The House then resumed the consideration of the special order, being the report of the special committee of thirty-three.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I do not expect to be heard in all parts of the Hall, owing to the bad state of my health and voice; but I will present some views on the pending question, which I may not have another opportunity to do.

I regret, sir, that I am compelled to concur in the belief stated yesterday by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. PRYOR,] that no compromise which can be made will have any effect in averting the present difficulty.  I concur in that belief, because it is my belief, although I regret the fact; for when I see these States in open and declared rebellion against the Union, seizing upon her public forts and arsenals, and robbing her of millions of the public property; when I see the batteries of seceding States blockading the highway of the nation, and their armies in battle array against the flag of the Union; when I see, sir, our flag insulted, and that insult submitted to, I have no hope that concession, humiliation, and compromise, can have any effect whatever.  And what confirms me—if confirmation were necessary—and what confirms the remark of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. PRYOR,] is a piece of news contained in the paper just laid upon the desks of members.  Virginia sends ambassadors to the head and front of the empire that is proposed to be erected upon the ruins of this Government, for the purpose of getting South Carolina to appoint commissioners for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to secure their rights, as they say; and that kingdom of South Carolina peremptorily refuses to appoint any such commissioners, for the reason that it has no desire or design of promoting the ultimate object set forth in the joint resolutions of the State of Virginia—that is, the procurement of amendments to, or new guarantees in, the Constitution of the United States.  Thus ends negotiation; thus ends concession; thus ends compromise, by the solemn declaration of the seceding party that they will not listen to concession or compromise.

Mr. Speaker, following close upon the belligerent speech of the gentleman from Virginia yesterday, I saw the contribution toward compromise which the slaveholding States are willing to make to the North—for compromise means some concession from both sides.  Immediately after that speech a bill came up to admit Kansas into the Union; and I am sorry to say that almost every southern man—men who had just been appealing to us to furnish them ground to stand upon—almost in a solid body the southern men voted against even the consideration of the question of admitting Kansas, that source of all our woes.  I leave the inference to the country.

I have no expectation that anything that we could say or do, or that could be said or done, in Congress, would have the least effect in retarding or accelerating the onward career of the secession movement which already pervades this land.  I do not believe that words now will have any effect; yet it is right that the effort should be made.  It is right that upon this floor we should enunciate our views; that from this Hall, sacred to freedom and free debate, we should inform our constituents of the condition of things, that they may well consider them; so that, if we are wrong, they may correct us; and if we are right, they may strengthen our hands.

Sir, I will touch but briefly upon the question of secession which is claimed by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. PRYOR,] and upon the right of coercion, which is denied by him, and the kind of coercion which, in my judgment, will prove effectual to bring them back into this Union without humiliation, and make that Union permanent.

I regret to be obliged to concur with the gentleman from Virginia, that no compromise can be offered that will avert the present evils.  This morning’s papers contain conclusive confirmation of that in the resolutions of the leading seceding State, South Carolina, which are as follows:

“Resolved unanimously, That the General Assembly of South Carolina tenders to the Legislature of Virginia their acknowledgments of the friendly motives which inspired the mission intrusted to Hon.  Judge Robertson, her commissioner. 

“Resolved unanimously, That candor, which is due to the long-continued sympathy and respect which has subsisted between Virginia and South Carolina, induces the Assembly to declare with frankness that they do not deem it advisable to initiate negotiations when they have no desire or intention to promote the ultimate object in view—that object which is declared in the resolution of the Virginia Legislature to be the procurement of amendments or new guarantees to the Constitution of the United States.

“Resolved unanimously, That the separation of South Carolina from the Federal Union is final, and she has no further interest in the Constitution of the United States; and that the only appropriate negotiations between her and the Federal Government are as to their mutual relations as foreign States.”

But I have not heretofore expected that any thing that has been done, or could be said or done here, could have any effect in retarding or accelerating the headlong career of treason and rebellion that now frighten the land.  This I deeply regret; as I should be willing to go to the verge of principle to avert this catastrophe.

The question of the dissolution of the Union is a grave one, and should be approached without excitement, or passion, or fear.  Difficulties have surrounded all nations in their inception, in their progress to greatness, and in their stability.  Much of their success has depended on the ability and the firmness of the statesmen who had the management, of affairs in the days of their trouble.  The virtue most needed in times of peril is courage, calm, unwavering courage, which no danger can appal, and which will not be excited to action by indignation or revenge. 

If such statesmen, governed by such qualities, should be found at the head of this nation when danger comes, there can be no fear for the result.  The Union will overcome all difficulties, and last through unnumbered ages to bless millions of happy freemen.  Homilies upon the Union, and jeremiads over its destruction, can be of no use, except to display fine rhetoric and pathetic eloquence.  The southern States will not be turned from their deliberate and stern purpose by soft words and touching lamentations.  After the extent to which they have gone, it would do them no credit; condemnation which is now felt for their conduct, would degenerate into contempt.

The annual message of the President contains some wholesome truths mixed with atrocious calumnies.  It states that一

“The long continued and intemperate interference of the northern people with the question of slavery in the southern States has at length produced its natural effects.” 

The President well knew that the anti-slavery party of the North never interfered, or claimed the right to interfere, or expressed a desire to intermeddle, with slavery in the States.  Search the proceedings of their Legislatures, their conventions, and their party creeds, and you will find them always disclaiming the right or the intention to touch slavery in the States where it existed.  But this calumny on the freemen of the North, so often repeated by a man who, during his whole political life, has been the slave of slavery, is not worth a moment’s consideration.  He makes a very able and conclusive argument against the right of secession; and had he followed it out to its legitimate results, he would have deserved the gratitude of his country.

But after denouncing secession as a great wrong, he came to the impotent conclusion that there is no power in the Government to prevent or punish it. 

It is time that this important question were solved.  I do not perceive when any better occasion can present itself to decide whether this Union exists by the sufferance of individual States, or whether it requires a constitutional majority to absolve them from their allegiance.  If it should be determined that secession is a rightful act, or that there is no power to prevent it, then the Union is not worth preserving for a single day; for whatever disposition shall be made of the present difficulty, fancied wrongs will constantly arise, and induce State after State to withdraw from the Confederacy.  If, on the other hand, it should it be decided that we are ONE PEOPLE, and that the Government possesses sufficient power to coerce obedience, the public mind will be quieted, plotters of disunion will be regarded as traitors, and we shall long remain a united and happy people.

It did not require the present Constitution to make our Union perpetual in theory.  The Articles of Confederation declared in express terms: 

“That the Articles of Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.”

If the force of moral suasion and patriotism were alone to be relied on to insure its perpetuity, the convention which substituted the present for the old Constitution was but little needed.  True, there were other defects in the old Articles.  The several States had conflicting laws with regard to the revenue, taxation, and other subjects.  As Congress could operate only on the States if they refused to comply with their requisitions, it was difficult to enforce them.  But the great defect in the preceding Government was the want of authority; and the main motive for the change was to clothe the central Government with sufficient power to perpetuate its own existence.  The resolutions of the several States appointing delegates to the convention, and the act of Congress recommending it, show that.  The act of Congress of May, 1787, recommended a convention “so to alter the Articles of Confederation as shall be necessary to the preservation and support of the Union.” Massachusetts instructed her delegates so to amend as to render the Federal Constitution “adequate to the preservation of the Union.” Connecticut instructed hers in the same words.  New York instructed, so to amend as to render the Federal Government “adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.”

As to coercion, General Washington, in a letter to Mr. Madison, dated before the convention, (March 31, 1787,) in discussing the necessity for a stronger Federal Government, says: 

“I confess, however, that my opinion of public virtue is so far changed that I have my doubts whether any system without the means of coercion in the sovereign, will enforce due obedience to the requirements of the General Government; without which everything else fails.”

These quotations might be fortified by similar ones from many States and leading statesmen.  They prove, beyond all doubt, that the Constitution was intended and supposed to confer on the Government sufficient power to defend and perpetuate the Union; if necessary, to “coerce” a rebel State, or, to reach the same point by a surer road, to coerce the people of the State to obey all laws of the General Government. 

The Congress of the Confederation could act only on States.  If they were refractory, it was found difficult to enforce the laws.  The Constitution is made to operate directly on the individuals—on the people, without resorting to State authorities or asking State aid.  The Constitution being ordained by the people, and operating directly on them, does not permit the States to thwart its operations any more than it invokes their aid.  It is a self-sustaining, independent power, and absolutely sovereign within its sphere.  If a State pass laws or ordinances hostile to the Constitution, no citizen is bound to obey them.  Nay, he is bound not to obey them.  If, in obedience to them, he violates the Constitution, he cannot plead such laws in his defense.  It behooves every citizen, at his peril, to decide whether he will obey the higher or the lower power—the Constitution of the United States or the void enactment of States.  If he commit treason against the United States, he will not be excused, like a soldier who obeys his commander, on the ground of obedience to higher authority.

In order to clothe the central Government with power to defend the Union and make it perpetual, the Constitution provides that— 

“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; to regulate commerce; to declare war, and make peace; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to call out the militia; to suppress insurrection,'” &c.

It provides that the President shall take care that all the laws shall be faithfully executed; and to enable him to do it, makes him commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy.  To leave nothing in doubt, it gives Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.  After these ample pro visions, giving Army and Navy, revenue, and power for all needful legislation, it seems strange to hear that a great wrong may be committed against the Constitution, and no power exist to prevent or punish it.  Posterity will wonder whether the statesmen of this age were fools or traitors.  To take away all power from the States to weaken or resist the General Government, the Constitution declares that “no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money or emit bills of credit;” it deprives them of all hope of foreign succor, of all means of raising funds by coining money or emitting bills of credit.  Such obligations would be as worthless as waste paper. 

The Constitution wisely deprives rebellious States of the means of doing harm.  In the Union, and with the Union, they are powerful; out of it, and against it, they are contemptible.  They may not be conscious of their weakness until they arise from their fever and find themselves staggering.  Bui, in all their movements, they will find the strong arm of the Constitution reach and control them.  No respectable authority can be found to show the right of secession.  All our great statesmen, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, Webster, Clay, and Buchanan, agree that the Constitution is a bond of perfect and perpetual Union; and that no power exists in the Constitution to absolve a State or individual from allegiance to the General Government.  The only way in which a State can withdraw from the Union—in other words, destroy it―is by an amendment to the Constitution, or by revolution.  It is not likely that three fourths of the States will so amend the Constitution as to allow any State to break up the Government at pleasure.  The road by revolution lies through a sea of blood, and nothing can justify it but intolerable oppression.  That is never likely to be practiced by a republican Government.

The pretexts used to justify the present movement are very unimportant; some of them ridiculous.  It is said that people in the North have violated compacts in the Constitution.  Bad men exist in all sections.  It is impossible to form any system of government perfect enough to prevent all crime.  The northern States arc no exception; but I believe there arc but few instances in which citizens of the South have just cause of complaint against the North.  They visit our States and cities, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, with perfect safety.  Her orators deliver lectures and speeches in which they propagate the doctrines of slavery, not only with impunity, but they are listened to with respect and silence.  They exercise entire liberty of speech, without being molested either by officer or mob. 

I believe they chiefly complain of the non-execution of the fugitive slave law.  There have been a few instances of resistance to that law by ardent individuals; but I know of no instance in which punishment has not followed the offense.  Whenever suit has been brought, juries have given full damages in their verdicts.  Where indictments have been presented, upon just grounds, conviction and sentence and punishment have followed.  This is all that a just people would require.  They cannot expect to make us love slavery, or withhold the utterance of our just abhorrence of it.  They cannot hope to make the honest masses of the people adopt the blasphemy of some of their clergymen, and call it a divine institution.  They have too much respect for their temporal character, and their eternal salvation.  if recrimination were advisable, I think the list of grievances by southern men against northern citizens would be much more formidable.  For twenty years past it has been unsafe for northern men to travel or settle in the South, unless they would avow their belief that slavery was a good institution.  Every day brings news of unoffending citizens being seized, mobbed, tarred and feathered, and hanged by scores, without any trial by legal tribunals, or evidence of guilt.

Mr. RUST.  I did not hear the gentleman distinctly.  If I understood him, he said that for many years it was not safe for northern men to go into the southern States. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, That has been my statement.

Mr. RUST.  On what facts is it predicated? 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  On the facts of the hangings.  burnings, tarrings and featherings that northern men have been subjected to in the South.

Mr. RUST.  I think the gentleman said a moment ago that they were hanged by scores.  I never witnessed or heard of one being hanged in my State. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I do not speak of any particular locality.

Mr. RUST.  There are a good many, however, who deserve hanging. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I know that there were four Methodist preachers hanged last year in one State.  I see it stated also that, in the State of Maryland, a meeting of citizens recently gave warning to twelve men, who voted for Lincoln, to leave the place—all except one, whom they thought to be an out and out, incorrigible Republican; and him they kept to see whether they would hang him or hot.

Mr. KUNKEL.  The gentleman refers to an incident which occurred in my own county. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I have seen it in the papers.

Mr. KUNKEL.  The incident which the gentleman refers to is said to have taken place within eight miles of my residence.  I should like to see the authority for that statement.  To my knowledge, no such thing ever occurred, although I live within eight miles of the locality. 

Mr. WINSLOW.  Oh, if the gentleman saw it in the newspapers, of course it must be true.  The newspapers cannot lie.

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia.  Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment?  I want to ask him one question.  I understood him to say that the people of the South hung northern men by scores.  In behalf of Virginia I wish to say that her people never hung a northern man except John Brown and his friends; and then they hung, not by scores, but by law.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  You hung them exactly right, sir. 

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia.  Yes; they were well hung.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  They were hung after trial by jury for a crime for which they deserved death. 

Mr. MAYNARD.  Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania allow me to say a word here, as he seems to be passing from the topic of the unkind treatment of northern persons in the southern States.  I should be very unjust, and very ungrateful to the people among whom I have lived now for a quarter of a century, if I were to sit by and hear these general remarks pass uncontradicted.  It is a fact known to every one who lives there, that the South is full of men of northern birth.  It is known that such persons are well and kindly treated.  It is known that many southern firesides are graced with wives of northern birth.  They also are honored, and are the mothers of honored children.

It is true, however, that persons from the North are sometimes roughly treated at the South; but in those cases their own conduct is general1y such as to bring this treatment upon themselves.  Let me give the gentleman a single instance of this kind, which occurred in my district. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I am satisfied with the gentleman’s word, without any illustration.

Mr. MAYNARD.  I can give the gentleman an example of a young man in a law office, who so far forgot the proprieties of life as to assail, in opprobrious language, the virtue and reputation of the female portion of the community in which he lived.  He carried his conduct to such a degree of indiscretion that he was at last seized upon by a company of young men and—in common parlance―ridden on a rail, and driven from the place.  He has brought a suit for damages against those who so treated him.  The suit has not yet been tried; but he will doubtless recover such an amount of damages as the jury may think that, under the circumstances, he deserves.  Never, since Sancho Panza was tossed in the blanket, in any part of the world, either north or south, have men been permitted, with impunity, to outrage the sentiments and feelings of communities into which they have obtruded themselves unbidden.  It is one of the fundamental laws of hospitality, that good manners alone insure to a stranger a civil treatment. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I do not refer to that sort of public opinion.  I refer to another topic altogether.

Mr. WEBSTER.  I ask the gentleman to allow me one minute. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I do not like to say “no;” but my time is passing rapidly.

Mr. WEBSTER.  Well, sir, our districts run together for some distance, and as the gentleman has referred to what he says occurred in Chester county in respect to kidnapping, I desire to state one or two circumstances which I know to be facts.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I have stated nothing that I do not know to be facts. 

Mr. WEBSTER.  Well, sir, the gentleman has inferred to certain events which he says happened in my district.  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to enter upon crimination and recrimination.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  If the object of the gentleman be recrimination, I cannot yield the floor for that purpose. 

Mr. WEBSTER.  Well, sir, I desire only to refer to an occurrence which took place in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.  A man from my State went to Carlisle to reclaim a slave who had fled from him, and was murdered in his attempt to arrest his own slave.  Another gentleman went from

Baltimore county, in my district, to the gentleman’s State to reclaim his slave who had escaped, and he was murdered at Christiana while endeavoring to effect the reclamation; and no man in either case was ever brought to justice for the act.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I know something about that myself; but I do not see the necessity of bringing it in here. 

Mr. WEBSTER.  The gentleman should not make charges against the people of Maryland, if he does not expect a reply.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I have not made any charges that are not true.  The fact to which the gentleman now refers is that a man from Maryland came into Pennsylvania to reclaim his slave, and in attempting to carry out that purpose, his own slave took his life. 

Mr. WEBSTER.  There was a great crowd of persons aiding and abetting.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  No, sir; there were only two white persons present, the rest were negroes. 

Mr. WEBSTER.  It was shown before the court, that there was a great crowd of white men and negroes, all together there.

Mr. JUNKIN.  No, sir; no white man had any hand in the matter. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  The rights of conscience and freedom of speech are forbidden to northern men.  They are not allowed to receive or read documents which deny the justice of slavery.  A citizen of Virginia, at the late election, voted for the man of his choice, Mr. Lincoln, and was seized in broad daylight, in the midst of the respectable people of the place, his face blacked, and he expelled from his home.  Sir, the South, at this moment, is a hideous despotism, so far as northern citizens are concerned.

Their courts are inaccessible to secure redress.  The slave trade is openly justified.  When a slaving pirate is sent them for trial, with the fullest proof of guilt, the bills are either ignored or juries acquit.

I have omitted the real aggression which one of the States frankly assigns as the reason of secession.  The North has taken from them the power of the Government, which they have held so long.  According to the strictest forms and principles of the Constitution, they have elected the man of their choice President of the United States.  No violence was used; no malpractice is charged; but the American people dared to disobey the commands of slavery; and this is proclaimed as just cause of secession and civil war.  Sir, has it come to this?  Cannot the people of the United States choose whom they please President?  without stirring up rebellion, and requiring humiliation, concessions, and compromises to appease the insurgents?  Sir, I would take no steps to propitiate such a feeling.  Rather than show repentance for the election of Mr. Lincoln, with all its consequences, I would see this Government crumble into a thousand atoms.  If I cannot be a fireman, let me cease to exist.

The committee of thirty-three have shown their estimate of the magnitude of southern grievances by a most delicate piece of satire.  As a cure for their wrongs, and to seduce back rebellious States they offer to admit as a State about two hundred and fifty thousand square miles of volcanic desert, with less than a thousand white Anglo-Saxon inhabitants, and some forty or fifty thousand Indians, Mustees, and Mexicans, who do not ask admission, and who have shown their capacity for self-government by the infamous slave code which they have passed, which establishes the most cruel kind of black and white slavery.  To be sure, the distinguished chairman of that committee [Mr. CORWIN] seems to have become enamored of peonage.  He looks upon it as a benevolent institution, which saves the poor man’s cow to furnish milk for his children, by selling the father instead of the cow.

Mr. OTERO.  Will the gentleman allow.me to explain that peon law?

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  Certainly; if it does not come out of my time.

Mr. OTERO.  I have got the law here.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  Ah, the gentleman is going to make an argument.

Mr. OTERO.  Oh, no; I am only going to refer to the law.  I have here the law to which, I presume, the gentleman has reference.  It is the one which was attempted to be repealed by the bill of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] last session.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  The same one.

Mr. OTERO.  I want to have this portion of the law read.

The Clerk read, as follows:

“No court of this Territory shall have jurisdiction, nor shall take cognizance of any cause for the parental correction that masters may give their servants for neglect of their duties as servants, for they are considered as domestic servants to their masters, and they should correct their neglects and faults; for as soldiers arc punished by their chief, without the intervention of the civil authority, by reason of the salary they enjoy, an equal right should be granted those persons who pay their money to be served in the protection of their property; Provided, that such correction shall not be inflicted in a cruel manner with clubs or stripes.”

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  Oh, no; the punishment, as I understand, is to be inflicted with cat-o’-nine-tails.  [Laughter.]

Mr. OTERO.  I hope the gentleman will act fairly in presenting this case.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  There is a clause in the law which provides that anybody can take up a servant if he is found out after dark, and have him lashed thirty-nine times on the bare back.

Mr. OTERO.  Is that in this law?

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  Yes.

Mr. OTERO.  The gentleman may read the entire law, and he will not find it.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  It is in the laws of New Mexico.

Mr. OTERO.  These are the laws of New Mexico.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  I do not know whether that is in your edition.

Mr. OTERO.  I desire to make an explanation of this subject just here, and at this time.  This law is translated from the Spanish, it having been originally introduced and passed in that language.  I want to read now the Spanish version of it.  [Laughter.] I hope this matter will not be treated with levity.  The term in the original law is so different in its significance, and so forcible, that it will even attract the attention of the gentleman himself, notwithstanding it is in the Spanish language.  The translation of the act, as read, is entirely incorrect.  The word “correction” should be qualified by the adjective “parental,” as it is in the original Spanish.  The law would then read, that no court in the Territory should have jurisdiction nor cognizance of any cause for the “parental correction” that a master may give to his servant.  Now the word “correction” is not even the term used in the original law, as passed by the Legislature.  The terms used in the act are “reconvenciones familiares” which do not even mean parental correction.  The correct translation of these words is, “a familiar or parental reprimand,” which everybody will admit is a very mild correction indeed.  And again, the proviso of the law positively forbids that such correction shall be inflicted in a cruel manner with clubs and stripes.  Now, they cannot be shut up in a room or deprived of food, for that would be considered cruel.  All that the law says, when correctly translated, is, that “no court” shall have jurisdiction, nor shall take cognizance of any cause for the pa parental reprimand that masters may give their servants for neglect of their duties as servants.  That is the correct translation, and such is the meaning of the words “reconvenciones familiars.”

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  Then I take it for granted that slavery in New Mexico means nothing more than parental admonition.  [Laughter.]

The secession and rebellion of the South have been inculcated as a doctrine for twenty years past among slaveholding communities.  At one time the tariff was deemed a sufficient cause; then the exclusion of slavery from free Territories; then some violations of the fugitive slave law.  Now the culminating cause is the election of a President who does not believe in the benefits of slavery, or approve of that great missionary enterprise, the slave trade.  The truth is, all these things are mere pretenses.  The restless spirits of the South desire to have a slave empire, and they use these things as excuses.  Some of them desire a more brilliant and stronger government than a Republic.  Their domestic institutions, and the social inequality of their free people, naturally prepare them for a monarchy surrounded by a lordly nobility—for a throne founded on the neck of labor.

The men now on the stage of action must determine whether they have courage enough to maintain the institutions which their fathers gave them.

This is a great responsibility, but in my judgment not a difficult one.  I would certainly not advise the shedding of American blood, except as a last resort.  If it should become necessary, I see no difficulty, with the ordinary forces of the United States, to dissipate the rebels, whether of high or low degree.

But before a resort to arms, the ordinary tribunals of the country should be tried.  There are laws against treason, misprision of treason, murder, and sedition.  Many citizens will inquire, Dare we violate these laws? Dare we commit these crimes? Shall we not finally be overtaken by vengeance?

I do not say that a State can commit treason.  Corporations cannot be hanged.  But if a State pass treasonable acts, and individuals attempt to execute them, and thus come in armed collision with the Government, they will be guilty of treason, and the State enactments will be no shield, for they will be nullities.

I am aware that the most guilty would be the most likely to escape the proper punishment.  The legislators who decreed the conflict and ordered the rebellion would not be apt to be present at the overt act.  The civilians would be in council; the soldiers in battle.  The passing seditious laws merely, and ordering others to execute them—although moral treason and misprision of treason—is not, in my judgment, treason.  “Treason against the United States consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” In England, even after her great conservative act, the statute of treason, it was not necessary to be present at the overt act, or so near as to be able to give physical aid.  Conspiring, plotting, and counseling others to do the act, although at a distance, made them principals in treason; for by the common law, those who encouraged, advised, or contrived the act, or who gave aid to the felon after the act, were accessories in felonies; but as there could be no accessories in treason, the common law converted such as would have been accessories in felonies into principals in treason.  But we have no common law; and those only are traitors who potentially committed the overt act.  Under our Constitution there is neither constructive nor accessorial treason.

I am aware that a judge of the district court of the United States in Pennsylvania laid down a di fie rent doctrine, in a charge to the grand jury.  He held that those abolition lecturers who incited slaves to escape would be guilty of any treason which anywhere was perpetrated by armed resistance to the fugitive slave law.  But I think he said it in ignorance of the law.  I do not think that even the northern men who encourage the South in rebellion can be made criminally guilty of the treasonable conflict which they stimulate.  I should regret to see the respectable members of the late Union meeting in Philadelphia (including a learned judge of the supreme court) placed in that unpleasant position.  But if it should be impossible, as it may be, to execute the criminal laws in the midst of an infected population, I think there are other means that will prove effectual.

South Carolina (and when I speak of South Carolina, I mean to include under that name all seceding States, to avoid prolixity, and thus what I might say of her shall apply to all that have seceded or may secede) has, with others, declared herself out of the Union; and no doubt fancies that she is so.  What ought to be done? Send no armies there to wage civil war, as alarmists pretend.  The General Government should annul all postal laws within her Territory, and stop the mails at the line of the State.  Who will suffer by that? For the last year the revenue derived from postage in South Carolina was $107,536; the expense of transportation $319,068; leaving a deficit of $311,532 to be paid by the Government.  This saving could be borne by the United States.  How it will affect South Carolina, her citizens will soon discover.

There are but a few other Federal laws which it will be important to enforce.  The regulations of commerce and the collection of the revenue by the General Government is the strong arm which will hold the Union together and punish refractory members without bloodshed.  The revenue collected at Charleston for the last fiscal year is $379,875.97; the expense of collection was $70,542.97; leaving a net surplus of $309,333.  Let the revenue laws be executed, and the money paid into the Treasury; it will help to pay the expenses caused by the refractory member, and leave the new empire to direct taxation to support their great burden.  How long the people will submit to this cannot be told to a mathematical certainty.  Not long, I predict.

But it may be that this mixed empire, consisting of a little over one third whites, and a little less than two thirds colored persons, may attempt to collect the revenue within the district of South Carolina.  This, of course, would be a direct violation of the Constitution, and would justify armed resistance.  If the present Administration had done its duty there would have been no necessity for shedding blood.  Within the collection district of South Carolina the Government had several formidable forts.  Had they been properly garrisoned and supplied when it became evident that South Carolina would secede and seize them, they could have been impregnable.  No ships could enter the harbor of Charleston without the consent of those who held those forts.  The revenues might have been collected anywhere in the harbor or district.  If necessary, an armed vessel or two might have been stationed there, and the revenue laws would have been easily enforced.

One fort still remains to us there, with less than one eighth of the proper garrison, or provisions, or munitions of war.

According to my view, as our operations in coercion will be by sea, blood need not be shed.  If it should so, on the heads of the malefactors let it rest. 

Will South Carolina attempt to build a fleet to drive off our Navy? She has neither money nor credit to buy one.  Let us examine her capacity for ship building.  When high-swelling words are used, it is well to look at the size of the animal that emits them.  There have been such things as “mighty voices, and nothing else.” I know that some small States have a large capacity for ship-building, like Tyre, Venice, Holland, or England.  In 1859 Maine built about forty thousand tons of registered vessels.  Even Vermont, who from none of her highest mountains can see the ocean with a spy-glass, built for tonnage one hundred and nineteen tons.  The same year South Carolina built sixty-four tons! This fleet, I learn from the register, consisted of a small steamer and a canal boat! So of the other rebellious States.

But she proposes to enter into treaty stipulations with Europe, and, by granting free trade, attract the direct trade of commercial nations.  But she cannot do that without a direct violation of the Constitution.  “No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance,” &c.  Although she may disregard that provision, being in rebellion, yet no foreign nation, being warned that it is a violation of the supreme law of the nation, will venture to negotiate.  Her ambassadors will not be received in a single Court in Europe—it would be just cause of war.  Nor can she negotiate with a State.  The Constitution is careful to prohibit treaties with foreign nations; and it adds: “Alliance or confederation.” She could not confederate, even with the independent, free trading island of Manhattan. 

If the revenue could not be thus collected, and smuggling prevented, the Government should abolish all laws establishing ports of entry and collection districts within the seceding Slates, and prevent all vessels, foreign or domestic, from entering or leaving any of their ports.  How will she send her cotton and other surplus products abroad? She cannot load a vessel in her own harbors, for there are no national officers to give her a clearance.  The vessel would be without papers, without nationality, and a prize to the first captors.  How forlorn must be her condition! Without commerce, without industry, her seaports would be barren wastes.  With a flag recognized by no civilized nation; with no vessel entering her ports, except now and then a low black schooner scudding in from the river Congo; with no ally or sympathizer except the King of Dahomey.

If these States will have war, who is to protect them against their own domestic foes? They now tremble when a madman and a score of followers invade them.  If a citizen declare his opposition to slavery, they hang him; and declare, as a justification, that it is necessary for their personal safety; because they say they are standing on the thin crust of a raging volcano, which the least jar will crack, and plunge them in.  How, then, will it withstand the booming of cannon and the clash of arms? 

Sir, the attempt of one or more of these cotton States to force this Government to dissolve the Union is absurd.  Those who counsel the Government to let them go, and destroy the national Union, are preaching moral treason.  I can understand such doctrine from those who conscientiously dislike a partnership in slaveholding,—who desire to see this empire severed along the black line, so that they could live in a free Republic.

Let no slave State flatter itself that it can dissolve the Union now and then reconstruct it on better terms.  The present Constitution was formed in our weakness.  Some of its compromises were odious, and have become more so by the unexpected increase of slaves, who were expected soon to run out.  But now, in our strength, the conscience of the North would not allow them to enter into such partnership with slaveholding.  If this Union should be dissolved, its reconstruction would embrace one empire wholly slaveholding, and one republic wholly free.  While we will religiously observe the present compact, nor attempt to be absolved from it, yet if it should be torn to pieces by rebels, our next United States will contain no fool of ground on which a slave can tread, no breath of air which a slave can breathe.  Then we can boast of liberty.  Then we can rise and expand to the full stature of untrammeled freemen, and hope for God’s blessings.  Then the bondmen who break' their chains will find a city of refuge.  Our neighboring slave empire must consider how it will affect their peculiar institution.  They will be surrounded by freedom, with the civilized world scowling upon them. 

Much as I dislike the responsibility and reproach of slavery, I recoil from such a remedy.  Let us be patient, faithful to all constitutional engagements, and await the time of the Disposer of events.  Let us not destroy this grand fabric of freedom, which, when once dissolved, will never be rebuilt.  Let there be no blood shed until the last moment; but let no cowardly counsels unnerve the people; and then, at last, if needs be, let every one be ready to gird on his armor, and do his duty.

Sir, I am reminded that this is not the language of Pennsylvania, as represented by the united voice of her two Senators.  I know it is not.  But I do not believe that either of them represented the principles of any considerable portion of the people of that State, While Pennsylvania would go, as I would, to the verge of the Constitution and of her principles, to maintain peace, I believe it is a libel on the good name of her virtuous people, to say that she would sacrifice her principles to obtain the favor of rebels.  I believe it to be a libel on her manhood to say that she will purchase peace by unprincipled concessions to insurgents with arms in their hands.  If I thought such was her character, I would expatriate myself.  I would leave the land where I have spent my life from early manhood to declining age, and would seek some spot untainted by the coward breath of servility and meanness.  To her pleasant valleys I would prefer the rugged, bold State of my nativity; nay, any spot in the most barren Arctic regions, amid whose pure icicles dwells manly freedom.