confederacies was thought of, and considered, and spoken of before
the adoption of this Constitution. At the time that the question
was before the American people, whether the Constitution proposed
by the Convention should be adopted, it was then spoken of. It is
probable--yea, certain--consequences were referred to by the writers
of that admirable series of papers denominated the "Federalist";
and I beg the indulgence of the Senate while I read a very brief
extract, conveying the views of those eminent men:
"If these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united
in partial confederacies, a man must be far gone in utopian
speculation who can seriously doubt that the subdivisions into which
they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with
each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests, as an
argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are
ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of
harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties,
situated in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform
course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated
experience of ages."
If this was a just view of the probable--the certain--results of
a separation of these States at that time, and under the then
existing circumstances, I pray you, sir, upon what, at the present
day, can we found a better hope? Then the States were fresh from
the conflict of the Revolutionary war. Then, not only had they a
lively remembrance of the contest in which they had fought and in
which they had gathered victory and honor together, but the leading
men of that time were those choice spirits who had carried them
through that recent conflict, who had established the independence
of the country, and who exercised an influence in public affairs
proportioned to their patriotism, their valor and their wisdom.
Then they might have separated without the same causes of hostility
and alienation which must exist in any separation of these States
at the present day. If we separate now, we do it with feelings of
mutual distrust and bitterness. We divide, not by common consent,
as partners who can no longer carry on their joint business with
mutual profit, each to pursue, for his own separate advantage, that
course of business in which he thinks he can best succeed, but we
part with the feelings of those who consider themselves mutually
wronged. A sense of injustice and oppression rankles in the hearts
of one portion of the new confederacies, and a sense in the other of
defiance and indignity.
Under such circumstances, "what can ensue" (to borrow the language
of the great English moralist) "but a continual exacerbation of
hatred, an unextinguishable feud, an incessant reciprocation of
mischief, a mutual vigilance to entrap and eagerness to destroy?"
The question has been asked, What can the States do, supposing them
to be divided--separated into distinct subdivisions or independent
sovereignties? Allow me to answer that question in the words of one
of the most eminent men whom my State has ever produced: a man of
clear and comprehensive intellect, of a sound heart and enlarged
and ardent patriotism, who shed a glory around his native State, and
whose name is held in just veneration by every one who acknowledges
himself a North Carolinian. At another period of our history the
same question was asked. In the years 1831 and 1832 it had become
an inquiry, a subject of disquisition in my State, and the late
Judge Gaston, in an address delivered in 1832 before the Literary
Societies of the University, thus treats of the subject:
"Threats of resistance, secession, separation, have become common
as household words in the wicked and silly violence of public
declaimers. The public ear is familiarized with, and the public
mind will soon become accustomed to, the detestable suggestion of
disunion. Calculations and conjectures--what may the East do without
the South, and what may the South do without the East?--sneers,
menaces, reproaches, and recriminations--all tend to the same fatal
end. What can the East do without the South? What can the South
do without the East? They may do much; they may exhibit to the
curiosity of political anatomists, and the pity and wonder of the
world, the _disjecta membra_--the sundered, bleeding limbs of a once
gigantic body instinct with life, and strength, and vigor. They can
furnish to the philosophic historian another melancholy and striking
instance of the political axiom, that all republican confederacies
have an inherent and unavoidable tendency to dissolution. They
will present fields and occasions for border wars, for leagues
and counter leagues, for the intrigues of petty statesmen and the
struggles of military chiefs, for confiscations, insurrections, and
deeds of darkest hue. They will gladden the hearts of those who have
proclaimed that men are not fit to govern themselves, and shed a
disastrous eclipse on the hopes of rational freedom throughout the
world. Solon, in his code, proposed no punishment for parricide,
treating it as an impossible crime. Such, with us, ought to be the
crime of political parricide--the dismemberment of our 'fatherland.'"
To me, sir, these sentiments convey a just representation of what
will be the future and unavoidable result of a separation of
the people of this great country into distinct and independent
confederacies. And when I look at the prospect before us it is one
so dark, filled with such horrid forms of dread and evil, that I
willingly close my eyes upon it, and desire to believe that it is
impossible it should ever be realized. * * * * * * * *
Nor, Mr. President, must I forget that, in considering the effect
which this proviso [the Wilmot Proviso] is likely to have upon the
condition of the Southern mind, we must look to what has been said
by Northern gentlemen in connection with this subject. Permit me
to call the attention of the Senate to a very brief extract from a
speech delivered in the other end of the Capitol:
"In conclusion, I have only to add, that such is my solemn and
abiding conviction of the character of slavery, that, under a
full sense of my responsibility to my country and my God, I
_deliberately_ say, better disunion, better a civil or a servile
war, better anything that God in His providence shall send, than an
extension of the bounds of slavery."
SEVERAL SENATORS. Whose speech is that?
A SENATOR. Mr. Mann's.
MR. BADGER. We have heard much, Mr. President, of the violence of
Southern declamation. I have most carefully avoided reading the
speeches of Southern gentlemen who were supposed to be liable to
that charge. I happened, however, in the early part of this session,
and before the other house was organized, to be in that body when
there were some bursts of feeling and denunciation from Southern
gentlemen, which I heard with pain, mortification, almost with
anguish of mind. But, sir, these were bursts of feeling; these were
passionate and excited declarations; these had everything to plead
for them as being spontaneous and fiery ebullitions of men burning
at the moment under a sense of wrong. And where, among these, will
you find anything equal to the cool, calm, deliberate announcement
of the philosophic mind that delivered in the other house the
passage which I have read: "Better disunion, better a civil or a
servile war, better anything that God in His providence shall send,
than an extension of the bounds of slavery?" In other words, it is
the deliberate, settled, fixed opinion of the honorable gentleman
who made that speech, that rather than the extension of the bounds
of slavery _one foot_--yes, sir, there is no qualification, _one
foot_--he would prefer a disunion of these States, he would prefer
all the horrors of civil war, all the monstrous, untold, and almost
inconceivable atrocities of a servile war, he would pile the earth
with dead, he would light up heaven with midnight conflagrations;
all this--yea, and more--all the vials of wrath which God in His
providence might see fit to pour down on us he would suffer, rather
than permit, not one man who is now free to be made a slave--that
would be extravagant enough--but rather than permit one man who now
stands upon the soil of North Carolina a slave, to stand a slave
upon the soil of New Mexico!
Yes, sir, here is a sacrifice of life and happiness, and of all that
is dear to the black and white races together, to a mere idealism--a
sacrifice proposed by a gentleman who claims to be a philosopher,
and to speak the language of calm deliberation, a sacrifice of
our glorious Union proposed by a patriot, not rather than freemen
should be made slaves, not rather than the condition of even one
human being should be made worse than it now is, but rather than
one man shall remove from one spot of the earth to another without
an improvement of his condition, without passing from slavery to
freedom! Sir, after that announcement thus made, which I beg to say,
sir, I did not seek--for the speech I have never read--the extract I
found in one of the newspapers of the day--after that announcement,
talk not of Southern violence, talk not of Southern egotism, talk
not of our disposition to sacrifice to our peculiar notions and our
peculiar relations the peace and happiness, the growing prosperity,
and the mutual concord of this great Union. Now, sir, if that
announcement goes abroad into the Southern country, attended by this
wanton application of the Wilmot Proviso, an irritating commentary
upon that patriotic announcement, what can be expected? What but
the deepest emotions of indignation in the bosoms of those born
and brought up where slavery exists, and taking totally different
views of the institution from those which are taken by the honorable
gentleman who has placed himself in this cool and deliberate,
humane, and philosophical position!
Sir, we know, with regard to two or more of the Southern States,
emphatic pledges have been given, through their Legislatures, that
_some_ mode of resistance to this proviso will be adopted. Now,
what is to be the result of the Nashville Convention which has been
called for June next, should that body assemble and find matters
in their present condition? If no bill shall have passed to do us
justice by affording, as far as the law can afford it, the effectual
restoration of fugitive slaves; if a bill shall have passed, or be
likely to pass, with the insult of the Wilmot Proviso causelessly
and wantonly inserted in it, after the announcement made in the
extract of the speech which I have just read, and after that made by
the Senator from New York that so far from there being an obligation
to restore to us our fugitive slaves, the duty of hospitality
requires that they shall be received, kept and retained from us and
that the constitutional law which requires their restoration to
us is contrary to the law of God, and not binding in conscience;
and, still more, after the settled policy is fully realized that
those who visit our shores, coming under the protection of the
American flag within our jurisdiction, and, in violation of our
laws, seduce our slaves from us, and carry them to the North, shall
not be surrendered up as fugitives from justice, because the same
high and overruling law which puts the Constitution down, and makes
it a nullity, has converted what we call a crime into a high and
meritorious act of duty, what will be the result of this convention,
meeting under such circumstances, what may be, what probably will
be, the consequence? I say it not because I wish it, I do not
wish it; the conviction has been forced upon my mind by evidence
reluctantly received; and therefore I wish my friends around me
to give, for that reason, the more credit to what I say--if that
convention shall meet under such circumstances, in my judgment the
Union is from that day dissolved. I do not say that dissolution will
follow instantly; I do not say but that a connection, an external
Union, may not be maintained, and linger on for a few years longer:
but the meeting of that convention will be to our institutions, in
the language of Napoleon, "the beginning of the end"; it will be
the initiative step in such a course of measures, North and South,
as will result in convulsing us so far that the ills to which we
fly, cannot, in our judgment, exceed those we bear; and thus will
be put upon the people of the South the necessity, the painful,
hard necessity, of a dissolution, a final separation. Now, sir,
why do I take this view? In the first place, the meeting of the
Nashville Convention is, upon its face, a step towards a separate
and distinct organization of the Southern States. The very movement
separates them for a time, in purposes and intent, from the great
mass of the population of the country. They meet there for what
purpose? To consider, to deliberate, to debate--what? What course
of action shall, by mutual agreement, be taken by the States whom
this convention will represent, what manner of resistance, what
mode of redress? Now, sir, in all matters of this kind, in all
revolutions, in all dissolutions of the ties which bind us together,
the first step is the great difficulty. It is so even in social and
private life; it is so in the married state. The first wanton and
public outrage on the part of one towards the other of the parties
is easily followed by such steps as end in total and thorough
estrangement. Well, then, suppose no measures are proposed which
look to a separation of the Union, as I have no reason to suppose
that any will be proposed looking to that as an object, I fully
believe that that convention in Mississippi which terminated its
session in the call for this convention was influenced by high and
patriotic motives, seeking to preserve and not to destroy the Union.
If I wanted anything to satisfy me of that (besides other reasons
which I have), the very fact that the convention was presided
over by the venerable and venerated Chief Justice Sharkey, a most
learned jurist and patriotic gentleman, would be sufficient for me.
But when we have ascertained what people design by any particular
movement, we are far, very far, from having ascertained what they
may accomplish by it. Now, suppose this meeting should resolve that,
by a common concurrence of the States represented, laws should be
passed, police regulations be adopted, in those States, of the
most irritating and offensive kind towards the Northern portion of
the Union: such a course will not appear surprising, if we bear in
mind the fact that slaves are constantly taken from our ports by
vessels that visit them for the purpose of commerce; that, thus
taken, they are withheld from us, and their seducers are neither
discountenanced at home, nor restored to us for punishment; and that
a flagrant wrong on one side naturally provokes to measures at once
of protection and retaliation from the other. But, Mr. President,
the moment these States, by mutual compact and agreement, have come
to a resolution to adopt a particular course of measures upon this
subject, they have left the platform of the Constitution; they are
no longer upon it, because the Constitution expressly forbids a
State to enter into any compact or agreement with another State
without the consent of Congress. When this first step is taken,
the process is easy and need not be traced to a final dissolution
of our present Union: and, therefore, in the event of the meeting
of this convention, with the slavery question in the situation I
have mentioned, I have, I repeat, gloomy apprehensions of what
may be, and most probably will be the result upon the destinies
of our country. Force, Mr. President, cannot keep the States of
this Union together, cannot preserve the constitutional Union. I
distinctly admit what has been said by the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Webster], that no State has a _right_ to secede
from this Union. I distinctly admit that the Constitution, looking
to perpetuity, makes no provision directly or indirectly, for the
separation of its parts. But, in point of fact, from the very nature
of our institutions, the States cannot be kept in union by force.
The majority, or the most powerful portion, may conquer and reduce
to subjection the other; but when this is done, the States are not
in union, the constitutional connection is not restored. It is but
the spectacle of a conquered people submitting to superior power;
and no ties of affection, no cooperation in a common government,
no _American_ Union can reasonably be hoped between the conquerors
and the conquered. Believe me, sir, if ever the unhappy hour
should arrive when American blood is shed in a contest between the
States--some desiring to secede, and the others endeavoring to
compel them by force of arms to remain in the Union--whenever that
hour comes, our connection is immediately broken, to all beneficial
purposes, for the happiness or prosperity of the country.
Now, Mr. President, with regard to my own State. Should this
proviso be adopted, and should satisfaction not be given in the
other particulars which I have mentioned, will North Carolina
join in resisting, in any mode, the action of this government?
Will she unite in measures for secession, for revolution, or
for retaliatory legislation? I am so far, sir, from undertaking
to speak upon this subject for the South, which I wish to be
understood now and always as disavowing, that I do not feel myself
even empowered to speak what will be the judgment and conduct of
my own State. As was well said the other day by my friend and
colleague [Mr. Mangum], in presenting some resolutions to the
Senate, disunion is a question which we cannot discuss here as one
for Senatorial action. We are sent here to represent the State
under the Constitution, and to discharge ordinary legislative and
executive duties, which presuppose the Constitution to be entire
and in full force. We of course have no delegated authority to
speak the views of North Carolina upon any such question as that
which I have just stated. Last year the Legislature of my State
passed a series of resolutions, in which, after expressing in very
strong and decided terms the sense felt by the people of that State
of the wrong of the Wilmot Proviso, and other kindred measures,
they nevertheless adopted an extract from the Farewell Address of
Washington, embodying the sentiment that we were not to look upon
the Union as _in any event_ to be abandoned. Making all proper
modifications of that large and most comprehensive expression, "in
any event," it could have no less interpretation than this, that
none of the events alluded to by the preceding resolutions would
furnish ground for the abandonment of the Union. Since that time
this matter has been much discussed in North Carolina; primary
meetings have been held; different resolutions have been passed
by those meetings, some discountenancing and declining to be
represented in the Nashville Convention, others approving the call,
and resolving to send delegates; and one meeting, with a somewhat
singular inconsistency, while protesting against a government of
unlimited powers, solemnly pledged itself to adhere to, abide by,
and support whatever the Nashville Convention shall determine. I
hope, sir, that North Carolina will not concur on account of the
passage of the Wilmot Proviso, in any measures for the dissolution
of the Union or resistance to the Government. My own opinion is
that it would furnish no sufficient ground for such a procedure. I
say that here; I shall say it at home when the proper time arrives,
if a time shall ever arrive when it shall be necessary to say it.
But this I say, also, that I shall feel, if such an event as the
adoption of the proviso should happen, that a serious indignity has
been offered to us; not, perhaps, designed--I will not charge any
with a deliberate design to insult--but yet an indignity, because
such must be the wanton adoption of an objectionable and useless
measure, after distinct notice that it will be considered in that
light. And rely upon it, sir, that whatever may be the result in
regard to any external action of the people of the Southern States,
if something satisfactory is not done respecting fugitive slaves,
and if the application of this Wilmot Proviso is insisted upon,
there will be left in the hearts of our people a rankling sense of
injustice and offense. They will have less of hope in the future
operation of the Constitution. They will feel, to a certain extent,
a painful conviction that the large majority of the inhabitants
of the free States have not that sympathy with their feelings and
regard for their rights, that justice and moderation in the exercise
of the known powers, and that abstinence from the needless exercise
of doubtful and questionable ones which are so essential to keep
the mind of the country united; and, unless our minds are united,
the forced association of reluctant communities, who stay together,
not to obtain good from their connection, but to avoid evils of
separation, does not deserve the name of Union.