MR. CALHOUN'S LAST SPEECH: DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION PROCLAIMED
UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION WAS AMENDED, AND A DUAL EXECUTIVE
APPOINTED--ONE PRESIDENT FROM THE SLAVE AND ONE FROM THE FREE STATES.
On the 4th of March Mr. Calhoun brought into the Senate a written
speech, elaborately and studiously prepared, and which he was too
weak to deliver, or even to read. Upon his request it was allowed to
be read by his friend, Mr. James M. Mason of Virginia, and was found
to be an amplification and continuation of the Southern manifesto of
the preceding year; and, like it, occupied entirely with the subject
of the dissolution of the Union, and making out a case to justify
it. The opening went directly to the point, and presented the
question of Union, or disunion with the formality and solemnity of
an actual proposition, as if its decision was the business on which
the Senate was convened. It opened thus:
"I have, senators, believed from the first that the agitation of
the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely
and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this
opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call
the attention of each of the two great parties which divide the
country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster but
without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed,
with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a
period when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the
Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the
greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your
consideration: How can the Union be preserved?"
Professing to proceed like a physician who must find out the cause
of a disease before he can apply a remedy, the speech went on to
discover the reasons which now rendered disunion inevitable, unless
an adequate remedy to prevent it should be administered. The first
of these causes was the anti-slavery ordinance of 1787, which was
adopted before the constitution was formed, and had its origin from
the South, and the unanimous support of that section. The second
was the Missouri compromise line, which also had its origin in the
South, the unanimous support of the Southern senators, the majority
of the Southern representatives, the unanimous support of Mr.
Monroe's cabinet, of which Mr. Calhoun was a member; and his own
approbation of it for about twenty-five years. The long continued
agitation of the slave question was another cause of disunion,
dating the agitation from the year 1835--which was correct; for in
that year he took it up in the Senate, and gave the abolitionists
what they wanted, and could not otherwise acquire--an antagonist
to cope with, an elevated theatre for the strife, and a national
auditory to applaud or censure. Before that time he said, and truly,
the agitation was insignificant; since then it had become great;
and (he might have added), that senators North and South told him
that would be the case when he entered upon the business in 1835.
Repeal of the slave sojournment laws by New York and Pennsylvania,
was referred to, and with reason, except that these repeals did not
take place until after his own conduct in the Senate had made the
slavery agitation national, and given distinction and importance to
the abolitionists. The progressive increase of the two classes of
States, rapid in one, slow in the other, was adverted to as leading
to disunion by destroying, what he called, the _equilibrium_ of
the States--as if that difference of progress was not mainly in
the nature of things, resulting from climate and soil; and in some
degree political, resulting from the slavery itself which he was so
anxious to extend. The preservation of this equilibrium was to be
effected by acquiring Southern territory and opening it to slavery.
The _equality_ of the States was held to be indispensable to the
continuance of the Union; and that equality was to be maintained
by admitting slavery to be carried into all the territories--even
Oregon--equivocally predicated on the right of all persons to carry
their "_property_" with them to these territories. The phrase was
an equivocation, and has been a remarkable instance of delusion
from a phrase. Every citizen can carry his property now wherever he
goes, only he cannot carry the State law with him which makes it
property, and for want of which it ceases to be so when he gets to
his new residence. The New Englander can carry his bank along with
him, and all the money it contains, to one of the new territories;
but he cannot carry the law of incorporation with him; and it ceases
to be the property he had in New England. All this complaint about
inequality in a slave-holder in not being allowed to carry his
"_property_" with him to a territory, stript of the ambiguity of
phraseology, is nothing but a complaint that he cannot carry the law
with him which makes it property; and in that there is no inequality
between the States. They are all equal in the total inability of
their citizens to carry the State laws with them. The result of the
whole, the speech went on to say, was that the process of disruption
was then going on between the two classes of States, and could not
be arrested by any remedy proposed--not by Mr. Clay's compromise
plan, nor by President's plan, nor by the cry of "Union, Union,
Glorious Union!" The speech continues:
"Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation
are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first
commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part
of the South are weaker. Unless something decisive is done,
I again ask what is to stop this agitation, before the great
and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in
the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if
something decisive is not now done to arrest it, the South will
be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, as
events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede
to dissolve the Union."
The speech goes on to say that the Union could not be dissolved at
a single blow: it would require many, and successive blows, to snap
its cords asunder:
"It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected
by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together in
one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for that.
Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long
process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, until
the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the
slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has
greatly weakened all the others, as I shall proceed to show."
The speech goes on to show that cords have already been snapt, and
others weakened:
"The cords that bind the States together are not only many, but
various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical;
some political; others social. Some appertain to the benefit
conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and
obligation.
"The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature
consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations,
all of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these
denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics,
were organized very much upon the principle of our political
institutions; beginning with smaller meetings correspondent
with the political divisions of the country, their organization
terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding
very much with the character of Congress. At these meetings
the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective
denominations from all parts of the Union met to transact
business relating to their common concerns. It was not
confined to what appertained to the doctrines and discipline
of the respective denominations, but extended to plans for
disseminating the Bible, establishing missionaries, distributing
tracts, and of establishing presses for the publication of
tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing
religious information, and for the support of the doctrines
and creeds of the denomination. All this combined, contributed
greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The strong ties
which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to
hold the whole Union together; but, as powerful as they were,
they have not been able to resist the explosive effect of
slavery agitation.
"The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive
force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church.
The numerous and strong ties which held it together are all
broke, and its unity gone. They now form separate churches,
and, instead of the feeling of attachment and devotion to the
interests of the whole church which was formerly felt, they are
now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about
what was formerly their common property.
"The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists, one of the
largest and most respectable of the denominations. That of the
Presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands
have given way. That of the Episcopal Church is the only one of
the four great Protestant denominations which remains unbroken
and entire.
"The strongest cord of a political character consists of the
many and strong ties that have held together the two great
parties, which have, with some modifications, existed from the
beginning of the government. They both extended to every portion
of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts
together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than the
spiritual. It resisted for a long time the explosive tendency of
the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force--if not
entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one of the remaining
cords which have not been greatly weakened. To this extent the
Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way
it can be, by snapping asunder and weakening the cords which
bind it together."
The last cord here mentioned, that of political parties, founded
upon principles not subject to sectional, or geographical lines, has
since been entirely destroyed, snapped clean off by the abrogation
of the Missouri compromise line, and making the extension, or
non-extension of slavery, the foundation of political parties.
After that cord should be snapped, the speech goes on to consider
"_force_" the only bond of Union, and justly considers that as no
Union where power and violence constitute the only bond.
"If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased
intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord,
when nothing will be left to hold the States together except
force. But surely that can, with no propriety of language, be
called a Union, when the only means by which the weaker is held
connected with the stronger portion is _force_. It may, indeed,
keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more
of the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to
the stronger, than the union of free, independent, and sovereign
States, in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages
of the government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name
of Union."
The admission of the State of California, with her free
constitution, was the exciting cause of this speech from Mr.
Calhoun. The Wilmot proviso was disposed of. That cause of disunion
no longer existed; but the admission of California excited the same
opposition, and was declared to be the "_test_" question upon which
all depended. The President had communicated the constitution of
that State to Congress, which Mr. Calhoun strongly repulsed.
"The Executive has laid the paper purporting to be the
Constitution of California before you, and asks you to admit
her into the Union as a State; and the question is, will you
or will you not admit her? It is a grave question, and there
rests upon you a heavy responsibility. Much, very much, will
depend upon your decision. If you admit her, you endorse
and give your sanction to all that has been done. Are you
prepared to do so? Are you prepared to surrender your power of
legislation for the territories--a power expressly vested in
Congress by the constitution, as has been fully established? Can
you, consistently with your oath to support the constitution,
surrender the power? Are you prepared to admit that the
inhabitants of the territories possess the sovereignty over
them, and that any number, more or less, may claim any extent of
territory they please, may form a constitution and government,
and erect it into a State, without asking your permission? Are
you prepared to surrender the sovereignty of the United States
over whatever territory may be hereafter acquired to the first
adventurers who may rush into it? Are you prepared to surrender
virtually to the Executive Department all the powers which you
have heretofore exercised over the territories? If not, how can
you, consistently with your duty and your oaths to support the
constitution, give your assent to the admission of California as
a State, under a pretended constitution and government?"
Having shown that all the cords that held the Union together had
snapped except one (political party principle), and that one
weakened and giving way, the speech came to the solemn question:
"_How can the Union be saved?_" and answered it (after some
generalities) by coming to the specific point--
"_To provide for the insertion of a provision in the
Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South
in substance the power she possessed of protecting herself,
before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the
action of this government._"
The speech did not tell of what this amendment was to consist, which
was to have the effect of saving the Union, by protecting the slave
States, and restoring the equilibrium between the two classes of
States; but an authentic publication soon after disclosed it, and
showed it to be the election of two Presidents, one from the free
and the other from the slave States, and each to approve of all the
acts of Congress before they became laws. Upon this condition alone,
the speech declared the Union could be saved! which was equivalent
to pronouncing its dissolution. For, in the first place, no such
amendment to the constitution could be made; in the second place, no
such double-headed government could work through even one session
of Congress, any more than two animals could work together in the
plough with their heads yoked in opposite directions.
This last speech of Mr. Calhoun becomes important, as furnishing
a key to his conduct, and that of his political friends, and as
connecting itself with subsequent measures.