EXTRACTS FROM PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 4,
1860.
The Fugitive-Slave Law has been carried into execution in every
contested case since the commencement of the present administration,
though often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and inconvenience
to the master, and with considerable expense to the Government. Let us
trust that the State Legislatures will repeal their unconstitutional
and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done without unnecessary
delay, it is impossible for any human power to save the Union.
The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have a
right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North.
Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States
are parties, will have been willfully violated, in one portion of them,
in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the
remainder. In that event, the injured States, after having first used
all constitutional and peaceful means to obtain redress, would be
justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union.
* * * * *
What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and true position of the
Executive? He is bound by a solemn oath before God and the country "to
take care that the laws are faithfully executed;" and from this
obligation he cannot be absolved by any human power. But what if the
performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered
impracticable by events over which he could have exercised no control?
Such, at the present moment, is the case throughout the State of South
Carolina, so far as the laws of the United States, to secure the
administration of justice by means of the federal judiciary, are
concerned. All the federal officers within its limits, through whose
agency alone these laws can be carried into execution, have already
resigned. We no longer have a District Judge, a District Attorney, or a
Marshal, in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of the Federal
Government, necessary for the distribution of remedial justice among
the people, has been demolished, and it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to replace it.
The only Acts of Congress upon the Statute Book bearing on this subject
are those of the 28th February, 1795, and 3d March, 1807. These
authorize the President, after he shall have ascertained that the
Marshal, with his posse comitatus, is unable to execute civil or
criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the militia, and
employ the army and navy to aid him in performing this service--having
first, by proclamation, commanded the insurgents to disperse and retire
peaceably to their respective homes within a limited time. This duty
can not by possibility be performed in a State where no judicial
authority exists to issue process, and where there is no Marshal to
execute it, and where, even if there were such an officer, the entire
population would constitute one sole combination to resist him.
The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how inadequate they
are, without further legislation, to overcome a united opposition in a
single State, not to speak of other States who may place themselves in
a similar attitude. Congress alone has power to decide whether the
present laws can or can not be amended, so as to carry out more
effectually the objects of the Constitution.
* * * * *
The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward, that the
emergency may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide the
momentous question, whether you possess the power, by force of arms, to
compel a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to
my duty were I not to express an opinion upon this important subject.
The question, fairly stated, is: Has the Constitution delegated to
_Congress_ the power to coerce a State into submission which is
attempting to withdraw, or has virtually withdrawn, from the
Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the
principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare
and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I have
arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to
Congress, or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is
manifest, upon an inspection of the Constitution, that this is not
among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress; and it is
equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for
carrying into execution" any one of these powers. So far from this
power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by
the Convention which framed the Constitution.
It appears, from the proceedings of that body, that on the 31st May,
1787, the clause authorizing the exertion of the force of the whole
against a delinquent State came up for consideration. Mr. Madison
opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract
but a single sentence. He observed: "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
dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." Upon
his motion, the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I
believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when
incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any Government for the
United States, founded upon the supposed practicability of using force
against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as
visionary and fallacious as the Government of Congress"--evidently
meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the
power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit
and intent of the Constitution.