves together iu order to hear what may be said. The people of the State,whom wo
96
now represent in this^Convention, feel a lively in- terest, and look for some action that -will stay the further destruction of the Government and bring back, if possible, those States that have With- drawn. I envy not that cold heart that is capa- ble of looking back to the past, and of observing the privileges which the American citizens have enjoyed with indifference. I envy not that heart that could look to a distracted country, as this now is, and has been for months, without feelings of emotion and feelings of dread. If the hand is not stayed — if passion is not controlled — if rea- son does not resume its throne, we may read our history and our fate in the history of the past.— We have but only to look at the ancient governments, and see what has been their fate. We have only to look to Rome, who once gave the laws and controlled the civilized world. She is in ruins now. We have only to look to that nation that received their laws from God himself, and which have been trodden down for two thousand years — who were driven from the temple and scattered to the four quarters of the earth, and are now a by-word among all nations of the earth. If we destroy this Govern- ment; if our Constitution is destroyed and our flag is abandoned; if these States are to be divi- ded and subdivided and this Union is to be dis- solved, we need not expect a better fate than the Jews.
So far, gentlemen of the Convention, as I am concerned myself, this question would not press me so hard; I would not feel its power, I would not sink under its weight. I have enjoyed the blessings of the best Government and the purest that has ever been enjoyed by men. I have had its rich blessings for fifty years; I have enjoyed them long enough to have them taken from me; and were I consigned to a prison I ought not to complain. Thirty years ago, as a youth, I passed through your city, seeking a home in the distant West. I have toiled, as members of this Con- vention know, from that time until the present. Destroy this Government, and all my labors are gone, nnd I am as poor as I was when I passed through this city, thirty years ago. But this is not all. If these shall be swept from me, and I consigned to a prison the remainder of my days, it is not the worst side of the picture. I feel for the rising generation; my sympathies are for my homo and family ; and my desire is to leave to them the privileges I had Avhen a child — to leave to them a country with all its privileges — leave to them a government that can protect them. To be unable to do this would be pain- fid indeed. Hence I come here with feelings, gentlemen of the Convention, strong for the preservation of this Union. So far as my State is concerned, so far as the interest of my children is concerned, and so far as the desire I have thai fu- ture generations shall enjoy the privileges I have
enjoyed, I desire the preservation of this Union, and I desire that while time rolls on, and rolls on, this country shall become more happy, this Gov- ernment more prosperous. So far as these de- sires are concerned, they burn in my bosom, and I apprehend they burn in the bosom of every member of this Convention, and of every indi- vidual of this large assembly.
I do not believe it is necessary for such a test as to have men again renew their pledges and at- tachments to a country like ours. I cannot real- ize how an American citizen can ever forget its honor and integrity. I cannot imagine a heart so cold and corrupt as to desire the destruction of our Government. I envy no man such feclimrs, and I presume none have that feeling that would desire this Government destroyed. Our Commit- tee have traced the causes that have led to our present position ; they have told us that a party has grown up in the Northern States ; that they have been engaged for years in operations against the South; that they pointed out the means they have been using for twenty, thirty and forty years, in endeavoring to overthrow the institu- tions of the slaveholding States, and in the lan- guage of the President of the United States, that the irrepressible conflict had commenced; that this Government could not exist part slave and part free; that it must all be one or all the other, and that slavery must be confined to the States where it exists and the public mind, the Northern mind, must be, satisfied that it is in a condition for rapid extinction. This sentiment is the summing up. This is the text that has become the fundamental doe- trine of that party that has grown up in opposi- tion to slavery. They pretend that their con- sciences, under the delusion of religious opinions, and the prostitution of the sacred desk and of the common schools, and of the famity circle, have been misled and misdirected by designing indi- viduals until they now pretend that their con- sciences render it necessary that they should in- terfere with slavery in the States. They do not remember that the Constitution of the United States authorizes it; they seem to forget that t}m laws of this State, for which they arc not respon- sible, and they seem to forget the glorious volume of inspiration which sanctions it. They had as well deny that the Bible sanctions the relation of husband and wife, parent and child, as that of master and servant. Their consciences are misguided and misdirected altogether, and if I had the command of the missionary socie- ties I would send missionaries, by thousands, to the Northern States, in order to teach their ministers and those who have de- parted from the correct rules, to attend to their own institutions, attend to their own system of slavery, and attend to their own business, and let the institutions of other States alone. Mis-
97
souri is not responsible for the trouble that now exists in the Government. She is not responsible for Northern fanaticism on the sub- ject of slavery. She is not responsible for the withdrawing from the Union of seven States, and she is not responsible for the excitement in other slave States in this Union. She is not responsi- ble for the institution of slavery. Her action in the future and her conduct hereafter may make her responsible. Tho stand that she takes in this Convention and the course she now pursues is one of importance, and her action, as I remarked before, will be looked to with great interest. We should not forget, while we consider this subject, that when the compact was entered into under our Constitution, that there were twelve slave and one free State that ratified the Constitu- tion of the United States. These twelve States went into this compact and framed the Constitu- tion for the South and the slaveholding States. Many of them were patriots who fought for our liberties. There were many of them, who en- gaged in making this Constitution and establish- ing slavery in these States, fresh from the battle- fields where they had aided in burying patriots that fought and fell on American soil.
They have left this Constitution, gentlemen of the Convention, and now Northern fanaticism has arisen and the question has presented itself to the slave holding States of the Union, are we willing to submit ? are we willing that those sires of ours, that all their sacrifice and toil — are we willing that it shall be said that this Constitution that has been handed down to us by our sires, that this Constitution is "a covenant with death and a league with hell," because slavery was sanctioned ? Are we willing to have this reproach heaped upon us ? Are we willing that slave holders shall be called harsh names of villain, wretch, &c, and submit to all this ? Is it not right that we should feel a desire to maintain the honor of a sovereign State, its Constitution and laws? Is American liberty short of this ? Is it not our duty, gentle- men ot the Convention, to have a reverence and respect for those institutions that were handed down to us from those pure patriots and states- men whose love of country was not doubted and could not be questioned? Have the sons of that noble ancestry and of those noble sires, have they degenerated so that they are willing to become submissionists, so that Northern fan- aticism shall rale, govern and control our insti- tutions? I love my country, I love its honor, Constitution and laws, and I love its institutions ; but with all these I cannot sacrifice its honor, and I could not make myself a submissionist for a moment. It would be unmaking me, and I should have to be re-created with less feelings of resentment than even the vilest creature. Even the reptile that crawls upon the earth when you put your foot upon it will resent the action. In
expressing my feelings upon this subject permit me to say that I have no sympathy with the blind zeal and fanaticism of the North, and I hold they have no right to say anything about the institutions of other States. They are no more responsible, as the report says, for slavery in the slave States, than they are for its existence in other countries ; they have enough to do to at- attend to slavery at home. I rejoice that the slave States have never been charged with med- dling with the institutions of the non-slaveholding States. While this report states that the slave States have passed laws that have been uncon- stitutional, I thank God, I remember that these laws have not been against our Northern breth- ren ; they have not been calculated to deprive them of their rights of property or honor. They have affected our own citizens, and they have been errors of legislation without intention of wrong or our design to injure any one. The laws of which we complain are the laws which have been passed against the Federal Govern- ment, against the rights of the Southern States, against the rights of the slaveholders, and we have the right to complain of these laws. It is making a wrong impression to say that all the States have passed unconstitutional laws. After this compact had been entered into, and when it was entered into by these thirteen States, it was never thought for a moment that the Constitution was to protect a majority against the minority. Mas- sachusetts would never have gone into the compact if an intimation had been made the twelve States would seek to force slavery upon them and change their Constitution. The slave States have been content that the in- stitutions of the free States should remain unmo- lested, and they have not sought to change them or make any inroads upon their Constitution or laws. We find, gentlemen of the Convention, that seven States — some say they have seceded, others call it rebellion, others disunion, others that they have withdrawn — while the President of the United States, denies that they have, or that they are out of the Union— I care not what you call it— it matters not so far as the interest of Missouri is concerned whether it is disunion, whether it is rebellion, yet they have repealed the resolution that ratified the Constitution of the United States, and as far as legislation is con- cerned, as far as the acts of their people can go upon a question of this sort, they have said we withdraw ourselves from all privileges under the Constitution of the United States. I do not be- lieve that the Constitution of the United States authorizes a State to secede, to rebel or withdraw. I do not say that secession is constitutional. I do not believe it, as a lawyer, that any provision is made in the Constitution for a State to secede, or withdraw, or dissolve its connection with the General Government.
98
No one will contend that this right is guaran- teed by the Constitution of the United States. I understand, gentlemen of the Convention, that the power of this Government is in the people; that the people have transferred or delegated to them a certain portion of that power in the State Legislature, in making sovereign States. They act as their agents. I understand these sovereign States have transferred certain powers to the General Government. I understand that what- ever is not expressed in the Constitution, what- ever power is not given, remains among the peo- ple as their reserved rights. In order to ascertain what power the sovereign people have dele- gated, we will examine and see what rights they have conferred upon parties authorized to act in general convention, and whatever is not express- ed there and implied in that instrument, of right belongs to the people themselves. There is a principle retained by the people — there is a prin- ciple that is retained by all nations — there is a right which they have, as was declared by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, that whenever a government becomes oppres- sive they may throw it off by revolution. They may say we have delegated these powers. We supposed it was for our good and common interest when we went into this compact, but we have found out it is oppressive and not to be borne ; and in the language then used by those who signed the declaration of independence, we have the right to throw it off. It is not a right under the Constitution, but it is a right with us retained by the people themselves. It is not del- egated, and it was never intended to confer their rights as a sovereign people; it was never in- tended to give up all of their authority, and make a Government that they never could get rid of. I take the position, then, that the Constitu- tion of the United States gives no right to any Southern State to withdraw, or to secede, or to have the right of rebellion. But there is a moral question in this : Has a State the right, or have seven States, or, as we see before us now, have they the right, or had they the right, morally, to throw off this Government, to relin- quish all its honors or privileges, and aban- don them all ? I am not willing, gentlemen of the Convention, to deal in epithets such as traitor or villain in regard to the Southern people. I can look back, and in the language of an individual leaving his country, I can say to the Southern people — I can say, with all your faults I love you still. I desire, gentlemen of the Convention, to see these States reunited, if possible, but I know the Southern people, and while you tell me and this Convention that it will not do to threaten the North, I tell you it will not do to threaten the South, either. If they are ever to come under the flag of our country again, it is not by force, threats or abuse — not by the epithet of traitor, tory or
villain. I take it that when a Convention of Mis- souri, that has been elected by your people who have debated this question at home — who have debated it in their country school houses and court houses, and all through the country, and when they have debated this question in their fam- ilies, and in every relation that they sustain to- ward each other — and when we assemble here fresh from that people — should not our action be respected by South Carolina, Massachusetts and other States in the Union ? I should be greatly mortified if the name of traitor should be used to those who take a part in this Convention, and those who believe certain things should be done, and certain things maintained. What I ask from other States I am willing to mete out to others myself. I know the feeling of the peo- ple of the Southern States. I know how they view the election of a sectional President, who maintains that slavery must be put in a course of ultimate extinction. I know they look with a great deal of apprehension and fear. I believe in their courage and fidelity to their country. When they called their statesmen together they debated this question well and freely, and went into the debates and consultation in regard to this great question of severing themselves from the country, and when they gravely decided to dp this, and I concede to this people that they have done what they think is for their interest — for the interest of the old, the middle aged, the rising generation, and the generation to come — I do not believe the leading men there are traitors—not at all; I believe they act from principle, and aithougn they may have been misguided I believe they act from a principle that animated their bosoms, howev- er wrong it might be, for their children and their children's children. I am willing to let them give their reasons ; I am willing to hear their reasons. They say to the Northern people that our reason for thus acting and throwing off this Government, is, that you have increased your numbers until you have elected a sectional Presi- dent, and one that has declared doctrines that will overthrow our institutions and ruin us. Our wells will be poisoned and the lives of our citizens will be imperilled, and our dwellings be destroyed by incendiaries urged on by North- ern fanatics, and sent into this country with the works of death and destruction in their hands. They say to the Northern people, when our fathers went into this compact with you, when they signed this article, when they indorsed the Constitution, slavery was then in our State Constitutions, and you knew it when you went into a compact with us ; you covenanted with us and we with you, and we held the rights of States and citizens of States, and that they should be preserved. You went into a covenant with us that whenever slaves escaped, you would return them. They say now we have four hundred
99
thousand millions of slave property and are yet called thieves, robbers and villains by you be- cause we own property that we inherited from our revolutionary sires, and under the Constitution that they made and that we are bound to protect. They say to us, you entered into this compact as partners with us ; that you have passed laws in your legislatures making it difficult for us to get our slaves. You have passed laws to impris- on us in some instances, and while we love the Constitution and the country, yet we love our institutions, and as we find there is no hope of their being protected, we have taken this step, and thrown off the Government, and will you let us go in peace. We want no bloodshed. We want our institutions, and we will give up the Government with all its powers, or, as a last resort, Ave will attempt to throw it off. Will you permit us to do it ?
Permit me to read an extract from an address delivered by John Quincy Adams, before the 1ST. York Historical Society, in 1839, at the jubilee of the Constitution. His language is this :
"Nations acknowledge no judge between them on earth and their governments, from necessity, must, in their intercourse with each other, decide when the failure of party to a contract to perform its obliga- tions absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfill- ment of his own. But this lust of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independence of States, connected together by the immediate action of the people, of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them onlv under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of heaven.
"Several sovereign and independent States may unite themselves by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect State. They will together constitute a Federal Republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraints on the exercise of it. in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."— [ Vattel's Law of Nations, book 1, chap. 1.
Also the following from a speech by Webster : "I do not hesitate to say and repeat that if the Northern States refuse willfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides.'' Gentlemen of the Convention, I give you their reasons. When they are brought back— and permit me to fay that I do not stand here as an apologist for them, but I am willing their rea- sons should be given— they are our brethren, and we maybe reunited again; but when they are brought back, it is to be on fair and honor- able terms. And Missouri, if she expects to reach the Southern States in this matter— and
that is one of her objects— if she expects to reach them, she will have to reach them like patriots. The resolution before you is objected to by many individuals, because they understand there are threats in it; that whatever you may say about the South, however much you may talk about treason in the South and traitors, that no breath of censure must go to the North ! If Missouri is to settle this matter, she must go with Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina, and what have they said? What is the course these Border States have declared on this very subject in the resolution now under consideration? I desire to read for a moment the resolution passed in Kentucky, that you may see the tone of that State and what they regard as the true position for a Southern State to take in order to settle this matter. I read from the resolutions recently passed by the Kentucky Legislature.
"Resolved, That this General Assembly has heard with profound regret of the resolutions re- cently adopted by the States of New York, Ohio, Maine, and Massachusetts, tendering men and money to the President of the United States, to be used in coercing certain sovereign States of the South into obedience to the Federal Govern- ment.
"Resolved, That this GeneralAssembly receives the action of the Legislatures of New York, Ohio, Maine and Massachusetts, as the indication of a purpose upon the part of the people of those States to further complicate existing difficulties, by forcing the people of the South to the extrem- ity of submission or resistance ; and so regarding it, the Governor of the State of Kentucky is here- by requested to inform the Executives of the States of New York, Ohio, Maine, and Massachu- setts, that it is the opinion of this General Assem- bly that whenever the authorities of those States si all send armed forces to the South for the pur- pose indicated in said resolutions, the people of Kentucky, uniting with their brethren of the South, will, as one man, resist such invasion of' the soil of the South at all hazards and to the last extremity."
They not only say that they will not help coerce the Southern States, but they say if the Northern States send men for that purpose, that Kentucky will join the South, and resist to the last extrem- ity any such attempt. Yet one of the orators in this Convention, if he had been in the Kentucky Legislature, would have said: "Do not use that language ; you will insult the Abolitionists of the North, and all hope of settlement is gone." Ken- tucky was bold enough, and had nerve enough to meet such a question as this. Although she did not approve of the course of the South, she declared, with but six dissenting voices in her Legislature, that she was opposed to any policy or any attempt that might be made to coerce these States. She declared that she would make
100
common eatise with the South, and resist to the last extremity. A heresy in this Convention then, is the proposition or a declaration that if coercion is attempted, we will not aid ; and this is said to be an insult to the Northern States. It is said, if it is passed, the Northern States will be offended, and that no compromise can be made. Are we acting with the Border States ? Are toe taking the bold position that they are sueing for compromise? If we vote down the resolution, we say by voting it down, (taking the language that has been used upon this floor — the substance of it,) that we will furnish men and money. There are two sides to this question. One is that we will not furnish men and money; but, if we vote this resolution down, we say that we will furnish men and money, and are ready so to do. Without under- taking at present to determine, gentlemen of the Convention, whether the General Government has the right to coerce the Southern States, under the Constitution, a question that I intend yet to discuss before the close of my remarks — but, be- fore taking it up, I propose to inquire for a mo- ment whether, if the General Government has the right, it should be exercised towards these States. Five millions of people have taken a position that they have a right to throw off this Government, and have gone out of the United States. I will not debate the question whether they have suc- ceeded, or whether they will succeed or not, but I desire to inquire whether Missouri believes, as in- timated by two or three members on this floor, that it would be right to coerce these States ? Think for a moment of an army marching upon the States in order to bring them into subjection. Let a Northern army invade the Southern States, let them start from Ohio or New York, go down and attempt to bring those States into subjection. They may lay waste their cities, they may destroy their people, they may succeed in battle, they may subjugate the country and destroy the inhabi- tants, but tell me, then, if the Union is sustained; tell me, then, if those who are left to tell the news will love the Northern States, after they have been scourged, and after the rivers have run with the blood of their kindred? Tell me how long the earth will revolve on its axis, or time roll on, till the Southern people will forget the outrages of the Northern armies ? The mother will take her children to the grave of their father, and tell them that he was shot down while he was maintaining his rights against Northern fanatics : "Here lies his grave." The grandchil- dren and the great grandchildren would be brought to it, and for ages their descendants would be told that their ancestor was slain in defense of his country; and while time rolled on, thousands of years would not drive from their hearts the outra- ges and injuries inflicted upon their sires. Never, never, can these States be brought back by the
power of the sword. No such madness was ever advocated. I cannot believe that a man would for one moment advocate the marching of an army upon the North or the South, when such an attempt would dissolve this Union beyond the power of reconstruction. As a distinguished son of Illinois has said: "When an army is marched into these States, and when blood is shed, the sun of American liberty will set forever behind a sea of blood, and will rise no more."
If the Convention will indulge me one moment I will read one sentence upon this very subject, from the Governor of Virginia, and I desire to read it in connection with what I have said. — Speaking in reference to the propositions from New York and Ohio, he said :
"This I understand to be a declaration of their readiness and willingness to sacrifice the men and money of that State, in the effort to coerce the slaveholding States to submission to Federal au- thority. The Governor and Legislature of New York ought to know that the sword has never re- conciled differences of opinion. Military coercion can never perpetuate the existence of this Union. When the affections of the people are withdrawn from the Government, an attempt at coercion can have no other effect than to exasperate the people threatened to be coerced. Blood, shed in civil strife, can only enrich the soil that must speedily produce "a harvest of woe."
Whether the Government of the United States has the power or not to coerce under the Constitu- tion, I apprehend there is but one feeling, and there ought to be but one in this Convention, and that is, that that power ought not, and, in the language of Kentucky and Virginia and other slaveholding States, must not be resorted to. When an effort is made, all efforts to reunite the Government — all efforts for peace are at once gone. Gentlemen of the Convention, the resolution that is furnished by the Committee on Federal Rela- tions opposes coercion, and the amendment now under consideration says that we will not furnish men or money for that purpose. We have looked at the effect of this question, and the ultimate destruction, beyond redemption, if coercion is attempted. But we should not as a Convention say that we will not furnish men or money if the Constitution of the United States authorizes the General Government to coerce a defaulting or seceding State. We should not pass this resolu- tion when the resolution itself would be uncon- stitutional, and this brings us to the question, has the General Government the power under the Constitution to coerce a State? I have said that a State had no constitutional right to secede. The Constitution has made no provision for the dissolution of the Union, and I will state, in addition to this, that while it has made no provision for dissolving the Union, for a State going out, it has withheld all provision
101
and all power from the General Government to coerce a state that puts itself in default. I desire to be understood in this affirmation. I affirm that the Constitution does not make any provi- sion to coerce any State, North or South. Fortu- nately for the country, these very questions were considered and anticipated in the debates when the Constitution was framed. We have left upon the record the testimony and debates of men who framed the Federal Constitution. It was pro- posed, in making that Constitution, when they looked to the future and anticipated the troubles that might arise between the North and the South, and between the different sections of the Confederacy, and they felt that some power was necessary. My friend from Pike yesterday said that the General Government had the power to declare war, and, having the power to de. dare war, we ought not to pass a resolution that we would not aid.. I emphatically de- ny that the General Government has any power to declare war against any State in this Union. They gave the Government the power to declare war against a foreign nation, but when the propo- sition was made to give the power to declare war against a seceding State, it was denied. The very idea, to the framers of the Constitution, of the General Government carrying the flag of the country to subdue one member of the Confede- racy— to subdue a sovereign State — was too hor- rible for them to entertain, and they voted it down. It was still felt that something was neces- sary to be done — that there should be some power in the General Government to keep the sovereign States in subjection, and the proposition was made to give all the authority to the Federal Gov- ernment to force the States into obedience— the power of coercion— and upon that subject the de- bates sustain fully the position I have assumed, that it was a dangerous power that ought not to be placed in the Federal Government. In the Madison papers, 140, we have the following lan- guage from Mr. Madison, on the question of giv- ing the power of the Federal Government to force a seceding State :
"Mr. Madison observed, that the more he re- flected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively, and not in- dividually. A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolu- tion of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unneces- sary, and moved that the clause be postponed.
"This motion was agreed to, nem. con.
"The committee then rose, and the House ad- journed."
I need not read from the debates upon this sub- ject the reasons then given why force should not be given to the Federal Government. After this question had been fully debated, and the Conven- tion had voted down the proposition to give the Federal Government the power to force a State, it was believed that the power should be given to negative the laws of States that came in conflict with the General Government, and this question was debated at some length, and with great in- terest. They said it was necessary to have some provision to bind the sovereign States together, and in case of violation by legislation or other- wise, that they might be controlled. But, when this question was considered, it was decided that the mildest form of force ought not to be placed in the Constitution, and it was withheld and vo- ted down. Can any gentleman affirm, then, that the power to coerce or declare war against a State is in the Constitution, when it was proposed and voted down? It is not expressed — it is not im- plied. The subject was debated ; it was proposed, and it was rejected; and it is not in tte Con- stitution. Can any one say, then, that the General Government has the power to coerce a State? It is not expressed in the Constitution. Is it implied? It was proposed, it was debated, it was voted down, and then it cannot be implied. •Will any man dare to take the position to nega- tive the laws passed by a seceding State? I tell you, when the Constitution was made, the sub- ject was proposed. That subject was considered, and our fathers decided it was a dangerous power and would destroy the Constitution itself. No man can then affirm that the General Go- vernment has the power either to declare war for or against. No man can affirm that the Consti- tution, expressed or implied, authorizes the coer- cion of any State in this Union. No man can affirm that the Constitution of the United Slates gives the power to negative any law or any act passed by a sovereign State. It was proposed in the Convention that framed the Constitution ; it was debated and it was voted down. Mr. Ma- son, of Virginia, said that such power was dan- gerous to be placed in the Federal Government.
" The most jarring elements of nature, fire and water themselves, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil liberty and military exe- cution. Will the militia march from one State into another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic ? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? Will not the citizens of the invaded States assist one another, till they rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether? Rebellion is the only case in which the military force of the State can be properly exerted against its citizens. In one point of view, he was struck with horror at the
102
prospect of recurring to this expedient. To pun- ish the non-payment of taxes with death was a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself; yet this unexampled cruelty would be mercy com- pared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no discrimination be- tween the innocent and the guilty, He took this occasion to repeat, that, notwithstanding his so- licitude to establish a national government, he never would agree to abolish the State govern- ments, or render them absolutely insignificant. They were as necessary as the General Govern- ment, and he would be equally careful to preserve them. He was aware of the difficulty of drawing the line between them, but hoped it was not in- surmountable. The Convention, though com- prising so many distinguished characters, could not be expected to make a faultless govern- ment; and he would prefer trusting to posterity the amendment of its defects, rather than to push the experiment too far."
Mr. President and gentlemen of the Conven- tion, we have arrived at the point, and we affirm that we have settled it beyond the power of refu- tation, that this Federal Government cannot march an armed force, by a declaration of war, into a defaulting State— that it cannot coerce- that there is no power to negative a law. I must confess that all the indications from the Govern- ment we are under seem to be to the effect that the present Chief Executive of the United States intended to start the doctrine of coercion, and all that has been said by that party in Congress, ex- cept a few, warrant me in the conclusion that it was their settled determination to coerce the Southern States. I trust they have abandoned that course. I trust, on examining the laws they have to enforce, and the powers, that they will abandon it. But I affirm — acting the part of an humble member of the people of Mis- souri— that Abraham Lincoln cannot march an army into one of the seven States unless it is under the higher law. If he goes there without the Constitution, without the sanc- tion of law, he goes as an instrument to destroy the last hope of rebuilding or reconstructiong the Union— and the sun of American liberty, as be- fore remarked, will set behind a sea of blood. Then if he has no constitutional right, if the law forbid, can Missouri not have courage enough in Convention; is she not old enough; is there not patriotic blood enough in this Conven- tion to stand by the rights of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, to say that if you go under th* higher laAv into that war, we will not aid you in men or money. Why, it is strange that a man that lives in a slaveholding State— it is strange that a man who believes our institutions are right, could refuse to say that the sons of Mis- souri will not engage in a war like this. It would be dreadful enough for us to go into these
States — it would be dreadful enough to do this, if the Constitution required, and if our honor and our flag required us to go. That we should go into a land where we were born, where the church yards are filled with our kindred, and where we should shed the blood of our kindred; and it would be too horrible for human nature to con- template the consequences. It is a spectacle at which humanity, as this report says, would shrink and fly away. I say Missouri never will do it. Her Convention may say so, but its mem- bers will be compelled to seleet a commander out of their own forces to fight their own battles. I tell you when an army engages in a war against the Constitution of the United States, against the laws of the land, against humanity, the God of battles that sustained Washington in the American Army, will be upon the side of that oppressed people, however wrong they may be, and victory in every battle will belong to them. Our friends in Illinois say, believing that Lin- coln intends coercion, you cannot do it. They say you shall not do it. They say our friends and kindred are in those States, and we want this Government reunited, and it cannot be done if you commence coercing those States, and, raise your army in Springfield or Chicago, and attempt to march it into those States, it will first have to march over our dead bodies.
Will the Missouri Convention be less patriotic and less bold than the State of Illinois ? They say, we do not approve of the course of the South ; we are sorry they have taken the step, but the North is in fault, and their orators say, in language not to be misunderstood, that it was the election of a President upon a sectional plat- form that nullified the Constitution and Southern rights. Ohio speaks out through her two hun- dred thousand Democrats, and they send greet- ing North and South, not in language you have heard upon this floor — not at all. They say to the North, put yourself right upon the record, repeal your obnoxious laws — put yourself right before you complain of the action of the Southern States. Why is it, then, gentlemen of the Con- vention, that we cannot say to the North that you have done slightly wrong — that we dare not tell them of their errors ? Why, is it that we will give offense ? I want to speak like a man, I want to speak in a conservative tone, and I want to give no offense to the North or South; but I want to demand what is right and submit to nothing that is wrong, that will compromise the honor of the State.
Gentlemen of the Convention, I am satisfied I am Avcarying your patience, and speaking longer than I should, but I do not expect to trouble you again, and as my District has said but little in this Convention, I desire to consider one or two other questions. I pass over a number of extracts
103
from these debates that I intended to have read, hut I see it will take too much time. I desire, however, to give the following resolution, which was drawn by Mr. Jefferson :
"Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the Uni- ted States, and of amendments thereto, they con- stituted a General Government for special pur- poses, delegated to that Government certain defi- nite powers, reserving each State to itself the re- siduary mass of right to their own self-govern- ment ; and that whensoever the General Govern- ment assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party ; that this Government, crea- ted by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers dele- gated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its power; hut that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
But I propose to inquire for a short time what Missouri should do and what position she should occupy, that I misrht lay down before you what I think to be the desire of the people, and that I may reflect their will, and that they may see that I am carrying out my pledges and the promises I made to them. I regret, exceedingly, that the dis- tinguished gentleman that read the report has said, or used the argument, that if Missouri should connect herself with a Southern Condfederacy, it would be annihilation. I cannot think the one hundred and seventy thousand freemen of this State, with friends in Illinois, Iowa and in Kansas ; I cannot realize, that under these circumstances, that this mighty State of ours can be annihila- ted. I do not indorse the sentiment. I have all respect for that distinguished gentlemen, and the Committee which reported the resolution, but I deny the position assumed there, that if Missouri should connect herself with the Southern Con- federacy she would be annihilated. I am willing to admit, that if we connect ourselves with the North— if there is a division, and the other four- teen slave States shall form a Southern Republic— and Ave should go with the North, under those circumstances, as I before remarked, we will sus- tain a loss. If we go with the South we sustain a loss, beyond all sort of doubt. Her taxes will be burdensome,, and we shall have to endure many privations that we do not experience at present. Seven States are out of the Union now, and oth- ers are saying that, unless there are constitutional guarantees, they will go with the Southern States.
Is it intended by this Convention— is that the tone and sentiment that is to go North and South — that if the Government is dissolved, if two confederacies are established, that Missouri shall remain in the Northern Confederacy, and prefer it to the South ? That may be the senti- ment of every member of this Convention but one. I assert in my place to-day, and I have the independence to do it — and I want that recorded now, and in all future time — that if the other re- maining slave States shall form a separate Con- federacy— when all hope of reuniting the Gov- ernment is gone, when the heart of the North that has been so cold has grown colder, and they shall say, in the language of Wade : "The day of compromise is past," we have a great na- tional victory upon a sectional platform, and we are not anxious to compromise — then, I say, when that time shall come, when this Union is dis- solved, when there is a Northern and Southern Confederacy, then, for one, I am in favor of Mis- souri taking her stand with her Southern breth- eren in the Southern States. [Applause.]
The Chair. Those gentlemen who applauded must leave the galleries. Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, you will see that those gentlemen who have ap- plauded will leave the galleries at once. I have requested gentlemen politely long enough, to re- frain from demonstrations of this character, and I will and must preserve order.
Mr. Gantt. I hope that order will be limited to those who have offended.
Mr. Bass. The time for adjournment has ar- rived. I move that the Convention now ad- journ.
Mr. Birch. Before the motion is put, I desire to present a report.
Mr. Moss. I hope the motion to adjourn will be withdrawn. It is not 12 o'clock. The gentle- man who is now speaking will have time to get through.
Mr. Gantt. I hope so too. I think that by having but one session a day, and by sitting here continuously without the interruption of an ad- journment, we can get along with greater con- venience to ourselves and better dispatch of busi- ness.
Mr. Bass. I withdraw the motion to adjourn.
The Secretary then read the report as presented by Mr. Birch, as follows :
The committee, appointed under a resolution of the Convention, adopted on the 11th inst., to in- quire into the conspiracy which was deemed to be foreshadowed in a communication that ap- peared in the Republican of that morning, re- port herewith a communication from Lewis V. Bogy and from Wm, J. Chester, and respectfully submit themselves to such further direction, if any, as the Convention may see fit to give them. If, however, it shall be believed from these statements that any purpose which may have
104
existed to wrest the State from its legitimate relations to the Federal Government by illegal, perverse or revolutionary agencies, has been abandoned in deference to the unfaltering and overwhelming public sentiment with which it has been conft-onted, it is then further respect- fully submitted whether the interests of the pub- lic require that any further steps be taken, or any further investigations be prosecuted under the resolution of the Convention.
JAMES H. BIRCH, )
CHAS. DRAKE, } Committee.
G. W. ZIMMERMAN, )
St. Louis, March 12, 1861. Messrs. Birch, Zimmerman and Drake, Commit- tee, &c, Present:
Gentlemen: I was summoned yesterday to ap- pear before you, as a Committee, appointed by the State Convention now in session in this city, to testi- fy to certain facts supposed to be within my knowl- edge. In appearing before you, I wish it distinctly understood that I do so voluntarily, as I deny both the power of the Convention, or that of a committee appointed by it, to summon any citizen of the State to appear before it as a witness; this power belongs to the Grand Juries of the country, and is a power used to ferret out crime by them ; but entertaining, as I do, the greatest respect for the Convention as a body called into existence under a law of the State, and also for the members thereof personally, I waive what I consider my right as a citizen, and ac- cordingly appear.
The publication which appe ared in the Missouri Republican, over the signature of E., is not substan- tially correct, as containing the substance of a con- versation between me and the person who is sup- posed to be the author of it.
I have read the resolutions of the Convention and the speech of the mover of them, and I must confess that I am at a loss to understand how either could justify the charge made, based on the communica- tion. In justice, however, to the persons who called on me, and who are charged with the crime of treason, I must say that I know nothing what- ever to sustain the charge. Certain gentle- men of standing in this city, and who are my personal and political friends, did call on me last week, with a paper which was very well written, setting forth that the time had come— in view of the fact that Virginia had, or would soon join the South- ern Confederacy, and carry with her Kentucky and the other Border States — for the friends of Southern rights to come together for consultation, and with a view of agreeing on some line of policy required by the exigencies of the times The conversation be- tween these gentlemen and myself was of a desultory and general character, and it is with hesitation that I consent to trouble you withit, for it really amounts to nothing beyond a legitimate purpose of party or- ganization in which there was nothing improper or wrong, and only with a view of making their action efficient. Although I dissented from them, as to the propriety of this course, yet my objection was not becau e there was anything wrong or improper in the proposition, but because I thought the movement was calculated to do harm, in view of the efforts now
being made to unite the Democratic and Bell parties on some common conservative ground to defeat the Black Republicans at the next April election. I fur- thermore explained to them that according to my understanding of the interests of Missouri, with twenty millions of State Bonds and six to eight mil- lions of city and county Bonds on the markets of the world, and the great interests of the mercantile, manufacturing and industrial portions of the people, we should move, in a matter of this magnitude, with the greatest caution and prudence. Some of the gentlemen present charging me with inconsistency and as a blind follower of the Missouri Republican, I replied that the charge was not true, that I was a Southern man, and always had been, and was as much opposed to Black Republicanism as anybody could possibly be, but looking upon the effort as cal- culated to bring defeat upon us again at the next April election, I was opposed to their movement, and would do all in my power to defeat their purposes.
Much now might be repeated of the same nature, but the matter is too trivial to engage the attention of anybody. I certainly did not understand that any proposition was made to me looking like treason or conspiracy, or that can by any distortion of language or confusion of ideas, amount to the highest crime known to civilized nations. The subject was fair and legitimate, as a purpose for party organization by gentlemen of good standing, and as such I under- stood it, and opposed it for the reasons already given. My object in speaking of this occurrence to other parties was to get them to unite with me to prevent the proposed organization, believing, if successful, it would again lead to our defeat.
No one regrets this occurrence more than 1 do, as it is calculated to place other parties, as well as my- self, in an unpleasant position.
The facts do not in the least justify the action of the Convention, the speech of the mover of the reso- lutions, or the comments of one of the city papers.
Repeating my sentiments of respect for the Con- vention, I am, &c, LEWIS V. BOGY.
8. B.— As the action of the Convention in relation to this matter has been the occasion of a good deal of talk in the city, to my prejudice, I have concluded to send a copy of this paper to the Missouri Republi- can for publication to-morrow morning, so that the matter may be set right before the community at once. LEWIS V. BOGY.
St. Louis, March 13. To Messrs. Birch, Drake and Zimmerman, Com- mittee of the Convention, &c: Gentlemen : Having appeared before you, in compliance with your subpoena, I proceed to make such a statement as you have requested of me, omitting the name of th3 person to whom I shall allude; and also declining to swear to any statement at the present time; but will not refuse to surrender the name of the person, or to swear to what I shall have stated, if required to do so by an order of the Convention.
On the second or third day of the session of your Convention in this place, I met with a gen- tleman, residing in one of the interior counties of the State, one whom I had known as a friend and
105
admirer of Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, and, like that gentleman, a thorough and undisguised se- cessionist. He told me that your Convention was too conservative, and that, in case you passed no secession ordinance, there would be a concert of action agreed upon throughout the State, where- by the State would, nevertheless, be got out of the Union. He further said, that there were at that time delegates, or committees, in the city from nearly all the principal towns in the State, and that he understood there was to be a meeting of them for the purpose of agreeing upon a definite course and concert of action. He mentioned especially the name of a distin- guished citizen of this State, who has encouraged the movement, but whose name, for the reason already stated, I decline to give at present. Two days after this, I met the same gentleman, and the conversation was renewed. He then said that he believed the plan above stated had been abandoned, as it would be useless to attempt to carry it out at present, against what seemed to be the strong Union sentiment that had taken hold of the public mind.
In this statement I have given but the substance of the conversation alluded to, and do not pre- tend to have stated the words, but the substan- tial facts. Very Respectfully,
WM. J. CHESTER.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. Is it the object to break into the proceedings with that report ? If so, I object.
Mr. Birch. I only desire, Mr. President, to move that the report be laid upon the table and printed, so as not to occupy any time of the Convention. I merely desire to get it before the Convention.
The report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Hudgixs. Gentlemen of the Convention, when the interruption occurred, I was affirming that, in my judgment, if there were two republics formed, it was the duty of Missouri to go into the Southern Republic. I desire to make only a statement or two upon this subject and close my remarks. I cannot for one moment think that Missouri intends, or that this Convention will say that it is the duty of Missouri to submit. When I look back over our State, I find that there are nearly one hundred million dollars of slave property in it. I say, our citizens that have been here plowing, and felling timber, and mak- ing their farms — that have emigrated from other States— that have settled here to live and die upon Missouri soil, and have buried their dead in it — that have built our roads, our school houses, our mills, churches, and Court Houses all through the State, expect to enjoy these privi- leges, and leave them for their children. The politicians in the State of Missouri, who presume for one moment that Missouri will sacrifice her honor; that she will give up its con-
stitution and bow down to Northern aggression, are mistaken in regard to a noble and generous people. I tell you, let the slaves go, if go they must; let the real estate be sacrificed, but let our honor as freemen be sustained in the State. Let us show that we will not sub- mit. I can realize the feelings of a Repub- lican, when he desires Missouri to stay with the Northern Confederacy. He desires slavery abolished, and if the State should hold on to the Northern Confederacy it would be abolished in a few years. The man that believes that the slave States have the right to hold slaves, that is will- ing to accept Northern aggression after fourteen stars have been driven from the Star Spangled Banner, and who wants Missouri to bow with hei institutions down to kiss the rod that afflicts her, I tell you that the politician who makes that sale of the State in this Conven" tion, will have to meet justice at the hands of an insulted and outraged people. They never will submit to it. It would ruin them to do it. They are not willing thus to give up their property. Many of them would lose all they had. Moreover they are not willing thus to give them up when the alternative is pre- sented of uniting with the Southern Confederacy, if one is to be made. I say, if I know the feel- ings of the people of Missouri, and of that por- tion of the country in which I live, they will stake their destiny with the South. They say, we desire to separate from you in peace — as American citizens we love you, and especially that portion whose hearts beat in unison with ours. But we desire a separation in peace. But when the President of the United States com- mands Missouri, under the higher law, to shed the blood of our brothers in the South, then I say Missouri should throw herself upon her re- served rights, and, taking the halter in one hand and the sword in the other, tell the President that when you take the one you can use the other, and not before. I have no submission blood in me. If I had I would let it out of my veins. I am willing to compromise. I am willing to receive the Crittenden amendment, and to declare that all north of 36 deg. 30 min. shall be all free, and all south shall be all slave. Then the Kansas raids and emigrant aid societies would never be heard of, and this vexed question would not enter into our politics. I am willing to get rid of the question in that way, but I am not will- ing to leave it to be disposed of by the next gen- eration. But if you want compromise, you can- not obtain it, except by insisting upon it. Can we expect to obtain it, looking at the past, if we say to the North that whether you give us the guarantees or not, whether you are willing to adopt the Crittenden amendment or any amendment whatever, we are unconditional Union men in Missouri.
106
Tell mc now many million of States of that kind in this Union would reach the Northern pulse ? We are told that they are signing petitions and that they are changing. Tell me what has chang- ed them, and what has affected the North ? what has destroyed or changed them in their senti- ments ? It is because of the withdrawal of these seven States and the prospect of the withdrawal of others, and of the ruin of their commerce and the prosperity of the country, that is now threat- ening them. Missouri will make no threat; let her stand by the South ; but let her call upon the North and say in language not to be misunder- stood, that these guarantees must be granted or we connect ourselves with the Southern States ; and when we have given you reasonable time — when we have appealed to the great heart of the whole people, if then they shall say no compro- mise shall be made, then we will stand with the Southern States. Gentlemen of the Convention, if the State of Missouri occupies this position, then she will have opinions that will be respected at the North and in the South. Then, when com- promise has been offered by the South, Missouri can say to both North and South, you are breth- ren, we stand between you and ruin. And if the border States cannot restore this friendly feeling, then no earthly power can do it.
I am in favor of this amendment to the resolution. It says we will not furnish men and money. "We have been told, I believe, by the gentleman from Randolph, that if the Administration called for men, we would be setting at defiance the Consti- tution. I have shown you that the sending of an army to the Southern States could only be done under the higher law, and not under the Constitu- tion of the United States. I have shown you that we have the right to speak in the language of this resolution, and it is the duty of Missouri not to aid, and not to furnish men, and not to go into this conflict.
Gentlemen of the Convention, I have occupied more time than I expected. I have been longer before you than I should have been, but I have submitted candidly, and with a due regard and respect for every member of this Convention, and every individual that is here to-day, what I have asserted in regard to the position of Missouri. It is the ground upon which my people sent me here. I came to say in this Convention that Missouri desires to exert every means that is fair and hon- orable to unite the North and the South as breth- ren in one common country and destiny. I want every effort made that the State can make in honor to itself, to accomplish this result. If the fourteen States are to unite with the oth- er slave States and go with the South, all hope of reconciliation is gone and then my wish is, at that time, when the Union Avill have been dissolved, that Missouri will not have to secede, but take her choice between the
North and the South. I am for taking, as I said before, the Southern side of this question, if the President of the United States shall attempt force and shall attempt a war upon the Southern States, and if he calls upon Missouri for men to go into that war, I am not willing that our citi- zens should hazard treason, or that they shall be drafted. I am not willing that they shall be marched into any State in such a war, but in that contingency I shall be in favor of this Con- vention assembling and placing themselves upon their reserved rights, and say to the President, as we say in this resolution, that we will not aid you.
Mr. Fostek. I desire to make a few remarks upon the question under consideration.
Mr. Welch. As it is now 12 o'clock, I move an adjournment of the Convention.
Motion sustained.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Convention re-assembled at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Foster. Mr. President, I hope it may not be considered an assumption on my part to leave my seat and address this Convention from a place near the Chair — being one of the lesser lights in this body, and unable, in an oratorical point of view, to cope with many of the gentlemen who have preceded me, and many who will speak af- ter me. I come up here, sir, merely that I may be the better understood by the Convention, and because, by standing here, I can speak with greater ease to myself than if I was in my seat.
In investigating the matters which are now submitted for consideration by this body, I shall try to be fair and candid. Although I may not be able to say anything that will be edifying to the members of this Convention, yet, as a repre- sentative of a portion of the people of Missouri, I believe it to be my duty to declare the sentiments which the people of my district hold in regard to the resolutions under consideration. I have risen, sir, not for the purpose of making a bun- combe speech, or a speech for political pur- poses. I never held a political office in my life, nor do I know that I ever shall hold one. The motives which actuate me in speaking on this occasion, are of a higher charac- ter than those underlying the delivery of political speeches or war speeches or anything of the kind. They are those of patriotism— they are love for my country and a willingness and deter- mination to represent my constituents truly on this floor. I believe it is usual in debates of this kind that gentlemen holding different views alter- nate in occupying the floor. And here let me remark, that while it may be expected that I dif- fer with the gentleman who has preceded me in
107
many of the points advanced by him, still it is not my purpose to follow him through all his ar- guments. I shall take occasion to allude to some of them as I proceed with my remarks. It must certainly be regarded as a highly enviable posi- tion for me, acknowledging myself, as I do, to be one of the humblest members ot this Convention, and one of its lesser lights — I say it must be re- garded as an enviable position for me to be able to reply to a gentleman so far my superior in debate, so talented and brilliant in the presenta- tion of his views before a deliberative assembly, as the gentleman who has preceded me. I con- fess that I shall feel some embarrassment in at- tempting a reply to the all-absorbing war-speech which we have heard from him. I fear I shall net be able to meet his argument, because he is a powerful man ; but while I do not expect to fol- low him through all the meanderings of his no- tions, it is yet gratifying to me to know that, ele- vated as I have been to come up to this stand, I shall for a few moments occupy the same stand which one of the great lights of this Convention has so ably occupied.
Gentlemen of the Convention : In regard to the powers of Government of which that gentleman has spoken, I agree with him to some extent. I agree with him in holding that we have a com- plete system of government, and that all the pow- er that the General Government can exercise is derived solely from the Constitution. I am one of those individuals who may be called strict constructionists of the Constitution of this country. He says, further, that this Government has power to levy war upon a foreign nation, but that it has no power to levy Avar against a sister State.
Now, if he put this proposition by itself, it would certainly recommend itself to my mind for its justness and plausibility. But he, at the same time, argues that seven States have dissolved their connection with the Federal Government — that they have gone out of the Union ; and I would ask him whether, such being the case, they can still be regarded as sister States ? or whether they must be looked upon by the General Government in the light of foreign nations ? If it be true that those States have gone out, and it be, furthermore, true, that the General Government has power to levy war against a foreign nation, does it not fol- low that, if circumstances should require, the General Government must treat them as any oth- er foreign nation?
But admitting, for a moment, that those States have not goue out— admitting that they are still included in the American sisterhood, let me ask the gentleman if the Constitution does not confer ample power upon the Executive to repel insur- rections and invasions by the people of one State upon the people of another State?
A Voice. No.
Mr. Foster. A voice behind me says no. Well, gentlemen of the Convention, all I have to say in regard to that is, that this voice and the Constitution of my country are at variance. I have no argument to make to any individual or assembly of individuals to convince them that the broad declaration of the Constitution of my coun- try is such as it is. I have stated it correctly, and I will abide by it, because I was taught from my earliest infancy to believe that the Constitution of the United States and the laws enacted by Con- gress in accordance therewith shallbe the supreme law of the land, the laws of any State to the con- trary notwithstanding. I repeat it, gentlemen, that this was one of my earliest lessons I learned in connection with the powers of my Government. I do not propose to consume the time of this Con- vention in dwelling longer upon that point. I will now proceed to consider the situation of Mis- souri for a few moments. Look at yonder flag, if you please, and behold Missouri, as shin- ing forth in the constellation of States as one of the central stars in the West, and ask yourselves the question, what is the proper position for Missouri to occupy under ex- isting circumstances ? Now, gentlemen, I hold it to be a truth that, as was remarked by my friend from Marion, on the day before yesterday, Missouri could turn out more fighting men than any other slave State in the Union; and I will add that, if circumstances require it, she would do so. I will add, further,, that I believe that Missouri to-day can turn out more Union, Constitution-loving men, than any two Southern States in this Confederacy. Then, gentlemen, the question arises, as I have suggested, as to what is the proper position for Missouri to occupy. I think the proper answer to this question is of the most vital importance. What is the answer given by the Committee on Federal Relations ? What does that report contain ? In considering the resolutions offered by the Committee, I desire to give a fair and candid expression of my sen- timents, and the sentiments of the people whom I am representing on this floor. I do not intend, by any remark that I may make, to reproach any gentlemen who is a member of this Convention, and who, for causes satisfactory to himself, dis- agrees with me in regard to this report. I do not design to heap epithets upon the people of the North, nor to heap epithets upon the people of the South; but in speaking of the wrongs and pointing out the errors of both sections, I shall proceed with candor and moderation, extending my hand to both, and hailing them as the com- mon family of this Government.
The first resolution offered by the Committee, (I refer, of couse, to the majority report,) is as follows :
Resolved, That at present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connec -
108
tion with the Federal Union, but, on the contrary, she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure the peace as well as the rights and equality of all the States.
I ask, gentlemen of this Convention, do you ob- ject to that resolution? I ask gentlemen who came here for the purpose of using all honorable means to preserve the Union, if they can have any objection to it? I believe that I can say that an overwhelming majority of the members of this Convention will be found in its favor. And I may also say, although my knowledge of the people of the State is limited, yet, judgingfrom the sentiments of 9,000 to 10,000 legal voters whom I have the honor to represent, they will give their hearty approbation to it. I took the posi- tion before my people, in making the little can- vass that I did make, that there was no existing cause at that time, or any cause which I could see as likely to arise, sufficient to justify this State in dissolving her connection with the Gen- eral Government. I here to-day repeat it, in or- der to redeem my pledges to the people before whom I canvassed. I maintain that there is no cause existing to-day that would impel me, as a citizen of Missouri— as a citizen of the United States — to dissolve my connection with my Gov- ernment. I would, in my judgment, prove recre- ant to the people that honored me with a seat in this Convention, were I to occupy any other po- sition. I believe I should prove recreant to the mother who gave me birth, were I to occupy any other position. Sir, I assert it again, there was no existing canse for Missouri going out of the Union at the time I made my canvass; and the only event that has taken place since, that could have any weight in determining the action of Missouri, is the Inaugural of the President. I told my people that, with all the facts and cir- cumstances then existing, and with the addition- al fact of Mr. Lincoln's inauguration on the 4th of March, there was not sufficient cause to dis- solve our connection with the General Govern- ment. Mr. Lincoln has since been inaugurated. His Inaugural Address has been delivered and received all over the country, and I still find that there is no cause for Missouri to secede. In my humble judgment, that Iuaugural, instead of be- ing a war message, is a peace message; and, in so believing, I am willing to be responsible to my constituents.
But we are told that the people of the North have brought about the "irrepressible conflict," and that it is of a nature too intolerable for the people of the Southern States to endure. Gentle- men, I take this occasion to say — and my people know that what I am saying is correct — that I en- tirely disagree with Mr. Lincoln or his party in regard to the subject of slavery. I do not indorse any of their sentiments on this subject. Most emphatically it was not by my consent— it was
not by my approbation, that Mr. Lincoln was made President of the United States. On the contrary, I have done everything that an honor- able man with my feeble power could do to de- feat him. But, gentlemen, I see no cause why this Convention should not adopt the first reso- lution. Much as the South has been wronged by the Republican party, and great as has been the evil which the ascendancy of that party has brought upon our country, still I see no reason why we should reject that resolution. The gen- tleman from Andrew, if I understand him right, says that it is a great and tremendous evil for a minister in the North to preach the "irrepressible conflict" from his pulpit. Undoubtedly it is. But I tell him it is acting in bad faith towards the people of this Goverment, and equally as wron£ for a Southern minister to take up the doctrine of disunion and preach it from his pulpit. If it is wrong for one section of the country to disre- gard the laws and bid defiance to the Constitu- tion, so it is for another.
So much for the first resolution. I now pro- ceed to the second resolution, which reads as fol- lows :
Resolved, That the people of this State are de- votedly attached to the institutions of our coun- try, and earnestly desire that, by a fair and ami- cable adjustment, all the causes of disagreement that at present unfortunately distract us as a peo- ple, may be removed, to the end that our Union may be preserved and perpetuated, and peace and harmony be restored between the North and the South.
Now, gentlemen, allow me to ask you this question. Is not it the desire of every member on this floor that all the difficulties which are now distracting our country should be settled ? Is not that the desire of the delegates to this Con- vention? Undoubtedly it is. I have no hesitancy in saying that if any gentleman had taken a po- sition different from, or antagonistic to this — if any gentleman had avowed that he was not for compromise, that he was not for an amicable ad- justment of existing difficulties, he could not have been elected to a seat in this body. I hold that position, and I shall never hold one that is in conflict with it. I deem it to be in accordance with the wishes of the people of Missouri. I know that Missouri holds this position, and I am not afraid that the voice of the people will ever say to me, Poster, you are mistaken — you know nothing about the people of Missouri.
Gentlemen, I came here as a compromise man. I came here pledged before my people that I would do all in my power to restore peace to our now distracted but once happy country, and I am impelled by my sense of duty to act accord- ingly. I will so act, first, because it is congenial to my sentiments, and, secondly, because it is the position which I took before my constituents.
109
And I may be permitted to remark, that how- ever I may be wanting in ability to meet their expectations on this floor, yet there is one thing in which I never will be found wanting, and that is, integrity to carry out the position which I took before them.
I repeat it, Mr. President, is it possible that there is a member in this body who is not willing to use all the power at his command for the pur- pose of restoring peace to the country? I appre- hend there is no one. I apprehend that it is the desire of every member that peace should be re- stored. I beiieve there is no member of this Convention but who is disposed to maintain the Union of these States and to maintain his Con- stitutional rights as a citizen in the great family of States. If this is not the desire of this Con- vention, I confess that I have been unable to dis- cover what its complexion is. And if, contrary to my expectation, this should not prove to be its complexion, yet I feel sure that it is the complexion of the people whom I represent in part to-day. Keeping a central posi- tion in the West as we do, it becomes our duty, if there are causes of complaint, to examine them and speak of them in a mild and conciliatory manner. Such is the nature of the American citizen, that you cannot even drive him to do that which he wants to do, much less drive him to do that which he does not want to do. It, will not do for us, therefore, to discriminate against one section or another — it will not do for us to heap epithets, either upon the people of the North or upon the people of the South ; but we must proceed in the calm, deliberative and conciliatory manner, speaking to the men of the North and the men of the South as our brothers. We should indeed be compromise men. Sir, I desire that every act of mine, that every word of mine, and every declaration of mine, shall be that while we can extend our left hand to the people of the North, we can extend our right hand to the people of the South, talking to them as one common family — talking to them as I would to brothers of the flesh, who I believed had done me wrong, but whom I would entreat to come back and do me right. Such I desire to be my action, and such I desire to be the action of this Convention.
Mr. President, I will now proceed to read the third resolution:
Resolved, That the people of this State deem the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, with the extension of the same to the territory hereafter to be acquired by treaty or otherwise, a basis of adjustment which will suc- cessfully remove the causes of difference forever from the arena of national politics.
Regarding this resolution, I would ask you, gentlemen of the Convention, whether it is not the desire of the people you represent to take this slavery question out of the hands of politicians and political demagogues. So far as I am con- cerned, I frankly confess that, if I could, by any means honorable to an American citizen, take that question out of the power of legislation ; if I could take it out of the power of politicians and political demagogues, I would conceive it to be the proudest act of my life. If I have one desire above another, in connection with the political questions of the day, it is that we could make a fair adjustment of this slavery question, and take it out of the arena of politics. Sir, it is this question which has distracted and divided my country, and set one section in hostile array against another. It is through it that men have been lifted into power who were unworthy of the people that placed them there. There will always be a difference of opinion in regard to it. The people of the North, who were reared under Northern institutions, are taught to believe that slavery is a curse — that it is an evil — and hence they arc from their youth up prejudiced against it. On the other hand, the people of the South, who were raised under Southern institu- tions, look upon it as right and proper, and are apt to be prejudiced in its favor. Hence, looking at slavery in an abstract point of view, it cannot seem strange that there should be difference of opinion about it. Agitation, then, becomes dangerous, and is calculated to array the adherents of one opinion against the adherents of another. We have all seen the devastating effects of the slavery agita- tion. We are even now suffering from it, and behold the humiliating spectacle of a once happy country, distracted and drive to the verge of ruin on account of it. Then, what are we to do ? Is it not urgent that we should adopt some plan by which to take it out of the power of legis- lation ? Do we not all see that, so long as it re- mains an open question, the people of the North contending that Congress possesses the power under the Constitution to prohibit the introduc- tion of slavery into the Territories, and the people of the South contending that the Territo- ries are common property, will be arrayed against each other, and there will be unceasing strife and contention? It is therefore well that this resolution may compromise by amendments to the Constitution, the effect of which will be to quiet all agitation on the subject of slavery for- ever. I have taken a position before the people in my district, that I would accept as the basis of compromise what is known as the Crittenden amendment, or one of similar import ; and I state before you to-day, in clear and unmistakable lan- guage, that I am willing to take any compromise that will restore peace and harmony between the
110
North and the South. In saying so, I am but uttering the sentiments of the people who sent me here.
I proceed to the next resolution :
Resolved, That the people of Missouri believe the peace and quiet of the country will be pro- moted by a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and this Convention therefore urges the Legislature of this State to take the proper steps for calling such a Convention in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution, and for providing by law for an election of one delegate to such Convention from each electoral district in this State.
I am aware, Mr. President, that in regard to the Convention recommended to be held by this body, there is a difference of opinion — some be- lieving that it will be preferable to hold a Con- vention of all the States, and others thinking it best to hold a Convention of the Border States merely. I will say that, so far as I am concerned, I am in favor of a Convention of all the States. My reason for taking this position is, that such a Convention will be in perfect harmony and keeping with the Constitution of the United States. I may also state that this is the position which I have taken before my con- stituents. As they have elected me on that posi- tion, I consider myself bound to maintain it on this floor. I consider that I have been instructed to that effect. The assembling of a National Convention, according to my understanding, is the constitutional mode of introducing amend- ments to the Constitution. Being a Constitution- loving man, and a law-abiding citizen, I desire no act of mine to come in conflict with that sacred instrument.
I will now read the fifth resolution :
5. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Con- vention, the employment of military force by the Federal Government to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of mili- tary force by the seceding States to assail the Government of the United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable'settle- ment of the fearful issues now pending before the country. We therefore earnestly entreat as well the Federal Government as the seceding States to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war.
Much has been said in this Convention about this resolution, I apprehend, Mr. President, that there is no gentleman upon this floor that is pledged in stronger terms against the doctrine of coercion than myself. No proposition that could be introduced here could receive my support if it looked or even squinted toward coercion. It is evident to every reflecting mind that we have to take things as they exist, and not as we desire
them to be; and at this particular juncture, sym- pathizing as I do with all quarters of the country, and particularly with the people of the South, I may say that American blood becomes to me a paramount question, and I will do all in my pow- er to prevent it from being shed. I could not, therefore, nor would I ever, support any proposi- tion that even squinted toward coercion. The only question arising in reference to the fifth res- olution, is, whether its language is emphatic enough to adequately express our sentiment, and I will say that, in my opinion, it is. I am willing to adopt that resolution just as it is. Whether my people will indorse my course in this respect or not, is a matter about which I am but little con- cerned. I intend to discharge my duty towards them, and I leave them to be the judges whether I shall do so or not. I think it essential that, as a body, we should speak in a mild and conciliatory manner, both to the people of the North and of the South and to the General Government. Gentlemen, I cannot for a moment entertain the notion to raise my arm against my Government. No ! I would rather that this arm of mine should perish — yea, that this stammering tongue of mine should cleave to the roof of my mouth, than that I should raise my arm against my Gov- ernment. I will never do it.
That brings me to consider the amendment which was offered to this resolution by my friend from Clay. My kindly feelings toward that gen- tleman, and my regard for his upright endeavor, would induce me to support almost any proposi- tion that he could eonscieniiously introduce and support. Acknowledging as I do that, in my judgment, he is a better Union man than I am — not that he is more devoted to the Union, or that he has any stronger attachment for it, .for I do not believe that the man lives who can have a stronger attachment for his government than I have ; but that he has the ability to impress his views upon the people and convince them that he is right, better than I can. As I am just looking that way I happen to see, with great pleasure, that one of my constituents is just now sitting by one of my colleagues, who, for reasons I suppose satisfactory to himself, took great pleasure in trying to defeat me. [Laughter.] Allow me to say that I ran under the charge of Black Republicanism — under the charge of being a submissionist. Well, now I don't care, gentle- men, anything about these charges. As you per- ceive, I am one of those remarkably good-humor- ed men who can afford to be misrepresented, and I don't care, so far as I am personally or politically concerned, what charges my adversa- ries have been disseminating against me. But, sir, I ask this Convention not to adopt this amendment, for the reasen that I believe that if it is adopted it will force this Convention to one of two conclusions. What are they ? First, that
Ill
the amendment is one of the inroads of seces- sionism. The other is, that it forces Missouri, under any and all contingent circumstances, to fold up her arms in perfect submission to any- thing and everything. Why, sir, it reminds me of the good old Methodist lady who would go around advocating the doctrine that if you are smitten on one cheek you must turn the other in perfect submission and be smitten on that also. This amendment pledges the people of Mis- souri, now and for all time to come, that under no circumstances will we raise our ami against a seceding State or against our present Government. "Why, gentlemen, my opponents used to tell me the reason Avhy they wanted a seat in this Convention was to place Missouri right upon the record, I desire to place Missouri right upon the record, and I desire that the hands of Missouri and the hands of her citizens shall not be tied up in any such manner as this. I believe, sir, that the people of Missouri are capable of meet- ing any and all emergencies ; but while we are disposed not even to countenance secession, dis- union or coercion, yet, sir, I hold it to be my duty, and the duty of this Convention, not to tie the hands of Missouri. You know not what emergency may arise. You know not what may take place in a year or a month. I therefore ask you not to tie the hands of Missouri in all time to come. I sincerely hope that this Convention will not place the people of Missoud in the condition in which the Legislature of the State desired to place this Convention, namely : putting them in a church not made with hands, that will endure forever. — I desire the people of Missouri to be placed in no such condition, and I understand some of the gentlemen in the Legislature were not very par- ticular whether they placed us in a church re- maining forever, or whether they placed us in the penitentiary at the capital of Missouri.— [Laughter.] In the language of the gentlemen who differ with me on this floor, I say to you, "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." Al- low me to remark, that I am forced to the con- clusion that if I was to indorse that amendment, it would be proper to brand me with being a cheerful submissionist, which charge I did not only deny upon the stump, but I now deny it as being a gross insult to a gentleman of an angry temper; but as I am happily one of those very mild men, Mr. President, I consider it no insult. Let me now say a few words to this Border State proposition. I came here, or rather to Jef- fe rson City, having had an oath resting upon me for years to support the Constitution of the Unit- ed States. That oath had been upon me for years, by and with my own consent, and to me it mattered not whether it should be renewed or not; for as long as that oath rests upon me, I ex- pect to maintain it and act in accordance with it.
I care nothing about that renewal. But, sir, as men supporting the Constitution of the United States, sworn as we are to support it, let me ask you if the inroad that is attempted here to be i made by this amendment is not the very first step towards getting outside of the Constitution— outside of the authority of law? Do those gen- tlemen, after holding a Border State Convention, propose in any legal manner to have it ratified? No, not at all. What, then, do they propose? Why, they say they will present an ultimatum to the people of the North. What next? I will ask some of these gentlemen. There you find a little squirming.
The Chair. The gentleman is not permitted to argue the minority report.
Mr. Foster. I hope the President will excuse me. Not being used to deliberative assemblies, and not being versed in parliamentary rules, I am liable to transgress. I will readily suffer a correction by your Honor.
Gentlemen, I will not say anything about that minority report; but I will give you the word of warning as Union men, determined as I believe you are to support the Constitution of the United States, and to discharge your duties toward the people of Missouri, not to allow any inroad to be made either upon the Constitution of your coun- try or the laws enacted in accordance therewith. I guard you against it, because it is one of the in- roads of secession. Its main object is to get you outside of the Constitution, and then they have got what they call the "inside track" of you.
In regard to this doctrine of coercion I want to say, as I said before my people, that the people of the North — and when I speak of the people of the North I mean the majority— have done us in- justice and wrong. They have, by their egisla- tive enactments, passed what is known in many Northern States as the personal liberty bills. They have in this regard acted in bad faith toward the Government. They have acted in bad faith to- ward the people of the South; and in the lan- guage of those resolutions, I ask them as American citizens, as my Northern brethren, not to persist in such a course. I ask them to repeal those ob- noxious laws, although I do not regard them worth the blank paper upon which they were writ- ten. I understand upon this question the Consti- tution of the United States and the laws enacted by Congress, are the supreme law of the land, any laws passed by the State to the contrary not- withstanding. But I ask those States to retract them, and do us right. I beseech them— although gentlemen do not like to see a man say that he comes in the attitude of "submission;" yet if it would do any good, and restore peace to my country, I could fall down on my knees to the people of the North and ask them to repeal those laws. I would in the same spirit fall on my knees to the people of the South, and ask them
112
to abstain from their rash acts, so that this coun- try might again be united, and peace be estab- lished on a permanent basis.
While I say to the people of the North that they have done us injustice, I say to our erring sisters of the South, that they, too, have done us wrong. I think their acts have been precipitate — not warranted by law, not warranted by reserved rights ; that they have, as American citizens, un- dertaken to seek redress for the grievances of which they complain in a manner not at all war- ranted. They have not sought redress by ta- king a legal position, nor by throwing them- selves back upon their inherent right of revolu- tion. They have not done so. Sir, I am one of those men that believe, that, as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, whenever the Government fails to accomplish the ends for which it was created, the right of revolution is clear. And I tell you, sir, to-day, that, should that day ever arise, I will be among the first who will act upon that right. But, sir, I can see nothing in the state of things now existing — I can see nothing that is likely to occur — which will induce me to believe that it will become ne- cessary for the people of Missouri to resort to the right of revolution.
I told my people when making the canvass, that should circumstances arise that would justify revolution, I should be heartily in favor of it. I have been asked, how long before such a state of things will come to pass. I have told them, I answer not by weeks, not by months, not by years, but by circumstances ; and that when we should arrive at a given state of things in which I believed that the right of revolution was the only means of redress, I should so declare it. Therefore, gentlemen, I ask you not to tie the hands of Missouri. We know not, nor can we tell what we may have to encounter in that fu- ture.
Sir, I desire to say that if there is any one de- sire which I have before any other in regard to the demon of Northern Abolitionism and fanati- cism, or this fell demon of the South, Secession, it is this : that if I could bring them within my grasp, I would bury them both in the bowels of the earth, or beneath the waters of the sea, so that no American citizen shonld hear of them again. I believe that peace could then be surely restored in my country. Gentlemen may con- sider these expressions are rather harsh, but, sir, as an American citizen — as a man desirous to preserve this government, I would like to get rid of all these wicked spirits that infest my country.
Then, gentlemen, in conclusion, permit me to remark, that my only desire is to assist in main- taining our rights and preserving this Union. If I can be any way instrumental in preserving the Union of these States upon terms of equality, and restoring peace to this Government, it will be-
stow upon me all the glory I want. I ask no more — I ask no higher laurels — I ask no higher calling by any people, or position in the gift of any people, than to be instrumental in restoring peace to our now distracted and once happy country. If I could see quiet reign once more, I would say all is well ; and I ask Missouri to take a position as mediator, situated as she is in the central position of the West, to stretch out her arms to the people of the North and the South, and bid them stand still and let the Union be saved.
I hope this Convention will adopt the majority report just as it has come from the committee. And I will take this occasion to say, lest a wrong impression should go out, that I have perused the report very calmly and carefully, and though there are some things which I should desire to be a little different, yet as I came here as a compro- mise man, not intent on enforcing strictly my own opinions, but in common to deliberate with the members of this Convention, I believe that it is right in the main, and that it ought to be adopted. I am determined to support that report at all hazards. Allow me to remark, sir, that if I had been called upon to produce such a docu- ment, I have some doubt as to whether it would have met my approval as well as does this report. Taking it as a whole, and not stopping at par- ticulars, I do not believe the document could have been excelled.
I know it would have been somewhat different had I been called upon to draw it up. I would rather see some things in it different, and I will tell you why. I was bom of Southern parents and raised under Southern institutions. I am imbued with Southern prejudice. My prejudices and my sympathies are altogether with the South. I would then most likely have given that report a more Southern coloring. Yet I never intend that my prejudices should lead me astray. I want to discharge my duty towards my country, and then I am satisfied.
Gentlemen, I shall bring my remarks to a close. I say to you, in conclusion, that I intend to stand by the Union of these States as long as there is any hope to be cherished for the preservation of Missouri in the Union — and when that dark cloud shall appear which will enshroud in everlasting gloemthe glorious prospects of my country, then, and not until then, will I turn for another republic. Yes, gentlemen, I say that all hope must be ex- tinguished before I will abandon my country— before I will be in favor of forming a new confederation. My object, my aim, my desire will be to reclaim our erring sisters of the South and bring them back into the family of States, to stand upon the same Constitution with us — to share our rights and enjoy the same privileges with us as they have done heretofore. I tell you, you may call me a submissionist if you
113
please, I care nothing about it; but I never will submit to a wrong. I stand upon con- stitutional ground. I expect to maintain it, and I expect to take nothing, either in compromise or otherwise, when I am forced to seek my right at the point of the bayonet. Not that I would have you believe, gentlemen of the Convention, that I am a brave man, now, [laugh- ter]—I don't want you to get any such idea into your heads; but it is a principle that I consider correct. I know, Mr. President, that you are a loyal citizen, and that if the flag of our country is assailed, even though your hair be whitened with age, and the elasticity of youthful feeling gone, yet I beh"eve in my soul you would be willing to gird on your sabre to-day and march in defense of your country. So I believe tnat you would, gentlemen of the Convention. As for my humble self, I have every reason to be- lieve that my grandfather served in the Revolutionary war six years and six months. I have every reason to believe that my own father served in the war of 1812, twelve months ; and there is one thing I did — that is, that I had the honor of commanding a com- pany in the Mexican war in defense of that flag; and if there is any one desire which I have above any other desire, it is this, that I may have the good fortune to raise one child who, when the flag of my country is assailed, may gird on the sabre or shoulder his musket, and march in defense of the flag of his country, there to in- scribe upon that banner the loyalty of the Foster family to this Government.
Mr. Givens. Mr. President, I am in favor of the amendment of the gentlemen from Clay, but for reasons different from many gentlemen in this Convention. Coercion is wrong in itself, in my view, beeause I think the seceding States had a right to separate themselves from this Union. Coercion is wrong, also, because it would destroy all hope of proper adjustment. But as to the right of a State of this Union to dissolve its political connection with the Federal Government, the Convention of 1787, which formed the present Constitution, expressly denied to the General Government the power of coercion by military force, of any of the States under any circum- stances, whatever. Gentlemen concede this ; still they say there is no express power in the Consti- tution, of secession. I have only to say that if there was no power of a State to separate from the Union, why ask that the Constitution should contain a provision for coercion? The very statement of the question im- plies the right of separation. Gentlemen concede the great inherent right of every State, of every independent political organization, to judge for itself as to its own political destiny: the inalienable right of self-government, which ex- isted before the formation of human constitu-
tions, and of human laws, the great principle which underlies all republican institutions. If the seceding States have but exercised that right, which never was yielded in the formation of the Constitution, can it be said that they have acted in violation of that instrument. But, Mr. President, in my judgment it matters but little whether the States have withdrawn from this Union under a constitutional or revolutionary right : we have to deal with the great fact that seven States have actually withdrawn from the Union, and have formed an independent repub- lic, and are now performing all the ordinary functions pertaining to independent govern- ments. Does it matter, so far as adjustment is concerned, whether the separation took place under the one right, or the other. No man more deeply deplores this state of things than I do; no one desires a reunion upon principles just and proper, more than I do; but Mr. President we have been told that the causes which impelled the separation of these States, are more imaginary than real. Is that true, sir. I imagine that the cause of separation is deeper than many gentlemen suppose. It may not as yet have resulted in any great injury to the seceding States. What great injury had our fathers sus- tained in the imposition of a few pence duty upon tea imported into the colonies? It was not the mere loss then suffered which impelled the colonies to take the step they did. Ah, no sir, it was a mo- tive much higher, it was a resistance to a right asserted by the British throne, that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies, when they had no representation in that Parliament; but it is said, sir, that the causes which have separated the seceding States, are imaginary. I will not undertake to enumerate the causes ; they are set forth in the minority report of the Committee on Federal Relations, with a force and truth to my mind conclusive. The seceding States have acted upon the high principle of resistance to violations of the Constitution by the North, with. out regard to the actual injury which may have resulted from such violations, but I do not be" lieve, sir, that the injuries are merely imaginary. The fugitive slave law, enacted in pursuance of provisions of the Constitution, has been deliber- ately set at naught by the people of the North; it is to-day worse than no law; it but lures him into the non-slaveholding States in pursuit of his property, which in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, is utterly fruitless— but that is not all, he is cast in prison, under the provisions of their personal liberty laws : but all this is merely imagr inary, in the estimation of many gentleman on, this floor. But Mr. President, I am no advocate of war. Ah, no sir, far from it. It is a fearful thing to break up a Government like this. I shud- der when I look at the dark picture of blood, presented in internecine strife. In view
8
114
of such a picture, and to arrest its horrors, shall we surrender right, submit to degradation and dishonor? No sir, no. I am asked if I am not fa- vorable to compromise ? I answer emphatically, yea, hut upon terms just to the South — upon the ! basis of the Crittenden propositions— of amend- j ments to the Constitution of the United States, i Sir, I would not demand such amendments in the language of entreaty, but in the name of justice — J in the name of equality to all the States of this \ Union. I cannot agree with my friend from : Adair, (for whom I have the highest regard,) ] that we should entreat and pray the men of the '■■ North to repeal their personal liberty bills. I would demand their repeal in the \ name of the Constitution of my country. Birt, sir, what is to be the effect of reject- ing the amendment of the gentleman from | Clay. The impression will go ab oad that Mis- j souri is ready to aid the General Government in coercing the seceding States back into I this Union, whether such an attempt shall be by j an open war or under the paltry and miserable pre- j tence of executing the laws. If gentlemen are j opposed to coercion, why not say so in emphatic l terms ? How many members on this floor were originally from some of the seceding States ? How many from Virginia and Kentucky, and other | slave States, which, in all probability, will go with the seceding States? We present them the sad spectacle— when called upon by the General Government to aid in coercing the seceding States— of presenting the dagger to the bosom of our own brothers of the South, a picture which I pray may be forever veiled from my sight. These are the reasons, sir, why I am in favor of this amendment. All history teaches us the dangers of the military overrunning and ultimately des- troying the civil power. I am unwilling to place in the power of the President of the United States a military force to coerce the seceding States, for the reason that it is wrong in itself, and for the reason that it blots out all hope of proper ad- justment. Sir, I am done.
Mr. Broadhead. I feel it due to myself as well as to the constituency which I represent and the country at large, for whose interest we are here assembled to-day, to say something upon the questions which are now before this body; and, in doing so, I propose to speak as nearly as practi- cable to the merits of the question before us. I take occasion to say that I should not have opened my mouth upon this amendment which is now be- fore this body for its consideration, but for some strange doctrines that I have heard advanced in regard to the subject of our General Government and our common Constitution. When we or- ganized this body, we swore to support that Con- stitution—we are acting as yet under the sanction of that instrument. Missouri is yet in the Union. Her citizens are yet bound by the obligations of
that instrument, and we propose to do nothing (at least I am one who expects to act with those who propose to do nothing) which may change the relations now existing between the State of Missouri and the Federal Government.
It has well been said by the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, that the spirit of insubordination to established law is now prevail- ing throughout our country to an extent unknown in any other portion of the civilized globe. I trust, gentlemen, and I believe, that this is not because of any failure in the system of self-govern- ernment which our ancestors adopted. I believe, on the contrary, that it grows out of the fact that the people, the source of power in this republican Government of ours, have abdicated their authority— that they have given up into the hands of designing men the power which they themselves should hold for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. That report, then, is before this body for the purpose of dis- countenancing any such doctrine, so far as our action is concerned, and the principles of that report go upon the idea that in attempting to re- dress any wrongs which either our fellow citizens of Missouri or our fellow citizens of any of the other States may deem they have suffered at the hands of the Federal Government, or at the hands of their sister States in this broad Confederacy, they can be better remedied within the Union and under the Constitution than out of the Union.
Now, the amendment which is offered here is to the effect that we will pledge ourselves not to furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Government in an attempt to coerce a seceding State. The language employed in this amendment is perhaps unfortunate, but we un- derstand— all of us understand, and no one of us now can fail to understand— the view in which this question is presented to this Convention, and the meaning of the term " coerce" as used in this amendment.
Gentlemen have argued as if those who op-, pose it will advocate the doctrine that the General Government has the power to make war upon a State of this Confederacy. But that is not the issue presented by this resolution, and it is not the question for us to determine. Gentlemen have gone back to the debates of the Convention which framed this Constitution, for the purpose of show- ing that when a proposition was introduced in that body authorizing the Federal Government to make war upon one of the States, and causing a provision to be inserted to that effect, it was voted down and argued against by Mr. Madison, who is said to be the father of the Constitution. This is true. But why? For the simple reason that this Constitution, this fundamental law of the people of these United States, was not intended to operate upon States, but upon individuals. The framers of that Constitution had seen the defects
115
of the old Articles of Confederation which were formed in 1777 and in 1778, and they took steps to provide for a more perfect Union. Under the provisions of the old Articles of Confederation a State could not be coerced— individual citizens of the State could not be forced to pay taxes to the General Government. It icas a league of sovereign, independent States and not a Gov- ernment, and it was so declared in the preamble to the Articles of Confederation. Hence, when- ever it became necessary for the Federal Govern- ment to raise a revenue to carry on war, or for any other purpose, it was necessary that the States should vote a levy by their Legislatures upon their citizens. The Federal Government had no power to enforce it, or to collect a dollar of revenue from the citi- zens of the States, but afterwards, when the Con- vention met for the purpose of framing the Con- stitution of the United States, they declared in the preamble of that instrument that, "we, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Government." They did not "form this league" but ordain and establish this '"Government." It is the people of the United State who ordain and establish a Government, and the question very naturally arose in discussion about the powers of Government in that Convention, as to whether the Government could act upon States or not. If they could so act, then they had nothing more than the old Articles of Confederation. But they changed those Articles, and determined that in- stead of being a league among States it should be a Government over individuals. Hence the Convention gave the Government power— to do what? To levy and collect taxes, imports and ex- cises, and exercise various other rights with which you are acquainted. It also gave the Government power to pass laws for the purpose of carrying those rights into effect. How carry them into ef- fect ? How does the Government effect the collec- tion of revenue? Not upon States, but upon in- dividuals. How does it carry into effect the Post Office system? Not upon States, but upon in- dividuals. Hoav does it enforce the laws of navigation all over this country ? Not by acting upon States, but upon individuals. Hence the framers of the Constitution in that Convention would have stultified themselves if they had ad- mitted that it was a power of the Government to make war upon States. They took away from the States the power to declare war, to levy duties upon imports and excises, and to exercise other rights of a similar character. These powers were reserved to the Government of the United States, and the Federal Government was thereby
brought into direct relation to the individual citi- zens of all the States.
If the gentlemen will look a little further— I have not recently read the debates in that Coven- tion— into those debates which were had among the wise men who framed that instrument, they will find that this is the reason why the power is not given to make war upon the States. They will find that the leading idea of that Convention was, that the Federal Government operates upon individuals rather than on States ; and how far does it operate on individuals ? Let us look at it as a constitutional question. It has been denied here that the Federal Government has power to coerce a seceding State. I deny that power also; but when gentlemen deny the power incorporated in that resolution, they go farther than the resolu- tions seem to import. The gentleman from Ma- rion argued that if the General Government undertook to collect the revenue, that war would come. This, I understand, is one of his arguments upon the resolution. If I inter- pret his position properly, it seems to me to be this : if the Federal Government does anything by which she undertakes to assert her authority, to execute the laws of the United States, and war ensues, then that is coercing a seceding State. If anything is done by a citizen, in resistance to the laws of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government undertakes to exercise its authority in executing its laws, then that is coercing a se- ceding State. The idea of bringing a State back into the union — of compelling Louisia- na, for example, or Georgia, or Alabama, or Texas, or any of those political States, as cor- porations, to come back into the United States, to send Senators and Representatives to Con- gress, is not entertained by any man. We do not pretend that the General Government should do any such thing. So far as Senators and Rep- resentatives in the Lower House are concerned, the Constitution provides that each State shall be entitled to her proportionate number, and if she does not send them it is her own fault. It will only have the effect of making her lose so much power. But I wish to meet this question — and we had as well meet this question here as else- where— I mean the question as to how far the Federal Government may call upon the mi- litia of the States within the Union, to put down insubordination in the seceding States. I say I want to define my position in regard to this question. I understand the gen- tleman to take the position that the Government of the United States has no such authority. One gentleman says that the President of the United States is limited to the execution of the laws of the United States now existing. I admit that, and will take it for granted that the President can execute ho laws but those now upon the statute books in regard to the collection ofreve-
116
nue. Let us look for awhile to see what that question is. The Constitution provides that Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the United States, to suppress insur- rection and to repel invasions. These are three distinct powers given to Congress, un- der the Constitution, in regard to this matter. The first is to execute the laws of the United States, the second suppress insurrection, the third to repel invasions. They are separate and dis- tinct powers. The militia may be called forth for either one of these purposes. I will admit this view that, until there is a law of the United States passed by Congress authorizing the Presi- dent to call forth the militia for those purposes, his hands are tied, and he is compelled to merely use forces which belong to the standing army and navy of the United States.
There has been a c-otemporaneous construction of these provisions of the Constitution. In 1792, during General Washington's administration, the Congress of the United States, for the purpose of carrying out the power vested in them by those provisions, passed a law the first section of which provides for the case of an insurrection against State Govern- ments, and for calling forth the militia of ad- joining States. This law was made applicable to the cases where the Executive or the Legislature, (if it happened to be in session,) of a State in which an insurrection had taken place, should call upon the President of the United States, and the latter was then authorized to call upon the militia of that or an adjoining State, to suppress that insurrection. The second section provides that, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary course of judicial pro- ceedings, &e., the same being notified to the Pres- ident by an Associate Justice or District Judge, he shall have power to call torth the militia. That was the act of 1792, but the act of 1795, which was passed, if I recollect the history of the country aright, soon after the whiskey insurrec- tion in Pennsylvania, went further than this. The second section of that act declares that the President shall be authorized, in case of combi- nations against the Government too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary course of judicial pro- ceedings, to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations. The only qualifications on this power is, that he is re- quired first to issue his proclamation commanding them to disperse. By this act, you perceive that the power was recognized during the administra- tion of Gen. Washington, to call upon the militia of the States, and it was recognized in a Con- gress consisting of many men who had been instrumental in framing the Constitution, and
who had participated in the struggles of the American revolution. The history of the coun- try had shown that such legislation was necessary. It had been but one year before, during General Washington's administration, that the people of Pennsylvania rose in open rebellion against the Government of the United States for the purpose of resisting the collection of excises upon the distilled spirits. Gen. Washington then found it necessary on that occasion to call 15,000 troops, including the militia from adjoining States, and the standing army of the United States, to sup- press that insurrection. The scenes which were then enacted called for the passage of this very law, for Washington, if I recollect aright, was not called upon by the executive of the State of Pennsylvania to lend the aid of the General Government.
You will see at once, gentlemen, the reason why there should be three distinct powers granted to Congress. Why is it? What is the difference between an insurrection and a violation of the law? An insurrection includes both rebellion against the Government and violation of the law which has been passed by that Government. Take the case above referred to. There, it is true that every man engaged in that insurrection— the object of which was to resist the law of the Fed- eral Government in collecting the revenue — was guilty of violating that law. But would it do to wait until you could try each individual participator ? When they had collected in large bodies and were offering pow- erful resistance ? Would it do to wait until each man could be taken up and convicted under the laws of Congress? How is it in regard to mobs when they arise in large cities? Do the civil authorities abstain from action until each man engaged in that mob can be tried before a Justice of the Peace and afterwards committed and in- indicted before a Criminal Court and con- victed? Sir, the very preservation of socie- ty, preservation of Government itself, if it is worth anything, demands that it should have power to protect itself against the insubordi- nation of its citizens of that character. Suppose, for example, that, as has been threatened, an army of ten thousand men should at this day be marching upon the capitol at Washington, which is still the seat of our Government, although that Government and its present head are considered odious by many members in this Convention — I say suppose this should take place, and the army should declare their object to be to destroy the public archives, seize upon the public Treasury, desolate and lay waste the capital of your coun- try—you know that every man engaged in that con- spiracy is a traitor, and deserves a traitor's doom; and you know, if he could be fairly tried, he would receive the fate of a traitor, and be hung. But is the Government to wait until those men
117
could be punished by the ordinary civil process ? Has the Government no authority to call forth the militia and army of the United States for the driving back of that invading host, and protecting its own existence, protecting the interests which are dear to you, and dear to all the people yet re- maining in this confederacy? If the Govern- ment has no such power as that, I would not give a fig for such a Government. But sup- pose it calls upon the militia of a State, would you call that coercion? Suppose South Carolina, for example, should send an ar- my, led by Gen. Beauregard, who now has command of her forces, to Washington City — this might have occurred two months ago, three weeks ago. Suppose, further, that Virginia had passed a resolution that she wrould neither furnish men nor money for the purpose of coer- cing a seceding State, in other words, for the purpose of raising an army to resist an invasion of this sort; then she would occupy precisely the position that we would occupy if we adopted this resolution with the amendment which is tried to be put upon it. Now, would that be an attempt to coerce a seceding State? No one pretends, and gentlemen who argue in favor of the amendment do not pretend that Mr. Lincoln or anybody else proposes to march an army into the State of South Carolina, or Georgia, for the purpose of making war upon the citizens of those States. But are we to have our hands tied for all time to come, and not prepared for any emergency that may arise, when our duty to our country, our duty to ourselves, and, it may be, our duty to our fellow- citizens of the South, who are now borne down by a military despotism, such as has never existed in this country before,may demand that ac- tion? When they shall call upon us for succor- are we to have our hands tied down, so as to be estopped from aiding the Federal Government in protecting them?
Furthermore, gentlemen of the Convention, suppose that the infamous military bill which is now before the Missouri Legislature, should pass, and Major General Jackson, who would be com- mander of troops under that bill, should declare that war exists in Missouri — that an insurrection has taken place in the State; then you are all put under martial law. The articles of war contained in that bill are then in full force, and the laws which now govern our relations in this State are silent. You all know that our laws then would be silent. Gentlemen, no truer remark was ever made than that by the Roman orator, who, in the midst of a great social conflict, declared that in the midst of the clash of arms the laws are silent. So soon as Maj. Gen. Jackson de- clares that war exists, or an insurrection exists in the State of Missouri, he puts us all under the articles of war, and you cannot speak disrespect- fully of the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor
else you may be subject to be brought before a drum-head court martial, tried, and taken out by a file of soldiers and shot down. Gentlemen, that bill gives that power, beyond all question. Suppose such a state of things should happen, and we should know directly from the people that the sentiments embraced in that bill do not rep- resent the sentiments of the people of Missouri, and know, as Ave do know, that it is in violation of the Constitution of Missouri; then if an attempt is made to further carry us out of the Union, under military rule, he would be guilty of treason to his country and we would not be bound by his acts.
Then, where shall we look for protection? I want to be put in such a situation as that I can call upan my Government to protect us against the treasonable plots of these men.
I shall then object to the amendment. If one State of the Union may take this position, then all may take it. If Missouri may take it, Illinois may take it; Kentucky, Massachusetts, every State in the Union may take it. They may all make the pledge that they will not aid the Gov- ernment of the United States in executing its laws. What would be the consequence? The consequence would be that this Government would be broken up. That it would be destroyed; that all authority would be at an end. It involves the proposition, then, of the destruction of the Gov- ernment. It is the strongest argument that has yet been used in favor of Secession, because if one State can take that position, every State can take it; and if all the States of the Union can take it there is an end of the Government— an end of the United States of America. If the amendment simply meant that we would not at- tempt to wage war, against a State in its sove- reign capacity, it would be a different proposi- tion. But that is not what it means, and the only question we have to determine in regard to it, is as to what will be the consequences of taking such a position.
Whilst I am up, Mr. President, I wish to say a word or two upon the other questions which are before this body. I have read over the report which was made by the majority of the Commit- tee of Federal Relations. I have read it care- fully. I have read the resolutions appended to that report.
Mr. Gamble. If the gentleman will give way for a moment, I will make a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Broadhead. I have no objection to such a motion, provided I can have an opportunity of concluding my remarks in the morning.
Mr. Gantt. Before that motion is put, I de- sire to say that for the dispatch of business, it seems to me the Convention had better sit only once a day— that we had better have one long session than two short sessions. For that pur- pose, I would move that the Convention hereafter
118
meet at 10 o'clock in the morning and adjourn at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I understand that no inconvenience will result to the members in re- gard to their dinners, as some of the hotel keep- ers have announced themselves willing to con- form to any arrangement the Convention may make.
Mr. Gantt's motion was put and carried.
Convention thereupon adjourned.
TWELFTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 14th, 1861. Convention met at 10 o'clock. Prayer by the Chaplain. Journal read and ap- proved.
Mr. Gamble. I am directed by the Committee on Federal Relations to lay before the Convention a resolution which they have offered and report- ed, to be read now simply for information, that it may be laid on the table and printed. It will be offered as an additional resolution at the proper time, when the report comes up for consideration. The resolution was then read by the Secretary as follows :
Whereas, it is probable that the Convention of the State of Virginia, now in session, will re- quest a meeting of Delegates from the Border States for the purpose of devising some plan for the adjustment of our national difficulties; and, whereas the State of Missouri participates strong- ly in the desire for such adjustment, and de- sires to show respect for the wishes of Virginia; Therefore, Be it Resolved, That this Convention will
elect Delegates, whose duty it shall be to
attend at such time and place as may be desig- nated by the Convention of the State of Virginia for the meeting of Delegates from the Border States ; and if there should assemble, then and there, Delegates duly accredited from a majority of the States invited to such conference, then the Delegates from this Convention shall enter into conference with them, and shall endeavor to de- vise apian for the amicable and equitable adjust- ment of all matters in difference between the States of this Union. And the Delegates ap- pointed under this resolution shall report their proceedings in such conference, and any plan that may be there agreed upon, to this Conven- tion for its approval or rejection.
Mr. Hudgins. I rise to a privileged question. The intelligence I have received from my family is of such a nature as to make it necessary for me to request leave of absence until Monday, if it be the pleasure of the Convention to permit me to return home.
The Chair. It will be granted unless objection is made.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard. I desire to make a statement to the Convention in relation to the question of mileage, which has been before the Committee on Accounts. We have had some difficulty in adjusting this question, but I hold in my hand a copy of the law recently passed by the Legislature, which does not take effect un- til the first of May. Although we are not bound by the provisions of that law, yet I would state that so far as the Committee have examined it — that is, the amount allowed to the members of the Legisla- ture from each county— they believe it is equitable and just; more so than the old system of mileage, and I desire that it may be read, and if there is no serious objection to it on the part of the Convention, why, we shall make this new law a basis of our calculation of mileage from the various counties herein named.
The recent act passed by the Legislatui-e was then read by the Secretary, together with the amount of mileage allowed each member in ac- cordance with the act. After which, the report was laid on the table.
Mr. Broadhead. When I closed my remarks yesterday upon the amendment now before the Convention, I had undertaken to show — and I think I had conclusively shown — that so far as this question of constitutional power was con- cerned, there was no doubt that it was vested in the hands of the Federal Government, and when I say constitutional power, I undertook to ex- plain that it meant the constitutional power to coerce the citizens of seceding States, and not the constitutional power to coerce seceding States. In other words, the meaning of this amendment is, that we are to be pledged if we vote for that amendment to-day to deny the power to the Federal Government to coerce the citizens of seceding States in any emergency. In other words, we deny the Federal Government the power to execute any laws, and we deny the power to suppress insurrection and repel invasion. As to the expediency of exer- cising that power, that is not the question now, and I am not here for the purpose of arguing this question as a question of present expediency, but for the purpose of showing the impropriety of this body pled gin gits elf, on behalf of the State of Missouri, that it will resist any support to the Federal Government, in any emergency that may hereafter arise in the history of our country, in executing its plain constitutional powers. I have shown, I think, gentlemen of the Convention, that this power is a power necessary to the pre- servation of the very existence of the Govern- ment itself. I have shown, and I think conclu- sively, that it comes within the plain letter of the Constitution which grants Congress the power of calling forth the militia of the several States to execute the laws of the Government, to suppress
119
insurrection and repel invasion. I have under- taken to show, and I think have conclusively shown, that by cotemporary acts of those wise men who framed that fundamental law, they gave the same interpretation to it that I have; the act of 1793 and the act of 1795, by their very terms, contained in the preample, de- clared that they were acts to provide for executing the laws of the United States, for the suppression of insurrections and repelling invasions, and showing by the language of that act that what was meant by the suppression of insurrection was the suppression of combina- tions in any part of the country, and that these were to -be suppressed by an army, if necessary. Thus all these cotemporary acts of the fathers of the country showed that they inter- preted that instrument as I now do. I will ad- duce another authority, although I did not intend to go back and read the opinions of Madison or Jefferson, or any body else, but to rely simply up- on acts of Congress and the provisions of the Con- stitution itself. I have undertaken to show that when Mr. Madison declared, in the Convention that framed the Constitution, that he was op- posed to giving the Federal Government the pow- er to make war upon a State., that he intended that the Government should operate upon indi- viduals in the State, and not upon the State in its sovereign political capacity. I will read, howev- er, for the purpose of carrying out that idea, a re- mark made by Patrick Henry of Virginia — a man whose name is so well known to every Ameri- can citizen, whose eloquent voice was raised in defense of the rights of his countrymen in those days that tried men's souls. I read from his argu- ment in the Virginia Convention which had this clause under consideration which we are now dis- cussing. You will recollect, gentlemen, if you go back to the history of the formation of the Consti- tution, that there was a large party in the State of Virginia and other States which claimed that the Federal Government, framed under the Constitu- tion adopted in 1789, was a consolidated govern- ment. There was a party in Virginia which object- ed to Virginia's going into the Union under that Constitution, taking the ground that she was sub- mitting herself to a consolidated government; that the Government, instead of being federal in its features, was national; that the power was vested in one head, and that it could operate on individuals ; that the people of the United States had constituted themselves one nation. They ar- gued against the adoption of this provision of the Constitution upon that ground, but they did not deny in debate that these powers existed. I read then from the argument of Patrick Henry in the Virginia Convention against the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Madison had made an argument in support of it, and Mr. Hen- ry made an argument against it. He said :
" The worthy member said that Congress ought to have power to protect all, and had given this system the highest encomium. But he insisted that the power over the militia was concurrent. To obviate the futility of this doctrine, Mr. Henry alleged that it was not reducible to practice. Ex- amine it, says he; reduce it to practice. Suppose an insurrection in Virginia, and suppose there be danger apprehended of an insurrection in another State, from the exercise of the Government; or suppose a national war, and there be discontents among the people of this State, that produce, or threaten, an insurrection ; suppose Congress, in either case, demands a number of militia — will they not be obliged to go ? Where are your re- served rights, when your militia go to a neigh- boring State? Which call is to be obeyed, the Congressional call, or the call of the State Legis- lature? The call of Congress must be obeyed."
That was the argument of Patrick Henry against this provision of the Constitution, and it shows that he understood it as we do, and that Mr. Madison understood as Ave do. I think, then, so far as this question of constitutional power is concerned, there can be no question — that when- ever insurrection takes place in a given State, the General Government has the power to suppress it. I care not how it may arise, whether by the head of the Government, or by any citizen holding office in the State Government, or by a combina- tion of citizens against the authority of the Gov- ernment, it is insurrection, so declared by act of Congress and understood by the Federal Govern- ment; and, if a State officer head the insurrection, he is raising his hand against the Government which he has sworn to support, because he has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and that instrument declares that all the acts passed by Congress shall be the su- preme law of the land, the constitution of a State or State laws to the contrary notwithstanding. This, then, disposes of the question of Constitu- tional power.
What is the other argument of gentlemen in regard to this matter? When men plant them- selves upon constitutional provisions and refuse to do what they think will be in violation of the Constitution of the land— and are driven from the question of Constitutional power the next argument is, what? An appeal to revolu- tion. Because, if the Federal Government has the power to call upon the militia of the States to ex- ecute the laws of the United States, to suppress insurrections or combinations — if it has that power, and we pledge ourselves that we will not obey such demands, then we pledge ourselves to resist the Government— we pledge ourselves, in other words, to take the red right hand of revo- lution and resist the Government. Are we pre- pared for that? Hence the gentleman from Buchanan (Mr. Hall) said this was an argu-
120
ment in favor of secession. When men plant themselves upon that position, they take a posi- tion that they will resist and rebel against the au- thority of the Government— that they -will en- gage in revolution, and for the purpose of pre- paring the minds of this Convention and the peo- ple of Missouri for that dread arbitrament, they appeal to Southern prejudices. The gentleman from Marion (Mr. Redd) says he will never take up arms under Abraham Lincoln. Who is Abra- ham Lincoln? I care not what his antecedents may be, I care not what his intellectual powers may be : Abraham Lincoln is now the President of these United States ; and when a gentleman pledg- es himself that he will never obey his authority, he pledges himself that he will resist the author- ity of the lawfully elected President of the United States.
Mr. Redd. Permit me to explain. My state- ment is this : that I never will take up arms, nor can Missouri, in my judgment, take up arms under Abraham Lincoln, to coerce a sovereign State to compel it to submit.
Mr. Broadhbad. Well, about coercing a Sovereign State. Gentlemen are very indefinite in their meaning about this word coercion. If they would just tell us what they mean by it, and not speak in vague and indefinite terms on the subject of coercion, then I could understand them. How do they meet this argument? They appeal to Southern honor— honor is the subject of their story. The gentleman from Andrew says, I love the Constitution of my country— I love the Union of these States— 'but I cannot sacrifice my honor! What honor ? Is there any honor in resisting the laws of your country? Let us look at this question as reasonable men, and I trust we are willing to meet it as such. Doubtless the citizens of Pennsylvania, when they resisted the excise law during the Administration of Washington, thought their honor was invaded — they thought they had a constitutional right to manufacture whiskey out of rye and corn, and they felt that constitutional right was as dear to them, I sup- pose, as the right of the slaveholder to take his slaves into the Territories. They doubtless ap- pealed to each other's honor, and forthwith took up arms against the government of that State; which not being strong enough to put them down, they then took up arms against the United States. Massachusetts, when she resisted the embargo law, thought her honor was implicated, because the embargo was unconstitutional. South Carolina, in 1832, when she resisted the tariff of 1828, thought her honor was implicated, because, as she supposed, an unconstitutional law had been passed. Every man who resists the law has some excuse for resistance. A man takes the life of his fellow citizen on the street because his hon- or requires him t© do it. The poet has well said :
"No rogue e'er felt the halter draw With good opinion of the law."
Every man who resists the authority of the Gov- ernment, thinks that m resisting it he is defend- ing his honor ! Why is it, when men are talking about the Union and the execution of the law, constitutional and unconstitutional, should we appeal to honor? Honor will impel him to do what? To take, as the gentleman from Andrew eloquently explained, a halter in one hand and a sword in the other, and involve the country in a civil broil, and imbrue our hands in fraternal blood, and destroy the brightest prospects ever held out to the world or to humanity. Does his honor re- quire him to do that?
What is the nature of rebellion ? Is it not the destruction of property — the destruction of per- sonal rights — the destruction of personal security — the destruction of everything which is held dear by men in this world? Does honor require us to do that ? Does honor require us to involve this country in revolution ? And for what? Because the Government of the United States may require you to execute the constitutional law. Out upon such honor as this ! I take it that the true dic- tates of honor require a man to be loyal to his country, until a time shall come when the oppres- sions of that Government are such that no man can submit to them. When the wrongs which despotism may, from time to time, inflict, become unbearable, then, and not till then, is a man jus- tified in resorting to revolution in vindication of his honor.
Much has been said about sectionalism, and yet upon all these questions we hear appeals made to the honor of the South. Now, gentlemen, I think I feel as sensitive of the honor of my na- tive State as any man. And as it may be appro- priate in this connexion, I desire to state that I claim to be a native of a Southern State. I was born and educated in the Old Dominion. I love my native State. I love her blue mountains and her green valleys. I love her for the glories that cluster around her at the present day. I love her on account of those venerated men she has given not only to bless this country, but the world — men who have been considered first in war, first in peace, and first in the councils of their country. And, gentlemen of the Conven- tion, if there is any bond of affection which ties me to my native State stronger than another, it is that now, in this day that tries men's souls, upon the floor ot her Convention, her Somers, her Stuarts, her Moors, now stand up for the flag of their country, which their ancestors gave them.
I will say a few words in regard to the repon of the Committee on Federal Relations. It is an able document. I say, as a whole, and taking the resolutions as a whole, they meet with my approbation. There are some things, however,
121
occupying the position I do, in that report and in these resolutions, about which I am called upon to say something. I speak particularly of that resolution— and I shall only give it a passing notice — which recommends the Crittenden Com- promise, as it is called, and its extension to Ter- ritory yet to be acquired. My chief objection to that resolution is that it has been tried before by the people of the United States at various times, and that from the history of the efforts that have been made to have it adopted, it has been shown that it does not meet with the approbation of the coun- try—I mean, particularly, that portion of it which proposes to extend its provisions to territory here- after to be acquired. It was submitted to the Border State Convention and rejected by them; it was submitted to the Peace Conference and they did not adopt it; it was submitted to the Committee of Thirty- three and they did not adopt it; and so I think, although it is not put down in this resolution as an ultimatum, I think it may in time have that effect, and will be looked upon by the people of the country as an ultimatum, and that they will not be satisfied with any oth^r settlement. I object to its extending to a terri- tory yet to be acquired, because I think it holds out an inducement for further acquisition of ter- ritory and unnecessarily tend to involve us in wars with other countries, in order that slave territory may be acquired.
I shall not go back into the past history of the country to elucidate this position. I state this briefly as my objection to the adoption of the resolution. I am not prepared to say that I will vote against it, but I will state that this is the po- sition I took before my constituents — a position upon which I was elected to a seat in this Con- vention, and I state here my solemn convictions in regard to that proposition, not only that it is wrong, but that no good can be accomplished by urging it. However, we are here in the spirit of compromise. Missouri has a mission to perform in her action at the present day. Her duty is to do all she can consistently with her honor and interest to bind together the dis- cordant elements that now exist in this coun- try, and bring back, if possible, the seceding States into the bosom of the Federal family. Her next duty is to herself— to see what her own honor or interest requires, and to see what posi- tion she must necessarily occupy. Hence, upon the first proposition, so far as the settlement of this question is concerned, I am willing to give up much, even of what I consider to be best for the accomplishment of this object, to the opinions of wiser and better men than myself. I trust I am willing to meet this question divested of all pre- vious party predilections and prejudices— that I can meet this question as a Missourian — as an American citizen. And that is the position I in- tend to occupy. Standing here in Missouri —
neither with the North nor with the South— stand- ing in the bosom, in the middle of this great valley, as American citizens, as Missourians, it is our duty as Missourians and American citi- zens to take a position neither with the one or nor with the other. I am willing to cast aside past predilections, and grapple with this great ques- tion, if I know myself, without being influenced by any such considerations. In the report which has been read by that committee, I could have hoped that while Missouri assumes to act the part of a mediator, she should assume the cha- racter of a mediator — and what is the part of a mediator? either to let bygones be bygones, and to say nothing which may inflame the minds of one section or the other, or to show the faults of both. Hence, I could have wished that while that report undertook to denounce the party of 1,800,000 citizens of the United States, who have elevated the present Chief Executive to the Chair as a sectional party — that while it was denouncing Northern men for opposing Southern men, that it could also have recorded some of the acts of the Southern politicians which have been calculated to in- flame the Northern mind. I could have hoped that they would not have failed to forget that that great measure which was canonized in the hearts of the American people, the Missouri Compromise, which gave peace to a distracted country for thirty years— I could have hoped that they would not have failed to recollect that that law was ruthlessly torn from the statute book. I could have hoped that they could not have failed to recollect the abuse which has been heaped upon some Northern men, and particularly upon that old sage of Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams, for standing upon the right of petition as a constitutional right, belonging even to the hum- blest and most fanatical of his fellow citizens ; and I could have hoped that they would not have failed to recollect that there has grown up, that for many years there has been growing up, in the Southern mind, a system of tyranny in public opinion which has denounced and put down every man who chose to call in question the opinion of the dominant party on the subject of slavery — a sys- tem which, while it permitted individuals to talk on all other questions, while they were at liberty to discuss questions of general political economy of morals and religion, they could not talk upon this one question ; and I could have hoped that the Committee would not have failed to recollect that there has been formed, in the mad- ness of the hour, in the Southern States, an or- ganization which has seized upon our arsenals and upon our forts; which has robbed the treasu- ry of our common country, and which is now seeking to cover up in anarchy and blood the damning evidences of its guilt. But I pass these questions all by, as sins of omission rather than
122
commission. There is one question, at least, upon which we can all stand, and that is the first resolution — that there is no cause existing why Missouri should go out of the Union, and dis- solve her connection with the Government. Upon this question, as I said, Missouri is interested. Missouri has an interest of her own, and must speak for herself. And I shall enforce that posi- tion by a reference to her present geographical position. So far as this question of slavery is concerned, I shall enter as little into it as possi- ble; but when gentlemen talk about violating the institutions of their States, I want them to talk sensibly upon the subject, and let us know what they mean. What are the institutions of Missouri, and what her position in this confederation of States? I admit that negro slavery is one of her institutions. But she has other institutions, if they may be so called, which are equally as dear to her as the question of negro slavery. Ten years ago she had 90,000 slaves within her limits, and something over 500,000 free white inhabitants. The last census shows that we have 112,000 slaves, and upward of 1,100,000 free white inhabitants. The increase of slaves during that time has been twenty-five per cent; the increase of our white population has been over one hundred per cent. Taxable prop- erty in the State of Missouri ten years ago, ac- cording to the census, was $136,000,000; the tax- able property of Missouri to-day is $360,000,000. Her taxable property, then, has increased in the ratio of more than three to one, her white popu- lation has doubled itself, and her slave popula- tion has only increased in the ratio of twenty-five per cent. Now, will you tell me what has given this additional wealth to Missouri? Is it the slave population, when that increase has only been twenty-five per cent; or is it the increase of the white population, when that increase has been over one hundred per cent? The value of slave property in Missouri, as stated by my friend from Andrew, (Mr. Hudgins,) yesterday, is about $100,000,000. The report of the Auditor of Public Accounts at Jefferson City, published last winter, shows that the taxable value of the slave property of Missouri, is $45,000,000; one-ninth of the taxable property of the State, and less than half the estimate made by my friend from Andrew, showing that he is as badly mistaken in his statistics in regard to the slave interests and slave property in Missouri, as he is in regard to his doctrine of constitutional power. "Where has this great increase in the white population of the State come from? The resources of Missouri are various; her interests consist in her agricultural, mineral and com- mercial resources. Her slave population is en- gaged in raising hemp and tobacco principally, but there are mining, manufacturing and com- mercial interests, and who is to carry them on?
j You have within 100 miles of St. Louis, iron enough to supply the wants of the world for cen- turies to come. It is estimated by a scientific man, who has recently made that a subject of investigation, that there are contained within the Iron Mountain alone, two hundred and thirty million tons of iron. It is now accessible to this city by railroad, and all that is necessary to de- velop this wealth is labor. Now, sir, every able bodied man who comes to this State to get em- ployment is worth $2,000 to the State; let him come from England, Ireland, Germany, or from Eastern States, if he is industrious and willing to labor, he is worth to the State, in developing its agricultural and mineral wealth, $2,000. And are we to drive all these means of wealth away from us ? Where are we to get this means of developing our resources ? Where are we to get the men to open our fertile prairies ? Where are we to get the men to work in our mines, in our workshops, and to carry on our commercial busi- ness, if it is not from the overcrowded Eastern States and Europe ? But if you make Missouri a member of the Southern Confederacy, with but a small slave population, you can see at once that all this population is driven off. Men will not come to come to Missouri for the purpose of en- gaging in these pursuits, when they know that, so far as our political power is concerned, we shall be subjected to the cotton lords of South Caro- lina and Louisiana.
Hence, as our report very well says,Missouri as a member of a Southern Confederacy would be a non-slaveholding State in a slave communi- ty, for slaves would be driven off, because we arc surrounded by a cordon of free States into which our slaves would escape, and slavery would not exist ten years after Missouri joined a Southern Confederacy. As she stands now, she is protect- ed; and I am Willing to go as far as any living man to protect the institution of slavery in the State of Missouri. I have no prejudice against the institution. I have been raised with the insti- tution, and I know something of it. I am a slave owner myself; but I am not willing to sacrifice other interests to the slave interest, or say that it is the peculiar institution of Missouri, when we know that it is not true. I am not willing to sac- rifice to the slave interest, the commercial, min- ing, or other interests of the State. I stand here not as a Southern man, but as a Missourian and an American citizen. Born at the South, I think I know something of my duty to the South as well as to the Constitution of my country. — Bat, further than this. Look at the posi- tion of Missouri in a geographical point of view. Here she is in the temperate zone, the home of the white man, in the middle of a great valley, and, whether you go east or west, you find simi- lar institutions to those that almost surround us. All these States want a communication through
123
this State, and Missouri is the pathway through which they must travel ; and they will have that pathway just as certain as we will have an outlet to the ocean. And more than this, efforts have been made for the purpose of connecting the At- lantic with the Pacific Ocean, by means of a rail- road, in order that the wealth of the Indies may be poured into the lap of this country of ours. And Missouri stands in the pathway of nations; over her soil this pathway must run, just as inevitably as fate. And do you suppose that the accumulated interest of the East and the West, and I may say the world, will ever submit to have an interdict placed upon that pathway. I say, then, gentlemen of the Convention, that Missouri cannot go out of the Union if she would ; and I think I know what I say when I speak it, that she has not the power to go out of the Union if she would.
It may be, an attempt to take her out would result in convulsion and civil discord. It may be that an attempt to take her out would result in convulsion, and it may be that convulsion would produce revolution and death. But our ancestors submitted to more than this, and for that destiny who is not willing to die? That man who does not know when to die, is not fit to live. I say it may result in convulsion. Our ancestors periled all in the formation of this Government; they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to maintain the principles of repub- lican liberty. Are we willing to do less ? Are our lives and honor worth more than theirs? Certainly not. Could they, but three months ago, or five months ago, have seen this country in the pride of its power— could they have seen the morning light of science which but dimly dawned upon their vision, shining more and more brightly even unto the perfect day — could they have seen the elements harnessed down to the service and wants of man — could they have seen our mightiest rivers spanned with the triumphal arches, and the distant portions of the continent united by bands of iron, upon which are borne by a power not known to them, the peaceful car- avan of commerce, which the victories of peace have brought us — could they have seen all these triumphs, how much would they not have pledg- ed for their eternal preservation? Shall Missouri do less? Shall she cast the bark of her hopes upon the stormy sea of revolution, or will she re- main, as I think she will, firmly anchored upon the rock of the Constitution, under the protection of our national flag? So far as she is concern- ed, she should live there and die there.
Mr. Orr. I have been requested to come for- ward and take a stand upon this platform, in order that I may stand before the Convention. I was raised in the backwoods, gentlemen, where mirrors or looking glasses, ten by twelve inches square are considered large, and having been in-
vited, in common with the balance of this assem- bly, to participate in the hospitalities of gentle- men of St. Louis — on one occasion, after a num- ber of us had collected, we were invited into a certain room in which there were mirrors about the size of that door, and a little gentlemen whose name would not be worth anything to you on the present occasion, steped up by my side, and said he, "I thought I saw you in the other room." I looked around and saw a very good looking man about my size, standing in the other room, and, turning to him, I said "I believe you are in the other room, too." Then, for the first time in my life, did I enjoy the luxury of view- ing myself at full size ; and I have no doubt that the exhibition I made of myself in the canvass last summer, caused me to receive many votes I would not otherwise have received.
Gentlemen of the Convention, you and I are called here by the people of Missouri, to take into consideration the relations existing be- tween the State of Missouri and the Federal Gov- ernment. We are here as component parts of the best Government in the world — a Govern- ment in which the rich man and the poor man have life, liberty, character and property, better secured than in any other Government that has yet been made— a Government in which the rich man's son and the poor man's son, and,in fact, all, are better fed and better clothed and better edu- cated, than in any other spot on this green globe. We are here the proud recipients of a Govern- ment possessing every climate and every variety of soil., with all these blessings, with everything that is calculated to make men happy upon earth, and with all these liberal institutions under which we have been reared, and yet we see men coming up here and deploring the condition of affairs that now surround us. Hence, it will become ne- cessary to spend a few minutes in giving what I consider to be the cause of this lamentable state of affairs. We have different views from differ- ent gentlemen, as to what has caused all this. You hear some of them declaring that it is because a sectional man, with a sectional platform, has been elected to the highest office in the gift of the people, and we hear others say it is because of certain personal liberty bills that have been passed in Northern States, which set at defiance the Constitution and the laws of the country. Let me tell you what I think it is. Living in a country, as we do, where the rich man's son and the poor man's son have like aspirations to at- tain, at least, the highest offices in the gift of the people, partyism has, as a consequence, been growing up in our country from its earliest histo- ry. There have been various party divisions, and for the last few years party drill has become so well understood, that a few demagogues and wire-workers and office-seekers have been mana-
124
ging this country, while the masses have been at- tending to their own business, and paying too little attention to the vital interests and institu- ; tions of the country. Men have held conventions, ] have affirmed their action as the will of the peo- \ pie, when the people were not consulted about it; ; they have placed in nomination for high offices individuals who have never done anything to en- j title them to such a position; and when you and I have been plowing, and working on Lincoln • platforms — making rails — such individuals as ; these would carry out their plans and j declare that we were disorganizes ; that we ; were bolters, going to destroy the Whig j or Democratic party, unless we acquiesced in | their action, and, rather than be called by these \ names, we have marched blindly up to the j ballot-box against our better judgment, until merit, qualification, integrity and honesty have j been left out of view almost entirely, and men j have been elected to the highest offices in the ! country because of availability and regardless of j ability. Gentlemen, I hope that we will survive | this, and when we shall have done it, then I see a disposition in the American people to take their own cause into their hands, and henceforth conduct things upon the old Jeffersonian princi- ple, and select men because they are honest and qualified, and who will do what they say, and not because they belong to the dominant party. Why, sir, when this Convention bill was passed, the people were called upon to select men, and what have they done? Bad as they may have failed in some instances, they have done their best, and selected the best men they could ; and when they failed it was because they were deceived. I have been what is called an Opposi- tion man in Southwest Missouri, because I have been acting against the Democratic party; and when I became a candidate, together with two old Whigs, everything possible was done to make the people vote against us on the ground of partyism; but old white-haired Democrats, who have hither- to never failed to vote the Democratic ticket, dis- regarded this appeal, and voted for men who they thought would act for the best interests of the country. Permit me to say here, that I trav- ersed the State of Missouri last summer more than any other man, and when these difficulties were coming upon us, and without any character as an orator, without being entitled to anything of the kind, yet on every occasion, where I had an appointment, I saw old white-haired men, who had never before taken any particular interest in these matters, rushing out to hear what might be said, and to see how they might act for the best interests of their country. And I now believe that when we are again called on to vote, it will be for Constitutional Union-loving men, disre- garding former political ties. Notwithstanding you hear men talking dolefully about the destruc-
tion of the Government, I for one do not believe it is going to be destroyed. I believe that the people of Missouri, and of the whole country, will stand together, to hand down the richest boon ever transmitted, untarnished, to posterity. I have been trying to get the floor since this amendment to the fifth resolution of the majority report has been offered, for the purpose of speaking to it, and I had intended to confine my remarks as closely as I could to the subject before the Convention. But, since the debate has taken the course it has, I shall now, as other gentlemen have done, speak to the report. I will try not to be tedious, and I will promise one thing, that whether I will quit when I am done or not, I will quit when I think I am done. [Laughter.] We are called here to express our several views in regard to the rela- tions that we bear to the General Government, and the relations that exist between the State of Missouri and other States, and whether we have the right to secede, or whether the General Gov- ernment has the right to coerce a State back if she undertakes to go out, as well as various other subjects which have been brought before the Convention.
Now, what are the relations of the General Gov- ernment? It has been argued before you that a State has the right to secede; it has been argued by others that it has no such right. Now, before I go into an investigation of the subject, it will be well enough for us to consider for a moment whether those States that have gone out, are really out of the Union or in it. If they are a separate confederacy — an independent republic — our duties towards this people will be different from what they would be if they are part and parcel of this Government. I think I can satisfy any reasonable man as to whether they are out or in. I take the position that they are in— that they are members of this Union to-day, and that they have no right to sep- arate their connection with the Governfjont. — How will I prove it ? By submitting a proposi- tion. The Constitution of the United States has made a provision for receiving new States into the Confederacy. Now if Georgia, South Caroli- na, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Texas, are out of the Confederacy and they take a notion to come back, would it not take another organic act of the General Government to admit them again, as it takes two to make a contract. — If they are in, although they may be derelict in this duty— although they may be in open rebel- ion against the Government, and though they may stay out, for years, yet, when they get ready to do so, have they the right to elect Rep- resentatives and Senators to Congress, and ask odds of nobody as to whether they can come in or not? If they have, I ask you in the name of common sense, whether they are not part and
125
parcel of the General Government ? And further, suppose we get a telegraphic dispatch this evening that Great Britian has invaded the soil of South Carolina, is there a gentleman in this Convention the patriotism in whose bosom would not in a moment he kindled and impel him to go there and defend our sister State ? If there is a man so mean and so low as not to go there, then there is a General Government and a General Constitution that you and I have taken an oath to support, that will make it your duty to go there, whether you want to go or not. Then I come to the con- clusion that if we have to protect her, and admit her Senators and Representatives into the gene- ral Congress of the United States, that they are yet in. Although they are doing wrong, although they may be acting rebellious and treacherous to the best Government in the world, yet they are members of it, and have a right to all the bless- ings and privileges that you and I have, whenever they choose to take them. It is said, though, that they have the right to go out, and you hear it said by some gentlemen that they have gone out, and that they are no longer members of the Confederacy ; and one gentleman, yesterday even- ing, argued the legal right to secede, and others take the same position, and I think they must have read the Inaugural Address of Maj. Claib. Jack- son, for in that address he takes this position and says : "I will not stop to argue whether they have the right to secede, but yet they have seceded." And gentlemen upon this floor say they have se- ceded, and that they will not stop to talk about constitutional right. They remind me of a mag- istrate I heard of in the State of Illinois once. I have never been there, and I have never made a track in a free State in my life; but in the first settlement of Illinois, I understand the jurisdic- tion of a magistrate extended to $20. On one occasion a couple of litigants appeared before the magistrate, and one of them obtained judg- ment for $30. The defendant says, "Why, Squire, you can't give judgment against me for $30." The magistrate kept on writing. The defendant again said, "Squire, you have no authority to give judgment to that amount." Still the magistrate continued writing, and with- out looking up, said, " Don't you see I have done it?" [Laughter.] It makes no odds whether they have the right to secede, but they have seceded! This is enough for you and me to know. It is a knock down argument that no man can get over.
Some gentlemen who addressed you are great sticklers for the words "Compact" or "Confedera- tion." They won't give the Government the dig- nity of calling it a Government, but they will call it a compact, a confederation. It is no such thing. We had a confederation before we made this Government; we had a Union before this Government was made and before this Constitu-
tion was framed, and that was called a Confed- eration— the old Confederation of States.
But this is said to be a partnership — a partner- ship that any party has the right to dissolve at any time. The Abolitionists of the North have passed Personal Liberty bills, and violated the Constitu- tion ot the country, and it is said we are no longer bound to the original agreement, and we take the liberty of dissolving the partnership at pleasure. Let us examine that for a moment. Take a law partnership for instance, and suppose one of the partners has failed to comply with the articles of partnership, has the other partner the right to dissolve it at pleasure. Never. He has the right to make an equitable case and have the part- nership wound up in a proper manner, but he has no right to take it into his own hands and dissolve the partnership at pleasure. To illustrate still further, suppose A. and B. are partners in trade in St. Louis, and that they have accumula- ted $100,000, $50,000 of which is in money, and the balance in a stock of goods, not insured; on a certain occasion the house gets on fire, and A. being near, and seeing that he can save the money, safe and sound, and knowing where it is put away, rushes in just in time to obtain it, and down comes the house, and away goes the goods. B. comes up directly, and congratulates A. that he has got enough to save them. I am glad, he says, since it is no better, that it is no worse. We can take the $50,000 and start in business anew. But, oh ! says the other partner, you are not in time; just at the time I came here I took a netion to dissolve partnership, and took out what belonged to me. [Laughter.] South Carolina took a notion that she would dissolve partnership and take all the forts and treasury, without counseling with the other States whether they would agree to it or not. She got off with her part, and now we may help ourselves. What would B. have said to this man? Would he have taken a club and coerced him to his duty? No. He would have said : you and I have built up a character and made a respectable show by honesty and in- tegrity, and now let us continue; I ask you in the name of common sense and justice not to dis- grace yourself and ruin me forever, but come and divide the $50,000 and let us go on, and with our character at home and abroad we can extend our credit, if we only act like men. Suppose B. should say in reply: "No, sir, I dissolved the partnership, and I had a right to do so; you were not here to get your share, and you can get none of mine." What do you guess he would do ? He would go to the Clerk's office and obtain a writ— not a musket and bayonet — but a civil writ, and commence a civil process to obtain his part according to the laws of the Government. " Oh, yes, I understand you, but I say no,— you are a coercionist." I stand in favor of the
126
Constitution of my country, the Union of tho States, and the enforcement of the laws, and if this is coercion, you can have it for what it is worth. What kind of a position would we be placed in if we could not do it? The strong men would rule the weak. If we cannot coerce by civ- il process, I want the Government broken up. It is not Avorth anything. Its force is gone. And we might as well be without any Government at all. But I am one of the last men who desire to send an army into the South or to send civil war into the country. But we are asked how we are going to enforce constitutional law when the offi- cers have all resigned? We are not going to do it at all, if there is no one to do it. How would Judge Breckinridge, who is Circuit Judge of this District, have the laws enforced here if men were all to become so corrupt that Grand Jurors would not find bills against murderers ? He could not do at it all. When the people become so cor- rupt that their oaths to the Consti- tution, and the blessings of this Government will not force them to do their duty, I suppose they would suffer as well as we. We will not send an army to force them to elect offi- cers, but we will hold still, and contend for bless- ings that you and I can have in this country as long as Missouri has the honesty to enforce the laws. They will probably want the laws enforced as soon as we will.
There are men here to-day, gentlemen, in this city, from Georgia and Mississippi, and they say that the people of their country are tired of the reign of terror there — that the people intend to hold on, until election comes off, and then they will try and vote down seces- sion and revolutionary movements, and if they cannot do that the time will come when they will walk over the dead bodies of these demagogues, if need be, and come back into the Union. The people have not been consulted in these Southern States about going out, but these leaders and de- magogues, (I call things by their right names,) the traitors have taken them out without consulting the masses of the people. I know some gentlemen say that I ought not to use these harsh terms to the people of the South, nor will I to the masses. There have been parties in this country, the masses of which intended to do right. The people of the South are patriotic and Union-loving as you and I, but they have been misguided, many of them, and the balance have been forced into submission. I say here, to-day, without fear of successful con- tradiction, that if every officer of the United States were to resign, if every member of Congress would resign to-day, and let the election come off in thirty days from this time, and let Congress meet in sixty days from to-day, they would not be there ten days before every difficulty would be adjusted. The people of the North and South want
to do what is right, and they will do it when they get a chance.
But we are told that Lincoln has been elected as a sectional candidate, and that his people are on a sectional platform. Who are his people? He was elected by a little more than one-third of the people of the United States, and there were several circumstances besides the Chicago plat- form, that aided his election. The people of Missouri, and the people of the Southern States aided in electing Lincoln. Not directly. They did not vote for him, but by voting for the three other candidates they assisted in his election. There were 100,000 votes thrown for Lincoln up- on the tariff question, and many voted for him because of the corruption that had crept into the high places of this Government, and they saw no other chance of defeating the party in power. When I say tho present party, I want to be understood I do not say the Democratic party is corrupt, but it has been led by corrupt men. Corrupt men have held offices, and rather than give them up they would see the Govern- ment crumbled into dust. I believe if Lincoln was to run to-morrow against Bell or Douglas he would be beaten. Why do I come to this conclu- sion. The North polled nearly 400,000 more votes against Lincoln than the South. We talk about breaking loose from a body of men who by edu- cation have been prejudiced and misled, but yet we find that in the North there were nearly 400,- 000 more against Lincoln than we had against him. Then, when we cut ourselves loose from that element, we make them enemies by seces- sion, and foreigners.
And what else have we done ? We have de- stroyed the commerce of the United States. What kind of a Union would the North be by it- self, commercially? What kind of a Union would the South be? Our interests are one — we have one destiny. The God of Nature himself so arranged it, that so far as our wants were con- cerned, our wants should be supplied. The South furnishes its cotton, its rice, and its sugar to the North, and receives in return the wheat and the corn, and all kinds of produce. But cut the Government in two, and what do you see? Every mule that we raise here will have to be taxed — a portion of every mule and every hog, and whatever else we have will have to be taken to support this government in the South. And when they send their cotton to us, instead of getting the full price for it as now, they will have to have a poition taken off to help protect the tariff revenue of the Northern confederacy. Now, sir, we are groaning under the burthens of taxation as one people, and does any man of sense suppose that we could support two governments, when we are now complain- ing at the cost of supporting one. This country was and is destined to be one great government.
127
You hear men make beautiful appeals to the stars and stripes, you will hear them say many pretty things, but I want you to notice from this time on, that the man who says the most pretty things at the start, is just fixing for seces- sion before he gets through. [Laughter.] It would be poor consolation to my constituents for me to express my devotion to the Union and the Stars and Stripes, and then give such votes as would stab the country to death. When a Doctor comes to see a patient, he talks learnedly about the disease, and feels the pulse or examines the tongue, and makes you believe he knows all about the system, but when he comes to administer cal- omel, if he happens togive him strychnine or ar- senic, I suppose the high-toned terms the Doctor used would not prevent the laws of nature taking off the patient. Now, sir, I want to allude a moment to the resolution, and the remarks I make will be scattering, because so many able gentlemen have preceded me.
The gentleman from Clay, [Mr. Moss,] who I will do the honor to say is a devoted Union man, has offered an amendment to the resolution which implies a meaning not contemplated by the origi- nal resolution. Let us examinewhere this amend- ment would lead us. I think its doctrines would ultimately destroy the Government. I think we have not the right to enact a law of this character. Take up tho Constitution of the United States, and you see that Congress has the power to levy and collect taxes, declare war and coin money, and do various other things that the State of Mis- souri cannot do at all. You and I are subject to a war-making power, that Missouri has nothing to do with, except through her Representatives in Congress, and you and I cannot help ourselves, and tho State of Missouri does not help herself, unless she does it by open rebellion. Then she is not sovereign, because we have a law over us. Missouri cannot pass a bankrupt law, but the United States did, and all the people were subject to it. The same day that Missouri became a State she became a portion of the United States, and I believe when Missouri ac- cepted that organic act she said : "This act shall not be repealed without the consent of Congress." Then we are not sovereign. Let us examine how she would place herself by the adoption of this amendment. There have been a good many dif- ficulties supposed. Now, suppose these States that have gone off to maintain their independ- ence^— suppose all the powers of Congress were brought to bear in favor of maintaining the in- dependence of this Confederacy — suppose they should come here and invade Missouri for the purpose of conquest — I suppose we should be compelled by this amendment to stand still, with folded arm'?, andAvhen we see our houses on fire, and our neighbors swinging to a limb, and our wives and children massacred bv these warriors
from the South, we dare not raise our hand. Is not that the position we would be placed in by this amendment? Suppose the citizens of Chicago — and I believe they are the most noted people of the North— should come here and steal our last nigger, and then get Illinois to secede, and we were to call upon the General Gov- ernment for aid — and I hope that we have got a General Government that we can call upon, for we have not had heretofore in this respect— for I remember, last year, a gentleman who is a member of this Con- vention, tried the operation; He had a negro who run off to Chicago, where he found him, but he was rescued by free niggers, and he then ap- plied to the General Government to send troops, as Fillmore sent troops to Boston; but his request was received with silent contempt. And here let me say that, for the last eight years, if the Presi- dents of the United States had enforced the Fu- gitive Slave Law in the North, there would have been none of this difficulty in the South to-day. All we lack here to-day, to constitute us the best government on earth, is to have a President who has nerve enough to enforce the laws North and South.
Well, suppose there is a right to secede, is it our interest or duty to do so ? You have heard various estimates as to how much negro property Missouri has. You have heard that she is sur- rounded by three free States, who would be back- ed by a hostile government in case of secession. What kind of a predicament would we then be in in regard to our negro property? Notwithstand- ing, I could get good certificates from home, and from great men all through the State of Mis- souri, that I am a respectablo Black Republican in good standing, because I last summer declared and renew the declaration here to-day, that I am ready to aid Mr. Lincoln in the discharge of any constitutional duty, I say to you, I am in favor of the institutions of my country. I am in favor of the institution of slavery, and I say to you here to-day that the institution of slavery has advanced this great Government far ahead of what it would have been had it not been for sla- very. I believe, before God, that it is calculated as a blessing for black and white men both, when properly conducted. Slave labor is adapted to the wants of the South. It would continue to be a blessing if we would only quit this agita- tion on the subject. But if we cut our connec- tion with the General Government, let the interest in slave property be 45 or $100,000,000, it will be wiped out within one year after such a severance. Then it is not for the interest of Missouri to sever her connection with the Federal Government. The only salvation for the institu- tion of slavery, is her adherance to the Govern- ment that proects slavery. Now, if they go to Illi- nois, we get some of them back; but in case of
128
secession, we get none. Then, as to our duty : there is something to attend to in this respect as well as our interest. I will illustrate, and in doing so, will show the point of coercion. Suppose a company of these delegates before me associate themselves together for the purpose of crossing the plains to California. They start, and on the way encounter difficulties and dangers, but they pledge themselves to stand by each other. By and by the dangers become so great that a por- tion begin to feel unsafe. But just about this time there comes along a company of gam- blers, drunkards and robbers, that have numbers sufficient to protect themselves against the In- dians and the bad white men. Some of the dis- affected ones in the other party see this, and associ- ate themselves with the gamblers and robbers, without consulting the balance, and any at- tempt to get them back would be met by the declaration that they had the right to go. Presently things are carried to such an extent that by-and-by the other party is coerced entirely and compelled to join this party of gamblers and drunkards and robbers. Just so the South are acting to-day. They claim the right to violate these pledges, and now invite us to go with them; but I am in hopes a report will soon be forth- coming that we can't trade. They invite us to do what? To abolish our slave property as Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia will be forced to if they join a Southern Confederacy. They desire us to do this in order that their own slave property may be protected. Now, are you willing to be forced to do that which you do not believe is right? I, for one, intend to stand by the Union as long as there is a solitary State that will stay with Missouri. I have been told that Missouri and other States, by so doing, would have to pay the public debt. I believe there is an intimation of repudiation. I see, in the Southern Congress, that if Lincoln will treat with them, and make an equal division, they will pay their portion of the public debt, but if he don't do it, they won't pay any of it. As long as Missouri or any other State shall re- main in the Union, I am willing they should as- sume the public debt. I know they will be able to pay it eventually, as well as I know I shall be able to pay all the debts I owe the citizens of Green county— and, so help me God, if I never pay my debts, I never will deny them ; I will give a new note as long as they want it. And so long as Missouri stands in the Union, I will pledge myself that every dollar of the public debt shall be paid.
I want you to understand that I expect to live and die a citizen of the United States. I do not expect to ever go out of this Union alive. What great use would we be to the South? We should have a slave code upon our statute books and not a slnve in the State. We should stand here sim-
ply occupying the high position that the cotton bales did for General Jackson— to stop the bullets of Northern men from going down South and hurt- ing somebody. [Laughter.] And that is what they want. They know, sir, that Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri united, would be tolerably hard to get over, and if a Northern Confederacy undertook to travel over these States it would be some time before the wives and children of th e South would be put to flight by the sword; hence, they want us to stand here as a breast- work. I am unwilling to do it. " Oh, you are going with the North, are you?" No, sir. I am not going trotting about with Missouri for any- body. I am going to stay right here, where the God of Nature placed us, and so far as my influ- ence is concerned, neither go North nor South. I look forward to the time when the present wandering States will come back, having seen the error of their way and without being whipped back "Oh then if I am for the Constitution and the enforcement of the laws, I am a coercionist." No, sir. To illustrate my character in regard to whipping, though it may not be a great honor to myself— I had a couple of little boys of fourteen to sixteen years old, who ran away from me one day, and then it was, I felt as I never had felt before. But my family was not dissolved. I still had a family. The balance of us did not run away. Before night, one of them came back. I put him on a horse next morning, and gave him another horse, and some money to pay his expenses, and sent him after his broth- er, and when they both came back, in place of shedding blood, I shed tears. So I would deal to- wards these Southern States. -Although they have done wrong, although they have acted badly to the Border States, yet I hope to see them come back after their pride is out, in order that this dif- ficulty may be settled, and this Government continue the best on earth. Now, I desire to al- lude to certain arguments that have been made here. The gentleman from Platte, I believe, made a speech, in which he takes the liberty to say that if force is employed, all hope of settlement is gone. He then talks beautifully and feelingly, like an individual without hope,
" If hope be dead, why seek to live ?
What else beside has earth to give ? Life, love, and youth and beauty, too,
If hope be dead, say, what are you?"
I do not understand, however, that the 5th reso- lttion says all hope is lost. I have hope that there will be a settlement, without a fight; but if there be a fight, it will be such an one as history does not talk about. But I yet think the difficulty will be settled and that this will yet be a nation with a republican form of government, But if the Government cannot be saved, then the last hope of the capability of man's governing himself is destroyed. And I suppose it will be a
129
great while before another nation can be found willing to set themselves up to be shot at in order to try the experiment. Then I believe the gentle- man from Cole made a few remarks, and I briefly notice one remark he made. He says if we plunge into war, we should be required to stain our hands in the blood of our brothers. I suppose he would no: regret it more than 1 would regret it; but at the same time, I should regret that my brother should find it necessary to stain his hands in my blood equally as much.
I will now notice the gentleman from Andrew, (Mr. Hudgins,) and let me here say that his zeal, and the exertions he made, not in defense of his country, but in defense of secession and rebellion, deserve a better cause. I say it was an able ef- fort; and the cause which he advocated will not find a better advocate than he. But I will notice a few of his remarks, and try to do him no in- justice, for I believe he has obtained leave of absence, and has left. He says he understands the sovereign States bestowed certain powers on the Federal Govern- ment. I don't understand any such thing. I understand the General Government is a Gov- ernment made by the people of the United States, and that its powers are from the people of the United States, and not from the States at all. He says that he does not believe that leaders in the South are traitors, but that they act from princi- ple, and he admires their patriotism. I think he must have been reading Gov. Jackson's inaugu- ral address. He says, "I will not pretend to jus- tify the conduct of South Carolina, but I say she is a patriotic State." A patriotic State! A State that has torn down the stars and stripes of our country— a State that has run up the insignificant Palmetto flag— a State that has fired into the ves- sels of the United States. Oh, that's patriotic. I say the people of South Carolina are patriotic, and I have no doubt of it, but I say their leaders are traitors.
The gentleman from Andrew says, if the four- teen slave States all go out, he wants Missouri to go with them. Now, I hope the freemen of Missouri will be actuated by higher motives. And should oppression become so intoler- able that we are reduced to the painful duty of revolution, we will engage in it, but not because other States go out or revolt. That I believe is the only argument which the gentleman offered why we should revolt. Now, would he not make a great juror? Suppose he and eleven others impannelled to try a man charged with the crime of murder. And, after hearing the testimony, and argument of counsel, the gentleman from Andrew comes to the conclusion that the testimony is not suffi- cient to satisfy his mind of the guilt of the crim- inal. But if the other eleven jurors say he ought to be hung, would not his argument take the
gentleman with the current, and convict a man because others say he should die. If we secede because other States do so, are we not for se- cession in the abstract?
And right here, before I conclude, let me say that this Convention seems to have disappointed those who have called it together, consequently they are talking about repealing the law. They thought that by calling this Convention they could take Missouri out of the Union, as the gen- tleman from Buchanan the other day truly stated. I say truly, because the bill was rushed through with hot haste, and without time to reflect, and the people had but few days to prepare; but they rallied to the standard, and sent up a Convention to keep Missouri in.
Gentlemen, I will try to say but little, if any- thing more, on this subject before giving my vote. I hope we shall be able to do our business this week. I want to give my hand to Virginia, Ken- tucky and all the States that are doing what they can to preserve the integrity of this Government, and will ask them to be with us, and not go with the States of the South that have gone out of this Union; and I am for telling them that we will stand by our Government as long as there is any hope of maintaining its integrity; and when we are forced to go out we will do it in bitter anguish and not in joy. It is said by some gentlemen that this Convention is all Union. I do not think so. But while I do not think so, I hold that those who are not for the Union have an equal right with me to take the course they see proper. All I desire is, that every man should state his posi- tion openly and firmly. If he is for the Union, it is his duty to say so. If he is against it, let him say so; but let no man say he is for the Union and vote against it.
Mr. Redd. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, it is well known to you that I entertain the view that a State, when its consti- tutional rights have been trampled under foot, and its institutions endangered, has the right to declare the compacts that unite it with its sister States at an end. I did not desire to discuss that question for the plain, palpable reason that, under my view, that right does not spring up until a state of case exists under which every man who is not for unconditional submission would ad- mit that the right of revolution exists. But while I would concur with a large majority of this Con- vention, and of my fellow citizens of Missouri in the existence of a right to defend the Constitu- tion and maintain our institutions, if necessary, out of the Union, and by force of arms, I did not desire to enter into any controversy with them as to the name by which that right should be called. I was willing they should call it revolutionary right, because revolution has no terrors for me. If a state of case arises in which, in my judg-
130
ment, it becomes necessary to go out of this Union and maintain the institutions of Missouri, and the constitutional rights of their citizens, by force of arms, I say, to call that a revolutionary act, has no terrors for me. I care not for a name. I did not intend to discuss this question at all; but I have heard Southern men and Southern States denounced as traitors to their country; I have seen the charges made by the New York Tribune, and papers of that character, and I have heard those charges reiterated and detailed here, and I deem it but an aet of justice to them to discuss this question. I know, in entering that discussion, that I labor under many and great disadvantages. As I have been a farmer, raised up between the han- dles of a plow, receiving only such an education as wa ; received in my day at an ordinary coun- try school, I have to meet here men of giant in- tellect—men of an intellect cultivated by educa- tion— men of a national renown as statesmen and jurists. I state this, gentlemen, that if I should fail in bringing your minds to the conclusion at which, mine has arrived, you may attribute it to the true cause— the weakness of the advocate, and not any defect in the cause which he pleads.
There is one proposition, upon the determina- tion of which this whole controversy rests. You have heard it announced from this stand, again and again, that the Constitution of the United States was made by the people of the United States as one community. If that be true, then many of the conclusions to which the gentlemen arrived are the logical sequence of that proposi- tion- But I deny that it is true. I challenge them to the proof. This is not a legal question — it is a question of fact. Who made the Constitu- tion ? I say it is not a legal question, who made it. What its effect is, is a legal question. But the question, who made it, is one of fact, as muCh as the question lohen it was made; and it is a question to be determined, like every other fact, by appealing to historical evidence. Gentlemen have laid before you the evidence, and the only evidence they can produce, to sustain their prop- osition. That evidence is contained in the recital of the Constitution. It is contained in the pre- amble of that instrument I admit that the in- strument upon its face recites the fact that it was by the people of the United States. I admit that that recital is prima facie evidence of the truth of that fact ; for I desire to meet this question fairly. I desire to give full weight to all the evidence they can adduce to maintain their proposition. Then, I say that recital is prima facie evidence of the fact. But it is not conclusive. Any instrument may recite that which is untrue, if it has man for its author. The real question is, is that recital true? And it can ;be decided only by appealing to historical evidence.
I am sor/y, gentlemen, that my health is in such a condition that I cannot discuss this ques-
tion as I would desire to do. Before I enter upon that inquiry, I will state to you the proposition that in my judgment is true, and whose truth I believe I can demonstrate. It is this : That that instrument was made by the States acting as States; that it was made by States, which, at the time of making it, had all the powers of sove- reignty in them ; that it is a compact between those States. If I can establish that proposition, then, I say, I can establish as a logical sequence the right of each State, when that compact is vi- olated, to declare it at an end.
How did this Government originate ? It was not eternal, nor was there a time when it had no existence. How, then, did it originate? The thirteen States who were the parties entering into that compact, or, as the gentlemen would have it, whose people entered into it, had not always been States. But a few years prior to that time they were British colonies. As such they had an existence separate and distinct from each other, and each of them was united to the British crown bv the tie of allegiance. On the 4th of July, 1776, those Colonies, alleging that the British crown had vio- lated their rights, severed that tie, dissolved that political union, and declared that they were, and of right ought to be, free and independent States. They declared, further, that, as free and inde- pendent States, they had the power to declare war, to make peace, to contract alliances, to es- tablish commerce, and to do any other and all other acts that free and independ- ent States may of right do. By this de- claration they assumed to themselves the right to exercise all the powers of sovereignty, as free, independent States; and they maintained that assumption by force of arms. In 1777, about one year after that declaration, these thirteen then existing States entered into a compact with each other by which they formed, as they declare on the face of that compact, a league of friend- ship, and they declared their object in entering into that compact, to be for their mutual defense and general welfare. To carry out that ob- ject they created by that compact— (I allude to the old Articles of Confederation) — a common agent to carry out these common ends. That agent was called a Congress; and they delegated— mark, did not give, nor cede, nor grant; there is a world of difference between the terms — I say they delegated to that genei-al agent the powers that they deemed necessary to enable it to attain the end of its creation, which was a common defense against a common enemy — the British crown— then the mightiest empire in the civilized world. By the fifth article of that com- pact, it was stipulated that in this Congress each State, without regard to size or population, should have one vote. By the second article of that compact, it was stipulated that each State should retain its sovereignty, and all
131
the powers not delegated to this common agent. Now, gentlemen, this league, this confederacy between the sovereign independent States, con- tinued until 1787, a period of ten years, and during that time experience demonstrated that this common asjent had not the powers necessary to attain the end of its creation, and that agent itself passed an act in the spring of 1787, by which it called upon the States which had created it to send delegates to a Convention for the pur- pose of remedying defects in that compact. The States responded to that call. Each in its own way selected its own delegates. Some acted through State Conventions, and some through their Legislature, and some through their Executive. These agents or delegates as- sembled in Convention, in September, 1787, and the result of their deliberations and labors, was, the Constitution of the United States. The Con- vention framed that instrument, but its vitality and binding force it received not from the Con- vention. Why look at the very terms of the in- strument itself. The seventh and last clause pro- vides that when it is ratified by any nine of the States, it shall be a Constitution for the States so ratifying it. From this it is evident that it was to have no force, no binding effect, until an event should haopen in the future, which might never have happened, to wit : its ratification by nine States. That being so, then what was the office of this Convention? It was neither more nor less than that of a scrivener. When it had drawn the instrument, it had discharged its whole duty — exhausted its whole power. When was the instrument ratified? If you can ascer- tain that— for by the instrument itself, it was to be referred to the States for ratification, and to have no force until nine of them had ratified it, and then it was to have force only between those nine that had ratified it— I say if you can ascer- tain that, then you can ascertain the time when it received its vitality as a binding instrument.
Look for a moment at the history of that period. You will find that three States ratified it in the fall of the same year; that six States rati- fied it in the early part of the next year, which was 1788, and that in the month of June, 1788, New Hampshire, the ninth State ratified it. Then, and not until then, was it a constitution— then, and not until then, had it any life or any vitality, or any binding force or effect as a legal instru- ment. Now, from whence did it receive that vi- tality? Did it receive it from the Convention? If it did, why, then, it would have been a consti- tution at the very moment it came from its hand. But by its very terms it was to have no force until ratified by the States. Then, I say, the proposi- tion is clearly and unquestionably established, that its vitality was imparted by that ratification; and if eight States had ratified it and five had re- fused to ratify it, it would have had no vitality to
this day. From 1788 to 1790, at various periods, the remaining four states, by a like ratifica- tion, became parties to the compact — became members of the Union.— Rhode Island, which was the last State that ratified it, did not do so until 1790. Now, I ask you, where were these four States before they came into the Union? They were not under the old Arti- cles of Confederation, because they had been abandoned. They were not under this Constitu- tion, because they had not ratified it, and by its terms it was to bind only those that did ratify it. Where were they, then? They were standing out as sovereign and independent States, with all the powers of sovereignty that Eussia has to-day.
Now, gentlemen, I ask you whether I have not established the proposition that that instrument was made by the States, and not by the people of the United States, acting as one community ? If you need any further evidence, look at the instru- ment itself. How can you amend it? If every man, woman and child in the United States were assembled together in one mass, and were unan- imous in desiring a change, they could not change a single clause of that instrument. If your National Convention assembles, it cannot change a single clause in that instrument. Then how can it be changed? There is but oneway it can be changed, and that is by the consent of those who made it— videlicit : the States. It is true that there are two ways in which the propo- sition of change may be made — there are two sources from which a proposition to amend can come — but there is only one source that can give those amendments life and vitality, and that is the separate action o" the States, each acting as they acted in the beginning — as sovereign and inde- pendent States.
You have one mode of changing that instrument before you for consideration— a National Conven- tion. What can that Convention do in the way of making a change in the Constitution? It can propose amendments. That is all it can do. It can do what this original Convention did in 1787; it can act as a scrivener in drafting an instru- ment, but it can give it no life. When the amendments are agreed upon by that Convention they are to be laid before the States, each acting separately for itself, and each ratifying or reject- ing that amendment; and if three- fourths of them thus acting ratify the amendment proposed, then, and not until then, does it become a part of the Constitution. If any less than three-fourths ratify it — if anymore than one- fourth reject it- then it falls dead. From this it is evident that, whatever amendments be proposed, they must receive vitality from separate State action, or they will receive their death-blow from the same source. Gentlemen tell me that the Constitution was made by the people of the United States as
132
one community. Such a proposition, although it is recited on the face of that instrument, falsi- fies all history— it falsifies the instrument itself. It is not true.
I have referred you to one way of proposing amendments. There is yet another way, which is provided hy the Constitution itself. It is the action of Congress.. Congress may by a majori- ty vote of two-thirds propose amendments. They have been trying to do it all the last session. Mr. Crittenden laid before it his amendment. Judge Douglas laid before it his amendment. The Bor- der State proposition was laid before it, and so was the report of the Committee of Thirty-three. But it refused to refer any of them to the States. It could have so referred them. Congress can propose to the States any amendment it sees fit; but its power stops there. Congress can only act as a scrivener— write out the amendments— that is all it can do. They are laid before the States, each State acting for itself through its own body — its Convention, assembled as this— and from the action of those States those amendments, whether proposed by Congress or by the National Convention, receive life or death.
Now, gentlemen, if this be true, what is the natural sequence ? I tell you it is this : while I admit that there is no common tribunal to whom States can appeal when they differ about com- pacts or anything1 else ; while there is no common tribunal lower than he who is the Judge and Ruler of nations, yet there is a law that governs nations. There is a law by which sovereign States may ascertain their rights and their remedies, al- though there is no tribunal to enforce those rights or enforce those remedies. What is that law? It is a law that has its foundations laid broad and deep in the principles of eternal justice. It is a law that has received the universal assent of all civilized nations on the globe, and it is called the law of nations. Now, what is that law as ap- plied to compacts between sovereign States ? What are the rights of the parties ? what are the pow- ers of the parties ? what are their remedies under that law? By that law, when independent sov- ereign States enter into a compact with each other, they are bound to keep that compact; they are bound to perform its terms and its stipulations in good faith. That law, when the compact is violated, recognizes in the injured party the right and power to resort to two reme- dies. What are they? It enables the injured party to say to the wrong-doer : you cannot by your wrong annul your compact. I will hold you to its performance, and I will demand of you indemnity for its violation. That is one remedy. Another remedy is this : the innocent party has the right to say to the wrong-doer : having vio- lated the compact that you entered into, I declare that compact at an end. By your wrong you have given me the power to annul the compact
and discharge myself from its obligations. That is the law of nations, as applied to the compacts entered into between sovereign and independent States.
Now, under that law, no State in this Union can declare its compact at an end without cause. If it does, it is itself the wrong doer, and violates that compact, and upon that contingency I admit the doctrine of coercion, because military power is the only tribunal to whom nations can appeal in the assertion of their rights, and if the States of the South have violated that compact, and the States of the North have kept it in good faith, then I say the States of the South, by the law of nations, are wrong, and the States of the North have the right to coerce them and compel them to discharge the obligations imposed by that compact; but, if the States of the North have violated that compact, if they have disre- garded its provisions and trampled it under foot; then I say the right of the Southern States, as the injured States, is equally clear to declare that compact at an end, and no longer binding upon them, and the right to resort to force to compel them to submit to wrong and oppression, does not and can not exist by that or any other law. Have the Northern States kept that compact — have they done it? They have their champions here on this floor — men of national renown as statesmen and jurists — I ask them, have they kept that compact? Let them answer that to the satisfaction of this Convention and the satisfac- tion of the people of Missouri, before they under- take to denounce Southern men as traitors. What are the provisions of that compact? By the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of that compact, these States covenanted that when a man was indicted in one State for treason or felony or any other crime, and escaped into the limits of another, upon demands being made by the Executive of the State from which he fled, the State holding him shall surrender him for trial. What was the object of that covenant? What was the object of the Constitution? Look at its objects as expressed upon its face. One of them is to establish justice. Here is the provision to carry out that object. Have they kept that com- pact? No, they have violated it — trampled it under foot again and again; for years they have done it. Ah, and worse than all; worse, tenfold worse than the act, they have justified it. They have announced the startling proposition that slave stealing is no crime. They have based that upon two propositions equally startling, that strike at the very foundation of the slave institutions of their sister States in that compact. They say that nothing but property is the subject of lar- ceny. Well, that every man knows. That every lawyer knows. What is the next proposition? Man cannot hold property in man. What is the
133
logical sequence? Why is it that slave stealing is no crime? You cannot steals, slave. Why? A slave is a man — there can be no property in man.
Now, gentlemen, I am not talking about the propositions enunciated by a few fanatics. I am not doing, as has been done from this stand, by gentlemen who have tried the South, not by her acts, but by the propositions enunciated by a few of her ultra men, such as Yancey and others — I am not trying these Northern States by that rule. If I did, I could convict them of every crime in the catalogue. No, I will not do so, because it is not just and fair; and while I have as little love for the anii-slavery party that has controlled the action of these Northern States, as any man can have, I have a love for justice that will prevent me from resorting to any sort of demagogism. Then, I say, this has not been done by a few ul- tra Northern men, it has been the deliberate act of Northern States, speaking through their own chosen authorities.
I will say here, in passing, that I have no com- plaint to make of the invasion of Virginia by John Brown. The Northern States are not charg- able with it. It is not right that they should be held accountable for it, unless they knew it be- forehand, and failed to arrest him in his design. Therefore I have said nothing about him. But in regard to this subject, it is stated in the ma- jority report that when a few madmen invaded the soil of a Southern State, and spilled the blood of Southern men, they were hanged, and that was the end of it. Now that, in my judgment, is not the voice of history. It is true that John Brown was hung. It is true many of his confed- erates Avere hung; but was that the end of it? No, they were canonized as martyrs to liberty and justice. Was that the end of it? No! for two of them escaped, one to the State of Ohio, the other to our sister State of Iowa. They were demanded by the Governor of Virginia, but those States violated their compact by refusing to de- liver them up for trial. That was the end of it.
Now, by the third clause of the second section of the 4th article of the compact, the States agreed with each other that when a man bound to ren- der service in one State escaped into another,first, that he should not be discharged from service by the law of that other State; secondly, that that State should deliver him up. This was a com- pact not between the North and the South, be- cause they were then all slave States except one, and she (Ma-sachussetts) held slaves within her limits. But it was emphatically a compact be- tween all the States— a compact by which Mis- souri is bound as much as Illinois. For if a fu- gitive slave escapes from Kentucky into Missouri, Missouri is bound first not to attempt to set him free by her laws, and secondly, to deliver him up to his master. Now, have they complied with that compact?
Here is something that they agree to do, and something that they agree not to do. The thing they agree to do is, that they will deliver him up. The thing they agree not to do is, that they will not attempt to set him free by their laws. I say they have violated that compact in both its branches. They have done it willfully, deliber- ately and repeatedly.
How have they done it ? They covenanted that they would deliver him up. Did they make any law to carry that covenant into effect ? Where is the State that made it ? No, they violated that covenant. They neglected to do that which they covenanted they would do. How about the other branch? They covenanted they would not attempt to free him by their law. Have they not done it ? Have they not passed their personal liberty bills, with the avowed object of making that slave free ? They have. Aye, and they have gone further than that. Some of them have imposed heavy penalties upon the master, for daring to assert his constitutional rights to the possession of his slave within their limits. Now, if these States had lived up to their compact— if they had passed no law to set that slave free— if they had passed laws to secure his delivery to his master — there would have been no necessity for Congress to le- gislate upon the subject at all. But they violated that compact, and Congress, the common agent of all, that was created for the purpose of estab- lishing justice, interposed and enacted the fugi- tive slave law. How did the Northern States treat that law? Did they respect it? Did they obey it? No. They treated it as they had treat- ed the Constitution— they trampled it under foot —they nullified it, again and again, by deliberate State legislation; and they have done all this against the earnest entreaty of their sister States. They have done it against the repeated remon- strances of a united South.
A^ain, gentlemen, the South has ever held that every citizen of the United States, without regard to where he was born or reared, has a right to go into any territory opened for settlement and take with him the members of his familv and his property ; that the Constitution of his coun- try, that palladium of his rights, extends over him in that territory and protects him in his family and his property. I say that has ever been held by the South to be the doctrine of the Constitution — and it has been so held by the Supreme Court of the United States. I ask you, is it sot right? There are members here of a party who have ever disputed that proposition. I ask them to throw aside if they can, the shackles of party prej udice, and pass upon that proposition, and tell me whether it is not right and just. Now, the North denied it. The Northern States, controlled by a feeling of anti-slavery and hostility to the slave institution, say to Southern men, yon
134
may go to the Territories, "but you must leave behind members of your family — those who were born in your household — those to whom you have become attached next to your wife and your children — you must leave them behind. More than that — they have said, if you dare to take them, we will, by Congressional legislation, take them away. We will sever your family ties, and take from you your property, and make you no compensation. Is that right— is it just? Now, a gentleman on this floor has said, have you any complaints to make against the General Government? Has the General Government ever violated the rights of the South ? I sav, yes, she has. Look at your Oregon bill. What do you find there? You find a clause excluding Southern men from that Territory, unless they leave behind them their slaves ; or, if they take them there, the law takes them away. Then, I say, the General Government did violate that right in the passage of the Oregon bill. It also violated that right in the passage of the Missouri Compromise bill. But I do not complain of the General Government on that ground. And why? Because Southern men, for the sake of peace and the Union that they love, consented to surrender a portion of their rights, thinking that, with that surrender they would appease this moloch of anti-slavery. But what is the condition of things now? How do we now stand? How did we stand when these States went out? A President was nominated upon principles that were destructive to the institutions of the South; a President was nominated who had enunciated the destructive error that our Government, as our fathers made it, partly slave and partly free, could not so continue to exist— that in that condition it was a house divided against itself, and must fall. It is true he said : "I do not anticipate that the house will fall— but the cause of division will be removed." Well, how removed? He tells you, "an irrepressible conflict is going on bet ween free- dom and slavery." He did not enunciate the exact truth there. It is a truth, but not the whole truth. He should have said that freedom, or this anti-slavery party, is waging an "irrepres- sible conflict" upon the slave institution of the South. If he had said that, he would have said the whole truth. But he tells you that that con- flict cannot stop — that it must continue until slavery is in a process of extinction. That is how this cause of difficulty is to be removed. The Northern States indorsed these doctrines and pur- poses by large majorities. Well, now, how is slavery to be extinguished ? Gentlemen, while I do not admire the principles of this party, I must say this for them, I do admire their sagacity; I do admire the ability of the men who stand at the head of that party. If wisdom exists in adapting means to ends, then they are wise men and sages. Let us look at their plan. Their object is the ex-
tinction of slavery everywhere, or the establish- ment of the proposition that man cannot hold property in man. How is it to be done? We have fifteen slave States and eighteen free States. We have territory enough for fifty more States. We are opening our Territories to the settlement of a foreign population, and that population is anti-slavery. Now, tell me, if you con- fine slavery to the limits of fifteen States; if this immense territory, extending across to the Pacific, is to be peopled and brought into the Union as States, and with a foreign emigration enough to people a State every year; how long would it be before the free States would have a majority of three-fourths of the States in the Confederacy? It would occur in the next thirty years as certainly as the sun will rise to-morrow. When it does occur, what is the result? Now, I will do this anti-slavery party the justice to say, that I have no doubt they are honest. I have no doubt they are acting up to the convictions of their own minds as to the duty that they owe to themselves and to their God. I judge men by their acts, and not by what they say. What is the leading principle of that party? It is this : — that slavery is a social, moral and political evil. What is the corollary of this proposition ? It is this : — that it is our duty to get rid of that evil wherever we can reach it — hence we wiU abolish it in the Territories — hence we will abolish it in the District of Columbia — hence we will interfere with the inter-slave trade : contending, as they do, that under the Con- stitution they have the power to do this. But they do not propose, for the present, to in- terfere with it in the States, because they admit that the Constitution guards and guarantees it there. It is true, there is one element of that party I do not charge its acts upon the party, and they (are not responsible for it,) that takes even a broader position, namely, that slavery is an evil of a character that no law can guard, no consti- tution can sanctify ; and that there is a higher law that nulifies that Constitution, and hence that element is for abolishing it in the States now. But, as I said before, I do not regard that to be the position of the Republican party.
I honestly believe while the Constitution con- tinues as it is, that the Republican party would not attempt by Federal legislation to abolish slavery in the States, for I believe that they are honest, but their principles would in the course of time ne- cessarily lead them to that consummation. When thirty years have rolled on — when State after State has been brought into this Union, until the free States have the requisite majority of three- founhs— what will they do then? Then, for the first time in their history, the anti-slavery party controling those States, will have power, under the Constitution to abolish slavery in the States. Having the power, the moral responsibility, ac-
135
cording to their views of slavery, rests upon them to do it, and as they are honest men, they will do it And if that doctrine was established — I mean the doctrine of exclusion of slavery from the Territories — then the handwriting is upon the wall that announces the destruction of slavery, as certainly as it announced the destruction of Bel- shazzar.
Now, in such a condition of things, our South- ern brethren seeing that this Constitution had been violated— that it had been trampled under- foot time and again— that a system of poli- cy had been established that would inevitably re- sult in the overthrow of their institutions, and that the time was rapidly approaching when that system of policy would be earned out — severed the tie that bound them to the Union, and under the law of nations de- clared the compact at an end, and took their fate into their own hands, as did the sires of 1776. While I admit that they had cause, yet I do not approve of the act. While I admit the right, I do not approve its exercise. I believe it was hasty and unwise that a portion of these fifteen States, those who seceded, having homogeneous institu- tions with the Border Statet— having the same constitutional rights to protect, ought, in good faith to have staid in the Union, and co-operated with us in endeavoring to settle the section- al issues upon some basis that would have se- cured our slave institutions and constitutional rights. That is what, in my judgment, they ought to have done. They have not done it. They had a right to judge for themselves.— But while I must condemn that act as hasty and unwise, I must say that they are not trai- tors, unless our sires in 1776 deserve that name. The States in the compact between them delega- ted certain specified powers enumerated in that instrument to the General Government created by them. There are certain other powers, such as to coin money, the enactment of an ex-post facto law, or a law impairing the obligation of contracts, &c, the exercise of which is prohibi- ted by that instrument to the States, and for fear that the Government they had created would usurp powers not delegated, a clause was insert- ed that all powers not delegated (a word that im- plies the power to take back) to the General Government by the Constitution, and not prohib- ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. The power recognized by the law of nations to be in every sovereign State to declare any compact entered into by it with other States at an end when violated by the other parties to the compact not being one of the powers delegated to the General Government, nor one of the powers prohibited to the States, stands like the power to legislate on the subject of con- tracts, the descent of property, or the social rela- tions of husband and wife, parent and child,
guardian and ward, master and servant, as one of the powers expressly reserved to the States, and may lawfully be exercised when the occasion arises, without incurring the odium of treason.
Now, gentlemen, while I differ with the first resolution in this majority report, I would be will- ing to assent to it if the word "motive" was sub- stituted for the word " cause." Can it be there is no cause, notwithstanding these repeated vio- lations of the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that our institutions are in danger —can it be that there is no cause for exercising the right of secession ? I certainly admit the right, and that cause exists for its exercise; but I oppose its ex- ercise, and I shall continue to oppose its exercise, so long as there is a hope of obtaining our rights in the Union. I oppose its exercise, not because I deny the right itself, but because I love the Union. I love it because our fathers made it. I love it because we have enjoyed under it unex- ampled prosj>erity. I love it because of the glo- rious memories that cluster around it ; and it is my love for the Union, and no other motive, that makes me oppose secession, or revolution, and actuated by the same motive, I shall continue to oppose it so long as there is a hope of amicable settlement. But if the time should unfortunately come— God forbid that it should — when all hope is lost — when Missouri is driven to one of two alternatives, either to sub- mitto the aggressions of this sectional party, and surrender her slave institutions at its bidding, or go out of the Union — I shall then, notwithstand- ing the committee organized upon this subject by this body, introduce upon this floor an ordinance of secession. The action of no such committees, and the threats of no party, have any terrors for me. But I never will do it until then. I believe that this Union, ard our institutions in the Union, can be saved ; for though the political firmament is covered by a dark and portentous cloud, with- in whose lurid bosom slumbers the whirlwind of desolation and civil strife, yet there are breaks in that cloud, through which we can see the glim- mering of the sunlight of peace. But if the time arrives when these breaks shall close, and that cloud present but one aspect, and is ready to burst over our heads, and the border slave States shall have gone out, then my voice shnll be raised for Missouri's standing up for her rights out of the Union — aye, unto the last dollar and to the last man.
I am opposed to this amendment. With one alteration I could give it my hearty assent. If it is taken to mean Missouri while she remains in the Union will not aid a seceding State to make war upon the General Government, I give it my hear- ty assent, for Missouri will not do that— Missouri is for peace. But if it means that Missouri in?*o time to come, no matter what changes may oc- cur, will not aid a seceding State in making
136
war upon the General Government. I cannot give it my assent, because Missouri may be a seceding State herself. I hope she never will be. God forbid that she should ! But she may be, and if this diffi- culty be not settled upon some basis that will guarantee her institutions, she will be. With one change, namely, that Missouri will not aid a seceding State, while she is in the Union, I will give it my assent; but if she is driven out, and war is made upon her, and upon the other States, she will and must be prepared to resist the General Government.
Mr. Gantt. Mr. President, in entering upon this discussion, I shall first address myself to the proposition discussed by the gentleman who last engaged the attention of the house. He set out to prove that secession was a right that could be exercised without a violation of the Constitution, and then went on to show that while he conten- ded for the right, he considered the action of our Southern sisters hasty and ill-judged, and would not recommend Missouri to follow their example. But in order that this might be one of the steps Missouri might take hereafter without guilt, and in order that she might understand distinctly what her rights were, he labored to show that it was a right, and might constitutionally be exer- cised. I have seldom, Mr. President, listened to an argument as to the nature of the Constitution which was so decidedly in the teeth of the can- on against self-slaughter. Ho refers to the fact that the Constitution was ratified by the States, and that, until ratified by the States, it was not binding upon any of them — nay, that until it was ratified by nine States it was not binding upon the eight which had previously rat- ified it ; he refers to that fact to show that it was nothing but a compact between the States, and that the framers of it commenced their work with a ho in their mouths. He admitted that the pre- amble used the words : " We, the people of the United States," &c, "in order to form a more perfect union" — a union more intimate and per- fect than had been effected by the Articles of Confederation — but he said that the persons who thus sat in convention were delegated by the States, and that they merely had the office of "scriv eners," and that the instrument which was the work of their hands was nothing more than pro2JOsition until ratified by the States in their sovereign capacity. He committed the great mis- take, as I conceive, of imagining that the Union of these States, and the Federal Government, which is the result of it, is nothing more than the con- federacy which it replaced, or a compact between sovereign States, which may be dissolved at the pleasure of any one of them, and it is to that proposition that I shall proceed to address myself.
I say that in the course of his argument he was forced, in the first place, to admit that the recital of this Constitution declared that it was
the work of the people of the States, and that they were welded together into a consolidated government by its terms. He went on to say that because the instrument which declares this thing had no validity until it was ratified by the States in their sepai-ate and sovereign capacities, therefore — and it was a monstrous non sequitur — therefore the instrument, being so ratified, opera- ted not according to its tenor, but according to the idea which he had, I wont say the effrontery, but the hardihood to announce. Why, sir, does not every lawyer — and the gentleman is an able one, an ornament to the bar, and administrator of the laws on the bench — know that when an act of an agent is ratified by the superior authori- ty, that ratification has relation to the inception of the instrument, and makes it good from the beginning, and that, when the act of an agent is thus ratified, it is ratified according to the terms and tenor of the act itself ? How otherwise can it be ? Would it not be the grossest contradic- tion in terms, to say that an instrument which is a certain declaration, or which declares that there is a surrender by States previously sovereign of certain of their sovereign attributes; that these are for wise and patriotic purposes, vested in a central government, which is to ad- minister them for the common good, and to save the country from those evils which have resulted from the imperfect Union which this perfect and perpetual Union was designed to replace— I say it is not a contradiction of terms, to say that when this solemn act is thus ratified by the competent parties, it is not to be as a ratification of the in- strument upon its face, but the ratification of something entirely different? In the name of common sense, what does ratification mean? These States have the power to say whether this should or should net be the expression of their will. They declared that it was, and by virtue of that very sovereignty which he invokes, they had power to make good all that the preamble and the various sections of the Constitution declare; and one of those declarations is, that it is the act of the people, and makes us one people.
Mr. Redd. Is it not to be looked upon rather as an estoppel?
Mr. Gantt. No, sir; it is not an estoppel, but a direct grant. Estoppels are odious. There is no occasion to invoke them, except Avhen other rules of interpretation fail. Well, then, this being the plain import of the instrument, this reference to the simple meaning and wrorking of the ratifi- cation, sufficiently disposes of the argument of the learned gentleman upon that subject. It is plain that this instrument is what it professes to be — that it makes us one people for the purpose of a General Government, though for the pur- poses of State governments we are thirty-four.
It has seemed to me, when the learned gentle- man was arguing the right of secession, and when
137
he made that dependent upon the supposed ex- istence of a confederacy of States, or between sovereign States, and not upon one Central Gov- ernment formed by the surrender of some of those sovereign attributes which were enjoyed by the States before this Central Government was form- ed,— it has seemed to me that he was wasting a good deal of time and trouble, unless he intended to say that this right so strongly contended for was one the exercise of which was essential at the present time. However, after he had, to his own satisfaction, (but I think by the aid only of a fal- lacy which has been sufficiently exposed,) main- tained that this right existed, he went ©n to de- clare that its exercise would be unwise, and he proceeded further to say that the North had been guilty of great aggressions upon the South.
Well, here my friend and I are not so far apart as might at first sight appear. He is very much mistaken if he fancies that I stand here as the apologist of the Republican party. I am a De- mocrat of the straitest sect, and have nothing in common with the peculiar views of that party. There have been aggressions beyond number, and a spirit of meddlesomeness, a spirit, so to say, of Phariseeism, has been displayed by portions of that party, in their conduct towards the South, which is in- tolerable to me as a Southern man, and it will not be endured. But, on the other hand, there have been acts committed on the part of the South, which are unfortunately almost as objec- tionable, perhaps quite as much so, as the provo- cation to which they owe their rise. The action of the North, upon the subject of slavery, has been, in my judgment, aggressive in the first in- stance; the acting of the South has been re- taliatory, but it has gone bepond the limits of - a just defense. But I am coming to that sub- ject again, and merely wish to put myself right on this point, for when I speak of the offenses of which the North has been guilty, I am disposed to echo a good deal of what the gentleman has said.
I will not stop to consider what he said re- specting the law of nations, as applicable to the Southern States, because I have shown that there was no such compact as he contends for. I have shown that there is an entirely different relation existing between the members of this Union, from that which exists by virtue of a compact between sovereign States.
The gentleman has said that if the South had seceded without cause, then the North has a right to coerce her, and not otherwise. Now, having shown that this Government is not a compact — that this Union is not a Confederacy, that it is something which has replaced the Confederacy, and which made it for all the purposes enumera- ted in its preamble an entirely different thing— I have disposed, I apprehend, of that sacred
right of secession. But did not the gentleman see, when he admitted that ?/ the Southern States have seceded without cause, the States of the North have the right to coerce them ; that he was opening a door as wide to civil war as the blood- iest advocate of what is sometimes called coer- cion could passibly have done ? Who is to be the judge of "good cause?" Is it to be the South? Is it to be the North ? If there are so many inde- pendent States on one side, and so many on the other, differing in respect to that "good cause," and there is no common arbiter, what shall decide between them but the sword ?
Sir, the position of those with whom I have the pleasure of acting here, is far more satisfactory, and looks to a pacific and complete solution of tbis troubled question, without a reference to that bloody arbitrament. We think that the General Government, whose laws, made in accordance with the Constitution, are the supreme laws of the land, is for all the purposes ot a satisfactory settlement in contests between the various States, the arbiter whose fiat will not only be decisive but peaceful. But to that matter I shall come a little further on. *
The gentleman next proceeded with an enum- eration of the grievances of which the South had to complain at the hands of the North. He spoke of the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, respecting the surrender of fugitives from justice, and claimed, as I understood him, that whereas this was a binding right — and this I have no inclination whatever to deny— and the North had in repeated instances refused to comply with its constitutional obligations, the South had never done anything of the kind. Now, it did so happen that during the past winter I heard a discussion upon that very point, and, fortunately for me, for it saved me a little trouble. One of those who were en- gaged in that discussion, in showing that the fault was not entirely on one side — as in what human controversy is it ? — showed that amongst the ear- liest violations of the letter, at least, of that pro- vision, of the Constitution was a case occurring in Virginia. Now, I say, that no matter in what State, when or where, the violation oc- curs, if it does occur it is to be condemned. — I am satisfied that not one of this Conven- tion hears me who does not echo this senti- ment. The rights which that Constitution guar- anties must be not only sacredly but punc- tiliously observed, if there is to be a continuance of that spirit of fraternal amity, without which our Union may indeed exist, but can never an- swer the purposes for which it was designed. So that it matters not to me whether Virginia or any other of the Southern States, or the Northern States have violated that provision. The fact only shows a diseased state of public morality, which must be cured on pain of death.
138
In my judgment a greater number of violations of that sort Lave occurred upon the part of our Northern brethren. Whenever the subiect of ne- gro slavery has been the bone of contention, and a demand has been made upon a Northern Exec- utive for the rendition of a fugitive from justice in which that fugitive was charged with some of- fense which derived its felonious character from the relation between master and slave, there has beeu in my judgment a failure to comply Avith the spirit of the Constitution upon that subject, For that, I say, I condemn the North. I call their attention to that violation, and I say that that wrong must be redressed, or worse will come of it. But what then? Is that a cause for secession? I have just shown that the right of secession does not exist. But if the right did exist, I will say, is that a cause for secession? Could reason impel us to take that remedy for such a disease, a re- medy which would aggravate tenfold the malady of which we make complaint? What compact, I pray you, was ever made— what Constitution— what code of laws has ever been made amongst taankind, and remained in force for twelve months without receiving some violation? Are we to throw away this fabric of government— are we to cast aside the blessings of which it is the min- ister, because there are bad men who need to be punished by the laws for which that Constitution hakes provision.
The learned gentleman said farther, that the Wth has been tried by the sentiments of Yancey tnd other extremists, and that this is not fair, [t is not fair — he is right in saying so. It is not light to try the South by the sentiments of such hen as Yancey, and Ithett, and Miles, and many others -whom I might name. I take it they are in a very small minority in the South. But on the other hand, is it fair to try the Republicans >ither by anything but their platform ? The learn- ed gentleman has referred to the sentiments frhich have been expressed by what he called -n element of that party, meaning, I suppose, be Abolitionists, of whom Phillips, Garrison, and Tappan are the exponents. Now, I recog- nize a distinction between the Republicans and the Abolitionists. I am glad to recognize that distinction, for if I supposed that the Republican party were animated by the same sentiments which those Abolitionists hold, I would be com- pelled to the conclusion that a large majority of the people of the North were in league with some of the worst men of the South, to put into actual practice this pestilent doctrine of secession, and overthrow, beyond remedy, all that makes us a nation. Those men, then, to whom he makes reference, are not to be taken as the exponents of the Republican party. We must look to the platform of that party; the platform upon which Mr. Lincoln was nominated; and I think we should also, in
common fairness, look at the votes of the same party in Congress during the last session. It will be altogether a departure from the common rules by which reasonable men are guided, to try any party by the windy rhetoric or uncharitable speeches that fall from the lips of sensation orators, who, seeing their opponents applauded amongst a crowd for a sentiment which is all in one ex- treme, must needs outdo their rival in the other extreme, in order to gain the popular favor. It will not do to try a large party by the utterance of any such men, to say nothing of the fact that no one yet ever knew the ins and the outs to speak with the same caution. The outs are ag- gressive and bold; they have no responsibility upon them; but the ins, or those that get into office, feel the responsibility of their words — they must live up to the sentiments which they profess — and they are therefore careful not to say anything which they cannot maintain. Such, too, has been the conduct of the Republican party. My friend was just enough to that party —for whom certainly I do not intend to be the apologist— to say that he believed them, as they now stood organized, to be sincere in their inten- tion, indicated in one of the articles of their platform that they would not interfere with sla- very in the States in which it existed by virtue of the municipal law.
He then proceeded to refer to the affair of John Brown. There, again, I found there was no differ- ence of opinion between him and me. That act was viewed by me with the same abhorrence which I imagine it has excited in the minds of all right- minded men of the North and the South. That a number of persons who seemed to be utterly re- gardless of their duties as citizens — utterly reck- less as to evil consequences of the most demoral- izing sentiments, did speak of that old villain as if he were a saint and amart3'r, is but too true, and I have no kind of doubt that the exasperating ef- fect of such language as that has led, in a material manner, to the fomenting of the present troubles. Undoubtedly, no unjust or false word is said by any party, no injustice or wrong is done by any party, without bringing its bitter fruits — per- haps upon them alone, perhaps upon those who are innocent, and suffer with the guilty by a com- mon fate. So that, upon that subject, there will not be much in the sentiments of my friend to which I am disposed to take issue.
He passed on to the third section of the fourth article, and said that this section had been systematically violated by the North. Well, it is too true that it has been violated in a most nefa- rious manner; and if I did not believe that a re- turning sense of justice, that a condition of be- ing appalled at the fearful consequences of their wickedness, was now seizing upon the minds of the North, I should do -what I have never yet been able to do— despair of the Republic. But I
139
say that now they have been brought fac3 to face with the consequences, that now their most solid men have taken it upon themselves to examine and condemn the unconstitutional acts of their Legislatures, and that a sentence of condemnation has gone forth throughout the land — I refer you particularly to that which has issued from the city of Boston, in which such men as Ex-Gov. Gov. Clifford, and the Ex-Chief Justice Shaw declared, in the most solemn manner, that the- personal liberty bill of Massachusetts could not remain upon the statute books without a violation of the oath which every member of the Massachusetts Assembly took to preserve the Constitution of the United States. Do we not seethe fruits? In how many Northern States, for the last six months, have not those Personal Liberty bills either been repealed or so far advanced to repeal, that their end is easy to see ? Does that give no comfort to my friend ? Does he not see in that a peaceable, orderly re- dress of a wrong — a returning sense of justice on the part of those who have in a moment of mad- ness inflicted that wrong?
Mr. Redd. I do, sir.
Mr. Gaxtt. I am glad that he agrees with me on that point, also. I think, then, that I may properly pass to another breach of the subject, for it is conceded that, although this is a wrong and a source of irritation, and a very great one, yet it furnishes no cause for the secession of which the Southern States have given us an example-
The gentleman said that many of the States of the North had passed personal liberty bills with the avowed object of making slaves free. Now, I think he is wrong in that. I have looked into those statutes, and in no instance have I ever seen thai purpose avowed. The gentleman will correct me, if mistaken in this statement. If he can furnish the name of the State, or the date of any statute in which such purpose is declared, I now ask him to inform me.
Mr. Redd. I do not recollect the date. When I spoke I alluded particularly to the statute of Maine, which not only declared the slave free, but provided a law whereby the master was pun- ished as a felon for attempting to reclaim him. I think it was passed in 1858, but I am not certain.
Mr. Gaxtt. I think my friend is mistaken. I think the style of the act indicates the purpose which was declared on its face. The avowed ob- ject was to protect their citizens against being kidnapped ; but that, in my judgment, does not make the mater a great deal better, for I am quite satisfied in my mind that by reason of that avow- al they only added the sin of hypocrisy to that of violating the Constitution. I am quite satisfied that it was the purpose of the framers of the laws to enable bad men to put in the way of the master who came to reclaim his slave every possible ob- stacle; to make it an expensive and dangerous
business to him, and, in short, to make any one who was not most resolute, come to the conclusion that he had a great deal better acquiesce in the loss of, than attempt to recover, his property. I say that I will use the strongest language of which I am master in condemning such legislation— in de- nouncing such a spirit, and in declaring that if this Union is to be what it was in times past, that legis- lation and that conduct must cease. As to the par- ticular statute of Maine, that can only be determin- ed by reference to the statute book, and both my friend and myself are too much of lawyers, and too partial to the habits of accuracy, which the practice of our profession encourages, to be willing to discuss the import of an act without having the written letter before us. I will then say nothing more upon this subject until I have had an op- portunity of examining that book.
The gentleman next passed on to say that the South has been excluded from the Territories. I asked myself when I heard that remark, "from which of them?" I know that in the Territories wdiich have been most recently organized, no such exclusion has bern found, aud I really did not think that the Oregon bill was opposed by the votes of Southern men. David R. Atchi- son is supposed to be rather sound upon this particular subject. Mr. Green is supposed to be sound, upon this point at least; and it was such men as those in the two houses of Congress who voted for that bill, and Jas. K. Polk of Tennes- see, approved it. This bill was adduced by my friend as one measure of which the South had to complain; and after having done so, he said he did not complain of it because Southern men ac- quiesced in it. Then why enumerate it?
He also spoke of the Missouri compromise bill. That, too, was passed by Southern votes. And here let me say that one.of the most serious mis- fortunes that ever happened the South was that they could get Northern votes enough to co-oper- ate with them in sweeping away that compro- mise, thereby violating that sound rule of states- manship, which warns us quieta non movere, that tells us that the true plan is not to disturb a settlement which has answered its purpose and been acquiesced in for a long time.
In all the territories which have been recently organized, we look in vain to see any of this ex- clusion of which the gentleman speaks ; and if he means what the popular orators of the party have said upon the hustings, I must answer that I pay no more regard to the sentences of exclusion pro- ceeding from such sources than I would to the whistlings of the idle wind.
Mr. Redd. I think the gentleman misappre- hends me. I did not enumerate those acts as grievances. I said the question had been asked, and the proposition laid down on this floor, that the General Government had never violated the
140
Constitution, but that in that proposition I could not acquiesce.
Mr. Gantt. Do you refer to the report?
Mr. Redd. No, sir, to the argument of speak- ers on this floor. I take the position that those bills did militate against the interests of the South, but that the South does not complain of them, because she acquiesced in them.
Mr. Gantt. I do not think it was said on this floor that the General Government had never violated the Constitution upon this subject. But it was said, and I think the assertion can be very- well maintained, that the General Government has never, upon the subject, discriminated un- constitutionally against the rights of the South. If it passed the Missouri Compromise, at whose in- stance was it passed? If it passed the Oregon bill, who asked for the passage of that bill and acquiesced in its passage ? Will it be fair that a man, or community, or party, or section, shall first ask for the particular action of any body else, and then complain of that action ? Certain- ly not. I think then, that part of the gentleman's argument is sufficiently answered.
But it was said that the natural consequence of the organization of the Territories and the exclusion of slaves therefrom, as contemplated by the Republican party, would be that at the end of thirty years the Northern States would have such a majority that they could alter the Constitution at their pleasure, and that they would use the power thus acquired for the over- throw of the peculiar institution of the South. So far the gentleman went in his statement. I did not directly understand, however, the conclusion that was deduced from the establishment of that proposition. I did not understand him to say that because he had some reason to fear that trouble would happen at the end of thirty years, therefore it was wise to precipitate now all the calamities which an active imagination might lead us to apprehend as possible after thirty years. But if he had said it, with all possible respect for him, I think that I may say that the position would have required no answer. If it be better to bear the ills we have than to fly to others that we know not of, how much more certain is it that it is a great deal better not to precipitate ourselves into certain calamity, because at the end of a long period it is possible that that same calamity may, perad venture, come upon us.
"The South has been rash and hasty in its ac- tion, but are not traitors, unless our sires in '76 were traitors;" he further proceeds to say. I must say that I object to that. I must say that I ob- ject to taking the names of those whom he must pardon me if I will call traitors — I now refer to Yancey, and others of the same stripe— he must pardon me if I say that I cannot endure to have their names taken in the same breath with those of the venerated men who lived in and adorned the
former period of history. The men of '76 revolted against oppression. They rose to throw off a tyran- ny which was too great to be endured. They rose to throw off a degree of misgovernment which Heaven never intended that man should bear — which never, in particular, it was designed that the Anglo Saxon race should bear — the most jealous race on earth of its liberties and rights. They endured until endurance could no longer be, and then, in a reiigious, patriotic spirit, and in a calm, dignified manner, appealed to the god of battles. Has anything like that action dis- tinguished the men of the present day in the South? I am afraid I should be out of order, if I should speak of them as I feel. So far from their having any real grievances to redress, for years past, sir, there has been an industrious manu- facture of every pretense upon which discontent could be founded— the schemers! the pests!— by which the " Southern mind could be educated, the Southern heart fired, and an opportune mo- ment seized to precipitate the cotton States into revolution." That base design has been impu- dently avowed, and I am sorry to say it has not met with universal condemnation; but, thank God, it is almost universal. What has been the course of the States in pursuance of the design of that architect of mischief, Mr. Yancey ? Why, after South Caro- lina had seceded, after she had declared, through one of her Representatives, that if the whole North could sign a blank sheet of paper, and give it to South Carolina to write her conditions upon— the conditions on which she would be con- tent to remain faithful to her obligations as a State in the Union— still that instrument would not suffice, still it would not do; and South Caro- lina,^ taking her position, virtually said this to the North : " We are going out; nothing can stop us, and no concessions, no modifications, no amendments of the Constitution, can prevail up- on us to remain in the Union." I believe Georgia was the next in order, But how was the seces- sion of Georgia brought about ? Who that remem- bers that Georgia was one of the States of the Union, that her citizens are American citizens, that amongst them are those two illustrious men, Ste- phens and Hill— and others, too, (but I can never mention the names of those two men without gratitude and reverence, and for their sakes I hesitate to speak otherwise than in a kindly spirit of Georgia, ) can think without a blush^of shame that the most infamous falsehoods were sent over the telegraph, in order to precipitate the passage of the act of secession by the Convention ? It was re- ported through the telegraph, that the Federal Government had sent an army to Charleston : that operations were commenced by the bombardment of that city; that old men, helpless children and women were being slaughtered by the hundred; that the city was in flames— in short, all the hor-
141
rors which attend upon the most bloody war, were declared to exist there, and by the act of a tyran- nous Federal Executive, and under the influence of that lie — that infamous lie — the Convention of Georgia was induced to pass its ordinance of seces- sion. It is not so very unnatural that, under such a monstrous misrepresentation, hasty and unjustifiable action might have been had. But what I do say is, that it is reprehensible that when those members who voted for that ordi- nance found they had done so under the influence of a villainous misrepresentation, they did not move for a reconsideration.*
I believe, Mr. President, that whatever the politicians of the States of Georgia, Ala- bama, and oth ers, have done, if the peo- ple of those States could havebeen pro- perly consulted, different results would have appeared. I think the people have had a pro- digiously small share in the acts of secession. Nothing, indeed, is more striking in reviewing the history of this sad crisis than the degree to which political jugglers have deposed the people from their rightful supremacy, and impudently told them that they were stripped of power, and henceforth are to be merely subordinate. Look at Alabama. At the election for delegates to the Convention which was to take into consideration the relations between Alabama and the Federal Government, less than one-third of the votes cast in November were cast, on both sides, for and against the members of the Convention. Of that one-third three-fifths were given to candidates in favor of secession, and two-fifths for Unionists or co-operationists, (for that is about theboldest name that even good and true men can take in this Southern reign of terror,) so that three-fifths of one-third — equal to one-fifth of the whole popular vote— actually represents the proportion of the State of Alabama which was in favor of going out of the Union.
One of the gentlemen who preceded me, said that he looked confidently to the time when the people of those much injured Southern States would march back into the Union over the bodies of the traitors who had thus misrepresented the popular wishes. And I think that that is literally true. The time will come, and I expect it will come before I am gray, when those States will come back, bringing, if necessary, the heads of those traitors with them, and offering them as a peace offering.
While the gentleman contended for the right of secession, he admitted that its exercise at the
Note.— Mr. Gantt desired to be noted here that it has been suggested to him by a friend that these lying tele- grams -were put in use for the purpose of influencing the election of the convention, not the action of that body after it was elected.— Mr. Gantt spoke from recollection of the matter, and stated in the newspaper at the time ; and the matter may very Avell be, as indicated by the cor- rection, for which he makes his acknowledgments.
present time was not advisable; but, said he, if the time ever should come when the people of Missouri would be deprived of their rights, and it would become necessary for the purpose of re- sisting intolerable oppression, to dissolve our con- nection with the General Government, he would offer an ordinance of secession. Well, it is im- possible to find much fault with a proposition so carefully guarded. When that time comes, when the oppression of the Federal Government be- comes intolerable, why, no doubt, we shall do many things — in short, when the sky falls, we shall catch larks ! But, in the meantime, it is most unwise to speculate as to such action upon an hy- pothesis which never may happen; for the hap- pening of which there is no'political prob ability.
Now, I believe I have gone over the main points advanced by the gentleman, and given my reasons for what I regard as a political heresy, namely, the idea that this nation is a compact of States and not a Union.
As to the amendment now pending, I will say that it legitimately brings up all the topics which we can fairly consider in connection with the re- lation which Missouri occupies to the National Government.
Mr. Broadhead moved to adjourn.
The President laid before the Convention a communication from the Directors of the Agri- cultural and Mechanical Association, offering to present each member with a copy of their Fifth Annual Report, if acceptable.
Convention then adjourned.
THIRTEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 15th, 1861
Met at 10 o'clock, a. 3r.
Mr. President in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain. - 1 Journal read and approved.
Mr. Gantt. When the Convention adjourned yesterday I had just got through some desultory remarks in reply to the argument advanced by the gentleman from Marion, (Mr. Redd,) upon the action of the Government under which we live, and as to the principles on which the Con- stitution had been formed, and the Union which was created by it. I then passed on to consider some further remarks that he made respecting the laws which had been passed by some of the Northern States, and in the course of my reply to what fell from him on that subject, I said I thought he had overstated the matter when he said some of these States had laws which had been passed avowedly for the purpose of taking away from the slaveholder his right of property in the slave. I said I was not aware of any statute on that subject in any Northern State, or any State which dared to adopt such audacious trea- son, as he supposed, and I called upon him to
142
name the State which had been guilty of so fla- grant a violation of constitutional duty. He said the State he had in his mind when making the charge was the State of Maine, and that the act in question passed the Legislature of that State in the year 1858, or thereabouts. Well, if any act passed the Legislature of Maine in 1858, I can only say that I have no means of know- ledge upon the subject, seeing that the Revised Statutes of Maine, which are in the Law Library in this city, which has a tolerably full collection of books, come down to the year 1857 inclusive, and not further. But in that volume I did find an act, which must be the one to which the gen- tlemen had reference, and I am glad to be able to say that, upon examination of that act, there is nothing; in it of the character which he imputed to it, but that it is a law against kidnapping, draAvn up in almost the identical terms with the law which we have upon our own Statutes upon the same subject, writh this difference only: that whereas our statute punishes the offense by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding ten years, that of Maine pun- ishes the offense by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, with the alterna- tive of a fine of $1,000. That is the act which has been so much misunderstood. Ano- ther section, the 29th of the Maine Statute, refers to the relation of master and slave, but it merely says that any person who is a slave owner, volun- tarily bringing or allowing to be brought into the State of Maine, any slave to him belonging, will thereby forfeit his right — that is to say, any per- son contravening the law of the State, in respect to that matter, by bringing his slave into that State, shall be stripped of all the means of enforc- ing his right to the possession of that slave in that State. Now, Mr. President, upon this sub- ject I will say that while I am glad there is noth- ing in the phraseology of the act to which I have referred to which any exception can be taken, yet we must bear constantly in mind that it is not so much the law on the subject as it is the spirit in which it is administered, which makes the diffi- culty. Who has ever found any disturbance to arise from a violation of the rights of property nder our act? Yet, will any person contend that kidnapping is tolerated in Missouri? I think not — and if similar laws upon the same subject, of equal or greater or less severity in other States were executed in the same spirit as our own, no complaint would be likely to arise- but laws like these, like any other legislation, may be made the pretext of a persecution by persons of a malicious character, or under color of the law may be made to work the greatest in- justice, and that is the thing of which our breth- ren at the South have mainly complained; and of which they have the greatest right to com- plain; and while I maintain that, iustice requires
that we should not be blind to the fact that there are also abuses of a flagrant character upon the rights of Northern -men in the Southern States, not by legislation, but by mob law. Upon this very subject, let me say, that in the year 1835, or thereabouts, a commissioner was sent to one of the Southern States for the purpose of bringing to the test of a judicial decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, the consti- tutionality of a law which required that when any colored seaman came to the ports of that State, or to any town in that State, such seaman should be committed to jail during the stay of the vessel in that port, and discharged from con- finement only when the vessel was ready to weigh anchor. One of the Northern States wish- ed to bring the constitutionality of that act to a judicial decision. For that purpose they dis- patched a commissioner to the Southern State, with instructions to make a case the moment any one hailing from the State he represented might be seized under that act. Now all of us have rea- son to deplore that the course of law Avas not allowed on that occasion. If the act was consti- tutional, the question would have been settled finally. I believe the act was constitutional, for, not recognizing those colored persons as citi- zens, I am of opinion that the Legislature of the State from which they came, could not clothe them with the privileges of citizenship in the other States of the Union, and believing that, I think the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States would have declared the constitu- tionality of that act, in a satisfactory manner and so would have put at rest the angry pas- sions to which that act gave rise, wkere the Constitution was misunderstood; but instead of a regular course of law being allowed, mob violence was resorted to and the com- missioner was forced to leave the State to which I have alluded. He was there with a portion of his family, a female portion too, if I recollect, and passage was taken for him and his family, upon a vessel bound for the State to which he belonged, and he was advised to go back home and return no more. That act of violence is deeply to be deplored on all grounds; chiefly because it retarded the decisive settlement of this controverted question by the supreme constitutional arbiter, but also because the mode of preventing this settlement, which was adopted by South Carolina, was liable to the great- est objection. And that brings me to the considera- tion of the question, which is the most important one that has been considered in the course of this debate. I think I have sufficiently shown, or that it was sufficiently clear before any one attempted to demonstrate it, and the argument is so familiar that I feel ashamed to present it to an assembly, composed in a large measure of jurists and law- yers— it is, I say, abundantly plain, that the Con-
143
stitrtfion of the United States, which makes this Union, is the net of the people, and is the expres- sion of the supreme will, according to it* tenor; it is the supreme law of the land; and the Feder- al power acquired by it extends judically to all cases ftrtemg under the Constitution and laws which oiay i>e made, or to any treaty into which the Unired States may enter. This being the case, the Federal Government being as essentially a Government, which was secured by the people of the whole United States, as in the strictest sense any State government can be said to be ; and being in its own sphere supreme over the government of any State : That being the case, no one — no individual in the States of the thirty- four which comprise this Union, can oppose any law of the United States, or any provision of the Constitution, without being guilty of an obstruc- tion of legal process, of treason, revolution, or in- surrection, according to the circumstances.
Such being the legal aspect of secession, what is its moral aspect. We know that by com- mon law, treason is the highest crime of which the law takes cognizance— the sum of all human ■criminality. Now, has treason lost any of its sig- nificance— is it any less an attempt to overthrow that which should be sacred than it was when the common law was the rule of in- terpretation and government? What is it that constitutes the turpitude Or moral blackness of any act? I could, without any offence so without any violation of riurht or law light this piece of paper that I hold in my hand, and throw it upon this table; but suppose that instead of this table a mine of powder should occupy its place. By touching it with a match, I would destroy the lives of all in this building. If I should commit airy act which would destroy life, I should be branded justly as one of the worst possible criminals — but I would be much more than an ordinary murderer by the commission of this act, for T should strike against the lives not only of those who are dearest to me, of my par- ticular friends and acquaintances, but I should strike against the lives of many whom I do not know at all, and involve hundreds in common ■destruction by the act which I have imagined. So, then, such a deed as that would be far worse than ordinary murder, and I need not waste words to show how detestable an ordinary murderer is.
But what would be the offense of blowing this building with all in it into atoms, compared with the unspeakable criminality of striking at the solidity of a Government, which it is no figure of ihctoric to say is the last hope of man- kind? If this great experiment fails — <and the eyes of the world are upon us) — I say if this ^reat experiment fails, I cannot say who may weep, but all the fiends will laugh, and the friends of arbitrary government, the oppressors of human rights, the deriders of every scheme
of human government that does not count upon the sword, the fetter and the dungeon, will exult p-nd point to America as an illustration of a most miserable failure of the great experiment of self-government, tried under the most favora- ble circumstances. We have every circumstance | in aid of its success, and if it is to be destroyed | by the evil passions and the base motives of a few conspirators against the will o an im- mense maiority, while the experiment itself is in all material respects in the full tide of success, then the oppressors of human rights may Avell laugh the experiment to scorn. — I say then, Mr. President, when Ave come to the consideration of this most important question — when we consider not only the legal bearing of the matter, but the moral aspect of treason which is embodied in the word secession — when we con- sider these things Ave must either be duller than the stones beneath our feet or anVe to the tre- mendous consequences and Avickedness of the act by which so few can inflict everlasting injury on so many. A great deal of noise has been made by these secessionists— but thank God they are few, and whemrer the people haAre been permitted to speak their views, the vote in fa- vor of treason has been insignificantly small,'and has resulted triumphantly in favor of those Avho wish to sustain the institutions Avhich our fore- fathers have handed doAvn to us. For these rea- sons, I think Ave are justified in concluding that the great noise which has been made, proceeds from a very few bla:k and guilty throats.
What Avould be the ccn-equence of the con- clusions to which the gentleman from Marion came? If ona of the States possesses the right at Avill, to retire from the Confederacy, and to as- sume that the compact can be broken at will, and declare that it is no longer binding — that is, it is at liberty to secede from the (I do not like to use the word Confederacy, for it is not one) Union of Avhich it is a part, and take Avhat course may seem good in its OAvn mind; I say Avhat Avould be the result of that? Why the old maxim of philosophy that out of nothing nothing can come, Avould be entirely refuted, for it Avould be certainly true that if that construction be the correct one, the fact AArculd be established that there never Avas such a sham palmed upon the world as this idea of a General Government; as .this notion that Ave have any such thing as a General Goveinment at all. Accord- ing to that construction we have no Federal Government, and never had one — for that Avhich Ave have supposed to be such has no power, and Avhat is a Government that has no power to execute its laws? Nothing whatever. Then according to that doctrine we have no Government at all, and the people of the nations of the earth Avho have heretofore looked upon us Avith envy and admira-
144
tion, have been sadly imposed upon by a glitter- ing make-believe. The most signal results of which ancient or modern history speaks, have been effected by a shadow and a mockery. — Achievements in every department of human ex- ertion, erroneously attributed to our glorious in- stitutions, have been due to a delusion into which the whole world, along with ourselves has fallen. This explanation of the matter furnishes an apology for the action of the school of which that gentleman is an exponent — for if we have no federal or central power there can be no crime in overthrowing that which has no exist- ence, and if there be no such thing, there is no danger of being subjected to the offense of treas- on. But the fact is, the vanishing nature of that argument displays itself most clearly when a blow is made at it. You may strike the blow but the blow falls upon empty air. The gentle- man from Marion, in his argument, contended that inasmuch as the Constitution was framed by a body which had no authority denned by any authentic or accepted instrument on the part of the American people; and as that body did not claim for its own acts any binding force until the same were ratified by the States which sent them to meet together in Convention, and the pro- posal which they made as to the Constitu- tion, had no force until ratified by the States— that, therefore, it was the act of the several States, and constituted a league be- tween the States instead of being according to its terms, a Union of the People of the United States, extinguishing or suspending during its continuance, (and that continuance is until doomsday)— Extinguishing, then, the rights of the sovereign States, whose consent was given to it as to certain powers, and clothing that Federal Government, which was established by that Con- stitution, with all the powers enumeraed in that in- strument, and giving it at the same time all the necessary powers to carry into effect those which were granted in express terms. I argued that the very hypothesis of the gentleman was fatal to his argument. He maintained that the States which ratified the Constitution were sovereign. I grant it; they certainly were. It is a part of my case. They were essentially sovereign, and when they ratified and confirmed this instrument they had full power to do so, and to grant to the Federal Government and the Constitution all the charac- teristics, all the powers secured, by all the sanc- tions which are preserved and ascertained in that instrument. I argue that the ratification of the in- strument made it take effect according to its tenor, and that as the tenor declared it was an act of the people of the U. States, the consent of the several States, the only power which could, by any possibility of the widest imagining, call in question that consent, irrevocably and indisputably fixed the character of the instru-
ment and made it take effect according to its tenor.
Now, is there anything whatever in the argument that this Constitution, as it stands, is not at the mercy of a mass meeting of every man, woman and child of any particular locality? Of course there is not. We do not re- cognise, for purposes of legislation, National or Federal, any tumultuary assemblage of cit- izens. Every county and city in every State of the United States speaks each in its sphere, by an organized body, in order that its ut- terances may be distinct, and in order that some formality and authenticity may accompany its declaration. If every man, woman, and child becomes opposed to the Coustituiion, and wish its alteration, they cannot, by making an absurd display of their wish meeting in pub- lic and by adopting mass resolutions, effect any change in that instrument. But it is no less true, if that sentiment isjuniversal, the alter- ation of that instrument is as certain to occur, in a constitutional way, as effects to follow cause.
The gentleman from Marion adverted to the failure on the part of the North to execute the fugitive slave law. I said yesterday that I quite agreed with him that the South had good cause to complain of the North in that respect. The North has not only passively but actively re- sisted the execution of that law. Her a.tive op- position has been mostly by the interposition of mob violence in the way of the action of the Federal Officers. But is it fair to forget, under these circumstances, that when mobs of that kind have obstructed the execution of the law — in the Northern States — that their force has been overborne by a greater force under the Federal authority, and that the execution of the law has been victoriously carried out even in the city of BostonW ? as there any scruple iu the minds of the most tender-footed anti-coercionists in the land, those who at the mere mention of coercion con jure up the most frightful scenes of blood-shed, when the negro Burns was taken from Boston in execution of the supreme law of the land? — did anv one then think that act on the part of the General Government, was an invasion of State sovereignty, which would j ustify State revolntion ? I trow not. If such opinions were entertained, they were by such men as Wendell Phillips, Tappan and Garrison. But I believe I must cor- rect myself. Those men are anti-coercionists at the present time— they are among the foremost in defence of secession, and they declare the Fed- eral Government has no right to bring back South Carolina, Georgia, or any other State into the Union. They not only say that, but also that the Federal Government has no right to execute any laws of Congress within any of those States ; that they are out, and must continue out; and they argue in support of the proposition with a zeal which shows their heart is in it, and for rea-
145
sons good. They are upon this subject staunch allies of Rhett, Yancey & Co.— and they see clearly— (the gentleman from Marion compli- mented the far-sightedness of the Abolition party when he said that whatever else he condemned, he must admire their keenness of perception,) let me tell you that they see with the clear- ness of a prophet's vision that the disruption of this Confederacy is death to the institution in behalf of which secession is invoked by them, and in defence of which secession is claimed to be a wise measure by some of us.
Mr. President, this is a good illustration of the manner in which extremes meet. Those who would move Heaven and earth to reduce a nation which has more promise than any other on the globe — to reduce it to the misera- ble condition of the governments of Mexico and South America — would esteem it a small matter to do this in order to carry out their sentimental theories of the lights of the African. On the other hand certain men in the South, equally selfish, equally unscrupulous, equally faithless to the Constitution to which they owe fealty, and equally faithless to a Government which is admired by the whole world, would shiver this Union into fragments for the purpose of building up a contemptible little oligarchy, in which they may be for a time, as they fancy, the heads. One has for its idol the perpetuation of African slavery, and the other has for its dearest wish, as it says, to obliterate every distinction between the white man and the black, and confer upon the latter every right which every citizen in the land enjoys. These two objects, these most opposed purposes, arc- pursued by persons and parties hitherto the most violent enemies; but now, travelling the same road, and uniting to ad- vocate the political heresy of secession.
These oppositions in the North to the exe- cution of the fugitive slave law, are to be deplored and condemned, and they must be corrected, and they are in course of correction. The present agi- tation will not be without its effect. If it does nothing else, it will rouse the public mind to matters of vital interest; and if it will compel the people to resume their functions of self-govern- ment, instead of confiding to the politicians, ad- venturers and place hunters, to the mob and to the lowest orders of society, the management of their affairs, State and national, the effect of the pres- ent disturbance will. 1 trust, be to make every cit. izen sensible that if there is one duty that is sacred, it is to religiously attend to the selection of proper men for every office under the consti- tution of the State, and the United States. The opposition to the execution of the fugitive slave law in the North, may be very well set off, (in or- der that we may not be accused of self righteous- ness, and of imagining that we present to the j
world the spectacle of injured, suffering inno- cence; but the North, that of active aggression.) I say resistance to the fugitive slave law at the North, may, for that purpose only, be set against the non-execution of the laws for the suppression of the African slave trade in the South. What man of moderation and intelligence throughout the land did not see in the conduct of the citizens of a Southern State, when the bark "Echo/' with a cargo of slaves was brought into a Southern port, and when the most determined opposition was made to the remanding of those slaves back into the country from where they were taken; and again when the yacht "Wanderer" was taken into another port, and there by force, in open day, subjected to the unresisted acts of mob violence — what man is there who did not see in these acts an assurance that this law- lessness would be counterpoised by lawlessness on the other side; and that it would be almost im- possible, so long as such acts were unpunished, to procure an execution of the fugitive slave lawr in the North? What conclusions do I de- duce from all this ? That one wrong offsets the other and that no party has a right to complain ? God forbid ! I say that there are wrongs on both sides, and that both wrongs or the wrongs on both sides must be corrected. History speaks of wrongs on both sides; and depend upon it, wrongs upon one side alone can never produce any very mischievous effect. It is only when a wrong on one side is met by a wrong on the other, by a kind of rivalry, that matters reach any very high point of mischief and destruction ; and there- fore I call the attention of those who hear me, to these faults on both sides, only for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that public senti- ment needs correction in both sections, and that if we are to continue to be citizens of a free country, we must execute the laws, because they are laws, without regard to the prejudice which stands in the way of their execution. As long as the laws stand there, they must be fulfilled, and we are faithless to the Constitution under which we live, unless we fulfill them ; and more, whenever a citizen — I will not say a judge — stands in the way of the execution of the law because of a sup- posed hardship — whenever he prevents the regular course of justice, imagining that to do a great right he may do a little wrong — whenever that most pernicious and puzzle-headed philosophy gets possession of any mind, there is no such thing as saying where the evil consequences of the act may stop. It goes forth, and the results are not to be measured or foreseen. Will it be any slight matter that we, the American people, should lose that reverence for the laws in which we have been educated, which is the most distinctive, the proud- est characteristic of American citizens ; and which has been regarded with a sort of stupified admira- tion by travellers from Europe, being something
146
which is to be seen nowhere else under the sun? I have been told by foreigners that there is nothing which so impresses the na- tive of any other country, as the spec- tacle of the criminal trials which take place in this — a Judge sitting upon a bench in plain clothes, a few bystanders, a bailiff, one criminal and a jury; no tipstaff, no soldiers, no guard over the criminal — the criminal having perhaps the sympathies of a large number of the audience, and yet no one in the crowd having any more idea of the possibility of gainsaying the sentence which shall be pronounced, upon evidence, or of oppos- ing its execution than of opposing the law of gravitation, but yielding to it as an irresistible power, which it would be impiety and mad- ness to contradict or oppose. That spectacle, the force of that moral power executing its own decrees by virtue of the common consent of the people of this country, and standing in the place of the sword, standing armies and constab- ulary forces — I am told that such a spectacle is one which it takes a long time for foreigners to understand. Can we not be sensible of the bless- ings we enjoy, and the deplorable loss we shall sustain if ever that state of sentiment ceases to exist? Yet there are those who imagine a case of subversion of this Government — who look forward thirty years and suppose a pos- sible state of things on which secessionand rev- olution may be justified — there are those who, in view of the possibility of such a state of things at the end of thirty years, are willing now to take the fatal plunge, and convert future into present evil. These men are such enemies to the common weal that I have no sympathy with them, and I am sure that such a wild departure from all the maxims of practical statesmanship, to say nothing of the rules of common sence, finds no support among the people of Missouri.
It is said those who argue in favor of the Gov- ernment are submissionists and coercionists. These two words are supposed to have ugly sounds. It is imagined that no one likes to be called a submissionist, and rather than be so called, •that he will place himself upon very questionable ground — indeed, that he will allow himself to be misrepresented rather than accept a term which is capable of misinterpretation. If by submissionist is meant one who is determined to support the constitution and submit to the laws, I am a sub- missionist. The term is one in which, thus ap- plied, I shall take pride. The word coercion also has been plentifully used as a scare-crow. Now, co. ercion is a word the definition of which is demand- ed of those who use it in an evil sense. Am I called a coercionist? -I ask what is meant by coercion? I don't want you to use a word capable of two definitions without defining the sense in which you use it. "We lawyers have a maxim upon the subject, which shows how jealously all such
vague terms arc regarded, and we say that " a man who wishes to deceive confines himself to generalities." And so I say it is impera- tively incumbent upon them, if they wish any one to pay any respect to them, to define what they mean by coercion. They do not all attach the same meaning to it. Some speak of the horrors of war. Does any one deny the horrors of war? It is one of the quar- rels of Union men with the secessionists, that se- cession makes war, and that is our main objec- tion to it, so that it will not do to say that those who are in favor of coercion are in favor of war. In that word, coerce, we understand the sen- timent Avhich would enforce obedience to the laws by peaceable and civil means, and so prevent the possibility of civil Avar. We would appeal to those civil means by which the Government executes the laws, and so prevent an appeal to the sword. It will not do to talk about marching armies across the soil of the Southern States to shed the blood of our brothers of the South. No man of common sense would advo- cate such a proceeding; the thing is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. The machinery for the proper execution of the laws exists in all the States. It may be that it is now out of joint, so much so as to render the execution of the law in some of them temporarily impossible. What then? Wait until the return of reason. Time will remedy the difficulty, and when the wrongs become too great, the people of those states themselves, uncoerced except by the convictions of their reawakened patriotism, will invoke the protection of that law which not they, but usurpers in their name, have thrown off, andther, by common consent, the law will once more resume its sway, and this Union be what it was in times past, and what it will be in the fu- ture.
But we are charged with misrepresenting our Southern brethren. It is said that they ought to be spoken of with all possible tenderness. One of the speakers yesterday told you that he could not consent to call these persons traitors; that they were acting for the common good, and were just and pa'riotic. I think that none of us can be unmindful of the events of the last past month, and looking to the actual conduct of the men for whom this softness of expression is bespoken, I think I see in this tenderness of dealing with traitors a certain cowardly spirit of compromise, and I can- not help denouncing it. It seems to me to re- semble nothing so much as the old superstitious surgical practices of the Middle Ages. Then, when a man was run through the body with a sword, instead of treating the wound and salving it, the sword which had created the wound was taken and carefully wiped and salved, and re- ceived every attention, and the poor creatures
147
who adopted this course of treatment believed that there was a certain kind of sympathy where- by the ointments which were placed upon the edge of the blade would produce a healing effect upon the wound itself. Now, that we have out grown this surgical superstition and absurdity, we are ready enough to laugh at it, as an exploded folly of the dark ages ; but are we not exalting our- selves a little unduly ? We are debating whether we shall not give to the wound which the body politic has received the precise treatment which was in vo^ue 500 years ago, in the case of wounds inflicted by the sword or the spear upon the natu- ral body. And I think this sentimentalism which we are now considering does not differ from this surgical absurdity of the Middle Ages. And I may as well at this time refer to another illustration. There have been sickly sentimentalists before our time. This tenderness towards traitors and this dread of executing the laws is not entirely a new thing. There have been examples of the kind before to-day, wherein this precious brood have figured. In the last century there was, in a province of France, a Judge, who was a young man of great learning, and who was noted for his most ascetic purity and conduct of life. He supported an aged mother out of the small salary which he re. ceived as Judge, and this small salary was his only means of subsistence. This Judge performed his judicial functions with great acceptance for many years. At length he suddenly resigned his office, and that resignation left him destitute. He resigned — and why ? It happened that a man who had been protected and educated and clothed and treated with the utmost kindness by a certain old gentle- man of the town, had murdered his benefactor in order to clutch his funds. This wretch having been convicted of murder, the day was fixed upon for this judge to pronounce the sentence of death ; but he was so tender-hearted, that rather than pronounce the sentence he resigned his seat. Now, do you suppose I am speaking of Fenelon or LaPeyroux, or any of those philanthropists? No. I am speaking of Maximillian Robespierre— a man who, a few years after this tender exhibition, waded in blood up to his very lips, nay, swam in it. I can assure those gentlemen who exhibit such a tender-heartedness at the present day in regard to coercion, that Maximillian Robespierre was one of their kind. Sentimentalists are not to be trusted with the conduct of any practical business, they are not of sound mine!, they pro- fess great regard for human rights, but their real affection is for mooncalves; for the abolition of capital punishment, for the abolition of negro- slavery, and the overthrow of every institution that deals practically with facts, and with nature, as both exist.
It was said in support of the amendment un- der discussion, that if Missouri acted properly in this matter, she must act as Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and North Carolina acted when the New York resolutions were laid before them. These New York resolutions made the offer that New York, would be ready with men and money to enforce the Federal authority in the South. Kentucky very properly said to New York, whenever you embark upon any such enterprise, you had better keep clear of the soil of Kentucky; for if you attempt to cross the soil of Kentucky in the prosecution of such an enterprise, you will be met with men and arms. I am prepared to indorse that sentiment, because New York has no right to furnish men and money, except at the call of the Federal Government. This resolution assumed gratuit- ously a state of things which I believe will never exist— a state of war. It looked forward to that. In tendering this aid to the Federal Government, New York was unquestionably wrong. But no such resolution was sent to us, and we should be wrong in going out of our way to notice it, or to pass this amendment— and to that I will come in a moment, but before doing so, I wish to say this:
I said to my friend from Marion yester- day, that I claimed to be as strict a construction- tionist of the Constitution, as any man any- where; that I hold the Federal Government to the powers which were conferred by that instru- ment. I tell him I shall not be an apologist for the North. But I would speak unreservedly my sen- timents upon this subject, and before I leave this part of the subject, I wish to say this :— that I be- lieve the negro race is blessed by the institution of African slavery, as it exists in these United States; that there is no spot upon the face of the globe, in which the negro race enjoys so much physical comfort, or moral training and educa- tion, as in the slave States of North America. I weigh my words, and I say in the slave States of North America.
If there be an exception to the remark, I should like to know where it is. Is it in Africa, where, at the funeral of the King of Dahomay hun- dreds of human victims where offered in bloody sacrifice ? Where the negroes worship all manner of idols and indulge in all sorts of super- stitions and beastly practices ? Is it Liberia— a colony which has been settled with Africans from this country, and who, though partially civilized by contact with a superior race, are as credible testimony shows, in a state of rapid relapse into the barbarism from which the Afri- cans originally sprang? Is it in Jamaica, where the negro race is at this moment in a far less civilized condition than in 183G when they were emanci- pated ? In 183G, when those negroes were eman- cipated, they were fast becoming Christianized,
148
but they have since relapsed, by a singular instinct, into all those degrading and superstitious worships and practices peculiar to their forefathers in the depths of Africa. Is it in the Northern States of the Union ? Let no one suppose that such is the fact. A more squalid, debased and diminishing population is nowhere to be found than the free negroes of the Northern States. It will not do to ascribe this to climate, for in some of the free and slave States there is no difference in point of latitude. Take for instance Missouri and Illi- nois, and we find that the negro is far better cared for in this State in bondage, than free in Illinois. There is Cuba, which is a slave country of a tropical climate, but Cuba is no exception to the remark I have made. The Cubans well know the superior capacities of men over women for hard labor, and seeing in the dreadful slave trade an unfailing source of sup- ply at a cheap rate of the most productive class of laborers, they have on large estates hundreds of male negro slaves without two women. I need not dwell upon the unspeakable horrors that necessarily flow from such a state of society. Thank heaven there is nothing like it in my coun- try. So I say the negro race— and I say it for the benefit of those philanthropists who think they have a special mission to make a era" sade against slavery in the Southern States.— I say whatever its effect may be upon the white man— and I shall leave that question untouched— upon the black man its influence is benign; and that no where else is the African race so welj cared for, as in the slave States of North America. This being the effect upon the African, what are the results of his labor ? Can any per- son who is not a fanatic contend, for a moment, that the work which is performed by slave labor in the tropics — that the cotton, rice and sugar which is there cultivated — that the labor neces- sary for its cultivation can be performed by any but the negro race ? It cannot be done by any other. And one of two things must be — either the fertile country which now yields to the world those articles of necessity— for they have ceased to be luxuries — either these must be surrendered to the serpent, the alligator and the wilderness, or the institution of negro slavery must pre- vail. It is clear that the negro cannot be made to work anywhere, except by the means now used in the Southern States, viz : by compulsion. The negro will not be stimulated to industry by the expectation of its ordinary rewards. Whenever reliance has been placed upon these motives, the only result has been disappointment and failure — so it will ever be — you must compel them to work. Nobody understands this better than our friends across the British channel. They are seeking at this moment to find a substitute for it. They have found a country where cotton can be raised, and they have the African race. But the difficulty is,
they want organized labor. — This is the delicate phrase which they use. The don't like to use the plain word slavery. They have too long charged upon all who had part or lot in slavery a degree of criminality which makes them shrink from admitting that all this time they have been mak. ing war on the only possible means of supplying a prime necessity of the civilized world. So in- stead of design the word "negro-slavery" they talk of "organized labor" at the hands of Afri- cans, and in admitting that without such organ- isation cotton cannot be had, they go as far as Exeter Hall can be expected to go at one step, towards the abandonment of its sentimental plat- form.
A few words now on the subject of this resolution, and I hope my remarks will not be considered out of order. I object to this amendment. I object to it because it is subject to two interpretations. It is equivocal, and the over zeal of our present ex- ecutive might read in this resolution an injunc- tion calculated to instruct him to seize the Sub- Treasury in the State of Missouri. With his over zeal upon this subject, it will not be advisa- ble to allow him to imagine that he will be under any obligations to respect the injunctions of this Convention so far as to seize upon the Federal Treasury in this city. Now, by a strict construc- tion of the amendment he might consider himsel thus authorized. The goods and merchandise that are consumed in Missouri are brought here from abroad. The duties upon these find their way into the Sub-Treasury of this city, and these are our contributions to the Gen- eral Treasury, and this is the money which we furnish towards the support of the Gen- eral Government ; for in that way the taxes of the Federal Government are levied. But if we declare that this money must not be furnished to the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seceding State — and that term remaining so vague — it being by some considered that some of the very simplest acts of Federal authority are measures of coercion — it may be that when it is notified to the Gov- ernor that a certain sum of money is in the Treasury and that the Federal Government does not intend to send the mail into some of the seceded States, the Governor may, in the excess of his zeal, so far misinterpret this amendment as to believe that his duty compels him to take the monstrous step of seizing upon the Treasury. It has been well said that this amendment is liable to a further objection, in this that it needlessly pledges us to a certain line of policy, and that we cannot prudently make pled- ges to-day, which to-niorrow we may see the folly of. For these reasons I shall vote against the amendment.
Mr. Comingo. When this discussion was com- menced on the amendment offered by the gentle-
149
man from Clay, I did not intend to participate in the debate, but I have since changed my pur- pose, and determined to present a few views touching this matter. I have entertained the hope, until the last few days, that we were in the way of adjusting our difficulties; but that hope has been greatly depressed by the news I find in the morning papers. I have been fluctuating be- tween hope and despair for many days, but this morning I feel greatly depressed. I feel that this nation is at this moment standing upon a treach- erous crust of a fearful volcano.
I regret that the discussion of this subject has taken such a wide range. I could have wished the members bad confined themselves more strict- ly to the amendment. It is very important that we should, in this matter, act with great deliber- ation ; and we should be sure, before we act, that we are right. There has never been a time when such important questions have been presented for consideration; and I feel that we ought to ascer- tain what is our duty, and then discharge that duty, whatever it may be. What we are doing, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, does not, and will not affect alone our interests, but will have an influence in all coming time. If we take steps which may involve the nation in civil war, we shall do that which in all future time we shall have cause to regret. Consequent- ly, I say, that we ought to use the utmost delib- eration before we attempt to do anything.
We arc taught, by philosophy, that a small stone cast into the bosom of the Atlantic, produces a vibration that is felt upon its extreme verge, and if this is true in natural philosophy, how much more true is it in moral philosophy, and that every act we com- mit on this occasion will have a relation to all future time. I am not disposed to go into a his- tory of the difficulties that now surround us. I do not conceive that it is important that we should discuss the history of Abolitionism or Republi- canism. But we should deal with facts as they now exist. I do not conceive that history has anything to do with the subject. It seems to me to be about as wise for the planters of Mississippi, in time of a crevasse, when the waters of the Mis- sissippi are inundating their cotton fields, to stop and debate how much of that water came from the Ohio, how much from Lake Itasca, as it is for us to debate what have been the causes which have led to the present crisis in our affairs. Entertaining that view, I shall not attempt to trace the history of Republicanism, or trace any of our past history.
I am ready to use all my feeble efforts towards the preservation of our Union. I shall never cease my labors until the last ray of hope is ex- tinguished. But while we are upon this subject, we should talk about it plainly — we should not attempt to conceal our view. So far as solving the
present difficulties are concerned, I trust no gen- tleman will feel disposed to occupy any equivocal ground. At the same time that we feel that our duty requires us to talk plainly in regard to our difficulties, we should speak in terms of the ut" most kindness. I do not feel like casting censure upon any man at this time. This is no time for crimination. We should neither denounce a man for being a Secessionist, neither should we decry a man for being a Republican. But if we can do anything to save the country, I feel that our labors will have been sufficiently rewarded. I presume from what I have studied in regard to this matter .that there is but one point upon which there is any difficulty, or upon which this Govern- ment is to be shipwrecked. It is well known to you all, I presume, that the Crittenden proposi- tions received great favor, and would have been submitted to the people but for one of its clauses, that relating to the subject of slavery in the Ter- ritories. I shall not attempt to discuss the merits of that proposition, but call your attention to the fact that there would have been no difficulty in the way of adjusting our present troubles had it not been for that clause. Now, gentlemen of the Convention, this difficulty which is exciting so much attention, is an abstraction, according to my opinion, although it is true there is a princi- ple involved in it. It is maintained by some that slavery should be protected in every foot of Terri- tory, and by others that slavery should not go into the Territories, and this is the platform upon which Mr. Lincoln was elected. It is proposed by the Crittenden proposition that we shall divide this territory — that all north of a certain line shall be free and all south all slave. Our friends of the North say that they will not grant this privilege, and the tendency of their acts thus far has shown that they are willing to disrupt the nation and drench it in fraternal blood rather than concede this right. I maintain that if this line were drawn slavery would never go north, and that it would not to any extent be established south of that line. I think every man ought to concede this proposition and sacrifice so much of the princi- ple as to permit us to take slavery south of that line. There is no use of disguising the fact that unless this question is adjusted in a satisfactory manner, civil war will ensue, as well as a total dissolution and disruption.
But what shall Missouri do at this time ? Shall she secede at this time? No. I do not act here with that view. I do not propose that Missouri shall secede, but that she shall speak out to the border free and slave States, and to the whole Union, and tell them we want this Union pre- served. We should tell them that we desire to settle the difficulties, and we should indicate the plan of doing it. She should act as mediator; and therefore it is I favor the amendment of the gentleman from Clay. The resolution offered by
150
the Committee on Federal Relations does not, I think, place Missouri in a proper position. Acting as she should in the capacity of mediator, I say the amendment is Avell calculated to place her in her true position. It has been said that it contains a threat and an ultimatum. I do not so regard it. I think it gives the people of both sections to understand what we require and what is the duty of the North and South. It is true we are part and parcel of the General Government, yet we tell them that as a part we will not aid in coercing seceding States. I say that we should not menace the South nor the General Govern- ment, and when we say we will not countenance the Southern Confederacy in a war, or the Gen- eral Government in a war upon the Southern States, we are taking the proper position.
I do not think the resolution at all conflicts with our duty. We are dealing with the subject as it now presents itself. We say that as matters now stand, we believe that our line of duty lies here, and we will follow it. It is known that the ver3r moment the General Government makes war upon one of the seceded States, all hope of adjustment is gone. There can be no adjustment if the General Government should attempt to supply Fort Sumter, or collect the revenue, or pass a law abolishing ports of entry. Any at- tempt of this kind, to cut off the supplies by means of the sword, would be coercion. I know that many differ with me in this respect, but I am opposed to the General Government moving one foot in coercing these States, in the manner which I have indicated. I am opposed to the re- inforcement of Fort Sumter, or of supplying Fort Pickens, when such an attempt would involve the nation in such a manner as to place our difficul- ties beyond the hope of adjustment. And the moment that the first drop of blood is shed the last ray of hope vanishes, and then all the border slave States will go out. You cannot stop the tide of public feeling. I have as patriotic devo- tion for the Government as any man, but I can- not ignore the fact that when civil war is initi- ated then you must take a decided stand, and cannot be neutral. Then where shall we go? I think there cannot be any question about that.
What is the true position in regard to the sece- ding States. Now, I shall not discuss the Consti- tutional question of secession. I do not know that any gentleman will underake to justify se- cession under the Constitution. I think secession is a heresy, and that no such term is applicable to the action of any State. The only term that can be used is revolution. Then I say that South Carolina and the other six States have revolution- ized, and that the revolution is complete, and they are this day, although their independence has not been acknowledged by the United States, an independent government. This rev- olution has been bloodless, but it is com-
plete. There was a time when this revolution could have been arrested and its leaders hung for treason. But I ask, gentlemen, whether that state of case now exists. They have formed a constitution. Mr. Buchanan never attempted to arrest the tide which has taken them out of the Union, and now they can never be brought back, except by treaty or stipulation. Do you suppose that if Lincoln marched an army to the South, and captured Jeff. Davis, the articles of war would not be observed, and that Jefferson Davis would be treated otherw se than as a prisoner of war? Those who are now living under that gov- ernment are subject to it. They have taken an oath of allegiance to it, and now their action can- not be considered treason. You will find that ac- tion of that character is not so regarded by the best authorities. I say then, the course indica- ted by the amendment to the resolution under consideration, is the true one. I am unwilling to forego the hope that peace may be restored. I hope this amendment will be adopted, because its rejection will be fraught with evil.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The question before the Convention being on the adoption of the following amendment offered by Mr. Moss, of Clay, to the fifth resolution re- ported by the majority of the Committee on Fed- eral Relations, to wit :
" And further believing that the fate of Missouri depends upon the peaceable adjustment of our pres- ent difficulties, she will never countenance or aid a seceding State in making war on the General Gov- ernment, nor will she furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seding State."
Mr. Hitchcock said : I desire to speak briefly to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Clay. I am glad to see, from the remarks as well of the gentleman who last preceded me, [Mr. Comingo,] as of many others who have ad- dressed the Convention, that in one feeling we are all united. I believe that there is no senti- ment more earnest, more deep, or more heart- felt in this Convention than the desire that civil war may be avoided in this land, and that this Union may be preserved.
We are assembled here to deliberate upon the duty of the people of this State at this crisis. The question has been — upon what principles shall we act? what conclusion shall we recommend to that people? The inquiry takes at once, in the discussion of those principles, a form which pre- sents it, on the one hand as a question of policy merely, while on the other it is regarded as a question of principle underlying that policy. Now, I presume that the proposition will not be disputed here— that we should not only carefully weigh all that we do but that in taking our
151
position it is indispensable that we select a sure foundation for that position, on the principles of justice and truth. Thus alone, in these times of anxiety and doubt, can we hope to arrive at results which will endure. As when the mariner, on the broad waters of the Mediter- ranean, suddenly finds himself enveloped by the foam and fury of the whirlwinds, which some- times sweep across that majestic inland sea; darkness and tempest surround him, and he may lose sight of the head-lands by which he shaped his course ; yet though all other objects be hid- den from his view, if he can but fix his eye upon his faithful chart and the unerring needle, steadfastly obeying their guidance through all the dangers and intricacies of his course, he is as- sured of at last reaching in safety the haven he desires. Never was there a time when it was so vital to our people to look into the principles which underlie our institutions. It is by those first principles that we must regulate our action, And I am rejoiced that these fundamental ques- tions have been brought up before the Convention for discussion, since upon our views of these questions, whether we desire it or not, will prac- tically rest the course which we shall adopt.
In the discussion of the proposed amendment, therefore, I desire — and I deem it eminently ap- propriate— to submit some considerations in re- ply to the remarks made yesterday by the gentle- man from Marion, [Mr. Redd,] upon the right of secession. I think it cannot be denied, upon a calm consideration of the resolution now before us, that it contemplates the possibility of practi- cal nullification by the State of Missouri. The resolution expressly declares that the State will not furnish men or money to aid the General Govern- ment in any attempt to coerce a seceding State. We are met at once by the ambiguity which, unfor- tunately, belongs to this much used word coercion. There have been various definitions of that word. According to some, it means the marching of an army into the South; with others, it embraces the retaking, and with others the mere holding of forts and arsenals — and again the collecting of the revenue. It seems to me that the word is gener- ally defined more or less broadly, according; to the degree of sympathy which the speaker has with the action of the extreme Southern States. And in view of the fact that so various meanings are given to the word, surely we are bound, if we use that word, to use it in view of any interpretation whatever which may be put upon it. "We must foresee and be ready to stand by it under any possible interpretation. Now I apprehend that it has been demonstrated by one of my colleagues [Mr. Broadhead] that under the Constitution of the United States, which is supreme, the General Government has power to provide for calling out the militia, not only to execute the laws, but also to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
Suppose that the General Government, in the lawful exercise of that power, should call upon the people of this State to exec ute any existing law — suppose Missouri were lawfully called upon to furnish men to aid in suppressing insurrection or repelling invasion. Suppose that in such case — if the Convention should have adopted this resolution, and thereby pledged the course of ac- tion of our people — suppose that a response to such call would come within what seme of them understand to be "coercion" — should we not be compelled to raise a question which might pro- duce disorder and confusion among ourselves? Should we not be obliged to look beyond any such resolution, and in spite of any such interpreta- tion, at the true nature of our relations to the General Government? Should we not be bound to act in accordance with a just view of our true relations to it, and of the fundamental principles of our institutions, so long as the Union contin- ued to exist? Therefore I do not see how in considering this resolution, framed as it is, we can escape considering the question and the right of nullification as at least a possible question: and when we speak of nullification, we may as well discuss the true question which that idea involves — namely, the question whether a State has a right to throw off its obligations towards the Union, and in refusing to obey any one of those obligations to repudiate them all. It cmues to that, and nothing else. Nullification cannot be defended save on the ground that a State has not only the right to nul- lify but to secede. And I desire, therefore, to consider, as directly pertaining to the question now before us,the arguments advanced in favor of the "Right of Secession."
It will be remembered that the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Redd] in asserting the right of se- cession, laid down the following proposition :
"That the Constitution of the United States is an "instrument mf.de by the States, acting as States, "and having at the time, all the powers of sovereign- "ty; and that it was a compact between them; and "that if this be true, then when that compact is vio- lated, each State has a right to declare that com- "pact at an end."
I read from my notes of the gentleman's re- marks, carefully taken. I wish to state his argu- ment fairly and correctly, and if I have not done so, I hope he will set me right. But I believe this is precisely what he said.
In support of that proposition, a brief histori- cal statement was made as to the circumstances preceding and attending the adoption of the Con- stitution. You were reminded that on the Fourth of July, 1776, the thirteen colonies declared them- selves to be " free and independent States," claim- ing "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do all other acts and things which indepedent States
152
may of right do." It was further stated, that in 1777, these free and independent States formed a compact, under the Articles of Confederation, by the fifth Article of which, they created an agent, the Congress, and delegated to it powers necessary for mutual defense and general welfare ; that in that Congress, each State, without regard to size or population, had one vote; that by the second article each State expressly retained its sovereignty, and all powers not expressly dele- gated to the Congress. It was further stated that the confederation so formed lasted about ten years. But that experience showed the Congress to be deficient in the necessary powers, and that in 1787 it passed an act calling on the States to remedy these defects ; that they did so, each State sending delegates appointed in its own way, which delegates met in convention in September, 1787, and formed the present Constititution of the United States.
You were further reminded that by the tenth article of that Constitution it was provided that when ratified by nine States, it should go into effect as between the States ratifying the same; that it was ratified by three States in the fall of 1787, and by six more in the spring of 1788; and that then, and not till then, had it vitality.
It was contended that these facts established the proposition above stated; that the action of the States as such alone gave vitality to the in- strument; that the Convention performed the mere office of a scrivener, and that since,, until ratified by nine States, the instrument had no effect, that the true question was— "When was the Constitution ratified ?"— and that when you answer that, you tell when its vitality begun. That, therefore, it was not the action of the Con- vention, but the ratification by the several States, which gave vitality to the instrument. And the gentleman insisted that while the effect of the Constitution might be a question of law, yet the question as to -what it is, is, as he expressed it, a mere question of fact, to be ascertained and es- tablished, like any other question of fact, by evidence. Upon the facts above set forth, there- fore, he claimed that the Constitution was a com- pact between the several States, taking effect upon its ratification by the ninth State in June, 1788; and that afterwards the four remaining States concluded also to ratify it, and so became parties to the compact.
It was further argued that the delay of these four States to ratify the Constitution, was addi- tional evidence that it was a compact merely; for where, it was asked, were those four States in the interim? Not under the old Confederation, for that was dissolved; not under the new Constitu- tion, for that they had not adopted. They re- tained, meanwhile, all their sovereign powerjand as sovereign States they finally came in and be- came parties to the new compact.
Upon these grounds the gentleman from Mari- on claimed to have established his proposition. He adduced further arguments, indeed, from the provisions contained in the Constitution itself for its own amendment, claiming that since amend- ments, even when proposed by a National Con- vention, must be ratified by three-fourths of the States, it is still the sovereign States which hold the power to ratify or prevent any change. And that it is therefore true that the Constitution is a compact formed by the States, and not by the people of the United States as one community.
This, if I am not mistaken— and I ask to be cor- rected if I am— was the gentleman's whole argu- ment as to the true nature of the Constitution. From this he deduced without difficulty the con- clusion, that though there is no tribunal to which, in case this "compact" be violated, an appeal can be made, yet there is a law that provides for the settlement of all difficulties— a law founded on eternal principles of justice, and recognized throughout the civilized world— the law of na- tions. That according to this law, when inde- pendent sovereign States make a compact, they arc bound to keep it in good faith.
But, it was said, if the compact be violated, the law of nations provides a remedy in one of two ways. The injured party may either claim to hold the offender to the compact and demand in- demnity for its violation, or it may rightfully de- clare the compact at an end. And if the offender refuse to consider the compact at an end when so rightfully declared, then an appeal to arms — mil- itary coercion — is the only resource.
Pursuing the principles thus laid down, and which the gentleman declared to be the true and only principles upon which the mutual rights and duties of the States can be be determined, he ad- mitted that, if the Northern States have not viola- ted this "compact," then the Southern seceding States have done wrong, and may be rightfully compelled by the North to fulfill it on their part. But if the States of the North have violated the compact, then the States of the South have a right to declare it at an end. And thus, having established, to his own satisfaction, the right of secession, under the Constitution, the gentleman went into an elaborate statement of the wTrongs on the part of the North, which, in his view, fully establish the right of the Southern States at this time, to declare the compact at an end.
Into this latter branch I do not propose now to follow him. I deny his premises and dispute his argument — if I am right in that, his conclusions fall to the ground. I claim that the Constitution of the United States is not a compact, but j ust what it purports to be — a Constitution : the result of a compact, no doubt, but in no sense a compact between sovereign States as such. I claim that by and under that Constitution there was estab- lished and now exists a real National Govern-
153
ment : that for all the purposes of that Govern- ment, which -was established by and for the peo- ple of this country, the sovereignty of the States respectively Mas taken away from them by the people, who ratified and adopted the Constitu- tion, to whatever extent they thought necessary for their own welfare. And I contend that it is to that instrument itself, the Constitution of the United States, that we must look, and that in it avc shall 'find a true and unmistakable exposition of its nature, objects and extent. Indeed, the Convention must have been struck with the remarkable admission which was made by the gentleman himself, in opening his re marks — an admission which the advocates of his theory are usually very slow to make, and anx- ious in proportion as they find it difficult to get over. lie frankly admitted that the very first words in the preamble to the Constitution — (,We,
THE PEOPLE OF THE UxiTED STATES" — Were
not in harmony with his interpretation of that in- strument. He went further; he acknowledged (with a candor which I respect) that those words are " prima facie evidence" against him — "pri- ma facie evidence" that the instrument was not a compact between sovereign States, but a Con- stitution established by one people. Prima facie evidence, Mr. President, as every lawyer knows, means evidence which if not overthrown or con- tradicted, is held sufficient to prove a proposition true. Has this evidence been overthrown by the argument which I have quoted? I confess I am unable to see any logical connection in that argu- ment.
What can be the connection between the nature of the instrument, and the time of its ratifica- tion ? What difference can it make as to what that Instrument was andis, whether nine States or thirteen States adopted it in 1787, or 1788, or four or ten years after.
I claim'that the Constitution itself is its own best and necessary interpreter, and that both as a mat- ter of fact and of common sense, if we would un- derstand the instrument we must look into it. But the gentleman from Marion prefers to look out- side : he declares the express recitals of the in- strument prima facie evidence— no more : and appeals to the history of its adoption to decide "as a question of fact," what it is. Well, sir, I will meet the issue of fact. I appeal to the true history of the times— the history of that instru- ment itself— the words and acts and declarations of the statesmen who framed it— the occasion which assembled them, the evils they were forced to remedy, the remedy which they did provide, and their express declarations as to what they thought that remedy was. And thus upon his own ground, and by the very evidence to which he appeals, I propose to show that the gentleman's theory of a compact between sovereign States is wholly untenable and mistaken.
I remark, in the first place, that it is important to have correct ideas of the relations of the States to the central authority prior to 1787. It is a se- rious mistake to speak of the old Confederation, still more of the Congress which preceded it, as though the States had on a certain occasion come together and held a meeting and made an agree- ment and quietly gone on under it. The Conti- nental Congress which adopted the Declaration of Independence, was little more than a Revolu- tionary Central Committee of the States, with powers necessarily vague and indefinite, and with an authority which nothing but the pressing necessities of the times upheld. That same Con- gress proposed, in 1777, the articles of Confeder- ation which were ultimately adopted by the States; but not until 1781 were they adopted by all the States, nor did the first Congress of the Confederation meet (under the Article of the Con- federation) till March 2d, 1781. The Confedera- tion therefore really lasted but little more than six years, instead of ten. And there is nothing more striking or more manifest in the whole history of the Revolutionary struggle, or of the five years that followed its conclusion, than the fact that nothing but the pressing necessities of war had kept the States together, even imperfectly as they did it. Hardly was peace proclaimed, when the energies which a common danger had directed against a common foe, began to stir up internal strife. State pride, State rights, State jealousies, State rivalries, rapidly weakened the ties which had united them, and the most dangerous inter- nal dissensions threatened to destroy all safety at home, while they were paralysing all respect and confidence abroad. The Confederation was hardly formed before it began to decay by its own inherent defects.
This "Confederation" was in every sense a compact between the States. It purported to be such, both in the preamble and by the tenor of the articles. The separate sovereignty of the States was expressly reserved by the 2d Article, and by 3d Article it is expressly set forth that " the said States hereby severally enter into a firm league," &c. I do not dispute the gentle- man's views as to the " Confederation." They suit me exactly.
But why were those "Articles of Confedera- tion" abandoned? Why was the Federal Con- vention held in 1787 ? If, as the gentleman states — and as I agree — it was to remedy defects shown by experience, what was their nature and what was the remedy proposed ? These are some of the "facts" with which I shall deal, and I pro- pose to answer these questions from the original and indisputable records of the transactions themselves, and in the words of those who took part in them.
I beg to read, in answer to the first of these in- quiries, from an elaborate statement, drawn up
154
by James Madison, and printed at pages 109- 120 of the Madison Papers, petting forth the events which preceded and the evils and dangers which brought about the Federal Convention of 1787:
"At the date of the Convention the aspect and retrospect of the political condition of the United States could not but fill thepublic mind withag'oom which was relieved only by a hope that so select a body would devise an adequate remedy for the exist- ing and prospective evils so impressively demanding it.
" It was seen that the public debt, rendered so sa- cred by the cause in which it was incurred, remained without any provision for its payment. The reiter- ated and elaborate efibits of Congress to procure from the States a more adequate power to i aise the means of payment, had failed. The effect of the or- dinary requisitions of Congress had only displayed the inefficiency of the authoiity making them, none of the States having duly complied with them, some having failed altogether, or nearly so, while in one instance, that of New Jersey, a compliance wras ex- pressly refused : nor was more yielded to the expos- filiations of members of Congress, deputed to her Leg- islature, than a mere repeal of the law, without a compliance. The want of authority in Congress to regulate commerce had produced in foreign nations, particularly Great Britain, a monopo- lizing policy, injurious to the trade of the United States, and destiuctive to their navigation: the imbecility and anticipated dissolution of the confederacy extinguishing all apprehension of a coun- tervailing policy on the part of the United States. The same want of a general power over commerce, led to an exercise of the power, separately, by the States, which not only proved abortive, but engen- dered rival, conflicting and angry regulations.''
"The States having ports for foreign commerce taxed and irritated the States trading through them — as New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina. Some of the States, as Connecticut, taxed imports from others, as from Massachusetts, which complained in a letter to the Executive of Virginia, and doubtless to those of other States. In sundry instances, as of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylva- nia, and Maryland, the navigation laws treated the citizens of other States as aliens. In certain cases, the authority of the Confederacy was disregarded — as in violation, not only of the treaty of peace, (with Great Britain,) but of treaties with France and Hol- land; which were complained of to Congress. In other cases, the Federal authority was violated by treaties and wars with Indians, as by Georgia: by troops raised and kept up without the consent of Congress; as by Massachusetts: by compacts without the consent of Congress; as between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and between Maryland and Vir- ginia."
"In the internal administration of the States, a violation of contracts had become familiar, in the form of depreciated paper made a legal tender, of property substituted for money, of instalment laws, and of the occlusions of the courts of justice, although evident that all such interferences affecting the rights of other States, relatively creditors, as well as citi- zen, creditors withi.i the State. Among the de-
fects which had been severely felt, was want of uni- formity in cases requiring it, as laws of naturalization and bankruptcy; a coercive authority over individu- als, and a guarantee of internal tranquility of the
States."
Such, Mr. President, is the gloomy catalogue given by this eminent Virginia statesman of the evils, the defects and the disorders then existing under and resulting from the Articles of Confede- ration. But he goes on, as it were with a pro- phetic no less than a historic statement of the consequences which then flowed, and which must ever flow from such a system. I continue the extract :
"As a natural consequence of this disheartening and distracted condition of the Union, the federal authoiity had ceased to be respected abroad; and dispositions were shown theie, particularly in Great Britain, to take advantage of its imbecility and to speculate on its approaching downfall. At home it had lost all confidence and credit. The unstable and unjust career of the States, had also forfeited the re- spect and confidence essential to order and good government, involving a general decay of confidence and credit between man and man."
And what were the rapidly approaching results and dangers threatening not only the Confedera- tion of the States, but the liberties of the people themselves? Mr. Madison thus continues:
"It was found moreover that those least partial to popular government, or most distrustful of its effi- cacy, were yielding to anticipations, that, from an increase of the confusion, a government might, result more congenial to their taste or their opinio* s: Whilst those most devoted to the principles and forms of re- publics were alarmed for the caute of liberty itself, at stake in the American experiment, and anxious for a system that would avoid the ineflicacy of a mere con- federacy without passing into the opposite extreme of a consolidated government. It was known that there were individuals who had betraed a bias towards mon- archy, and there had always been some not unfavor- able to a partition of the Union iido several confed- eracies, either from a better chance of figuring on a sectional theatre, or that the sections would require stronger governments, or by their hostile conflicts, lead to a monarchical consolidation. The idea of dis- memberment had recently made its appearance in the newspapers."
" Such [says Mr. Madison] were the defects, the deformities, the diseases, and the ominous prospects, for which the Convention were to provide a remedy, and "—[I beg the gentleman to observe this]—" which ought never to be overlooked in expounding and ap- preciating the constitutional charter , the remedy that was provided.'1'1
I think, sir, that with this understanding of the evils to be remedied, we may proceed to examine the measures adopted for that purpose.
The Federal Convention met at Philadelphia, in May, 1787. After some days spent in waiting for absentees, and in preliminary business, we find that on the 29th of May, (see debates, p. 126,) Gov. Randolph, of Virginia, " opened the main " business." Both from his own statement, and
155
from that of Mr. Madison, it appears that he did so upon upon consultation with, and at the re" quest of lis colleagues, " the Convention having " originated from Virginia" : and that his propo- sitions embodied their views. He made a brief address, strongly picturing the distracted condi- tion of the country, and the utter inefficiency of the Confederation, and closed by offering a series of fifteen resolutions, embodying the essential features which they thought expedient to adopt.
On the same day, Mr. Pinckney, of South Car- olina, laid before the Convention a plan of a Fed- eral Constitution, and both plans were referred to the Committee of the whole.
On the next day, Mr. Randolph's plan was taken up, but was postponed in order to consider the following resolutions, also introduced by him, and which I read, as showing the fundamental principles upon which the Convention acted. — [Debates, p. 132.]
"1. That a Union of the States merely Federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of confederation — namely, common defence, secu- rity of liberty, and general welfare."
2. "That no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual sovereignties, would be sufficient."
3. "That a Nit'wnal Government ought to be es- tabli hed, corsisting of a supreme legislative, exec- utive, and and judiciary."
I cannot too earnestly ask your attent;on to these brief and simple, but all-important resolu- tions. They were introduced and debated, ex- pressly as involving the fundamental principles by which all the action of the Convention was to be shaped. They expressly declare that no treaty or treaties, no union merely Federal, between the States as individual sovereignties, will accomplish the desired objects. The discussion of them shows that the vital question was precisely wheth- er the future Union should be a "Confederation," a league, or treaty, between the States as such, or a National Government, resting and operating upon the whole people. Thus we find : [Debates, p. 133:]
"Mr. Gouverneur Morris explained the distinc- !
" tion between a Federal and a National Govern- ! " ment: the former being a mere compact resting on
" the good faith of the parties, the latter having a j " complete and compulsive operation.
" Mr. Mason observed not only that the present I
" Confederation was deficient in not providing for co- !
ercion and punishment against delinquent States, I
but argued very cogently that punishment could :
not, in the nature of things, be executed on the j
States collectively, and therefore, that such a gov- I
ernment was " necessary as could dh ectly operate j
on individuals, and would punish those only whose ! guilt required it."
The first direct vote taken in Committee i
on the Whole, was on Mr. Randolph's third j resolution, which I have just read, and it was
adopted on motion of Mr. Pierce Butler of I
South Carolina : six States voting aye, the State of Connecticut no, and the State of New York equally divided. Thus was deliberately laid the foundation for our present Government, on a "National," as opposed to a "Federal" plan.
I will not weary you, sir, nor the Convention, by referring to the numerous other proofs of the same sort which the Debates of the Federal Con- vention afford. I desire, in this connection only, to allude to one or two others. It will be found that the "Federal" party in that body, (as those were called who wished to preserve the confeder- ate basis by establishing only a stronger league or treaty between the States) adopted a plan which was embodied in a series of nine resolutions submitted on the 15th June, by Mr. Patterson, of New Jarsey. The "anti-Federalists" adhered to Randolph's resolutions as their basis for a National Government. The latter were reported bac k without alteration, by the Committee of the Whole, (by 7 States to 3, and Maryland divided,) on a direct vote between the two plans; and on comparison of the original resolutions with the Constitution itself as finally adopted, the identity in principle and often in language., cannot but be observed.
The "Federalists" opposed the Randolph scheme by every argument, and among others by one analogous to the remark of the gentleman from Marion — "that the Convention held only the office of a scrivener." It was urged that they had no power to propose a plan of government en- tirely different from that of the confederation. The answer was— "the fiat is not to be here [in the Convention] but with the people." They ad- mitted, as I admit, that they performed the office draftsmen merely: but they held, as I hold, that the Constitution they proposed, if and when adopted by the people, was thenceforward the people's act and deed.
Again, turning to the debate of June 19th, {Debates p. 206) I find a long and able argument by Mr. Madison against the "Federal" plan, m which he brings up the precise doctrine of the law of nations, which was brought forward by the gentleman from Marion. (Mr. Redd.)
" If we consider the Federal Union [says Mr. M.] as analagous, not to the social compacts among individual, but to the conventions [leagues] among individual States, what is the doctrine resulting from these Conventions? Clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article by any one party leaves all the other par- ties at liberty to consider the whole convention [compact] as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach."
This is just the doctrine which the gentleman from Marion wants us to apply to our present Constitution; and the difference between Mr. Redd and Mr. Madison is, [as will be seen by reference to this debate,] that the latter earnestly opposed and helped to defeat Mr. Patterson's
156
plan, because it might be liable to the very con- struction Which my opponent now seeks to put upon the one adopted in its stead.
Besides Mr. Madison, whom I especially quote, because of his well known political posi- tion, we find, in the express declarations of others of the most influential members, the strongest evidence that the change from a federal to a na- national system was the great feature of the work performed by the Convention. The questions of representation, of taxation, of apportionment, of the constitution of the Na- tional Legislature, and so on, which were long and warmly debated, really turned in great part upon the questions involved in this change. But I cannot longer trespass on your patience on this head.
The Constitution being formed, it was reported to the Congress, and afterwards submitted for ratification to Conventions of the people, called for the express purpose, in the several States. I must here again differ with the gentleman from Marion. I find that even in the State of South Carolina, then, as now, the least democratic of all the States, the proposed Constitution being first submitted to the Legislature, was debated and considered by them, but was ratified and adopted by a Convention, called for the purpose from the people.
Mr. Redd. I would ask the gentleman from St. Louis whether he denies that a State may act through a Convention ?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir, I do not deny that— I sav nothing about that proposition. I simply make the point that the Constitution was not ratified by the States as such, but on the contra- ry, was ratified by Conventions,— as near as they could get to the people: and that it was with the express idea that it was the people of the several States, who were acting and ratifying it, that the Conventions in the States were called. • And just here I would notice an expression fre- quently used in my opponent's argument :— he denied "that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States as one community" If by that he means that the whole people of all the States did not in one body adopt it— nobody says that they did. On the contrary, it is mani- fest that no matter what its effect was to be in bringing them all into one nation, they were ob- liged to vote upon it separately in the States, for the reason that until it had been adopted, they were the people of thirteen independent separate, sovereign States, and, of course, acted separately as such, in ratifying and adopting it.
I turn now, for a few brief references, to the debates in one or two of the Conventions held to ratify the Federal Constitution in the several States. I refer especially to that of Virginia, be- cause on this " question of fact " which the gen- tleman has made, I want to go right to the strong-
holds of the States Rights party, and show how their fathers regarded the questions.
First, however, I read from the debates in the Massachusetts Convention, (2 Elliot, p. 55,) the words of Rufus King:
" The introduction to this Constitution is in the words, • We, the people,' &c. The language of the Confederation is, ' "We, the States,' &c. The latter is a mere Federal Government ol States."
In the New York Convention, Chancellor Liv- ingston remarked: [p. 214 lb.]
"A Republic might very properly be formed by a league of States ; but the laws of the general Legisla- ture must act and be enforced upon individuals. If we examine the history of Federal Republics whose legislative powers were exercised only in States, in their collective capacity, we shall line in their funda- mental principles the seeds of domestic violence and consequent annihilation. This was why 1 thought the old Confederation would be forever impracti- cable."
In the Pennsylvania Convention, Mr. Wilson, who had been a member of the Federal Conven- tion, and bore a prominent part in the debates, said:
"The leading principle in the politics, and that which pervades the American Constitution is, that the Supreme power resides in the people. This Con- stitution, Mr. President, opens with a solemn and practical recognition of that principle : 'We, the peo- ple of the United States, in order to form, &c, &c, do ordain and establish, this Constitution," &c.? &c. It is announced in their name— it receives its po- litical existence from their authority; they ordain and establish —[lb. p. 434.
Again, this same Mr. Wilson used the follow ing clear and striking language.— [2 Elliot's De- bates, p. 443.]
"When the principle is once settled that the people are the source of authority, the consequence is that they may take from the subordinate governments powers with which they have entrusted them and place those powers in the hands of the General Gov- ernment, if it is thought that then they will be pro- ductive of more good. They can distribute one por- tion of power to the more contracted circle, called State governments ; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States. Who will undertake to say, as a State officer, that the people may not give to the General Government what power and for what purposes, they please? How comes it, sir, that these State governments dictate to their superiors— to the majesty of the people? WThen I say the majesty of the people, I mean the thing, and not a mere compliment to them. The honorable gentleman went further, and said that the State gov- ernments were kept out of this Government alto- gether. The truth is— and it is a leading principle in this system — that not the States only, but the people also, are here represented. I have no idea that a safe system of power in the Government sufficient to manage the general interests of the United States, could be drawn from any other source, or vested in any other authority, than that of the people at large; and I consider this authority as the rock on which
157
this structure will stand. If this principle is un- founded the system must fall."
Is that, sir, the argument of a man who believ- ed the Federal Constitution a compact between the States, as such ? A more clear and admirable exposition in a few words, of the theory both of the source and distribution of power, upon which our fathers acted, I have not had the fortune to meet : and it will be observed that this argument was made by a member of the Federal Convention, in a State Convention, called to debate and ratify or reject the new instrument of which these decla- rations were made.
If we turn to the debate in N. Carolina, where the Constitution was at first not adopted by the Convention, we find the same question raised as to the introductory clause — tm We, the people, &c," and also the objection raised that the Convention had no right to use those words.
In the South Carolina Convention, Mr. Pinck- ney and others fully and ably indicated the prin- ciples of the proposed Constitution, and we find nothing to justify the theory that either its friends or its foes supposed it to be a league or compact of States, but the contrary.
I can only refer to the debates in the Virginia Convention, in which Patrick Henry headed a determined opposition to the Constitution, on the ground that it utterly destroyed the sovereignty of the States. Listen to such passages as these, from his speech in the opening debate :
" That this a consolidated government is demon- strably clear; and the danger of such a government is to my mind very striking. I have the highest veneration for these gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say—" We, the people.' Who authorized them to say, We, the people, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the States."
To this appeal, Gov. Randolph no less clearly replies :
"Tue gentleman inquires why we assumed the language of " We, the people?" I ask, why not? The government is for the people, and the misfortune is that the people had no agency in the government before."
pro-
And Mr. George Mason, objecting to the posed Constitution, said :
" Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that claase which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself en- tirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated government."— (3 Elliott, pp.22, 28, 29.)
Is any clearer proof needed than this as, to what was thought in the Virginia Convention of the nature of the new Constitution, both by its
friends and foes? But hear Patrick Henry, again :
"The fate of this question, and of America, may depend on this. Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between the States? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated govern- ment. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—' We, the people, instead of the States, of America.' " — (p. 44.)
I will not weary the Convention, Mr. President, by reading more at length. Certainly these ex- tracts show beyond all dispute that whatever might be thought of its merits, the advocates and the opponents of the Constitution alike agreed in "the/act" that it did not create a confederation— that it was not a compact— that it did not act either through or upon the States, as such, but upon individuals— that it was to be ratified by and emanate from, and operate upon, the Peo- ple or the United States. On this ground it was attacked by those who were jealous for State Rights and State Sovereignty. On this ground it was defended by those whom the bitter experience of the past and the portentous dan- gers of the present had convinced that in a na- tional government alone was there any hope for the future : and in my opinion, no candid man can faithfully read those debates without bein<r convinced that so far as the evidence they afford is concerned, the instrument they related to was in no sense intended or adopted as a compact be- tween sovereign States. I desire to refer to but one other piece of cotemporary evidence, and that is in the language of the form of ratifica- tion, read and agreed to and adopted by the Vir- ginia Convention, as follows :
"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected, &c, &c, do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, delare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being de- rived from the people of the United States, be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be per- verted to their injury or oppression," &c, &c.
You observe, sir, "derived from the people of the United States?" And this is the declaration not of the sovereign State, but of the people of Virginia, as part of the people of the United States. Can a negative be more clearly shown than by this exclusion of all talk of State action or State sovereignty?
So much, Mr. President, for the "question of fact," outside of the Constitution itself. But as I have repeatedly said, it is in that instrument that we should look for the best evidence of its nature. Suffer me, then, to deduce some consid- erations from its language and true meaning, to show still more clearly that it is not a compact between the States. Of course, in doing so, I shall have to go over ground which has been gone over many times before. It would be very strange if I could hope, on so momentous a question as
158
the theory of this Government, to present any views which should be new or original. It would be strange if, in the history of parties and of the country, this question had not long ago been probed to its depths. Every man who hears me knows that it has been thus explored; that this arena of political debate has been the battle- ground of the greatest parti3s, and upon which have met in fierce conflict the ablest minds of the nation. Yet, I desire, in this connection at least, to remind you of the grounds on which it is con- tended that we are united as one people by a Con- stitution and not as States by a compact, treaty or league— the irrefutable arguments, as I con- sider them, drawn from the instrument itself.
Is it not strange, Mr. President, if the statesmen who framed that instrument, knew not the mean- ing of the words they used? Shall we say that those men, patriotic, wise, skilled in all the prac- tical exigencies of statesmanship; rich in the ex- perience of trial and adversity; and who— as the debates amply show— did spend hours and days discussing a single phrase, nay a word, in all its meanings, not from any captious spirit, but be- cause they felt deeply what tremendous conse- quences might hang upon a word— that these men did not know what their own words meant, or did not mean what those words express ? Is not the question inevitable— if they meant to make a compact, why did they not say compact? Why did they not use the word league or confed- eration, or treaty, or alliance? Ihe first two of these words were used in the old Articles of Un- ion—why were they left out in the new? Sir, read that preamble over, and look at what it does mean — every clause, every word of it.
" "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common de- fense, promote the geneial welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There is a world of meaning in every clause- Surely, sir, the men who signed that instrument, as they looked back over the troubles through which they had just passed, and the still more threatening difficulties and anxieties which in so few short years after peace was declared had rap- idly arisen, difficulties so great and anxieties so pressing as not even the struggle of the Revolu- tion had equalled— think you they did not weigh their words, or that they meant nothing by that comprehensive preamble ? Look at its declara- tion of the purposes to be achieved.
To form a more perfect Union — was there no need of this, when under a "compact of Sov- ereign States" they saw already bickerings and jealousies rife, contests about lands, conflicts in legislation,' trade driven off by the laws of one from the ports of another; angry complaints ex-
changed between stubborn State Executives, and the central authorities powerless to control, or pacify, or remedy?
At this very time we learn that the question'of the navigation of the Mississippi was adjourned over by the Congress, in order that the new Govern- ment might dispose of it— the people of Kentucky determined at all hazards that it should be se- cured, while in some of the Eastern States it was even proposed that it should be relinquished to Spain.
To establish justice— among States which openly passed laws violating contracts, and ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder; of which last a cruel instance was mentioned in one of the Conventions, whereby the life of a citizen was taken without even the form of a trial : to say nothing of the paper money of Rhode Island, the worthless currency of the Confederation it- self, and the laws of more than one State, making property a legal tender.
To insure domestic tranquility— at a time, (1787) when the alarm caused by Shay's rebellion hardly yet quieted in Massachusetts, was so great that it is mentioned as almost the chief reason which compelled Washington himself, in spite of resolutions long formed, to end his days in quiet at his home in Virginia, to come forth from his retirement and take part in the Federal Conven- tion. It is a striking comment on the inefficiency of the Confederation, that desiring to aid Massa- chusetts in quelling that formidable outbreak— itself the result, in part, of bad legislation and oppressive taxes — but having no authority to raise troops for such a purpose, the Congress author- ized troops to be raised to protect the Western border from the Indians, of which four regiments were to be raised in Massachusetts, for the real purpose of over awing the rebels.
To provide for the common defense — a thing that had never been done save under the stern ne- cessity of actual war, and even then, under diffi- culties and at sacrifices which history clearly shows.
To promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos- terity. Let us read these words with care. The blessings of liberty, the last and greatest object to be secured! Ah, sir, is there not something prophetic in this? Is there not something to which we may well recur now, when the same dogmas of State pride and the same unyielding jealousy of State rights— I say it in no ©ffensive sense— when the views of those who seem to for- get that it is the destruction of the whole people to insist upon the rights or exclusive demands of any part of it, are so rife among us? Is theiv not an echo of prophetic and melancholy warning in these words for us, when the same sentiments which had almost brought those States into armed collision, and which were calling forth the deep-
159
est anxiety and lamentations of patriot?, arc now ■earing among us, unchecked, their horrid front? Is there no solemn admonition to us, that If we give up the glorious Union, which they thus buikled — if, in spite of the experience of those States, we rush back into the very vortex from Which ihey were then struggling to emerge, we most give up not only the prosperiry,but the honor, the peace, the liberty itself which they bequeathed to us, in exchange for anarchy and strife, and the burdens of a military de-pot's rule?
Well, sir, they did "ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States." But why ordain and establish a compact? A compact is an agreement. You may make an agreement, but is an agreement an ordinance? You and I may make an agreement : two or more States ma}r make an agreement — a treaty — a league: but why talk of ordaining it? Thoso words are not wi;hout significance. They are the words of fundamental law. They are not used in diplo- matic language. "We, the high contracting powers, do mutually agree/' is the language in treaties. But here— if it is nothing more than a compact, as has been argued — we find a compact ordained and established. Ordain and establish a treaty ! No, gentlemen, that cannot be. They "ordained and established a Constitution," — a word which is as distinct in its meaning as any word in the English language. The State of Mis- souri has a Constitution — what is that? Does that mean a compact between the counties of the State? The gentlemen who take this view are very unwilling to give this word that significance, when they come to apply it in that direction. The Constitution is the fundamental law, and this Constitution an- swers every requisite and every description of a fundamental law. It is supreme — the su- preme law of the land — anything in the constitu- tions or laws of any of the States— sovereign States, gentlemen — to the contrary, notwith- standing.
And why is this ? Is there any conflict there? Not at all. It is not that the Constitution of the United States overrides in fact the Constitution of the States, but that, if through any misgov- ernment or usurpation, or unwillingness to carry out this fundamental law, a State should incor- porate something in its Constitution which the National Constitution forbids, it should be void — because in o doing the State authorities would have passed beyond the limits assigned to them — assigned to them by the same people who as- signed its place, its permanent relations to the Constitution which governed them all.
Look at the attributes of the Gove rnment. A compact is an agreement. You and I make an agreement. "What does that mean? Yes, what does that mean? An agreement is an abstract term. It is nothing more than a description of
the fact that you and I have mutually undertaken, one to do this thing and the other to do that thing, or the, opposite. There is no third person, no body politic incorporated by the agreement; and ac- cording to the test applied to it, which is perfectly legitimate, if you don't do this, I don't do that. And so that is the nature, and the office, and the end of an agreement, no matter between whom it is made. Now, does any gentleman say that our National Constitution is such an agreement? Have we not been in the habit of supposing that there was actually a Government of the United States, and have we not been apph ing to it that name? Have we not had an idea — a fancy, for a good many years that that glorious en- sign which is displayed over this platform meant something? And what was that meaning? Was it that we are merely a collection of States, a conglomeration of sovereignties, held together on the abstract ilea of a compact? No. It means one nation — one and indivisible. That nation holds a power Avhich that confederation did not. That na- tion has i he supreme power of peace, of war, of levying taxes, of collecting revenues, and of admin- istering to the welfare of all its component parts. No community in it can make peace or war, nor exercise any other general control. It is an actu- al body politic, with a will of its own, and a brain of its own, and whese life blood pulsates through the great heart of a mighty people. It is not the agent of the States, for the simple reason that it does not obey them or any one of them. They obey it when there is any conflict. And yet can it be said that this nation, which we are consider- ing is a metaphysical entity, a compact — is it on a compact that you can have all these powers and exercise all these rights?
We find, then, that this Government was created for the purpose of meeting certain definite evils; that the experiment of a compact had been fully tried by the Confederation; that it resulted in failure; that these evils were pointed out, and the deliberate intention expressed of remedying them in the only way in which they could be remedied. Ic is this consolidated government that Patrick Henry so bitterly inveighed against, and in which his fancy led him to sec all the evils and attend- ant horrors of tyranny. Yet Patrick Henry lived to see its practical application in peace, and dig- nity, and strength, and countless blessings of free- dom to all who lived under it.
I know perfectly well the answer made to all these arguments. I know that the more clearly the nature of our Government is demonstrated, the more alarmed some men become. It is per- fectly true that the State Governments under the Constitution, do not retain their independent sov- ereignty. It ovght to be true, for the simple rea- son that we find that when they did, they were worse off than if they had no Government. We find that, before they could be brought to unite
160
in forming this Government, they had to go through a bitter experience, which enabled them to appreciate alike its necessity and its blessings. But their experience since then! Is it not, sir, the most ample, the most forcible refutation of the dolorous prophecies in the Convention which formed our Constitution? We find that, where- as less than six years of the existence of the Con- federation, demonstrated it to be an utter fail- ure, and a failure because it was a Confed- eration and nothing more — we find that seventy years of this consolidated Government — this tyr- annical Government, as it was represented to be— this Government that was to swallow up all State sovereignty— have proved it to be a glorious suc- cess. We find that, for seventy or eighty years, it has remedied the evils, obviated the dangers, avoided the perils, which that Confederation ut- terly failed to obviate or avoid. Is not seventy years of experience an answer to the arguments urged against it ? And would not the gentlemen who argued against it then be now more than satisfied to find their predictions unfounded and their fears without reason ? Would they not to- day fear not so much the Federal Government as the States themselves?
This is still a Government of the people. It is the same people who have made a Government for this purpose in one form and for another pur- pose in another. It is not two distinct and oppos. ing Governments, but one Government, made by the same people, and both springing from the same popular authority as their source. I have heard it stated that Ave are not one people, but many peoples. It is by just such fallacies as this that I have seen people so mislead that they talked as though there were two hostile powers, arrayed one against the other. Why, we are parts of the same nation. We are constituted one like an- other. If we in Missouri want to change our State Government, we take the proper means to do it ; and if we want to change the Constitution of the United States, we take the proper means to do that.
But it is argued that if you have to go to the whole people to change the Constitution, it can hardly be done. Well, the answer to that is, that if it is difficult and dangerous to change the Federal Constitution in order to rem- edy an evil, it is ten thousand times more dangerous and ruinous to undertake to remedy the evil by secession. There is a practical evil on the threshold, and which even those who contend for the right of secession admit in their argument. But is it true — do you believe it to be true, that a reasonable demand, a reasonable ne- cessity, on the part of any portion entitled to the respect of the people of the people of this coun- try, pressed upon the other portions, would be refused ? The present crisis is no argument that it would be refused— for we know that this crisis
has been brought about with the intention of not giving the opportunity to make that trial. I de- sire to call no hard names. But every man who hears me knows that the great feature in this crisis is that in accordance with the deliberate de- sign of bad and ambitious men, announced long ago, the Cotton States have been "precipitated in- to revolution." Now let us ask ourselves as honest and candid men, whether we have not a better mode of meeting all these difficulties than Seces- sion? I imagine that we have, and that we are all satisfied that we have.
I do not propose, Mr. President, to discuss other questions naturally arising out of this great subject, nor even to meet other objections which I know have been made. They have been made before and answered before, and no man who is familiar with the political history of this country, will be at a loss to know the treasure-house whence I have drawn many of my arguments. I have not the presumption to claim them as original.
But I desire to add this further remark. Our whole system of free representative government, county, State and National, rests upon the truth of two propositions. Those propositions are,
First, That there is, in fact, a sufficient com- mon interest in the community to induce them to act together, and to unite upon a basis of mutual protection and mutual forbearance. This latter is what is called " Compromise," in the true and proper sense — a compromise of rights, and of policy and of interests. When it comes to com- promising principle, I prefer to give that a differ- ent name.
Secondly, That upon this fair and just basis of common interests, the people may and ought to be trusted.
Upon these two fundamental propositions I take it that all free governments, yes, the possi- bility of any free government, rests. If these be true, they find their highest and most benefi- cent expression in the Constitution of the United States. If they are false, — then all free government is impracticable — the dearest hopes of humani- ty are a delusion and a snare — and all our efforts and the life-struggles of patriots everywhere are but ruinous experiments, to be washed off from the pages of the world's history at the end, in tears and blood. Fellow citizens of Missouri — do you believe that this is true? Will you assent to a doctrine which can lead you to any such con- clusion ?
There were other propositions advanced by the gentleman from Marion, which I should have been glad to notice. But I have sought only to present, and I have done so imperfectly enough— the leading historical points in relation to his "question of fact," with the fair deductions from them There were other statements which if I had time I should be glad to answer . There were admissions, too, which somewhat surprised me.
161
For instance, in his catalogue of the grievan- ces of the South, he complained of wrongs on the part of the Federal Government. At the same lime, he condemned the acts of the seceding States, as without sufficient cause or justification. Now, I could not hut remember that not long since a gentleman addressed this Convention, in the character of Commissioner from the seceding State of Georgia, who justified her act of seces- sion, and invited Missouri to join in it. Yet that Commissioner begun with the distinct avowal that the State of Georgia did not complain either of the Federal Constitution, nor of any act of the Federal Government. I could not but admire the magnanimity of my fiiend from Marion (I hope I may call him such) in this, that while he be- lieved the wrongs of the South to be even greater than those of which the Commissioner from Georgia complained, yet he was willing to stay in the Union. I take this to be proof of his genuine devotion to the Union after all, and I am sure that he who has that feeling, when he comes to consider, both from the teachings of history and the deductions of reason, that this Union was made to escape the very perils which they are rushing into, he will also find that devotion to the Union is the best opposition that can be offered to all such political heresies as I consider the right of secession to be.
I do not propose at this time, Mr. President, to of- fer any remarks upon the report of the Committee on Federal Relations. I will simply say that as a whole, I approve the Report, though there are some things in it which I should prefer to see al- tered. T should be glad to state some objections which I have to portions of it, and also to some of the resolutions. But I content myself now by saying that it is a "Union Report," presenting no ultimatum , uttering no threat, seeking to main- tain the dignity of Missouri in an attitude of peace. And I shall express my sentiments by my vote.
This amendment, sir, I earnestly trust the Con- vention will not adopt. It looks towards nullifi- cation; it certainly may be construed to be a threat; it seeks to pledge us to a cotirse of action in ;;n indefinite future; and it anticipates trouble without just or manly grounds. Now if it were liable but to any one, instead of all these objec- tions,—had we not better let well enough alone?
I desire nothing more, sir, in this whole matter, than that our action and expression shall be such as to command the respect and admiration of all parts of this country. I need not repeat the ar- guments which should move us in view of our position and true interest. I need not remind you of the resources of Missouri, of her magnificent fu- ture, of her central position m this valley, and in the heart of this continent, destined to be the path- way of the commerce of the world. All these
considerations appeal to us to remain in the Union. Yet, sir, it is not to these that I would point, I would not desire to base our action upon any advantage which this or that policy might secure. I should scorn to advocate any measure on this floor on a basis of policy merely. Let us look deeper— let us aim higher. Now, more than even in the history of this State, does it be- hoove us to see clearly, to judge patiently, hon- estly, wisely, of our true relations to all with whom we are connected, and to take that course which loyalty and duty shall point out. Well may we, each one of us, recall the touching lan- guage of the President: ''You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy this Govern- ment." Nay, sir, we too have taken a solemn vow to support and protect it. We can best ful- fill that vow, as we all desire to do, by showing that neither the blind impulse of passion, nor the sinister persuasions of those who— whether from intention or misunderstanding their posi- tion,— have done wrong — that no such per- suasion can mislead us : by showing that we know and will respond to our duties to our common government : that in true and loyal and patriotic allegiance, come what will, we will be' faithful to the Constition that has so long pro- tected us : and that as a portion of the people of the United States, we will demand and insist that the government of this people be preserved for this people, — amended, if need be, by this peo- ple,—but that destroyed and ruined it shall not be.
I know, well, sir, that this position will be tak- en, and these views advocated by tongues more eloquent than mine. Yet I am rejoiced to bear even this humble testimony in its behalf.
Mr. Dunn, of Rat. Mr. President and gen- tlemen of the Convention : Before the vote shall be taken on the amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Clay, (Mr, Moss,) to the fifth resolution, reported by the Committee on Federal Relations, I desire to call the attention of the Con- vention to the precise nature and character of that amendment. It will be seen by a careful exami- nation and comparison of the resolution and amendment, that there is a perfect harmony be- tween them, and that the amendment gives to the principles enunciated in the resolution, a more specific application, and carries them to their proper logical conclusion. The resolution is as follows :
"5. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Con- vention, the employment of military force by the Federal Government to coerce the submission of the seceding States, or the employment of mili- tary force by the seceding States to assail the Government of the United States, will inevitably plunge this country into civil war, and thereby entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable set-
11
162
tlemcnt of the fearful issues now pending before the country; we therefore earnestly entreat, as well the Federal Government as the seceding States, to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever, bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war."
The resolution condemns the employment of military force by the Federal Government, to co- erce the submission of the seceding States, and condemns the employment of military force by the seceding States to assail the Government of the United States, assigning as a reason for such condemnation, that the employment of military force by either party, for such a purpose, would plunge the country into a civil war, and thereby extinguish all hope of an amicable settlement of the fearful issues now pending before the coun- try ; and both parties are entreated to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and on no pretense whatever, to bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war. The amendment is as fol- lows:
Amend the fifth resolution by adding: 'And further believing that the welfare of Mis- souri depends upon the peaceablo adjustment of our present difficulties, she will not countenance or aid a seceding State in making war on the General Government, nor will she furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seceding State."
While the resolution, in effect, declares that the welfare of the whole country, depends upon the preservation of the peace, and the amicable set- tlement of the fearful issues pending before the country, the amendment gives to that declara- tion a specific application, by asserting that the welfare of Missouri depends upon the peaceable adjustment of our present difficulties; and while the original resolution condemns in strong lan- guage the employment of military force by either party against the other, the amendment draws the proper conclusion from the principles con- tained in the resolution, and says that Missouri will not countenance or aid a seceding State in making Avar on the General Government, nor will she furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seceding State. The resolution con- demns as wrong, the waging of war by either party against the other, and earnestly entreats both parties to withhold the arm of military power ,and the amendment pledges Missouri not to countenance, aid or participate in doing, what the resolution denounces as wrong.
I am astonished at the objections that have been raised against this amendment, by many who have participated in this discussion. It seems to be greatly misunderstood by those who are opposing it. It has been charged as a seces- sion movement. If the resolution contains good
Union doctrines, and this no one controverts, the amendment is not only free from the taint of se- cession, but is more strongly Union than the res- olution.
Let the amendment be analyzed, and it will be found to contain three propositions, and but three; and I challenge any member on this floor to present a substantial objection to either of the propositions. It asserrs, first, that the welfare of Missouri depends upon the peaceable adjustment of our present difficulties; secondly, that Mis- souri will not countenance or aid a seceding State in making war on the General Government; and thirdly, that Missouri will not furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Gov- ernment, in any attempt to coerce a seceding State. This is the whole extent of the amend- ment. If the resolution which in effect makes the destiny of the nation depend upon the amicable settlement of the fearful issues now pending be- fore the country be true, it is especially true that the welfare of Missouri, which is an integral part of the nation, and which, from her geo- graphical position, would, in the event of a dis- solution of the Union, be a frontier State, depends upon the peaceable adjustment of our present difficulties. As Missouri would suffer more than any other State from a final dissolution of the Umon, so her welfare is more deeply involved than that of any other State, in preserving the Union by a peaceable adjustment of our national troubles. But I will not elaborate this position, because it has not been seriously controverted. The second proposition contained in the amendment is, that Missouri will not counte- nance or aid a seceding State in making war on the General Government. Presuming that no member on this floor would be willing that Mis- souri should join the seceding States in making war upon the United Slates, I cannot imagine what possible objection can be taken to this po- sition in the amendment. If the United States should wragc a war of conquest against the seced- ing States, this part of the amendment leaves our State perfectly free to determine whether she will do as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky, stand pledged to do, and that is, to make common cause with the seceding States, and resist the invasion; or, whether she will re- tain a neutral position. " Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." I hope that no such issue may ever be made; but if it should be, I trust we will meet it as becomes men and patriots. The last position taken by the amendment, is the one against which the principal objections have been made. And I ask if there is a member of this Convention who thinks that the General Government ought to coerce the seceding States into submission ? No one has been bold enough to avow himself a coercionist. No coercionist can, consistently with his position, vote for this
163
amendment. And if any member on this floor regards it to be the duty of the General Govern- ment to employ military force to coerce the sece- ding States into submission, such a member could not support the resolution reported by the Com- mittee on Federal Relations, and if he would re- gard it to be the duty of Missouri to furnish men and money to aid in attempting such coercion, he cannot vote for this amend- ment. There is, however, nothing in this last clause of the amendment which will preclude Mis- souri from defending the General Government, if the seceding States should wage a war upon the General Government.
A prominent objection to the amendment is, that it pledges Missouri against aiding the Gene- ral Government in enforcing the laws. Military coercion against the seceding Stafes for the pur- pose of subjugating them, is a very different thing from enforcing the laws. Neither the resolution nor the amendment pledges the State to any thing in regard to the enforcement of the laws. That is left to be determined by the provisions of the Constitution. But to prevent any misunder- standing of my views in regard to the enforcement of the laws, I will say what every one acquainted with the theory of our Government must recognize as true, that the military power of the Govern- ment can only he brought to the aid of the civil authorities in enforcing the laws, when the civil authorities, without such aid, are not strong enough for the purpose. The military power of the Government is placed by the Constitution in subordination to the civil power. The laws can- not be enforced, constitutionally, by mere milita- ry power. . Where there is no civil officer, to call in the aid of the military power, the enforcement of the laws by military force would be palpably unconstitutional. And as there is not a single offi- cer in the seceding States, holding a commission under the Government of the United States, the Government has no constitutional au- thority to send an army into those States to enforce the laws. To do so would be to trample the Constitution under foot. This is true in regard to the enforcement of the laws in those States, and to the collection of the rev- enue at the ports. If a county or district in this State were destitute of civil officers, Gov. Jack- son could not, without a violation of the Consti- tution, send a military force into such county or district to collect debts, try criminals, and enforce the laws. An army cannot be marched into the seceding States under the pretext of enforcing the laws, where there is not a solitary civil officer of the United States, without a clear violation of the Constitution.
The provision of the Constitution of the United States, authorizing the militia to be called out to repel invasions, has been read and relied upon,
! as a means of getting an army into the seceding i States. It cannot be supposed that the wise and ! patriot framers of the Constitution in clothing the Government of the United States with authority | to repel invasions of the States, thereby designed ! that the Government of the United States should I itself have the power to invade a State with an ar- my for the purpose of subjugating it. To take the hypothetical case, so forcibly stated by my colleague from Clinton (Mr. Birch,) if a foreign army should be landed in South Carolina to con- quer that State, the Government of the United ! States would, under the power to repel invasions, j have a constitutional right to march an army in- to South Carolina and repel the invaders. But it does not logically follow from this, that the Gov- ernment of the United States could, constitution- ally, send an army iuto South Carolina to subjugate that State. The employment of military force by the General Government to coerce the seceding States into submission, is unconstitutional, and we ought to be willing to pledge Missouri not to furnish men or money to aid in violating the Con- stitution.
It cannot be that this Convention, a majoriry of whose members were born in the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Caro- lina, with the fact staring us in the face that these States are already pledged to unite with the seceding States in resisting military coercion, if it should be attempted by the General Govern- ment— it cannot be, that those of us who hail from those States — it cannot be that any member of this Convention, would be willing to involve Missouri in the suicidal act of aiding the General Government in an attempt to coerce the seceding States. It would be a mere attempt. Disaster and ruin would be the result. The Northern in- vaders would be driven back. A civil war more bloody than any recorded in the pages of history would follow. Instead of coercing the seven se- ceding States into the Union, eight more States would be forced out of the Union. The whole country, North and South, would be drenched with fraternal blood. I am unwilling to engage in this fratricidal strife.
But suppose coercion should prove successful. Suppose the invaders should succeed in bringing the Southern States back into the Union, as con- quered provinces. This would not be the Union established by our forefathers. A military despo- tism, the worst form of government, would be established upon the ruins of the Constitution. Let us test the soundness of the principles enun- ciated in this amendment, by considering the ef- fect of their adoption by Missouri, and by all the States. Civil war would then be an impossibility. And being relieved of all apprehensions of hav- ing our efforts to save the Union blasted by the inauguration of civil war, we could confidently hope for the adjustment of all our troubles.
164
But some gentlemen have said that there are no troubles to settle, that nobody is hurt, and that our grievances are imaginary. The Union can- not be saved by ignoring the startling events of the last few months, and crying peace, peace, when there is no peace. The fierce storm that has precipitated seven States out of the Union, will, if it be permitted to rage on with unchecked fury, destroy our Government. It must be al- layed, or a dissolution of the Union is only a question of time. I do not envy the man who, in limes like these, can fold his arms and say that nobody is hurt. We are all hurt. We are hurt by the financial ruin consequent upon our na- tional troubles. We are more deeply hurt by the loss of seven of our sister States, the blotting of seven stars from our flag. You might as well say that a father is not hurt by the loss of beloved children, as to say that a patriot is not hurt by the loss of seven States from the Union.
The Union cannot be saved by denouncing the South. And the man who regards the secession of the Gulf States as the cause of our troubles takes a superficial view of the subject. Secession is not the cause but an effect — an effect which I deeply deplore, an effect which ought not to have followed; still it is but an effect. The cause of our National troubles is to be traced to that anti- slavery party, that disregarding the solemn warn- ing of the father of his country against the for- mation of geographic or sectional parties, has, in the late Presidential election obtained the con- trol of the General Government. It is the propa- gation of the unconstitutional dogmas of this sec- tional party that has brought our troubles upon us.
If, as has justly been said, the mission of Mis- souri is to act as mediator, in the peaceable adjust- ment of our national troubles, let us make our action effective. Let us take our position in favor of the Crittenden amendments to the Constitu- tion of the United States. Let us appeal from the decision of the leaders of the dominant party in the North, to the people of the United States. I confidently believe that success will crown our efforts. The Union must be preserved. This cannot be done by a surrender of our constitutional rights. The Constitution is the bond of Union, and it is the instrument by which our most important rights under the government are secured.
The Union of the States, like the matrimonial union, was founded in mutual affection, mutual dependence, and mutual interest. The patriotic men who formed our glorious Union had passed to- gether through the fiery ordeal of the Revolution, and cherished for each other a strong affection, and if the mutual affection of the different sec- tions of the Union has been impaired, that mutu- al affection must be restored. If the matrimoni- al union should be endangered by the loss of the affection which led to its formation, the restora- tion of mutual affection is the only means of se-
curing the blessings which that union was de- signed to secure. There is another point of anal- ogy between the union of the States and the mat- rimonial union — there must be no coercion in either case. If I had been blessed with a daugh- ter, she should not marry a coercionist, lest he would chastise her.
Let us settle our national troubles amicably, upon a basis that will secure to us our constitu- tional rights, and when fraternal feeling shall be restored, let us turn to the seceding States, and say to them, "Behold how good and how pleas- ant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." We may win them back by justice, by modera- tion, and by the firm establishment of our consti- tutional rights. The preservation of the peace is necessary for the preservation of the Union. The amendment of the gentleman from Clay is a bet- ter peace measure than the resolution of the Com- mittee, and, as a Union man, I will give it my cordial support, and I hope that all true friends of the Union will vote for the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Allen. I do not propose to make a speech. I will ask the Judge one question, be- fore my remarks, so that I may enlighten some of my friends on the right. I did not understand him exactly with reference to his daughter mar- rying a coercionist. Does he mean to imply that he wOuld be in favor of her marrying a secessionist ?
Mr. Dunn. I don't want her to marry a coer- cionist, nor a secessionist, nor a submissionist — I want her to marry a man who is sound on the Union question. [Laughter.]
Mr. Allen. With this explanation I will pro- ceed. We have had quite a number of speeches, and I should not have got up and said anything myself, but from the fact that my friend from Ray has rather called out his friends from North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. I happened to be born and raised in Tennessee, near Kitt Billett's mill, [Laughter,] and I felt it was proper I should make a few remarks in answer. My friend seems to think that it is indispensible that we should vote for this amendment. He seems to think that upon it depends whether we shall be hastened into an interminable war or not. I have not so viewed this subject. Al- though I am one of those Southern gentle- men to whom he refers, I had made up my mind, soon after reading the majority report, that I should vote for that report, because it was conceived in the right kind of spirit; it breathes a conciliatory fraternal spirit-
[Mr. Allen here read a part of the report, and said it met his hearty approval. ]
Mr. President, that this difficulty has grown out of alienated feeling, that has been gotten up between the North and the South, to a great ex- tent, at least, I venture no person who has looked
165
dispassionately at this thing will for a moment doubt. That the Abolition Societies in the North, organized a number of years ago, have excited the people upon that particular subject, and agitated the popular mind, and that political leaders and demagogues discovered that it was an excellent thing to take hold of, in order to be lifted into power, and did take hold of it and fanned the flame until the prejudice of the people in the South became aroused, no one, I imagine, can deny. All these things have been discussed for the last few days, and it seems to me it would be needless for us further to investigate them.
But, Mr. President, we are all American citi- zens, and in order to accomplish that for which we came here, we must work in that kind of spirit which is indicated in the report, and manifest it to our brethren in the North and the South. It is argued by gentlemen here, that the State of Mis- souri should take a mediatorial position. I hear- tily acquiesce in that course. I believe it is the position we ought to occupy, and that our influ- ence should be exerted to accomplish that object.
My friend from Ray tells us that he wants this amendment adopted from the consideration that his particular friend (Mr. Moss, from Clay) has introduced it, and that he would feel perfectly safe to vote for most anything which should come from that gentleman. I do not see any reason why we should vote for a proposition that comes from Mr. Moss, or any other man. If it suits us, we should vote for it. But as to my- self, I will say that I shall not vote for that amendment. We came pledged here to do, what? To keep Missouri in this Union. That is what nine-tenths, at least, of the members of this Con- vention were sent here for ; and I am satisfied that if any member of this Convention had gone among the people, pledging himself to vote for resolutions that would tend to destroy our connection with the General Government, he would not have been elected. I tell you that the people all over this country, as the gentleman has properly remarked, are anxious about this thing. They have been stirred about this question. Their interests are involved. They desire the speedy settlement of these difficulties, and they think it is wiser to try to settle them in the Union than out of it. There is no good reason why we should go out of the Union. There is no man who has ever squinted toward seces- sion in the advocacy of this doctrine, that has ever shown one good reason why Mis- souri should leave the Union. With her geo- graphical position, surrounded as she is by free territory on nearly all sides, it would be madness, and worse than madness, for her to secede. We, sir, take grounds against everything and any- thing, under existing contingencies, that will have the tendency toward or squint toward our dissolving our connection -with the General Gov-
ernment. I know we are for this sometimes called Black Republicans. Well, I never ran tor an office in my life. The first politi- cal speech I ever undertook to make was last month, when I conducted the canvass for a posi- tion in this Convention; and I tell you I am not influenced by political motives at all, and I have no fears about what I am called. I do not ask for political position, nor do I ever expect to aspire to a political position. I do not care what a man calls me, so I am acting according to my best convictions of right and duty to my country. But I may as well say that this way of calling names is having a bad influence. It is calculated to arouse ill feelings. i"do not call a man a Seces- sionist, nor a- Republican, if he differs with me, when I say that such is the spirit which seems to pervade this Convention in regard to conciliatory measures. We all claim to be Union-loving men. I believe ia the proverb that "charity begins at home, and it is due we should be amicably and fraternally disposed to- ward each other. I first look at my own inte- rests; I secondly look at the interests of my State, and of the General Government ; and I am satis- fied that, taking that view of the subject, it is largely to our interest to stick on to the Union.
We have had some very long speeches on the constitutionality of secession. We have had a good many speeches on all subjects connected with the matter under consideration. True, some have been very long ones. In listening to them I have been occasionally reminded of the two old ladies that drank coffee together. One of them said it was very good coffee. Yes, said the other, but one has to drink a great deal of water to get a little coffee. [Laughter.] That has been the way with a good many speeches on this floor.
Sir, we talk about coercion and secession and all this sort of thing. Now, I believe it is gen- erally conceded, by most everybody, that there is no constitutional right to secede. It must be revolutionary. As far as the doctrine of coer- cion is concerned, we should deem it to be bad policy. There is no such thing, gentle- men, as coercing the Southern States back into this Union, and keeping them there. — The American people are not of that kind of stuff. You can coax the American people, but you cannot drive them. It is folly, and worse than folly, to talk about it. You might go down and overpower them. You might for a time con- quer them and bring them back, but would they stay back? No; they wrould be like the old hen in the anecdote, that could not be made to sit down, but would sit a standing. [Laughter.] This thing has got to be settled upon the principle of compromise, and the American people, if we can get at them properly, are a compromising people. We do not presume, gentlemen, we can get those leaders of the Northern party,
166
who have recently been elected under a political excitement, to abrogate all the declarations made by them during the canvass, and accede to all the demands which are made upon them by a justly discriminating people. But I tell you what we want, and what it is our business here to do. We want to propose some plan to the States upon which we can get a compromise, and can get at the people. We want to speak in terms of expos- tulation to the North and to the South, and ask them to come up and unite upon a compromise, and make it irrevocable in the Constitution, and settle this vexed question forever, and keep it out of politics. Can this be done? Yes, Mr. President, it can be done. I have not des- paired. When I reflect on the intelligence and patriotism of the American people, when I look over this wide country of ours, and see the trouble that is now existing all over her broad bosom, and the depression which has come over all departments of business; when I see the people feel this thing; when I see how in the Northern States the manufacturing interest is suf- fering, and the laboring classes have been turned out of employment, and are starving for bread to-day, I cannot but think that, when we can once get at the masses of the people, they will agree upon a compromise. I have no fears about that thing.
There never was a question in which I took a livelier interest than the question of the troubles that are now afflicting my country. I have laid upon my pillow, and thought seriously upon this matter, and turned it over and over. Situated as we are in the northern part of the State of Missouri, with free Territories surrounding us, if this State should secede, it would bring all the war, all the mobs and raids that I have heard of in Kansas and other places, upon us. We expect we should be robbed of our property — our ne- groes would be stolen and our houses burnt. Why, sir, if such a crisis as that should come upon us, we should be in ruinous condition. Fancy, if you please, the condition of a man who when he lies down at night with his. family, does not know whether all will be well in the morning — does not know but that in the night fiends in human form may visit him and burn him out and run off his property. I rather think if that were to come to pass I should secede about that time. [Laughter.] But that would be the legitimate consequence of our dis- connection with the General Government. Well, because we talk this Avay about this thing some say you are going with the Northern Confedera- cy. I look upon that as an unjust imputation. When I say I am for remaining in the Union, it is not to be inferred that I want to go with a Northern Confederacy. A Northern Confederacy and the Union are two different things. If there should be two confederacies, one a Northern Con-
federacy and the other a Southern, in that event, being a Southern man and a slaveholder, I would be in favor of casting our destiny with the South. But if this Union can be preserved, I want to stay in it by all means. We don't know what kind of government we are going to have down South. It may be a military monarchy or despo- tism ; and I tell you if we do ever have to leave this Union, before I take that fearful leap I must know Avhat kind of government I am going into.
Now, as far as this amendment is concerned, I am sorry that I have to differ from my friend from Ray. But, then, you know that friends will differ. I see that the amendment differs from the original resolution, yet I think that reso- lution expresses all that we desire to express in regard to the subject of coercion. Then, again, this amendment, it seems to me, rather tends to- wards an insubordination to the General Gov- ernment, and under existing circumstances I will not suffer myself to cast a vote that will have a tendency in that direction. My friend says that if we do not vote for the amendment, we shall have to fight our friends down South. Well, now, I do not believe that the passing of this amendment will prevent that thing, if it depends upon that contingency. I believe if the amend- ment is the only thing that can prevent it, there will be a fight anyhow. I am inclined to think, Mr. President, that if the General Government does call on us to go down there, and an army of Missourians marches into any one of the States referred to by the gentleman, by the time they got there they would secede. I am also inclined to think that, if the President wants to whip those fellows down there, he will not take an army from the slaveholding Staes.
We want the proper kind of spirit among the people. We want the return of that spirit which makes one American citizen look upon another as a brother, no matter whence he comes. A little incident occurs to my mind that will illus- trate my idea. A friend of mine went to Cali- fornia in 1849, and came back in 1852 or '53. In crossing Central America, on his way back, he met with a man from the United States, who was sick ; he had been unfortunate, and was truly an object of charity. My friend said that he had hardly enough money to bring himself home, but he said he was an American citizen, and so he divided with him. It was enough for him to know that he was an American citizen, and so he divided the last dollar with him that he had. Now, that is the kind of spirit which we ought to have. If we contribute to a return of this spirit among the people of the North and South, if we can get them reconciled, if we can get them to know that these matters of difference are not matters about which they need to be alarmed, we shall certainly have done a great work.
167
Now, it is truly no business of persons in the free States to concern themselves about the sub- ject of Blarery. If they look upon it as a great moral evil, or a crime, yet if they have nothing to do with it, it will not be a sin to them. They ought to be willing to act upon the principle, do unto all men as you would have them do unto you. Whenever we, as American citizens, are willing to act upon that principle, we shall have peace in the country, and be in a condition to compromise our difficulties.
I am satisfied, Mr. President, that we are not go- in^ out of the Union. I am satisfied, further, that we are going to adopt this majority report, with the preamble, and send it out to our brethren in the border States and the free States so that they may understand our position, and come forward to aid us in the work of restoration of peace. There is no use talking any longer about who is at fault and who is not. The great question now is, we are in trouble and Ave want to get out of it. We hare to compromise. We propose as a basis the Crittenden amendment to the Constitu- tion. It is an amendment which seems to give satisfaction to the people of the North and to the South; and when I say the North, and the South, I mean the massess of the people, the yeomanry, the men who follow the plow, the working men, the bone and sinew of the country. I have no idea of satisfying political dema- gogues. The sooner the people get rid of them the better. But I tell you the people North and South will vote for this proposition. It is true if I were sent to a National Convention, and was to vote for this compromise, if I could not get a compromise without striking out that part of the proposition which relates to the future acqui- sition of territory, I would be willing to strike it out. I believe we have territory enough, and I am rather of opinion that if that compromise is adopted, it will operate against the acquisition of any territory in the future. The people all over the country are familiar with the Crittenden amendment, and I have no doubt a majority of them will vote for it. I have talked with a num- ber of Republicans who say that they would vote for it, ami the other evening a gentleman from Northern Illinois told me that three-fifths of the citizens in that country would vote for this amendment. I tell you they will do it all over the country, and all we want is time enough to get this thing before the people.
What a glorious object it will be for us to do something which will accelerate the time when our country shall again be blessed with peace and prosperity — when we shall all again be united in one sisterhood of States, and a compromise shall have been effected, which will set the vexed question of slavery forever at rest! What a glorious object if, by agreeing upon such a com- promise as this, we can prevail upon the South-
ern States to join hands with us once more and come back into the Union! We will welcome them tack as brothers. We will act as the Father did toward the Prodigal Son. We will go out to meet them, and embrace them once more — we will kill a fatted calf, and we will thankfully pro- claim to all the world : These States were lost and we found them— they were dead, and they are alive again. I tell you such a shout of joy never went up from the American heart as would go up if those States should come back. We would have a glorious time.
FOURTEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 16th, 1861. Met at 10 o'clock, a. m. Mr. President in the chair. Prayer by the Chaplain.
On motion, the reading of the journal was dis- pensed with.
Mr. Lixton, I propose, Mr. President, to occu- py the attention of the Convention for about five minutes. I object to the amendment of the gentleman from Clay, for two very good reasons: First, that it is supererogatory; and second, that it is revolutionary. It is supererog- atory, because Lincoln has already said that he does not intend to invade any State, and that he does not intend war. What is the use, then, of passing a resolution that he shall not do it. I say for that reason, it is supererogatory. But, in ad- dition to this, it is nullification, it is revolu ion- ary, for it asserts that Missouri will not do what the President, by constitutional power, can re- quire her do. If it be constitutional for the President to call upon us for aid, then the pas- sage of the resolve declaring that the State will not extend such aid, would be a wanton act of nullification. So far as principle is concerned, I should like to know what difference there would be between Missouri saying to the General Government, we will resist your civil de- mands, and South Carolina declaring that the General Government shall not collect the imposts at Charleston? I say, then, it is secession in disguise— it is an ultimatum and nullification. Although I do not believe that gentleman in- tended it, yet it is so, and, to use a sort of illus- tration, with which I am familiar, and which I borrow from the gentleman from Greene, (Mr. Orr,) it does not matter what you meant when you gave strychnine, if you gave enough to kill, it will kill, although you may have given it to cure.
I do not say, Mr. President, that I do not wish this amendment to be sanctioned by the Conven- tion, because I know it will not be. I do say.
168
however, that I hope it will not got a dozen votes. I know 1 have taken the right view of it, and that it is useless and wanton, and that it is nul- lification and secession. So much for the amend- ment.
I wish merely to say, as the debate has taken a wide range, a few words upon the majority re- port. I approve it. As others have said, how- ever, it is not exactly such an one as I would have gotten up, although it is a much better one probably than I could have devised I regard it as the ablest document which has been elicited by the present troubles of the country. For myself, I could take less than it asks, and for the sake of the Union, I would ask even more than it asks.
I feel very differently, now, Mr. President, from what I did three weeks ago, when I first met you in Jefferson City. I felt nervous, then, and alarm- ed; but I do not feel so to-day— I feel that it is all right with Missouri. When I got to Jefferson City, and heard nothing but the Marsellaise and Dixey, in place of the Star Spangled Banner, I felt uneasy enough. And when I heard Governor Jackson speak, I felt badly — and when I heard the Commissioner from Georgia, I felt uneasy.
I recollect, with my colleague, Mr. Broadhead, hearing Dixey played on the streets, and that we stepped up to the leader of the band and asked him to play the Star Spangled Banner. He said, (be- ing a foreigner) "Oh me'fraid to play that." We assured him there was no danger, and he played one stanza of the Star Spangled Banner, but immediately went off" into Dixey, and of course we went off in disgust. But we need have no fears of Missouri now or hereafter.
Mr. President, there never has been any ade- quate cause why any State should secede. There never has been even a respectable pretext. What have any of them suffered? Have armies been quartered amongst them in time of peace? Have hordes of officers been sent among them to eat out their sub- stance? Have they been taxed without the liberty of being represented ? Have they been denied trial by jury? Have they suffered any of those wrongs declared by Jefferson in the Declar- ation of Independence? Not at all. What out- rage has any State suffered ? I answer nothing that would in any degree justify secession. They cannot complain that slavery will be interfered with in any of the States, for the Chicago plat- form repudiates that doctrine — the Committee of Thirty -Three has set that matter forever at rest. They have taken it out of the poAver of Congress to interfere with slavery in any of the slave States. Slavery already exists in all the Terri- tory that slavery claims. The only Territory that the Crittenden Compromise claims — and there is no Wilmot Proviso to prevent it from going into the territories of the North. But the ter-
ritory hereafter to be acquired is what the Crittenden Compromise provides for. Mr. President, I think it a wanton wickedness to inter- fere and endeavor to raise a quarrel about pro- perty which wo may never have. I say it is wickedness to endeavor to raise a quarrel of that sort. And I say more, that I hope w e may never have another foot, if it is to be used as an element of strife.
As to the personal liberty bills, it is very well known that the General Government pays no at- tention to them; that it executes the fugitive slave law in spite of them. I have read that one fugitive slave returned in one instance cost $40,- 000. What do we care for their bills if the Gen- eral Government carries its laws into effect in spite of those bills? Have any of these seceding States ever lost a slave by any of those bills ? No, they have not. But Southern orators say that, like a scorpion girt by fire, slavery will sting itself to death, if bounded. It is obliged to be bounded by the Crittenden compromise, and, if it is so dangerous, it will have to sting itself to death, even if the Crittenden Compromise is adopted. If it is the scorpion it appears to be, we had bet- ter get rid of it in Africa than extend it through our Territories. At any rate, we cannot blame the people for being afraid of the scorpion. For myself, I want nothing better than the Cor- win Compromise reported by the Committee of Thirty- three. Those who will not be satisfied with that, will not be satisfied with anything. South Carolina will not be satisfied with anything, and in this connection I beg leave to read an extract from a letter from a gentleman who is well known, was a Bell Everett man recently and a good Union man more recently and always. He says " the amendment of the Committee of Thirty-three which has been submitted by them to Congress for ratification, will put that question forever at rest, and all reasonable and patriotic Southern citizens ought to be satisfied. But I fear that it will not be enough for the seceding States. Their whole course has been unpatriotic, selfish, and unmanly to other States and especial- ly to the border States. There is no patriotism in the secession movement, and no patriotic State should give momentum to it by uniting in defense of it, and in my estimation Missouri should be the last of the border States to do so. Laying aside every patriotic consideration, her interest is opposed to such a step — 1st. her expenses must greatly exceed what they now are; and 2d, her geographical position is such that if she should go into a Southern Confederacy, in five years she would be a free State ; and that, however much you might wish it otherwise, she would present the strange fact of being nominally a slave State without having any slaves, and of being hitched on to an aggressive Southern aristocracy without any sympathy with it."
169
A Voice. Who is that letter from. Mr. Linton. From Judge Booker, of Ky. Mr. President, it is sad to see a great nation destroyed. f>r no other reason than a mere punctilio. The South desires to be permitted to do what she would not do if permuted, namely, to carry sla- very into Territories unfitted for it. What a cause to fight for and to bleed for— a war for the extension of slavery where it could not exist! Surely, there must be some great advantage in secession, when the people rush into it without a cause. No, there is hot. It will only intensify the evils complained of— it will make a Canada of every Northern State, and the North will be a bourne from which no slave traveller will return. Disunion is a terrible remedy for a slight and trivial disease. It is like cutting off an arm to cure a wart- it is likej umping out of the frying pan into the fire. But, sir, Missouri is saved— I am satisfied so far. I think the people of the seceded States will be brought back, and that the names of their be- tray ers will be placed in the same catalogue as those of Burr and Arnold. I do not like to use the word traitor, especially as gentlemen here ob- ject to it, but, sir, I must say that many of these men of the South are what I used to think was meant by the word traitor; and if I do not apply it to them, I must erase it from my vocabulary. I am certain they are traitors according to the dic- tionary of Henry Clay, and according to Web- ster's dictionary. The country, sir, is not doomed to disunion— its flag is not to be torn to tatters- it will yet wave over every sea and be recognized in every land— its constellation is better known than the stars of heaven, for it is familiar to mil- lions on whom the stars of the North never shone— to millions who never beheld the Southern cross. Glorious flag? next to the emblem ot man's salvation, I revere the glorious Union! next to the church of the Loving God— thou hast my homage.
Mr. Sayre. I would like to say a few words on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clay. I think there should be an expression of opinion of the people of Missouri against the use of force while we are endeavoring to negotiate for such guarantees as the people of the threatened S;ates think their rights demand; but I am not satisfied with the manner in which the expression of that opinion is sought to be given by this amendment. It seems to me that it is not the part of statesmen to say that we will do one thing, or that we will not do another, binding us for a fu- ture, when circumstances maybe very different.
The view of the people of Virginia, as given by the majority report of their Convention, is more cor- rect than the one set forth in this amendment.— They simply declare that the use of force, or the commencement of hostilities by either party will be regarded as unfriendly and offensive. That would be sufficient for our purpose, and carry all
the weight which the position would seem to re- quire at our hands. More than this, I object to the position in which that amendment places us, because it is said there that Ave will not give as- sistance to the one party or to the other, under any circumstances, reserving to ourselves a neu- tral position, where we can stand pusillanimously by, in a place of safety, while our brethren are fighting this great quarrel. Where we shall be benefitted by their sufferings; where I can sell my mules, and the gentleman his hemp, for all the higher prices because of their necessities. As the Jackall in the fable, when the Lion and the Tiger are fighting, and they are exhausted, can pick their bones.
What would that "brave old man eloquent," the near connection of the gentlemen to whom the eyes and hearts of every patriot in this broad land are now turned with affectionate admiration, say of this position were it suggested to him for his loved Kentucky or for Missouri scarce less dear. I think it would be sufficient to say that any act of hostility on either side, while we are in negotiation, would be regarded as unfziendly and offensive.
Gentlemen have undertaken to argue upon this amendment the whole questions which have divided the North and the South. It is a proper occasion, therefore, and a duty imposed upon me, to bear my testimony as to what the voice of the people with whom I am acquainted declares upon this subject. With that object I wish to make a comment or two upon the positions which have been taken here, in regard to the action we should take. I was sent here to attempt to pro- vide guarantees for our rights — rights that have not only been invaded and trespassed upon, but much more ; rights that have been and are threat- ened to a more serious extent. What we have suffered, and now, in point of fact, are suffering, is set forth clearly and honestly, so far as it goes, in the majority report. But there is more than this— there are the threats of future aggressions, and so far as I am concerned, and so far as the great mass of the people of the South are con- cerned, the cause of the action they have taken, is nothing more nor less than the apprehension of these future aggressions. I know it is thought to bean imaginary apprehension, but I stand here to declare, in my place that these apprehensions are based upon facts, real, solid, and dangerous.— Why ! how could it be otherwise ? Here are mil- lions of people of our own race, and no one will say that the great mass of them are cowards or fools, who, because of this apprehension, have sacrificed the ties which bind them to their coun- try. They are patriots, and they have shown their love for their country to be as sincere and de- voted as the love of country ever shown by any other people. They have parted with all the glo- rious memories of the past, and with all the bright
170
hopes of the future, as connected with our Gov- ernment. They have imposed upon themselves enormous burthens, they have run the risk of in- dividnal ruin, of having their rights wrested from them, and their property, by an aggrarian distri- bution, thrown into new hands. They have been, and they are the most conservative of all peo- ple upon this whole globe, yet they have bro- ken up their government and incurred these great dangers. Would they have done this without a cause? Never. What then was the cause? We have seen, that for nearly thirty years past, the minds of the Northern peo- ple have been poisoned, and their consciences preverted, by being taught, from the school room to the desk of the minister, in the forum, on the bench, in the Court House, in the Lyceum, in the literature of. the country, in the nursery, and even in the prayers of the family altar, that slavery was a sin, and that it was incumbent on them to wage war upon it. The people of the south have repeatedly, and in all possible ways, declared to the people of the north, that the opinions you are inculcating, are dangerous to our peace and de- structive of the security of the Government, and if persisted in, must necessarily result in separa- tion. They were answered with fresh aggressions and additional insults. The contest has continued from the time of the anti- slavery societies of 1815 and 1825, to the more active abolition socie- ties of 1830 and 1835, until it at last resulted in the great Republican party, and the nomination of a candidate in the Presidential canvass in which Buchanan was elected, upon a platform containing a set of principles, which were not the least changed in substance and effect in the plat- form adopted at Chicago. Thus these views have been continually on the increase, and the party has grown in power in spite of the warnings of the South, until in consequence of these views hostile to the institutions with which their existence is entwined, the South has been compelled to sepa- rate. Does any one deny the existence of such a party, whose sole idea is hostility to slavery? It cannot be denied. For what other purpose does the party exist ? and what is the ultimate purpose of this great party? They do not expect to ac- complish it on the instant, but by a course of legislation, perhaps judicial legislation, which shall place the institution of slavery grad- ually and inevitably in their power, until at last it shall be done away with. They declare that the Northern mind will never rest satisfied until slavery is put in the course of ultimate ex- tinction. No man can deny that this is their main object; that while they may be compelled to bear with it temporarily in the States where it exists, yet their policy is to effect the obliteration of the evil. We have heard it said from this stand that the people of the South do not suffer, that they have no cause to complain, but that
the people of the Border States suffer; that our slaves are taken by mobs, and carried away; that the whole South has not suffered one hun- dredth part as much as the State of Missouri.— I do not wish to contradict it. But what will be the case if this great party succeeds and abol- ishes the system of slavery ? What will be the situation of our brethren in the South where the slaves outnumber the whites as four to three? They are more interested than we are, are neces- sarily more sensitive, and forsee the approaching evils from a greater distance. What is to become of them when the tie which binds the slave to the master is unloosed and the system is abolished? Do you not know Mr, President, that their hill- sides are exhausted? that the rice fields, the sea is- lands, and the cotton fields, where the strangers' fever prevails, cannot be cultivated by the white man ? When slavery is abolished what is to be their situation? The horrors of St. Domingo are but peace in comparison to what must befal that afflicted country, the moment that the tie which binds the slave to the master is severed. Better far that the waters of the Atlantic, and of the Gulf envelop them in a common ruin. They have constantly warned the Northern people to cease this war upon them. The Northern people have been regai-dless of this warning. The peo- ple of the South now see that the North is in a condition to carry its threats into execution, and that, though the object may not be accomplish- ed in their day, it may be in the day of their chil- dren and grandchildren, who may be compelled to live perhaps on an equality with the negroes, perhaps obey them as masters. Is it wonderful that these people resist ? Is it to be expected that they shall be less sensitive on their childrens' ac- count than on their own? Why will not gentle- men look these facts in the face, as the real cause Avhich has compelled the Southern people to take their decided step. I have waited in vain for other gentlemen, who understand these things better than I do, to give voice as to the real causes which have led to these troubles. It is because of real and well grounded apprehensions of terrible and intolerable dangers. It would not be difficult to give the doctrines and platforms of the party which has been inculcating this anti-slavery idea for more than a generation, but it is sufficient to take up the last — that formed at Chicago. The more especially, as objection has been made to their being judged except by their platform. — What is the testimony of this platform as to the intentions of this party? They have clothed their nefarious purposes, and on that account all the more offensively to us, in a pretended devotion to the Declaration of Independence, and the Con- stitution of their country. But the exposition of their meaning, and construction of the Declara- ' tion of Independence and of the Constitution is well known over the whole land. We know how
171
these planks of the Chicago platform were offer- ed one day in the Wigwam to propitiate Mr Gid- dings and the radical abolitionists, and after de- bate and full consideration, they were voted down. We know how then Mr. Giddings left, scraping the dust from his feet. How then the action of the Wigwam wa* reconsidered and those planks adopted, and Mr. Giddings then was willing to occupy a position among them. Their construc- tion of those planks in the platform are pregnant with the utmost significance. They place partic- ular stress upon the clause which declares that all men are created equal. Was it not natural that the South should be alive to the danger,when this great party,numbering over eighteen hundred and sixty thousand voters, elected their President to carry into effect this great truth. They ex- pressed what was meant, and gave a significant meaning to it,— that the white man and the black man had equal rights ! Sir, a President has been elected upon that platform,who, though he avowed in some of his speeches in the Senatorial canvass with Mr. Douglas, that he was not in favor of giving the right of suffrage to the negro in Illi- nois, that he was not in favor of repealing the so called Black laws there, yet afterwards repeatedly scouted the distinction of colors and races as to the equality of rights. He has said in his trium- phal passage from his home to the Presidency, that he would yield no inch of his platform, and at Independence Hall, on the very birth-day of the father of his country, that he would like to save his country, if he could do so consistently, with this principle. But if he could not do so it would be awful. Rather than yield it, he was about to say, he had rather be assassinated on the spot, giving full assurance that he intends to press the principle till he sees the burthen lifted from the shoulders of all men The men whom he has selected for hi3 Cabinet, share his sentiments. If there is one man whom we dread more than any other, it is Chase of Ohio. How long is it since he declared his approbation of the practice of amalgamation. Mr. Seward is his principal adviser. He did more, perhaps, for his election than any other man, and again and again has ex- pressed the same sentiments. It is^these things that have compelled the South to take their pres- ent course. I was pleased with the address of the gentleman from St. Louis, (Mr. Gantt) yes- terday, in which he held up to merited scorn and contempt, the action of the Northern Legislatures, which, adding tho sin of hypocrisy to the guilt of violating the Constitution of their country, have attempted to obstruct the rendition of fugi- tive slaves. But I regretted to hear him place as a full set off, against their continued persistent and systematic violations of Southern rights, the in- hospitable treatment, as he called it, of Mr. Sam'l Hoar and his daughter, in 1835, in South Carolina. Mr. Hoar went there as an emis-
sary of the anti- Slavery Societies of the North, clothed with authority from Massachu- setts, to contend for and secure negroes' rights in South Carolina. It was a regular part of the warfare on the South to do away with slavery. It was one step in the progress to their one great end. They talk about people of the South being upon a volcano— in a house filled with combusti- bles. They abound with all such figures of speech, which are calculated to strike terror into the hearts of those who choose to listen to such non- sense. If these things were so, Judge Hoar went there with a lighted flambeau in his hand, to set fire to the institutions of the South— not in a manly manner, by himself, but meanly sheltered by the presence of his daughter, whom he brought to protect him from the indignation of an out- raged people. For their treatment of him they cannot be accused of a want of chivalrous feeling. They desired him to return home with his daughter. They were not willing that she should shield him while making war upon them. I do not think the sending home of Judge Hoar and his daughter from South Carolina is a full answer and "coun- terpoise" to the encroachments of the North. Their action was in self-defence, and as it turned out afterwards, in accordance with the law. There has since been a decision made upon the subject of the right of the blackman to citizen- ship. This decision denies the right. More than this, the South have considered, and still con- sider it, not only an outrage but an insult to question their title to their slaves.
In another part of the constitution, freedom of the press and freedom of speech are provided for. It is known that the North construe that to mean that they have the right to send emissaries and inflammatory handbills to the south to incite the slaves to insurrection.
In another part of the Constitution, Congress has power to regulate commerce. Under this power, the North claim the power to interdict the inter-state slave trade, to prevent a citizen of of Kentucky from moving to Missouri with his servants.
In another part of the Constitution, the citizens of one State are guarantied the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Un- der this power, the North claims that a free ne- gro of New York or Massachusetts, has a right to move to Missouri, and enjoy the privileges of citizenship.
In another part of the Constitution is secured to Congress the power to pass all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories and other property of the United States. Under this power they claim the authority to abolish slavery in the territories, in the forts, dock-yards, and in other posts of the United States, as well as in the District of Columbia ; that thus, where our
172
common government has jurisdiction, shall be found an asylum for runaway slaves. It is well known, that they claim under the power over the territories and other property, that they have the right to prohibit slavery ; and under the Fre- mont platform they declare it their duty to do it where they had the power. Though this is left out, in plain words the substance is retained in a more offensive shape in the Chicago platform. By some strange delusion they have come to the conclusion, that they are as responsible as the South is for slavery in the South. We claim that we have under our Constitution, the same right to be protected in our property, that they have in theirs. For our allegiance, we are entitled to protection ; that allegiance and protection are correlative; They limit and deny our right to protection to our slave property, and declare that all our remedies for securing and re-taking it, shall be taken away from us whenever they have the power ; that the laws of God may be vindi- cated in accordance with their perverted views of the lessons of history, and the laws of pro- gress and civilization. All their acts declare that slavery is of purely local and not of general character as to its remedies ; and that we have a right to have it protected only in the places where our State laws have juiisdiction; and if our slaves are found in the forts, arsenals, or oth- er property of the government, they can and should withhold from us our right to recover them. They declared also, four years ago, that it was their right and duty to wield the policy and patronage of the government in hostility to our institutions. That particular language was left out of the Chicago platform ; not because of any change of views, but because their purpose was sufficiently palpable without it.
These, then, are the purposes of the Republi- can party of the North, and by putting dema- gogue judges upon the bench of the Supreme Court, they can easily, and in a short time, be carried into full effect, by judicial legislation, without going to Congress for new enactments. Seven States believing thus for most abundant reasons, that these are the intentions of the Northern people, and perceiving that they have sufficient power to execute them, have separated themselves for their protection. It is not ne- cessary to say that slavery can not contin- ue at all under these perversions of the Con- stitution; nor is it necessary to say that the en- tire South must be rendered desolate if slavery is abolished. What, then, is our duty? We complain of the South because they have taken their mode of redress without consulting us. They have taken, to say the least of it, a rash remedy. They have deserted us when^we were sharing their dangers, and worse than all, have left us behind with diminished numbers and strength to fight then- battles for them. It is natural that
they should be more sensitive to these great evils than we are. It is a matter of life and death with them. Our slaves may be taken away from us, but still, Missouri, degraded and dishonored, perhaps, can exist. But with them it is a ques- tion of life or annihilation. From the speeches of gentlemen, it might be supposed that our troubles and complaints were for the few slaves stolen from us; but that is nothing in compari- son. Our great trouble is the war that is made on us by the North, without cause. They make this war upon us, though they continue to use rice, cotton, sugar, tobacco and hemp ; to buy and sell, and trade, and grow rich upon the pro- ducts of slave labor. We sympathise with our Southern brethren; but we regret that they should have attempted to take their remedy into their own hands, without consulting us. They should not have done it. We should not, and we cannot now go with them. I think the course which they should have taken, is the course proper for us to take now. We should confer with the remaining slave States in a Convention, and set forth in clear, and firm, and moderate terms, our claims for guarantees by amendments to the Constitution, and should urge the North and the South to assist in having them adopted. When the Committee on Federal Relations made their first report, I was not satisfied with it; but now, since they have made their amended or supplemental report, recommending the Conven- tion of the remaining slave States for conference and consultation, I can cheerfully give it my support, as a mode well calculated to secure the guarantees we need. By this Convention, and a subsequent Convention of all the States, I in- dulge now strong hopes of working out a remedy for our troubles.
While we express our disapproval of the course taken by our Southern sister States, we should remember, and recognise, and acknowledge, that they were acting in self-defence, with a degree of unanimity seldom if ever before witnessed; and that they judged of the mode and measure of their redress. They have considered the question, and unquestionably in all sincerity and honesty, decided that it was necessary, in order to arouse their own people, and perhaps the people of other States to a sense]of their danger, to take the harsh measures which they adopted, to obtain redress for their and our wrongs. No matter what some of them may say; I can not believe that if suffi- cient and proper guarantees are accorded, they would hesitate long before returning to us; un- til the redress which they and we desire is ob- tained, it does not become us to take any steps for their destruction. I wish Missouri to say that any attempt by the General Government to bring them back by the use of force, will be regarded as unfriendly and offensive.
173
I have felt that the duty which I owe to my constituents, required me to assert, defend and endeavor to secure their rights upon this floor. When I see men rising in this Convention, one after another, pretending to be on our side, pre- tending to be part of us, and yet confessing judg- ment against us, arguing and defending the po- sitions of those who have made these aggres- sions, and brought these great troubles upon us ; pretending great sympathy for us and then when off of our guard, having secured our con- fidence, plunging their dagger to our hearts, tell- ing us that we are the party that is in the wrong; I say, when I see this, I can not but feel that such sentiments will not be endorsed by the people of Missouri.
Mr. President, I must tell gentlemen that Mis- souri will not reserve her great honors and her high places, for those who hang upon her gar- ments; who weight her down and paralyze her arms, while she is struggling for her rights with her enemies.
Our people are not conscious of doing the North any injustice, but they are conscious of having received injustice at their hands. We desire nothing at their hands but to be let alone. If, as has been so frequently the case, our rights are invaded, and we stand in defense of them, shall we be told that we are committing dreadful wrongs upon the North! We have claims upon them for redress. I think I have shown the mode of securing it. What is to stand in the way of our success ? Who and what are to be injured by an adjustment and settlement of our troubles ? It is possible that some portion of the British empire that has been our enemy and our rival for nearly an hundred years, actuated by spite, at previous unsuccessful attempts to injure and destroy us, and envy at our increasing pros- perity, not unmixed with apprehensions of our growing power, may desire to see their rival crushed; that Britannia may still continue to rule the seas. They may be benefited by our con- tinued alienations, and by their being made per- petual.
It is possible that some misguided fanatics of the North, some corrupt demagogues, thirsting for the enjoyment of power, covetous of the fruit of their triumph, and having the temporary control of the Republican party, may be bene- fited by our ^roubles. It is possible that some men across the Atlantic, who wish our destruc- tion, having never forgiven us for what our fath- ers did in the revolt of the colonies, nearly ninety years ago, (similar so far to what the South are doing at the present day in that both were re- sisting oppressive aggressions)— and that these others on this side the Atlantic, who wish to clutch the spoils of office, will regret our re- conciliation and may try to prevent it.
It is possible that some bold, bad men, who speak with a cool relish and satisfaction, like the wicked Trumbull of shelling the city of Charles- ton; or like the brutal Wade, when with pro- fane curses he thundered of Louisiana, "that she came to us a desert and as a desert she should go from us"— might not rejoice to see this Union again prosperous and happy. But the voice of the American people will, I believe, eventually sweep from the face of the earth, all such men, and all who defend them.
I will now offer my substitute.
The amendment was then read as follows :
Amend by adding, "that the commencement of hostilities by either must necessarily be regarded by Missouri as unfriendly and offensive/'
Mr. Wright. Is that to be added to the orig- inal resolution?
The Chair. It is an amendment to the fifth resolution, instead of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clay.
Mr. Woodson. Mr. President— Gentlemen of the Convention : I did not expect, when I came here, to open my mouth in the advocacy of any measure or proposition that might be pre- sented for consideration.
Being unused to debate or public speaking, I determined within myself that I would not, at my advanced period of life, attempt, to enlighten this grave and intelligent assemblage of men, clothed with the most important trusts ever con- fided to the consideration of any deliberative body, convened within the borders ©f this now great commonwealth of the State of Missouri.
But whilst determining on such line of con- duct, I resolved not to be impassive; but on the contrary, to note carefully the main suggestions made by members of the Convention; weigh well the arguments produced, in order that I might be enabled to A-ote on each and every pro- position debated, with an eye single to the best interests of my State and my whole country ; adopting as my best policy the sage advice which a certain father gave to his son, who was considered not remarkable for acuteness of in- tellect, when invited to a social repast, to "keep his mouth shut, and probably no one would find out he was a fool." (I hope no member of the Convention will take exceptions to this remark ; I do not intend it for anyone but myself and use it in no offensive sense. ) But when I remem- ber the pledges I made to my constituency of the third Senatorial District, as true Union men as any to be found in the State, whom I have the honor, in part, to represent on this momentous occasion, viz : I would not only not sign any ordinance dissolving the relations existing be- tween this State and the Federal Government now, but use my best endeavors to restore the Government to what it was, prevent the further disintegration of these States ; and preserve the
174
Union., made by our fathers at such a sacrifice of toil, of hardship, of blood, of life, and to hand it down to posterity as we received it : I feel im- pelled to depart from my original purpose, and at the risk of incurring the penalty inflicted on the hopeful son, I ask the indulgence of this Convention while I make a few suggestions, from the best lights I have, in view of my responsi- bility to the country, and the redemption of the pledges made to my district.
Gentlemen, I have listened attentively to the remarks of every speaker who has preceded me during our deliberations ; and I now declare that I feel much gratified in being able to say that I do not believe there is a disunionist, x>er se, amongst the ninety-nine delegates composing this Convention. I feel well assured, therefore, that our glorious Union is safe, so far at least, as the purposes and action of this Convention can conduce to its restoration and preservation. The love of the Union with our pcople^has grown in- to a fixed habit, and is difficult to eradicate; and it is not strange that this is the fact. Indeed, it were most unaccountable that it should be other- wise. Not love this Union, which "Washington and his compeers gave us ! which has secured to us blessings and prosperity beyond those ever vouch- safed to any people or nation under the sun! and under which we have grown and prospered with- out a parallel, in the history of the world! Yet whilst this is true, and our love for the Union remains unabated, let not the Abolitionists at the North, the source of all our national troubles, presume that we are insensible and indifferent to their insolent and unwarrantable aggressions up- on our Constitutional and just rights. Though long suffering and forbearing, for the sake of the Union, and an honorable adjustment of all our difficulties, upon the basis of the Crittenden, or some equivalent compromise, the time Avill arrive, and probably at no distant day, when forbearance will cease to be a virtue, and love of the Union, patriotism !
But gentlemen of the Convention, I do not pro- pose to elaborate ; and if what I may say shall have no merit but brevity, I promise that, at least. I was just remarking upon the unexampled pro. gress of the Country. To illustrate my views I would instance the history of this magnificent city in which we are holding our deliberations, and enjoying the hospitalities of its citizens. Situa- ted on the sun-set side of the Father of Waters, lining the banks of that noble river for a distance of nine or ten miles, reaching westward half that distance, and containing a population of 170,000 inhabitants ! How is this unprecedented growth to be accounted for, except upon the principle that ours is the happiest and best form of gov- ernment in the world?
The city of St. Louis some forty years ago, was but a small village, numbering, say 1,500 or
2,000 inhabitants. I was here in the fall of 1820. It had then but a few narrow, irregular streets upon the river, under the hill, lined with decayed, uncomfortable tenements and business houses. It is now compactly built up with immense rows of splendid palaces. And this, we might say, is the work of the last thirty years, for prior to that time its growth was tardy.
But, to address myself more particularly to the merits of the proposition : As before remarked, I believe this Convention consists of Union-loving men — all desiring its preservation, and differing only in regard to the means best calculated to at- tain the end.
I have met "with those (not members of this Convention, however,) who thought the eight re- maining slave States should secede, in view of a reconstruction of the Government. From this opinion, how honestly soever entertained, I dis- sent, most decidedly — concurring, as I do, in one sentiment, at least, with the Hon. W. H. Seward, that "the strength of the vase, in which the hopes " of the nation are held, consists chiefly in its re- " maining unbroken."
This, however, is not our present condition; seven of the stars of that bright constellation have disappeared, but not, I trust, forever. I hope they may reappear, and that we shall again be a united, prosperous people; which may be accomplished by each section of the Union per- forming its duty, and respecting the rights of the other; and then this nation will resume its march to greatness and glory. I believe this end can yet be attained, if wise counsels shall obtain, and war be prevented, until the people of this nation, whose government this is, can be heard. The truth is,the people have had too little to do with the administration of their own government. They have lost sight of the watchword, "That the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." They have been attending to anything and everything but the Government, which is the main thing, about which they have taken but little thought. It has been turned over to reckless demagogues and politicians, who in the main have had but little interest at stake, except their own aggrandize- ment.
But, gentlemen, our business is to devise the ways to restore the Government; and how shall it be done ? I have been surprised at some of the legal profession arguing the doctrine of the right of secession and the powers of the Government to take care of itself, about which there is and can be no controversy.
It seems difficult for some gentlemen of that profession to realize the present condition of the country, and to adapt their mode of reasoning to the exigencies of the times. We are in the midst of a great revolution; seven States have declared for themselves, and have set up a separate con- federacy; and others are entertaining the propo-
175
sition whether, in view of all the facts and cir- cumstances present and prospective, they shall change their relations to the government, or main- tain their present status ; the latter seems to be their true position, and with a proper and honorable adjustment of our difficulties, will so continue. It is conceded that the border slave States owe a sacred duty to the country, and if the Union is saved, it must be through their mediation. Mis- souri, the greatest of all, occupying a central po- sition and endowed with all the elements of wealth and power, owes a double duty to herself and to the country. She is entitled to be heard and will be heard. Let her, therefore, take care that her potency be not lost by unwise councils.
Gentlemen, if we were here to discuss the ab- stract, theoretical, constitutional right of seces- sion, and the power and duty of the Government to uphold and protect the supremacy of the Con- stitution and laws, with reference, to the future, ignoring what has already occurred, there could be no question as to its relevancy and prosperity. But, gentlemen, disruption of the Government has already occurred to some extent, and it be- comes our sacred duty to save the Government, if we can ; and how should we act in the premises as loyal citizens ? We desire to save what now remains ; to bring back the States that have de- parted, and to preserve the whole Union for all time.
How is this to be done? By force? No. God forbid. What would the Union be worth if saved by the sword? But the Union must be saved; and may Missouri do her whole duty in the work.
Gentlemen, we all agree in one opinion, at least— from which I do not know a dissenting voice in or out of this Convention — viz., that co- ercion on the part of the General Government of the seceded States would inevitably ruin the country and destroy the Government.
So fully are we assured of the truth of this proposition, that we do not hesitate to assert that coercion in no case will be tolerated.
Resistance to the higher powers of the Govern- ment, actuated solely by the false idea of carry- ing out to the letter the principles involved in a solemn oath to execute and uphold the Constitu- tion and the laws, regardless of consequences, may become the most sacred duty of the most loyal citizen; and in so doing he would be sup- porting the Constitution in its spirit and intent; for the power to execute the laws was not given to destroy, but to preserve the Government.
I am aware that it is insisted that no one pre- tends that the President entertains any such ridiculous idea as that of invading the seceded States with armed men to subdue them into obedience; but he does intend to possess and occupy the Government property in those States ; and collect the revenue, unless means are denied
him by his masters, the People; and although such might not be considered coercion in the popular sense of the term; yet if it will inaugur- ate war, it deserves equally to be deprecated.
Now, gentlemen, what is the purport of this fifth resolution, reported by the Committee on Federal Relations ? Does it not deprecate, in the most emphatic terms, the horrors and ruin result- ing to the country, from the attempt at coercion by the Government; and entreating, in the most patriotic language, both the General Government and the seceding States, to stay the arm of mili- tary power, and on no pretense, to bring upon the nation the horrors of civil war ? And I ask you, gentlemen, what is proposed by the amend- ment offered by the delegate from Clay to this fifth resolution? It simply adds the addi- tional idea, not of threat, not of menace; but sa3'ing to the belligerent parties, be still; if you shall, in your madness, however, disregard our admonitions, and turn a deaf ear to our counsels; we forewarn you now, not to look for aid or com- fort from us ; for in this war we have no lot or part. We intend our position to be that of strict neutrality. Does such additional idea militate against the conservative spirit and tenor of the whole report of the committee? I think not; but on the contrary, gives to it the finishing touch. If I thought the amendment was in conflict with the report, (for I am against conflicts just now,) as good a Union man as I know the mover to be, I would vote against it; fori indorse the report, and regard it in all its parts, with the amendment, just suited to our exigencies; and as cred- itable to the distinguished Chairman who drafted and reported it, as that of the Declaration our Independence was to the head and heart of the immortal Jefferson. If the mediation of Mis- souri shall contribute even remotely to restore peace to our distracted country, the report would deserve to be regarded as sacred as the Declara- tion. The power that saves is as deserving of our admiration as that which produces. I shall vote for the report and resolutions with or with- out the amendment, but I prefer the amendment. The report in some few particulars may state some things too strongly, and which some may suppose might have been omitted without mar- ring the harmony of the whole, but they are im- material, comparatively, and constitute no valid objection with me.
Mr. Redd. I desire to say a word.
The Chair. The gentleman having spoken the second time, will not speak to the merits of the report, but he has the right to speak to the substitute.
Mr. Redd. I desire to state the reasons why I shall vote.
The Chair. The gentleman will allow me to stop him. I desire to say, that notwithstanding my decision, he can proceed to debate the report
176
with leave. If he desires to confine himself to the amendment, he can proceed without leave.
Mr. Redd. I do not desire on this occasion to enter into a discussion in regard to that report, hut I desire to eive my reasons why I shall vote for this substitute in place of the amendment. That amendment, I have no objection to, as far as it goes. It states the proposition that Missouri will not aid the General Government in commencing the war upon the seceded States. That position is true, as is also the position that she will not aid the seceded States in the present circumstances in commencing the Avar upon the General Government. Missouri is for peace, compromise, concession, conciliation and settlement of all the questions involved; and while I deem it is true,
I think it does not express the whole truth. If Missouri undertakes to say to the General Government what she will do, she owes to herself, to her own dignity as a sovereign and independent State, not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. In my judgment, the amendment does not do that. If, let a col- lision occur as it may— if, the General Govern- ment, refusing to compromise, refusing conces- sion, standing as it has done during the last session of Congress upon the proposition that we have no compromise to make; if the General Government continues in the future to occupy that position, let the conflict commence as it may; if the Government then prosecutes that conflict with the determination of compelling the seceded States to submit, then, In my judg- ment—yes, I may say I know it— Missouri will take her stand by the other States ; and if she speaks of what she is going to do, she ought to speak the whole truth. I would much rather she would not say anything on the subject, but leave the matter to be dealt with as the contingency might arise. If it ever should arise, and God forbid that it should, I would much rather she should say nothing on the subject than not speak the whole truth. This substitute does not pledge Missouri to any course. I shall, there- fore , support it in place of the amendment.
Mr. Vanbuskirk. Mr. President, and gentle- men of the Convention : I owe a duty to my con- stituents at home which requires that I should trouble you on this occasion. I am satisfied ev- ery member of this Convention has made up his mind as to what his duty is as a member of this Convention. But there are other circumstances which induce me to speak on this occasion. I am a delegate from a District in this State, and I represent a majority of the people of that Dis- trict who differ with the minority which my col- league (Mr. Hudgins,) represents. He has an- nounced his views to this Convention, and I should be implicated by my people as a submis- sionist if I did not take occasion to allude to that
gentleman's remarks. I do not suppose that anything I could say here would determine the action of this Convention. In my opinion, how- ever, this whole matter is brought to this point — that it is Union upon condition, that it is Union Avith the "but's" and "ifs/'or under ex- isting circumstances, it is emphatically Union. My position is that Ave ha\-e to act with the lights before us, and determine if Ave are for the Union or against it. I suppose every man in this house knows whether he is for or against the Union. When gentlemen read that Lincoln's Inaugural is a message of Avar, and that the American people are going to adopt coercion in forcing the South, it occurs to me, and is conclusive to my mind, that the "wish is father to the thought," and that they are not willing to rely upon the people of Missouri to meet the emergency, but that they want to get into condition to meet that expected calamity. It is not six months ago Yancey pro- claimed that he was a better Union man than any- body else ; that he was a strict construction Union man; but that if Abraham Lincoln was elected, he was for immediate secession — that the South would go out, and it did go out. He was a conditional Union man — and every man is a con- ditional Union man who advocates that side. The people of Alabama severed their connection Avith the Union. They did not wait to ascertain defi- nitely whether any satisfactory adjustment could be made. They Avere bound to go out of the Union. And I tell you, that e\rery proposi- tion looking to an ultimatum, that is brought into this Convention, in any form, will haAre for its ultimate object the severance of the connection of Missouri with the General Govern- ment, for I tell you that the sentiment of seces- sion, as it has manifested itself since Ave got into this condition, has been shoAvn to be like the poisonous simoom of Africa, which sweeps and destroys everything before it. But an issue was made between the gentleman (Mr. Hudgins) and myself. He said he was in favor of the Union upon condition, and he fixed up a man of straw, and then, Avithout any mental reservation, made an issue in relation to the Union. He tells you that there is already a Southern Confederacy — that he is opposed to coercion — that whether there is a right of revolution or not, a Southern Con- federacy has been formed; and he tells you fur- ther, that if there are to be two Confederacies, he is in favor of going into the Southern Confedera- cy. He is in favor of laying down an ultimatum, and if the North Avill not agree to it, then, he says, the sentiment of the people Avhom he rep- resents upon this floor is such, that they are Avill- ing to stake their destiny with the South, to join a Southern Confederacy, and that of course cuts off all compromise. I make a different proposition, and say it is the duty of the border States to work for compromise, to lay
177
down no ultimatums, but to work till such guar- antees are obtained as will settle the difficulties. It is the duty of the border States that they should remain with the people of the Northern States until every hope of compromise is exhausted. The gentleman says further in his remarks, that 'when we separate we desire to separate in peace.' Now, gentlemen of the Convention, I am here representing a majority of a constituency, who do not desire any separation at all, in peace or war, if we can get any compromise at all which shall restore peace. He has said that we should say as much as the people of the North have said to their fanatical brethren there— that they should not coerce the seceding States without first marching over their dead bodies. That is all cor- rect. And I say also that we should say to the fanatics of the South that, you'll have first to walk over the dead bodies of the border States before you can bring on a conflict.
Again the gentleman says, "Missouri will make no threat; let her standby the South." Yes, make no threats, stand by the South, and not dis- criminate between the seceded States and those that are not! We must make no threats, but the gentleman discloses in the same connection, that unless the North grants what we ask, we will se- cede. I did not come here with that kind of doctrine. I said I was in favor of standing by the people of the South, and the North, and the East, and the West. That is the doctrine which I advocated before my people. I did not contend before them that we must unite upon an ulti- matum, and that if the North did not agree to it, we would unite with the South. I would be re- creant to my duty, if I did not object to that code of reasoning here. I do not mean to say that my colleague is advocating anything which he did not declare before his people. He made strong Southern rights speeches before his people, and his people voted understanding^. He had a desperate game to play, but it was a game he must play or he could not be elected. I do not say he did it designedly — but I say there was a "cold deck rung in," and the consequence is, that he comes here representing a minority, while I represent a majority. I do not say he misrepresents his constituency, for a great many of them arc square and flat-footed for secession.
Mr. Hudgins. I desire to ask a question, as this seems to be a personal matter.
Mr. Vanbuskirk. Nothing is intended as per- sonal.
Mr. Hudgins. I presume not, but I just wish to explain. How many votes behind was the nearest man to me on your ticket?
Mr. Vanbuskirk. I did not do justice in that matter.
Mr. Hudgins. Mr. Singleton was the nearest
Mr. Vanbuskirk. I will explain. Itwasourin- tention to act in concert in our district. Mr. Wil- son wrote a letter which I indorsed, and placed myself upon it, and went to work in good faith to bring about a united action. We were entire- ly united upon Mr. Wilson, and he got some 800 or 900 more votes than Mr. Hudgins; I got some 350 more than Mr. Hudgins. But there were two other candidates — and that was where this desper- ate game of "cold deck" came in — which elected Mr Hudgins between two Union men. Mr. Singleton ran in Andrew and Nodaway, and Mr. Templeton in Holt and Atchison counties. Mr, Templeton got about 1,000 votes; in Andrew county, Mr. Singleton got 300 more than Mr. Hudgins, and where they both lived. Mr. Sin- gleton got a small vote in Nodaway county, — I don't know exactly how many — but putting both Templeton and Singleton' s vote together made about 400 more than Mr. Hudgins received. But here's where this "cold deck" by which Mr. Hudgins got about GOO or 700.
The Chair. This is purely a personal matter, and cannot be allowed to proceed further.
Mr. Vanbuskirk. It was called out, and I only desire to show the facts. Now, in reference to this amendment. In my opinion, the fifth resolution takes the true position. It denies that any adequate cause exists for secession or revolu- tion; that the employment of military force would destroy all prospects of peace ; it depre- cates any such action, and leaves us free to act under the circumstances, when they come up, just as we may think honorable and right. But this amendment goes further, and says we shall fnrnish neither men nor money to coerce, either on the one side or the other. Now, supposing a large portion of the people of Alabama should desire to return to their allegiance to the General Government, and should demand at our hands assistance to secure their rights. I say Missouri should keep her hands clear of all such emergen- cies, for six months may make a very material change. Other circumstances might arise which would embarrass our action under this amend- ment. We might be forced out of the Union be- fore we could get a reaction North or South. Our present Governor would give the most liberal construction in favor of this amendment, toward secession, that could possibly be given. He would grasp at everything in his power to take the State out of the Union in a certain contingency. Suppose Fort Sumter, now in the hands of the Government, still remains in the condition it is, and that South Carolina shoidd conclude that her safety required that she | should take Fort Sumter, and that Maj. Ander- | son should repel the charge, just a few hours be- | fore orders came from Lincoln to evacuate — this j would no doubt be construed as an act of coer- cion, and the Governor, so regarding it as in vio-
12
178
lation of the action of this Convention, would at once send troops and take possession of the Arsenal and Sub-Treasury, and then take us out of the Union. If this amendment is calcu- lated to produce that kind of interpretation is it not better to throw it aside as an apple of discord and take the original reso- lution ? Now, I recollect a little religious anec- dote that will apply to this. It is in the old Hard- shell Baptist line, and if any man has a right to take it personally it is myself There was a cer- tain church which was sound in regard to the old doctrine of predestination, foreordination, &c. One day a new preacher came along, professing the new-fangled heresy of a non-resurrection and that sort of thing, and after service one of the brethren, who had heard the dis- course, said to another: " Did you ever hear such a discourse as that? Do you believe it?" '* Oh yes/' was the reply, " and more too." — Now I believe this amendment is the more too, and I object, for that reason, to it. It is cal- culated to misguide us, and I hope it will be re- jected.
Mr. Hudgins. I desire to make a personal explanation. I feel, as these things have been alluded to, it is necessary I should make an ex- planation, in order that a wrong impression may not be made. I see no use in inolving the ques- tion of an election in any argument here, and I regret it. I desire to say, in justice to myself, that I was not a candidate for a seat here at all. I am here, not having been a candidate before the people. My name was substituted for the name Of Judge Butts, who was on the Constitutional Union ticket, in my District. My friends told me that if I would consent to allow my name to be used I would be certain of an elec- tion. Men were sent through the District about a week before the election, with- drawing my name, and stating that I was not a candidate, and in some places I was not run at all; I do not know what the gen- tleman means by " cold deck." I was put on a ticket with two others, and I run with them on a constitutional Union platform, which I hold in my hand, and which any gentleman can read if he desires. As to my speech, which the gentle- man has criticised, I think he has not understood it. His constituents will understand it, and will see his representations of it are not sustained by the speech itself; they will see that I have taken the same ground here as there. Now, in regard to another matter. Mr. Vanbuskirk lives in Holt; there are four counties in the dis- trict; he ran as as an unconditional Union man, though when pressed, he said when the other slave States went out, he was in favor of Missouri going out,
Mr. Vanbuskirk. The gentleman is not do- ing me justice exactly; the question usually put
all over the State was, when all the fourteen States go out; when the last ray of hope is ex- tinguished, where will you go ? At first I said I would go with the South, but after that I said, in the event the Government is destroyed, I am for Missouri falling back upon her reserved rights, and settling down where her interests would be protected, and not be coupled on to a Northern or Southern confederacy, contrary to her honor
Or INTEREST.
Mr. Hudgins. Just one word. If there is any- thing about the " decks" it is this— my friend being in Holt, and there being four counties in the district, the ticket in my county was Mr. Wilson, and he carried that county. Mr. Van- buskirk and Singleton were in Andrew and Nod- away, and the ticket in the county in which Mr. Vanbuskirk lives was Robert Wilson. Mr. Van- buskirk and Mr. Iempleton ran in Atchison, and so the ticket doubled on him; and he got the Singleton and Wilson influence in Andrew and Nodaway, and the Wilson and Templeton influ- ence in Atchison and Holt, and therefore he is second in the race. If there is any " cold deck" in it, it is on their side and not ours. But this was all out of a business way, and I regret that allusion should have been made to it.
Mr. Gamble. Mr. President : In the discus- sion of this amendment, arguments have been made that cover the entire ground of the report in regard to the relations of this State to the United States and to her sister States. I, sir, at this time, propose simply to speak to the question which is before the body. I do not intend, on the motion to adopt a substitute in place of the amendment, to discuss the merits of ths report. I do not intend to say one word upon that sub- ject, or upon the relations that this State now sustains, either to the General Government or to any other State. Whenever that question arises, as there has been some criticism of that report, and as some gentlemen have given it as their opinion that there were few who would adopt every word and sentence in it, I will speak to it fully. I am responsible for every Word and sen- tence in the report, for I wrote it. I am ready to prove every fact it asserts, vindicate every argu- ment it produces, and I think to satisfy every in- telligent mind in regard to every prophecy it makes of the future.
The substitute of the amendment which the gentleman from Clay proposed to add to the fifth resolution, is that the commencement of hostili- ties by either the General Government or the se- ceding States, must necessarily be regarded by Missouri as unfriendly and offensive. Tne tone of the original resolution is the tone of con- ciliation. It is the tone of entreaty to powers that we cannot control, powers that will act for themelves. Knowing that we are not able to control them we address to them
179
the language of remonstrance, against an apprehended course of policy. The amendment goes furl her — it says to both parties we will not aid either of you in any attempt of making Avar. The substitute for the amendment says, we will regard the hostile action of either of you as un- friendly and offensive to Missouri. That is to say, gentlemen, we are preparing ourselves to be insulted. We are declaring that we will be offended — that we will regard ourselves as treat- ed in an unfriendly manner, and we pledge our- selves to an occasion that would arise when any- thing is done offensive to Missouri. Is not that the meaning, is not that the consequence? When one man tells another that if he uses particular lan- guage he will punish him, then, if the other uses that language, is he not bound to dissent and con- si I er himself pledged in order to attempt to punish him? Does not this substitute therefore involve the declaration on our part that if hostilities are used we will commit ourselves as against the party who first uses the hostilities — we will commit ourselves as those who are injur- ed and offended. I apprehend that it involves it plainly, and the redemption of that pledge may consist in our taking part in the actual hostilities that may be carried on. Again, the substitute says, we shall take this action on the commence- ment of hostilities. Gentlemen, what shall be the commencement of hostilities ? What does the substitute mean when it says that the com- mencement of hostilities shall be regarded, &c? Shall this commencement be when another vessel of war comes into the har- bor or near the harbor of Pensacola,— with marines, sailors, and possibly some soldiers on board? Is that the commencement of hostili- ties? Or is it when the guns shall be opened from the land upon that vessel; or when a vessel of war with all her armament and soldiers on board comes into our waters, though she may never have fired a gun, or made any hostile demonstrations? A case may happen similar 10 the case of which we were informed by the newspapers the other day, when some per- son at one of the batteries on shore discharged a gun that was pointed at Fort Sumter. Major Anderson immediately ran out his guns to answer, but was prevented from so doing by a messenger wi'h a flag; of truce, who informed him that it was unintentional and undesigned. Suppose that flag had not been sent and Major Anderson had discharged his guns at the citizens who were at the battery, and the ques- tion would naturally arise, who commenced the hostility? Yet we are to be offended, and to de- termine upon the fact of an unfriendly action; we have pledged ourselves to do so.
I regard the substitute, therefore, as contain- ing within itself an undefined pledge on the part of the people of the State of Missouri that they
are to engage in a conflict, or become dependent upon every lie finding its way into the newspapers, for their action in regard to a conflict between the General Government and the Southern States.
I hold, sir, that thi* substitute, while it covert- ly involves all that is declared in the amendment, involves also a declaration that is hostile to the entire spirit of that report, as all of you, or at least most of you, will agree. It will be easily seen, by examining the language, that it is in- consistent with the designs for which this Con- vendon has assembled. This Convention was assembled for the purpose of considering the present condition and relations of the State of Mis-ouri to the United States and to the other States. It was never expected by the people that we should make declarations that should run through any number of years, or look to any subsequent period in the history of the country, for the fulfilment of our declarations.
The amendment says we will never countenance or aid a seceding State in making war upon the General Government, and will never furnish men or money to the General Government to coerce a seceding State. What is the condition of those States that have seceded? Some say there is a government already established. Some say they are already established, as a foreign power, and if you adopt the doctrine of secession, you are forced to admit that fact. If that be the condi- tion of those States, what follows? That the United States must bear national relations to them, and national quarrels may arise upon . questions that concern national relations and na- tional interests; and shall we attempt to declare that if they should make var upon us, we will not furnish men or money to coerce them ? Or if they do anything else that is unfriendly and hostile, that we will not defend ourselves against them? If they, as intimated in some newspa- pers, shall issue letters of marque and reprisal, thereby disturbing the commerce of the United States, shall we allow this infraction of our rights, for fear that we should be affording men and money to the Government of the United States to coerce them? No. If thev assume a nation- al character, they must bear naional responsi- bilities. They must stand as a nation opposed, so far as their interest is concerned, to the nation from which they are separated. I say it is not proper that we should pledge ourselves that we will not furnish men and money when our salvation may depend upon our so doing; when it may be necessary to open the mouth of the Mississippi river to navigation, and make war against ihem as a nation, and destroy them if they, as a nation, committing national offenses, are unwilling to yield us our rights. Mu< h as I desire to conciliate our Southern sisters, having all the feeling and desire to bring; them back, having all the feeling that would induce one to offer
180
to them every inducement to come back, having the strongest desire that they shall be reunited to the family from which they have been separated, and that we shall be harmonious in all the future; yet, gentlemen, if we exist for a few years in separate nations, we cannot but expect to see differences which must be settled as between one nation and anoth- er. When there are two nations permanently established in contiguity to each other, the histo- ry of the past shows that there will be border troubles ; that there will be invasions by the peo- ple on one side of the rights of the people on the other; that commercial questions will spring up, difficult of solution, and ever liable to give rise to war. If the Southern States accept the position as a separate nation, they must stand to it; and those ties which now bind us together strong as the cords of steel — these sympathies that make us desire a restoration of harmony and re-union of all the parts of this country, will be severed — will be severed by the habitual distinction of na- tionalities— severed by the conflicting interests that will arise between the one and the other. Let us not, therefore, undertake to look forward to the future indefinitely, when we have been called to consider the present. Let us net look forward to the future when we ought to declare what is our present duty ; and let us be content to declare that now, having our sympathies with the people of the South, and our interest bound up in the Union, we base all hopes on a returning spirit of harmony, and a peaceful settlement and ad- justment of the present difficulties.
Such are the views which I entertain of the propriety of this substitute and the propriety of the amendment.
Mr. Moss. I do not now propose to inflict a speech upon this Convention, having had an op- portunity of doing so in the outset, but I propose now to confine myself strictly to the question which is before the Convention. In doing so, permit me to say that in my humble opinion there is now no theoretical question before this Convention, and I would say to my friend from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall,) and my friend from Pike, (Mr. Henderson,) and others who have addressed this Convention upon the theory of this Govern- ment, that I have no quarrel with them. I do not believe in the right of secession. I entertain no surh heresy. But I contend that we are now dealing with a great prac^al issue. No ques- tion of theory is now absorbing our atten- tion for it is one of great public policy. — It is in vain to deny it. It is in vain to deny that a revolution has been set on foot. I do not say that that revolution has been successful. I deny it, I do not say that there are seven States now exist -in g as a separate Confederacy— that they have succeed in achieving their independence. Far from it. I occupy no such position. What
is my position? I contend, gentlemen, that a revolution has been set on foot, and I contend that, to prevent that revolution from swallowing up this Government, it is the duty of every Union man to aid in undertaking to govern that revolution. That is my position. It is now a great practical question : Shall we govern the revolution and at last restore peace and put the government on its old foundations or shall we sit quietly in our seats and discuss the theory of this Government, while the revolution is going on and threatens to overwhelm us in its mad career. Will we control the revolution or sit here and let that revolution control us ? That is the question that is to be submitted to you, and these speech- es that have been made here of three hours length, upon the theory of this Government, amount to nothing. In the days of the revolution, gentlemen, Lord North and his followers in the British Parliament, sat and discussed the th eo- retical right to govern and subdue her colonies, but whilst those theories were being discussed, the American revolution went on to a successful end, and now Union men, you who desire to re- store peace and preserve the Government and establish it upon its ancient foundations, I warn you to beware of the policy of sitting here and talking about the theories of the Government while the revolution is in active progression. If you would control that revolution, if you would save the Union and thereby save your country, you have to act. I tell you that you cannot sit here and make speeches and make declarations about the theory of this Government, and the impolicy of denying the theory and all that sort of thing. Gentlemen, the theory has been denied by the States that have seceded. They have revolted, and now the great question is, " Shall they drag this Government into that revolution?" Shall they drag all the States into it, inaugurate civil war and wind up with the destruction of the whole? That is the question, and now I am pro- posing by this amendment to reach the evil. I believe that we, (and when I say we, I mean the Border States— I mean the States running from the Atlantic on the east to the great Sahara west, this desert that lies beyond us,) occupying the position that we do, and having the strength and the power, ought to stand up between the two warring sections and command the peace.
My worthy friend from St. Louis, the Chair- man of the Committee, who has just preceded me, says that we are now speaking to powers we have no right to command. Whilst that is true, one of these powers, at least, claims the au- thority to command us. Now, how does this thing stand? There are some things about which the members of this Convention agree. In re- gard to some questions we are a unit. What are those questions? My worthy friend who sits be- fore me, (Mr. Gamble) with the ken of a prophet,
181
foretold, a few days ago, what would be our destiny in the event of a civil war. What did he say? He said if Missouri should go with the Southern Confederacy, in a military point of view, it was annihilation. That was the enun- ciation of a great truth, but it was not the enun- ciation of the ichole truth. I say no matter where she goes ; if she goes with the North or with the South, in a military point of view, it is annihila- tion; and in viewing it in that light, I am deter- mined that Missouri will say she will not stand by peaceably and see herself annihilated. While there has been a discussion here in regard to the theory of secession, and the right of se- cession, no man upon this floor, I believe, has ever denied the right of revolution. — They say you have no right to revolutionize or resist the powers that be, until they become so oppressive that our condition becomes intolerable. Grant it — that is my view also. But suppose that the Government of the United States should require Missouri to do an act that would annihi- late her : I ask if the demands of that Govern- ment would not be intolerable. Yet my venera- ble friend here has told you that whenever that issue comes, whenever civil war is inaugurated, Missouri is annihilated? What does he mean by that? He does not mean that an earthquake will swallow up our land and houses ; he does not mean that the great Missouri would dry up to its fountain, and the Mississippi be obliterated; he means that your commerce would be destroyed, your houses would be desolated, your land drenched in blood, and that all that makes us now great, glorious and powerful would be swept away. That is what he means, and that would be our fate, no matter what happened in a military aspect. I tell you that I have been asked the question, Where will I go when that noble flag is torn down? Gentle- men, my hopes are anchored in the Union. When that Union is gone, there is no hope. As was said by the immortal Webster, " I have never per- mitted myself to hang over the precipice of dis- union, to see what may lie beyond."
All my hopes are in the Union, and for that reason I say the border States should interpose their influence between the North and the South, to bring about a reconciliation. Andif Abraham Lincoln should attempt to carry out the policy recommended by some of his Northern friends, to invade the Southern States, I say that we should resist such invasion, and drive him into the At- lantic ocean, or drive him into this great Western Sahara, where a man travels four days and four nights without seeing a drop of water, and where nothing but a horned frog and rattlesnake can live. If I was a member of the Border State Convention I would go for a resolution on the part of the border States that no hostile army should pass through the territory of those State
for the purpose of making war, in the attempt to adjust our present difficulties. I would drive them into the Atlantic or the great Western Sa- hara.
As I remarked, I have been asked where will I go ? What flag will I fight under when that flag is gone ? I will illustrate that idea. You have all read the history of Saladin, the great Emperor of the East. He was a warrior and a statesman at the head of a great empire, beloved by his sub- jects and soldiers. At last, some fatal disease fixed itself upon his frame. His physician warned him that death was approaching. He felt its icy fingers closing around his heart, his friends made a royal shroud for him, that he might be buried like a king. His anxious people were crowding around his palace daily to hear of the progress of the fatal disease. When at last he found he was upon the verge of death, he called one of his faithful followers to his side, and said to him, " Go, take that shroud and hang it upon the point of a lance, and swing it from the battlements of my castle, and tell my beloved people that this is all that remains of Saladin the Great." Gentlemen, whenever you tear down that old flag, hang out a shroud, for that is the only thing that is typical of your fate. It will be the only emblem that is fit to represent the fate of this great Republic. I believe it as manifestly as I believe I am now living.
Mr. President, it has been said by the gentle- man from Pike, that this is a Quixotic idea that has gotten into the head of the people— this thing of coercing a Southern State; and my friends, Mr. Hall of Buchanan and Mr. Broadhcad of St. Louis, ask, gravely, what does it mean? I will answer you in Yankee style, by putting an- other question in return. I will ask, what do you mean by it? What construction do you put upon the word coercion ?
Mr. Henderson. Subjugation.
Mr. Moss. My friend says subjugation. Then he can alter my amendment, if he chooses to do so, to the word '"'subjugation" instead of "coer- cion." Well, now, I ask any man of common sense in this audience, if you think there Mill be found any regiment in Missouri that will go South to subjugate a Southern State. Mr Gamble says it is annihilation if they do. He says he is responsible for every letter and syllable of the majority report. He says if that is attempted it is annihilation. I ask you, gentlemen, in that view of the subject, are you willing to stay here and see the Southern States subjugated? Yet, according to his report, all that we -ould feel authorized to do would be to say that Ave will regret— regret ! Now, I tell you that whenever that thing is attempted, you will have civil war in Missouri; and I tell you further, that the action of this Convention upon the propo- sition now before you, will tell greatly upon the
182
Union feeling in Missouiri. How do we stand here now? We see leading papers in Missouri who represent the Republican interest claiming that this Convention reflects their sentiments. The friends of Mr. Lincoln will say to him., look at the Missouri Convention; they there intimate that it is their duty, whenever you call upon them to invade a Southern State, to obey the summons ; they have voted down a proposi ion sa}ingthat the citizens of Missouri will not do it ; take cour- age, sir, take courage — Missouri is with you.
Gentlemen of the Convention, you may he able to dispose of that feature in that case. You are men of knowledge and intelligence, many of you statesmen and lawers, and you can satisfy your own minds about this. But I tell you, when- ever it goes out to the people of Missouri that you are not opposed to coercion, in any and every form, it will make secessionists by the hundred, and I as a Union man have offered this Union resolution, because I believe it to be the best Union project that has been suggested by this Convention. I believe it sincerely. I believe that we will eventually bring back our brethren of the South, in spite of the e§brts of their leaders, and I am now for saying to Mr. Lincoln, we will not aid you in invading and subjugating a Southern State.
Now, Mr. President, I desire to direct your at- tention for a moment to the illustrations that have been made by my friends from Pike, and Buchanan and St. Louis. They talked very well against my amendment until they attempted to il- lustrate my position, for when they did that, in my humble judgment, they made an utter fail- ure. My friend from Buchanan says, suppose Georgia should conclude, as I believe she will, eventually, to stay in the Union — not to come back, mark you, for I do not believe it requires a treaty to get her back — I do not believe she is out— suppose the people of Georgia conclude to stay in the old Union, and to repeal her secession ordinance; suppose, then, he continues, the Southern Con- federacy should undertake to prevent her; in other words, should force her out of the Union, does my amendment prevent us, then, from de- fending ourselves? Is there anything in it against the right of self-defense? And right here, in order to understand the scope and object of my amendment, you must look at the first part of the resolution — you must look at its first words. What does it direct your attention to ? It says that, believing that the welfare of Mis- souri depends upon the peaceful settlement of— what? A settlement of our present difficulties. What does that amendment pledge the action of Missouri to? It pledges her action to the settle- ment of our difficulties. The fifth resolution, which was penned by my worthy friend before me, refers to that question.
Mr. Gamble. I desire, if the gentleman will permit, me to interrupt him, to explain the ex- tent of my authorship. The resolutions were not drawn by me. The report, which is the argu- ment in support of the resolutions, is drawn by me.
Mr. Moss. Well, I reckon the gentleman stands on that resolution, whether he wrote it or not.
Mr. Gamble. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moss. Exactly. I am referring to what the resolution says. It is directed to the settle- ment of our present difficulties, and in my amendment to that resolution, I begin by stating that the peaceful settlement of our present difficulties is all we can hope for, and then express the belief that we will aid neither section in making war upon the other. That, Mr. Presi- dent, does not prevent the State of Missouri from defending herself when she shall be invaaed. A great many attempts have been made to illus- trate this point. My friend from St. Louis makes this illustration. He says : Suppose this military bill should pass the Legislature. [I should say that I have never read the bill, and depend for in- formation as to its powers upon the gentleman,] and the Governor should declare that we are un- der a military government; that he has the right to call out his soldiers and have our citizens shot down for speaking disrespectfully of him, or committing some other similar offense. Now, is that an illustration of the case? I ask my friend from St. Louis, what would be the remedy?— Would he wait to apply to the General Gov- ernment for power to put down the Governor of the State of Missouri, who was acting in obedi- ence to the law passed by her Legislasure?
Mr. Broadhead. The gentlemen does not seem to have exactly understood my position. I took this position : If the Governor should think proper to carry Missouri out of the Union, and use the military force given under this bill to carry out that object, he would be committing an act of treason against the General Government, and we should have the right to call that Gov- ernment to defend us, if necessary.
Mr. Moss. Well, I presume that whenever the Legislature of Missouri attempts such an act of usurpation as that, and whenever the Gov- ernor of the State undertakes to carry it out, the remedy will be a very short one. It will not be an appeal to the powers of the Federal Govern- ment, but it will be a very short remedy. It will consist of ten feet of grass rope and a good oak limb. I presume that in that contingency, that the people of Missouri will undertake to take care of their own destiny, without appealing to the General Government.
I can see no case, Mr. President, that has been cited by the opponents of this amendment, that illustrates the point in any way whatever. No
183
parallel, no case, has heen cited, that will demon- strate the fallacy of the position I occupy.
Now, in conclusion, I would just say, that, as a Union man, believing that our salvation de- pends upon the salvation of the Union, I have presented this amendment, and have advocated it in all sincerity, believing it was a peace measure; and if it shall be voted down by this Convention, I will submit; will then vote for the majority report, because I believe it contains a declaration of great truth. But it does not go far enough, in my opinion, and if this amendment is voted down, I shall still be a Union man; I shall go home and fight the battles of the Union, believ- ing that our hopes are anchored in the Union. But, Mr. President, I shall go home with a heavy heart ; I shall go home, feeling that this Conven- tion has fai'ed to put Missouri in an attitude which I think she ought to occupy in regard to our present difficulties.
Mr. Orr. I suppose it is not necessary for me, after what I said on a former occasion, to say anything more in regard to my belief of the Union proclivities of the gentleman. I have no doubt but he is as good a Union man as can be found ; but he has advanced one argument which I think proper to refute. It is this : That some leading Republican papers of Missouri take the ground that this Convention agrees with them ; and if, therefore, we do not do something here to show the world we are not agreeing with the Re- publican party, we will build up secessionists by the thousand. I believe the Sacred Book in some passage says, Do you believe there is one God? You do. Very well ; the devils also believe and tremble. Now, if this argument is worth any- thing, because the devils believe in a God, we must believe that there is no God — because the Republican party are to-day for the Union we must needs be against it. I hope never to face my wife again, if I am not able to say that I am as good a Union man as any Republican in this country.
Mr. Turner. I wish to ask, sir, what will be the effect of the adoption of this substitute?
The Chair. It will then occupy the precise position of the amendment of the gentlemen from Clay.
Mr. Turner. I had intended to say nothing until the question should come up on the final adoption of the report presented by the majority; but as I will be called upon to decide between the substitute and the amendment, I will state the reasons which will govern me in voting for the sub- stitute. I regard that amendment as putting Mis- souri in a state of insubordination to the General Government. I believe that either as a State, or in our individual capacity, we have no legal right to say that we will not furnish men or money to the General Government when it demands it at our hands. It will be sufficient time for us to say
what we will do when such a contingency does arise. When the General Government calls upon the State of Missouri for men and money. — It will then be proper for us to determine whether we will submit to the call of the Gov- ernment, made in a legal manner, or set our- selves up in insubordination. I presume there is not a gentleman upon this floor who will contend that the General Government has not the legal right to call upon the States for men and money under certain contingencies. I say, then, that when it does call, it will be time enough to deter- mine our action.
I regard this as a pestiferous amendment to the resolution. The original resolution condemns coercion, civil war and strife of any kind, be- tween the seceding States and the General Gov- ernment.
I would call the particular attention of this Convention to the wording of the amendment. No man will deny that the General Government has not the legal right to call upon Missouri for men and money; and I presume no man will have the hardihood to contend that the seceding States have the same legal right. Then, sir, I think when we say that we will not furnish men and money to the seceding States, we are within the scope of the Constitution; but I say, furthermore, that whenever we declare we will not furnish men and money to the General Government, Ave are going outside of the Constitution, and trampling it under our feet. Hence, I believe, sir, that the adoption of the amendment would be calculated to make secessionists at the North and secession- ists at the South. Instead of bringing together the parts now separated, in feeling and in sen- timent, we would widen the breach.
So far as the substitute is concerned, I prefer it to the amendment, but do not think it as good as the original resolution. I shall, therefore, after having voted for the substitute and against the amendment, vote for the original resolution in preference to the substitute.
Sir, the terms of this amendment are not con- sistent with the position we occupy. [Reads the amendment.] Now, according to my view, we are part and parcel, and a very important part, of the General Government ourselves, and we may well say that we will not furnish men and money to make war upon ourselves. But when we are asked to go further, and say that we will not furnish men and money to the General Govern- ment that has given us protection, and to whom we look for protection and the defense of our rights. I say I am not willing to vote for it, Again, why has not the word war been substituted in the amendment for coercion ? The former is plain and explicit, the latter is liable to various constructions. If the word coerce had but one definition, I could understand it. But with as many definitions and as many significations as
184
are given to it now by politicians, I say I cannot conscientiously vote for the amendment.
I think I have shown, Mr. President, that we do not hold the same legal relations to the se- ceding States that we do to the General Govern- ment. If we did, it might be proper to say that we would not help either of them. As it is, Mr. President, if the country, whose flag has pro- tected me from my infancy to the present time, should call upon me for money, if I owned any, and it needs my services, and is in the right I, will cheerfully give both.
I wish to notice one more argument and I am done. The gentleman from Clay has said that if this amendment was voted down, the men of the North will say to Mr. Lincoln, don't you see that the Missouri Convention favors coercion? And they would use that as an argument to co- erce the seceding State. Now, by looking at the original resolution, no fair-minded man can come to such a conclusion as that. In that resolution it is clearly laid down that we are opposed to coer- cion, or civil war, or strife of any kind, between the conflicting sections of the country, and we need only adopt it in order to stand pledged to this sentiment, and against coercion.
The substitute was then put to vote and lost.
Mr. Redd offered the following amendment to the amendment : Amend by adding to the end, after the word "State/' the following words: "While any hope of such adjustment remains."
The amendment to the amendment was put to Vote and lost.
The question then recurring on the amedment of Mr. Moss, it was rejected by the following vote— ayes 30, noes 61 :
Ayes.— Bass, Bast, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Donnell, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Matson, Moss, Norton, Ray, Redd, Sawyer, Sayre, Sheeley, Walter, Wat- kins, Woodson— 30.
Noes.— Allen, Bartlett, Birch, Bogy, Breckin- ridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayee, Douglass, Drake, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravel- ly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hender- son, Hendricks, Hitchcock,Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ritchey, Rowland, Seott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Woolfolk, Wright, Yanbuskirk, Zimmerman, Mr. Presi- dent—61.
Absent. — Messrs. Doniphan, Eitzen, Maupin, Ross, Stewart, Welch, and Wilson.
Sick.— Mr. Pipkin.
explanation of votes.
Mr. Birch. In explanation of my vote upon this amendment, and as a reason why, in the main, I shall acquiesce in the report and resolu- tions just as they are, it is but necessary to refer to the action of the Convention upon the prelimi- nary institution of the committee which drafted them, to wit : the Committee on Federal Relations. To the rather broad and indefinite resolutions which were offered by the distinguished senior delegate from St. Louis, (afterwards but naturally and properly appointed chairman of the commit- tee) it will be remembered that I deemed it ap- propriate to offer a substitute, with the avowed purpose of testing the sense of the Convention, and to go to the committee, in the nature of in- structions, as to the scope and texture of their report, namely : "To report to this Convention such an exposition and address as shall properly denote the views and opinions of those who look to the amicable restoration of the Federal Union, upon such adjustments of the past, and such guarantees for the future, as shall render it frater- nal, permanent and enduring." Upon an amend- ment which was offered by the delegate from Cole (the Attorney General) for the purpose of giving the necessary completeness to the substitute, the Convention divided, with three majority against me— thus indicating its desire, after the short explanatory debate between the delegate from St. Louis and myself, that the committee should not be instructed according to the spirit and pur- pose of my substitute. Regarding the question, therefore, as thus virtually decided against me, a respectful deference to the apparent decision of the Convention, and a becoming respect for the committee which was subsequently appointed to take the whole subject into consideration, have constituted my motives for not participating in the debate to amend or alter their report. As a whole, therefore, (for the reasons alluded to,) I have found myself inclined to vote for the resolu- tions of the committee — albeit I would have writ- ten them somewhat differently, as (I may remark again) I sought to have them written differently. I may perhaps be pardoned for adding, that had I written them myself, both the report and the resolutions should have recognized at least the possibility of a period when even I would be willing to fight, as denoted in my speech last week, but which, notwithstanding the able ex- position of my colleague, (Mr. Dunn,) I still understand the amendment as pledg- ing me not to do. As, therefore, the voice of the State is emphatically expressed in the resolution of the committee against armed inter- vention of any kind ; and as that and other reso- lutions of the committee embody substantially the language and spirit of the resolutions of the constituency whom I have the honor, in part, to represent : and as the succeeding resolutions of
185
the committee very properly provide for our re- assemblage in the event of exigencies not now anticipated, I shall content myself with such a concurrence in the general views of the commit- tee, as will prevent me from seeking either to mar the symmetry of their reporter the more satisfac- tory symmetry, and significance of their resolu- tions. I therefore vote in the negative.
Mr. Sol. Smith. This Convention having been called "to consider the existing relations between the Government of the United States, the people and Government of the different States, and the Government and people of the State of Missouri," I do not believe Ave are called upon to pledge the State as to its action in any contin- gency which may arise in future. We are now witnessing— I might say experiencing— the ef- fects of a pledge made twelve years ago by our Legislature; I refer to the celebrated Jackson res- olutions, which have been recently revived and adopted as a platform on which the two branch- es of the Democracy have united at Jefferson City; and I am unwilling by, any vote of mine, to indorse that or any other pledge that may re- quire the people of Missouri, under any circum- stances, to resist the Government in the perform- ance of its legitimate duties. Mr. President, I am against secession — I am against coercion; and as my sentiments on those two subjects are satisfactorily expressed in the first and fifth reso- lutions reported by your Committee, I shall vote against the amendment.
Mr. Woolfolk. As I have not engaged in the debate, I desire to make a few remarks in ex- planation of my vote. I shall vote against the amendment, not because I favor coercion, but because I am unalterably opposed to the doctrine of coercion. The amendment, in my opinion, contemplates coercion by the Federal Govern- ment, when that Government has as yet indica- ted no such intention. It even invites coercion by pledging Missouri to neutrality, in case it is attempted. The original resolution will be more potent to prevent coercion than the amendment. Hear its concluding clause : "We therefore ear- nestly entreat, as well the Federal Government as the seceding States, to withhold and stay the arm of military power, and, on no pretense w hatever, biing upon the nation the horrors of civil war." We here, sir, plainly declare that in no event will we sanction the use of military power by the Federal Government — not under the pre- tense of enforcing the laws or "the pretense of" sustaining and preserving the Union. We plainly recognize by this resolution, sir, that the Union is not to be preserved by the sword. But the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Clay will, if adopted weaken Missouri's influence for good with all portions of the Union. It will lessen her influence with the loyal States, because it com- mits her to nullification. It will alienate
from her those States that are not loyal be- cause in the event of war it commits her to neu- trality. Missouri should lift her voice against coercion and in favor of peace— but beyond that she should not look. If coercion should be at- tempted—if civil war should ensue, it will be time then, with all the facts before us, for Mis- souri to take her position. Leave this question as one of the secrets of the great future, feeling that if the issue is ever presented, Missouri will meet it as she should— that she will act wisely and well. She will consult her duty, her honor and interest, and if circumstances shall require that her sword shall be drawn from its scabbard, I feel well assured, sir, that she will fearlessly fling it into the scale of justice.
Mr. Noell. I shall vote " No" on this propo- sition, not because I am in favor of coercion, but because I think the original resolution preferable in its wording and spirit. I am opposed to coer- cion in any manner, shape or form. I have not said any thing in the debate which is progressing, from the fact that I did not think that I could say any thing of importance in addition to what has been said by other members. I do not think it is right to pledge Missouri to any particular course. I believe that the original resolution pledges the State so far as necessary, and that this thing will work out all right. I think Missouri always will be opposed to coercion, and I know that, so far as the people of Southwest Missouri are concerned, they are bitterly opposed to it.
CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. Wright. I would move that we adopt the first resolution reported by the majority of the committee.
The Chair. Your motion is to take those resolutions up in their regular order?
Mr. Wright. Yes, sir; and I move that the first resolution be adopted.
Mr. Gamble. If the gentleman will yield the floor, I move that the House now adjourn.
Mr. Wright. I will yield the floor on condi- tion that I am entitled to it on the re-assembling of the Convention.
The Chair. That is the understanding.
Mr. Sheeley. I desire the gentleman from St. Louis to withdraw his motion for one mo- ment. A communication was made to this Con- vention, a day or two ago, by the Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical Association, offer- ing to present to each member a copy of their Fifth Annual Report, if acceptable. I have a re- solution accepting the offer, and tendering the thanks of this Convention for it.
Mr. Crawford. I believe that it is generally the custom not to thank anybody unless there has been something to thank for. We are called upon in that resolution to thank for books re- ceived, and yet I have not been able to discover
186
any of those books around me. I think we should each first get a copy before we undertake to pass a vote of thanks. [Laughter.]
The Chair. The books are with the Secretary, and it is understood that he will attend to their distribution.
The resolution of Mr. Sheelet was then adopted.
The Convention thereupon adjourned.
FIFTEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 18th, 1861.
Met at 10 A. M.
Mr. President in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
Mr. Doniphan rose to state that he had been unwell on last Saturday, and wished to record his vote in favor of the amendment of Mr. Moss.
Mr. Wright. Mr. President, the first resolu- tion reported by the majority of the committee declares that at present "there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union, but on the contrary we will labor for such an adjustment of existing difficul- ties as will secure the peace, as well as the rights and equality of all the States." This resolution, Mr. President, involves a wide and important in- quiry. I was astonished to hear from some mem- bers in this body, that it was not profitable under our present exigencies, to determine the nature and character of the Government under which we live— that all theories touching the form and nature of government, are not practical in this e xigency, and that all mind or genius spent in that direction is a waste of intellect. If I thought so, Mr. President, I should not rise in this body to make a speech at all. But on the contrary, I hold, sir, that this resolution makes such an inquiry as that, the most pertinent of all interrogatories: how can Ave determine whether we ought to break it up or hold out, unless we appreciate its nature. Is it a military government? Is it a consolidated government? Is it a national government? Is it any government at all? Or is it a thing that can be dissolved at the whim and caprice and pleasure of any of the ac- tual or supposed parties to it. This birthright of an American citizen, what is it, Mr. President? Is it an estate at all? We— you and I, sir— have been proud of it from the first momont that we had conscious thought on the question of liberty. It gratified us in our youth ? And it has been the ad- miration of our manhood. What is this birth- right of an American citizen, not the question of your right to live in Missouri as your honv% or in Virginia or Tennessee, but the right to hold that other, and that broader, and that larger title, the
title to be an American citizen, whose home and country is not the State in which he lives, but who can rightfully and proudly claim that his emph*e stretches to the widest and utmost verge of our boundary — bounded by two oceans — rearming to the cold regions of the North, and going South to the semi-tropical clime.
Now, sir, the inquiry is a most pertinent one. Is it an estate at all? If an estate, what sort of an estate ? Is it a fee simple ? Is it what we law- yers call a free hold or life estate, or is it a term of years, — long or short? Or is it a tenan- cy at will? A possession that we must give up upon notice to quit, served upon us by another? These are all pertinent inquiries, necessary to the solution of our wisdom or our folly in adoping or rejecting the resolution that comes first from the majority of the Committee. It is ju*t as important that Ave should understand the nature and character of our Govern- ment, to determine its value, as that avc should as- certain the source and nature of those ills of Avhich Ave complain in order to determine their actual force and importance upon our minds. So that it is manifest upon the very face of the reso- lution that the most important and grave inqui- ries connect themselves necessarily Avith it, if we are to use mind and reason at all, in solving the inquiry, shall it pass or shall it be rejected ?
Entertaining this view, I shall try to occupy the time of this body Avith some remarks upon the nature of our GoA-ernment. And first, is it a military government? Does its poAArer lie in the sword ? Is its force the force of the bayonet ? Is its strength resident only in martial phalanx, and to be felt in the power and clash of arms ? Sir, it is no military government. If it were I should not loA-e it. If it Avere, you, sir, avouM never have been proud of it, nor I. It Avould have had no hold upon the affection of the American peo- ple, if it had been a military government. That is a despotism. It is the Avcakest poAver in the AVtfrld, and yet the most destruetiA-e. This Gov- ernment is a Government Avho^e strength lies in its justice, and its great power is the greatest poAver of the Avorld — it is moral power, it is intellectual poicer, it is a poAver that addresses itself not to the nerves, or flesh, or bones and muscle of men, but makes its appeal to the calm, reasoning, and God-like, lofty, noble qualities Avith Avhich man has been endoAvod by his Maker.
Is it a consolidated gOA-ernment? No, it is not that. For consolidation itself Avould concentrate poAver so as to be destructive. It is no military government, and it is no consolidated goA-ern- ment. What, then, is the character of this gov- ernment? It is a government in Avhich the chief distinguishing characteristic is the distribution of poAver into many hands, so that it shall be hurt- ful nowhere and a blessing everywhere — poAA-er distributed first to the General Government, poAver
187
distributed next to the States, and power not dis- tributed at all, bur resident in the great funda- mental source of power, the people of these Uni- ted States.
But what is the chain that binds us together? Is it to be sundered at option, constitutional- ly, peaceably, by any one of the parties that made it? Is it what these chemists call the ar- g'dlo calclte, that decomposes and dissolves by mere exposure to the atmosphere, without any chemical action? Can I go to bed one night, thanking God, the Father above, for the blessings which he has scattered broadcast over my life, and among the praises shall thank him for the birthright of an American citizen; shall I sleep the sweet sleep of a freeman, under the idea that I am secured hy the laws and institutions of my coun- try, by a power stronger than that which sur- rounds a crowned head in his armed myrmidons; and wake up to fresh life in the morning and come down the street and be told on its corners that this Union is dissolved — that I am no longer an American citizen! Why? Because South Carolina has dissolved it. And if she has not, Florida did it — and if any aid were necesa- ry in the work, Georgia furnished it, and the sup- plemental finishing of this destruction was com- pleted by by the joint labors of Mississippi, Louis- iana and Texas. Is that so? Is this a govern- ment? Am I now an American citizen? Who can believe that it is so? or, if it be so, I should not cherish the title, for it would be solvable at the mere Avill of another.
But, coming nearer home, can the State of Mis- souri rob me of my birth-right through the exer- cise of a Constitutional power, called the right of secession? ' Can she rob me of my right to fight for my Government in her midst, if I think the Government right and rebellion wrong? Can she tear from me the sacred right of revolution, which, thouzh a dreaded and terrible and sublime pow- er upon the earth, under the limitations which our British ancestors and our own fathers have placed upon it, is one of the great conservative powers of this earth— the friend of liberty and not its oppressor? I have always known that revolution might destroy my title of an Amer- ican citizen, but I have always known likewise that the red hand of revolution could never accomplish that until my birth-right was valueless, and revolution came up to me and said I strike for your liberty and not against it.
In these days and this wild reign, not of terror I will not say of terroi — I will drop the t — in this wild reign of error, it is very fit that we discuss this question of right, the constitutional right of a State to dis- solve this Union. From what sources do those who are for this proposition derive the power? — First it is said that the States who made it were independent, sovereign States. Well. Secondly,
that they have reserved powers to themselves. Grant it, also. Thirdly, that being sovereign and independent States, they can resume their sover- eignty whenever they choose. So that, according to this argument, the right of peaceable, consti- tutional secession, springs out of the nature of our Government, out of the character of the par- tics who formed it, and the inherent, inalienable and untransferable power of sovereignty which originally belonged to the parties who entered into this compact
Now let us practically test this thing by the Constitution itself. I would say to the gentle- man from Marion, (Mr. Re Id,) that his ordinari- ly clear and logical mind, has been lost in the transcendentalism of secession metaphysics. I would ask him if he thought that when this Gov- ernment bought Florida, not for the value of its soil, not for anything but a military reason, in order that this Government might hold the key to the Gulf of Mexico — I will ask him whether, if she was in her territorial form, she could take the step she has taken? I imagine that the intellect and can- dor of the gentleman would answer no. Why? Because, he would say, she is not a sovereign — she is a mere dependency; her people live by such organic acts as the Government of the United States may think proper to spread over her Ter- ritory; she is a pigmy now, and there is no such thing as a power resident in her to break up this Government — but by and by she will be a giant, and when she is clothed with this immaculate power of sovereignty, why, of course, she may go back and occupy the identical position of Vir- ginia on the day that she helped to make this Government, and may resume the inherent powers with which she is now clothed, and the moment she takes her place fully, freely and perfectly as a State in this Union, may then claim it as an inde- pendent and constitutional right to break it up.
I have read the speech which seems to have furnished the staple for some of the arguments in the Convention, (the speech of Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana,) a speech which I find circulated broad- cast throughout this land, and it has fallen with tremendous power on our Capitol and the men in it, and especially those who rule in it. It says : "Read, Mis^ourians! and be prepared to defend your rights by argument as well as by arms, the great speech of Hon. J. P. Benjamin." Mr. Ben- jamin's speech itself is nothing more than a re- hash of old arguments furished in the troubles of 1833.
He has not advanced one new idea in that ar- gument, but he has revamped and ressurectcd ideas in favor of this heresy, and spread them abroad, and they have obtained currency through the epidemic passions of the hour. Because the States were sovereign and had reserved rights, and especially because, as the gentleman said,
188
they delegated power and did did not grant any ; therefore, the resumption of this power is a logi- cal inference, and each State that entered into this Union at the very moment of making it re- served to itself the power to break it when she thought proper. It is true Mr. Benjamin says that she has ouly the right to do it in a clear and palpable case of violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Redd. I desire to say that I do not know what Mr. Benjamin's position is, but my position is that by the law of nations, when a compact is entered into each Government has the right to dissolve its connection with that Government when that compact is violated by the one party — that the injured party has the right to declare the compact, in so far as that party is concerned, broken.
Mr. Wright. That is precisely Mr. Benja- min's position, that by the law of nations and by the hand of sovereignty, and by the fact that the powers were delegated and not surrendered, a State can dissolve her connections with the General Government at pleasure; but, he says, a State can dissolve the Union by the exer- cise of its Constitutional right, and is not driven to the necessity of revolution in a clear and palpable case of violation of the Constitu- tion. The trouble about that argument is— who is to judge whether it is palpable or not. Where is the power to determine? If a State can do it, how do you impose the limitation upon the power. The logical mind of the gentleman from Marion must see at a glance, that the power Constitutionally to secede from this Union, under any limitations— which are lim- itations only from the power that secedes, is a power without any limitations at all. Mr. Benja- min in his speech, quoting the provisions of our Constitution, italicises, as my friend from Marion did, the word delegated, the point upon which the whole thing hangs, according to my friend from Marion. If it had been "granted," or "surrendered," it would have been different— but it is only the '•delegation" of the power. Now Mr. Benjamin had to read in the context that whole proposi- tion of the Constitution, and it is short, and I ask the gentleman from Marion, or any other gentle- man about whose mind hang the cobwebs which fetter its reason— and I would almost say deffer- entially and respectfully, fetter its patriotism— I ask his attention to the whole of this provision of the Constitution. It reads "the powers not dele- gated by the States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States themselves, or the peo- ple." What is his error? In the first place is a delegated power reserved? A power delegated. Is that reserved? Is a prohibited power reserved ? Every man knows that no re- served power can take away a granted one, and it is equally manifest that no reservation can take
away a power expressly prohibited. So that a reservation is what? A reservation is what is left after taking out the powers delegated, and the powers prohibited to the States, and then the residuum is the reservation, and that residuum is distributed in some cases to the States, and in some cases to the people.
Mr. President, the framers of the Constitu- tion were men who matched words well to thoughts; they understood the character of the government they were making, and this, their sentence in the fundamental law, throws a flood of light upon the whole instrument. It is the key by which you unlock all its mysteries. It pre- sents the only government on earth with such a distribution of power. In other words, it is the invention of the American mind, brought into living action by a great crisis, in so far as Ave can l©ok upon their action as an independent and spontaneous movement of the human mind. I do not belieAre we say the whole truth when we say it was the genius of America; it was the pro- found sagacity of our fathers, met in council, that made that instrument. I believe as firmly as I stand before you this day, that they were helped to it, that there was a Providence that shaped their work, the same Providence which raised up Washington, and which discovered this continent at the right hour and time — the same Providence which not only went with us to battle but sat by us in council, and stilled the waves of passion which might rise in that body, and at last produced such a result as the world has never seen. The people, the source of power — not the divine right of kings — distributing the power in the first place to the States, and reserv- ing to themselves the powers which they did not grant, then distributing powers affirmatively to the Federal Government— next prohibiting power to the States and ever so distributing it, as to make power beneficial everywhere, and hurtful no- where. That is by distributing power in no such wise as to make any sovereign anywhere. They held the residuum in their own hands. We talk familiarly about the sovereign State of Missouri; the sovereign State of South Carolina; the sov- ereign State of Louisiana; the sovereign States of Texas and Florida. I deny it. There is not a ro v- ing tribe of Indians between this and the smooth sea, nor a band of Bedouins in the Arabian des- ert, that, in the sense of publicists and jurists, are not more sovereign than any State in this Union. Mr. Benjamin says — that a sovereign State, according to his notion, that a government itself, under whatever form soever, without de- pendence on any foreign power, is a sovereign State. Let me suppose a case. These publi- cists have never written about our plan of government. The misery of this word sovereignty is this, that lawyers and states- men read the books of Europe— Grotius, Puffen-
189
dorff, Vattel— and they all talk about govern- ments unlike our own — and we get the idea of sovereignty from them, and we attempt to apply it for want of better terms, to our own Government. But let me ask the gentleman from Marion, (Mr. R?dd,) and I select him because I respect his intellect, because I know he is blest with large powers from above, aud because, therefore, I have more interest in his error than if he were a stranger. Suppose there had arisen up in Europe a government con- templated by Vattel, Grotius and PuffendorfF and other publicists of the world, there is no place to locate it because there is no such government in Europe. But,suppose there were one in Europe and having no power to make war or to conclude peace— no right to coin money, nor any authority to regulate commerce. Suppose it could not grant letters of marque and reprisal, that it could not send any Ambassador to any court in the world, that it could not collect tonnage duties without the lawful consent of another govern- ment, and that after obtaining consent it would have to take the proceeds and put them in the Treasury of that other government. Suppose, in addition to that, every citizen in that country, or every subject, was bound by an oath of allegiance to another government, a superior and para- mount allegiance, and suppose every one of its of- ficers before they could act in that state, would have to swear to support that other government, and swear that when a conflict took place be- tween the powers of that other govern- ment and its own, that it should side with a foreign power. Suppose it was a State that could not use uniform weights and measures; could not pass any bill of attain- der. Would Vattel say that was a sovereign na- tion or an independent nation ? I judge not. — Now, this imaginary nation I have spoken of in the old world, is identical with the nature of every State of this Union under the Federal Constitution. It would be a power incapable of maintaining itself in a conflict with na- tions. Would she be a sovereign State in any sense, and have the right of international law? She would not, but yet she would have pow- er. Well, let us cast our eyes to another govern- ment-. Suppose there were a government in Eu- rope that could declare war and conclude peace; that could send ambassadors to a foreign court; that could coin money; that could estab- lish a standard of weights and measures, and emit bills of credit, that could establish post- roads, although it would be doubtful whether it could make any other road having no power of eminent domain. Suppose it were a government that had the power of taxation — that could levy duties on imports and excises — and suppose it was a government that could not settle a landed estate—not having jurisdiction of the soil — that it
could not determine an action of ejectment — or could not pass any statutes of distribution, what would they say of that government? I am de- scribing the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Government. What would these publicists say of that sort of government ? They would say this : It is limited in the most impor- tant matters — it has no municipal power and no police power. They would say of such a govern- ment: It is anomalous — it comes up to no standard of sovereignty in the minds of publicists. In the sense of the word the Federal Government itself is not a sovereign government. It is supreme in its sphere of action, but then its sphere of action is limited, and an obstruction upon sovereignty. But are these governments less valuable, less effi- cacious as instruments of good and preservers and bulwarks, because shorn of this sovereignty. No, their precise value lies in the very difficulties of obstruction. Have we got no sovereignty any- where in this country, will say the gentleman from Marion. Strictly speaking, no. The peo- ple are the source of power, and the people in it are the government, and are not an Athenian De- mocracy or mob. What can the people do? The people of America, the source and original fountain of an eternal living power— Avhat can they do? Can they act as sovereign- collect taxes or make war — conclude peace or pass laws? No, they cannot do that. The sovereign people of the State of Missouri can change our form of government as it stands. provided they take a republican form, and provi- ded they do not hurt the Constitution of the Uni- ted States. But, the people cannot lew taxes — they cannot raise armies — they cannot make laws ; the source of their power speaks only through a legitimate superstructure so beautifully erected as to perform all its appropriate functions in a healthy and becoming manner. It flourishes, be- cause sovereignty in this sense does not exist. It is a grand invention of the American mind, calculated to make liberty more secure. Away, then, with this sentiment of the publi- cists; away with this doctrine of secession that springs from the idea that a State can resume its sovereignty, not only by taking away a granted power, but can go a step farther, and take away a prohibited power. Do you believe the wise men who made this Gov- ernment, ever designed to so construct the instru- ment as to leave to any party the power to dis- solve it at pleasure. My objection to secession is not only that it hurts our Government, but I go still deeper than that, for the argument reaches below it. I object to it, because if secession is right, there can never be any government on earth. Our Government will be the last, if seces- sion be right. Nothing that shall be reconstruc- ted with those destroying elements in it can ever
190
live — because the most ordinary partnership be- tween man and man can not exist upon that principle. I am a lawyer, and an old one — I do not say a good one — but in my practice, I have been called upon very often, and I presume not as often as others, to draw up articles of partnership between gentlemen to engage in business, and I never drew an article of partnership in my life, in which any two men would agree that their busi- ' ness and partnership should be dissolved at plea- sure or at the will of any party to it. It is always drawn for a term of years, or it is to be dis- solved upon mutual consent — or it is to be dis- solved for cause specified in the instrument. There are not two men who seek the hypei-borean regions of the North in search of peltries — outside of civilization, at least, outside of the functions performed by judges, sheriffs and constables — two gentlemen in the wilderness of the West would never so far stultify themselves as to enter into articles of partnership in conducting the fur busi- ness, without a distinct power, so that neither one of them should secede at will or pleas- ure, or so that one gentleman who got the most fur and the largest amount of proceeds could not take an auspicious moment for leaving the concern. I do not understand how our Southern brethren at Montgomery could build up a government holding in it this spirit of secession. I am clear that it ought to have pro- voked a smile on their part just as it is said that there are no two fortune tellers on earth who ev- er met face to face without a smile.
Do you think, gentlemen who favor this heresy of secession, do you think when we bought from Napoleon Bonaparte this valley in which we live, the noblest, richest, and proudest in the world — not excepting that of the Amazon — do you think they intended by the power of the Constitution that the moment they gave Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi the proportions of a State, that they could wrest from this Government this great outlet and drain of the valley. Bonaparte knew of this valley and was proud of it. He knew two things — first, having to fight all Europe, he had not force enough to attend to this empire of the valley of the Mississippi. And second, he knew very well that the people of this nation would never permit anybody to occupy it but themselves, and under these considerations, and for a comparative pittance, he yielded it to this Government— thi3 large empire of the valley of the Mississippi. Now, how does any gentleman suppose that the people of the United States, or in the first place, that the Government of the United States, was so frame:! its at the will and pleasure of Louisiana and Mississippi jurisdiction shall be taken of this river — that the right of free navigation should be destroyed, and that we should be cut off from the Gulf. Why, this country was obtained be-
cause it was necessary for this very purpose, and human blood would flow and make a large tribu- tary to this stream before that ri^ht would ever be surrendered. I know it is said by our kind friends down S)uth, who are taking jurisdiction of the Mississippi, that they are going to let us have the free navigation of the Missis" sippi. They have very good intentions, but we have got a m ich higher title than any they can bring us. They say now that a vessel com- ing up the Mississippi river, with freight from Europe or elsewhere, must stop and enter into bonds, and that within the territory of this new- Government no freight shall be distributed. However much we may ba bound by chords of svmpathy to this government, by our institutions, however friendly we may think this government will be, what patriotic man in Missouri is willing to concede to any but the common Government jurisdiction over this stream? It is no question whether they will exercise the power immediately towards us — the question is whether you will give them the power at all. I do not suppose any practical gentleman here, Avhatever may be his tropical tendencies, will ever consent that the navigation of the river shall ever be dependent upon the most fraternal government that can be instituted in the South.
There are other qu3stions that are involved in this doctrine of secession — there is a Territory be- tween us and the Rocky Mountains called Desser- et, occupied by aliens — men, scarcely any of whom have sworn allegiance to the country. They are the depositories of their own political power, but fortunately now, they cannot secede, be- cause they have not grown up into the statue of sovereignty. But being admitted into the States, then they can instanter secede, and this Switzerland of America could pass out of our hands. They would doub less have something to say upon the subject. If any reason was required as to their constitutional right, they could furnish one; they could say, doubtless, that they desired to live in fraternal association wiih the people of the States— that they loved the Federal Government of the States, excepting only that they were behind the age, and that they did not understand the religion of the Savior of man- kind—that there are certain patriarchal rights which the people in this country arc not civilized enough to recognize, except in Desseret; and be- cause we want to live after the manner of the patriarchs, therefore we secede. Let us come nearer home. At Washington there rises a beau- tiful and proud structure that attracts the gaze of mankind, not only from its collossal aud archi- tectural proportions, but because it is the seat of power in this land; because the ar- chives of the nation are preserved there, because the emblems of our power and the source of our authori.y are there, and around which all
191
nations of the earth concentrate with their am- bassadors— the point at which all treaties are to he matured; a point at which presides the only department of Government which represents her supreme power with the nations of the earth. It is the theatre in which patriotic genius has wrought its highest achievement and success. It is the sacred spot where Washington sat— it bears his name, and his virtues are commemorated in a monument, the stones of which were taken from every State, and which are inscribed with patriotic sentiments. Millions of money have been expended at this central point of our repub- lican glory; but it is within the limits of what was once the sovereign State of Maryland. Can the Maryland Legislature, or a Maryland Con- vention, some of these coming summer days, sit down and write upon a piece of parchment these words : " We resume the sovereign power — not only such as we delegated, but such as we pro- hibited, to ourselves — we resume these powers by virtue of the inherent sovereignty which once belonged to us, and now, by right of emi- nent domain we will take this ten miles square, which includes the Washington Monument and the glories of this Republic; we will take them all by right of eminent domain, just as South Carolina claims to take Fort Sumter in the bay of Charleston." Who is there here, with that proper regard for the wonderful sagacity of the pro- found statesmen who made our laws; who, in this Convention, or in this hall, that would say that was the sort of government which our fathers made, and that it was by such alliance as that they bound us together. Mr. President, secession will not do, it is so destructive in theory to the very idea of government, that it cannot last before the scrutiny and gaze of reason. I do not like even its emblem.
I looked one day toward the Southern skies— toward that sunny land which constitutes our Southern possessions, and I saw a banner floating in the air. I am not skilled in herladry and I may mistake the sign, but as it first rose it pre- sented a single dim and melancholy star, set in a field of blue, representing I suppose a lost polit- ical pleiad Wandering through space. A young moon — a crescent moon was by her side, appropri- ately plucked from our planetary system as the most changable of all representatives known to it. [Laughter.] A satellite to signify thevissisitudes which must attend its career. The sad spectacle wound up with the appropriate emblem of the cross, denoting the tribulation and the sorrow which must attend its going. I could not favor any such banner.
'•When freedom from her mountain night Unfurled her standard to the air,
She tore the azure robe of night, And set the stars of glory there,
She mingled with its, ^eorpeousdiea, The milky tirdle of the skies,
And striped its pure, celestial white, With streakings of the morning light.
Then from his mansion in the skies, She called her eagle bearer down,
And gave into his mighty hand The symbol of her chosen land." [Applause.]
The Chair. I will clear the lobby if there is anymore cheering. If you desire to hear the speaking you must be quiet.
Mr. Wright. Mr. President, I have said enough at least, to show my views in regard to the character of our Government. Now, sir, be- fore we break it up, let us see what this Govern- ment has done. I do not ask you to pause and consult your heart and the feelings and sentiments which actuate you; I won't ask you to worship it as a thing to be venerated ; I won't ask you to love it simply because it is an inheritance transmitted to you by the Fathers, but I will try it by the standard, the touchstone and the achievements of men. I will try it by the work it has done in the world; I will try it by what it has accomplished, and see whether we should cling to it, see whether there is any cause why we should leave it or break it up.
What has it done? Eighty-four years ago, or a little more, we broke from Great Britain. We were then three or four millions strong; the colo- nies were dependent upon the mother govern- ment, and the policy of that government Avas to make it, as it is, the workshop of the world, a fact to which I shall call your attention some time during my remarks. But we were then cut off from all invention in machinery, and from any of those developments of mind which have since characterized it.
There was not an engineer in America when Fitch invented the steamboat. He had to use the common blacksmiths of the country to execute his conceptions; and tenor fifteen years later, when Fulton made his successful experiment, he had to get his boilers from England, and a por- tion of the machinery was made there also. But after we were emancipated from the thraldom of the British crown, in less than ten years after our Declaration of Independence, the first steamboat of the world floated on the waters of the Dela- ware, in the presence of the assembled Governor and people. Since that, look at what marvels we have accomplished. In the field of invention we have run past all nations of the earth* and such men as Cob den, the great com- moner of England, who has been struggling during his parliamentary life to get the statesmen of England to follow the model of this country, said when he came here — or rather the Com- missioners were sent by the Government of Eng- land, to look at the Crystal Palace, and at the genius and the inventions of the American mind — when these Commissioners went back to England, Mr. Cobden communicates with them,
192
and he says at the Lyceum or Institute in Man- chester— he tells the Crown that if Eng- land wants to keep up in this race with that country, which only a few years ago broke from the Crown, she must encour- age a school for inventive genius. He tells them that England must develope this inventive genius, for she has fallen behind in the race in competition with her offspring, the young giant of the West. If the people of that country want to get a lock or a sale, they have to come to America for it; if they want to reap anything in a harvest, some man in America must furnish the machine; if they want a vessel that shall plow the seas and move triumphant over the deep, they have to get their ideas from the naval architecture of America. I remember when a boy my young heart felt fluttered, not with pride, but with shame when I read the inquiry of Dar- win "Who reads an American book?'7 Since that time historians by the number rise and take their places with the standard authors of the world. By the side of Gibbon, Hume and Robinson and the later historians come Bancroft and Prescott, in literature that takes a place in the classic gal- axy of the world. The forms of sculptured beau- ty that have come to us from the chisels of the old Greeks are now almost rivalled by one whom America sends to the land of arts. Educational institutions, freedom, Christianity and piety in all its forms have advanced in this country be- yond the progress of any nation ©n the face of the earth within the period of time that has made us a nation. Our law makers are read as authorities the world over on questions of nation- al law, and the disquisitions of our statesmen have a place side by side with the most celebrated publicists of the word. In every department of human progress, in all that belongs to us as an eminently christianized and civil people, we are behind no people in the world. This has been the work of but a few years; but in this race of national progress, we have achieved wonders and marvels that attract the attention of all mankind. There is not a man in the world who wears a glit- tering diadem on his brow that has not been looking at the progress of America with a senti- ment of awe, and there are no people on this earth, down-trodden and oppressed as they may be, who have not turned their eyes towards America — as a Mussleman turns his face towards Mecca — with aspirations in their hearts, that if they cannot come here and live under the broad aegis of this Government, their children shall do it. And better still, by-and-by, under the moral influence of the institutions of America, their own unhappy country may at last arise above oppression, and secure to their poster- ity the liberties which we here enjoy. Every man in this country who is under the benign and protecting influence of our Government has been
able to share and enjoy property to himself, and the fruits of his labors. The inventive minds of labor, in ordinary and extraordinary forms ; all have their labors secured to them by the Govern- ment in which we live. If the mind is inspired with ambition for the highest walks of life, or if humble in its sphere, it is secure in all it loves to do; and everywhere the artisan, the farmer, the lawyer, the merchant, the manufacturer — all men feel alike, and share alike, the benign influence of this Government, so that now, rising step by step and higher and higher, she has got upon the topmost Alpine range, and while she stands there the world looks on in awe and admiration. And the question of the hour is, shall she, after having reached that point, and got upon the summit, and remain- ed there long enough to secure the admiration of the world— shall she thus fling herself headlong from the summit ? That is the question of the hour, and it is a question for this Convention and the people of America to consider. If that disaster shall come— if this stupendous suicide shall be committed, it will be the greatest fall the world has ever witnessed. And I trust that some new poet of the Fall will utter the shriek of hu- manity as she makes the downward plunge — and that from the abyss, the cry of agany may come — " in the lowest deep — a lower deep still threatens to devour me."
I believe we have no right to commit this act of suicide. We should disregard the rights of ourselves and of our children and of humani- ty. We have no right to break doAvn all confi- dence in popular government. Look at the man of the red shirt in Italy — Garribaldi. Poor, un- happy, glorious Garribaldi! What must be the opinions of such a heart as his when he hears the news from America. Will not he say in his hum- ble and unostentatious home, "Why shall I struggle then ? Why shall the Po run red with rich blood when after all the struggle Italy must go back into the embrace of military despotism and monarchy? If America could not stand, how can Italy hope to do so? With such a start, with such men, with such ancestors to keep a government like that — if America could not hold on and keep up her institutions, why should my powers be exerted to make a government of that sort on the beautiful plains of Italy." We have no right thus to be the friend of the despotisms we are waning against. For this sacred trust did Washington rise — for this holy purpose were these institutions built.' And men who are faith less to their trust cannot escape the ignominy and contempt which will be sure to follow.
Mr. President, I, for one, shall take no hand in this national suicide. I will not be false to my country, false to humanity and false to my allegiance. Now let me consider this resolution.
193
"Resolved, That at present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connec- tion with the General Government; but, on the contrary, she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles, as will secure peace as well as the rights and equality of all the States/'
There is no adequate cause, says the resolution ; I grant it. But still we have a cause to complain. There must be some cause, real or imaginary, to have produced the effects which are now visible all through these States. Such public disorders have never presented themselves before. We have had critical periods before, but no trouble like the present, and one of the greatest difficul- ties about these troubles is their intangibility of character. Our sentiment of honor is assailed; our rights are invaded; not bylaw, but by de- clared purposes, and our equality is practi- cally denied. Our sentiments of honor are wound- ed; our sensibilities are hurt, and there are dog- mas and constitutional propositions rife in the land, which, if ripened into action would materi- ally disturb us. The main cause, but not the only cause is this African question. That African ques- tion itself, has been exasperated, and intensified by other considerations which are not glanced at, except very incidentally in the report, and they have not been illustrated by any member who has arisen on this floor. The agitation of this slavery question is the most prominent cause of our public disorders ; but behind that and co- operating with it is another cause, and that is the par;y spirit in this land; and that has arisen out of the immense patronage at the Federal head— a fruitful source of corruption, dividing and destroying the independence of our public men, and getting up a condition in political organiza- tions which will seize, in all quarters, North and South, every element of fanaticism which may be valuable as a political power in the political condition of the day. We know enough of party among us — we need not go out of the State of Missouri to be assured of that fact; that parties, especially in times of excitement, will avail themselves of ev- ery obtainable element around them — whether fanaticism or anything else — party will avail it- self of everything around it that can be converted into political capital. What is the result? One section of the country will be arrayed against the other, so that there is a positive emulation in par- ties in this country, and has been for twenty-five years, and between political organizations in this country, to see who can be most successful in con- trolling that element which will enable men to mount up those steeps that statesmen climb.
I do not propose to go into the anti-slavery agita- tion, but I have some views in regard to the ques- tion which, not having been submitted by others, I will endeavor to present. It is said by the Abo- litionists of the North, that slavery is not only a
sin, but it is a crime — that it is the sum and sub- stance of all other crimes in the decalogue. These are men who have representatives in such char- acters as Phillips and Garrison. They say the Con- stitution of the United States is a covenant with hell, and that there is no provision in it which re- cognizes the relation of master and slave — that it is against the Divine law, and therefore they are for the destruction of our present Constitution. The Republican party of the North say, we stand between you and the Abolitionists ; we rise up as an intermediate party ; we do not claim to interfere with slavery in the States . The Abolitionists say it is a crime everywhere, that it is the crime of the age — that it is a human iniquity every- where, and it must be destroyed. The Repub- lican party say no, we will not touch it in the States; we have nothing to do with it> in the States. It is surrounded by constitutional guarantees in the States, and more than that, we have that provision which makes the Fugi- tive Slave Law obligatory upon every man; but in regard to slavery in the Territories, they say that cannot be. Why? Now, just here wo find the Abolitionists and the radical Republicans meet. The Republican does not say the Consti- tution of the United States is a covenant with hell and against the divine law. He does not think that the institutions of the South are ab- solutely wicked, but when they come to the argu- ment why it shall not go into the Territories, then, they take up the line of argument furnished by the Abolitionists, and they say it is a curse and a bio"- upon the country. Take the view that was given by Senator Baker — and I was sorry to see it, for he is my friend — because I looked upon that man as possessed of genius, and looked to his future rise — take his view as given in the Senate of the United States, and he says it is a black spot upon America. So when yon come to argue with the Republicans why slavery should not be extended there, they take up the position of the Abolitionists, and declare it is im- moral, a blight, a curse and a black spot on our institutions, and, although we won't trouble it or attempt to wipe it out within the boundaries of the States, it shall not extend beyond the bound- aries. Well, now, in the best and most fraternal spirit, under the promptings of fraternal regard, under a state of mind which will enable me to pardon much where I see it associated with patriotism— in a fraternal spirit I would say to the people of the North, I will be conscious of your virtues and a very little blind to your faults, and in that spirit let me suggest to you some of the improprieties of that argument. You do not deny that the relation of master and slave i^ recog- nized by the Constitution. You say it is a consti- tutional right that the master should take back his fugitive from service. Now, if we were founding a government this day, we should have
194
the element of the African among us and the element of the Indian — we should have to deter- mine among ourselves what (if any) part of the rights should be conferred on the black man, in the distribution of power in the government that we were going to make. In the formation of this government you could, if you though t so, take the ground that the relation of master and slave is void. But when living under the Constitution of the Un'ted States, supporting the Constitution itself — that fundamental charter by which all our actions must be measured — tell me what right you have to say that slavery is a sin ? Tell me what right you have to say that slavery is immoral? Tell me by what right you say it is a curse? Tell me by what right you say, as a member of the Ameri- can Confederacy, a supporter of the Constitution of the United States — what right have you to say it is a black spot on our institutions? What- ever is constitutional must be right. The politi- cal right of government is not a system of ethics — it is not a code of morals — nor is it an elabora- tion upon the virtues, and charities, and benevo- lence of the human soul. Of all practical things in the world government is the most practical. The Constitution of the United States is not an essay upon the rights of man; it is not an essay upon ethical doctrine, but it is practically laying down a government which is designed to secure the rights of every man and every citizen. Of all prac- tical things in this world, I repeat, government is the most practical. It is nothing more than an ac- tual scheme by which the greatest benefit is to be brought about to the greatest number of people. The object is to secure certain rights — life, lib- erty and property. If you want any other sort of government you have to go to the Utopian dreams of Plato. You might find in the Consti- tution which John Locke puzzled his understand- ing over— you might find some Utopian scheme in regard to government. But the men who framed our Constitution were not Platos nor Lockes. They were practical, sensible gentle- tlemen, and knew well how to sacrifice a theory and make out of it some practical good. Don't you see, if you say slavery is a sin, that you charge that document itself with being a corrupt and immoral document ? If slavery be a sin and recognized by the Constitution, the Constitution itself is a sinful and immoral document. Do you mean that, or have you only availed yourself of it in party strife, that you might fire the fanaticism around you, and beat the Democracy, and elevate yourselves ? If you take that ground, you cannot do it without imputing immorality to the instru- ment which came from our fathers, an everlasting work, I trust — you impute to them dis- honor— you say within itself it is corrupt. I do not know what you think of it on careful reflection, but it seems to me
you must lose in some degree your allegiance to the instrument itself, when by your argument you impute to it the character of an immoral and sinful document. Such an argument is offensive. It is an assumption of superiority you have no right to claim. You may be more learned than the framers of the Consti- tution, but you impute to them nere-sarily, dishonor, and you offend our private character and you wound our self-respect in doing it. — I was uttering just such words as these, (being a Black Republican, and especially showing mypnn- ciples by battling against Lincoln during the last canvass,) in the Military Garden of New York, when a gentleman in the crowd said: "Sir, you seem to be a fair man, and you tell me this ter- ritorial question is only important in one respect, and that is that the dogma of Republicanism makes it offensive. Sir, I am a candid man, and I think you are so, and I would like to have you tell me how I have been offensive in wanting slavery prohibited in the territories. I do not mean to do anything offensive. I like the people of the South, and I respect them." " Sir," I re- plied, " I think it is offensive. Do you not see practically that there are fifteen slave States, but you will have no more such; you tolerate such as have slavery, but you will not have any more such. You say practically in regard to the common territory — you say practically in regard to the Government, that the people can go there just as Avell as we can; but you say when a man South comes to the territory he must put himself in quarantine until he rids himself of a disease and gets cured of a black plague, and then he can come in and not before. Now, sir, that is offensive." Said the man in reply, " I believe it is ; and I tell you candidly, I never looked at it in that light before; I looked upon it as a political arrange- ment— a mere question of political economy ; ac- cording to my views, it being better that the South should have no slaves in the territories, I thought I was exercising a power for the benefit of that people. I thought I was taking from them a burden to their intelligence and safe progress. That is precisely the position the Republican party occupy, or numbers of them now in the great crisis of this country. "Where is the conservative Republican that won't say : " Well, I will stop calling my sister hard names; I won't say, every time the family meet, that there is a sister that is deformed— she has got a cancer at her heart, she has got a plague spot; for it is not sis- terly to say it, and no man ought to say it who loves the Union, no man can say it without hurting the sensibilities and wounding the honor of those who have their institutions among them." We ought not to say it out of respect to our fathers, for they were respectable gentlemen and practi- cal, and they dealt with it in a way every Repub- lican in this land ought to admire, and would,
195
but for the hates gendered by these party con- tests, and stirred and inflamed by means of the power accumulated at the Federal head — that is loosening and weakening the power of this Gov- ernment. It is that which makes defalcation an epidemic in the land. It is that which almost prevents a man from having the moral courage, on the floors of Congress, to declare the independ- j ent and honest convictions of his own mind, lest it might impinge between him and some party. : If this Government lives, it must be through the i honest and independent exercise of those who are to make our laws, and especially to make our policy.
How did our fathers treat this question of slavery when they came to form the Constitu- : tion, after they had fought in partnership? They resolved to determine in council, whether they could live together under it upon such prin- j ciples as would accomplish the general object and design of the perpetual blessing of self-gov- j eminent. Now, they were men who differed es- sentially in many respects. The pilgrim was quite different from the cavalier; the Huguenot j was quite different from each, and the Germans were another race. They had various notions of policy, not practically, but abstractly, upon the j slavery question. But when they went practically ! to work to build up the Government. What did j they do ? The first thing they saw was the red man, | more populous and troublesome to our ancestors, i The trouble of their descendants is that of the black man, for we have effectually disposed of ( the red man and he is in the course of ultimate \ extinction. But the first question which came up to our fathers, was, what shall we do with the j red man? "Well, that depends practically, says j the statesman, "upon what sort of a man he is ; I whether we can confer upon him any powers ; we are no Platonists, or theorists now, because we are going to build a Government— lay the foundations of power and distribute it, and de- clare rights and define them ; and what shall be the rights of the Indian ? He is a human being, within the circle of the humanitarian, and with- in the circle of the Declaration of Indepen- | dence, because he was created, and the question is, what shall we do with him. He is a savage — a barbarian, wild and untamed; he will not work and we cannot civilize him; he is impregnable to all influences of civiliza- tion. Shall we make him President or Vice Presi- dent— eligible to any office — to a seat in the Cabi- net, in the Senate, or a member of Congress, or of the General Assembly, or a Justice of the Peace, or give him the right of suffrage. You know they could not say it without stultifying themselves — they would cease to be the men of the Revolution if they had uttered such doctrine. But they said we will endeavor to repress these savage virtues which take the shape of larceny,
and that ot^er power which takes the shape of revenge, and we will not give him power, but we will treat him with the utmost kindness, and let him sing his death songs, and let him go to his happy hunting ground in peace. Having dis- posed of them, they turn to the black man, and the question arose, what place shall he have? What is he? He is a savage, a barbarian, brought by Portugal from the shores of Africa, where his condition was es- sentially barbarous. He was brought from his country piratically, and put upon this country by the mother government. He is a little different from the Indian in one respect; he can be made to work, especially in a warm climate, and be- cause he will work, therefore he is accessible to civilization and Christianity — they will greatly operate on his moral and physical nature. We cannot turn him loose, but we must make the best use we can; we must make him subject to a superior will; and his nature is such that he must be subject to a superior will, and one of the most remarkable things is that he lives only by subjection and the will of a superior race. If left to himself he can accomplish no result; he goes down in the descending scale of deterioration. But under the superior will of a better race he can be taught the benefits of civili- zation. As I shall attempt to show you in the concluding portion of my remarks, his place in the world is a most important one. Our fathers, therefore, as wise men, did not trust the Govern- ment in incompetent hands; and, therefore, when the negro was excluded from participation in the affairs of government, he was excluded upon the same principle that we exclude the insane from par- tic ipation in political affairs. It rests upon the ground that society has the right,in building a gov- ernment for its own protection,to exclude from par- ticipation in its own power those who are incom- petent to use that power for the general good. It is upon that ground, perhaps unwisely, that we have excluded the better part of creation from participation in political power. It may be a mis- take, but woman has so many high and great duties to perform in her sphere, and so necessary is her influence in another direction, that instead of giving her political power, our fathers said, women shall govern the nursery of statesmen. You shall govern the family household. You shall train up your children so that when they come to manhood, they will save the State. Now, have such exigencies arisen as to authorize us to depart from the plan of action which our fathers marked out. Now, I ask my Republican friends, what are you going to do with the African. You leave the African where he is. You only say he ought not to go west of the Mississippi. You yourselves do not propose to admit him to any participation to the political power of this land.
196
Mr. President, I am not here to-da}r to defend the institution of slavery. There is only one tri- bunal on earth in which I will condescend to de- fend it, and that is a tribunal outside of the Uni- ted States. If I should ever meet the Czar of Russia, or the Emperor of Austria, or the King of Prussia, and they were to talk about the blot and curse of slavery upon American institutions, I might hold commune with their majesties. But before I entered into an argument I would say, Czar, Emperor and King, hold up your hands. If their majesties did it, I would say they are red with blood— they are wet with the blood of crushed and crucified Poland; the blood of mar- tyrs— white people — is on your hands; and now, Prussia, you may take down your hands, but Czar and Emperor still hold yours up. And now I see upon your garments precious blood more recently shed — the blood of Hungary, the white people also. And if not a lady, I would say to Queen Victoria, although she is a good woman, and a woman of kind feeling. I would say to her, that blood of Ireland is on your hand woman as you arc. And now your majesties, why is it that you use your power — your standing ar- mies—why is it that you will crush out of white men every aspiration that burns instinctively for liberty, and yet go upon a crusade against Afri- can slavery. I would like to ask your majesties this question : are you not in favor of the contin- ued savageism of the African, because you are not afraid of him ; the African cannot hurt your diadems, but the white man may.
Mr. President, as you perceive, I have already said enough to show that our Southern friends are wrong. They have left us, have abandoned the strong holds of government, and left us single handed to fight the battles. Now let Missouri do the work of the seceding States. Let us stand firm in these strong holds, builded by our fathers for such a crisis as this.
By your leave, Mr. President, I will read a prac- tical document which has just come from Arkan- sas. It is a letter addressed by a committee of Union men, delegates in the Convention now in session at Little Rock. It is addressed to Sample Orr and myself, and is as follows :
Little Roce, Axk., March 9, 1861. Messrs. Sample Orr and U. Wright :
Gentlemen : We, the undersigned, have been ap- pointed a committee, on the part of the Union Dele- gates id the State Convention now convened a,t this place, to correspond with you, in order that we may understand, sustain and co-operate with each other, as we ai e mutually interested in the great efforts now being made to preserve on honorable terms, if possi- ble, "our Constitutional rights in the Union."
We stand in our Convention a firm, unwavering Union phalanx of forty to thirty-four Secessionists; but we cannot stand alone. Our eyes turn anxiously to the position taken by the Border States; and al- though Aikansas was not expected to take a conser-
vative stand, permit us to assure you we will not hes» itate to cast our lot with those States, and unite with them in protecting our rights and our sacred honor We doubtless, as border States, are mutually look* ing with great interest to the positions of our respec- tive Conventions, as the action of each would be more or less influenced by that of the others could they be known.
We send you this (by mail, as the telegraph is so treacherous) that you may know our position, and would be pleased to learn yours in return at an early day. It appears to be the unanimous desire amongst the Union friends here that a National Convention be called.
With sentiments of the highest regard we subscribe ourselves, Your obedient servants,
A. W. DIN SMOKE, II. T. THOMASON, J. STILWELL.
I took the liberty under a carte blanche from Mr. Orr, to write back the greeting of the Con- vention of Missouri to Arkansas, and expressed pleasure and delight at the reception of such a communication from them, and to assure Arkan- sas that she should not stand alone in this great and noble struggle, but that by her the State of Mis- souri will also stand, rallying round both would be the border slave States of the Union, working not to suffer dishonor, not to submit to degreda- tion,because these words are not imputable to freo men and men born under such a Government as this, and reared under institutions left by our ancestors. Who but a craven- would submit to degradation and dishonor £ But this question is what? Is it honor or deg- radation? Some may consider that dishonorable which another would feel it to be the proudest act and sentiment of his life. I likewise under- took to say, and perhaps I had not the authority to do so, but I did not put it in the positive, that Missouri woidi declare in Convention, that there was now no adequate cause for dissolu- tion— but that on the contrary there were strong reasons why we should remain in the Union and adjust our difficulties through the in- strumentality of the great means furnished us by our ancestors; that we were opposed to secession either in theory or practice; that we were opposed to coercion, and that we would ask the authority at Washington and seceding States, to forbear— to stay the arm of military power; that we would call, likewise, a general Convention as the only legal and authoritative mode of effecting permanent adjustment of our difficulties; and I likewise thought it probable that if Virginia called a Convention of the Bor- der States, Missouri would send delegates to appear in that body, and that finally, strongly attached }o the Union, holding allegiance to the Government, we would take all means in our power, anc' .especially those provided by the Constitution for x\.^z correction of our d borders;
197
and that likewise looking to an adjustment, we should never lose sight of the idea that Ave must make the circle of adjustment, wide as the Union. I trust I have only anticipated history in the mis- sive which I sent.
On motion of Mr. Welch (Mr. Wright giving way) the Convention adjourned until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Convention reassembled at 2 o'clock. Mr. Wright. Mr. President: Since the ad- journment, I have ascertained from a personal friend and one of my colleagues, whom I respect highly, and whom I deem to he a patriot— a Re- publican member of this Convention— that he materially misconceived me in some of my utter- ances ia the morning speech, and as others may have misconceived me likewise, I deem it entirely proper that I should set myself right before this Convention in regard to the positions I actually did assume. My colleague thought that I at- tributed to the Republican party the design in the Territories, to distribute political power to the African, and to give him a participa- tion in the exercise of political power, either as a voter or as qualified for other offices which were denied to him in the States. I must have been very unhappy in my expression to have au- thorized such a construction as that; for it was my purpose and the line of my argument to show that the Republican party had no such de- sign at all. On the contrary, the absence of any su h effort on their part I used as a circumstance to show that they did not disagree with our fath- ers in the actual use they made of the red man and the black man. I acquit most cheerfully the Republican party of any such design. I do not believe they have any such design, and I go one step further to say, that I do not believe that the great body of the Republican party did really design to insult and wound the honor of the Southern people. I cannot but make a just discrimination between the Abolitionists who are represented by such men as Wendell Phillips and Lloyd Garrison, and the great body of the Re- publican party. I do not believe that the Repub- lican party design deliberately to wound the hon- or of their brethren South, and this belief is one of the reasons why I have no fear whatever, that we can make an adjustment with our Republican brethren at the North, which shall be perfectly satisfactory to all the border S:ates of the Union, and if they will make such an adjustment with the Border S;atcs, our Southern brethren will be left without excuse, if they do not come back in- to the brotherhood of these States.
Since the adjournment, likewise, I have had the pleasure of a conversation with my very intelli- gent and logical friend from Marion, and I find that there are still some lingering errors in his mind which I would like him to get rid of, because
I am proud of his intellect, and was proud many years ago when I saw him leaving the walks of private life, and embarking in the profession of law. I heard one of his early efforts, and marked him as a man who would rise in the State, and make a character for himself that would be high- ly honorable. And now, with your permission, Mr. President, and the permission of this body, let me go back to make an effort, humble though it may be, to rid that fine and clear thinking in- tellect of the error into which I conceive it has fallen.
I object to secession, not only for the reasons that I have already urged, but because it is a theory which, like all theories about government, and everything else, is apt to take the concrete form of action. Theories that are purely abstract, are not hurtful, but the secession theory is hurt- ful, Mr. President, especially in this that it carves out, not a revolutionary right, but a constitution- al and peaceable right ; and if this Government can be destroyed by secession, there are men who would exercise a peaceful, constitutional right, who would yet pause a long time before they would run the hazards of a revolution. Many men in the South have been seduced by this false theory to take a position antagonistic to their country because they thought it only an exercise of a pacific constitutional right.
One word more on secession, and I will leave the subject. It seems to me that the theory of secession is a theory that can be illustrated by Shakspeare V'Jointed Snake," an animal made up of integral parts, susceptible of disintegration, and it is said of that snake, that when one ap- proaches it, it flings itself to pieces, it becomes disjointed, but it has the capacity to close and be itself again. Take the illustration, and let the logical mind of my friend from Marion draw the conclusion. What is it that disintegrates the entire snake? It is the will of the entire snake— it is not the separate volition of a joint, but it is the wiU of the entire animal; and if it can be disinte- grated by that will, the same power puts the parts together. So that, logi eally, this power of di>in- tegration, this power of separation, this argument which makes a jointed snakj of these United States, is the will and volition of all, and not the will and volition of the separate parts.
Again, it is said by the advocates of secession that the Government of the United States is an agency, created by the States. I have answered that argument, I trust, by showing that they made a government whose powers were not only delegated to it, but prohibited in the States. A residuum only was reserved. Bat let it be grant- ed, for the sake of argument, that the Govern- ment of the United States is in some sense an agent created by the States. What sort of an agent is it? The argument is used only for the purpose of reducing, by a simple analysis, this
198
beautiful and complex structure— the features of which I have endeavored, and most imperfectly, in my opening speech, to explain — to the relation of a principal to an agent, and in order to show that it is nothing more than the execution of a power of attorney on the part of the States to the General Government, with a revocable power on the part of the States to destroy the agency at any moment they may choose. But Judge Redd is too good a lawyer not to know that while generally the prin- cipal who makes the power of attorney, can revoke that power, yet whenever the power which creates the agency, couples an interest with it, it is no longer revocable. So that the effort to derive the right of secession by reducing our Government in its admirable and Avonderful structure, to the simplicity of a power of attorney, fails in this, that the agent they make and speak of, has, by the very terms of the power of attor- ney, a large interest in the subject matter of the power, and that the principal himself, puts him- self under limitations and prohibitions, and vests rights in other parties which are beyond his con- trol, and without the power of his revocation.
I will proceed, as well as I may with the gener- al line of my argument where I left off. I was speaking of the actual ills which disturb us; of the causes which create disquietude, of the evils which bring about not harmony but discord, of those effects which disturb the tranquility and peace of this nation ; and I pointed out some of them. One of the evils is apprehension of the exercise of the power and patronage of the General Government by the sectional party in power, distributing its influence through the slave States, by conferring office upon individuals. Mr. Seward, the philosopher of Auburn and martyr of Chicago, said in his Madison essay during the compaign, that the people of the North wanted free speech, free press and free mail; and the people of the South, said he wished to use these instrumentalities, through the patron- age of the General Government, for the purpose of disturbing the institutions of the South. They said he intends, under that power, to disseminate incendiary documents, to abuse the liberty of speech by representing slavery as a curse, and to secure the spread of those doctrines by men in office who will hold influence and power, and gradually and insensibly, in our very midst, there will be a pow- er with instincts at war against us. I do not pause upon the strength of that apprehension. I do not stop to question the propriety, or to de- bate the propriety, of breaking up a government such as we have upon an apprehension like that; hut, Mr. President, you perceive that, underlying this slavery agitation, there is another evil which promotes it and gives power to it at every step, and that is the evil that I hinted at in my open-
ing— I mean the immense power of patronage accumulated in the head of the General Govern- ment, which has increased and is increasing con- tinually, and which ought to be diminished. And independent of the reasons which immediately would prompt us to rely upon the agency of a General Convention to furnish Southern guaran- tees, is the strong, pressing, national necessity that this power of patronage should be curbed and shorn of its proportions. There is no man- ner of reason under heaven why, in the National Convention, called particularly to adjust the slavery issues, that body of statesmen of the Norih and of the South should not be engaged in an inquiry of the best possible means by which we can cut off at their fountain head all these instrumentalities which excite our apprehension. The Cabinet officers of the Government may perhaps be left to the ap- pointing power of the President, but everything else should be taken from this General Govern- ment—everything else should be thrown into oth- er depositories. I suggest it, simply because this is a thing to be matured, and it seems to me that, when necessary, the parent source of all power, the very power by which heaven can work its ends in a government— the people— should take this matter into their hands, and effect the reform. Perhaps the proper plan would be to distribute the other powers in the States— to let the several Congres- sional Districts, or their Representatives in Con- gress, determine who shall be the men to fill the offices. Every statesman in the country would see that this cherished doctrine of State rights would be advanced by it; that the General Gov- ernment would be shorn of a power which can be used hurtfully against them; that their municipal and domestic institutions would all be secured against any possible interference by the Federal head. There is another good consequence which would result from it sometimes : In the mad rage of parties, removals from office take place, which are the consequence of party prejudice. A good officer may have his head cut off, in a Pickwick- ian sense, by the President and his advisers, who has the independence of thought to say something at war with the policy of the Administration. Now, if the Administration do not appoint, there is no temptation to the improper exercise of the power of removal.
But a word in regard to free speech, free press and free mail. We live under a Constitution, thank God, which enables eveiy man to speak just what he chooses, print just what he chooses, write exactly what he chooses, without calling upon the Government to say what he shall speak, what he shall write, or what he shall preach. That is the glorious freedom of the press; that is the glorious freedom of speech. But who ever thought that, although a man can speak what he chooses and write what he chooses,
199
and publish what he chooses, he is irresponsible for what he speaks, and writes, and prints ? Cer- tainly, our fathers would not think so, and the men who made our Constitution did not think so; for while these essential guarantees of liberty are all preserved, side by side with them goes the re- sponsibility for every word we utter, for every word that we write, every word that we print. L' the Republican party really do design to make use of the instrumentalities of free speech, and free press, and free mail, to utter feelings antagonistic to the peace, and welfare, and domestic security of the people of the slave States, they are guilty of a great and grievous error. They are evincing a want of fraternal spirit. But I do not believe they have any such design, and I am quite sure that they will show by their action in this adjust- ment with the border States, that they have no such purpose in view. In an excited political contest, we all know enough of party to know the extremes to which men will go, and especially if an antagonism be created in the popular mind. There is a wonderful distinction between the phi- losopher of Auburn in the canvass, and his speeches in the Senate of the United States. Un- questionably he made the most of this slavery agitation in that canvass. Unquestionably, with his potent eloquence, and his mental resources, rarely equalled by the politicians of this country, he touched every chord of the Northern heart that was capable of a vibration. But when he comes to the Senate of the United States, and especially when he occupies the post of Premier of this Ad- ministration, the whole current of his thoughts and ideas is changed. The man who was radical on the stump and in debate, availing himself of all the blunders which had been committed at Charleston and Baltimore, seizing with avidity every antagonism brought out by extreme plat- forms in the South, when he went before the peo- ple in that canvass and traversed the Western and Eastern States within the line of free soil, making a slight departure in honor of Missouri but making here no speech, he unquestionably availed himself as a partisan of all the elements of success that were around him, and the blunders of rival parties, and the extreme dogmas which were urged on the other side.
Organized agitation in the South was na- turally followed by organized agitation in the North, and at last the raging fires of party strife ran over this country, igniting everything that was combustible. There was a quiet, modest craft, that had no ignitable or combustible material on its bosom, that tried to make its quiet way in the wrath and tempest of the public mind; but it was unheeded, save in my native State, Virginia; save in the State of Kentucky, her daughter, and her natural ally, Tennessee ; but out of these regions, this quiet, mo-
dest, patriotic craft, found no admirers and sup- port.
It is a grand mistake, I think, Mr. President, to suppose that we are now in the condition in which we wrere then. Then the fires of party were burning; all their camp-fires were lit, and all the instrumentalities which an active partisan combat can bring to bear, were put into active ope- ration. But the temper and spirit of the men who engaged in that contest is not the temper and spirit which animates them now. I was one of those men engaged in that contest. I tried as I always do, to take a patriotic and a conservative part in the affairs ©f this country, but I suppose I was a party man, and struggled for my party, and did the best I could to defeat the present President of the United States and his policy. But am I here this day and in this Convention, before you and the world — am I this day a party man? God forbid! There is not a party platform on which I ever stood that I would not burn upon the altar of my country's peace. There is not a political dogma that ever troubled this poor brain of mine, that I would not send whistling down the wind when it interferes with the prosperity and perpetuity of my country. And there are men in all parties North and South, who are willing to burn their platform.
Sir, who is a Union man? Is it the man who says he loves his country, and there stops ? Is he a Union man ? Is he a patriot ? I deny it. Is he a Union man who stands at the corner and watches an opportunity to run out of it ? You know he is not. Is he a Union man who wants the Union preserved because he has got the Presi- dent of his choice, and has no other reason for it than that? That is sorry patriotism. I have got no respect for it. Is he your Union man who wants to preserve this Government in order to car- ry out exasperating policies that are calculated necessarily to disturb the repose and tranquility of this Government? So far from being a Union man, there is treason, moral treason in his heart. Who, then, is a Union man? It is the man who will do something for his country — who will do something to save it. What shall he do ? Some gentlemen say they would die to save the coun- try. Well, that is patriotic ; that is heroic. But a thousand deaths won't save the country. Its salvation don't depend upon such an oblation as that. You might pile patriot after patriot upon the altar of your country's peace, and the death of a thousand gallant hearts would not bring tran- quility and repose. But, fortunately, Mr. Presi- dent, no man is called upon to die for his coun- try, or for his country's peace. The coun- try don't ask that. It asks a great deal less than that. It asks what every man ought to be able to give, and give with the cheer- fulness with which the widow casts her mite, and it is smaller than the widow's mite. Seces
200
sion cannot save it, and dying for it cannot save it; but there is a small thing that can save it, and that is sacrifice. Sacrifice of what? Of liberty ? Of honor ? No ! Liberty never made such a demand, and never will, arid our country has never asked such an exaction as that from any man within it. But it does ask him to sacri- fice, what? A little pride of opinion — a few poli- tical dogmas that he has in his mind, generated in the heat of party strife, born of the desire to climb to office and get its pay — dogmas spring- ing out of constitutional construction upon the very darkest portion of the work of our fathers ; for it does happen that these very conflicts of opinion in regard to the constitutional law in this land spring out of the weakest, and most imperfect, and obscurest portions of the instru- ment that our fathers made.
I know how hard it is, by a knowledge of my own nature — I know how hard it is for this false pride of ours to surrender in a moment, and es- pecially to surrender upon demand. There is a rebellious spirit in man which fortifies error, be- cause pride of intellect is at last a great conserva- tive faculty of the human mind. Without it no man has ever made his mark in this world. It is a law of genius and of mind to have pride of intel- lect. God Almighty implanted this principle in the human heart, and it is intended to be auxiliary of the virtues; but, like every other quality which is given us, it may be abused, and our own experi- ence of ourselves teaches every man who makes an analysis of his own nature, that this great con- servative power, without which the intellect would be scarcely anything, is susceptible of abuses.
Pride of opinion is surrendered reluctant- ly by men in the very moment of of triumph, and more reluctantly still when they are ap- proached in the character of menace, and are asked absolutely to surrender that ground. I know that will be the trouble down here South, and I know that is the trouble North. Our Southern brethren will have to go through that process, in order to come back into this Union. They will feel that consistency is a virtue; that it is a jewel almost inestimable, as our Northern friends will likewise feel. But, gentlemen of the North and of the South, to that complexion you must come at last. There is no resisting an irre- sistible, logical event. You must, both of the North and of the South, give up your error, and in making the sacrifice you ennoble yourselves, because it is a sacrifice laid upon the altar of your country's peace and prosperity.
But let us look at this Territorial question for a few moments. I say some of our errors, or troubles, rather, and dogmatic opinions, have sprung from constructions of the Constitution arising out of those portions of the instrument which are most obscure. That is emphatically
true of the Territorial question. When Louisiana, our first Territory, was acquired by Mr. Jeffer- son, he had serious scruples about the constitu- tionality of the act. Mr. Jefferson was a profound statesman and philosopher; although he had no part in making the Constitution, for he was then our Minister to Paris, watching the throes of the French revolution, and he had many notions about the Federal Government which were en- tirely wrong; and one of the most interesting ex- hibitions of the influence of mind upon mind in the correction of error is furnished by the corres- pondence between him and that very unostenta- tious statesman who lived twenty miles from him, at Montpelier, James Madison. The objections that Mr. Jefferson made to the Federal Constitution were numerous ; but read the correspondence between those two great men, and you find that, one by one, his ob- jections are overthrown, and finally, when Mr. Jefferson took his seat as President of the United States, although he had been previously intoxicated, as it were, with ideas peculiar to himself, and fascinated with the grave conver- sations of the savans of France, on the nature of Government, which he deemed worthy of a place side by side with the dialogues which come down to us from Greece and Rome, and, although in many respects he was a theo- retical and speculative statesman, yet, to his honor and glory be it said, that, whenever he oc- cupied the seat of power and had practically to dispense the powers of an Administration, he was one of the greatest and most practical statesmen of the age. He knew how, at any moment, in his administrative career, to sacrifice a dogma and theory to the actual behests of the Constitu-
; tion and his duty as public administrator.
As I have already said, when we acquired the
! Territory of Louisiana by treaty from Bonaparte, he was clearly of opinion that the acquisition was unconstitutional, that the Constitution authorized the General Government to make no acquisition of territory; but, before this necessary country could be added to our Union, that it was essential there should be a Convention of the States to change the Constitution of the United States, and to make the admission legal. Such was his idea; and although the Convention never was called, though Mr. Jefferson thought it necessary; though the statesmen of this country acquiesced in the coercing necessity of the times, and let Louisiana in without a change in the Constitu- tion, yet the fact shows that the Constitution in that respect, was not deemed by the men of the Revolution to be clear and explicit. Mr. Jeffer- son thought it denied the power entirely. But from that period of time to this, we have been using it by a construction. Some undertake to derive it from the power to admit States. Others say that there is no proper and legitimate source
201
to derive the power from. Others say that it springs from the rules and regulations which Congress has a right to make in regard to Terriiorics. That, again, is ignored by others, and in the main our statesmen have come to the conclusion that, if we have the power at all, it springs from the power of acquisition and implications that follow the right to acquire. I say, therefore, in all charity, in all friendship, that the difference of opinion upon this constitutional point, is not necessarily an evidence of a want of patriotism, and one of the objects of this National Conven- tion ought to be to put that power down in plain terms. For, although the question now in regard to the territories is the slave question, in the pro- gress and the march of empire in this country, when we shall be a hundred States and not thirty- four, when one hundred glittering stars shall shine upon our National banner, where only thirty-four now shed their lustre; in the changed complexion of society — for society is always changing, espe- cially if it be a society of progress — some new question may arise in regard to this power that has no odor or tint of slavery upon it. It may be a Mormon question, or a Coolie question, or some question of which I would not dream now, but one object of the National Convention ought to be to lay down clearly, and not leave to the con- struction, of partisans the quantum of power in the General Government in regard to these Terri- tories.
Now, the Chicago Platform says that the Congress has the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Let us be fair and just. I once en- tertained that opinion myself; I entertained it for twenty years ; I learned it from such men as Clay and Webster. I learned it from every great man who figured in our annals for the last thirty years. They all affirmed the power, but all of them denied the propriety of its exercise. The Chicago Platform says that the pow- er exists in Congress. Mr. Webster took the extra- ordinary ground upon this proposition— and when he took it I began to fear I was not right in my opinion— and he was not alone in it — that the Territories were never governed by the Constitu- tion at all; that from the earliest moment of acquisition up to the period in which he spoke, Congress had never governed the Territories ac- cording to the Constitution. I was startled at the result of that opinion, because it brought me to this idea. Here is a Government of limited power, supreme within its sphere of action, that has the exercise of a power without bound. I therefore thought there was something wrong. I studied the antagonistic ideas of Mr. Calhoun, whose subtlety of intellect always puzzled mine, and sometimes did much more, I think, that is, deceived itself. But the result of my own in- vestigations upon the subject— and as a lawyer, studying the thorny pathways which carry men
over the conflicts of individuals with the Govern- ment, it being my duty to understand something about the nature of our Government — was that there was a power in the General Government to prohibit slavery in the Territories. But I never thought it was a power which should be exercised, and when the Dred Scott decision came, I had to be a convert to the views delivered by Justice Taney. But I was a convert, and I was a sincere convert. He satisfied me of my error, and he has made an argument that I think cannot be over- thrown. He has settled the power in the General Government to regulate the Territories. That far I always went. But as to the quality of that power, he has shown the error of the teachings of Mr. Webster. It had to receive the limitations in the Constitution itself, it was not to be a vagrant power turned loose careering where it may, and doing what it choose — but a power capable of doing what it says, and to be fenced in, and limited, and restricted, like all the other powers of that instrument, and by the terms of that instrument; so that I am perfectly satisfied that the General Government has no power to prohibit slavery in the Territor- ies. I am satisfied beyond all question that it has the power to regulate the Territories, and to give them government, but that it has no power under the limitations of the Constitution to deprive a man of either life, liberty or property, without the judgment of his peers or the law of the land, and therefore there is no power in that Gov- ernment to confiscate any property, or disturb any legal relations, existing in the States, whether it be that of husband and wife, parent and child, master and apprentice, or owner and slave.
But while these are my convictions, I am perfect- ly willing to admit that a man may be honest and patriotic also, who entertains an antagonistic idea, because the question is one about which not only may the human mind honestly differ, but touch- ing which the greatest statesmen and jurists of the country have differed, and have differed for forty years, and in any adjustment that I Avill offer to make with our Northern brethren, and with the Republican party— for I speak of the Republican party, giving them prominence, not with any view to impugn them, but because they are a party who constitute a large portion of the people with whom we have to make this adjustment. I shall not ask a surrender of the pride of opinion, I shall not ask anything that is inconsistent with the honor of a Republi- can, or any Northern man. A great many men in this country, and especially men who are clam, orous for the preservation of the Union, declare they love their rights, but I do not knoAV any of them that are not willing to surrender two-thirds of them at a jump. They must have their rights, they say. Therefore they go for the Crit- tenden resolutions. Well, what are your rights?
202
The Dred Scott decision says you have the right to carry slavery into all the Territories. And now you are perfectly willing to surrender, to a prohibition that will cover two-thirds of the Ter- ritories. But you will have your rights.
I wonder what these gentlemen thought about, the time that Oregon was organized. We are discussing now the abstract question of power. Can Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories ? Congress never did it but once, and that was when Oregon was organized. That was our Ter- ritory. It was the right of every Southern man, South Carolinian, Floridian, Mississippian, Ala- bamian, Louisianian and Texan, to carry slaves into Oregon. But yet here is Congress, both in the Lower House and Senate, passing the bill, and with the sanction of the President, they or- ganized one of our Territories, with the Wilmot Proviso, declaring that slavery shall never exist in that Territory. What is the reason we did not secede then ? What is the reason there was not a clamor for our rights then ? If this thing be one of principle, why did not we make a clamor about it? Why did we not secede, and take the United States forts and arsenals, &c? Why didn't we seduce the allegiance of an officer of the army ?
In looking over this broad, wonderful country of ours, there are some spots that excite a pain- ful emotion in my mind. Somewhere in Texas there is a place, small in geographical position, that is called the Alamo. I know it by history as the scene of a bloody, inhuman, uncivilized, savage massacre, in which individual heroism was slaughtered by brutal, ferocious and reck- less power; and now, as if Providence determined that such a place should never be forgotten, how- ever insignificant in point of form, it is the pre- cise place at which the laurels that were growing green upon one of the hoary veterans of this country, all turned to ashes in an hour, every twig and branch fading.
But why was it that when Oregon organized, the South did not rise in indignation ? Why was the principle violated if that is our right ? I will tell you why, and I only mention it because it furnishes the solution of our remedy in this case, a remedy consistent with the honor of every man in this land, whether of the North or of the South. We made no quarrel about Oregon,because we knew that, practically, no man would ever carry a slave to Oregon, and therefore the parch- ment on which the Wilmot Proviso was written, was not worth the material that had to be used in writing it. And so now I hold in re- gard to our Territories, whenever there is any Territory in which slavery won't go, practically by natural laws, it is idle to make a quarrel about it, and it is worse than idle to at- tempt to break up a government, in regard to the question whether there shall be a Wilmot Provi-
so or not. And one of the madnesses of the madness of the times, in the South as well as the North, is, that there are dogmatic opinions in connection with this question. There is a party, in the North, who insist upon the Wilmot Proviso upon our Territories, where a Wilmot Proviso can never practically accomplish anything; and there are mad men in the South who insist upon the dogma of protection where there can never be a slave to be protected.
Why, we have other rights besides the right to carry slavery into the regions where no sensible man would ever think of carrying one. I think we have the right, the Constitutional right of all men South to cultivate the sugar cane upon the highest glacier of the Rocky Mountains ; I do not doubt it — and do it by slave labor, too, if we can. I think if our territory is extended to the equinoctial line, we should have the Constitu- tional right to gather icicles upon the equator. There is not a political doubt about our Constitu- tional right. But, then, may I go and destroy our Government because I maintain this right, and some man denies it? And yet, Mr. Presi- dent, I would rather break up the Government upon a point such as that than upon the terri- torial question. I would rather break up this Government, in so far as any agency of mine is concerned, upon the abstract right to cultivate sugar cane upon the Rocky Mountains, or gather icicles upon the equator, than upon this territorial question, because I would know that if posterity thought of one so humble as I, they would say, instead of having a right to speak with any potent voice in favor of my country, I ought to have been under lock and key of a lunatic asylum, so that I would stand vindicated to posterity from my action on the ground that I was not respon- sible for what I did.
He must be anything but a patriot who says, " I so strongly believe in the power and duty of the General Government to prohibit slavery, that I won't consent to the organization of any terri- tory without that prohibition. I would not, if it were on the highest point of Mont Blanc, where nothing could grow and nothing could live but the chamois, and every once in a while a hunter was seen, painfully tracking his path over hollow and steep. I will never consent that anything shall be organized, unless there is a positive pro- hibition of the right to carry slaves." I say, he must be anything but a patriot; but I put him precisely in the same position and category of a gentleman, who, in the South, says, "I will break up this Government, unless I can have my rights, and among them, the right to carry slavery where I know I never will carry it."
Some gentlemen say to me, now, Major Wright, don't be too hard upon the Republicans, and don't be too hard upon seceders. And other gen- tlemen say to me, I hope that in your speech this
203
evening, you will give the seceders a lick; and another says, hit him again, provided you are striking at a Republican. [Laughter.] I have no sympathy with any such suggestions— none whatever. I have no enmity to any man in the United States. If I speak harshly and bitterly, and with emphasis, of a doctrine, it is my right to do it, but not to speak disrespectfully of a man who entertains that doctrine. I speak what I think of the doctrine of secession and its errors. I speak as I think, likewise, of the doctrines of the Anti Slavery party, but kindly to both par- ties and in a fraternal spirit; and that is the pre- cise position I ought to occupy, for if I under- stand it, Mr. President, we are to be mediators in this great necessary exigency. Mediators be- tween whom ? Now, that is a very important in- quiry. If I thought, with the gentleman from Jackson, that those Southern brethren of ours are ind2pendent States, that they have set up a successful government for them- selves, that they are no longer citizens of these United States, my mode of treatment and the conduct of Missouri towards them would be very different in point of fact from what it now ought to be. But I am willing to treat them still as in the bonds of our sisterhood, as within the glorious and patriotic circle of Union, erring, it is true, for the time being, because provoked by the improper action and wrongs of their Northern brethren. For I wish it to be distinctly and clearly understood that in this matter of difficulty, the first great primary wrong is in the North. That has led to errors in the South. And now, as mediators, what are we to do? Are we to take side with either party, or are we, in the spirit and tone of friendship, to interpose our conciliating influence between the two? As mediators must we not go to the North and say, here, now you are wrong — you are wrong in this. I say it in the kindest spirit in the world ; I know you have got some apologies I believe, in point of fact, that the in tenseness ot the excitement arises out of the unfortunate fact that the slavery question became, in 1836, for the first time in the history of our parties, an organic excitement, by being blended with the political parties and platforms of the day, and hence the antagoni-ms that arose, by making, most impro- perly, and against the advice of the wisest men in the South, the slavery question one of the planks of political platforms, and going before the country upon the excitement it produced, in order to lift yourselves into power. I know the nature of the effect, and I am willing to allow the influence of such a cause. The natural effect was to bring about political organizations upon the antagonistic ideas advanced by the two parties, and they used the elements of difference as well as they could. I believe this day that, but for Southern errors, the Republican party would not
be in existence. I believe this day that the Re- publican party owes its numbers and its triumphs, not because of hostility to slavery, but because of the idea that the Southern people were using, or attempting to use, the General Government for the purpose of extending slavery7 in the United States. The Republican party cannot stand a day upon a simple antagonism to slavery. Its power arises only from the fact that it has induced the Northern people to believe, from the action of Southern politicians, that they were seizing upon the Federal power to advance and extend the area of the slaveholding interests, independent and regardless of natural laws, those great higher laws which no constitutions can overthrow — the law of sun and cloud, moisture and heat; the laws of physical geography, the law of production and the law of temperature.
Heaven knows there are enough wrongs, both North and South, to be corrected. But it is not my part to take any other than the position of a mediator, and it will not do for a mediator to side either one way or the other. We ought to pro- ceed in the very spirit of impartiality — such im- partiality as a man can, by close scrutiny of himself, and a just and comprehensive view of all the surrounding circumstances, exercise. We ought, as mediators, to rid ourselves of every influence which self interest might improp- erly dictate, and go North and South and shake hands with gentlemen on the one side and on the other, and say, you are both wrong— you are wrong, and especially you in the North, because your sisters in the South are vulnerable. In this contest you are armed in complete mail, with no joint or crevice to leave an opening for a wound, but you are fighing with a naked adversary. There is no power in the South to hurt your insti- tutions, but there is a power in you to hurt theirs. The error therefore on your part, is greater, by reason of the inequalities of the combat. It is an unequal contest. I would not desire, Mr. Pres- ident, to give the slightest countenance to the idea that prevails with some men of the North, encouraged by some men of the South, namely : that the dangers of the Southern people are as great as they have been. I heard a gen- tleman not more than a hundred and twenty-five miles from this spot, and very near or in the capital of my State, a secession man, painting the condition of the slaveholding States, and he said of it, what ? He said, in Missouri and in the border States, it was a small thing to have the institution of slavery touched or menaced ; but it was a far different thing in the South— that there was not a husband or a father that lay down at night in the extreme South, and went to bed with his wife and little ones, without the conscious conviction that he was sleeping on a powder magazine, and that his slumbers at any mo- ment might be disturbed by the torch of the in-
fc204
cendiary, producing universal combustion. Is that the true picture of our condition? If it is, then every man South should move heaven and earth to get out of this Government. But it is false. It is an exaggeration. It is hyperbolical imagery. It is false, and yet there are men in the North who taunt us with the same idea, and they get their color and support for it by injudicious men in the South. I say there are men in the North, such as Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wade of Ohio, who have declared that the South cannot exist out of the Union; that the Union is essen- tially necessary for her preservation and the pres- ervation of her domestic peace; that the danger of servile insurrection is such that, left to herself, she would be destroyed, and that noth- ing but the power of the General Govern- ment to put down servile insurrection would be competent to meet the dangers of her situation. It is all false. It is all hyperbolical exaggeration. There is not a word of truth in it.
I have lived along time, Mr. President. Born in Virginia, I have lived more than half a century, and lived a good deal in that time, and I have not been an in- observant watcher of the condition of public affairs since I reached manhood. But in my boy- hood there were more insurrections and more feai-s of insurrections than exist now. Then Ex- eter Hall had not opened its floodgates of inflam- mation, nor had an anti-slavery society existed in the world. The strife of parties had not brought the slavery element into the political or- ganizations of the day. There is less fear of slavery insurrection now, and there is less cause for it now, than there was in my boyhood, and the reason of it is this : in proportion as you turn a black man into a civilized man, you subjugate him more perfectly to the will of his master; in other words, in proportion as you reduce his sav- age traits, you make him subject to the will of a superior race, as in wild animals subjected to the taming process— in proportion as there is moral and Christian culture in this barbarian, just in that proportion is he dominated over peacefully by the will of a superior race.
Some men would break up this nation because of a Montgomery or John Brown raid. I have only a few words in regard to such things as that. I do not believe there is a Republican in the land, of any standing in the Republican party, who is not heart and soul against a John Brown raid. But I will say to you, as i said to some gentlemen in Virginia, in the Harper's Ferry District, where, I discover, a very fine Union man is elected, and a distinguished seceder was beat; in the very Har- per's district, in the town in which John Biown was hung ; I said to them, I was very sorry, indeed, that my fellow student Wise, the Governor, had put the old Commonwealth to so great expense to dispose of a few villains and murderers and trai-
tors. I was sorry that he organized an armed host to traverse the State, and made the most warlike preparations. I said that if this scene had occurred in Missouri, we would have dispos- ed of the question in a summary manner, and would have complied with that provision of our Consiitution which entitles every man to speedy justice. No court would have been troubled. No armies organized. No troops raised. Nor would it have cost the State a single cent, be- cause the only instrumentality that would have been used would be drawn from the nearest tree, and that there was not a man in it that would not furnish the cord or raise the hemp that was neces- sary to the dispensation of justice in the case. I scorn the idea that we need the protection of the General Government to defend ourselves against John Brown raids. I feel humbled and humiliated that any such doctrine as that should be ad- vanced by any slaveholding State in the Union. We are able to protect ourselves, and the only reason why an army was sent recently to the frontier to put down a Montgomery raid, was, that there was no Montgomery raid to put down. [Laughter.]
I think I have in the main gone through the evils of which we complain, and summing them all up, you discover at last that they are best ex- pressed by this one phrase — alienated feeling, sundered affections, weakened fraternal love, the absence of a brotherly spirit between the mem- bers of this Confederacy. Sir, I would not wish to underrate that evil, or measure it below truth's proper scale. It is a great evil; it is a moment- ous ill on the people who are to live together by affection, that their affection should be sundered; and the greatest part of the evil is that it is so difficult to restore this friendly feeling once more. How can it be done? What are the modes of restoring the affections? I had some little experience in one department of the affec- tions, and I know this, that nothing but the law of kindness has ever yet been efficacious in re- storing or melting together the several parts of a whole which had suffered a rupture. I know that God has implanted in every human being this principle, that the heart will leap kindly back to kindness, and I know that unkindness is a repel- ling power. I know that no great pacification ever yet was made by either force or intimida- tion. I know that adjustment never yet sum- moned such handmaids to do her work. I know that on the contrary she invokes and goes forth alone aided by one single spirit, the most potent power in the universe to accomplish such an ob- ject, and that is the spirit of conciliation. I do not think it incompatible with that spirit that I should say to the North, yon have committed error; or to the South, we have committed error. I know some gentlemen's sympathies are with the North, and some gentle-
205
men's sympathies are with the South, and they become a little uneasy at any words that will im- pute error to either of their favorite sections. But, then, that disqualifies you for the work of media- tion. You arc not an effectual mediator, if you get yourself in such a morbid condition. You are to go out in the spirit of fairness — the spirit of justice — the spirit of kindness; and in all that you say upon this subject, you should struggle not to take a party aspect of it, and you should struggle to speak and write what the calm, im- partial spirit of history will write in regard to all our troubles. A man who goes out in such a spirit is doubly armed. He carries with him a moral power— the great omnipotent power of the universe. He will have sway. But if he takes with him any other spirit than that, if he takes with hiin the spirit of a partisan, the spirit that has no sort of charity for the errors of the North or of the South, he will fail, and he ought to fail, in his mission. It must be left to other hands to accomplish it. It can never be done by him.
Look at some striking instances in which this •spirit of pacification has been successful in our country. Turn your eyes to Ashland. Catch if you can the spirit of him whose remains lie there in honored sepulture, covered by the marble mon- ument which gratitude has placed upon his grave, and around which clusters the love of a whole people. He was our great Pacifica- tor. How did he succeed? How did he succeed in this Missouri trouble, which was the first great trouble after the formation of this •Government? What spirit did he show? Now, any man that knew Henry Clay, knew that a loftier soul never took the form of humanity — a spirit prouder of its independence and self-respect, • and holding inviolate the rights .of individuals as well as nations. Now, he is in Congress. Mis- souri knocks -at the door for admission. She knocked a long time, and it seemed as though she 'would be shut off. Strife ran high. The Union was upon the brink of dissolution. Now, mark the course of Clay— of that noble man, born in ■^irginiux, the mill-boy, the poor boy who labored I hard for his livelihood — the young man who istartedout without education, to the wilds of the "Wast,- and whose sotil was fashioned and moulded upon -a < large and sublime scale in the majestic solitudes Of this country. But he had.no educa- tion. The ^Representative from Roanoke was a finished scholar. .Here, in the halls of that Con- gress, day af.er day, occasion upon occasion, that man would rise v;ith his withering sarcasm and taunt the Speaker of the House .with a slip in I grammar, with a pronunciation that, shocked his i nervous system. He ^was led on by a gloating ; and reckless amMtioo. He had fixed bis eyes in , early youth, out in the ftfron tiers, upon the Presi- ' dency, and never lost sight of it, and always, counted and gibed the ncble-minded, grestrstatcs-
man of the West, so that there was no personal' intercourse between them. Every chord of asso- ciation was sundered. But now a country is to be saved. A compromise is to be effected. What does Henry Clay do? He takes his carriage in in the twilight of some evening. He understands that the great difficulty in the way of adjustment is that man, John Randolph. He has not spoken- to him. But now, for his country's sake, he bows his soul. His lofty nature bends because his country demands it. He takes his carriage and drives to the door of Mr. Randolph, and gives his card, saying, "Henry Clay of Kentucky wishes to see John Randolph of Roanoake, upon a ques- tion of the country's peace." He is admitted. There is an interview betwen the men, and in twenty minutes afterwards a paper is borne by the statesman of the West written by John Randolph of Roanoke, and in an hour the troubles of the country are brought to an end. He was too big a man to sacrifice his country to any personal considera- tion. He knew what was the true character of a great pacificator, and he knew the means, the only means by which pacification could be brought about. He repeated the noble example in the contest of 1832 to 1833, when the relations of Calhoun and Clay were sundered. Another con- sultation with Mr. Calhoun, his personal enemy, another personal interview sought by him, not by Calhoun, and another great attempt to save the country, by sacrificing personal considera- tions to the weal of the whole. No one who knows the relations then existing between him and Calhoun, can underrate the greatness of the •sacrifice. But he never failed. No man ever will fail who comes in this spirit, and uses such agencies and instrumentalities of power. More than that, no man ever can succeed who does not. What are our prospects for a compromise? What hopes are before us? You have seen the stand taken by Arkansas. You know what North Carolina has done. She has decided against a Convention. North Carolina and Arkansas have said, the mad waves of secession shall not over- whelm us. We stay this tide. We are strug- gling for our rights in the Union, and we will stand by the border States. But there is a sectional President in power. Have we any hopes of him? He is a Republican. He has a divided Cabinet. Some are cons rvative men, some are radical. What are the the pros- pects before us.? Well, now, first let me say, that, although suicide is getting to be epidemic I have no idea at all that this Administra- tion is going to commit suicide. I have no idea the Republican party intend to destroy them- selves. But I give it credit for great shrewdness and tact. There is one man in that Cabinet that sees all these struggles in their actual practical import. I think there are one or two men in it •vwho ha^re not the remotest idea at all of the actu-
206
al condition of public affairs. There is no reli- ance to be placed upon tliem. But, as I said, there is one man in that Cabinet who sees, with the vision of entire coolness, the whole scope of our political horizon, and knows what the ac- tual condition of this country at this hour is, and that man is Seward. He is not going to destroy himself. He, in common with the Republican party, want to perpetuate themselves. They do not wish to be mere ephemerals that live an hour or a day, but they want to perpetuate themselves and establish a Republican dynasty, after the fashion, at least in duration, of the defunct Democratic dynasty that has gone by the board. Well, how can they do so if the Union is broken. If the border States go out what becomes of the Republican party? It dies instanter, for the very moment that the bor- der States leave this Union there is no longer any distinctive characteristic belonging to the Repub- lican party, at least on the slavery question, and they have to take their chances with the people of the North in a new confederacy, and get up issues leaving out the element of slavery agita- tion.
In any aspect, therefore, in which you can view this question, it appears to me manifest that this Administration is not going to commit suicide. They are going to preserve this Union, and they can only do it by making an adjustment with the border States. And when such an adjustment is made, satisfactory to the honor and interest of these States, all men will be without excuse if they do not join.
But let us see what has been the practical ope- ration of the Republican party in the last Con- gress. This, you will say, is a speculation of mine. But let me point your attention, especially, my very clear-headed, and, if you permit me to say so, my very eloquent friend from Lewis. Permit me, since you are under a lively apprehension touching the action of the Republican party, and since, especially, you dread their dogma, the Wilmot Proviso, to call your attention to the actual conduct of this Republican party in Con- gress, since the period when they have had all the power. When our Southern brethren aban- doned us, and left us alone to fight their battles on the strongholds of the Constitution, what re- sult did they bring upon us ? If they had stayed, this Administration would have been powerless. Two departments of the Government would have been against the Administration — Congress and the Judicial department. The Senate would have been against him, the House would have been against him, and the Supreme Court would have been against him. What, then, could he do un- der our form of Government? Where was the source of any actual danger? Is any gentle- man afraid ? What is he airaid of ? What are our remedies? Can we guard against danger
which may be threatened to bring upon us? Yes, no law can be passed that is hurtful to us. If an unconstitutional law were to pass, the Su- preme Court would denounce it. He was elected by an accident — he was elected by the blunders of his adversaries — by the erroneous manner in which the campaign was fought ? gainst him. We made his victory easy, although he was a minority President. He took advantage of our error, and he got into power, and now there he is powerless. He cannot make a Cabinet minister unless you elect him. Ho cannot make an appointment to any office of high grade without your say-so. If the Southern States had not gone out, all the States that op- posed his election might have conferred with each other as to what were the actual evils to complain of. They might have met in a body through their commissioners, and set out in wri- ting what they thought were their grievances, and what they held to be the proper means of re- dressing them. Had there been such counsel as that, no such complication would have arisen as when Georgia sent her ambassador here. I strug- gled then, because I wanted to receive him, to get this Convention to adopt a resolution which would have enabled every man in this body to have listened to him with pleasure, and to practice towards him all the courtesies due to the representative of a sister State. I wanted them to adopt a resolution that this sister of ours, whether she thought so or not, was our sister still ; and, being one of the family, she had a right to talk, and talk to all the family. But it was determined, under the genius of precipitancy and hot haste, to do otherwise.
I hear a great deal said about coercion. Un- doubtedly, we are against coercion. It is not right that the Federal Government should force a State into submission. But do gentlemen con- sider the coercion which is used against us ? The only real coercion that has been used in these troubles has been used by the South against us. I will say nothing now about those acts of war of which some of the Southern States have been guilty and which, if commit- ted by an independent foreign nation, would hare fired this nation from one end to the other : of the firing on our flag; the seizing of our forts; of the capture of our treasury; of taking the ju- risdiction of the Mississippi. All these are really acts of war against the Government of the United States; and yet that Government, with a forbear- ance that is parental and benign, and worthy of all commendation, has said nothing in return, but has used the magnanimity which can be rightly used by a great Government towards it3 citizens — has been doing what Edmund Burke asked of Lord North, in the time of George the Third, to do towards these colonies. This Government has thus far acted in
207
the spirit of conciliation. It has forhorne; it has not undertaken to resist force by force, he- cause I suppose there is no doubt of it in the world that every act committed by our Southern brethren, and especially the act of organizing a government, and taking jurisdiction of the Mis- sissippi river, and seizing the forts, are all acts of war, which would not be tolerated by this Gov- ernment if practiced by any nation upon the face of the earth. But it was not of that partic- ularly that I wish to speak. I wish to speak of another sort of coercion that has been practiced towards us, and I fear it was intended — I mean the coercion arising from holding such views as these :
"Well, now, it is idle to dispute about secession, or the right of secession. — The fact is, South Carolina has gone; and then Alabama says, the fact is, South Carolina has gone, and Ave may as well go also. And little Florida said she would go too, and so of the rest. All these are facts, and must be treated as facts." Well, what is the meaning of that? Why, the logical sequence is, that the fact is to operate on us to determine our action. In other words, we are to do now what we would not have done, or thought of doing, unless these examples had gone before us. I say that is practical coercion. Then, again, their resolves in regard to the internation- al slave trade, cutting it off and not letting us car- ry our negroes among them. That is coercion likewise, and it is unfriendly coercion, it is unsis- terly. But let it pass. I dismiss the whole sub- ject of coercion upon the ground that we live in a Government in which no great results can ever be brought about by the exercise of power.
Now, after the South abandoned, us leaving the Federal Government in the possession of the Re- publican party, what has that party done? My friend from Lewis said it had not abandoned the Chicago platform. He ought to take that back, because it is not just. You remember that, at the last session of Congress, there was a little sprinkling of slavery in New Mexico, created there by Territorial Legislation for the especial benefit of the officers of the army, who wishing body servants to go with them when they were ordered into the Territory, and had no power to refuse, desired them to clean their boots, brush their clothes, and attend to other work of that sort, and they took their slaves, and as some of them had been sued for taking slaves where the laws had prohibited slavery, the Ter- ritorial Legislature recognized slavery for the special accommodation of those officers. Now, one of the parties in the Lower House of Con- gress, in accordance with the platform made in Chicago, moved to repeal that law, and they did repeal it. The Senate rejected the measure. This was before the Presidential victory had been achieved. But since that victory, seeing
that they have the whole power of the Govern- ment in thir hands, thev have organized three Territories, two of them south of Oregon, and yet no man of the Republican party has risen in that body, either in the Senate or the Lower House to attach a Wilmot Proviso to an act of organization. What does that prove? Is not that a surrender of the party platform ? Is not that a patriotic evidence of a disposition on their part to meet the issue in the spirit of kindness? They had the power, why didn't they use it? If you say that the action of the South nrobably has scared them; very well I do not care what is the cause. If you put it down to the ignoble sen- timent of fear and not of patriotic inspiration, be it so. But the fact is nevertheless that, with the power in their own hands, they have organ- ized three Territories, and they have just done it, and two of them are south of Oregon, and no Republican in the Senate, not even Wade, nor Hale, nor the radical Sumner, nor the clear- sighted, far-seeing Seward, nor Lovejoy in the Lower House — whom, by the by, I don't regard as a Republican at all, but as belonging to the school of Wendell Phillips and Lloyd Garrison— has risen to ask that a Wilmot Proviso be attached to the act. I think it is a clear and unmistakable evi- dence of a disposition on their part to surrender dogmas to the welfare and the peace of their country,
On motion of Mr. Watkins, the Convention adjourned.
SIXTEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 19th, 1861.
Met at 10 o'clock.
Mr. President in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
Journal read and approved.
Mr. Weight. Mr. President — I am admon- ished, by several considerations, to be as brief as possible in the remarks I feel it my duty to offer to the Convention this morning. First of all, I find the instrument of language perishing — that my voice is failing; and then, again, I know I have occupied, largely, the attention of this body, and I feel a delicacy that every gentleman will at once appreciate— in occupying so much of your time, when there are other wise and patriotic gen- tlemen who have minds to think and lips to utter.
To me, one of the most alarming signs of the times, in the way of doctrine, is the idea that has been suggested by our Republican friends of the North, touching the re-organization of the Su- preme Court. Now, I don't attach much import- ance to the mere fact that the Republican party hold that the decisions of the Supreme Court are
208
not binding upon all departments of government; for we know, historically, that that was the pre- cise position taken by Jefferson, and followed by Jackson. In the days of the Hero of the Hermit- age, whose spirit, I trust, is exercisiug an active Solicitude in behalf of a country he loved and tried to preserve — in behalf ©f that Union touch- ing which he uttered a sentiment that struck every patriotic heart in this land— it is well known that during his administration he took the ground and his supporters took the ground, that While the decisions were binding in all cases that went before that tribunal for judgment, yet those issues were not binding upon the co-ordi- nate departments of Government. If our Repub- lican friends had stopped there — although I think that doctrine erroneous—yet it would not be alarming, except for the supplemental idea that it is the duty of the Republican party to reorgan- ize the Supreme Court. I call the attention, in a friendly spirit, of the conservative Republicans in the country, and such as arc in this body, to the kind and character of that organization. If I un- derstand it, it is a revoluiionary idea— revolution- ary, I mean, in the sense that it wholly changes the character of our Government. The re- organization is to be effected by obtain- ing judges from the different sections of the country, and making a judiciary of the United States representing the wishes and will of the people of the different sections of the country. Now, Mr. President, I take it to be a very clear idea of constitutional law, that all political agents do represent the will of their constituents. And in all matters not contrary to the fundamental will of the people, as expressed in their fundamental charter, the Constituiion, that will is entitled to great respect, and sometimes to perfect obedience; but in what proper sense can it be said the Judi- ciary are representing the will of anybody ? They represent nothing, except it be the law, and it can not be said they represent that, because they ut- ter that and administer it. The moment a judge upon the bench looks to the will of his people in the administration of the laws of this Govern- ment, that moment he is unfit to occupy a seat. If he deliberately, in ad ministering the law, consid- ers himself the representative of a sectional in- terest—that very moment he ought to be hurled from power by impeachment. I say, therefore, I want my Republican friends to reconsider that utterance,madc in a distempered heat of an excited political canvass, because if they will examine it, they will discover it revoln; ionizes the very na- ture of our Government, popularizes the Su- preme Court, changes its character entirely. Who that has pointed to that tribunal in its silent workings, to that power serene and calm, but has not felt a pride in 1 he fact that popular conflict could never be made the instrument of its de- struction.
Reorganize the Supreme Court upon a a sectional idea— I don't care whether North or South — and it would lose all its efficacy and virtue; it would be subjecting it again to a con* flict of opinion upon a sectional issue. And in- stead of a great body, entitled to the respectful judgment of mankind, whose decisions would be quoted as authority on this or any other side of the Water, it would descend to the mere partizan tribunal representing sectional interests, and become a mere political instrument. I take it, Mr. President, that is not the intention of the Ju- diciary, and 6ueh an invasion of the powers of the Supreme Court of the United States Avould be contrary to the design of our fathers who or- ganized it.
Now, Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Convention, I will add a few words upon what I regard to be an important first principle to be re- spected and followed in all our actions here. I have endeavored to show that the right of seces- sion is not only a heresy, but that it furnishes no remedy for our ills ; it aggravates them— it breaks up the Union which is hallowed by the martyrs and which ought to be immortal. But is there no other right by which a people under oppres- sion may throw off that oppression and build up a government for themselves to accomplish the object desired? Surely there is, and that is the sacred right of revolution. But is that an unlimited power ? May that be exercised at the mere whim and caprice of men who are restive under the law ? Are all revolutions j ustifi- able? Can men revolutionize whenever they feel like it ? Is that the law of revolution ? I submit respectfully that it is not; that in no civilized na- tion now is it regarded in that way. It being a great, a terrible and a sublime power, it cannot range without fetters. Every enlightened nation in the world sees that a limitation must be put upon this sacred, terrible and sublime right of revolution. Our British ancestors recognized that principle, although they lived in a monarchy where the popular fiction said the King can do no wrong, and where the other fiction prevailed that Parliament was omnipotent. Even in that country, resting under a throne and governed by a Parliament who made the laws, still our an* cestors, prompt to use the power of revolution, always recognized the power of limitation upon that power. Our fathers who broke from the British crown, or rather who went from that country, when attached to the crown, came to these shores, and brought with them as a consti- tution, this conservative position — that the right of revolution must have limitation; and they added another limitation peculiar to our Ameri- can insti uiions — they put another discriminating, intelligent limitation upon the right of revolu- tion, unknown in any other country — because in making their Constitution, they provided in the
209
very instrument which founded the Government, a means of correcting the evils of its actual work- ing. Revolution in this country ought not to begin with the sword. The revolutionary feel- ing cannot lawfully make its first expression a re- sort to arms. There must be, says Madison — it is a distinguishing characteristic of our institutions, said that father of the Constitution, that we have found out positively a method of correcting the revolutionary spirit without a resort to force, or the shedding of blood; that we have found a certain defined instrumentality by which, with- out any sword leaping from its scabbard, or any gun bursting in air, we can correct the evil and put down oppression, and cure public disorders and ills. And that is the manner in which they have provided for amendments to the Constitu- tion of the United States. In all cases of the practical workings of that instrument, the hopes of those who made it have not been disappointed. Now, Mr. President, can we condescend to give respect for this important limitation ? Can we, with a proper regard for the men who made this matchless and unequalled instrument — can we think of ever using the revolutionary right until we have exhausted all the limitations, all the remedies for the correction of evils, that are provided for in the instrument itself ? Is it not one of the worst signs of the times, that the revolutionizing spirit is encouraged by our men, and especially our young men — that they cannot think of exercising a virtue of patience which at this time is at least apolitical necessity; that they cannot think of exercising such a virtue as that, because their sensibilities are wounded; because they fear there will bo some imputation upon their courage and bravery; because they think they must show a disposition to refute all wrong, and because they cannot be patient under suffer- ing. What ills does the Constitution provide a remedy for? Does it provide for all public disor- ders? Has it omitted any? Has it not looked over the whole scope and horizon of possi- ble events, and guarded against every- thing? I know of but one thing they were unable to provide for; I know but one thing they have not provided for, and that is voluntary and causeless suicide. That was a thing their pres- cience and forecast and their statesmanship could not regulate. Everything else is provided for. The ordinary evils of government are provided for by checks and balances in the system. Look at that wonderful frame of government, and see how strongly the checks and balances are provid- ed, and the objects of those checks and balances. Why is it that a member of Congress can serve only two years? Why does a Senator serve but six years, and why does the President serve but four years, and why does the Judiciary serve only during good behavior? What is the reason of the difference in tenure of a Sena-
tor and Congressman ? Why do they put them upon these short terms ? Was it not for fear on account of the lack of good behavior? Do the practical workings of the Government show that their theory was right, if they had a theory which they reduced to practice? All governments, says Marshall, are based upon the idea that limitation is necessary to the healthful exercise of their functions, for we have to distrust men and politi- cal agents. If we suspect them of wrong, we must put limitations on their power. Our fathers thought every member of Congress would do wrong; and because they thought the President would do wrong, because they thought the Judges of the Supreme Court would do wrong, they put limitations upon their power, so that the people, the source of all power, should have the right in their own hands to correct these evils, and not suffer for a long time under the practices of a bad government. If Congress goes wrong, the ballot-box is the power by which they are to be turned out and better men put in their places. If Senators have a little more of what is called in these days back-bone or vertebra? in their politi- cal organizations, to stand out a little longer against the popular will; if they can stand out four years more than the Lower House, still whenever they become misrulers, they are turned to the people, who speak through their agents, and by which these men can be hurled from pow- er. Look at the President. He lives four years— not so long as the Senators by two years, and two years longer than a member of the House. Of course he remains only four years, because the original hypothesis is that he will do wrong, and, therefore, that he shall not have the power to do wrong more than four years. But in the meantime he shall be sub- ject to limitations. The Judiciary may sit for a life time, but not a day longer than they behave themselves. Now, this being the theory by which the ordinary misrule of government maybe rem- edied, let us look at its practical operation. Mr. Lincoln is elected by a minority of the people of the United States ; but men have gone into the Presidential chair by a large and overwhelming ma- jority of the people of the United States, and such is the admirable superstructure of our Government a President has always found himself checked by the co-ordinate departments of the Government. Jackson whon he went into power, found the Senate against him, and could not make his or- dinary appointments. Day after day he would send in nominations, and day after day they would be rejected. You all remember the strug- gle that tcok place in connection with Hill, of New Hampshire, who had been appointed to some office by Jackson. Again and again was he black-balled by the Senate, until Jackson had to give in. Hill went off to New Hampshire, where he was elected to a seat in the Senate of
14
210
the United States. On the day he took his seat; the public mind was curious to know how such a man as that could take his seat in the Senate. Some one asked Mr. Breckinridge, a gentleman who served with Jackson in the Florida war, what he thought about it. " Oh," he replied, "the Senate have disgraced Mr. Hill, and now, I suppose he is determined to disgrace the Senate." [A laugh.] You know, in point of fact, the ac- tion of Jackson's administration was "back-ac- tion." He was continually at war with both houses of Congress, notwithstanding which, the people were ready to sustain him. I mention this matter, to show you the admirable framing of our Government; by which it is provided, in point of fact, that a majority President can- not misrule. Mr. Fillmore was check-mated during his administration by the lower House. John Adams is the only President I know of, in all our political history, who went into power with all departments of Government in his favor— the Senate, the Lower House and the Judiciary. And now, mark the remedy furnished for the flagrant misrule of his adminis- tration. During his time, they passed the sedi- tion law, likewise the alien law, which gave birth to those resolutions of 1798 and 1799 — those re- markable State papers so variously construed all through the United States, which our Democratic friends, wherever they meet in council, con- strued alike — but finding it necessary that there should be a plank in their platform, they adopt in their obvious meaning, feeling perfectly sure that if any one undertook to explain their meaning, an adversary would rise up and slay him. When the law was passed which made it a crime to speak disrespectfully of the President of the United States, what was done? Judge Chase left the Supreme bench, and went cavort- ing into Maryland and Virginia, trying men who had violated this law, Judge Chase, backed by the power that gave birth to that law, went off to en- force it, and it was enforced. The case of Mat- thew Lyons is a leading instance in this respect. Men were imprisoned and fined, but the judg- ments were not executed. Well, what did the people do? Did they secede? Did they talk about the right of eminent domain? Did they capture the mints ? Did they seduce the officers of the army from allegiance to the country? Did they organize a Provisional Government? No. They just exercised the power given in the Con- stitution—the power of the ballot-box— and away went John Adams, and away went the Congress, and away went, in a short time, the Judiciary, and Chase, himself, was impeached.
Now, the question of that hour was not wheth- er men had the right to carry slaves into the Ter- ritories ; it was not whether men had the right to reclaim a fugitive slave. But the question was whether they would be slaves themselves, or
I whether they would take the remedy provided by our fathers, and effect a perfect cure for the whole disorder.
I know, Mr. President, our complications now are not like those, but I know the remedy to cor- rect the present disorders, and appeal to it — a remedy which was designed by the framers of the Constitntion to cure every ill, and to provide for everything but a causeless and wicked sui- cide.
What is it a National Convention can correct? Some gentlemen say they are afraid to trust a National Convention — that the people of the North have got the power and can vote us down, and refuse to give us satisfaction. That is true ; but, on the other hand, they may do everything we want done. They have the power to do so, and they are the only people who have the power, and one of two courses is inevitable— either break off from the Government, and follow the action of our sisters whom we say are acting wrong, or go to the fountain head that corrects all evils. If they will give us satisfaction who will complain? What heart will complain? If they refuse, can we be in a worse situ- ation than now? I say to the gentleman from Marion; and I could point to one or two other gentlemen also; I say to them, if seces- sion be a right, it will do to keep. It won't spoil. We shall have as good a chance to use it in one year, or two years, as now, and in the mean- time we can be getting ready for it, and preparing to use the remedy. Now, by these remarks I don't mean that secession is the proper remedy, for I hold that in exercising it we should be guilty before the world in setting an example by which all future governments must be destroyed. There is however the right of revolution, but before we can exercise this right we must take preliminary steps in the ex- ercise of constitutional remedies. I see that Vir- ginia has intimated in a report from a committee in her Convention— the chairman of which was an old student of mine in New York, forty years ago. Mr. Conrod, a gentleman who resides at Harper's Ferry, within a few miles of where John Brown and his compeer patriots were hung — this report from the committee of which he is chairman, suggests the pro- priety of a Border State Convention at the city of Frankfort, Ky., towards the last of May. I trust that we shall all vote to communi- cate with these Border States. But we can't stop there. That would not be final, for at last, by whatever route we travel, whether in . a straight line or a circumbendibus— whatever course we go, at last we must reach a National Convention. There, our trouble will be brought to a head; there we will know whether we can live together in peace, or whether we shall have to separate peaceably or forcibly. Now I do not suppose
211
anybody here doubts the unequivocal nature of my allegiance to my country. I have loved it from my boyhood to my manhood, as the only stronghold of liberty on earth. All my hopes are wrapped up in it. I believe the hopes of human- ity are centred in it, but I know well enough — for I see the characteristics of the times— I know that an adjustment is a positive and indispensa- ble necessity, and there is no man in this country who has brains, but must accord to the senti- ment that an adjustment, a fair and honorable adjustment, an adjustment fair to the North and fair to the South, is an indispensable necessity. "We have presented as a basis of adjustment the Crittenden resolutions. In a conference of the Border slave States our mutual counsels may re- sult in something different from the Crittenden resolutions, because the Crittenden resolutions are nothing more nor less than a means to an end, and we are seeking to reach that end. I was at first opposed to the calling of any preliminary convention, because it is extra constitutional. It is not one of the remedies provided for, al- though there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids such a remedy. It is merely a discussion or an association of mind with mind, directed to the public ills and a means of pacification. I was at first opposed to it, because I thought that we should move directly up to our Northern brethren in the form and manner which was strictly Constitutional, and which would be final, and the only method by which we could perma- nently adjust our sentiments. But, I believe upon reflection, it is wiser to take a Border Convention, especially for this reason : that there is a little difference as to what are the causes of our troubles. If South Carolina were to write down her cause, it would not be our cause. We know South Carolina goes out of this Union, not by reason of any trouble about the slavery agitation, but she goes out upon the idea that the revenue system of the United States has worked aggres- sively upon her. For thirty years her agents — and such men as McDuffie — have been striving against the forty bale theory as it is called, a the- ory by which, as South Carolina thinks, the Gov- ernment of the United States gets, and the North gets, or that South Carolina loses, and somebody gets, forty bales of cotton out of every hundred raised in South Carolina; and if it were true, it would be an oppression which no people could bear, for it is taxing the people heavily, and to escape such an oppression, they would be justified in resorting to revolution if there could be no amendment to the Constitution, or if their oppres- sion could not be remedied by Constitutional means.
I am afraid if the Gulf States, the cotton States, were called on to write their grievances, they might not be what we would write. What did Yancey mean by saying in that remarkable
letter of his, that he was "anxious to precipitate the cotton States into a revolution ?" Why the cotton States ? Why not all the slave States ?— Why did his scope of vision contemplate with pleasure and complacency such a result as the precipitation of the cotton States into a revolu- tion? Think of that. It was one of the troubles at our efforts at pacification, and it will be one of the troubles in bringing them back, because I see clearly that their idea is to secure the breadstuff's and provisions of the valley of the West, and get their manufactured goods from England. There is the whole desire. That is the desire and that is the wish that precipitated the cotton States into a revolution. It will be a formidable idea to meet in a re- adjustment. These people— I mean the leaders — have been in earnest about this matter for a great many years. The idea started in South Carolina, under the dominion and power of such minds as McDuffiie, Calhoun and Hayne. It has exhibited itself in various ways — in the establishment of a Southern commerce as a lival to the centralization of commerce in New York. I wish to say I have no disposition to prevent our Southern brethren from endeavoring by enter- prise, legislation and capital, to change the chan- nels of the commerce of the United States, if all is done in harmony with the Constitution of the country and violates no law. I should like to see a great commercial emporium rising up on the Atlantic sea board of the South. I would be pleased to see it, as large benefits would result to us in the West, we people of Missouri and St. Louis, by opening a new channel for the trade of Europe, and by decreasing the monopolizing power of centralization in the bay of New York. I know the people of the West and the South, are paying brokerage to the people of N. Y., and have been for years. They are the money changers, and get millions from us in the South in the way of exchange. Look at the difference between exchange sterling in New Orleans and New York. It is 6 per cent, at New Orleans and 9 per cent at New York. And why ? Because- the demand for exchange sterling is small at New Orleans, and great at New York. But I do not want these benefits to be brought about at the expense of the Constitution of my country, or at the sacrifice and dissolution of this Govern- ment. Still, in spite of the temptation— the glitter- ing temptation of a Southern Republic, whose basis is cotton, and whose policy is free trade with Europe, and provisions from us — notwith- standing the glittering and fascinating character of that government so founded, I am satisfied if we do our duty and the North discharges its duty, that ephemeral power will fade away into thin air, dissolved by the dews of patriotism. They will come back because the difficulties are so great. All govern- ments are difficult in erection; it is a much easier
212
task to pull down than to build up. Our South- ern brethren are beginning to find this out. Lou- isiana is this day debating where she shall go — whether she shall stand by herself or enter a Provisional Government. Look at her secession and Union papers, and there you Avill find a won- derful concurrence of opinion about the propri- ety of considering Avhere they arc to go. When- ever Louisiana begins to hesitate — after she has yielded to this tempest of secession — where she is going, there is no doubt about where she will go. She will not go at all. She will simply come back. She knows there are other difficulties which she would have to meet as an independent government. She is at the mouth of the Mississippi, and knows the necessity of this great valley. She knows, likewise, that the people of this valley will never permit her to take jurisdiction of that stream, however mildly she may be disposed to exercise that power. It is one of the impossibilities of her geographical position. Again, the position occupied by that government makes extraordinary demands on her people : export duties on cotton, a standing j army, taxation never felt before by the people, ; and murmurs arising from taxation. Taxation ; is the almost universal source of revolution. — Taxation has made revolution the world over. As soon as the sensitive pocket nerve of the people is touched, as the hand goes down deeper and deeper to meet the exigencies of the govern- j ment, the people will begin to think of their con- j dition before they swung from the Union. Every j man will be prepared to speak to his neighbor of | the state of things that previously existed, and a I patriotic feeling will set in which will hurl their i oppressors from power, just as the Missouri river, ! where it meets with the Mississippi, hurls upon j the opposite shore the more peaceful waters of j the Mississippi. But the government at Mont- j gomcry is not the only government that is in j trouble. The Government at Washington is in I trouble. It is a very easy thing to talk about coercion, but the difficulty presents itself at last that you must come down to constitutional means to accomplish that object; and the more the Cabinet studies the matter, the more they will j perceive the impediments thrown in the way of recklessness, if recklessness is the desire. I am glad of it. If my old friend Lincoln —whom as a man I greatly respect — for whose intellect I have had a regard and have still, in spite of his itinerant speeches — if he would give me his ear, and my voice would have any influ- ence, I would tell him, Withdraw your forces from Sumter ; don't collect the revenue, you cannot do it ; it cannot be done unless you change your laws ; you have got no warehouses to meet the demands of the importer; if he says I will put my goods in bond, you cannot do anything. A multitude of agents would have to be created to carry it into
effect, and it would result in a dead loss and bankruptcy to those who look upon this as a means of filling the empty coffers. Don't you think Seward sees it? There is not a man in the United States with a farther vision than that man Seward. He has great vision and ambition— he is ambitious, as every such man must be by a law of nature; for genius has a principle implanted m it that is not content with the men of its own time, but has its eyes always on posterity; no great man in this world has ever made his mark upon the age in which he lived, that he did not likewise make it upon after ages, and knew he would make it upon after ages. No man ever felt his aspirations bounded by the age in which he lived; and these great aspirations are put into the mind as a conservative power, because genius speaks by the soul, and that, too, after the body that held it moulders into dust; you cannot sat- isfy this genius without giving it to posterity, and it is this that has, in all ages, made genius conservative. I wish I had the power to pur- sue this line of thought. I wish I could get rid of the impression, likewise, that I am occupy- ing too much of your time. But there is another subject upon which I have thought a great deal,and touching which I have a conviction that I deem of importance, and that I must try, at least, to deliver before I take my seat.
I am of opinion, Mr. President, that this slave- ry agitation, all the world over, not only in Amer- ica, but everwhere, is in its last throes. I think the time is not distant when you will not hear a whimper of this slavery agitation in America or Europe. I know how difficult it is, and how rash it may be to assume the prerogative of time and determine the future, but to my mind it seems to me this must be the logical result of the practical workings of this material and practical age in which we live. The great fountainhead of the slavery agitation was Exeter Hall, in England. Under its influence, as was ably shown by my colleague, (Mr. Gantt)— under its influence, to- gether with that of Wilberforce and of Parliament, England abolished slavery in her West India col- onies. Would she have done it then if these West India colonies had raised cotton ? Do you think England would have ever abolished slavery in that island if it had been a cotton growing island ? I think not. If that were a cotton grow- ing island this day, England would be cultivating cotton there by involuntary servitude in somo form. She would take the African in some form and put him under bonds, or she would take the coolie and apprentice him, or in some form or other she would be engaged in the culture of that curious plant by involuntary servitude. Why? Because more than 10,000,000 of people re- quire the cultivation of that plant. Legare said, years ago, that the man who writes the history of the cotton plant will write the
213
history of a new civilization. At the period of the formation of our Government, when our ancestors had to put an estimate upon these barbarians bi-ought from the shores of Africa, cotton was a small concern. It was not a living and realized idea in the world, but the invention of machinery started it out into the channels of trade so that now a man cannot be decent without cot- ton, nor a woman either. We cannot sleep in comfortable beds without it. There is no aboli- tionist in the world— Be echer, or Phillips him- self—that lives without cotton. He wears it in his hat; his family, his wife and children are clothed with it. The food he eats springs from the same source — the source of slave labor, as well as every luxury. And although this consideration has not been potent enough to stop fanaticism in the North ; yet fanaticism, under Providence, is short lived. It is upon this philosophy that strong emotions soon exhaust themselves. All fanaticisms of the world have been shortlived: for it is the law of their nature. The longest fanaticism in the history of the world was that of England. It was the fanaticism of the sword. It was a fanaticism in a period of the world's history when chivalry prevailed; when men would meet in the arena and shiver a lance with each other, or wield the battle axe in the actual field of bat- tle. There was no commerce, and there was no great amount of civilization; England was noth- ing move than a great camp — a marshalled and military camp. Its few merchants that were seen about London, did not understand the value of the spindle and the loom. These were not then in motion. Commerce did not depend upon manufactures. There was no great in- terest of that age opposed to fanaticism; and, therefore, it could run riot and work deeds of prowess in Palestine, and attempt to rescue from the grasp of the Moslem the tomb of the Saviour. But, if England had been in that day, what she is now, no Peter the Hermit could have moved her. Fanaticism may run riot, when it is not opposed to the material interest of the age. What is Exeter Hall now doing in England? There was a time when she was a power in that land, as Parliament and the London Times now are. You know England, for a number of years, has been struggling to grow cotton elsewhere than in the United States. You know the partial failure of our crop, at one time, made it necessa- ry that she should look for a supply from other sources. She sent out pioneers in every land. The vision of those practical states- men had been looking all over the earth to find cotton— in India, Africa, Australia and South America, and France, like- wise is now nursing her Algeria, to bring about the same result. But is there anybody here that does not know the white man is not going to cul- tivate cotton. He is not the man to keep the
looms and spindles of England in operation. If it is to be done, it must be by the Coolie or the African. In that remarkable continent in which England is now endeavoring to cultivate the cot- ton seed, the African must grow the cotton for the looms and spindles of England if it is grown there at all. So, as we look everywhere over the surface of the globe, wherever we find the geolo- gical formation that will admit the growth of cot- ton, we find that it will be an impossibility that it shall be grown by anybody but an inferior race under the domination of a superior race. Eng- land has already proposed to give the King of Dahomy so much money for the growth of so much cotton. I have attempted to expose the cant of these crowned dynasties, by show- ing that while they are willing to cru<h out every aspiration of liberty in the breast of the white man, they can be very benevolent toward Africa, because that country cannot endanger monarchy. I say, in the anti-slaveiy agitation of the North, they cannot find any charities for the red man, and it is because they can make no political capital out of the red man. But they can do it out of the black man. I wonder that these men who are engaged m a mission in be- half of the black man, cannot extend their sym- pathy towards the Indian. When I said in a hu- morous way yesterday that the red man was in such a condition as to inspire the hope of ulti- mate extinction, one of my friends could not ap- preciate the sentiment, because he felt a sympa- thy for that noble race. We have taken their country. Our cities and our houses rest upon the graves of their dead. We have denied them dominion of the soil and subjected them, and I suppose Boston stands upon the graves of Indians, as well as New York and other proud cities which, under the free play of our institutions, have arisen through the country. The free labor in the North is now working upon the grave and the home of the red man, and yet there is not a man or wo- man there in this age of woman's rights, that have associations of charity and benevolence for the benefit of the condition of the red man.
As I have already shown this slavery agitation has entered into the organization of parties both North and South. What does England say in view of the probable disrupture of our Govern- ment ? The London Times comes out in an ar- ticle in which it says : — '* It must be confessed that Exeter Hall was popular in this Island; it must be confessed that when Mrs. Stowe sent out her work, this Island furnished a million of ap- preciative and hungry readers; and it must be confessed also, that all this is abstract. The Americans must look at things in the con- crete. Looking Southward we say what would Liv- erpool and Manchester be without slave labor?
214
What would bo the condition of commerce with- out slave labor? Every man who has arisen in the House of Lords or Commons has uttered the same idea, and if you go across the channel, and peep in upon the secrets of Imperialism, you will find the same idea. Every man that knows Na- poleon the III, knows that he is a far seeing man, and that he knows how much stronger diploma- cy is than the sword. Every man who has paid any attention to his movement, knows that there is no abstraction under Heaven to which he would sacrifice the interests of France. Looking to those two most important nations — looking to their manufactures, their commerce, and looking to the elements that constitute their greatness, I don't see how it is possible to avoid the conclu- sion that in the Old World, at least Exeter Hall must "dry up." How is it at home? At this day Phillips cannot get an audience in Boston to make anti-slavery harangues.
Phillips is one of those gifted men in the world who have the charm of eloquence. A finer orator does not live on the earth to-day, perhaps, than Phillips. He has held spell-bound, multitudes of fanatical people, year after year, and now, in what we conceive to be the very hot-bed of fanat- icism, he cannot speak. He is dependent upon a Republican mayor to save him from the action of a mob. Look closer; come to Chicago and look at their platform. See how small a part of that plat- form is confined to the slavery plank. It is a parenthetical article in a large programme of policy. I know they made the most of it in the late contest, but I think I only do the supporters of the Chicago platform justice in saying that they did not intend to use slavery agitation longer than in that single campaign. They made the most of it. They fought it with infinite skill and energy; but it is manifest from the structure of their platform that they looked forward to a period of time in which this slavery agitation would die, and that they would be compelled to stake themselves upon other policies. What are those other policies sketched in that platform? Right or wrong there is a magnitude in them. Look at their action in Congress, before the Chi- cago platform was made. Notwithstanding many of them came from the Atlantic seaboard, yet when the question was raised, shall Congress grant aid to the oceanic steamers? where did these Republicans plant themselves. They voted against it, and instead they favored a Pacific road, telegraphic lines and the homestead bill, and the carrying of the mails across our continent to the smooth sea. Why did they favor the home- stead bill? Because, as Seward said in his Madison speech, it is necessary for free labor. Free labor in America is fast approximating to the European standard of value, says the philosopher of Au- burn in his Madison speech.
Free labor, that has been so much praised as the monopolizing interest of this country, cannot live in the North. It must have its outlet in the great West. We must lift up the feudal tenure, and make it the home and outlet of free labor. In other words, Seward says this, that no party can arise in this land and maintain itself, either North or South, without it attaches itself to the great seat of empire, and every plank in the Chi- cago platform that is a material plank at all, looks to the seat of power in the West. The slavery agitation was only incidental ; they made the most of it, but they have provided some- thing to fall back upon. The men who met at Chicago were tar-seeing enough to know that the Atlantic dynasties must perish, and that the seat of empire is here in the West — that the West will have a potential voice in the legislation of the country — that "Westward the star of empire takes its way," and the politicians are sharp enough to see its beams of light. For all these reasons, my heart is not sad, like that of my friend from Clay, (Mr. Moss) or hopeless, like that of my friend from Jackson (Mr. Comingo.) I look forward hope- fully and cheerfully through the thick gloom of the present, and I see the light bursting. It is clear to me that we shall have an adjustment. It is as clear to my mind as it is to my physical vision when I see the eastern horizon streaked with the dawning light, and thereby know that the gates are open and that the god of day will soon arise.
I should not feel happy unless I looked upon my country as a whole. I want the North and the South. I want the whole North and the whole South. I turn my eyes to that classic land upon our Atlantic border, and I see some monuments of patriotism with the eyes of my soul. First, I look at Moultrie — classic ground, and an altar dedicated to liberty. I see Cow- pens and the Guilford Courthouse, and Camden, and King's Mountain. I see these as clearly as I see Yorktown, and thus I remember some of the names — a Pinckney, (grandfather of the present Governor of South Carolina,) a Rutledge, a Hayne, a Sumter — glorious, gallant Sumter — a Jasper — Sargeant Jasper— a Marion, and a thousand other worthies that belong to me. They are my prop- erty, my glory, my assets — a part of my assets and derived from the birthright of American citi- zenship, and I never could give them up; they are indivisible. Now let me look at the North. First, in the great panorama that comes before me, is Concord and Lexington and Breed's and Bun- ker's Hil, and there is Harlem Heights and Sto- ny Point and Saratoga! And are not the.->e mine also ? Are they not my assets also ? Do they not belong to me and you? And are they divisible? Then there are the names of such a crowd of noble souls that I cannot enumerate
215
them, but among the first martyrs I sec a War- ren with the blood upon his breast on Bunker's Hill. Oh! would the times were come again when men from the South would rush to the as- sistance of the North in time of need, as they did from my native State from a little valley on the Shenandoah, when the first blood was spilt at Boston. They were not troubled in the valley of the Shenandoah, then, with hostile feelings, but they said these men in Massachusetts are our brethren ; they are fighing for liberty. And so these one hundred and fifty men met together and would take a bee-line for Boston; and that they would also, fifty years from that day, on the anniversary of their march, meet at their place of rendezvous, and upon the banks of the Shen- andoah celebrate their march. They went, and George Washington saw them : they were dressed in the primitive style of the people of that day, with red hunting shirts ; but Washington knew Captain Stevenson. Springing from his horse, he seized the brave man by both hands. He could not speak; how could he, when the tears of patriotism burst from his eyes and overwhelmed and drowned his voice ? It was not the cause of Virginia, but it was the cause of Virginia's brethren in the North. Errors like the present had not then sprung up. Doubt- less these errors spring up naturally because of the free play of our institutions, giving inde- pendence of mind and thought to all; and surely that is the best mode of all by which we can root out error — by the free play of intellect and rea- son—and after these errors have subsided we will be once more a quiet people — a greater people and a stronger people than we ever were. Having learned to suffer the ills of adversity, and coming out of the trial more vigorous and full armed, we will have all the powers that will make us great by all the affection that makes us brothers.
Mr. Bast. Now, sir, at first sight it occurred to me there could be no argument against a reso- lution of that description. (The first of the se- ries reported by the Committee on Federal Rela- tions. ) We all admit that we are now in trouble. No one doubts it. Every argument that has been produced in this Convention has been made in reference to this matter, that we are in trouble. What are these troubles ? Is our commerce and progress the same as heretofore? Is the peace and quiet of the country as it has been heretofore? Are the minds of this immense number of people in as quiet and tranquil a condition as before the present agita- tion was commenced ? I think there are many causes to operate upon the minds of the people, which causes arc weighed differently by dif- ferent individuals, as illustrated by the members of this Convention, and the people through the country. If we have any cause, what is that cause? Have the Southern people of this con-
federacy, who have withdrawn from the present Union, any cause for doing so. Are they not con- tending for their own just rights — their families and their firesides ? They are well aware from the aggressions of the North as they understand them, that in the event of the entire success of its own opinions, it is the intention of the Republican party to extinguish the institution of slavery, and by extinguishing it do they not at once extin- guish all their hopes for the present and the fu- ture. Their very sustenance depends upon the maintenance of the slave institutions of the South. Upon the slave property of the South depends the cultivation of the soil which, on account of the warm climate of the South, cannot be cultivated by any other labor than slave labor. Who can make cotton? Can white labor be performed in that country so as to make it profitable? Great Britain has tried various plans to run in opposition to the slavery of the South, but without success. Cot- ton can be supplied more cheaply from the Southern States, than from anywhere else. I say, then, this is a question of life and death to South- ern interests. We are exempt from that cause to a great extent. Our institutions are like theirs, and though we might live without slavery, yet our interests are identical with them, and I think we can, with strict justice to ourselves, say to the Southern people that they have not at least done very wrong in taking the course they have. I may be considered and pointed out as a seces- sionist, but I say such is not the case. I am no secessionist. I do not represent a secession con- stituency. I represent as honorable a constitu- ency, as high-minded and patriotic a constitu- ency as any representative on this floor. They are not secessionists. They are men who are in favor of their just and independent rights, and they would say to any person opposed to their inter- est, we demand our rights; we do not intend to come with suppliant knee and petition for our rights, but we come boldly and say we demand our rights, and nothing more; we want nothing- more than strict, honest, just and constitutional rights, but being a magnanimous people, and taking into consideration the present excited con- dition of the public mind, we are willing to say we will compromise and take what our sister border States are willing to accept. Under these cir- cumstances, we are ready to say, if you Avill not continue your aggressive acts, we will remain with 3Tou; but if you continue to persevere in those acts, we must then fall back on our reserved rights. Mr. President, I don't think it is neces- sary, and neither would I undertake to discuss this question in relation to the formation of our government. I conceive it to be irrelevant to the question at issue. We are called here for a certain purpose; our country is in trouble, and we are called here to bring about some means of recon-
216
ciliation if we can do so. What has the founda- tion of the government to do with the reconcilia- tion of these difficulties. The facts are before us; our country is dismembered ; commerce is tram- melled ; we are fettered in many ways, and is it not indisputably necessary that we should set all irrelevant questions aside, and say at once to the country at large, what we think should be done ? Now the Crittenden plan of adjustment has been proposed. I believe it is acceptable to a majority of this Convention, and to a majority of the peo- ple of Missouri. The Crittenden amendment ex- tends to Territories hereafter to be acquired. I do not think there can be any serious objection to the adoption of a proposition of that kind. But we know that in accepting that, we are not get- ting the full extent of our rights ; but, as a mag- nanimous people, and for the sake of compro- mise, we say we are willing to accept a little less than our rights, and compromise these difficulties.
If the difficulties under which we are laboring — if I can consider in relation to the difficulties and troubles that caused our Southern brethren to se- cede, if they are operating upon us — if these trou- bles have caused seven States to secede, and most of the other slave States to call Conventions, and take into consideration these difficulties, is it not necessary that we should pause and reflect before we say there is no cause why Missouri should separate or change her form of govern- ment. I think there is ample cause. There is at present — and I am speaking to an intelligent au- dience— there is, I say, ample cause why Missouri should secede. But I do not wish it to be under- stood that I advocate the doctrine of secession. I say, however, we have cause to secede, but good sound policy requires us as a mag- nanimous people to act in co-operation with our sister States,and bring about a reconciliation, and bring back the Government to its pristine pu- rity, if such a thing can be brought about. It would be the happiest act of my life if I could in any degree bring about that desirable end. — When I came to this Convention there were oth- er subjects on which I expected to speak, but as, we have the privilege of speaking to each of these resolutions, I will not occupy any more time. I wish, however, to say in conclusion, to the latter part of this resolution, that it is the duty and for the interest and welfare of Missouri, under all cir- cumstances, to exert herself so as to secure the rights and equalities of the States.
Mr. Allen. In the conclusion of my speech the other evening, I remarked that in the event that an adjustment could be accomplished be- tween the North and the South ; that if we could induce the Southern States to come back into the Union again, that I would be ready to act as the father in the case of the Prodigal Son; that I would go out and meet them, and fall upon their necks and kiss them. The question is, whether
I would be for kissing the ladies or the gentle- men. In that case it would be the ladies I would be in favor of kissing.
Mr. Redd. Before the resolution is passed up- on I desire to offer an amendment. Amend the first resolution by striking out the word " cause " and inserting in place thereof the word " mo- tive." I will not say any thing further, Mr. Presi- dent, except this: the Convention knows my views in relation to the causes that exist in the shape of violations to the Constitution. It knows also that my views are, that when these causes are sufficient to justify it a State has the right of falling back, as the Convention of Virginia has expressed it, upon its reserved rights. The word " cause " may be used as synonymous with the word "motive," and I believe it is so used. — If so used in that resolution I have no ob" jection to the resolution; but it is not always so used. If, however, we design to use it in that sense, and under the existing state of things, and in view of an amicable adjustment, declare that there is no motive adequate to im- pel to withdraw, then I have no objection to the resolution. It meets my views. But I offer this amendment simply that the idea may stand out plainly upon this resolution.
The vote was then taken and the amendment was lost. The original resolution was then adopted— ayes 89, noes 1, Mr. Bast voting in the negative.
The Chair. I will remark to the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, that he of- fered a resolution which was laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. Does he design to have it acted upon now ?
Mr. Gamble. The resolution was offered as an additional resolution, and not as a substitute.
Mr. Hough offered an amendment to the 5th resolution :
Resolved, That, in order to secure our rights under the Constitution, it is of the greatest im- portance that the public peace be preserved, and, in the opinion of this Convention, it cannot be done if the General Government continues the occupation of forts in the seceding States; we, therefore, request the' President of the United States to withdraw the troops from those forts.
Mr. Hough. I may at another time be able to say something in regard to this proposition, but at present I am too much indisposed to do so.
Mr. Gamble. I understood yesterday that the motion was to take up the resolutions in the order in which they were reported.
The Chair. I think not. I asked the gentle- man from St. Louis if he desired to make the motion in that form and he said no, distinctly.
Mr. Gamble. If it is in order I make the motion now, and also that this proposed amend- ment be laid on the table and printed. The mo- tion was sustained.
217
The second resolution was then taken up and passed and adopted — ayes 90, nays none.
The third resolution was then taken up :
Resolved, That the people of this State deem the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, with the extension of the same to the territory hereafter to he acquired by treaty or otherwise, a basis of adjustment which will suc- cessfully remove the causes of difference forever from the arena of national politics.
Mr. Bast then offered the following as an amendment :
Amend by adding, "And in the event of a re- fusal by the Northern States to agree or consent to such an adjustment of the slavery question, and our sisters Virginia, Maryland, North Caro- lina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky shall de- termine to change the relations they now hold to the General Government, the State of Missouri will not hesitate to take a firm and decided stand in favor of her sister slave States."
The ayes and noes were demanded.
EXPLANATION OF VOTES.
Mr. Doniphan. Before I vote I wish to ex- plain. I cannot vote on so important a resolu- tion as that without giving my reasons. I think, sir, it is putting forth an ultimatum, and that I am opposed to. The resolution to which this amendment is offered, I had the honor of offering myself. Missouri has no right to offer an ulti- matum, either to the Border slave States, the Southern States or the Northern States. I am a Union man. I go for the whole Union — the en- tire Union. I go for it North, South, East and West. I do not intend to bring about a calamity that will destroy the Border slave States and the whole Union. I do not intend to say how long I am going to uphold this Union which our fathers builded. They were seven years in building it, and two mighty miracles were wrought in its formation. First, the revolution, which lasted seven years— seven years of blood and carnage and suffering, and finally crowned with victory. Second, the formation of this Constitution — which took seven years more — by men of the purest wisdom and of unquestioned patriotism; and shall we talk of settling this question in a day, when we reap the fruition of their labors in ten thousand greater fold than was ever anticipated by them. Sir, I am willing to serve here seven years, and take every means for the preservation of this Union. I am willing to serve as long as Jacob served, before this Union shall be dissolved. I am not going to fay when I shall stop; I am not going to say when Missouri shall stop. Never! Never, while hope is left. I live by hope, and as a Union man I shall only die when hope dies. [Applause.]
The Chair. Mr. Sergeant-at-arms, if there is any more cheering in the lobby, you will please remove those guilty of it.
Mr. Donnell. In explanation of my vote on this subject, I feel it is our duty to co-operate with the border slave States, and, in doing so, I feel that this is not the time for Missouri to offer an ultimatum. I believe the time will come when we must co-operate with them, but I believe that time has not yet come to express that determina- tion. When that time comes, then I believe this question will properly come up and not before. I therefore vote against the amendment.
Mr. Dunn. " Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." When this question comes upon us I shall be prepared to meet it. To anticipate a question — to look forward in the course of events and say that if such and such things happen, we will do thus and so, is, in my opinion, unwise and improper. Besides, I understand the amend- ment to take the position that unless the Critten- den amendments to the Constitution shall be adopted, then we will go for nothing else. I am opposed to Missouri placing herself in such a position. I indorse those amendments to the Constitution most heartily and cordially, but yet it may turn out that we may not be able to get the Crittenden amendments to the Consti- tution, and we may get something that will suit us even better than the Crittenden amendments. I know not how this may be, but I deem it unwise that this Convention shall place itself in the pre- dicament of saying that nothing, either better or worse than the Crittenden amendments, will sat- isfy us. I am opposed to taking that position. It would bejust as unwise to say to the physician attending on some dear friend, if the dose of medicine first prepared should fail to cure the patient, it is no use to try anything else.— What would the wise physician do in that case ? If the dose he administers fails to cure, he would
try another and another, as long as there is hope of saving the life of the patient. So we should act. We should act in reference to our political troubles as the wise physician would act in reference to his patient, and as he would resort to any and ev- ery means that could promise a restoration of his patient's health, so we should resort to every means to secure an honorable adjustment of our difficulties and the restoration of our Union. We should not say in advance, if this fails, or anything else fails, we will go for a dissolution of the Union. We should leave ourselves in a condition to resort to any and every means of adjustment, in order that our constitutional rights may be secured in the Union. Now, I shall vote against the amendment. I do not wish to be understood, however, to say that, if, in spite of all our efforts to procure an amicable adjust- ment—if, in spite of all our efforts to preserve the Union— if, in spite of all we may do now or
218
hereafter, redress should be refused, and a dis- solution of the Union should come upon us, and the slave and free States should separate from each other — I do not wish to be understood in voting against the amendment, that I would not then be in favor of Missouri taking her position with the South. That would be her position after all our efforts have failed ; after all hope of sav- ing the Union is lost, and we are left to choose between the Northern and Southern Republics, then Missouri will take her position with her sis- ter States of the South. I do not wish to be mis- understood in voting against this amendment in regard to that matter. But we ought not to take the dark side of the picture; we ought not to be looking to a dissolution of the Union, but we ought to exert all our efforts to restore the Union and re-establish it. And here is the distinction be- tween a true Union man and a man Avho is not. A true friend of the Union is looking forward anx- iously towards every method of adjustment by which our rights can be secured and the Union preserved, but a man who is opposed to the Union is looking at the dark side of the picture, and reaching after ever3rthing that is to work out our destruction, and saying that if such a thing is not done the Union is gone. As a further explana- tion I have but a single remark to make, and that is this : as the gentlemen who have addressed us so ably and eloquently, have paid their respects to the glorious flag of our. country, I wish to say I indorse all they have said in reference to it, but permit me to pay my respects to the proud bird of liberty, now perched above the President's stand. Recognizing that eagle (pointing to it) as the type of liberty and union, I cannot better ex- press my feelings upon the subject than by saying : "Proud bird ! though marred by ruthless hands,
Thy name each freeman gladly hails. For well he knows in other lands,
Before thy glance the despot quails : Still make thy cherished home, among
The shrines reared by our patriot sires, 'Till the last sceptre shall be wrung
From tyrant hands— till time expires." I vote no.
Mr. Frazier. I have often been asked what I would do if these national difficulties cannot be settled; when we have exhausted all means I have often been asked as to what course Missouri should take ; am I willing to go with the North or with the South? I have replied that my feelings are with the South, but at the same time I say this, if you go out it will not be by secession but by revolution.
Mr. President, there is an amendment to the report by the Committee on Federal Relations, which, it seems to me, is calculated to meet the very wants anticipated in this amendment. I think, therefore, that there is no necessity for this amendment. Permit me to say, Mr. President, that I love this Union — I love it better than I have
language to express, and I have determined that if I can do nothing to advance the peace and per- petuity of the Union, I will do nothing toward destroying it. Sir, I love every man, whether he comes from the East, the West, the North or thG South, but God knows I lack language to ex- press the deep detestation I have for the man who hates my country and would bring about my country's ruin.
Mr. Gravelly. In explanation of my vote I desire to say that I am in favor of the plan of ad- justment proposed by Mr. Crittenden. I trust that such a basis of adjustment may be adopted by the National Convention proposed to be called in the resolutions. I believe that Missouri, occu- pying a central position as she does, should act as a mediator, and endeavor to bring about a re- conciliation between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery. But I believe it is inex- pedient to determine now that in the future we will take sides with the one party or the other. If we are acting as peace makers — if it is our object, sir, to bring about a reconciliation between those who are now divided, it does seem to me that it would be inexpedient, in advance, to decide that we will take sides with the one party or the other.
It is true, Mr. President, that gentlemen have argued here that the vote against a resolution of this kind is equivalent to the declaration that we will take the other side. It may be considered by some that in voting against this amendment we declare that in case there can be no settlement > Missouri should take her position by the side of the Northern States. But I do not believe that such a construction can rightfully be placed upon such a vote, and I shall not, therefore, hesitate to vote against this amendment. If a resolution had been submitted to this Convention declaring that if no settlement could be effected, Missouri would take her stand with the North, I would have noted ko upon such resolution, and the gentlemen who consider that to vote down this amendment, is equivalent to saying, "we will go with the North," could have accomplished their object much better by offering a resolution that, in case there can be no settlement, Missouri's des- tiny will be linked with the North, and then, if that resolution was voted down unanimously, ac- cording to those logical gentlemen, it would be equivalent to saying that we will stand by the side of our sister States of the South. I shall vote no on the amendment.
Mr. Hatcher. I do not understand this amendment to be in conflict with the spirit of the resolutions recommended by the Committee. I do not understand it to be an ultimatum, except in the event that all other slaveholding States see proper to dissolve their connection with the Union and go South. I represent a Union dis- trict on this floor— there is not a more Union lov-
219
ing people in the State than the people of my dis- trict. At the same time I represent a slavehold- ing district, whose feelings and whose interests are with their Southern brethren if the calamity of a dissolution of the Union must come. I know that I speak the sentiments of my district when I say that, if all the other slavholding States are forced to go South, they want to go South also. I therefore vote aye-
Mr Howell. The condition of my lungs has been such up to the present time as to preclude me from addressing this Convention, and my con- stituents through it upon the questions that have been presented for our action. That is yet my situation, anil I shall therefore be brief in defining my position on this amendment.
Sir, I stand here in this Convention emphati- cally a Constitutional Union man. I was recog- nized in the canvass as a Union man. I represent a Union constituency. They and I, are in favor of exhausting all efforts to obtain an ad- justment of the difficulties that now environ us and endanger the perpetuity of the Union of these States. We are not only in favor of exhausting all efforts to bring about that de- sirable purpose, but we are willing to wait to give ample time and labor for the reconstruction of the Government and the perpetuity of the Union. But, sir, after all reasonable time has been afforded, and when the Northern States refuse to afford satisfactory guarantees to the slaveholding States for their equality in the Union, and the maintenance of their rights in the Union, and the other slave States have seceded or rev- olutionized from this Union, it is then dis- solved, and the only question remaining is: "Where will Missouri take her position? Where will she throw her destiny? Will she be a tail to the Northern kite, or will she shake hands with her Southern sisters, and say, " Come weal or come woe, come sunshine or clouds, come life or death, we will go with the Southern States, we will go with our own blood and our own kin- dred!"
Now, sir, if the proposition before us was in my estimation an ultimatum held out to the North or the slave States upon the Crittenden compromise, I should unhesitatingly vote against it. But I do not understand it as such. I un- derstand it to announce the position, in substance, at least, that after all efforts have been exhausted without effect for reconciliation, and the other slave States have withdrawn from the Union, Missouri will be found in co-operation with her Southern sisters. That is what I believe she will do, and I believe it is only just to the re- maining slave States to say so; and it is only just, also, to announce the fact to Northern States, so that they may understand our position and the importance of rendering justice to the
slave States. Giving that construction to the amendment, I shall vote aye.
Mr. Ray. In explanation of my vote, Mr. President, I have this to say : I am opposed to that amendment, because I understand that it proposes to stake Missouri upon the Crittenden proposition as an ultimatum. I understand that it proposes to say to the North and to the border slave States, that we will take that as a compro- mise, and nothing else; that we will not be at liberty to agree upon terms other than those con- tained in the Crittenden proposition. I am op- posed to this Convention of the State of Missouri proposing any ultimatum upon this subject. My policy is this : I believe that Missouri, together with the other border slave States, ought to ex- haust all honorable efforts to secure an adjust- ment of present difficulties. I believe that it is yet in the power of the border slave States, in- cluding North Carolina, Tennessee and glorious Arkansas, to save this Union and secure an ad- iustment that will be honorable alike to the bor- der slave States, and that ought to satisfy the States that have gone out. I believe that by pur- suing a calm and dia^rified course of this kind, unaccompanied by any threats or menace, we can yet save this Union and secure an honorable ad- justment. I am for taking the Crittenden com- promise, if we can get it, or any other compro- mise that Missouri, in consultation with the other border slave States, may deem satisfactory to their honor and interest; but I am opposed to staking the weal of Missouri on the Crittenden compromise as an ultimatum.
There is another feature in the amendment about which I have this to say : It looks to a contingency that in my mind never can and never will happen. Virginia, Kentucky, and the other border slave States that now remain in the Union, that have withstood up to this hour all the efforts to precipitate them into revolution, and that will, in my estimation, continue to stand gloriously by this Union, in spite of all the efforts of de- signing men to the contrary— I believe that these border States, having stood up to this hour, will never go out hereafter. It is looking to a contingency that never can happen. I believe we can yet secure an adjustment by pursuing, as I have said, a calm, moderate course, unac- companied by any threat or menace. For this reason I am opposed to the amendment. But, Mr. President, should all honorable efforts for an adiustment ultimately fail; if that thing should happen which ccannot happen, name- ly, that all the border States now in the Union should go out of this Union; my opinion then is, whether wisely or unwisely, that all the powers upon earth could not hold Missouri in the Union. In that event, Missouii would unite her destiny with the slave States. I vote no.
220
Mr. Foster. Mr. President, before casting my vote upon the amendment now pending to the third resolution, I desire to say that I was elected as a Union man, pledged to do all I could to preserve the Union, and maintain our consti- tutional rights, and was fully pledged against se- cession, and as yet I have been unable to discover any reason which would induce me to aban- don that position. This amendment, if adopted, would, to say the least of it, give aid and comfort to the secessionists, which I desire shall not be done. I desire that this Convention will not do anything that even squints at secession, or gives aid or comfort to the enemies of this Gov- ernment. This amendment pledges Missouri that, in the event of the happening of certain contingencies, by some of our Southern sister States, then Missouri will follow their example.
Now, Mr. President, I have confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of the people of Virginia and Kentucky, yet I have as much confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of the people of Mis- souri as any people upon God's footstool, and that they are quite well calculated to determine for themselves f 11 questions that affect their in- terest. I am unwilling to hinge the destinies of Missouri upon the action of any State. I am perfectly willing to act in common with the bor- der slave States to devise some plan to adjust the difficulties that now distract the country.
Mr. President, I understand this amendment pledges Missouri, upon certain contingencies to take place by other States, that she will follow in their example, and in regard to this amend- ment I had just as soon vote for an ordinance of secession, to take effect when the States of Vir- ginia and Kentucky shall secede, as to vote for this amendment. I desire that our hands shall not be tied in that manner, but left free to act when the emergency shall arise, and not act prospectively on great questions that affect our interest. I was called upon and voted for a resolution, a few minutes since, which de- clares that there is no adequate cause now exist- ing to impel me to dissolve my connection with my Government, and now I am called upon to support this amendment, wdrich, in my judgment, is an indirect attempt at secession, or, in other words, it pledges Missouri to secede upon certain contingencies that may result from the action of other States.
Mr. President, this is one of the attempted in- roads of secession by the enemies of my country ; with this view of the amendment, and, if I know anything of my own heart, I know that there is not one drop of secession blood flowing in my veins ; therefore, with all pleasure imaginable to myself, and believing I am reflecting the will of my constituents, I vote no.
Mr. Hendrick. Mr. President, I wish very riefly to explain my reasons for casting my vote
against this amendment. The amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Hon. John J. Crittenden, extending to territory hereafter to be acquired, I consider a fair basis of adjustment. And when presented for the consideration of the conservative men of the Northern States in term of becoming respect, without cringing or threat- ening, I believe they will meet a just response; and, in the language of the resolution, I feel very much inclined to believe they will successfully re- move the causes of difference from the arena of national politics. I will, therefore, vote for the resolution as it is.
The amendment is objectionable because it de- clares that if such adjustment is not obtained, and the rest of the slave States withdraw from the Union, Missouri will withdraw also. The amend- ment fixes an ultimatum, and acknowledges the legal right of secession, which I cannot indorse.
When I was a candidate before the people I de- clared, in unequivocal language, that under all existing circumstances, I was positively in favor of the Union, and unconditionally opposed to se- cession, because I could not recognize any legal right in a State to. secede The right of revolu- tion I did not deny for adequate cause. For in- stance, if the General Government were to become so oppressive and unjust as to render the condi- tion of a State intolerable, and no remedy in the Union could be had, the ends of its creation would be defeated, and the State would adopt revolu- tionary measures at the hazard of the pains and penalties of treason. There is no such cause ex- isting or likely to exist.
Missouri came to be an integral part of the United States by treaty of purchase, which is the supreme law. And she came to be a sister State in this Confederacy by an act of Congress, which is also the supreme law of the land. When the people of Missouri Territory applied to be ad- mitted into the Union, they did so with their eyes open ; they saw and understood the Constitution, and consented to be governed by it. The Consti- tution was not a compact between the States im- posing mutual conditions and restrictions to be reciprocally observed, and if violated by one State liable to be declared broken and at an end by the rest of the States, and the Union dissolved. But the provisions of the Constitution were law, pos- sessing all the elements of law, with ample ca- pacity for its own enforcement. An act passed by the Legislature conflicting with the Constitu- tion is no breach of a compact, but it is in effect null and void, and is no cause for declaring the Constitution no longer binding upon the other States. Unconstitutional acts of the State Legis- latures are no cause for severing the Union. The constitutional remedy is to declare them void. This we knew when when we accepted the Con- stitution and consented to submit to these provis- ions. Missouri is a sister State by virtue of the
221
supreme law of the land, and no State ordinance of secession can abrogate it.
For these sentiments, I was elected and sent here. The amendment proposed looks to an event upon the happening of which she will secede. That event would be no cause for secession, and for that reason I vote no. Besides, the amend- ment is in the nature of a threat, unnecessary* and conv quemly would be repulsive to the Northern people, and tender inducements to tie border States to secede, whereas we ought to offer them inducements to remain in the Union with us.
Mr. Hudgins. I shall vote for the amend- ment, because I believe that such a proposition is necessary to be connected with that resolution, in order to make it represent the sentiments of the people of the State of Missouri. I believe that, under existing circumstances, nerve is necessary. I believe that Missouri is respected by the other border States ; that she must say that she will act with those States, and I hold that that resolution is what should be said by the State of Missouri. It is what I feel to be right myse'f, and I have nothing to withhold from the Convention, or that part of the State that I have the honor to repre- sent here. That amendment fully accords with my feelings upon the subject, and my action in the future, and I have no hesitation in voting aye.
Mr. Irwin. I have taken no active part in the discussion which has been progressing upon this floor for the last few days. I have been rather a listener than a speaker. But, sir, it is a duty that I owe to myself, and to the people whom I represent, that I shall have a word or two to say in reference to the reasons which will actuate me in voting on this amendment.
In my county, sir, I was asked the question du- ring the canvass, whether, in case the border slave States should dissolve their connection with the Union, I was in favor of Missouri taking her position in the South or in the North. I an- swered that I was a Union man, and that I was not for going either North or South. I was in favor of Missouri staying just where she is. I was in favor of her contending and battling for her rights in the Union, not out of it. I wanted Missouri to stand under the Constitution, and un- der the flag of my country— that flag which has waved so proudly over land and sea, under the folds of which we have enjoyed security, pros- perity and peace. But, sir, I said further, that whenever that time arrived when Missouri should be compelled to take her stand either with the North or with the South, whenever separation must come, I was in favor of Missouri iden- tifying herself with the South. I stand there to- day, sir, and I assume the same position here which I assumed before my constituents, which is, that I do not believe that Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and the other slav„
States, are ever going to leave this Union, unless it is for a reason that would justify revolu- tion. Whenever the alternative is presented to Missouri, that she must either be degraded — as was remarked by the gentleman from St. Louis, true liberty knows no degradation — I say, when- ever the alternative is presented that Missouri must either be degraded and trampled upon, or resort to the right of revolution, I shall advise her to take the latter course. But I do not believe that we shall ever be driven to this alternative. I have a firm and abiding faith that an amicable adjustment between the North and the South will be effected by the interposition of the border States. Upon that presumption, I said I was willing to risk the destiny of Missouri with that of the other border slave States; and I stand here today holding the same views, entertaining the same fervent hopes, with the flag of my coun- try before me, and that bird, the emblem of my country's liberty, looking down upon this con- gregated body, as it were with anxious solici- tude; and I say, with such surroundings, here in this great State, great in extent, great in the num- ber of her population, great in her commercial and agricultural and industrial and educational interests; and, above all, as recent events have developed, great in the patriotism which burns in the hearts of her citizens — I say with all these surroundings, I cannot but hope that this Union may be preserved. I believe there is too much patriotism and too much conservatism in the border States, ever to suffer a govern- ment like this to be dissolved— a Government the very foundations of which are laid in the purest patriotism that ever ardorned the history, of a nation — a Government the very tttones of which are cemented with the blood and tears of patriots — a Government that has showered upon us innumerable blessings from the time of its foundation down to the present hour. But, not- withstanding I take this position, I can yet not vote for the amendment offered to the resolution, and my reason for it is this, I am opposed to Missouri, at the present time, saying to Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, to any or all of the border slave States, " If you will do this or if you will do that, we will do thus and so." I am opposed to saying any such thing, and that is just what the amendment amounts to. As I have already said, I am in favor of Missouri co-operating with the border slave States, in bringing about an amica- ble adjustment. I am in favor of Missouri res- ponding to the call for a Convention, in which delegates from the various States may meet to- gether— men without preconceived notions and dogmas, and with minds open to conviction. But I want the delegates from Missouri to go there un- trammeled with reference to any course of poli- cy. I want them to understand that Missouri
222
will approve of the Crittenden Compromise, but yet that Missouri will accede to any other com- promise or equitable plan of adjustment. Be- lieving, then, that this amendment looks to an ultimatum, for with it a construction may be placed upon the resolution to the effect that if the North will not accept the Crittenden pro- position, we will not listen to any other, I shall vote no.
Mr. Moss. In the explanation of my vote, I shall say this, that I have been waiting for a week, and trying to get this Convention to assent to a proposition pledging Missouri to some action in the attempt to save this Union. I am willing, now, for Missouri to say what she will do to pre- serve this Union; but, sir, as for saying what Missouri shall do, when the Union is finally de- stroyed, and we are to have a government North, and one South, I have never fixed any policy in my mind for Missouri to pursue under such cir- cumstances. As I remarked a few days ago, I jook not beyond the Union for Missouri's fate. I do not undertake to work out any line of policy that she shall pursue when this Government is hopelessly destroyed. I therefore vote no.
Mr. Noell. The point involved in this amend- ment, was made during the canvass in the Twen- ty-sixth Senatorial District. I have the honor, in part, to represent that District, and I was asked what I would do in the event that all the other border States went out of the Union. I re- plied that I did not like to think of Missouri, or any other border State, going out of the Union at all_that I wanted her to stay in the Union : but that, if such a thing should unfortunately come to pass — if Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, and the other Border States, did have to go out of the Union, I would be for standing by our sister bor- der States ; and believing that to be the senti. ment of my constituents, although they are Union people and love the Union dearly, I shall vote aye.
Mr. Norton. I desire to claim the indul- gence of the Convention whilst I explain in a few words the reasons which shall control my vote on the amendment now before the Conven- tion. Looking to the act of the Legislature call- ing this body together, and this Convention, be- ing restricted in the objects for its deliberations to the consideration of the present relations ex- isting between the people of this State and the Federal Government, and the relations existing between the people of this State and the other States, our business here is to deal with our present relations to the Federal Government, and not with future relations, which may never exist. We have our hands full in taking care of the pres- ent. It is our object to inaugurate a policy in conjunction with the border slave States, which will bring about a fair, honorable and just ad-
justment of all present troubles, now and forever. This amendment contemplates that such an ad- justment of these difficulties will not be made. I do not believe that such will be the result; on the contrary, whenever the Crittenden proposi- tions are submitted to the people of the North free from the influence of the corrupt politicians and demagogues of the North, I believe that they will be adopted in every Northern State. Thus believing, I do not think that we should here anticipate an event, which, in my judgment, will never hap- pen. When that event does come, and all the slaveholding States dissolve their connection with the Federal Government the course of Missouri is plain. Her sympathies, her feelings, tics of blood and kindred would cause her to stand side by side with Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. My individual feelings, sir, are with them, and whenever that dark day does come, Missouri, in my judgment, will do her whole duty, and take her stand by her sisters of the South. If that state of case were now upon us there would be no room for hesitancy. This, however, now sir, is not the case, and our mission here is with the present and not with the future. In the lan- guage of my friend from Ray, "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." We should do noth- ing here to prevent a peaceful termination of pres- ent difficulties, and as the amendment proposed offers an olive branch in one hand and a war- club in the other, and has thus a tendency rather to retard than facilitate the object we all desire, I vote nay.
Mr. Woolfolk. I would not be understood, Sir, in voting against this amendment, to indorse its opposite. I should unhesitatingly vote against its opposite — that we would remain with the North if the other slave States abandoned the Union. I have no doubt, Sir, that if causes ever arise to drive the other border slave States from the Union, the same causes will influence Mis- souri to take her position with them. When causes arise to justify Kentucky, Maryland and Virginia in revolution, I expect to be a rebel my- self. Missouri will never abandon the South when the South is right; she will never tamely permit the Northern Vandal to plant the heel of despotism upon her bosom. I shall vote against the amendment because it is premature, speculative, and unnecessary. It is also an ultimatum in disguise. But I shall vote against it more especially because its language is degrading to the sovereign people of Missouri. It does not pledge her to joint ac- tion with the other border slave States, but it commits her to an inferior position. It commits her to the position of saying she will not act up- her own discretion, she will not assert her own sovereignty, but will follow where the other bor-
223
der slave States shall lead, abandoning her right to an equal share in their councils.
We are here, sir, to represent the sovereign people of Missouri, not the people of any other State. We are here to say what causes will impel the State of Missouri to revolution, not what we will do if other States revolutionize. The bor- der State of Missouri will act in concert with the other border slave States, but she should be too proud of her own sovereignty to blindly commit herself to follow the lead of any State that acts without consulting her. If this amendment were adopted, I see no reason for this Convention here to-day. I see no meaning in State-rights or State- sovereignty. I see no reason why we should meet the other slave States in Convention, if we pledge ourselves in advance to be governed by their action whatever that action may be.
Mr. Phillips. In the canvass, the question was repeatedly put to me : In the event that the Border States shall pursue a certain line of policy, whether or not I would be willing to pledge Missouri to co-operate with them. My answer was this : That I was in favor of Missouri co-operating with the border slave States for the purpose of adjusting our difficulties; that, if every energetic effoit, and every patriotic sacrifice, if every christian prayer and burning tear should fail to save this Union, I was in favor, not as a remedy, but as a last resort, of Missouri casting her destiny with that of the border slave States, and that the border slave States should take that position where their in- terests and institutions would be best pro- tected. Where that position would be, I did not pretend to say, nor can I now undertake to say as much. I was opposed to ultimatums, and my objection, sir, to this amendment is this : that it goes before the people of the North with a defined proposition— Mohammed like, with a sword in one hand and a koran in the other. It goes before the people of the North with a defined proposition in one hand, and in the other a cudgel, and saying if you don't take this, you shall have the benefit of that. I am opposed, sir, to anything of that sort. Besides, sir, the probabili- ty is that we shall be called upon to co-operate with Virginia and our sister border States in a Convention to be held at Frankfort. We are to meet there, for what? To ascertain what the wishes of the slave States are, what we want. And is it proper for Missouri, in supporting this amendment, to take an action that will forestall the action of the Convention at Frankfort. Is it proper for us to say, gentlemen, if you don't take what we want, we will have nothing else. Certainly not. We are to ascer- tain what they want and what we want ; we should meet together with them, and agree upon some principle of adjustment, and not go there and offer to them an ultimatum. For that,
if for no other reason, I should be opposed to the amendment. It will be time enough, after we have exhausted all other means for a settlement of these difficulties, to say what we will do. We have come here to bring about an amicable adjustment. We have not come here in a spirit of threat or menace or to drive the people into an adjustment. It is our duty to act in a spirit of compromise, forbearance and conciliation; and it is by that means, and by that means alone, that we can settle our difficul- ties if they can be settled at all. I vote no.
Mr. Redd. In order to explain the reasons why I shall vote for this amendment, it will be necessary for me to look at the connection be- tween the resolution and the amendment. The resolution proposes the Crittenden proposition as the basis upon which the people of Missouri will be willing to adjust the present difficulties, and upon which the differences now existing would be removed from the arena of National politics. The amendment declares that in the event that the Northern States do not agree to such adjust- ment, and the other border States will leave the Union, Missouri will cast her destiny with the South.
I call the attention of the Convention particu- larly to the phraseology of the amendment, viz : "In <^ase the North should not agree to such ad- justment." What does that mean? Does it mean, as gentlemen seem to think, that if they refuse the Crittenden proposition, no other propo- sition can be entertained ? No. We recommend the Crittenden proposition as a basis, that in pur opinion will do a certain thing, namely, remove the cause of difference from the arena of National politics. Now, the amendment says, that "if they refuse to agree to such an adjustment," &c. What adjustment? Why, such an adjustment as will effect the results attached to the Crittenden propositions in the original resolution. "If they refuse to agree to any adjustment or settlement that will remove the causes of difference from the arena of National politics" — that is the Ian. guage.
[Here Mr. Redd was interrupted by Mr. Phillips, who contended that, by the wording of the amendment and the resolution, the Crittenden proposition was offered as an ultimatum, and not as a proposition merely to be recommended.]
Mr. Redd. I do not agree with the gentleman in his construction of the amendment. I take the amendment to mean that, if the Northern States refuse to agree to such an adjustment as will have the effect referred to, and if, after such refusal, our sister slave States, that are yet with us in the Union, withdraw, then Missouri will take a firm and decided stand in favor of her Southern sis- ters. Surely, in that case, she can do nothing else consistently with her honor. She cannot re- main with the Northern States after such refusal.
224
She cannot consent to submit to a government which is administered npon the dogmas of the anti-slavery party.
I do not object to the resolution, but I must say that its terms are not strong and explicit enough for me. It does not tell the whole truth. It does not say that when that contingency arrives Mis- souri will take her stand beside her sister slave States out of the Union. I am not afraid to com- mit Missouri to that policy. Let me warn the gentlemen of this Convention — if this Convention votes down that amendment what will the people say? The objection is urged, you make an ulti- matum. That is not true. But I say that by vot- ing it down you do make an ultimatum. And what is that? It is the enunciation that, under under all circumstances, in every contingency, you will sacrifice our institutions and con- stitutional rights to the North. It is saying to the anti-slavery party, we won't go out, though all the balance go. I am opposed to any such thing. I believe the border States should state an ultimatum. They should concede every- thing that can be conceded consistently with their honor, but after they have made that concession, they should present an ultimatum; and what would be the character of that ultimatum ? Sim- ply this, that the North should not violate the let- ter of the Constitution in the future.
Sir, after this Convention votes down that amendment, they will make secessionists by the hundreds, thousands, in the State of Missouri. That will be its effect. And because I am op- posed to secession; until Ave can give the plan we'may adopt for adjustment a fair trial, I will oppose everything that will tend to drive Missou- ri out of the Union. I have lately heard from my own county. The Inaugural of the Presi- dent, and the course of this Convention in regard to it, have had their effect in that county. There is to-day flying from the summit of its temple of justice a fhig, and upon that flag is a rattlesnake upon a white field, and below it is the motto : " Do not tread on me." Gentlemen, if you pledge Missouri to stand by the North, you will see those rattlesnake flags flying to the breeze all over the State. Yes, you will see them ; and sur- rounded here, as I am, by an outside pressure of this great Republican party — while I am no se- cessionist, yet I am proud of old Marion for do- ing as she has done. She has shown that she de- serves the name she bears. It is the name of the noble old warrior that stood up against oppres- sion . When you undertake to attach Missouri to the Northern States, after all her sisters have been driven out, she will be in a condition like Prometheus chained to a rock, with the vul- ture of Abolitionism feeding upon her vitals.
Mr. Sawyer. I have hitherto occupied no portion of the time of this Convention, but I deem it a duty which I owe to myself and my
constituents to say a few words in relation to the vote I am about to give. I represent, in part, on this floor, a district situated in the heart of the hemp growing region of this State — a district owning nearly one-eighth of the entire slave population of the State, and having an intense feeling upon the subject which now agitates the public mind, I cannot better explain the reasons for the vote which I am about to give, than by briefly stating the position I occupied in the canvass preceding the election. The grounds taken by me distinct- ly and unequivocally — for there was no dodging and there was no equivocation whatever in the positions which I laid down to that people — were, in the first place, that the difficulties which now agitate this country must be settled, or Missouri was inevitably ruined. I stated that I was wil- ling to accept the Crittenden proposition as a basis of adjustment, or an equivalent to that proposition, which was as little, as I thought, Missouri should accept.
Now, sir, what does this amendment contem- plate? The original resolution proposes distinct- ly, the adoption of the Crittenden proposition as a fair basis of settlement. To that, sir, I accede most heartily. The amendment simply proposes that in the event of a failure to settle this question, not upon the Crittenden basis, but upon the failure of an adjustment of these diffi- culties, and upon the further event that all the re- maining slave States shall go out of the Union, then Missouri most unmistakeably will take her position with her Southern sisters. That, I un- derstand, sir, to be the whole of it. If I under- stood that this amendment laid down the Crit- tenden proposition as an ultimatum, and that it precluded the settlement of this question upon any other basis equivalent to that, most assured- ly, sir, I should vote against the amendment. But I understand this amendment merely proposes to express the opinion of Missouri, that in the event of no adjustment whatever of a satisfactory charac- ter, and that furthermore the remaining slave States shall leave this Union, then Missouri's in- terest is unquestionably with the South. Sir, I accede to that proposition most heartily; and I say I would be false to the pledges which I made, if I should fail, under the circumstances, to vote for the amendment. I therefore vote aye.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard. It is with shame and mortification that I see such an amendment as this offered in this Convention. I do not mean anything disparaging to the gentle- men who are supporting it. I am willing to con- cede to them the patriotism that is burning in my own heart. But, sir, have they looked at the con- sequences of the passage of that amendment? Have they considered it? Why, sir, the curse of our country— that which has brought us to our present deplorable condition — is the practice of
225
designing politicians to look into the future and imagine evils and excite the apprehensions of the people, because such and such a thing may or may not happen. Has not that been the curse under which we have been laboring ? Is not that what we have been contending against? Has not that brought us to this verge of ruin? And now, do not my friends consider — for I want to call them my friends and my breth- ren—the effect of this? They tell us they want to take this question outside of party polities. Yes, sir, take it from the arena of Na- tional politics; and where do they want to put it? Right at our own doors. Right at our own doors to excite our own people. Have the supporters of this amendment weighed the consequences of this? My friend from Marion says that the refu- sal to pass this amendment would makesecession- ist< by thousands. He says that it is not his de- sire that such should be the case, but it will have that effect. Yet a fire-brand is introduced and advocated which is acknowledged to hare an effect which is at the same time deprecated. Does he not see that the introduction of this amendment has for its only object, the continu- ed agitation of the slavery question? Does he not see that instead of pacifying the public mind he will throw a fire-brand among the people to be taken up by petty poli- ticians and designing men for the purpose of ex- citing our people to war among themselves? Why should we express such a sentiment as this, when we know that our constituents are faithful to the Union, faithful to the Con- stitution, and have integrity as men and citi- zens and will act with honor to the State when the exigency of the times calls upon them to act? I would respectfully submit to the Convention, as to whether the adoption of this amendment does not say to our border sister States, we will not now secede, but if you do so, we will follow. Is this right ? Nay, I say is it a mark of bravery ? Unity of action on this subject with the Border Slave States will alone produce harmony amon r our own citizens. You might as well introduce a resolution in this body that the people of Mis- souri are all honest men, and then tell us if we vote it down that it will make dishonest men by the thousand.
Mr. President, such a resolution as this is an insult to my constituents, because it puts into the hands of politicians and men who have not a particle of interest in the slave question, the power to excite an agitation among our people which will destroy our institutions.
Mr. President, I think it is far preferable that we should present these and similar propositions through our delegates in a Convention of the States. We can there get our ultimatums by the concurrrent act of all of them. That is the best plan, and that is what my constituents told me
in effect, while our sentiments and our feelings and in my opinion our interests, called us, when the last hope of reconciliation shall perish, to unite our destiny with our Southern brethren, yet the grand, permanent object was the preser- vation of this glorious Union.
Was not that the position that you and I took before our respective constituencies? Was not that the position which you and I occupied before the people, when we told them that we were not for presenting any ultimatum, or any thing that squinted towards an ultimatum? But when the proper occasion should arrive, when we should meet face to face with men from the North, repre- senting the Northern people, then we would pre- sent an ultimatum, if necessary, if we could not get our rights so guaranteed as to take the ques- tion forever out of the hands of politicians. If then we can not have peace and harmony, we can provide for a peaceable separation. That, sir, is a sufficient reason why I shall vote against this amendment, and all such amendments; and I have no fear of the result. Such a course does not sacrifice my honor, but I can preserve the peace and harmony of my own people by it.
Mr. Sheeley. I desire to say a few words. When I consented to become a candidate for this Convention, I stated I would take the Crittenden Compromise as the basis of settlement, though I preferred the propositions of Mr. Douglas, and prefer them here to-day. But I was willing to take them as a basis, and would co-operate with the border States, in using every honorable means for an adjustment on that basis so long as there was a reasonable hope to save this Union. The question was propounded to me, suppose that everything fails, what will you then do? I said the destiny of Missouri was South, and she was bound to go there. Now, sir, this is is not, as I understand it, an ultimatum at all. It mere- ly declares that when all these things take place, when the State finds that the Union is dissolved, and all the States go out, that then— our destiny is with the South. That is the way I look at it; and so, too, I pledged myself to the people of my District. I must either vote aye or violate that pledge, and I think you know me too well to think that I ever violate a pledge. I will vote aye on this amendment.
Mr. Smith, of Linn. I ask the indulgence of the Convention for a few moments, while I state my reasons for voting against this amendment. It has been attempted to cast imputations upon men who vote against this amendment, viz ; — that by their votes they will declare to the Northern and Southern people, that we in- tend to keep Missouri in the Union with the Northern people under any and all circum- stances. The position which I took before my constituents, was about this : I declared myself to be a Union man ; that in my judgment no suf-
15
226
ficient cause existed that would justify Missouri for seceding from the Federal Government, and I pledged myself not to vote for an ordinance of secession at this time. I further pledged myself to use every exertion in my power to bring about conciliation, and a fair and amicable adjustment of the difflcuties existing between the extremes of this Government. I do not believe, sir, that I can, consistently with that pledge, vote for the amendment. I believe it would operate as a fire- brand among the people, and will have a tenden- cy to diminish, if not destroy, the influence of Missouri.
I object to the amendment for another reason : I do not believe that Missouri can determine for twelve months, or perhaps two years, whether she ought to go anywhere, and I am unwilling to say what the people of Missouri will do two or three years hence. I am unwilling to act upon anything, sir, except the present. I am unwilling to pledge Missouri to any course in the future. I believe the people of Missouri will be just as competent twelve months hence, or five years hence, to determine their interest and then- duty, as they are to-day. And, sir, for this rea- son I feel it my duty to vote against the amend- ment.
I regretted to hear certain remarks from the gentleman from Marion, Mr. Redd, while giving the reasons for his vote. I regretted to hear him complain of the active outside pressure that has been working upon him since he has been in this Convention. As for myself, I have met with no such pressure. I have not felt any pressure from the Republicans— from Abolition- ists or Secessionists. Why it is that they have pressed or disturbed the gentleman from Ma- rion I do not know. The reason why I was not disturbed is, I suppose, that people regard me as a man of some intelligence and de- termination— a man who would carry out the promise that he made to his constituents. This is the reason, I suppose, that I have not felt this outside pressure of which the gentleman com- plains. I regretted to hear another remark — he threatened us with that big rattlesnake. Now, sir, I can inform the gentleman from Marion that rat- tlesnakes have but little terror to Missourians, es- pecially up in the Northwest. When I first settled in that portion of the State, rattlesnakes were a great deal thicker than Secessionists are now, and we have killed them all out, nearly. [Laughter.] Secessionists, too, are getting to be about as scarce as the rattlesnakes. But I tell that gentleman that in my judgment, the snake of which he speaks, has come out a little too soon in the season, for this latitude, and the frost and ice will over- take him, and he will be killed. [Laughter.]
Mr. President, as I have no desire to place my- self on the record, and feeling perfectly satisfied that the intelligence of my constituents will en-
able them to determine the reasons that prompt me for every vote I shall give here, I shall detain the Convention no longer, but vote no.
Mr. Welch. My vote upon this amendment is governed entirely by its phraseology. The sentiment which I presume the gentleman from Montgomery desired to incorporate in it, is one which would meet my approbation, if put in a different shape and expressed by different phraseology. I differ with the gentleman in the construction of this amendment, and I must be governed by my own judgment in regard to the matter. The original reso- lution, if I understand it, sir, pledges this Convention, and the people of the State, to be satisfied with the Crittenden compromise. The amendment, in my judgment, declares that, un- less the North will yield us that particular propo- sition, and unless the Border States shall stay in the Union, Missouri will go out also.
Now, sir, while I heartily approve of the Critten- den propositions, I also indorse fully as well the propositions known as the Douglas propositions, and I am willing to take the Border States pro- positions, and would be satisfied with the propo- sitions of the Peace Congress. In the words of Mr. Botts, of Virginia, if the North and the South will only agree upon some basis of settlement, I will agree and never ask what it is. I am willing, I say, that either of these propositions shall be adopted, so far as I am concerned, and while I indorse the motive and the purpose which the gentleman from Montgomery had in offering the amendment, I cannot support it when it is connected with the original resolu- tion. I say to him now, that, if he will intro- duce a separate resolution, disconnected with that original one which makes the Crittenden compromise the basis of settlement, and declar- ing that when all compromise shall fail, and all the Border States shall leave this Confederacy, Missouri will go too, I will vote for a proposition of that kind very cheerfully. But, sir, I cannot vote for this amendment, because by its phraseol- ogy it makes the settlement of our difficulties de- pendent on the adoption of the Crittenden compro- mise. I am willing to take any compromise which will be satisfactory to Border States or the South. The Committee on Federal Relations have sub- mitted a proposition calling for a Border States' Convention. That is the proper tribunal to es- tablish an ultimatum . I construe this amendment as an ultimatum, and as pledging Missouri to abandon the Union if the Crittenden proposi- tions are not adopted, together with the addi- tional fact that the remaining Border States shall leave. I shall therefore vote no.
Mr. Calhoun. By the special permission of this body, although I have already voted, I will in a very few words state the reasons which prompted me in giving that vote. I voted aye
227
on the amendment because I did not look upon it as an ultimatum. So far as I could understand from its wordings the Cnttenden Compromise or some other similar proposition was recom- mended by it as a basis of adjustment, and as I am in favor of the Crittenden Compromise, and the people whom I have the honor to represent on this floor, are in favor of that compromise, I felt quite wan-anted in voting for it. I will state that if this amend- ment is to be regarded in the light of an ultima- tum, I disapprove of it, and in that case I should ask the favor of this body to change my vote. I am for the Crittenden Compromise or any other compromise which will prove satisfactory to the slaveholding States. I would not stake the weal of Missouri on the adoption of that particular compromise.
As for the other feature in the amendment, name- ly, that in case all the slave States should go out of the Union, and there should be a Northern and a Southern confederacy, Missouri will go with the South, I must say that I agree to it. If that ca- lamity must come, (and God grant that it never will come!) I am in favor of Missouri casting her destiny with the South. But I fervently hope we shall be able to effect a peaceable settlement, and that this Union will continue. I believe it is in our power to bring about such a settlement, and I shall never think of leaving this Union so long as there is any hope for it. Sir, I would have been willing to vote for the report, just as it came from the committee, for it is a report breathing the true Union sentiment. But, supposing that there was nothing in the amendment which con- flicted with the spirit of that report, I voted aye. I shall ask leave to change my vote, if it is to be looked upon as an ultimatum.
Mr. Henderson. I was not in when the roll was being called. I desire to record my vote upon this proposition, and especially do I desire to do it, inasmuch as there will be most assuredly a difference between myself and my colleagues in regard to it. Since I have heard the remarks of my friend, Judge Calhoun, I am satisfied that he has been laboring under an error in regard to the amendment. I was laboring under an error myself until I went and got the amendment, and in order that I may be corrected, and that other gentlemen who seem to labor under the same mis- apprehension as myself, may see the true mean- ing of the amendment, I propose to read both the resolution and the amendment.
[Here Mr. Henderson read the resolution and amendment.]
Now, I call the especial attention of my col- leagues to the monstrous proposition contained in this amendment. If we adopt it, it evidently commits us in a way which may prove extremely pernicious to the interests of Missouri. What was the position which we took in the canvass
for this Convention ? Did we say to the people, or in any way imply by what we said, that in case a certain compromise should be refused, Missouri ought to secede? Why, sir, I stated distinctly, and my colleagues know that I did, that if the Cnttenden proposition, or the Border States proposition, or the Douglas proposition, or the proposition of the Peace Con- ference failed as a compromise, that we would yet not secede. But, sir, we are pledged to se- cession here — if there is any meaning in the Eng- lish language— provided this one solitary propo- sition is voted down. I will admit that the fur- ther proposition is attached to it, that in case the other border States shall secede, we will secede also. Now sir, so far as I am concerned, I dis- tinctly took the ground that if every Southern State in the Union should secede, Missouri then would have a proud mission to per- form, and that would be to assemble to- gether delegates from every State in this Union once more in Independence Hall, where the Federal Constitution was made, and that we would enter into the confederacy with< such States, North and South, as would meet us there, and once more cement the bonds of this Union.
I desire now to ask the gentleman who offered: the amendment if he believes in the constitu- tional right of a State to secede? I pause for a reply.
Mr. Bast. The gentleman entirely misappre- hends the scope of my amendment. It has noth- ing to do with the constitutional right of seces- cession at all. It simply states that, in case we should be unable to effect a satisfactory adjust- ment of existing difficulties, and all the slave States should go out of the Union, Missouri will go with them. I should like to see the Missourian who, in case the alternative is presented of a Northern or a Southern Confederacy, will not be in favor of Missouri casting her destiny with the South.
Mr. Henderson. The gentleman does not answer my question. I ask him again if he be- lieves in the constitutional right of a State to se- cede?
Mr. Bast. I have already stated that that question is not involved in my amendment at all ; when it comes up in its proper connection, I will willingly state my position in regard to it.
Mr. Henderson. As the gentleman does not choose to answer this question directly, I will put to him another. Did he vote for the first resolution of the Committee on Federal Relations, adopted by the Convention ?
Mr. Bast. No.
Mr. Henderson. Then, Mr. President, the gentleman having voted against the first resolu- tion, he negatives the proposition that no sufficient cause now exists for Missouri to dis-
22S
solve her eonnection with the Federal Govern- ment. If that be true, the gentleman sees cause to-day tor dissolving this Union. He does not desire to wait, and, sir, this ultimatum (for it is an ultimatum) proposed in .his amendment only- looks forward at the early period when the people of this proud State shall be driven headlong into revolution. Sir, with my views, believing that no State has the constitutional right peaceably to secede from the Federal Government — (I am not disponed to deny the revolutionary right)— I do not see that that right could be conferred upon us, provided even that the Old Dominion should secede. I do not see that, with a proper loyalty to the Federal Constitution, we could secede mere- ly because Maryland, or Tennessee, or Kentucky, or any other State, had seceded. Sir, there is abet- ter remedy proposed than that, namely, by amend- ing our Constitution, as it now exists. Let those amendments be offered, and, sir, the patriotic people of the United States will not deny justice to any portion of our country. If the laws are defective let them be amended. And, sir, the past history of the country affords us the greatest assurance for the future that such laws will ever be provided as accord justice and equality to every portion of the eountry. I know why such pro- positions as this are offered for a remedy. They enable designing men to appeal to the prejudice of the people. They afford them an opportunity to tell the people that this or that man, who has voted against them, is a Freesoiler or an Aboli- tionist; and they are calculated to give full play in the State to petty demagogues and design- ing politicians. Sir, contemptible pettifoggers and miserable politicians seem now to have seized the reins of government, and all men who look to peaceable reforms— all men who look to a restoration of that tranquillity and hap- piness that have blessed us for so many years, and without which we should be powerless, are being denounced as Republicans and Northern partisans.
Mr. President, I, for one, defy all their efforts, and all their wiles, and all their schemes and in- sinuations. I have made up my mind that this is the best government upon earth, and that he who would attempt to tear down the columns that sustain it, or mar its fair proportions in any way, is a traitor, and nothing else. When I say this, I wish it understood that when my rights as an American citizen are denied me, and op- pression becomes the rule of conduct by the Gov- ernment, I claim the right of revolution. But I do not claim that any man is justifiable, under any of the grievances of the present day, in tear- ing down the fair proportions of this magnificent republic. Every means are being resorted to, in these days of wild misrule and error, as the gen- tleman from St. Louis, the other day, rightly re- marked, to present propositions appealing to
the Southern heart. I remember that a good many years ago, at Hartford, an ultimatum was presented by the gentlemen who as- sembled there in Convention. They offered amendments to the Federal Constitution, and they declared the right of a State to secede. They fur- thermore declared that if their rights were not se- cured according to their proposed amendments, they would dissolve their connection with the Federal Government and erect New England into an independent confederacy. What has become of those traitors and conspirators? Where now are they, Mr. President? Sir, the finger of scorn was pointed at them, and they have gone down the stream of time, an object of contempt and hatred by an honest people. So, also, at a subse- quent period in our history, another similar at- tempt was made, and it was visited with the same scorn by an indignant people. And now, sir, upon this' occasion, whatever may be the Up service of men, if their actions are tending to the disruption of this Union, I hope and trust that the same scorn may overtake them as trait- ors.
Sir, the other day a secession flag was hung out in one of the streets of this city. On the op- posite side of the street was an American flag, with the names of Lincoln and Hamlin inscribed upon it. Does it follow that, because I despise that secession flag, I should owe allegiance to the Republican party, who had hung out the other flag? Or does it follow that, because I do not approve the election of Lincoln and Hamlin to the supreme offices of the Government, I must needs become a secessionist? Surely not. So long as those two flags were suspends 1 in the street, although a great many people crowded around the houses from which they were sus- pended, and the excitement among them ran high, still I had no part in the controversy. But when I saw the American stars and stripes hoist- ed without any names upon it, I heard a shout rise from the assembled multitude which made my heart proud. I felt, sir, that a device that might be put upon the flag of my country, and the piratical flag of disunion, were both to be thrown aside, and in their stead was to be the flag of my country.
Sir, a paper has been established in this city that is to be a part and parcel of the disunion scheme. Conceived in iniquity, brought forth in fraud, having been the result of a combination so mean and contemptible that it deserves the execra- tion of honest men, it yet comes forward upon the world, and undertakes to denounce men for be- ing patriots. It may be that in the future, it will find good men enough on whom to vent its spleen, its malice and vituperation; yet, I can say that, notwithstanding the corruptions that sur- round its birth— notwithstanding the malice and vituperative energy with which it
229
may be conducted, still the Union sentiments of Missouri will prevail, and secession, in less than six months from to-day, will not be claimed by any man who desires to have a respectable position among her citizens. I vote no on this amendment.
Mr. Zimmerman gave a brief explanation of his vote. He was a Union-loving man, and rep- resented a Union-loving constituency. He want- ed all means for an amicable adjustment to be exhausted, and felt sanguine that, with the pro- verbial patriotism of the American people, such an adjustment could be effected satisfactorily to all parties. He was heartily in favor of the ma- jority report, and approved of its conciliatory spirit. He had voted aye on the amendment be- cause he held that it was not in conflict with the spirit of the report. He could not concur in the opinion of some gentlemen, that the amendment was an ultimatum. If he had thought so he would not have voted for it.
Mr. Calhoun desired permission to change his vote from aye to no.
Mr. Ritchey. Mr. President, as I have occu- pied but little of the time of this Convention since we organized, I desire at this time to give some reasons for the vote that I am now about to give. Sir, on the 18th of last month, at the ballot box throughout the district which I in part repre- sent here, at least three-fifths of the voters in that district, instructed me to vote against this amend- ment. The reason why I say that I was instruct- ed to vote against it is this : I hold in my hand a circular containing a speech delivered by me at a mass meeting, held at our county seat just two weeks before the election, in which speech I gave my views and the policy that I Avas in favor of; and at the same meeting a series of resolutions were adopted, which I indorsed and had printed in this circular. Having sent these circulars to all parts of the district, and having besides visited the counties in my district, my constituents knew my policy. And I will ask the indulgence of this House till I can read a paragraph from this speech. In speaking of the duties of this Convention, I stated as follows :
" Then what are the duties of our State Con- vention? They will be many; too numerous to name here. But one is, to cling to the Union, so long as there is a ray of hope that we will get our Constitutional rights under the Federal Government — to do what they can to bring about a National Convention and a re- conciliation between the different sections. Let Missouri, with the other border States, both slave and free, stand as a mediator between the offended and the offending States, and if we, as a double row of States, reaching from the At- lantic to the Pacific, will stand firm to our post, and tire not in our exertions, we may yet be the
humble instruments, in God's hand, of saving this nation from ruin."
And now I will read from the resolutions. The eighth resolution is as follows:
"That holding views we are not prepared to abandon the Union, with all its blessings, while any hope of adjustment remains. Until then we will maintain our place in the Union, and contend for and demand our equal and constitu- tional rights, and will not be content with less."
Now, Mr. President, I am opposed to saying to the General Government, "You shall do this, or you shall do that." I am opposed to Missouri saying to the border States, "If you will do this or that, we will do so too." There is a point where forbearance ceases to be a virtue; but let Missouri reserve to herself the right to say when and where that point is. I wish to say, while I am up, Mr. President, that the people whom I in part represent here, feel that they are citizens of these United States, that they are loyal to the Government in which they live, and wish this Government to be per- petuated, and all the difficulties to be adjusted.
We know that we have received many blessings from this Government; and we have hopes and believe these difficulties can all be settled through and by a National Convention. And while I say this, I wish to say further, that we are not sub- missionists. No sir, we are far from it, and we expect our rights in amendments to the Constitu- tion. Then I feel fully authorized by the position I taok before my constituents, to vote against this amendment and support all the resolutions re- ported by the Committee on Federal Relations, or at least the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth. The sixth and seventh I have some ob- jections to, though they only have reference to adjourning and electing a Committee whose duty it will be to call the convention together at such time and place as they may think fit. With these remarks, sir, I vote no.
The vote thereupon stood as follows :
Ayes — Bartlett, Bast, Brown, Cayce, Che- nault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Frayser, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Matson, Noell, Redd, Sawyer, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Zimmerman, and Mr. President.
Noes— Allen, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Ir- win, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, Mc- Ferran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Row- land, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith
230
of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk.
Absent.— Messrs. Harbin, Ross, Stewart, and Wilson.
SrcK. — Messrs. Knott and Pipkin.
Amendment declared rejected.
Mr. Hall moved the previous question.
Mr. Breckinridge moved to adjourn, as a great many members were absent. Carried.
Convention thereupon adjourned.
SEVENTEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 20th, 1861.
Met at 10 o'clock, a. m.
Mr. President in the chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
Journal read and approved.
Mr. Redd. I asked the gentleman who made the motion for the previous question last evening, to withdraw it, in order that I may offer an amendment which I think will meet the views of the Convention.
The Chair. The question will be, shall the main question be now put.
A division was called for.
Mr. Smith. I do not understand, Mr. Presi- dent, what effect the previous question will have.
The Chair. It will bring the third resolution to an immediate vote.
Mr. Redd. I call for the ayes and noes on the question.
The Chair. It is too late, as the question has been put, and the question called for.
The previous question was sustained; ayes 51, noes 22.
The ayes and noes were then called on the adoption of the resolution.
explanation or votes.
Mr. Breckinridge. I wish to say a few words which perhaps may not be strictly in ex- planation of my vote.
The Chair. Leave will be granted if no ob- jection is made.
Mr. Breckinridge. Last evening when the proposition was made to order the previous question, it may be remembered that I op- posed the motion— I had it in my mind then, to ask the indulgence of the Convention, to permit me to make a few remarks, touching not only tbis particular resolution but the whole scope of the resolutions before us. I find, however, there is a desire to vote on the proposition, and I don't desire to delay the action of the Convention by speaking at any length ; but I wish to say a word or two in reference to this proposition. In the resolutions which I had the honor to sub-
mit some days ago to the Convention, and which under the rules were referred to the Com- mittee on Federal Relations, I attempted to cover the ground that this Convention should, in my judgment, take in its utterances in regard to the difficulties now pending throughout the country — difficulties which should be in some way ad- justed for the purpose of restoring harmony and peace. In those resolutions, Mr. President, I scrupulously avoided — and for a purpose which I thought wise — indicating as my own preference, or calling upon the Convention to indicate as its preference, the adoption of any particular proposi- tion now pending before the country. I did this mainly for these reasons : First, that I know throughout this wide country there is a great difference of opinion in regard to these propositions, and considering these va- rieties of opinion held by good and patriotic men, I think it will be a matter of great difficul- ty to unite the country upon any particular proposition as propounded by any particular per- son; and secondly, for the reason that I have learned by the course of events during the last few months, to dread as I do the very pestilence, secession itself, the schemes of those who, under all possible disguises, seek to aggravate existing troubles ; and I have discovered also that whenever a proposition is put to the Southern people, if that proposition in letter, substance and form is not immediately granted; if there is a refusal to grant it in the precise form in which some per- son thinks it ought to be granted, such a refusal is immediately made the subject of a new crusade in behalf of the outrages on Southern rights, by those who seek to prevent all compromise. — I have noticed that and I dread it, and I desire by my action and by the action of this Convention, and by the action of the State of Missouri, which has now so nobly proclaimed herself loyal to the Union, the Constitution and the laws to the very core of her great heart, to avoid every thing which can afford new pretext for complaint.
Mr. Redd. I call the gentleman to order.
The Chair. State your point of order.
Mr. Redd. I understand he arose to explain his vote.
The Chair. The gentleman asked leave to make a speech, for the reason that he did not in- tend to confine himself strictly to his vote. I put the question and the House granted him leave.
Mr. Redd. I did not so understand it. If de- bate is to be had I desire to be in a position where it can be answered.
The Chair. When the gentleman's name is called, he can ask leave likewise.
Mr. Breckinridge. I trust, sir, if anything falls from my lips which the gentleman from Ma- rion desires to answer, he will have full liberty to make a speech in reply. But I desire to speak
231
only with reference to the reasons why I thought it most desirable to avoid stating in any proposition the preference of this Convention for any particu- lar form of adjustment. I have already said I took this ground, first, that it was almost im- possible now to hope that the great body of the people in any section could be brought to adopt with unanimity any one proposition, and sec- ond, that the indorsement of any particular prop- osition, or modification of any particular propo- sition, would, if it should afterwards be modified or changed in any respect, afford a pretext to those who seek to produce trouble to say that the exact thing which we desired has not been granted, and we will not rest sat- isfied until exactly what we wish is granted. My idea, sir, in regard to this matter, which I attempted to present in the resolutions I submit- ted, was this : that touching this slavery ques- tion as applied to the Territories — which is really the only seriously disputed question pending, and which, when settled, will really settle the whole controversy — that the people should seek an adjustment of the present difficulties upon some principle, which has as a basis and which recognizes, simply this : That the people of the North should abandon any purpose to use the power of the General Government, as it might be committed to their hands, to repress or extin- guish slavery: and that answering to this relin- quishment on the part of the people of the North, the people of the South should avow their purpose solemnly and fairly to abandon every effort to use the power of the General Government, as it might be committed to them, to perpetuate or extend slavery. I believe this is the true basis, and that it covers the entire case; and I believe that that principle, whenever the Northern people are willing to accept it — as I believe they now are — that that principle applied to public affairs will settle every difficulty.
Now, sir, with all deference to the Commit- tee on Federal Relations, every member of which I know, and every member of which I respect— with all due deference to their superior age, wisdom and experience, I think it would have been better if they had adopted this plan rather than the one which they have adopted. At the same time I recognize this fact, and with pleasure, that in framing this particular resolution, they have, with most scru- pulous care, as I think appears from the framing of the resolution, carefully excluded from the the resolution, everything which in any manner might be construed as an ultimatum. In that, sir, I approve and applaud the action of the Com- mittee. It is intended by them, if the Conven- tion shall adopt it, as I do not doubt it will, that it shall go simply, as an announcement to the people of all sections of the country, that the State of Missouri desires this whole difficulty
amicably and justly settled; and while it is not wedded to any particular proposition, yet, it is the belief of those who repre- sent the people here, that this particular proposi- tion, if adopted, will be successful in producing the result so much desired. So far, I approve it; for I say here, that I may be distinctly understood, that so far as the proposition of the Honorable Senator from Kentucky is concerned, I have no objection to it, and I can add farther, that either one of the four or five other propositions pending before the last Congress, would, if adopted, in my judgment, give peace to the coun- try; the Crittenden proposition— the Douglas proposition— the Corwin- Adams proposition, or the Peace Conference proposition — any one of them, in my judgment, fairly applied and properly adopted, will settle this whole controver- sy. But, I am not wedded to any particular pro- position. And, sir, now I come to the point upon which I wish particularly to say a word. It will be remembered— and it is known throughout the country— that this grand old Senator from Ken- tucky, standing up as a statesman among politi- cians, as a real patriot among pigmies, did not include in his original proposition that clause which applies to the future acquisition of territo- ry. He was too wise a man for that. I have no doubt, while I do not pretend to understand the secret workings of this thing, that he put this clause in, as an addition to his original proposition, only at the importunate request of some Southern friends; and while I have no desire or right to speak of the motives of men, except in so far as they are made manifest through their acts— yet I say now, it is my conviction that, whatever may have been the mo- tives of those who have sought to make this provision concerning future territorial acquisi- tions he sine qua non of any settlement, if they persist in it they are enemies to Missouri, to the Union, and to the public peace ; and deserve, as I believe they will be, to be crushed out and put down. Why, sir, our terri- tory is large enough already — so large that we cannot manage it — so large that we cannot peo- ple it; and the territory already devoted to slavery is so large that for perhaps one hundred years, at the same rate of progress we have been making, we will not have more than enough slaves to till and cultivate it. But, with all these facts staring us in the face, there are gentle- men who seek to make it an absolute condition of the settlement of this question : that we shall make no agreement without fixing the po'icy of the country as to territory which we have not yet acquired. I trust, at least dui-ing my life, that we shall have no more territory. If we had acquired none during the last twenty or thirty years, we should have had none of these troubles; and the sooner the public mind understands and rests
232
upon the conviction that we already hare suffi- ciently extended the area of freedom, the better it will be for the peace of the country. I be. lieve it to be bad statesmanship to attempt to legislate finally now, concerning territories we do not own and may never acquire. While I, of course, do not pretend to apply what I have said in reference to the motive which induces the advocacy of this amendment to the Committee on Federal Relations, any more than to the noble old Senator from Kentucky, whom I love and honor as much as man can, I still say that those who adhere to the proposition that a settlement of the question must be to in- clude the status of territory hereafter to be ac- quired, are doing what they can to destroy the country and its peace. That is all I wish to say now on that subject. But in order that I may not be misunderstood, I say further, that I expect to vote for the resolution. I desire to do all I can to make the Convention, as nearly as possible, a unit on this as on all questions. — I am willing to waive my judgment whenever I can do so without violating my self-respect or sense of duty. But I say, if it was here intended to say that the Crittenden proposition, including its ap- plication to future acquisitions, was to be a test whether Missouri would remain true to the Union, I would scorn it, sir, — I would do my utmost to defeat it. But as I understand it as a recommen- dation of the people of Missouri that, in their judgment, this proposition, if adopted, would be final, the simple announcement to the country that if the people of Missouri are willing, if the country is willing, to accept it as a basis of ad- justment, with that understanding and the expla- nation of my views I have already given, I shall vote for the resolution.
Mr. Bridge. I do not look upon this as an ultimatum. I am not against compromise — either the Douglas, Crittenden, or the various other propositions, meet my approbation. The only thing in the Crittenden proposition which I cannot indorse is that in regard to acquiring ter- ritory. If that was stricken out, I should have no objection to it. With this statement, I desire to say that I shall vote for the resolution.
Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. President, I desire to say a feAv words in explanation of my vote upon the question now before the Convention. I am the more impelled to do so in view of the construction which I learn has been placed by some gentlemen upon some remarks which I made a few days since before this body, with reference to the ma- jority report of the Committee on Federal Rela- tions and the resolutions accompanying the same.
I beg leave, sir, to call the attention of the Con- vention to the words which I did in fact use on that occasion. I then spoke of the Report as a whole, and stated that, regarding it as a "Union Report," presenting no ultimatum and containing
no threat, I was in favor of it as a whole : but that there were some passages in the Report, and some of the resolutions, to which I objected; and that I should express my sentiment by my vote.
Permit me, sir, very briefly to state the reasons for which I am unable to vote for this resolution. I have very carefully examined it, upon its own merits, and without reference to any party views. I find that by this resolution I am called upon to express the belief that the adoption of what is known as the " Crittenden Compromise/' with the extension of the same to the territory here- after to be acquired by treaty or otherwise, would successfully remove the causes of difference for- ever from the arena of national politics. Upon the most careful consideration, and while I am most anxious that the action of this Convention should as far as possible be unanimous, I am un- able to express that belief.
I object in the first place to the clause relating to the Territory hereafter to be acquired. Briefly, I look upon it as a direct encouragement to "fili- bustering." It can have no other effect than to stimulate the efforts of those who are already dis- posed by unlawful and unfriendly means to seek the acquisition of territory from neighboring powers, in the interest of the extension of slavery.
But even without that clause, I am unable to see that this proposition — I refer to that part of it which relates to the slavery question in the terri- tories— is a wise or practicable basis of adjust- ment. I do not consider it, sir, as being in any proper sense a compromise. WThat are the facts? We know that many of the people of this country do not desire the extension of slavery. They hold the opinion, upon honest conviction, that it is not for the future good of the territories that the insti- tution of slavery should be established there. And also believing that the entire control, and therefore the entire responsibility, in respect to the affairs and the institutions of the territories, while they remain in the territorial condition, rests under the Constitution with the National Legis- lature, they consider that whenever it is necessary to exercise the power in question, it should and rightfully may be exercised in accordance with that opinion. That is their real and fixed conviction. On the other hand, another large portion of the people believe, — and I doubt not with equally honest conviction— that that institu- tion ought to be established in the territories. Some of them believe that the Constitution gives the slaveholder the right to carry his slaves into the territories and hold them there : others, with- out reference to the constitutional question, con- sider that this right should be acknowledged as a matter of fair and equitable division.
Now, without reference to the correctness or otherwise of either of these views, the point I make is that a proposition which in effect requires either the one party or the other to surrender their
233
convictions, — to act in direct opposition to their principles — is not a compromise. The persons respectively holding these opposite views, are, so to speak, at a dead-lock. Is it a compromise to say to either — you must surrender your convic- tions?
I am very far from opposing a compromise. I de- sire only that it be really a compromise— one which shall require from neither party a sacrifice of principle, and which by removing the subject matter from the arena of controversy shall bring about an adjustment honorable to both. Such an adjustment, sir, in my opinion, has already been proposed. The proposition to enable the inhab- itants of New Mexico — the only territory in dis- pute, and in which slavery is now in fact recog- nized by law— to form a State Constitution, with or without slavery, as to them shall seem fit, ap- pears to me to be a practical compromise such as I have indicated. I regret, sir, if any plan was to be indicated by this Convention, that it was not one of that description, or on some such basis. But, as the question now comes up, I find myself called upon to express a direct opinion as to the merits of this particular plan, and my opinion is against it.
I might give other reasons why it does not seem to me desirable or expedient for the Convention to adopt this resolution, some of which have been indicated in the remarks of my friend and col- league, (Mr. Breckinridge;) but having frankly stated my obj ection to the plan in question, on its merits, I will not further trespass on the indul- gence of the Convention. I vote no.
Mr. Meyer. Understanding that the Critten- den proposition, as used in this resolution, is no ultimatum, and not so intended by the Committee on Federal Relations, I shall vote for the resolu- tion.
Mr. Broadhead. Mr. President, I will, by leave of the Convention, briefly give the reasons why I shall vote against this resolution. The committee has recommended the call of a Nation- al Convention, to make such adjustment of ex- isting difficulties as may be found necessary for the peace of the country and the preservation of the Union. I deem it therefore unwise to tie the hands of our delegates to that Convention, by suggesting any proposition of adjustment, leav- ing them free to act as surrounding circumstances may dictate. This is my first objection; but if we are to make a suggestion, and propose a plan of adjustment, then I think we ought to suggest something better than the Crittenden proposi- tion—I mean that portion of his plan which re- fers to the Territories— for to the other portions of it I make no objection. I think the Douglas proposition better— the Corwin-Adams proposi- tion better, and the Franklin substitute far better. The last named proposition, I see by the dispatch- es this morning, has been recommended by the
Committee on Federal Relations of the Virginia Convention, and it is altogether likely that if any- thing is done that this will be the proposition finally adopted. I think the Crittenden proposi- tion the least likely of all to be adopted. Were I a member of the proposed National Convention, I am not prepared to say what I would do, but I would support almost any proposition which might be deemed necessary to bring peace to the country and preserve the integrity of the Union. But I deem it the best policy, and Avhen I say pol- icy I mean the best policy in reference to the set- tlement of these questions of difference, to leave our delegates untrammelled as to their future ac- tion.
The resolution was adopted. Ayes 88, nays 4.
Mr. Gamble. The next resolution that comes up, I have redrawn, with the consent of the committee, using, however, the language of the resolution chiefly as reported by the commit- tee, and only making such alterations as seem to meet the views of the various gentlemen in the Convention, and especially the gentlemen who proposed the original resolution in the com- mittee. In offering the resolution, I will also call the previous question.
The resolution was then read by the Secretary, as follows :
Resolved, That the people of Missouri believe that the peace and quiet of the country will be promoted by a Convention to pass amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and this Convention, therefore, urges the Legislature of this State, and of other States, to take proper steps for calling such Convention in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution, and to provide by law for the election by the people of such number of delegates as are to be sent to such Convention.
The motion for the previous question was sus- tained.
Mr. Redd. I do not understand parliamentary rules, and I do not understand what the main question is.
The Chair. It is on the adoption of the sub- stitute; whether that shall be put in place of the original.
Mr. Doniphan. Does the adoption of the sub- stitute make it equivalent to the adoption of the whole thing ?
The Chair. I think so, sir.
The amendment was then concurred to.
Mr. Hatcher. Is it in order to move an amendment?
Mr. Welch. It strikes me that, if an amend- ment is agreed to, it is not then subject to amend- ment. That, I think, is the course of the Legisla- ture.
Mr. Hudgins. I understand that the original resolution would have been subject to an amend-
234
ment, and that this takes the place of it, and is subject to amendment.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. The previous ques- tion is still in operation, as I understand it, and, as a matter of course, no amendment can be in order.
Mr. Redd. I understand the previous question was called as to whether this should be substitu- ted. I see gentlemen are desirous of cutting: off all amendments and excluding debate. We do not want any debate on our side, but we would like the privilege of offering such amendments as meet our views.
The Chair. My impression is, the previous question having been sustained, it will refer to each proposition in its regular order, and con- tinue up to the adoption of the original resolu- tion.
Mr. Hough. Does this_cut off all debate from the resolution ?
The Chair. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hough. I am somewhat anxious to be heard on the fourth resolution,but it would not be in order now, I suppose, to offer any remarks upon the subject.
The Chair. The previous question cuts off all debate and amendments until the whole question is disposed of.
The roll was then called.
EXPLANATIONS OP VOTES.
Mr. Redd. I am opposed to this resolution. It provides for a National Convention; that Con- vention can be called only on the application of two-thirds of the States. Congress considers the seceded States as yet in the Union. Upon that basis it would require the action of twenty-three States before Congress could call such a conven- tion. Many of the Legislatures of the free States are committed on the record against all com- promise or concession. They would not, there- fore, unite in the call; and if Congress should change the basis and admit that the seceded States are out of the Union, then it would require but eighteen States to unite in the call, and a Nation- al Convention could be had; but in that case Virginia and Maryland, and probably North Car- olina, would refuse to go into such a Convention, and secede in that event, which I consider certain, there would be but five slave States to nineteen free States. The anti-slavery party, for the first time in its history, would have the power, under the Constitution, not only to propose an amend- ment that would abolish slavery in the States, but the power under the Constitution to ratify it. This proposition, a National Convention, is the only proposition that party has yet deigned to make, while it has persistently rejected all propo- sitions made by the Slave States. I consider this proposition, comma: from the Republican party under present circumstances, will prove a slaugh- ter pen for slave institutions. I therefore vote no.
Mr. Satre. It is understood, sir, that another proposition is to be presented, by which we shall call for a conference, or consultation, or conven- tion, of the slave States still remaining in the Union. It is understood, I believe, by all of us, that this convention is to take place and is to sit previous and preliminary to ths General Conven- tion of the whole States. I believe that we would have the courage, if necessary, in the same way as wre find we possess it now, to take steps for re- sisting all use of illegal power or the illegal use of power. If we shall be brought into this slaughter pen I believe we shall have the strength and courage to initiate all proper steps for resis- tance. If there is to be a settlement, sir, it is to be done only, I think, by some united action of the people of all the States. Our Constitution has provided two modes for entering upon that ac- tion, and this is one of them. It is proper, it seems to me, that the resolution should be adopted, and particularly as we contemplate, and as it is understood by all of us, that there is an- other resolution, which, although not embraced in this series, yet is printed — that there is an- other resolution that will give us consultation with our sisters that remain true to the Union. I therefore vote aye.
Mr. Howell. I desire to make a brief expla- nation. I am a Union man, sir. I came here to contribute all within my power to the preserva- tion of the Union upon terms of equality to the States and to the people of the respective States. I believe that in order to the preservation of this Union an adjustment is absolutely necessary. This Union cannot be preserved without an ad- justment of the questions between the respective parties of the Confederacy. There are but three ways that I am apprised of, of bringing about an adjustment. One of these means is by a National Convention as prescribed by the Constitution; the other is by amendments proposed by the Congress of the United States to the States, which will become a part of the Constitution when ratified by three- fourths of the States; and the other is by a convention of the remaining slave States, usually called border States, in con- junction with the border free States. This, look- ing to any final action, would be a revolutionary measure, and outside of the Constitution. It would be tantamount, sir, to throwing off a por- tion of the North, and leaving out a portion of the South. Now, sir, I am in favor of that pro- ject, not as a revolutionary project, but as an auxiliary to the proposition contained in the res- olution that we have just been called to vote up- on. I am in favor of a Border State Conven- tion to call the attention of the Northern people to the great necessity of action in adopting amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in order to preserve the Union, and I can see no inconsistency whatever in these two pro-
235
positions being adopted by this Convention and placed before the country. Now, sir, the project contained in the resolution, is the only one I know of by which we can appeal to the great Northern heart. I am for making that appeal before surrendering the Union with all its bless- ings. I am for giving that million and a quarter of lion-hearted Democrats, Whigs and Ameri- cans, one more opportunity of righting them- selves before the country and in the face of the civilized world. I believe, sir, that when that ap- peal is made — and a border State Convention will be the proper means of presenting that appeal- that the response will come back echoing over hills and valleys to the remotest portion of our possession, giving us all we can desire. These are the manifestations I see around me at this period- This, sir, is the hand- writing upon the wall, and before I am dis- posed to take final action upon this thing, as I remarked before, I am disposed to give the North and the South, as well as the centre of the country and every portion of the country an opportunity to be heard at the ballot box. I want to make that appeal to the people of the North, sir. If we expect the salvation of this Union it will proceed from the people — we have nothing to expect from the politicians in power now. The present politicians are inefficient for any good, and therefore I am for going behind them, and that, too, in conformity with law and under the forms of the Constitution, to the great source of all power, the people themselves.
The vote was then announced, and the resolu- tion was adopted — ayes 85, noes 9.
The following are the gentlemen who voted in the negative :
Messrs. Brown, Chenault, Doniphan, Hatcher, Hough, Hill, Hudgins, Redd and Watkins.
Mr. Donne ll then offered the following as an amendment to the fifth resolution:
"In view of the existing state of affairs, in order to avoid and more effectually prevent a conflict with the seceding States, which would forever close the door to compromise, we believe it to be the duty of the Executive to withdraw all Gov- ernment troops from their borders, and abstain from the collection of the revenue, thereby de- priving them of any plea for bringing on a hostile engagement with a view of engaging the sym- pathy and co-operation of the remaining slave States."
Mr. Donnell. In offering this I do not do so because I object to the original proposition. I most cordially indorse the original resolution, and I believe this to be in perfect harmony and con- sistent with it. I believe it to be a peace offering. I am satisfied that the most important thing for us to demand now is time. Time will answer for us when everything else fails. It must be conceded by all that the few troops remain-
ing in the seceded States are perfectly useless for good. They can accomplish nothing for the Confederated Government. Connected with the position taken by President Lincoln, that he will not only possess, but that he will hold the forts, it must be apparent that to do this it will be necessary to add an additional force, which would bring on a conflict that would result in great and serious injury. But by withdrawing the troops this conflict misftt be averted. The sympathies of the Border States of the South are such that they are not prepared, whether right or wrong, to consent that the General Government shall, under existing circumstances, resort to force in any manner whatever. Therefore, I submit this reso- lution, believing that, if sustained, a conflict may be avoided.
Mr. Hough. Yesterday, sir, I offered an amendment on this very subject. That amend- ment was laid on the table in order to be printed. I wish to inquire whether that amendment does not have precedence to the one offered this morning. It is on the same subject, although not in the same language.
Mr. Donnell. I hope the gentleman will accept this as a substitute.
Mr. Hough. To save all difficulty, I am wil- ling to accept the amendment of the gentleman as a substitute for the proposition I presented.
Mr. Donnell. I now offer it as an amend- ment to the fifth resolution.
Mr. Hall of Buchanan. I would like to offer a substitute for this amendment:
"That this Convention is not sufficiently inform- ed as to the facts concerning the forts of the United States in the limits of the seceded States as to be able to give an opinion in reference to the best course of the Federal Government touching them; but this Convention earnestly hope that such ac- tion will be taken by the authority of the United States as to avoid all hostile action between the seceded States and the General Government."
Now, I do not conceive that we are sufficiently acquainted with all the facts touching the collec- tion of the revenue and the forts, as to well enable us to give an opinion as to the course we should pursue in reference to these forts. Let us con- ceive that we have two thousand troops in the State of Texas. These troops are there to protect the people from the Comanche and other Indians. Now, I am not prepared to say that it would be wise or just for the Government of the United States, under present circumstances, to withdraw the troops from Texas, and thus invite the In- dians to attack our friends in that State. I am not prepared to say that such a course would be wise, just or humane. I am not prepared to say that such a course would promote the welfare of this country. On the contrary, if we should with- draw thosetroops and invite the savages to slaugh- ter the people, I think such conduct would be
236
unfriendly on the part of the Government of the United States. How is it in regard to the forts in the Gnlf of Mexico. I see a majority of a com- mittee in the Convention of Virginia, sixteen out of twenty-one members have declared that it was proper for the Federal Government to hold those forts in the Gulf of Mexico, and necessary for the protection of our commerce. I know not how that may be. I am not prepared to express an opinion upon it, but surely if the United States do hold forts in the Gulf which can be held with- out offense to the people of Florida, and which may be necessary for the protection of our com- merce, I do think it would be improper , under those circumstances, for the Federal Government to give them up. In reference to the other forts, it might be well to abandon them. We know the President is about to abandon Fort Sumter, and I think will abandon Fort Pickens. I must say that I trust he will pursue such a course in refer- ence to the forts and the revenue as will avoid all hostle collision. Sir, this question of revenue is one I am not at present able to express my opin- ion on in a very decided manner. We know, sir, that the tariff established by the Cotton States is much lower than the tariff established by the Government of the United States. Now if any amicable arrangement cannot be made, with reference to this tariff, will not every gentleman perceive that the revenue of the General Government will be gradually de- stroyed by our imports coming to Southern ports and in that way coming: into the present territo- ries of the United States. I am not able to say what the best course is. I am not sufficiently in- formed, and in my ignorance I am not willing to undertake to instruct the President of the United States how he shall administer the Government, but I am willing to say he ought to administer the Government so as to avoid all hostile collis- ion between the Federal and Confederate gov- ernments.
Mr. Hough. In my opinion the amendment is merely tautology. It is the same thing as is incorporated in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell.) I re- gard it as a fixed fact, that if the troops are not withdrawn from the forts in the seceded States, that war will result. I had rather every fort in the United States were sunk into the ocean, and every man-of-war sunk into the depths of the ocean, than civil war should prevail in this coun- try. Now, the Government has built forts in South Carolina, Florida, and all around the gulf coast, for the protection of Southern people and the protection of commerce.
The people of the South have formed an inde- pendent government. They think they are able to maintain that government, and when they no- tify our Government that they have formed a gov- ernment, and demand the forts, if their demand
is not granted, they will consider it a degrada- tion to allow a foreign power — as they regard the United States— to keep troops in those forts ; and the consequence will be, Southern troops will take those forts and civil war will result, Who does not know that a large number of persons in the border States would fight for their kindred in a conflict of that kind, and that the country would be involved in civil war. Any person who knows anything about the Southern courage, gal" lantry and chivalry that exists among the people in the slaveholding States of the Southern Repub- lic, know that the whole country will be involved in civil war.
I think it is the duty of the President of the United States to execute the laws if he can do so with a view of preserving our institutions. If he has to execute the laws to destroy the institutions of our country, that it is not the object of law; and if the laws cannot be executed without destroying institutions which they were intended to preserve, then the President ought not to ex- ecute them. It is the duty of the people of Mis- souri to say to the President that if the troops are not withdrawn, civil war will result. They ought to state it as a fact, that he may be advised of the grounds on which he is administering this Gov- ernment; and request him to withdraw the troops.
These are my views on the proposition, and I therefore move to reject the substitute offered by the gentleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall.)
Mr. Moss. I hope the amendment offered by the gentleman from Buchanan will pass. When any proposition is made that looks to the preser- vation of the Union, and whenever Missouri is called upon to give an expression of opinion in regard to any policy that will have a tendency to build up that Union, I am for it.
I wish to say a few words concerning the amendment offered by my friend from Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell.)
Mr. President, when the news was brought to us, a few days ago, by telegraph, that the Presi- dent had given orders that the Troops should be withdrawn from Fort Sumter, how did it affect the people of Missouri? We all rejoiced and felt like shouting for joy. And why? Because we looked upon it as the harbinger of peace. And this would be the sentiment throughout the South with every man who loves the Union, and who hopes for a peaceable adjustment of our difficul- ties. And I say here to the Union men of this Convention, that if President Lincoln— that if the telegram that reached this city had been true, and he had withdrawn the troops from Fort Sum- ter, secessionism would have died; it would have been the most fatal blow to the enemies of the Union that could have been dealt. And now, when Missouri is called upon to say what policy should be recommended in relation to these forts,
237
I, for one, feci it my duty, and in harmony with the policy I have advocated in this Convention, to give my support to this amendment. I believe this is a peace measure. The objections offered by my friend from Buchanan (Mr. Hall) do not strike me with force. He says, in some of these seceded S-.ares the people will be left unprotected. Sir, they have worked out their own destiny; they have taken the responsibility of rais- ing the secession flag; they have with- drawn themselves from the protection of this Government, and now I am in favor of letting them feel the force of that thing, and I think it will have a good effect on them. I think it an attempt to awaken in their minds some re- flections whereby they can be made to feel the disadvantages of secession. I believe it will have a good effect upon them. I can see no ob- jection, so far as my judgment goes in this mat- ter, to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Buchanan. Whenever any member of the Convention proposes a measure that looks to the building up of this Union, I am with him. I voted yesterday against the proposition which embodied my feelings. I felt, in the language of that resolution, that whenever the last hope was extinguished I would go with the South ; but I doubt the policy of sta- ting that position now in this Convention, be- cause I do not want to say to the leaders of seces- sion in the South, "Gentlemen, when you force us to that alternative, then we will go with you." If every border State took such a position as that Fort Sumter would be attacked be- fore to-morrow night, if the intelligence could reach the leaders of secession in the South. The only reason I voted against the resolution offered by Mr. Bast yesterday — notwithstanding my sym- pathies are with the South, and in that bitter al- ternative I expect to give my voice for Missouri going there— was that I doubted it as a question of policy.
But this proposition looks not to secession, and I contend that if President Lincoln should carry out that policy, it would be the death blow of se- cession in the Border States, and in the South. He Avould be understood then to be for peace, and the bitterness of feeling that now exists against him would be removed. Looking upon it, sir, as a great Union movement, I shall give my appro- bation to the measure, and I hope that Mr. Hall's amendment will be voted down, and that the amendment of my friend from Buchanan (Mr. Donnell.) will be adopted.
Mr. Shackelford of Howard. If it is in order I wish to offer an amendment :
" And it is the opinion of this Convention that the cherished desire to preserve the country, and restore fraternal feelings would be promoted by the withdrawal of the Federal troops from such parts of the seceded States where there is
danger of a collision between the Federal and State forces."
Mr. Redd. Mr. President, I prefer the amend- ment. Preferring the amendment to the substitute, I wish to offer some reasons for the vote I shall cast. It is admitted that a hostile collision between the General Government and the forces of the seceded States would not only dissolve the Union, but destroy all hope of its reconstruction. The President in his Inaugural disclaims any in- tention of invading the Southern States for the purposes of subjugation, but he distinctly states that he will hold and possess the forts and other property of the United States within their limits, and will collect the revenue, and this course is made to depend on one contingency only, that the necessary means (men and money) are furnished. The Custom Houses and most of the forts are now in the possession of the Southern Confedera- cy, and that Confederacy is fully prepared to defend their possession at the cannon's mouth. Mr. Lincoln says he will, if the means are fur- nished, hold, possess and occupy the places and property belonging to the General Government. It is an old saying, that catching is before hanging; in this instance taking come3 before holding or possessing. The Southern Confederacy has an army of fifty thousand men ready to march at an hour's warning. An at- tempt to take any of the custom-houses or forts now in its possession would involve a conflict between that army and the forces of the General Government. That would be war, and in the language of the resolution to which this is an amendment, would "entirely extinguish all hope of an amicable settlement," and as it might fur- ther have said, would not only dissolve the Un- ion, but destroy all hope of its reconstruction. This amendment requests the Administration to refrain from any attempt to collect the revenue in the seceded States, and to withdraw the troops in those States. It looks to the preservation of the Union by recommending a course of policy that would prevent a hostile conflict. While I do not boast of my loyalty to the Union on all occasions, as some gentlemen are in the habit of doing, you will find my vote recorded for every measure tending to its preservation. Mr. Lincoln, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, has committed a fatal mistake in taking the position that the seceded States are yet in the Union; and while occupying that po- sition, I do not blame him for avow- ing his determination to hold, possess and occupy the forts, arsenals and custom houses, and to collect the revenue, for it is his sworn duty to take care of the Government property, and ex- ecute the laws everywhere within the Union. Coercion is the logical sequence of the proposi- tion that those States are yet in the Union. He is to blame for taking a false position. Whether
238
those States had a constitutional right to with- draw from the Union or not, is one question, and whether they have withdrawn or not is another and totally different question. Whether they had the right to withdraw or not is a legal question, about which jurists and statesmen may and do differ. Whether they have withdrawn or not is a question of fact, about which I do not see any room for two opinions. What are the facts : they have, by separate State action, severed their con- nection with the Union; they have formed a Con- federacy of their own, and adopted a Constitution of their own; by that Constitution they have cre- ated a Federal Government unknown to our Con- stitution ; that Government is in full operation, exercising all the powers of sovereignty, and prepared to defend its claim to sovereignty against all who may question its right by force of arms. Why then are they not out of the Union ? The answer is that they had no consti- tutional right to go out. Admit for the sake of the argument that the Constitution expressly de- nies the right of a State to withdraw from the Union. It does not follow that they are yet in the Union unles you are prepared to assert that a State cannot do wrong — cannot do an act that vi- olates the Constitution ; an assertion that I pre- sume no gentleman on this floor is prepared to make. They have withdrawn, whether they had the right to do so or not, and having withdrawn they are no longer a part of the Union, but are within the limits of a foreign government; and had Mr. Lincoln acknowledged the fact, it would have avoided all danger of collision — he would have had no more right to attempt to enforce the laws or collect the revenue within their limits than within the limits of Mexico or the island of Cuba. I prefer the amendment to the substitute, because the amendment requests the Administra- tion to refrain from the attempt to collect the rev- enue. The substitute does not go to that extent. I shall therefore vote against the substitute andv for the amendment.
Mr. Wright. This I consider a matter of im- portance. That it would be wise policy in the present administration to withdraw the forces from any fort, when only a point of honor is in- volved, is too clear for debate. It ought to be done instantly and without hesitation. A great Government like ours can afford to dispose of questions of honor with magnanimity. But the point of honor is not the only question we must attempt to solve here as statesmen. The forts on the peninsula of Florida are military positions — constituting the key to the Gulf of Mexico. — Now, let us look at a possible contingency in the future : Suppose we meet our Northern brethren in a National Convention, and they make an ad- justment perfectly satisfactory to us, and one which will keep Missouri and the border slave States in the Union as a band of broth-
ers, and that our Southern brethren shall not for a time be satisfied. What are we to do? If we are satisfied and remain in the Union because our Northern brethren have met us and made an adjustment satisfactory to us, we have put our- selves in a condition to lose the command of the great Gulf of Mexico and the mouth of this tri- butary, which would be essential to us in that Union, in case these forts are given up. Are we prepared to do that? Is my friend from Marion, (Mr. Redd,) so tropical in his tendency that while there could be a reunion satisfactory to him ; af- ter ail the difficulties which we claim, have been satisfactorially adjusted; is he so tropical in his tendencies as to be willing to surrender the key of the Gulf of Mexico into the hands of another government ? I trust, sir, I have said enough to show that the matter involved is important and requires consideration. My friend from Marion is very logical. He talks about the truth of this subject just as a mathematician would. I know that in the pale of the sciences we can never move a step without logic, and that every advance in science must be a logical advance — a step by logic, or it is not a step forward at all. I know that in the range of the exact sciences we can push logic to the utmost verge of thought, and this is so because the exact sciences live by logic. But is that true in government, and is that especially true in the American Government ? Government is the most practical of all things, and we drop all logical sequences at the start, in the very instrument which makes it. Any states- man who thinks he can reach any practical result by following a logical sequence will soon discover his logic will carry him against something infi- nitely more important than his logic. I wish, without going further into the subject now, to make a motion to lay these proceedings on the tabic, in order that they may be printed and ta- ken up to-morrow morning. I will, however, withdraw the motion, in order that any gentle- man, if he so desires, may further discuss the matter.
Mr. Dunn. I see no necessity for any delay in acting upon the amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell,) and the substitute and amendment. If questions of this character are to delay the proceedings of the Convention from day to day, I can see no prospect of terminating our labors during the present week. I am as well prepared to vote now, on each of these propositions, as I shall be to-morrow morn- ing. I do not suppose that any one expects that any new phase will be thrown upon the question be- tween now and to-morrow morning. If the mo- tion prevails it will cause delay, and I am there- fore opposed to the motion and in favor of imme- diate action upon the questions that have been raised upon these amendments. I am in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
239
Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell,) and I am utterly op- posed to the substitute offered by the other gen- tleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall.) I concur in the sentiments so well expressed by my friend from Clay, (Mr. Moss.) All true friends of the Union— and I claim to be one of that num- ber— are exerting themselves to the utmost to bring about an amicable adjustment of all our troubles. The gentleman from St. Louis, (Mr. Wright,) remarked, truly, in his speech a few days ago, that there must be an adjust- ment of our troubles, and that it must be such an adjustment as would secure our con- stitutional rights; and that, without an adjust- ment by which our rights would be secured, there would be no hope of preserving the Union. We must have an adjustment. All true friends of the Union are laboring to bring about an ad- justment; and it is this, as I remarked the other day, which constitutes a man a true friend of the Union. I have no sort of faith in the pro- fession of a man's devotion to the Union who folds his arms and proposes to do nothing for the Union. I know some gentlemen claim to be friends of the Union, who make no efforts to save it from destruction. I claim to be a better friend of the Union than any man who occupies such a position; and I claim that the only means of saving the Union is to bring about an amicable adjustment, and I claim, in behalf of myself and those who act with me, that we are truly friends of this Union. But, as has been stated by others, this requires time. We cannot expect that a matter of this magnitude will be adjusted in a day, or a year. It requires time. Time is what we want, and I am confident that if time is al- lowed, these matters will be adjusted in a manner that will secure our rights. But all hope of adjustment will be lost by the inauguration of civil war. Hence the true friends of the Union keep in view the policy of preserving the peace of the country, as a matter of vital importance, while they work for such an amicable adjustment as will secure to us our constitutional rights. It is a matter then of the first importance and prime necessity that the peace of the country should be preserved long enough to give us an opportunity to adjust our national troubles. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Buchanan (Mr. Donnell) looks to the preservation of peace. It looks to the removal of the only things likely to endanger the peace of the country, and which, if not removed, may result in civil war. You know with what apprehension we have looked at a possible collision at some of the Government forts. The amendment, if adopted, will remove all apprehension in regard to a collision between the Government of the United States and the Government of the seceding States. Hence we
ought to raise our voice in reference to the remo- val of the cause of collision. The voice of Mis- souri should go up in favor of this proposition, which I regard as a peace measure. We ought to advise the Government to withdraw the troops from the seceded States. The gentleman from Buchanan (Mr. Hall) is opposed to the with- drawal of the troops of the Government from the seceding States lest the Camanche —
Mr. Hall, I did not say I was opposed to it, but I said I was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts to advise Mr. Lincoln in regard to it.
Mr. Ddxn. Well, I have a higher opinion of the gentleman's ability and information than he seems to entertain himself. Years ago I voted for the gentleman for Congress. I was one of the many thousand who voted for him again and again, and sent him to Congress as often as he was a candidate.
The Chair. The gentleman is certainly out of order. He is not debating the question at all.
Mr. Dunn. I will come to the point, then. The gentleman (Mr. Hall) was disclaiming that he took any position in regard to the withdrawal of these troops. I understood the gentleman to be opposed to the resolution because he did not know but that the Camanche Indians might slaughter the Texans. Now I am sure, Mr. President, that every member of this Convention ought to be wilhng to pursue such a course as to avoid civil war, which would drench the whole country in blood ; and I do not think any gentle- man ought to be willing to vote down this peace proposition under the vague apprehen- sion that the Camanche Indians might make an attack upon the inhabitants of Texas. The inhabitants of Texas have in times past been able to protect themselves from the Camanche Indians, and I doubt not they will do it now ; and I doubt not also that if they are unable to pro- tect themselves, the people will rally to their res- cue with as much promptness as has been here- tofore exhibited. I doubt not all will go to the rescue whenever they are in peril. Then let us not vote down this peace measure upon any vague apprehension of this sort. I cannot under- stand why we shall hesitate to abandon at once these forts; I cannot understand why the keeping of the government troops, or such of them as are there, should be insisted upon. It may be that some gentlemen want to get a large army into the seceded States, under one pretext or another, and after getting it there, use it to coerce the Southern people. I cannot countenance any such plan. If the seceding States are to be coerced into subjection, let us do it bold- ly, and like men. I am utterly opposed to coer- cion in any form, whether under the pretext of holding the government forts, or under the other pretext of collecting the revenue. But, my friend from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall,) if I understand
•240
him correctly, he contends that we ought not to withdraw the troops of the Federal Government; that we ought to hold the key to the gulf. Upon that, I have this to say: first, seven States have withdrawn from the Union; second, those States have organized a government of their own, and are, in point of fact, a separate government; al- though under the Constitution, it is still claimed that they are part and parcel of the United States. This necessarily results from our denial of the constitutional right of secession. Unless they had the constitutional right to secede — which we deny — they are yet, in contempla- tion of the Constitution, part and parcel of the United States; although in point of fact they are a separate and distinct govern- ment. We must deal with the facts as they are. Is it compatible with the honor and dignity of the Government of the United States, to resort to the collection of revenue in any other government ? Is it compatible with the position which the Government of the United States occupies at home and abroad, to resort to the collec- tion of revenue elsewhere than in her own limits ? I speak now in reference to the govern- ment of the Confederated States, and I put this question to the gentleman from Buchanan; and I hope I shall not be considered out of order when I say that he is one of the best lawyers in the State. Suppose a gentleman comes to Mr. Hall with his title papers, and says : "Mr Hall, "I have a piece of land, and here is the evidence "of my title; but a man has taken possession of "it and claims it as his; he has occupied it, "cultivated and raised a crop on it; now, Mr. "Hall, I want you to tell me what remedy there "is for me." After Mr. Hall has examined the title papers, and pronounced the title good— for I assume that the title is good — I desire to ask him what his advice, as a lawyer, would be? "Would he advise his client to take his wagon and team and servants, and go upon the premises and take a part of the crop in the field, or the fruit in the orchard, and haul them off the premises? "Would he advise this as a lawyer? If he would, I should change my opinion of him as a lawyer very suddenly. But I know he would not give any such advice; but his advice would be, to bring a suit of ejectment, and in that way recover pos- session of the land. Now I say, all this thing of holding the Government forts and collecting the revenue of the States that have seceded, collecting a little at Charleston, a little at Mobile and a little at New Orleans— in view of the facts of the case as they now stand, those States having a separate government of their own— I say all this would be analagous to the petty annoyances to which Mr. Hall would subject the adverse party, by advising his client to go with his team and haul a part of the fruit and crops
from the premises which he owns, but which are occupied by another party. It is utterly unbecoming a great Government like ours to resort to any such annoyance. There is another objection: for however we might con- sider it, yet the holding of the forts or retaking the Government forts in any of the seceding States, or collecting the revenue — though we might call it enforcing the law or what we please, the government of the seceded States would call it an act of war, and would treat it accordingly. Every man who knows the facts of the case, knows that the government over which Jefferson Davis presides would treat all these things as acts of war, and, of course, the same consequen- ces would grow out of it, as would grow out of war actually declared on our part. So the case is reduced to this simple question, wheth- er we shall organize an army for the pur- pose of conquering the seceding States, or whether we shall withdraw the troops from the forts of the seceded States and wait until this matter can be amicably adjusted. It is reduced to the question, whether we shall make war for the purpose of subjugating and conquering them. I am opposed to it, and especially to doing it in a covert manner. If it must be done at all, either one way or another; if we must bring on a war, let us do it avowedly and not covertly. I am not aware that history informs us that the British govern- ment, when our forefathers first revolted, took any such position as this — that they would send troops here to hold the forts; but they took a bolder position; they came here with the avowed purpose of making a war. Between the two I prefer an open and manly policy, rather than one which seeks to do a thing covertly. I say we must look at this matter in its true light. The British, I know, were utterly unjustifiable, as every man descend- ed from revolutionary stock must say, in re- gard to the course they pursued towards our forefathers, and especially do we condemn them for employing foreign mercenaries and Indians to assist them; but they did not seek to cover up their purpose by a pretext. They came openly and avowedly; and if it is to be the policy of the United States to recon- quer the seceded States, let us show as much manliness and magnanimity as our mother country exhibited toward our fathers in the Rev- olution. Let us not send an army into the se- ceded States under a pretext. I do not believe in that system of preserving the Union. I agree with every word Major "Wright said in condem- nation of this force policy. It is subversive of every principle on which our government rests, and would result in the overthrow of our liberty, and blast the hopes of freemen throughout the world. Hook towards an adjustment of our dif-
241
Acuities in an amicable way; let us meet as j brothers, and adjust our difficulties and secure ! our rights under the Constitution, and thus by ! securing their rights and ours we may hope to j win back our seceded sisters. If ever we get ! them back it must be in this way. We can never j get them back by coercion. Concurring, there- j fore, fully in the amendment offered by Mr. Don- \ nell, I shall give it my cordial support.
I have another objection to the substitute j offered by my friend from Buchanan, (Mr. j Hall,) and it is this: It avoids the expres- j sion of any opinion, and takes the ground that j we are not sufficiently advised to give an opinion, j The President of the United States in his Inau- I gural Address has invited an expression of opm- j ion, as shown by the gentleman from Platte, (Mr. Norton,) the other day; and it is proper we should give an expression of opinion whether j we should hold on to the Government forts j in the seceded States. I am not disposed to take the position that we are not suffi- ! ciently informed in relation to the facts to offer any opinion. I think we are informed, j and it must be apparent to every member of the \ Convention, who will reflect, that it would be our true policy to withdraw the Government troops from the seceded States, to abstain from the collection of the revenue, and help to preserve the peace of the country, with the hope of a final adjustment of our difficulties up- on a basis that will secure to us our constitution- al rights — trusting not only that we shall save the Union from overthrow and destruction, but that I the movement will result in bringing back into the Union the States that have withdrawn.
As the gentleman from St. Louis made the mo- tion to lay the amendment upon the table in or- der that it might be printed and made a special order, and then withdrew it, I now renew it, if he insists upon it.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved the previous | question, but withdrew at the suggestion of Mr. i Wilson, in order to enable Mr. Shackelford to re- new his amendment.
Mr. Shackelford, thereupon, renewed his ! amendment.
Mr. Hall then renewed his call for the previ- vious question, which was sustained by the fol- lowing vote :
Ayes— Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comin- go, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher Henderson, Hendricks, Hitch- cock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marma- duke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, Mc- Cormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow,
Moss, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shack- elford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Zim- merman and Mr. President— 78.
Nays— Messrs. Crawford, Gamble, Gravelly, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Knott, Norton, Pomeroy, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Turner and Welch— 14.
The question next occurring on the adoption of Mr. Shackelford's substitute to the amend- ment, the following gentlemen rose to explain their votes :
Mr. Allen. Mr. President, I shall vote no on this question. As I stated the other day in my little speech, this fifth resolution reported by the Committee on Federal Relations seems to me to express all that is intended by the amendments and substitutes offered by gentlemen on this floor. It seems to me that the language in this resolu- tion is definite enough ; and having taken a posi- tion for the series of resolutions as they come from the committee, I shall vote against all amendments and substitutes that may be offered.
Mr. Long. Mr. President: Called to vote upon this question,, I desire to say, in explanation of that vote, that whilst I have no serious objection to the abstract principle involved in the amend- ment, I can discover no existing necessity for its adoption. Without entering into a lengthy dis- cussion on the merits or demerits of the amend- ment, I will only say that its adoption may have a deleterious effect upon the original resolutions. And whilst I would have preferred a slight alter- ation in the wording of some of the resolutions, I was satisfied of the impropriety of demanding it. And as I could not forego my honest convic- tions of right to favor the individual wishes of other gentlemen, I could not ask the sacrifice of their opinions to suit mine. This feeling, sir, more than any other, has prompted me to vote against all amendments that have been yet offered. Sir, if this were the only amendment to be offered, it would, perhaps, effect no great harm; but amend this resolution now to suit a few mem- bers—to-morrow other alterations would be sug- gested— the next day, still others ; and, sir, is not the ruinous result, in such event, perceptible to all Union men on this floor. And further, sir, when this series of resolutions shall have passed through a multiplicity of amendments, altera- tions, erasures and interlineations, to meet the views of the ninety and nine different minds in this body, I fear the majority report will have been reduced from its lofty character as a great state paper, full of truths, wisdom and intelli- gence, to a heterogeneous mass of pretended facts, imaginary grievances and bombastic threats to remedy ghost-like evils.
The Committee on Federal Relations is com-
posed of wise and able men — men of large and
16
242
liberal views — patriotic and Union-loving gentle- men. And, by the way, they were judiciously and impartially selected by our able presiding officer. And now, sir, having implicit confidence in their fidelity to the Union, their watchful care of the ?iono7' and future welfare of my native State, I feel that I am reflecting the will of my constituents by endorsing the action of their uni- ted counsels, and to carry out this settled plan of my own, I shall vote against all amendments cal- culated to clog the passage of the majority report, including the original resolutions. I vote no.
Mr. Orr. In explanation of my vote, I will say that I heartily indorse the fifth resolution, which implores the Federal Government to use no hostile force for the purpose of collecting the revenue. But I am unwilling to say that it shall not do it peaceably if it can. I therefore vote no.
Mr. Sol Smith. If President Lincoln wants our advice in this matter, we give it to him in very good words in the original resolution . I consider the wording of that resolution to be suf- ficiently plain and explicit. If there was a reso- lution here to instruct our Eepresentatives in Con- gress on this subject, I should be ready to vote on it ; but for us here to undertake to give advice to President Lincoln, I think is out of place.
It may be remembered that President Monroe, in a dispatch through the Secretary of State to some foreign government, used in substance this language :
"We will not view with indifference the coloni- zation of any foreign power upon this continent." This, it will be owned was mild, language; but I suppose it has had as great an effect as any sen- tence ever written. In acting here for the State, we say, by the wording of the resolution, that "we earnestly entreat the Federal Government to preserve the peace." Now, that is as far as at present I am willing to go, and I therefore vote no.
Mr. Gamble. I desire to say a few words in explanation of my vote on this occasion. By comparing the original resolution with the sub- stitute and the amendment now pending, it will be seen that, while the former addresses itself to both the Government of the United States, and the government of the seceded States, the amendment and the substitute only address themselves to the Government of the United States. The original resolution says to both, we pray you to abstain from the exercise of military power, and it purposes to put this State in the same position with regard to both sides. But by the adoption of either the amendment or the substitute, after we have said that we entreat both sides to abstain from the use of military power, we address ourselves emphatically to one of the parties, and recommend the course to be pursued by that one party. We recommend to the Gov-
ernment of the United States, the withdrawal of all military force from the forts in the seceded States, but we do not, at the same time, profess to address ourselves to the armed body of men that are now surrounding those forts. Fort Sumter, if accounts be true, is now surrounded by thousands and thousands of armed men, with batteries erected, and their cannon bearing upon the fort
Mr. Redd. I rise to a point of order. It seems to me that the gentleman is going out of the range of the subject. I thought that, after the previous question, all debate was cut off.
The Chair. The gentleman has the right to explain his vote, nevertheless.
Mr. Gamble. I claim the right to explain the reason why I shall vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Howard. I intend to vote for that substitute, although, after it may have been adopted by the house, and it is proposed to take place of the original resolution, I shall vote against it. I think that all its force is already comprehended in the fifth resolution. I prefer it to the amendment now pending, because, in some measure, it carries out the spirit of the fifth reso- lution; but I shall, nevertheless, vote against it whenever the issue is made directly between it and the original resolution. I hold that the orig- inal resolution is right in its spirit, when it pro- poses to ask both parties to abstain from vio- lence— to abstain from the attempt, on the part of the people of South Carolina, to assail Fort Sum- ter; and, as far as the General Government is concerned, to abstain from any violence upon the troops of South Carolina. So, also, in regard to Fort Pickens, which is surrounded by large bands of soldiers, acting under State authority, with all the implements of war, all the machinery of de- struction, all that is necessary to bring on this country civil war. It is essential that both par- ties should abstain from hostilities.
We suppose by this resolution that our counsel might be received by the Government of the United States — at least this amendment is offered on the supposition that our counsel would be so received, and while we have entreated the Gov- ernment of the United States not to use military force, and while we have entreated the seceded States not to use military force, we are asked to proclaim it to be the duty of the Government of the United States to withdraw all military forces from a seceded State. That is the proposition in the amendment. It says nothing of the withdraw- al of military forces by the seceded States. Now, it seems to me, Mr. President, that if our views are to be respected by both parties, it is material that we should address ourselves to both parties, and do it, too, in the language of entreaty. It was with this view that the Committee prepared the fifth resolution. By that resolution, we do not undertake to prescribe the duty of one of the
243
parties to withdraw its military forces, nor of the other. Nor do we undertake to say that either one of the parties should withdraw its military force for fear that the presence of such force should prove an incentive to hostilities by the other. We simply take the ground of mediation. Over and over again I have expressed this view, and advocated it before this body as a matter of policy. If I were President of the United States, I would with- draw all the troops from the forts that are in the harbors of Southern States. I would take this course because of my knowledge of Southern character, because of my belief that this is the way to win the Southern heart and bring them baek to loyalty. But, Mr. President, I am not President of the United States, and never will be, and, therefore, the responsi- bility will never rest on me of decid- ing any such question. So far as giving counsel to the Government of the United States is con- cerned, I am ready to give that counsel whenever I am placed in a position in which my counsel is bound to be respected. After Mr. Lincoln was elected President, and after the State of South Carolina had seceded, while there was yet a con- test going on in Georgia, and in other Southern States, and when the Union men there were try- ing to stand up for the Union, I was exceeding- ly anxious that Mr. Lincoln should come out with some declaration of his views of policy, that would give strength to the Union feeling in the Southern States, and enable the advocates of the Union to meet the arguments that were brought against them by those in favor of seces- sion. But I did not offer that counsel to Mr. Lincoln myself, because he knew I did not be- long to the party to which he belonged, and therefore was not interested in the maintenance of the power of government in that party ; and as I never could belong to an anti-slavery party, and it is perfectly impossible that I ever should, I did not volunteer any such counsel. At the same time, keeping my eyes steadfastly fixed upon the one great end which I had then in view, and have to-day in view, I endeavored to ascertain from a gentleman here of my acquain- tance, by writing to him from the East, whether any influence could be exerted upon Mr. Lincoln that would induce him to come out and make such declaration. So, also, here, Mr. President, when it comes to the matter of deprecating vio- lence between the parties, as likely to produce civil war, I do not propose to turn around, after having addressed both parties, and prescribe a course of policy to the Government of the United States, which is now managed by a party ■ to which very few, indeed, of this Con- vention belong — I do not propose to offer counsel, which is not very likely to be ac- cepted, coming from a body of men who are
not of the same political party. I can offer entreaty to both sides. I can offer entreaty to the Government of the United States, and the gov- ernment of the seceded States ; but I cannot hope that the counsel of this Convention, constituted as it is of men who belong to a Southern State, will be received with any very great respect by the Administration of a Government altogether in the hands of a different party.
Mr. President, I repeat, that I prefer the origi- nal resolution to both the amendment and the substitute for the amendment. That resolution urges that, under no pretexts whatever, shall the Government of the United States or of the se- ceding States bring upon us the horrors of civil war. The language is plain and unmis- takable. It covers all the ground which, as mediators, we ought to take, and it is a little gratuitous, as I apprehend that we shall enter upon the detail of that policy which we recommend in the resolution. As I un- derstand, the Attorney General has given the opinion that the revenue cannot be collected in the Southern ports, at any place but in the ports; and that we cannot collect it on shipboard, be- cause an act to that effect, which was passed in the administration of Jackson, has expired. We therefore, by the adoption of the amendment, of- fer a counsel in relation to the collection of the revenue, when, in fact, that collection cannot take place. There is no one Southern port in which the public buildings are now in the posses- sion of the United States. In regard to Key West, which, I believe, is a fortress mainly de- signed for the protection of the commerce in the Gulf of Mexico, and not for the defense of any port, and which is the strongest fortress on the American continent, whether that is claimed to be within the jurisdiction of Florida or not, it is one of those forts that must be held by the Gov- ernment of the United States, in order to protect the commerce of the Gulf against the piratical vessels that would immediately swarm in it, as has heretofore been the case whenever that power was withdrawn.
The vote on substituting Mr. Shackelford's amendment for the amendment of Mr. Donnell, then stood as follows :
AvES-Messrs. Bartlett, Bass,Bast, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Gamble, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Marmaduke, Mat son, McCormack, McDowell, Morrow, Moss, No- ell, Norton, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Zim- merman, and Mr. President.
244
Noes— Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Fos- ter, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Henderson, Hen- drick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Is- bell, Jackson, Jamison, Leeper, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Orr, Row- land, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Tindall, and Turner.
The question next being on the adoption of Mr. Shackelford's amendment, the following expla- nations were given :
Mr. Bush. Mr. President, I desire to make a few remarks in explanation of my vote; I deem it due to myself and the thousands of German citizens whom I have the honor to represent, and who have been assailed again and again as co- ercionists. I have to ask your indulgence, as I am quite unaccustomed to speak, and to speak in a language that is not the idiom of my native country. But, sir, while I confess myself want- ing in oratory, nay even in correct pronunciation, I am not wanting in love of peace ; I am not wanting in anxiety for the peace and welfare of Missouri. And more than this, while you, Mr. President, and all the members of this Conven- tion, I believe, only imagine the horrors of war and fancy the evils of revolution, I know them ; my eyes have seen what you cannot imagine, what I cannot describe — the .terrors of civil war, of bloodshed and revolution. But while I know all this, I still cannot, for the sake of peace, go any further than is expressed in this fifth resolution. I can earnestly entreat the Federal Government, and may ask, in broth- erly spirit, our erring sister States to withhold, to stay the arm of military power; but I cannot go any further, and must oppose the amendment. I consider it not only the duty of the Government to maintain itself in those forts, and that it has no right to give up the property of the United States to the seceding States ; but even if the President had the right, and should consider it his policy to do so, it would not secure peace. I go so far as to say, that it the Federal Government should even choose to waive the collection of revenue in those ports, as was propo- sed by the gentleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell,) it would be far from securing peace. I ask him, as a merchant and a bank- er, (as I perceive he is, from the list before me,) does he believe that New York could peace- fully look on ? Are her great commercial inter- ests less dear to her than the cotton interest is to the South ? You know, better than I do, that, at the time of the first confederation, a war nearly ensued between Massachusetts and Rhode Island, on account of unequal duties of import; and what was that trade then to the magnitude of the commerce of our day ? I cannot, there- fore, look on this amendment as a peace meas- ure, and have to vote against it. I hope, however,
that the present administration is for peace, and will not bring war upon us. I trust the seceding States will reflect and return— but should a conflict be inevitable, I pledge myself that your German fellow citizens will stand by the Government and the Union. They love peace. While they have left their native land, sweet home, to enjoy the blessings of peace and of liber- ty, the history of their own thirty-four confede- rate States of distracted Germany teaches them that there is no peace and no liberty without union ; and this Convention, composed as it is to a large extent of sons of Kentucky, will cer- tainly forgive them if they think with Ken- tucky's greatest son, Henry Clay, that "we owe a paramount allegiance to the whole Union — a subordinate one to our own State." I, there- fore, vote against the amendment.
Mr, Hendrick. I merely desire to say, in giv- ing my vote on this question, that I consider the language of the original resolution sufficiently explicit to cover the whole ground of conciliation which we have taken in this body. I vote aye on this amendment, but when the question comes on the original resolution, I shall prefer to have it go unamended.
Mr. Hudgins. I gave my vote in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Bu- chanan (Mr. Donnell,) preferring it to the amendment of Mr. Shackelford, because there is more in it. Inasmuch, however, as that resolution failed, I am willing to vote for this amendment. I am in favor of any measure that is proposed in this Convention for the pur- pose of restoring peace to the country. In the fifth resolution we have said that we are opposed to coercion ; that any attempt to coerce a seceding State would bring the horrors of civil war upon us. There is not a member, I apprehend, in this Convention, but who will at once see that all hope of conciliation is lost, and all efforts to effect a compromise are frustrated, so soon as coercion is attempted. I do not want to see that time come, and I would do anything in my power to avert it. I shall therefore vote for this amendment. As I have said before, it does not go so far as the amendment for which it was substituted, but it is still a step in the right direction, and should receive the support of this Convention.
Mr. Irwin. I am as much opposed to coer- cion as any man could possibly be, but believing that the sense of this Convention upon that sub- ject has been fully and clearly, and explicitly set forth in the original resolution, I shall vote no.
Mr. McCormack. Perhaps there is not a gen- tleman upon this floor who is more opposed to coercion than myself, and if I believed that, with the adoption of this amendment, the voice of Missouri would be more potent for a reconcilia- tion than by the simple adoption of the fifth res- olution, I should vote for it; but, sir, I believe
245
that the fifth resolution itself contains all that can be available. It is the strongest language of entreaty, and beseeches the Government of the United States, upon no pretext whatever , to bring about war. I do not see, on reading the resolution, that any language of entreaty could be used stronger than that. I look upon this amendment as carrying out almost the identical objects which the resolution proposes to accom- plish, and do not, therefore, deem it necessary. I shall vote no.
Mr. Redd. I cordially indorse the resolution as it stands, but as it stands I think it is in the shape of resolutions which we ordinarily pass at mass meetings. My view is, that this Conven- tion was called, not so much to express senti- ments, as to act — to do something for the preser- vation of the Union. While the resolution ex- presses a proper sentiment, it don't do anything, nor does it tell anybody else to do anything. I think, taking into consideration the President's message, that there is no danger of any resort to military power, except in the collection of revenue. This amendment goes further than the resolution in this, that it requests Mr. Lincoln to withdraw the troops from the forts within the limits of the seceding States. If that is done, it removes all cause or probability of hostile collision. I preferred the other amendment because it went one* step fur- ther; but lam willing to vote for this amend- ment, because it requests the Government to do an act, the doing of which will tend materially to save the Union. I will vote for any measure which is calculated to restore peace and save the Union.
Mr. Woolfolk. Mr. President, I shall vote for this amendment, because it is in coincidence with my own feelings, and I am satisfied it re- flects the sentiments of my constituents. Seven of the cotton States have passed ordinances of secession. Whether they had the Constitutional right to pass such ordinances, or whether they were justified in revolution, is not the ques- tion. The fact is, they have passed the ordi- nances; they have adopted a constitution and formed a government. The Federal Government may have the right to enforce the laws and to re- tain the forts, but it is not always policy to assert our rights. The question is, What policy will preserve and restore the Union ? My anwer is — peace. War will break the last tie that binds the seceding States to the Union, and an ocean of blood will roll between us forever. It is true that many of these forts are important for national purposes. It is a national misfortune to be forc- ed to abandon them — but the present crisis is also a national misfortune. The secession of seven States is the greatest national misfortune — and we are simply to decide whether we will add war to our other calamities. If the seceding States re-
main as they are, we cannot expect to retain the forts in their midst, in peace — besides, they are of no value to the Federal Government, unless those States remain a part of the government. If they return to the Union, they will bring the forts with them— if they do not return, the Federal Govern- ment may as well abandon the forts, unless it ex- pects to coerce them. This would be madness — a conflict between the Federal Government and the seceded States would only render the citizens of those States a unit in their hostility to the gov- ernment— at present, they are divided. In some of these States, large minorities — in others, silent majorities, are opposed to this secession move- ment. But, if these forts are retained, and a con- flict ensues, every drop of Southern blood that is shed will make a thousand rebels. If those States return to the Union, their own citizens must make the effort to return. The fight must be made within their own limits. No foreign influence beyond their limits can ever coerce them back. Should the day come when a burdened people desire to shake off their revolutionary masters and return again to the Union, it would then be the duty of the Federal Government to prevent oppression by an armed minority, and enable the majority to fairly express their desires. In my opinion the Federal Government should never act upon those States except through the agency of the conservative element within their own limits. If time is ne- cessary for the action of.that clement, let us wait. Compromise may restore the Union, but the sword can never preserve it.
Mr. Shackelford's amendment was then adopted by the following vote :
Ayes — Messrs. Allen, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Doug- lass, Eitzen, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCor- mack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Xoell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shack- elford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Turner, Wil- son, Yanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President.
Noes— Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins,Knott, Matson, Moss, Norton, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre, Sheeley, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wood- son and Woolfolk.
Mr. Henderson moved to adjourn. [Cries of "No, no!"]
The motion to adjourn was put and rejected.
The question next being on the adoption of Mr. Shackelford's amendment as an amendment to
246
the original resolution, it was answered affirma- tively by the following vote :
Ayes — Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bogy, Brown, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Craw- ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Flood, Givens, Gorki, Gravelly, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Marmaduke, Matson, McDowell, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Say re, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk and Mr. Presi- dent,
Noes — Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Fray- scr, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitch- cock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, Long, Marvin, Mau- pin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Orr, Pomeroy, Rowland, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turn- er, Waller, Wright and Zimmerman.
The fifth resolution, as amended, was then adopted by the following vote :
Ayes— Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Bridge, Breckinridge, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doni- phan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hendrick, Holmes, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Knott, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr,Phillips, Pomeroy, Ran- kin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Saw- yer, Say re, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shack- elford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman, and, Mr. President.
Noes — Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Hill, Hitchcock, How.
Mr. Hitchcock, in explaining his vote, said that he heartily concurred in the spirit of the resolution as reported from the committee, and would have liked to see it adopted bv the Convention. He could not, however, see the propriety of this Convention dictating to the President of the United States what course he ought to pursue, and would therefore vote no on the resolution as amended.
The Secretary read the sixth resolution, as fol- lows :
Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns i:s session in the city of St. Louis, it will adjourn to meet in the Hall of the House of Representa-
tives at Jefferson City, on the third Monday of December, 1861.
Mr. Hall called the previous question, which was sustained.
Mr. Redd. I should like to know if the adoption of the sixth resolution will in any way interfere with the resolution before the House in regard to the Border State Convention.
The Chair. Not at all.
The question being on the adoption of the sixth resolution, the following explanation of votes were given :
Mr. Gravelly. I have no desire to be placed conspicuously upon the record. I never held office in the State, and do not expect to be a can- didate for any office; but, as a member of this Convention, I intend, so far as I am able, to represent the wishes of my constituents upon all questions before this body ? I am satisfied, sir, that I represent a district which is opposed to the sixth resolution ; and although, for myself, so far as any aspirations, or the gratification of desires in the future for office are concerned, I might be in favor of the resolution ; still, in casting my vote, I expect to act in obedience to what I be- lieve to be the wishes of the people of the Seven- teenth Senatorial District. I am satisfied they are opposed to so many extra sessions of the Legisla- ture, and that they would be opposed to a session of this Convention to convene in Jefferson City on the third Monday in December. They would be opposed to it, because they were opposed to this Convention meeting at all. They did not con- sider it necessary, and I am satisfied that if I reflect their wishes here, I must vote against an adjourned session. They desire the preservation of the Union, and as they know that the only way by which Missouri can get out of the Union is by the action of State conventions, they would have voted by a very large majority against this Convention, if permitted to vote upon the ques- tion. I am satisfied they would be glad if this Convention would adjourn sine die to-day. They would have been glad if the Convention had adjourned sine die on the first day in Jefferson city. I therefore feel bound, in obedience to their wishes, to vote against this resolution.
I will say this, however, that in casting this vote, I do not wish to indicate that the people of my District are dissatisfied with this Convention, on account of its being a Union Convention. Far from it. They are satisfied with it, and will be satisfied with its action here. But being a Union loving people they desire an adjournment sine die, and I shall vote accordingly.
Mr. Orr. Mr. President, I had intended to have offered an amendment to the sixth resolu- tion to the effect that we would not be called to- gether in December if the difficulties now divid- ing the people were amicably settled previous to that time, as it would cost the State a considera-
247
ble amount of money, and we have not much to spare; but the gentleman has called for the pre- vious question. I don't want us ever to meet again unnecessarily, but am satisfied we are elect- ed for life.
Mr. Redd. It was my desire first to dispose of the resolution in regard to the Border State Con- vention before taking up this resolution. My ac- tion in regard to this resolution in that case would have been somewhat dependent upon the action which the Convention would take in regard to the resolution calling a Border State Conven- tion. If the proposition for such a Convention had been voted down, I should have been in favor of adjourning sine die. I have such a resolution prepared to offer as a substitute to this, but the gentleman knowing that fact, moved the adoption of this resolution and the previous question in the same breath, to cut me off from presenting the substitute, and to avoid voting on it. As it is, I must conform to the tactics, unfair though they may be, of the majority; and being compelled to vote, I vote no.
The sixth resolution was thereupon adopted by the following vote :
Ayes— Allen, Bartlett,Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breck- inridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Cal- houn, Cayce, Collier, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eit- zen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Hender- son, Hendricks, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pipkin, Rankin, Ray, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbus- kirk, Zimmerman, Mr. President— 78.
Noes.— Chenault, Comingo, Crawford, Doni- phan, Donnell, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Harbin, Howell, Hudgins, Kiaott, Matson, McDowell, Norton, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre — 19.
Mr. Phillips moved to adjourn. Disagreed to by 46 ayes to 48 noes.
The Secretary read the seventh resolution, as follows :
Resolved, That a committee of be elected
by this Convention, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together at such time prior to the third Monday of Decem- ber, and at such place as they may think the public exigencies require, and the survivors or the survivor of said committee shall have power to fill any vacancies that may happen in said committee by death, resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of this Convention.
Mr. Brown offered the following substitute:
Resolved, That a committee of seven be elected by this Convention, consisting of one from each
Congressional District, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together prior to the third Monday in December, as public exi- gencies may require; and incase any vacancy occurs in said committee, the survivor or sur- vivors shall have power to fill it.
Mr. Hall of Buchanan, offered the following amendment to the substitute : Strike out all af- ter the word "require," and insert as follows: In case any vacancies shall occur, by resignation or otherwise, the remaining member or members of said commitee shall have power to fill the same.
Mr. Dunn offered the following amendment to the original resolution, which was read for in- formation : Fill the blank with the word " sev- en," and after the word " seven " the words in each Congressional District.
Mr. Brown withdrew his substitute.
The amendment of Mr. Dunn to the original resolution was thereupon adopted.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved to further amend, by striking out all after the word "and," which immediately precedes the words " the sur- vivors," and inserting : " in case any vacancies shall occur, by resignation or otherwise, the re- maining members or member of said committee shall have power to fill the same."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Redd offered the following amendment: Strike out the words, "at such place as they may think the public exigency requires," and insert the words, " at the city of Jefferson," in place thereof.
Objected to on the ground that the Legislature might be in session at the time set in the resolu- tion, and lost— ayes 37; noes 45.
Mr. Birch offered an amendment, which, be- ing subsequently modified by the mover, is as fol- lows : Amend by adding "and if the said com- mittee shall be of opinion hereafter that there is no longer a necessity for a reassembling of the Convention, and shall so declare by proper pub- lic communication, then the Convention shall not reassemble the third Monday in December, but may be called together by a majority of said com- mittee at any subsequent period."
Mr. Wilson offered the following amendment to the amendment: "If it be the request of a majority of all the members of the Convention in writing, delivered to said committee prior to the third Monday in December, the said commit- tee shall on that day adjourn this Convention
sine die."
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, offered the following amendment, which was read for in- formation: "Provided, that if the Convention does not assemble on the third Monday in De- cember, it shall stand adjourned sine die."
Upon the above amendments, a running debate ensued, in which Messrs. Welch, Birch, Wilson, Redd and others participated, and pending which the Convention adjourned.
248
EIGHTEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 21st, 1861.
Mr. President in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
Journal read and approved.
Mr. Henderson, from the committee to whom was referred the communication from the Geor- gia Commissioner, presented the following
REPORT.
Mr. President: Your committee, to whom was referred the communication of the Honorable Luther J. Glenn, who appeared before the Con- vention as a Commissioner from Georgia, and having presented the ordinance of secession adopt- ed by said State, was pleased to "invite the co- operation of Missouri with Georgia and the other seceding States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy," have had the same under conside- ration, and beg leave to report as follows :
The Committee sincerely regret that the com- mission under which Mr. Glenn was accredited to our State, was limited in its scope to a mere in- vitation to withdraw from the Government of our fathers and form a distinct confederacy with the Gulf States. His mission seems to contemplate no plan of reconciliation — no measure of redress for alleged grievances, which, being adopted, would prove satisfactory to Georgia. Having chosen secession as the only remedy for existing ills, Georgia, through her Commissioner, suppo- ses that similar interests, connected with the exi- gency precipitated upon us by the action of the cotton States, will impel Missouri to withdraw from the Union and cast her lot with them.
The reasons assigned by Mr. Glenn for this ac- tion on the part of his State are : First, that the laws of Congress imposing duties on imports have been so framed as to discriminate very inju- riously against Southern interests ; Second, that a great sectional party, chiefly confined to the Northern States of the Union, whose leading idea is animosity to the institution of negro slavery, has gradually become so strong as to obtain the chief executive power of the nation, which is regarded as a present insult to the South; and, Third, that the ultimate object of this party is the total extinction of slavery in the States where it now exists by law, and the placing upon terms of political equality, at least, the white and black races; and to prevent evils of such magni- tude, as well as to preserve the honor and safety of the South, Georgia and some of her sister States have deliberately resolved to withdraw from the Union, never to return.
Your Committee trust that they duly appreci- ate the gravity of the communication thus made to the people of Missouri.
Missouri entered the Union at the close of an angry contest on the subject of slavery. Her geographical position, the variety of the branches of industry to which her resources point, her past growth and future prospects, combine to de- mand that all her counsels be taken in the spirit of sobriety and conciliation.
Your Committee waive for the moment the con- sideration of the moral aspect of what they con- ceive to be the heresy of secession, because if they entered, in the first instance, upon this examina- tion, its results would preclude any inquiry into the material consequences of the action to which Missouri is solicited.
The peculiar position of our State is different from that of Georgia, or any other of the cotton- growing States. If it be true, as represented, that the revenue laws of the country operate oppres- sively upon them — and this objection is now heard for the first time after an interval of nearly thirty years — it cannot be pretended that any part of this particular grievance touches Missouri.
Acknowledging as we do the power of Congress to impose such duties for revenue purposes at least, and trusting to the wisdom and justice of that body for impartial legislation, we are un- willing to seek, in a step promising nothing but the most unequivocal calamities, a refuge from imaginary evils.
In reference to the more important matter pre- sented as a reason for the action of Georgia, your committee would say, that Missouri has watched, with painful anxiety, the progress of a great sectional party in the North, based upon the exclusion of slavery from the Territories, which are the common property of the whole Union. Doing the Republican party the justice to believe that it means to carry out the articles of its political creed, as stated in its platform and indicated by its recent votes in Congress, we deem it incorrect to declare that it cherishes any pre- sent intention to interfere with slavery in the States of the Union. Any such attempt would justly arouse the highest exasperation in every slaveholding State; but it is considered unwise to go out of our way to denounce hypothetically a design which, so far from being threatened, is disavowed by that party.
We are aware that individual members of the Republican party have at times enunciated most dangerous heresies, and that some of its extrem- ists have, with apparent deliberation, embodied in the form of resolutions, and published to the world, sentiments which would fnlly authorize, if regarded as the views of the whole organiza- tion, the condemnation due to principles at war with the security of rights of property in nearly half the States of the Union ; but we must guard ourselves against the double error of imagining that all the bad rhetoric and uncharitable speech of orators whose highest aim is to produce a sen-
249
sation, are to be taken as the true exponent of the sober views of their party, and that language recklessly used by a party seeking to obtain pow- er is a faithful index of the conduct it will pur- sue when power has been once obtained.
In support of these views, your Committee may instance the adoption of a constitutional amendment by the requisite two-thirds vote of each branch of the last Congress, after the Rep- resentatives from seven Southern States had withdrawn, providing against all interference by Congress with the institution of slavery, as it may exist in any State of the Union— a provis- ion irrevocable without the consent of every State, From this it may be seen that the extremists at- tached to the Republican party have so far been unable to control it.
In proof of the proposition that parties are more radical in the acquisition than in the exer- cise of power, we may refer to the recent organi- zation of three several territorial governments, upon the principles contained in the compromise measures of 1850 — and afterwards applied, upon demand of the South, to the provisional govern- ments of Kansas and Nebraska.
But notwithstanding these evidences denoting thus far a proper appreciation of the rights and wishes of the people of the South, the Honora- ble Commissioner was pleased to assure us that Georgia had lost all confidence in the North. Such, Mr. President, is not the sentiment of Mis- souri. That many of the citizens of the North, including the turbulent demagogues, who incite to treason, and their deluded followers who exe- cute their teachings by invading other States, with a view of inaugurating revolution or setting at defiance, by forcible resistance, the Federal laws, on their own soil, have forfeited our confi- dence, will not be denied. But to denounce the innocent with the guilty and charge whole com- munities with the crimes or bad faith of a few, does not accord with the moral or political ethics of Missourians.
It is true that some of the Northern States have enacted laws, the provisions of which seem de- signed to impede the prompt and faithful execu- tion of the Fugitive Slave Law, but such enact- ments are void. They disgrace the statute books on which they appear, and serve no other purpose than to weaken the fraternal ties that should bind together the people of different sections of the Union. These enactments are fast disappearing; and the hope may be indulged that, in the course of a few months, this source of irritation will be permanently removed.
So far then from having lost all confidence in the North, Missouri is assured, by the history of the past, that every right she may constitutional- ly claim will be accorded to her. Let the pas- sions of the day, engendered by political conflict, subside and the ultra dogmas of party leaders
will be discarded. Let the American mind once more be directed to the importance of perpetuat- ing the blessings of a good government, instead of indulging vain hopes of establishing a better one, at the close of the most dangerous and crimi- nal revolutions, and then the peace of the country will have been restored.
We are not advised that concessions demanded by the Southern people, on the subject of slavery, have heretofore been refused by those of the North. No Federal legislation, discriminating against the institution, has ever been imposed upon the South by the sectional power of the North. The ordinance of 1787, prohibiting sla- very in the Northwest territory, ceded to the General Government by the State of Virginia, was proposed and advocated by one of the most distinguished sons of the " Old Dominion." The proposition was seconded and supported by Southern men, and, though the result of the measure was the exclusion of slavery from the soil of five large States of the Union, yet the South should not be so unjust as now to complain of the deed.
The Missouri compromise was agreed upon by the representatives of both sections of the country, and neither should now reproach the other. It was proposed by a Southern man, re- ceived the assent of the South, and acquiesced in by the people of the nation.
And though, it may be said, the compact was made in ignorance of the law, as recently de- clared by the Supreme Court, the people of the South will scarcely now sacrifice their high sense of honor, so long claimed as a leading charac- teristic, in eager and unnatural desire to find causes of quarrel with their brethren of the North.
At a subsequent period the South demanded a repeal of the Missouri Compromise line, and the adoption of the principle of non-intervention upon the subject of slavery in the territories. The de- mand was acceded to, and territorial governments established in accordance with their wishes. That portion of the territory, once covered by the re- striction of 1820, was thus opened to the introduc- tion of slavery, and now, for the first time since the organization of the Federal Government has slavery become lawful upon every part of the public domain. Georgia and Missouri united in this appeal to the patriotism and justice of the North.
The concession was made, and Missouri would be false to every principle of honor should she find in the act a pretext for the charge of broken faith.
The operation of this principle having become distasteful to some of our Southern friends, it was thought by them advisable to make yet an- other demand upon the people of the North. The doctrine of Congressional protection of slavery in
250
the Territories was urged as a substitute for that of popular sovereignty, so recently adopted at their own instance and request. The demand, however, is only made in a political convention, and admitted, by the parties urging it, to be an unnecessary and impracticable abstraction. When attempted to be engrafted upon the legislation of the country, it is repudiated by nearly the entire South, and even by Georgia herself. Your com- mittee are by no means satisfied that even this re- quest would be refused by a large proportion of the Northern people, were it necessary to preserve the Union, or secure the rights of their brethren. But, until it shall be acknowledged as a vital and living principle by the South, and refused by the North, Missouri will be slow even to complain of injustice, much less to enter into any schemes for the destruction of the Government.
Missouri is not yet ready to abandon the ex- periment of free government. She has not lost all confidence in the people of any section of the nation, because the past furnishes assurance to the contrary; the present is cheered by her un- shaken faith in the capacity of man to govern himself— and the future invites to peace and con- tinued Union, for the prosperity of all.
If evils exist under the Constitution and laws, as they are, let the proper appeal be addressed to the American heart, both North and South, and these evils will be removed. If, in the heat of partizan rancor, the expressions or deeds of the vicious shall point to future aggressions, the pat- riotism of the masses needs only to be invoked for new guarantees against anticipated wrong.
From what has been already said, it will be seen that the views of Georgia, as expressed by her Commissioner and those of your Committee, in reference to the policy to be pursued by the Southern States in the present emergency, are essentially different. "We believe that Missouri yet relies upon the justice of the American peo- ple, whilst Georgia seems to despair. The one recognizes friends in the North, whose lives, if necessary, will be devoted to her defence; the other, regarding them as unworthy of her confi- dence, spurns their friendship, and defies their enmity. Missouri looks to the Federal Constitu- tion to protect the rights of her citizens, whilst Georgia unnecessarily rushes into revolution and hazards all upon a single issue. Georgia, seem- ing to regard the Union as the source of imagina- ry ills, adopts secession as a remedy ; Missouri, feeling that she is indebted to the Union for the prosperity of her citizens, her power and wealth as a State, yet clings to it with the patriotic devo- tion of earlier days.
Your committee, so far, have confined them- selves to an examination of the causes alleged for the revolution in the Southern States, and the apparent want of necessity for so extraordinary a movement at the' present time. Indeed, so
rapid and ill-advised has this action been, that it seems rather the execution of meditated conspi- racy against the Government by restless and un- easy demagogues, than the slow and determined movement of a reflecting people. We see many of the dangerous men who controlled the nullifica- tion plot of South Carolina in 1832, the prominent actors in the present desperate experiment against the peace and happiness of the country. Feel- ing, as we do, the total inadequacy of the causes presented for this ruinous policy, your committee will be excused in the expression of some doubt as to the deliberation and wisdom with which the honorable Commissioner was pleased to assure us Georgia had acted in the premises. And in this connection we will be further excused for com- mending to the serious consideration of the good citizens of Georgia, and other seceding States, who may for the moment have been seduced from the paths of safety by the artful schemes of bad men, the following memorable words from one whose patriotism will not be doubted, and whose unerring sagacity is being daily verified in the history of the Republic.
" Washington, May 1, 1833.
"Mi Dear Sir: ****** I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be re- membered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every portion of the world. Hainan's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign, and ride on its whirlwind and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers ; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question. "ANDREW JACKSON.
"Rev. Andrew J. Crawford/'
The Commissioner was pleased to invoke the identity of interests and feeling between the peo- ple of Georgia and Missouri, as a reason that we should abandon the Government of our fathers, and take our position with the seceding States. It will be borne in mind that this proposition was urged, not with a view of securing such guaran- ties as might ultimately lead to a reunion of the States, and the establishment of fraternal peace, but for the purpose of constructing permanently a separate and distinct confederacy.
If the union of these two great States, under the same government — and we admit the fact — be so desirable to Georgia, we will be pardoned
251
in the expression of astonishment that she saw fit to dissolve that connection, which had been peaceful and happy for the last forty years, with- out consulting the interests or wishes of Missouri. It may not be intended, but the inference is forc- ed upon us, that longer to enjoy the beneficial re- sults to flow from union with our revolting sis- ters, we must surrender our own convictions of duty and follow the imperative behests of others. Missouri must resign her place in the present gal- axy of States, where the lustre and brilliancy of each but add harmony and beauty to the whole, and accept such position as may be assigned her in the new constellation, whose light, we fear, may never penetrate beyond the southern skies.
The importance of the accession of Missouri to any confederacy formed upon the ruins of the present Union will be readily granted ; but, be- fore accepting any such invitation without any guaranty for the future, it behooves us now to examine the character of the remedy proposed, and also its inevitable consequences upon the people of Missouri. Should the government be- come destructive of the ends for which it was in- stituted, and oppression become the established rule of its action, we presume that none will deny the revolutionary right of redress. This, how- ever, is a remedy outside of the provisions of the Federal Constitution and one that must necessa- rily address itself to the moral sense of the civil- ized world. It depends for its success upon deep convictions of wrong by citizens of the revolting district, claiming, when justifiable, the encour- agement and sympathy of other nations. It is the last remedy of injured man to obtain in vio- lence and bloodshed, if need be, the establish- ment of an incontesiible right. It presumes the total inefficiency of his government to redress his wrongs. It supposes that all the efforts of peace have been exhausted, and that present evils are beyond endurance.
If it be true " that governments long estab- lished should not be changed for light and tran- sient causes," it occurs to your Committee that a proper appreciation of this truth will at once dis- pel all ideas of present revolution.
Secession, on the other hand, is claimed as a right resulting from the nature of our Govern- ment; that the Constitution is a mere compact between the States, not subject even to the ordi- nary rules governing contracts ; that it is a con- federation of States, not a government of the people.
It will be observed that no attempt of a serious character has ever been made to overthrow the Government without adopting this theory as the best means to accomplish the end. The reason is obvious ; for although it is declared in the in- strument itself that " this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in ev- ery State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," this doctrine interposes State authority between the rebellious citizen and the consequences of his crime. Hence the delegates from the five New England States who met at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814, in response to the call of the Massachusetts Legislature, saying " it was expedient to lay the foundation for a radical reform in the national compact, and devise some mode of defense suitable to those States, the af- finities of whose interests are closest, and whose intercourse are most frequent," after enumerat- ing their grievances against the Government, de- clare that "in cases of deliberate, dangerous and palpable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty of a State and the liberties of the people, it is not only the right but the duty of such a State to interpose its authority for protec- tion, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur, which are either beyond the reach of the judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their forms, States which have no common umpire must be their own judges and execute their own decisions."
Looking forward to the ultimate dissolution of the Union and the erection of a Northern Con- federacy, as one of the means to secure that end, they recommended amendments to the Constitu- tion, which they must have known would not be adopted. Their rejection, it was hoped, no doubt, would "fire the Northern mind and precipitate" the New England States "into a revolution." Seeing the enormity of their proceedings and that merited punishment would likely be visited upon them by the Government, they, too, entered their solemn protest against coercion, and declared "if the Union be destined to dissolution by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad administration, it should be, if possible, the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent," and that "a sepa- tion by equitable arrangement will be preferable to an alliance by constraint among nominal friends but real enemies."
"We pause but to remark that the amendments to the Constitution proposed by this sectional convention were never adopted, the New Eng- land States remained in the Union, peace and prosperity again blessed the land, and the con- spirators, abhorred and shunned by men, silently passed along to a grave of infamy.
At a subsequent period a movement somewhat similar in its nature was inaugurated in some of the Southern States, and your Committee hope that the allusion will give no offense to Georgia. The grievance complained of was the tariff act of 1828. South Carolina took the incipient step and declared the Constitution to be a compact between
252
States as independent sovereignties, and not a government of the people— that the Federal Gov- ernment was responsible to the State Legislatures, when it assumed powers not conferred — that not- witstanding a tribunal was appointed under the Constitution to decide controversies where the United States was a party, there were some ques- tions that must occur between the Government and the States, which it would be unsafe to sub- mit to any judicial tribunal, and finally, that the State had a right to judge for itself as to infrac- tions of the Constitution.
Alabama, Virginia and Georgia having yielded assent to this exposition of the principles of the Government, a Convention was assembled in South Carolina, which at once declared the ob- noxious law to be null and void, and of no bind- ing force upon the citizens of that State. It was further resolved, that in case of an attempt by the General Government to enforce the tariff laws of 1828 or 1832, the Union was to be dissolved, and a Convention called to form an independent gov- ernment of that State; and in order that the nulli- fication might be thorough and complete, it was provided, that no appeal should be permitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, in any question concerning the validity of the ordinance or of the laws that might be passed by the Legis- lature to give it effect. In pursuance of this scheme, the Governor was authorized by the Leg- islature, to call on the militia of the State to resist the enforcement of the Federal laws ; arms and munitions of war were placed at his disposal, and the State judiciary was to be exonerated from their oaths to support the Federal Constitution. Treason to the Union became sanctified with the name of patriotism, and its hideous deformity was attempted to be shielded by the mantle of State Sovereignty.
At this juncture appeared the proclamation of Jackson, explaining the nature of the American Government, denying the pretended right of sov- ereignty and claiming the supremacy of the Fed- eral Constitution. A military force was ordered to assemble at Charleston, and a sloop-of-war was dispatched to the same point, to protect the Fed- eral officers in the discharge of their duties. False theories were exploded; the tide of revolution that threatened to engulf the entire South was checked; the passions of the moment subsi- ded; the public mind that had been maddened by the unlicensed declamation of the demagogue, was remitted to calm reflection, and soon the whole country responded to the patriotic senti- ment of the iron-nerved statesman : " Our Fed- eral Union— it must be preserved."
We pause but to remark, that the revenues were collected, peace was preserved, the country was saved, and a new batch of restless men con- signed to oblivion by an indignant people. Oth- er instances might be given in which false con-
structions of the Constitution have been urged, with the obvious intention ultimately to destroy it; but your Committee feel assured that the in- strument itself, when viewed in connection with the history of its adoption, cannot be so tortured as to sanction the right of secession. It is an in- strument of delegated powers, granted by "the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure do- mestic tranquility, provide for the common de- fense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity."
All legislative powers granted in the Consti- tution are vested in a Congress, composed of a Senate and House of Representatives. After an express enumeration of grants of power that may be exercised by that body, it is further provided, that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all oth- er powers vested by this Constitution in the Gov- ernment of the United States or in any depart- ment or officer thereof."
It is then provided, that "the laws of the United States, which shall bemadein pusuance" of these grants of power, "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State," in their administration of justice, "shall be bound there- by," notwithstanding the Constitution and laws of their own State may be to the contrary.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respect- ively, or to the people." If the framers of the Constitution had stopped at this point and fur- nished us no tribunal, before which the humblest citizen may obtain redress, when the limitations of the instrument shall be exceeded by the law- making power, the pretext for the assumed right would bo infinitely more plausible. But such is not the case. The powers delegated, hav- ing been granted by the people for purposes of permanent and perpetual government, cannot be withdrawn by any State or any number of States, except in the mode indicated in the Constitution itself. These grants of power were at the time supposed to be essential to the common good; that being of a general nature, it were best to confer their exercise upon a National Govern- ment.
This having been done, the several States can- not be regarded as perfect sovereignties. The people of the whole Union having surrendered to the General Government a portion of their pow- ers—which are material attributes of sovereign- ty—and having declared that government to be the supreme law of the land, it cannot be serious- ly urged that any number of the people organiz- ing a State government, may confer upon it pow- ers with which they have already parted.
253
But, in order to protect the people of each and every State against encroachment by the Federal authority; to prevent interference by the States with powers delegated to the Federal Government, and to preserve to each its appropriate rights for all time to come, a wise provision was made, which so far, it must be admitted, has answered all the ends for which it was adopted.
Controversies must necessarily spring up in the administration of governments so complicated in , their nature, for each may be said to be sovereign within its appropriate sphere, and in order that a peaceable solution may be had in every possible case that can arise, our forefathers provided an arbiter in the Judiciary department of the Gov- ernment; its power extending "to all cases inlaw and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;" "to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; be- tween citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or citizens thereof and foreign States, citi- zens or subjects."
This, in connection with the other provisions of the Constitution referred to renders our Govern- ment, in the judgment of your Committee, the best ever established by man. Whether Georgia and other seceding States may be able to devise a better, the future alone can determine.
If we were disposed further to demonstrate the heterodoxy of secession as a right deducible from the Constitution, we might refer to other plain provisions of that instrument, and ask pertinent questions as to the reason of their adoption, and the consequences flowing from an admission of the right.
Why grant the power " to borrow money on the credit of the United States," if the State, per- haps receiving the benefit of the fund, can with- draw and absolve her citizens from all obligation to pay? Why the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," if a simple ordinance of secession excuses the citizen and nullifies the provision for calling " forth the mi- litia to execute the laws of the Union?" Why the power "to declare war," if, in the midst of hos- tilities, the State whose representatives may have voted for the declaration, but now wearied of its calamities, may seek peace in secession, and leave the Government to struggle with its dangers and its burdens? Why declare that " no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation;" that " no State shall enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign
power," if all these things can be done in perfect accordance with the Constitution?
We might also refer to the acquisition of Flor- ida, the purchase of Louisiana, the payment of the Texas debt, and the boasted "indemnity for the past and security for the future," supposed to be realized at the close of the war with Mexico, all of which were mere "promises to the ear," if the doctrine of secession be true.
But were your Committee disposed to abandon the dictates of patriotism and forget for the mo- ment their loyalty to the Constitution of the nation, a proper regard for the local interests of our own State would demand at our hands an examination of the probable consequences of the action pro- posed. We are told by the Commissioner that Georgia acted for herself and adopted such course as she deemed best calculated to protect her honor and secure the welfare of her citizens.
If it be true that each State possesses the right to judge for itself, and its own peculiar in- terests should control its policy, in emergencies like the present, and that Georgia, in the exer- cise of that right, has acted with an eye single to her own welfare, it may be well doubted whether a similar instinct of self-preservation on our part should be influenced by the conduct of others.
It is urged that the Northern mind has become so corrupted by the anti-slavery mania of the day, as to render this species of property insecure. If secession could remove our State beyond the reach of this morbid sentiment, or build moun- tains and seas upon our borders, to arrest the op- eration of its influence, the remedy proposed might at least be regarded in a more favorable light. Our State is surrounded by territory which, in the event of separation, will pass under the ju- risdiction of a foreign government; and if it be once admitted that fraternal regard and a sense of mutual dependence, cemented by the associa- tions of the past and the hopes of the future, are now insufficient to check the insubordinate citi- zens of adjacent States, what limit to out- rage may be anticipated when these restraints are removed.
Mr. Welch. I move to dispense with the fur- ther reading of the report, and that it be made the special order for the third Monday in Decem- ber, 1861, and on that motion I call the ayes and noes.
Mr. Breckinridge. It strikes me that would hardly be an act of coutesy to the gentleman from Pike, (Mr. Henderson.) I trust he may be allowed at least to finish the reading of his re- port.
Mr. Sheeley. Is the question susceptible of divison? I desire as an act of courtesy that the | report be read through, but I am in favor of post- poning until the third Monday in December.
Mr. Welch. At the request of gentlemen, I defer my motion until the report has been read.
254
Mr. Henderson then continued:
Supposing that a peaceable separation could be accomplished, new and important questions would be precipitated upon us. The present elements of our prosperity as one people would become the sources of bitter strife. What gives power as a nation would bring about conflicts be- tween its different societies, as independent sovereignties, that must soon terminate in the destruction of the weaker and the comparative ruin of the stronger. The great rivers ©f our country, now floating the commerce of a happy people, would daily present questions for angry controversy, between rival Kepublics. There be- ing no common arbiter for the adjustment of these exciting differences, an appeal to the sword will be made to settle them. Treaties will likely fail to secure what now is claimed as a consti- tutional right. In this view of the case, Missouri having withdrawn from the Union, to obtain greater security in negro property, would sudden- ly find herself surrounded by territory affording for the fugitive slave an asylum as safe as the Canadian provinces. Secession does not com- mend itself to Missouri as a proper solution of the problem involved in political strife upon the ter- ritorial question.
It has been already remarked that the idea of excluding slavery from the Territories, as enter- tained by the Republican party, is in conflict with an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and was wholly abandoned by that party in the recent organization of terri- torial governments. The right to carry slaves into all the public domain is to-day clear and un- disputed, and if the soil and climate be such as to forbid the permanent existence of the institu- tion therein, secession will scarcely be regarded by Missouri as a remedy for the supposed grievance.
Again we may ask if the Southern States with- draw from the government, will it not be argued that they have abandoned all interest in the pub- lic property? "We waive the question of right, for evidently it resolves itself into one of power, and it is at least certain that such will be the view of those from whom we may have separat- ed. This of itself will inaugurate a contest of the most violent character, and whether the in- stitution of slavery may be safely planted upon any soil in the midst of hostilities, originating from these causes, is a question deserving our serious consideration.
In conclusion, Mr. President, your Committee desire to express the hope that the errors of the day, both North and South, will soon be aban- doned, that fraternal love will be restored by ad- justment, honorable alike to every section, and that Georgia and Missouri may continue in the Union of our fathers, to bless and to be blessed, in the great family of States.
In every point of view in which we have been able to examine the communication soliciting our withdrawal from the Union, whether viewed as a Constitutional right, a remedy for existing evils, or a preventive of anticipated wrongs, we find it in conflict with our allegiance to a good Govern- ment, and wholly inefficient to accomplish the ends designed.
We therefore recommend to the Convention the adoption of the following resolutions :
1st. That the communication made to the Con- vention by the Hon. Luther J. Glenn, as a Commis- sioner from the State of Georgia, so far as it as- serts the constitutional right of secession meets with our disapproval.
2d. That whilst we reprobate, in common with Georgia, the violation of constitutional duty by Northern fanatics, we cannot approve the seces- sion of Georgia and her sister States, as a mea- sure likely to prove beneficial either to us or to themselves.
3d. That in our opinion the dissolution of the Union would be ruinous to the best interests of Missouri, hence no efforts should be spared on her part to secure its continued blessings to her people, and she will labor for an adjustment of all existing differences, on such a basis as will be compatible with the interest and the honor of all the State s.
4th. That this Convention exhorts Georgia and the other seceding States to desist from the revo- lutionary measures commenced by them, and unite their voice with ours in restoring peace and cementing the union of our fathers.
5th. Resolved, That the President of this Con- vention transmit a copy of these resolutions, to- gether with a copy of those concerning our Fed- eral Relations adopted by the Convention, to the President of the Convention of Georgia, or if the Convention shall have adjourned, then to the Governor of said State.
Mr. Birch (of the same committee.) It is due to myself to state, that in view of the delicate and important duties of the Committee, I moved at an early day of the session that it (as well as the Com- mittee onFederal Relations) should have leave to sit during the sessions of the Convention. I design to cast no reproach upon the Chairman of theCommit. tee, but to state, as a reason why I have not my- self prepared a somewhat different (though, of course, a less able) report, that although I had personally called the attention of the Chairman to the propriety of a more early meeting of his Committee, its first session was held last night, and even then the meeting was not a full one. I will add no more, except that the resolutions which I will read to the Convention are all I have had leisure to properly prepare in be- half of the minority of the Committee, and in consonance with the views I have more fully indicated in my speech during the first week of
255
the session. These resolutions I will offer, at a proper time, as a substitute for those of the ma- jority of the committee.
Mr. Birch then read his resolutions, as fol- lows:
Resolved, That whilst denying the legal right of a State to secede from the Union, (as assumed in the communication which has been made to this State by the Commissioner from the State of Georgia,) we recognize in lieu thereof the right of revolution, should sufficient reason arise there- for.
2. That, whilst in common with the State of Georgia, we deplore and reprobate the sectional disregard of duty and fraternity so forcibly pre- sented by her Commissioner, we are nevertheless undespairing of future justice; nor will we des- pair until our complaints shall have been specifi- cally and unavailingly submitted to the Northern People.
3. That we concur with the Commissioner of the State of Georgia, that the possession of slave property is a constitutional right, and as such ought to continue to be recognized by the Federal Government ; that, if it shall invade or impair that right, the slaveholding States should be found united in its defense; and that in such events as may legitimately follow, this State will share the danger and the destiny of her sister 6lave States.
4. That, relying upon the restoration of frater- nal relations on the basis of adjustment thus and otherwise denoted in the action of this Conven- tion, the President is requested to communicate to each of the seceding States a copy of its re- solves, and to invoke for them the same earnest and respectful consideration in which they are submitted, and which restrains this Convention from any further criticism upon the mode or man- ner, the motives or the influences for the action of the seceding States — than to add, that it has elicited our unfeigned regret.
Mr. Howell. I have voted that there is no ade- quate cause at the present time to impel Missouri to dissolve her relations with the General Gov- ernment. But, while I gave that vote, I think it is but justice to myself and to my constituents to say that the report that has been read is not conceived in a proper spirit, and is not in the temper that one slaveholding State should mani- fest toward another; and therefore, sir, as one of the members of the committee presenting the report, I wish to state that I have not been able to give it my assent.
Mr. Welch. I believe the gentlemen of this Convention are anxious to adjourn. lam not now prepared to say what discussion that report might elicit. It is a very long document, and the Convention, I judge, will not be prepared to act upon it at present. The most of the report, I beg leave to remark in all kindness, is on a sub-
ject not referred to the committee. I do not un- derstand that this Convention referred the speech of the Commissioner fromGeorgia to the committee with the expectation that a reply would be made. I understand that the ordinance of secession and the credentials of the gentleman were re- ferred to the committee, but a large majority of the report is devoted to a reply to the speech of the Commissioner, which was not referred to the Committee. As a large majority of the members of this Convention desire that this Convention shall be speedily terminated, I therefore renew my motion; but I will not renew my motion to print, because the journal will be printed before the Convention meets again, and they will then have the report before them as printed in the journal. I therefore move to lay the report on the table, and make it the special order for the third Monday of December next.
Mr. Hall of Buchanan. Is it in order to amend that proposition. I would like to amend by moving that the report be laid on the table and printed.
The Chair. It is not in order.
Mr. Welch. I wish to remark that I intended to include the Minority Report also.
Mr. Knott. As a member of the Committee I feel it is due to myself to make a personal ex- planation. I have not had the pleasure of at- tending a meeting of this Committee at all, on account of indisposition which I have been la- boring under for several days. Furthermore, I was not in the Convention when the com- mittee was appointed, or I should have raised a point of order. I believe this whole matter ought to have been referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.
The Chair. I would say the gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Knott. I simply desire to make a per- sonal explanation.
The Chair. The gentleman must confine him- self to personal explanation without giving his opinions as to what should have been done.
Mr. Knott. I ask leave of the House.
The Chair. The question will be on granting the gentleman leave.
Leave was granted.
Mr. Knott. I was in favor of discharging this committee and referring this subject to the Committee on Federal Relations. I so expressed myself to a number of gentlemen of this Con- vention. For one, sir, I did not then, and do not now, see the propriety of this Convention reply- ing to the speech of the Commissioner from Georgia. Georgia adopted an ordinance of se- cession, and transmitted it without argument or explanation, to the State of Missouri, through her Commissioner. All, then, that courtesy to Georgia, and a sense of our own dignity, would require, at our hands, would simply be to trans-
256
mit to Georgia our action upon that matter with- out explanation . There are many things in the report which, taken separately, I can indorse ; but there are many others which I cannot. I hope the motion to postpone to December will be car- ried.
Mr. Henderson. I wish to make one remark, in the shape of a personal explanation simply. I will state that the committee might have come to an earlier conclusion in regard to this matter, had it not been for the fact that I was compelled to act upon the Committee on Federal Relations, and was engaged there during the earlier part of the session of the Convention, and my friend Mr. Knott having occasion to go to Jefferson, he requested I should not act until his return. Since that time he has been so much indisposed as to be unable to attend our sittings. I have several times had it announced from the Secretary's desk, and have gone around personally among the members of the Committee and requested their attendance. Yesterday evening a majority of the committee got together and action was ta- ken on the report. Gov. Stewart and Mr. Knott were not at the meeting last night. I went to Gov. S. this morning, and he concurred in the re- port, so that makes a majority. I read the reso- lution to Mr. Knott this morning, and he gave as an excuse that he was too unwell to attend our meeting. These are the facts. Now, in refer- ence to the other matter, the communication made by the gentleman from Georgia, as I under- stand it, was not only an ordinance of secession, but he also presented reasons why Missouri should dissolve her connection with the General Govern- ment and take her stand with Georgia. The re- port is not intended as a reply to the gentleman from Georgia. It involves only the natural con- sequences flowing from the invitation made by him: that we should dissolve our con- nection with the General Government and unite with Georgia in the formation of a separate and distinct Confederacy. That being the invita- tion, we owe it, as a matter of courtesy to the State of Georgia and her Committee, to give our reasons why we cannot accept her invitation. The report is strictly confined to that matter.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, called for a division of the question.
The report was then laid on the table.
The ayes and noes were then demanded on the motion to make the report the special order for the 3d Monday in December next.
EXPLANATION OF VOTES.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. President, I will vote for the postponement, for the reasons given by the gen- tleman from Clay, (Mr. Doniphan,) and I fully concur in the views just enunciated by him. I indorse the resolutions presented on behalf of the minority of the committee, by my colleauge
from Clinton, (Mr. Birch;) but as the report sub- mitted by the chairman of the committee is a very lengthy one, embracing a wide range of topics, I deem it best to postpone the whole subject, in order to give ample time for a full examination of the report and resolutions.
Mr. Doniphan. Mr. President, I desire to give my reasons for voting to postpone. I most fully indorse the resolutions read by the gentleman from Clinton, and especially the third of the se- ries— as it contains, substantially, my own views upon the subjects enunciated. A few days ago I voted against an amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Bast,) as I did not think such amendment was legitimate, in that connection. We were then presenting a ba- sis of adjustment to the whole Union, and I did not deem it in good taste, or at all proper, to pre- sent it in the nature of an ultimatum, or in a spir- it of apparent dictation to the other States, free or slave — but intended, at a proper time, to pro- sent my own views, and those of concurring friends, similarly situated, in a separate proposi- tion ; and no opportunity could have been more proper than such a resolution, in answer to the propositions from Geoi-gia, alone. But as fully and heartily as I indorse them, and desirous as I feel for this Convention to announce the opinion in this manner, that when all means have failed, in our opinion and the opinion of the border slave States, to obtain any honorable adjustment, that their final position must be the same— their inter- est, their honor and their destiny is the same — yet, as I do not approve the majority report, and deeming it due to Missouri and to ourselves not to send any such unkind or ungracious message to a sister State, though erring, when we should conciliate, and use every means to induce her to return— I shall vote for the postponement.
Mr. Redd. While I am prepared to vote for the minority report, yet in view of the course pursued by this Convention to cut off all amend- ments by a motion for the previous question made in the same breath that the resolution is of- fered—in view of that policy I shall vote aye.
Mr. Sol Smith. When the application of Mr. Glenn of Georgia, to be heard in this Convention was made, I voted against hearing him, and there- fore it is that I must explain my vote. I voted against hearing the Commissioner from Georgia, because the credentials he presented to the Con- vention, officially informed us that his object was to invite the co-operation of Missouri in forming a Southern Confederacy. The Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn to sup- port, provides (Art. 1, Sec. 10), that " No State shall enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power." We cannot, therefore, entertain his proposition. If Mr. Glenn had come here asking to bring about
257
a reconciliation between the States I would have received him with open arms.
Now on this question of postponing till the 3d Monday in December, I have this to say: that as the reports are now on the table, they are liable and subject to be called up at any time at the will of a majority of this House. I am in favor of calling them up immediately, and I shall therefore vote against a postponement. I say the sooner we make our wishes known to Georgia, and give our answer, the better; the sooner we tell Georgia and the seceded States that Missouri is going to stay in the Union, the sooner we can bring them back. There is not one word in the resolutions offered in the majority report but what I am ready, as one of the members of this Convention, to say to our sister Georgia. I believe this is the best way, to bring her back into the Union; and when she is brought back, and the other States are brought back, I will join with my friend here, (Mr. Allen,) who always answers first when the ayes and noes are called— this good looking gentleman on my right— I will join with him in killing the fat- ted calf, when Georgia and the other seceded States, like the Prodigal Son, shall return, and will fall upon the necks of their people and kiss them; and I will not confine myself to the ladies, as he says he will, but I will kiss every man and every woman and every child in Geor- gia, or any other Southern State; and if necessa- ry to show my devotion to the Union cause, and as a means of bringing them back, I would not object, even, to kiss some good looking niggers! (Great laughter.)
Mr. Stewart. I shall vote against a postpone- ment, and in doing so I desire to explain my vote. I do not approve of the practice, but I consider I have just as much right to do so as any other man. My private opinion is, publicly expressed, that this Convention was gotten up for the pur- pose of putting Missouri out of the Union before the delivery of Lincoln's Inaugural address. I dissented from that opinion, and I believe I had something to do in preventing such a catastrophe in my last message, which differed most diametri- cally from that of Mr. Jackson— Gov. Jackson. He entertained one view of that question, and I differed with him, for we can have our rights. I am opposed to the word secession. I do not be- lieve there is such a word in the book. I believe the encouragement of such a principle would not only destroy the people of the United States, but would destroy all government. I look upon this Government, as I look upon a contract among gentleman. If two gentlemen declare they will make a contract and say we will invest a certain portion of our means, and draw out our share of the profits, in proportion to what we put
in, I think if one of them should take all the money, and put it in his pocket, and walk off with it, that would be secession. I do not want any such principle as that recognized. I don't think I am obliged to go out because Georgia or any other State has gone out. I believe, how- ever, that Georgia has a right to protection of her property, but I don't believe cotton is king. I believe beef and mutton are as much kings as cotton. I believe the Abolitionists of the North have inculcated a false and mock sentiment among the people of the North, and I believe if we could dispose of many men of this class, it would be better for the people generally, yet at the same time, I think the South took advantage of their own wrong in the Charleston Convention. They seceded right there ; such men as Yancey — but I won't call names — they seceded, and if they had not seceded they could have crippled Lin- coln's Administration. And then when they got up a Committee of Thirty-three in the House of Rep- resentatives, they seceded again. I read Black- stone myself once, and I understand it to be a principle of law and common sense, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong. Now, I think the seceded States, if they had staid in would have succeeded, and I say it is a species of bad logic to turn around and take advantage of their own wrong. I say this Government is car- rying out the great mission for which it was cre- ated, and it has the right to do it as well as any other government. It has the power and the right to protect itself against external invasion and internal strife in any shape. A government must possess this power; this power to coerce, and I don't use that word in the sense of common demagoguery — a government is not worth any thing if it does not possess this power. A gov- ernment that has no constitutional power to pro- tect itself is no government at all. I would not live in a government if I thought it did not possess the moral power for coercion. This word coercion is very much abused. If any gentleman will read Webster's dictionary, as I have, although I don't pretend to be much of a scholar, he will find that coercion means to con- trol by any kind of force. If I made a speech here to-day, and I should convince somebody that I was right, that would be coercing, not by military force, but by argument. If I felt an in- clination to violate the law in some respect, the force of public opinion operating upon me at the time, would coerce me. I think that coercion and submission follow us to the grave. The mother, when she dandles the infant on her knee, or pats him on the chin— I think that is coercion. I think the child loves the mother because she coerces him, and if she were to take a stick I think he would object to it. I used to teach school, and I found out that I could coerce the scholars bet- ter with the tongue than with the stick.
17
258
But I say a government must possess this power of coercion, either in one way or another ; either by moral suasion or some other agency, and must exercise its own judgment as to the proper means of using its power.
The vote was then announced as follows :
Ayes — Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Bogy, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Craw- ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Mood, Givens, Gorin Gravelly, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Ir- win, Jamison, Kidd, Knott, Marmaduke, Matson, McCormack, McDowell, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Philips, Pomeroy, Kankin, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Shackelford of How- ard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk, Zimmer- man—56.
Noes — Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendricks,Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Isbell, Jack- son, , Johnson, Leper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Norton, Orr, Ray, Scott, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Wilson, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Mr. President — 40.
So the report was referred.
The question then recurred on the adoption of the seventh resolution and the amendments thereto.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, withdrew Ms amendment.
Mr. Wilson asked leave to withdraw his amendment.
The Chair decided it could not be withdrawn, except by the consent of the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. Birch.)
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, then offered the fol- lowing substitute to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Clinton :
" The President of the Convention shall be add- ed to the committee, and shall be, ex-omcio, chairman of said committee."
Mr. Birch. I prefer that the subject be recom- mitted to the Committee on Federal Relations- and that they report at 2 o'clock to-day. I make that motion.
By Mr. Gantt. Resolved, That the report of the Committee on the communication of the Com- missioner of Georgia, together with both sets of resolutions accompanying the same, be printed for the use of this Convention.
Mr. Welch. I move to insert 100 copies.
Mr. Gantt. That would hardly be enough. The additional expense would be slight. I sug- gest 200 copies.
Mr. Welch. I will amend by inserting 150.
Mr. Gantt. I assure the gentleman the differ-' ence in expense will be so trifling as not to be considered.
The Chair. If there is no objection two hun-^ dred copies will be inserted.
The resolution was then adopted.
Mr. Redd. The next resolution is the resolu- tion embraced as supplementary t:> the report of the Committee on Federal Relations concern-- ing a Border State Convention. I desire to offer a substitute for that resolution.
Mr. Welch. I move that the Convention ad-' journ till 2 o'clock.
Motion sustained.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Convention assembled at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Gamble, from the Committee on Federal Relations, presented the following substitute for the seventh resolution, which was adopted :
Resolved, That there shall be a committee to consist of the President of this Convention, who shall beex-officio Chairman, and seven members, one from each Congressional District of the State, to be elected by this Convention, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together at such time prior to the third Monday of December, and at such place as they may think the public exigencies require, and in case any va- cancy shall happen in said committee, by death, resignation or otherwise, during the recess of this Convention, the remaining members or member of said committee shall have pOwer to fill such vacancy.
Mr. Gamble also, by common consent, chang- ed the phraseology of Mr. Shackelford's amend' met to the 5th resolution, so as to make it harmo- nize with that resolution. The amendment refer* red to now reads as follows :
"And in order to the restoration of harmony and fraternal feeling between the different sec- tions we would recommend the policy of with- drawing the Federal troops from the forts within the borders of the seceding States where there is danger of collision between the State and Federal troops."
The special report of the Committee on Federal Relations in regard to calling a Border State Con- vention, was next taken up.
Mr. Redd offered the following substitute :
Whereas, The Convention of the State of Vir- ginia now[in*session has adopted a resoluton in the following words, to-wit :
"The peculiar relations of the States of Dela- ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Ten- nessee, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas with
259
"other States, make it proper in the judgment of this Convention that the former States should consult together and concoct such measures for 'their final action as the honor, the interests, and the safety of the people thereof may demand, and for that purpose the proper authoritcs of those States are requested to appoint commissioners to meet commissioners to be appointed by this Con- vention on behalf of the people of this State, at Frankfort, in the State of Kentucky, on the last Monday in May next;" and
Whereas, This Convention approving of said resolution, and being desirous of co-operating with the States named therein for the purposes therein named ; therefore
Resolved, That seven commissioners be ap- pointed by the President of this Convention to meet the commissioners from the States named fin this resolution at the time and place therein named, and said commissioners are hereby in- structed to report their action and the action of said Convention to this body at the next meeting thereof.
Mr. Sawyer offered the following amendment to the substitute:
Strike out all after the word resolved and in- sert: That seven delegates, one from each Con- gressional district, be elected by the qualified voters of the respective districts, whose duty it shall be to attend at the time and place designated fey the Convention of the State of Virginia, for the meeting of delegates from the Border States; and if there shall assemble then and there, dele- gates duly accredited, from a majority of the States invited to such Convention, then the dele- gates from this State shall enter into conference with them, and shall endeavor to devise a plan for the amicable and equitable adjustment of all mat- ters in difference between the States of this Union, and this Convention urges the Legislature of this State to make provision by law for the election of said delegates by the people; and in the event the Legislature shall fail to make such provision by law for such election, then that the President of this Convention shall appoint said delegates, and the delegates selected under this resolution, shall report their proceedings in such Conference, and any plan that may be there agreed upon, to this ■Convention, for its approval or rejection.
In order to the better understanding of the above amendment and substitute, we reproduce the original resolution reported by the committee. Tt is as follows :
Whereas, It is probable that the Convention of the State of Virginia, now in session, will re- quest a meeting of Delegates from the Border States for the purpose of devising some plan for the adjustment of our national difficulties : and, whereas, the Stateof Missouri participates strong-
ly in the desire for such adjustment, and desires to show respect for the wishes of Virginia ; there- fore,
Be it Resolved, That this Convention will elect
Delegates, whose duty it shall be to attend
at such time and place as may be designated by the Convention of the Stats of Virginia for the meeting of Delegates from the Border States; and if there should assemble, then and there, Del- egates duly accredited from a majority of the States invited to such Conference, then the Dele- gates from this Convention shall enter into con- ference with them, and shall endeavor to devise a plan for the amicable and equitable adjustment of all matters in difference between the States of this Union. And the Delegates appointed under this resolution shall report their proceedings in such Conference, and any plan that may be there agreed upon, to this Convention, for its approval or rejection.
Mr. Redd explained that, when the proposi- tion for a Border State Convention was before the Committee, they had not the Virginia resolution calling such a Convention before them, and con- sequently did not know whether it was proposed by the Virginia Convention to hold a Convention of all the border States, or only the border slave States. Hence the phraseology adopted in the original resolution. But now he held a copy of the Virginia resolutions in his hand, and as they called for a Convention of the slave States only, he had worded his substitute accordingly. There was also the further difference between the origi- nal resolution and the substitute, that while the former proposed that the delegates be elected by the Convention, the latter proposed that they be appointed by the President.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. The Committee that reported the original resolution were not aware, nor do they now know, what sort of a Convention the State of Virginia may recommend. Virginia has not at this time passed any resolution upon this subject. There is no doubt, however, that it will pass a resolution recommending a Conven- tion of the border States. We do not know whether that resolution will recommend a Con- vention of all the border States, or merely of the slave States ; hence it as that our Committee have recommended the appointment of Commission- ers to meet the Commissioners of other States at such convention -as the State of Virginia may recommend. Our object is to co-operate with Virginia in any effort which she may make to preserve this Union, and bring about a settle- ment of existing difficulties. I now move to fill the blank in the original resolution with the words, " one delegate from each Congressional district."
Mr. Sawyer. I desire to say, that the amend- ment offered by me, is different from the original resolution and the substitute of the gentleman
260
from Marion in this, that it provides for an elec- tion of delegates by the people, and urges the Legislature to make provision by law for holding such an election ; and, if the Legislature fail in this, it gives the appointing power to the Presi- dent of the Convention. I have offered it for the purpose of testing the sense of this Conven- in regard to submitting the election to the people in the various Districts.
Mr. Hall, of Randolph. It is possible, sir, that the action of this Border State Convention may be of immense importance to our country. The weal of the country may depend upon the character of that body, and it is suggested, if the border slave States should undertake to act in con- cert for the destruction of our country, they may be able to accomplish it. It is all important that it should be composed of patriotic, Union- loving men. For that purpose, sir, it is very desirable that the influence of Missouri should be used in favor of the Union. It is de- sirable we should select the best men we can find. I object to any arrangement in the selection of delegates that will prevent us from selecting the best men in our body. I ob- ject to the proposition of selecting one from each Congressional district, because it precludes us from the choice of the best men we have. It is not at all probable that this Convention, under any arrangement, will select men that do not ex- press the sentiments of a majority of its mem- bers ; but while we shall select such, under any ar- rangement, it is very desirable that, in addition to that qualification, they should have the quali- fication of giving weight to their recommenda- tions, and of having the power to enforce their views in any assembly in which they may act. Among the Union loving-men, therefore, we want men of weight, men of talent, of influence; those who will exert upon the delegates from other States all the influence that those qualities and that character can give them.
I moreover have some objection to the number of delegates. I can find, in my opinion, five men that will more fully meet the views of the ma- jority of this Convention than seven; just as, in my opinion, seven delegates would be more efficient than a larger number. My own choice would be three; but, inasmuch as a precedent has already been made in the appointments to the Peace Conference, of representing this State by five, I will propose that the blank be filled by five.
Mr. Sheelet. I have come here, Mr. Presi- dent, pledged to go for a border slave State Con- vention. I have come here determined to make every exertion I could to save this Union — to leave nothing undone that, in my judgment, would tend to promote peace and harmony all over my country. I have come to the conclusion that
the best thing that could be done to bring about such a result, would be the calling of a border slave State Convention. Whenever you can get these States to co-operate with each other,one will not go out until they all can agree, and by that means you keep them together. You keep them in the Union, and you give time for the Northern mind to react, and give us such Constitutional guarantees as we are willing to accept. I be- lieve, in this case, that time is the essence of the contract. If we can get time, sir, all will be right. I have no doubt of it myself. I believe if you give the Northern people time to act, they will, with a unanimity unprece- dented, come up and give us our guaran- tees. Then the question arises, what is the best mode and manner to call such a Convention. I believe in distributing delegates in every portion of the State, and I will say to the gentleman from Randolph, that we have men of talent in every portion of the State, and there is not a Congres- sional District but what has as many men worthy to be elected delegates to the Convention as the resolution requires, and more — men in whom the people would confide; men in every respect qual- ified to represent us in any Convention whatever. I do not believe we have the right to confine our- selves, in the election of delegates, to this body. There are others just as well qualified to represent the State. I also think we should have at least as many delegates as we have members of Congress. It is true that Ave are at present the immediate representatives of the people. They have but lately elected us, and it may be supposed that we are the immediate exponents of their wishes. We can elect the delegates, but the people can elect them better than we can. Believing that they are the proper source of power, in this as in all other respects, and that it is wrong to take the election from them, I shall vote for the amendment of Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard, moved the previous question, which was sustained.
The question being on the adoption of Mr. Sawyer's amendment, the following gentlemen explained their votes :
Mr. Henderson. I desire to say that I am decidedly in favor of selecting one delegate from each Congressional District. I have no objec- tion at all to an election by the people. I look to the people to settle these questions, and if this was a Convention called for the purpose of al- tering or amending the Constitution, I should most assuredly vote for the proposition offered by the gentlemen from Lafayette, (Mr. Sawyer.) But that is not the object of the Convention. We have met here for the purpose of devising some means for settling our national difficulties. The amendment proposes to refer the matter of an election of delegates to the Legislature. Now,
261
I do not know at what time Virginia will call a Border States' Convention, but it may be before we can have an election by the people, and I am therefore in favor of electing the delegates by this Convention. I do not, by any means, object to the action of the people, but would rather have the Convention elect in this instance, be- cause of the difficulty in time.
Again, according to this amendment, if the Legislature fail to prescribe an election by the people, then your Honor will be called upon to act. Now, I have the greatest confidence in your Honor, but still I may be excused for preferring that the Convention should act in a matter of so much responsibility as this. I shall therefore vote against the amendment.
Mr. Hudgixs. This proposition of a border slave State Convention is one that I look upon as better calculated to bring about an adjustment of our present difficulties and restore harmony, than any other measure passed upon by this body. It is more important than anything else we have voted upon, and as the selection of these dele- gates is a matter of the utmost importance and having the greatest responsibility attached to it, I feel inclined heartily to concur in the amend- ment of the gentleman from Lafayette. I believe in letting the people take this matter into their own hands and assume the whole responsibility. I believe that there are intelligent men outside of this Convention — in every district — who are fully capable to do justice to the mission which is con- j tided to them under the resolution. I shall there- | fore vote aye on the amendment.
Mr. Moss. I believe in the policy of letting the people select their representatives in all mat- ters affecting their interest. But, sir, in this case, all the issues that will be presented to the Border State Convention, were before the people in the election of their delegates to this Conven- tion. Now, sir, if there was a question of public policy submitted to this Convention, that had not been thoroughly canvassed before the people, I should be in favor of leaving this election to the people, but the whole question has been can- vassed before them, and their delegates came here virtually instructed by the people what they are to do. The sentiments, I presume, of the delegates here are the sentiments of the people of Missouri, and I shall therefore vote against the amendment. I am opposed to going back be- fore the people, and going into a game of hard scrabble with the secessionists as to who shall have the power in that Border State Convention.
Mr. Norton. I desire to explain the reasons which will impel me to vote B£rainst this amend- ment. The proposition now before the Conven- tion is to send delegates to a Border State Con- tion, which may or may not meet. That Conven- tion is to be convened upon a hypothetical state of
facts. If the States of Virginia, Maryjand, Dela- ware, North Carolina, Missouri, Arkansas, etc., or a majority of them, were to send delegates to a Border State Convention, then the delegates ap- pointed by this Convention, or elected by the peo- ple, or appointed by the President, as the case may be, would be authorized, under this resolu- tion, to meet in conference with those delegates in that Convention. The assembling of that Con- vention is based upon a hypothetical state of facts- What are the facts? In North Carolina, no Con- vention has been called; Tennessee has voted against a Convention. From Maryland and Del- aware our advices are that there will be no Con- ventions there. The Legislature of this State is now in session, and I am informed that it designs adjourning on Monday. I am in favor of every delegate who will represent Missouri in a Border State Convention being selected by the people. I am in favor of their coming fresh from the people, and if there was any probability that they could be understand- ing^ elected by the people— that is to say, that they could be elected by the people with a know- ledge of the fact that the Border State Convention would convene— I should most heartily favor the amendment. As it is, I doubt whether the Legis- lature, not knowing whether a Border State Con- vention will assemble, and if it will assemble, at what time it will assemble, has the authority to order an election of delegates by the people. I trust and hope and pray that a Border State Con- vention may be held ; but I do not see any neces- sity now for incurring the expense of a popular election; nor do I know, as I remarked, that the Legislature, under the circumstances^ has the power to order such an election.
The amendment proposes that, in case the Legislature shall fail to provide for an elec- tion, the President of this body shall have power to appoint the requisite number of dele- gates. Now, with all due deference to the patriotic qualities and high-mindedness of the President, I am still of opinion that if we cannot get an election by the people, an elec- tion by this Convention is the next best thing which we can do. I believe that this question has been fully canvassed before the peo- ple, and that we are prepared to reflect the senti- ments of the people in electing Delegates to this Convention. I shall therefore vote against the amendment. j Mr. Orr. Mr. President—
The Chair. I will say to the Convention that I | deem it my duty to enforce the rules in regard to | the explanation of votes more strictly than has | heretofore been the case. I cannot allow gentle- I men to go outside of a strict explanation of their I votes in regard to the question pending.
Mr. Orr. Well, sir, I shall vote against this I amendment, because its adoption will cost the
2G2
State ten thousand dollars. That's all. [Laugh- ter.]
Mr. Phillips. Mr. President— I should be pleased to vote for this amendment, inasmuch as it was offered by my colleague. But, sir, for the reasons given by the gentleman from Platte, who has just assigned the objections entertained in my own mind, I am forced to vote against it. Not that I am opposed to remitting this election im- mediately to the people; for I believe that the great heart of the people of this State is patriotic and true, and that they would delegate men to Frankfort trustworthy. But, sir, believing the plan proposed by the amendment for getting this matter before the people, to be impracticable, I vote no.
Mr. Pomeroy. I go upon the principle that the less agitation we have at present on the slavery question, the better it is. A popular election, such as that proposed in the amendment, will be liable to produce a good deal of excitement, and hence I shall vote against it. I think that the people have given us full power to elect these del- egates, and I am convinced that nothing will so mur.h retard a restoration of peace and fraternal feeling, as the continued agitation of the slavery question.
Mr. Redd. Mr. President, I shall state briefly the reason for the vote I shall give. The gentle- men who oppose the amendment have satisfied me I ought to go for it. It is true that Maryland, North Carolina and Kentucky have not yet called conventions; perhaps. the reason is that they are afraid to trust the people. While I am not afraid to trust the President of this body, I am not afraid to trust the people with the selection of their own agents, nor am I afraid to meet the se- cessionists of Missouri, (as some of the gentle- men appear to be,) before the people of Missouri. I shall therefore vote aye.
Mr. Ritchey. I am opposed to a Border State Convention, for the reason that the Constitution makes no provision for such a convention, and it being a sectional convention its effect will be to create a degree of prejudice in the minds of our Northern brethren, and thereby endanger the ad- justment of our national difficulties in a National Convention. And further, all that can be done in in a Border State Convention can be done in a National Convention, where the propositions of the border States can be ratified or rejected. However, if propositions made by the border States in a national convention should be rejec- ted, then I should be in favor of a Border State Convention to determine what course of policy should then be pursued by the border States. I vote no.
Mr. Shackelford, of Howard. The Border State Convention is merely a conference on the part of commissioners sent by the States, and
their action has no legal effect at all; and as we have already provided for delegates to a Nation- al Convention, to be elected by the People, and as this National Convention will have superior power, and must either adopt or reject the propo- sitions of a Border State Convention, I shall vote no on this amendment.
Mr. Stewart. I shall vote against this amend- ment for the reason that I believe the people are practically here. I believe the members of this Convention are the people. I believe the one great featnre which distinquishes a republican government from a monarchy is, that in a repub- lican government the people are not only the source of power, but they are the power; and as it would be impracticable for the whole people to act in a body, they send representatives, and act through them. I think any lawyer knows that. I say that this Convention is bigger than the Leg- islature. It is the State itself. It is the people. There is only one practical question before the people, and that is whether this State shall go out of the Union because some other State or any combination of States tells her to go out, or whether she shall mind her own business. Mr. President, I believe that this Convention has the right to put its thumb right on this Legislature — [Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. Howell. I have been in favor, and am now in favor of getting an adjustment of all these difficulties which surround us. And since this amendment was offered, upon further consid- eration I have become satisfied that it would be impracticable; and as I am in favor of doing something which is practicable, and for the reason that this Border State Convention is to be purely a consulting convention, and its final determina- tion will have no binding effect whatever upon this State, and its action will have to be referred back to this Convention for its approbation, I vote no on this amendment.
Mr. Allen asked leave to change his vote from aye to no. The vote thereupon stood as follows : Ayes— Bartlett, Bast, Birch, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Holt, Hough, Hudgins, Jamison, Marmaduke, Matson, Rankin, Redd, Ritchey, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Sheeley, Waller, Watkins, and Zimmerman— 37. Noes— Allen, Bass, Bogy, Breckinridge, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Ran- dolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Johnson, Kidd, Leper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phil- lips, Pomeroy, Ray, Ross, Smith of Linn, Smith
263
of St. Louis, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk. Vanhuskirk, and Mr. President— 57.
Amendment declared rejected.
Mr. Redd, by common consent, withdrew his substitute, and offered the following amendment to the original resolution :
"Strike out 'to be elected by this Convention,' and insert to be appointed by the President of this Convention in place thereof."
Amendment rejected by the following vote:
Ayes— Bass, Bast, Brown, Drake, Flood, Giv- ens, Gorin, Hatcher, Hudgins, Matson, Redd, Sawyer, Sayre, Turner, Woodson — 15.
Noes— Allen, Bartlett, Birch, Bogy, Breckin- ridge, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Crawford, Doniphan, Dunn, Eitzen, Foster, Gam- ble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Harbin, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jack- eon, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Mor- row, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stew- art, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman, Mr. President— 75.
Mr. Hough asked the unanimous consent of the Convention to read a substitute for the origi- nal resolution, which he had prepared. Objections being made, he withdrew his request.
On motion of Mr. Hall, the blank in the res- olution, by unanimous consent, was filled with the words, seven delegates, one from each Con- gressional District.
Mr. Dunn said he would offer one remark for the benefit of the Convention, before the Conven- vention proceeded to vote on the resolution. It was this : that he had on almost every question which had come up before the body, so voted as to i-equire no explanation. He hoped that others would take the hint and do likewise- It would greatly facilitate the action of the Convention. The vote was thereupon taken upon the adoption of the resolution, and resulted as follows :
Ayes.— Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Bast, Birch, Bo- gy, Breckinridge, Bridge Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Fray- ser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Henderson, Hendrick, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson. Jamison, John-
son, Kidd, Knott, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, No- ell, Norton, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St, Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman, Mr. President— 93. Noes.— Leper, Orr, Ritchey— 3. Mr. Irwin offered the following resolution : Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn on Friday, at 3 o'clock, p. m.
Mr." Shackelford suggested that under the resolution just adopted, it would be necessary to go into an election for delegates to the Border State Convention. Other business was before the House, and the Convention might not get through by the time specified in the resolution.
Mr. Redd said he expected the Convention to express its sentiments in regard to so much of the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations, as was prepared by the chairman of the Committee, as an introductory argument to the resolutions, before adjourning. Mr. Gamble, the chairman, had said he was willing to defend all the arguments advanced in that report before the people of Missouri at the proper time, and he would now be willing to listen to anything which that gentleman might have to say. He might also deem it incumbent upon him to re- fute some of the arguments, and state the posi- tion of Missouri in accordance with what he be- lieved to be the true sentiments of the people. He wanted the Convention to say that the intro- ductory argument in this report is not the voice of the people.
Mr. Phillips suggested that if this question was proposed to be discussed between the gentle- men, they might do it after adjournment.
Mr. Irwin said the Convention had been sil- ting long enough, and it was highly proper that that it should adjourn on the following day.
Mr. Meyer desired to know whether the reso- lution to adjourn would give the Convention time enough to elect delegates to the Border State Convention.
The Chair. That depends upon the extent to which the Convention proposes to go in debating the election.
Mr. Moss. I would like to know if, in case we should want to have an evening session, we can have this hall or some other suitable hall for the purpose.
Mr. Breckinridge. I will make the neces- sary inquiry if the gentleman desires.
Mr. Stewart. If we can't get a room, we may be able to camp out somewhere. [Lau<-h- ter.]
254
Mr. Siieeley. Suppose wo adopt this resolu- tion, and find we cannot get through by to-mor- row afternoon, shall we have the power to re- consider the vote and defer the adjournment?
The Chair. Yes, sir.
[Cries of "question."]
Mr. Irwin's resolution was thereupon adopted.
Mr. Dunn offered the following resolution :
Resolved, That the delegates from each Con- gressional district he requested to recommend suitable persons for delegates to represent Mis- souri in the Border State Convention, and that they report that recommendation to this Conven- tion to-moirow morning, at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. I do not see any ne- cessity for this resolution. If the gentlemen rep- senting the various Congressional districts choose to make nominations, they can do so; but I do not see any necessity or propriety of passing a resolution to that effect; I therefore move to lay it on the table.
Mr. Birch. I hope that the motion to table will not prevail. I desire that the resolution shall be passed, inasmuch as it will aid me in coming to a proper conclusion in regard to whom I shall vote for.
The motion to table was put and carried.
Mr. Gamble. The gentleman from Marion seems to have supposed that the Convention was in some manner committed to the report written by me as Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations. My understanding of the introduction of legislative acts is this : When a measure is to be laid before a legislative body by a Committee, it is common for the Chairman to write a report, which is an argument in support of that measure. For instance, if the Committee on Commerce in Congress desires to submit a bill proposing a scheme of revenue, the Chairman of that Commit- tee may, if he sees fit, write an argument in favor of that scheme ; but when the report comes before the House, it is the bill which is acted upon and not the argument. When the House has gone through with the bill, it may be entirely changed in its features, and the argument may be entirely incongruous to the bill; and yet I do not know that it is ever proposed to change the argument so as to suit the bill. I understand that this House is in no manner pledged to my argument. The House acts upon the proposition of the Com- mittee, but when it does so, it acts upon its own view of the proposition. I do not hold any gen- tlemen in this Convention bound to maintain the report which I haA-e written, or maintain any- thing more than the resolution or resolutions for which he has voted. I shall not, therefore, deem it proper to enter upon the suggestion made by the gentleman from Marion, in regard to a de- bate on the report.
The Chair. With the permission of the gentle- man I will state that he is wrong, in my opinion. My impression is that the whole report comes up for adoption or rejection, and, although the in- troductory remarks of that report were an argu- ment offered by the chairman, I take it for granted that that argument was adopted in com- mittee, and comes before the Convention as a part of the report. It becomes the property of the Convention, and they may pass upon the whole of it, either adopting or rejecting it. So far as reports accompanying bills in Congress are con- cerned, only the bills come before Congress for its adoption, and not the reports accompanying them. But this is a very different thing, and, in my judgment, the whole report of the Committee on Federal Relations is subject to amendment, adoption or rejection by the Convention.
After some further discussion, in which Messrs. Gamble, Wilson, Shecley and the Chair, partici- pated, the matter was dropped for the present.
Mr. Birch called up the report of the Commit- tee of which he was chairman, and having sub- mitted to the Convention whether it would make any further order upon the subject,
On motion of Mr. Wilson, the committee was discharged.
On motion of Mr. Norton, the Convention adjourned.
NINETEENTH DAY.
St. Louis, March 22d. 1861.
Convention met at 9 o'clock.
Hon. Sterling Price in the Chair.
Prayer by the Chaplain.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Randolph, the reading of the minutes was dispensed with.
Mr. Hendlick rose to make a personal ex- planation. He said a slight mistake had been made in the report of his remarks pending the vote taken on Mr. Shackelford's amendment, and re-stated his position as follows :
I explained in these words when the question wTas put on the adoption of Mr. Shackelford's amendment to the original resolution. I oppose the adoption of the amendment, because the orig- inal resolution expresses the proper sentiment of a request to both the General Government and also the seceding States, to withhold and stay the arm of violence, whereas the amendment in ad- dition thereto requests the General Government to give way and yield to a demand made with a menace. It seems to concede too much to the claim of the legal right of secession and demand
265
of possession of the Forts. I prefer that the Gov. eminent would withdraw the troops of its own free will and accord.
A call of the house was ordered, and 28 members found absent.
Mr. Birch moved that the Convention proceed by Congressional Districts to elect Delegates, who shall have the power to call the Convention to- gether under the 7th resolution, adopted yester- day. Agreed to.
Mr. Long nominated Mr. T. T. Gantt, for the first Congressional District.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, moved that the nomi- nation of Mr. Gantt be made unanimous. It was so declared.
Mr. Woodson nominated Dr. J. T. Matson, of DeKalb county, for the second Congressional Dis- trict.
Mr. Henderson nominated Mr. "Woodson.
Mr. Redd understood that the nomination of Mr. Matson was agreed to by all the counties comprising the Congressional District, excepting one Senatorial District.
Mr. Henderson said that by the action of the Convention on a resolution which was offered yesterday, he considered himself at liberty to pre- sent any name to the Convention. He had not been able to attend the meeting of delegates from his district. He knew Mr. Woodson to be well qualified to act as committeeman, and was will- ing to take upon himself the responsibility of nominating him .
Mr. Howell. In reply to the observations of my friend, from Pike, I have to remark that I an- nounced on this floor last evening, that the dele- gates from the Second Congressional District would meet after tea at the Everett House. Judge Henderson was notified of that meeting, and in- formed me that he could not be present. If he called, he could have found us if he had de- sired to do so. It is true that the Conven- tion voted down a proposition to permit the delegates from the respective districts to select their own delegate to the Border State Convention, yet the resolution giving each Congressional District a delegate, was was obviously intended to give a reflex of the opinion of the people in every section of the State. I therefore insist that the Convention should defer to the nominations as made by the several delegations, and elect the nominees as the surest means of reflecting the will of the people. Mr. Doniphan urged the necessity of harmo- nious action. The men who were to represent Missouri in the Border State Convention, should be of a character to command universal respect. This was the more essential, because the Legisla- ture might think of sending its own delegates, or
leaving them to be elected by the people, and in such case, the delegates of this Convention should be able to go before the people and vindi- cate their claims to the popular suffrages.
Mr. Woodson declined the nomination.
The Secretary commenced calling the roll, pend- ing which
Mr. Henderson withdrew the name of Mr. Woodson.
On motion of the same gentleman, the nomina- tion of Mr. Matson was made unanimous.
Nominations for the Third Congression'District being in order,
Mr. Woolfolk nominated Mr. J. T. Tindall, of Grundy county.
The nomination was declared unanimous.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, Mr. Robt. Wilson, of Andrew county, was nominated for the Fourth Congressional District.
Concurred in unanimously.
On motion of Mr. Marvin, Mr. J. Proc Knott, of C@le, was nominated for the Fifth Congression- al District.
Concurred in unanimously.
On motion of Mr. Isbell, Dr. J. W. McClurg, of Camdem county, was nominated for the Sixth Congressional District.
Concurred in unanimously.
Nominations for the Seventh Congressional District being in order,
Mr. Bogy nominated Dr. McCormack, of Perry county.
Mr. Watkins nominated Mr. Cayce.
Mr. Cayce declined.
Mr. Watkins insisted on the nomination. He proceeded to pay a high eulogium to the character and qualifications of Mr. Cayce.
A vote was taken, with the following result : McCormack, 56; Cayce, 32.
Mr. McCormack was declared elected.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the Convention proceeded to the election of Delegates to the Border State Convention.
Mr. Welch, I am not aware whether the del- egates from the different districts have agreed up- on delegates to this Conference. It is important that this Convention should select men well qual- ified, for that position. In all probability, as has been intimated, the Legislature of the State will order an election, by the people, of delegates to that Conference. Whether, sir, that may be done or not, of course I am not prepared to say, but if the Legislature of the State shall assume that responsi- bility and order that election, I think,sir,it becomes this Convention to select men who are able and willing to incur the labors of a heated canvass. I
266
believe the delegates who are selected by this Convention, should immediately announce them- selves as candidates for that position, in order to avoid the troubles of a contested election in that Border State Convention.
The Chair. I will state to the gentleman that he is out of order. There are no nominations be- fore the Convention.
Mr. . I nominate Hon. Hamilton R. Gam- ble for the First District.
Mr. Welch. I was about saying, Mr. Presi- dent, that we should bo cautious and wise in the selection of our delegates. I was also remarking it would be the duty of these delegates to an- nounce themselves as candidates for the position, in order to avoid the trouble of a contested elec- tion in that Convention, and thus destroy the in- fluence which this great Empire State of the West ought to have in that Convention. Such being my views, I was going to remark that I hope no Congressional District on this floor would nominate a man who was not able to defend this Convention on the stump; that they should nomi- nate men who are able to canvass and willing to incur that labor. I know not whether any other District except our own has agreed upon a nomi- nation. We have nominated a gentleman who is able and willing to meet these questions on the stump, and I hope every other District will do the same thing.
Mr. Hall, of Buchanan. I move that Mr. Gamble be chosen unanimously. Motion sus- tained.
Mr. Zimmerman. I rise to put in nomination the Hon. John B. Henderson, of the Second Dis- trict. It is unnecessary to say anything in his behalf. His past course shows that he is able to undertake the task that will be assigned him.
Mr. Howell. At the instance of all the dele- gates from the Second Congressional District, ex- cept those from the Pike District, I put in nomi- nation Judge Woodson. Judge Woodson is a man of large experience and business qualifica- tions. He has been a citizen of the State up- wards of forty years. More than that, he is a good man. He was elected on the Union ticket against what was understood to be a secession ticket. His voice and acts in this Convention are as good a guarantee on that subject as the Conven- tion ought to require.
Mr. Flood. Permit me to second the nomina- tion. It is unnecessary for me or any other gen- tleman to speak in regard to Judge Woodson. He is known to all the delegates in the Convention. With all due respect to the other nominee, I do not believe there is a man in our district who will reflect the wishes of the people better than Judge Woodson. In a word, I will say he is a Union man, and a man in whose heart there is no guile.
The vote was announced as follows :
Henderson, 52; Woodson, 37.
Mr. Roland. I rise for the purpose of nomi- nating Wm. A. Hall, of Randolph county, for the Third Congressional District.
Mr. Givens. I nominate Mr. Sayre.
Mr. Howell. I desire to inquire whether the delegates from that district have agreed upon any one?
Mr. Rowland. I can answer that ten out of thir- teen of the delegates nominated Mr. Hall. I in- tend to be consistent in my actions here, and vote for delegates who reflect the sentiments of their districts. I shall therefore vote for Mr. Hall.
The vote was announced as follows : Hall, 66 ; Sayre, 26.
Mr. Birch. At a meeting of twelve out of fourteen of the Fourth District, James H. Moss was unanimously nominated. I have the honor, therefore, to put him in nomination; and I ask permission to say that he has as well sustained the flag in foreign lands as he sustains it here ; and his capacity to act in a Border State Con- vention has been made manifest by his acts upon this floor.
Mr. Gantt. I move the nomination be made unanimous.
The motion was sustained.
Mr. Philips, I put in nomination, for the Fifth District, Wm. Douglass, of Cooper county.
Mr. Brown. I put in nomination Mr. Com- ingo, of the same district, a gentleman who was elected upon a Union ticket, who is as sound a Union man as lives.
The vote was announced as follows : Douglass 71, Comingo 20.
Mr. . I reflect the will of the majority
of the Sixth District in nominating Judge Hen- drick.
Mr. Isbell. I nominate Mr. Orr.
Mr. Chenault. I nominate R. W. Crawford.
Mr. Birch. I wish to be informed if cither of these gentlemen have been agreed upon by a ma- jority of the delegates.
Mr. Turner. I understand Judge Orr has been nominated by two caucuses.
Mr. Chenault. I would inquire when these caucuses were had.
Mr. Turner. One of them was held last even- ing.
Mr. Chenault. If I recollect right one of the gentlemen who have been nominated voted against this Border State Convention. It strikes me, if there is to be any contest on the subject, it is important that the Convention should send men who are favorable to the Border State Con- vention.
267
Mr. Gravelly explained in regard to the meeting of the delegates from the sixth Congres- sional district, from which it appeared that neither of the nominees for that district had re- ceived a majority of the votes of the delegation. He said he indorsed Mr. Orr as a sound Union man, and would have been willing to vote for him if he had been nominated. He preferred Mr. Hendrick however.
Mr. Turner explained that he did not intend to convey the idea that Mr. Orr has received a majority of votes of the delegates, but he wished it understood that Mr. Orr had received a plurali- ty of the votes. Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Orr were both good Union men, and Mr. Orr had been nobly sustained bv the people of his district at various times.
Mr. Orr. I wish to ask the gentleman who put me in nomination to withdraw my name. I don't want to be the cause of disturbance in the party. It is said I am a Union man. I am proud of it. It is said also that I am opposed to this border State convention. I acknowledge it. I was also opposed to the calling of this Convention, and the people sent me here to see that Missouri was not taken out of the Union. If I should go to this Border State Conven- tion it would be for the same purpose. I desire, however, that my name be withdrawn. I have every confidence in Judge Hendrick, and am ready to give him my support. I believe he would be the right man to represent our interests in a Bor- der State Convention. I shall take pleasure in voting for him, and I ask that my name be with- drawn.
Mr. Isbell. At the request of the gentleman I withdraw.
Mr. Chenault. At the request of Mr. Craw- ford, I withdraw his name.
The nomination of Judge Hendrick was made unanimous.
Mr. Hatcher. I rise to put in nomination Mr. Watkins, of the Seventh Congressional District. I have heard it strangely insinuated in this Con- vention that that gentleman was tinctured with se- cession. Those who make that assertion do him a great wrong and gross injustice. No one man in Southeast Missouri has done as much to put down secession as Mr. Watkins. I know of my own personal knoAvledge that he has cried down secession, that he has declared that the election of Lincoln * as not a cause for dissolution, and I have never heard from any gentleman on this floor more effecting and touching appeals in be- half of the Union than from that gentleman. He ran as a Union man in his district, and he had no opponent upon his ticket, and yet 'tis said he is tinctured with secession. I have noticed particularly, that because some
members from Southeast Missouri have differed in some slight degree from some of the resolu- tions reported by the Committee on Federal Rela- tions; that for that reason it is said they are tinc- tured with secession. In the District from* which I come there were secession candidates— those who would not admit it, but were in favor of it. But in the county from which Mr. Watkins came, not a secessionist dare raise his head. I feel it my duty to correct this strange insinuation which does great injustice and wrong. I nominate him for another reason. That is this : In the Border State Convention that is to be held, Virginia will probably send her Tylers, Read, and other distin- guished men, and other States will send distin- guished men. We propose to send a gen- tleman who has— and I say it without dis- paragement of any other gentleman — no su- perior in that Congressional district; besides, he is a gentleman who has had a large legislative experience. For these reasons, believing he is a statesman, among statesmen, and that he will faithfully represent Missouri, and the Union sen- timent of Missouri, I place him in nomination.
Mr. Bogy. I nominate Mr. Pomeroy. I be- lieve a majority of the delegates of that district are in favor of him.
Mr. Stewart. I know Mr. Watkins, and have served with him a great number of years in the Senate. I do not know Mr. Pomeroy person- ally. I don't like to vote in the dark. I believe I should be governed by principle, and not men. My personal predilictions are in favor of Mr. Watkins, because I know him, but at the same time I desire to know how both of these gentle- men stand on the question of revolutionizing or seceding.
Mr. Bogy. I will say Mr. Pomeroy is a Union man He is in favor of staying in the Union as long as he can.
Mr. Watkins. I will say to my friend Mr. Stewart that I am disposed to answer his inquiry. If I understand him, he wished to know whether I am in favor of secession or revolution. I an- swer, without hesitation, I am opposed to seces- sion and against revolution; I am for the Union, and will stay in it as long as there is any chance or prospect of our getting our just rights. I think the slave States are entitled to guarantees, and I think the North ought to grant them. But I love the Union, and will try every legitimate, honora- ble and proper means to obtain those guarantees, before I go out. I am no secessionist, and never have been. I am no revolutionist, and never have been. I love the Union, and I have not a particle of disunion love in my veins.
Mr. Stewart. I should like to have the other gentlemen express his sentiments.
Mr. Pomeroy. I will state that during the canvass, I pledged myself to suffer my right arm
268
to b3 palsied and fall before I would vote for an ordinance of secession under the present circum- stances.
Mr. Stewart. I believe I will vote for Mr. Watkins.
Mr. Welch. In casting my vote on this occa- sion, I feel it due to make an explanation. So far as the positions of the two gentlemen are concerned upon secession and Union, I see no difference. Mr. Watkins I have known long and well; but since the commencement of this elec- tion, of these nominations, I have had but one governing motive in my vote, and that is, voting for men selected by a majority of the delegates. I therefore vote for Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Hough. By permisssion of the gentleman I will make a personal explanation. Yesterday evening it was announced there would be a meet- ing of the delegates of the 7th Congressional Dis- trict, for the nomination of a candidate for the office for which we are now voting. The meeting was at my room. All the delegates did not at- tend, but some six or seven were there, and they all expressed themselves for Mr. Watkins. If there has been any other meeting, I am not aware of it. I know Mr. Watkins to be a Union man. His action has been in favor of the Union in south- east Missouri. There can be no question on that subject.
Mr. Bogy. There are fifteen members from that District. Eight of those delegates held a meeting last evening and expressed themselves in favor of Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Welch. It appearing then that Mr. P. is a choice of a majority of the district, I shall cast my vote for him.
Mr. Stewart. I desire to change my vote. I vote for Mr. Pomeroy.
The vote was announced as follows : Watkins, 39 ; Pomeroy, 51 .
Mr. Breckinridge presented a communica- tion from Geo. R. Taylor, President of the Pacific Railroad Company, stating that orders have been given to transport members and officers of the Convention over his road free.
Judge Birch offered a resolution that was unanimously adopted, tendering the thanks of the Convention to the Mercantile Library Association for the free use of the Library, and other privi- leges granted to them, as well as extending thanks to the hospitality of the citizens of St. Louis.
Mr. Woolfolk, from the Committee on Print- ing, presented the following report :
The Committee on Printing beg leave to report that, in accordance with instructions the Secretary of the Convention has had the printing executed by Geo. Knapp & Co., the expense of which will be less than $200.
The Committee also report that, in accordance with the resolution proposed by Mr. Dunn, on
the 9th of March, and which was adopted by the Convention, they contracted with Geo. Knapp & Co. to print the proceedings of the Convention at rates not to exceed $500 for 5,000 copies of one hundred pages. At the time the contract was made it was thought that not more than one hundred pages would be required; but as the pro- ceedings are now nearly printed they will extend over about two hundred and fifty pages. As a book of reference, the Committeo deem it in- valuable; the proof sheets have been submitted to the members interested for revision, and it will be the only authorized record, for public use, of the proceedings of the Convention.
The Committee respectfully ask that their ac- tion be indorsed by the Convention, and that the following resolution be adopted : Resolved, That the account of Geo. Knapp & Co. , for printing 5,000 copies of the proceedings of the Convention, be audited by the Committee on Accounts, and that the same may be considered as printing for the Convention, the payment for which is provided for out of the fund appropria- ted by the Legislature of the State, for the con- tingent expenses of the Convention.
The report was adopted.
Mr. Gantt, of St. Louis, offered a resolution tendering the thanks of the Convention to the Hon. Sterling Price, President, and Mr. Samuel Lowe, Secretary of the Convention, for the able and courteous manner in which they have dis- charged their duties to the Convention.
It was adopted unanimously.
Mr. Siieeley offered a resolution instructing the President of this Convention to transmit a certified copy of the proceedings of this Conven- tion to the President of the United States and to the Governor of each State.
A resolution was passed tendering the thanks of the Convention to the President of the Pa- cific Railroad for his courteous and kind invita- tion.
Mr. Welch offered a resolution instructing the Committee appointed under the seventh resolu- tion, that in the event the Legislature should be in session on or about the third Monday in De- cember, that the Committee should be empow- ered to change the time and place for the calling together of this Convention.
Rejected.
On motion of Mr. Hall, of Buchanan, the Convention took a recess of one hour.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Convention met at 12 J o'clock.
Mr. Woolfolk offered a resolution in regard to the distribution of copies of the printed debates and proceedings among the members, but ac- cepted the following substitute offered by Mr. Birch, which was thereupon adopted :
269
Resolved, That, of the bound volumes of the proceedings and debates of this Convention, a copy be forwarded by the publishers, to the Clerk of each County Court, and the State Librarian, (for preservation in their offices respectively,) — to each member of the General Assembly now in session, and to each member of the Executive Government, and Judge of the Supreme Court- to the Librarian of each State in the Union, and of the Congressional Library at Washington — and that, after reserving a copy for each of the officers of this Convention, and for the Law and Mer- cantile Library, and Agricultural and Mechanical Associations, the remainder shall be forwarded, in equal and proper proportions, to the address of the members of this Convention.
Mr. "Wright offered the following, which was adopted :
Resolved, That the resolution of this Conven- tion, requesting the General Assembly of this State to call for a National Convention, in pur- suance of a provision of the Constitution of the United States, be communicated officially by the President of this Convention to the Legislature of this State.
Mr. Foster offered a resolution to cause a cer- tain number of copies of the Majority Report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and the re- ports of the Committee on the Commissioner from Georgia., to be printed for distribution.
Mr. Hatcher moved to amend by adding the Minority Report of the Committee on Federal Relations.
Messrs. Birch and Norton expressed them- selves opposed to both the resolution and the
amendment, inasmuch as the reports would all be printed in the regular proceedings, and hence this resolution involved an unnecessary ex- pense.
The ayes and noes were called on Mr. Hatch- er's amendment, with the following result:
Ayes— Messrs. Bogy, Calhoun, Collier, Hatch- er, Howell, Maupin, Norton, Pomeroy, Rankin, Shackelford of Howard and Tindall.
Noes— Messrs. Allen, Bast, Birch, Breckin- ridge, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Dunn, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Ran', dolph, Henderson, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt" How, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd,' Leper, Linton, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Mc- Clurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Orr, Phillips, Rowland, Scott, Shackel- ford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Turner, Waller, Welch, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk and Mr. Presi- dent.
Excused— Mr. Redd.
Amendment declared rejected.
Mr. Foster said that as he had not been aware that the reports would all be printed in the regu- lar proceedings when he offered his resolution, he would now withdraw it.
Mr. Holmes offered a resolution allowing $5 each per day to Captains J. E. D. Couzins and J. D. Camp for services rendered the Convention. Adopted.
On motion of Mr. Sheelet, the Convention thereupon adjourned to meet again on the third Monday in December.
Attest :
SAMUEL A. LOWE,
Secretary of tht Convention.
STERLING PRICE,
President of the Convention.
■ V> \J\U I / xj
i
! :
|
l&lillOffi. |
|
'■ . ■■■■.■•■ . "■
mm
'■"•-■ '■; -:'; '••;:
r«-«
V' :** ?.
;" ■ :: ;
mm
$&-.i
" '"
'.m^miu
|
I 1 |
it |
|
^HB^^^H^HB^^B^HBl |
iff
^
it
m
*<C*^
"'"-■- •