"I certainly had no right to make aggressive war upon any State; and I
am perfectly satisfied that the Constitution has wisely withheld that
power even from Congress"--very good--"but the right and the duty to use
military force defensively against those who resist the Federal officers
in the exercise of their legal functions, and against those who assail
the power of the Federal Government, are clear and undeniable."
Is it so? Where does he get it? Our fathers were so jealous of a
standing army, that they scarcely would permit the organization and
maintenance of any army! Where does he get the "clear and undeniable"
power to use the force of the United States in the manner he there
proposes? To execute a process, troops may be summoned in a posse
comitatus; and here, in the history of our Government, it is not to be
forgotten that in the earlier and, as it is frequently said, the better
days of the republic--and painfully we feel that they were better
indeed--a President of the United States did not recur to the army; he
went to the people of the United States. Vaguely and confusedly, indeed,
did the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Johnson] bring forward the case of
the great man, Washington, as one in which he had used a means which, he
argued, was equivalent to the coercion of a State; for he said that
Washington used the military power against a portion of a people of the
State; and why might he not as well have used it against the whole
State? Let me tell that Senator that the case of General Washington has
no such application as he supposes. It was a case of insurrection in the
State of Pennsylvania; and the very message from which he read
communicated the fact that Governor Mifflin thought it was necessary to
call the militia of the adjoining States to aid him. President
Washington coöperated with Governor Mifflin; he called the militia of
adjoining States to coöperate with those of Pennsylvania. He used the
militia, not as a standing army. It was by the consent of the Governor;
it was by his advice. It was not the invasion of the State; it was not
the coercion of the State; but it was aiding the State to put down
insurrection, and in the very manner provided for in the Constitution
itself.
But, I ask again, what power has the President to use the army and navy
except to execute process? Are we to have drum-head courts substituted
for those which the Constitution and laws provide? Are we to have
sergeants sent over the land instead of civil magistrates? Not so
thought the elder Adams; and here, in passing, I will pay him a tribute
he deserves, as the one to whom, more than any other man among the early
founders of this Government, credit is due for the military principles
which prevail in its organization. Associated with Mr. Jefferson
originally, in preparing the rules and articles of war, Mr. Adams
reverted through the long pages of history back to the empire of Rome,
and drew from that foundation the very rules and articles of war which
govern in our country to-day, and drew them thence because he said they
had brought two nations to the pinnacle of glory--referring to the
Romans and the Britons, whose military law was borrowed from them. Mr.
Adams, however, when an insurrection occurred in the same State of
Pennsylvania, not only relied upon the militia, but his orders, through
Secretary McHenry, required that the militia of the vicinage should be
employed; and, though he did order troops from Philadelphia, he required
the militia of the northern counties to be employed as long as they were
able to execute the laws; and the orders given to Colonel McPherson,
then in New Jersey, were, that Federal troops should not go across the
Jersey line except in the last resort. I say, then, when we trace our
history to its early foundation, under the first two Presidents of the
United States, we find that this idea of using the army and the navy to
execute the laws at the discretion of the President was one not even
entertained, still less acted upon, in any case.
Then, Senators, we are brought to consider passing events. A little
garrison in the harbor of Charleston now occupies a post which, I am
sorry to say, it gained by the perfidious breach of an understanding
between the parties concerned; and here, that I may do justice to one
who had not the power, on this floor at least, to right himself--who has
no friend here to represent him--let me say that remark does not apply
to Major Anderson; for I hold that, though his orders were not so
designed, as I am assured, they did empower him to go from one post to
another, and to take his choice of the posts in the harbor of
Charleston; but in so doing he committed an act of hostility. When he
dismantled Fort Moultrie, when he burned the carriages and spiked the
guns bearing upon Fort Sumter, he put Carolina in the attitude of an
enemy of the United States; and yet he has not shown that there was any
just cause for apprehension. Vague rumors had reached him--and causeless
fear seems now to be the impelling motive of every public act--vague
rumors of an intention to take Fort Moultrie. But, sir, a soldier should
be confronted by an overpowering force before he spikes his guns and
burns his carriages. A soldier should be confronted by a public enemy
before he destroys the property of the United States lest it should fall
into the hands of such an enemy. Was that fort built to make war upon
Carolina? Was an armament put into it for such a purpose? Or was it
built for the protection of Charleston Harbor; and was it armed to make
that protection effective? If so, what right had any soldier to destroy
that armament lest it should fall into the hands of Carolina?
Some time since I presented to the Senate resolutions which embodied my
views upon this subject, drawing from the Constitution itself the data
on which I based those resolutions. I then invoked the attention of the
Senate in that form to the question as to whether garrisons should be
kept within a State against the consent of that State. Clear was I then,
as I am now, in my conclusion. No garrison should be kept within a
State, during a time of peace, if the State believes the presence of
that garrison to be either offensive or dangerous. Our army is
maintained for common defense; our forts are built out of the common
Treasury, to which every State contributes; and they are perverted from
the purpose for which they were erected whenever they are garrisoned
with a view to threaten, to intimidate, or to control a State in any
respect.
Yet, we are told this is no purpose to coerce a State; we are told that
the power does not exist to coerce a State; but the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. Johnson] says it is only a power to coerce individuals;
and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] seems to look upon this latter
power as a very harmless power in the hands of the President, though the
results of such coercion might be to destroy the State. What is a State?
Is it land and houses? Is it taxable property? Is it the organization of
the local government? Or is it all these combined with the people who
possess them? Destroy the people, and yet not make war upon the State!
To state the proposition is to answer it, by reason of its very
absurdity. It is like making desolation, and calling it peace. There
being, as it is admitted on every hand, no power to coerce a State, I
ask what is the use of a garrison within a State where it needs no
defense? The answer from every candid mind must be, there is none. The
answer from every patriotic breast must be, peace requires under all
such circumstances that the garrison should be withdrawn. Let the Senate
to-day, as the responsibility is thrown at our door, pass those
resolutions, or others which better express the idea contained in them,
and you have taken one long step toward peace, one long stride toward
the preservation of the Government of our fathers.
The President's message of December, however, has all the
characteristics of a diplomatic paper, for diplomacy is said to abhor
certainty as Nature abhors a vacuum; and it was not within the power of
man to reach any fixed conclusion from that message. When the country
was agitated, when opinions were being formed, when we were drifting
beyond the power ever to return, this was not what we had a right to
expect from the Chief Magistrate. One policy or the other he ought to
have taken. If believing this to be a government of force, if believing
it to be a consolidated mass, and not a confederation of States, he
should have said: "No State has a right to secede; every State is
subordinate to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government must
empower me with physical means to reduce to subjugation the State
asserting such a right." If not, if a State-rights man and a
Democrat--as for many years it has been my pride to acknowledge our
venerable Chief Magistrate to be--then another line of policy should
have been taken. The Constitution gave no power to the Federal
Government to coerce a State; the Constitution gave an army for the
purposes of common defense, and to preserve domestic tranquillity; but
the Constitution never contemplated using that army against a State. A
State exercising the sovereign function of secession is beyond the reach
of the Federal Government, unless we woo her with the voice of
fraternity, and bring her back to the enticements of affection. One
policy or the other should have been taken; and it is not for me to say
which, though my opinion is well known; but one policy or the other
should have been pursued. He should have brought his opinion to one
conclusion or another, and to-day our country would have been safer than
it is.
What is the message before us? Does it benefit the case? Is there a
solution offered here? We are informed in it of propositions made by
commissioners from South Carolina. We are not informed even as to how
they terminated. No countervailing proposition is presented; no
suggestion is made. We are left drifting loosely, without chart or
compass.
There is in our recent history, however, an event which might have
suggested a policy to be pursued. When foreigners having no citizenship
within the United States declared war against it and made war upon it;
when the inhabitants of a Territory, disgraced by institutions offensive
to the laws of every State of the Union, held this attitude of
rebellion; when the Executive there had power to use troops, he first
sent commissioners of peace to win them back to their duty. When South
Carolina, a sovereign State, resumes the grants she had delegated; when
South Carolina stands in an attitude which threatens within a short
period to involve the country in a civil war unless the policy of the
Government be changed, no suggestion is made to us that this Government
might send commissioners to her; no suggestion is made to us that better
information should be sought; there is no policy of peace, but we are
told the army and navy are in the hands of the President of the United
States, to be used against those who assail the power of the Federal
Government.
Then, my friends, are we to allow events to drift onward to this fatal
consummation? Are we to do nothing to restore peace? Shall we not, in
addition to the proposition I have already made, to withdraw the force
which complicates the question, send commissioners there in order that
we may learn what this community desire, what this community will do,
and put the two Governments upon friendly relations?
I will not weary the Senate by going over the argument of coercion. My
friend from Ohio [Mr. Pugh], I may say, has exhausted the subject. I
thank him, because it came appropriately from one not identified by his
position with South Carolina. It came more effectively from him than it
would have done from me, had I (as I have not) a power to present it as
forcibly as he has done. Sirs, let me say, among the painful reflections
which have crowded upon me by day and by night, none have weighed more
heavily upon my heart than the reflection that our separation severs the
ties which have so long bound us to our Northern friends, of whom we are
glad to recognize the Senator as a type.
Now let us return a moment to consider what would have been the state of
the case if the garrison at Charleston had been withdrawn. The fort
would have stood there, not dismantled, but unoccupied. It would have
stood there in the hands of an ordnance-sergeant. Commissioners would
have come to treat of all questions with the Federal Government, of
these forts as well as others. They would have remained there to answer
the ends for which they were constructed--the ends of defense. If South
Carolina was an independent State, then she might hold to us such a
relation as Rhode Island held after the dissolution of the Confederation
and before the formation of the Union, when Rhode Island appealed to the
sympathies existing between the States connected in the struggles of the
Revolution, and asked that a commercial war should not be waged upon
her. These forts would have stood there then to cover the harbor of a
friendly State; and, if the feeling which once existed among the people
of the States had subsisted still, and that fort had been attacked,
brave men from every section would have rushed to the rescue, and there
imperiled their lives in the defense of a State identified with their
early history, and still associated in their breasts with affectionate
memories; the first act of this kind would have been one appealing to
every generous motive of those people, again to reconsider the question
of how we could live together, and through that bloody ordeal to have
brought us into the position in which our fathers left us. There need
have been no collision, as there could have been no question of property
which that State was not ready to meet. If it was a question of dollars
and cents, they came here to adjust it. If it was a question of covering
an interior State, their interests were identical. In whatever way the
question could have been presented, the consequence would have been to
relieve the Government of the charge of maintaining the fort, and to
throw it upon the State which had resolved to be independent.
Thus we see that no evil could have resulted. We have yet to learn what
evil the opposite policy may bring. Telegraphic intelligence, by the man
who occupied the seat on the right of me in the old Chamber, was never
relied on. He was the wisest statesman I ever knew--a man whose
prophetic vision foretold all the trials through which we are now
passing; whose clear intellect, elaborating everything, borrowing
nothing from anybody, seemed to dive into the future, and to unveil
those things which are hidden to other eyes. Need I say I mean Calhoun?
No other man than he would have answered this description. I say, then,
not relying upon telegraphic dispatches, we still have information
enough to notify us that we are on the verge of civil war; that civil
war is in the hands of men irresponsible, as it seems to us; their acts
unknown to us; their discretion not covered by any existing law or
usage; and we now have the responsibility thrown upon us, which
justifies us in demanding information to meet an emergency in which the
country is involved.
Is there any point of pride which prevents us from withdrawing that
garrison? I have heard it said by a gallant gentleman, to whom I make no
special reference, that the great objection was an unwillingness to
lower the flag. To lower the flags! Under what circumstances? Does any
man's courage impel him to stand boldly forth to take the life of his
brethren? Does any man insist upon going upon the open field with deadly
weapons to fight his brother on a question of courage? There is no point
of pride. These are your brethren; and they have shed as much glory upon
that flag as any equal number of men in the Union. They are the men, and
that is the locality, where the first Union flag was unfurled, and where
was fought a gallant battle before our independence was declared--not
the flag with thirteen stripes and thirty-three stars, but a flag with a
cross of St. George, and the long stripes running through it. When the
gallant Moultrie took the British Fort Johnson and carried it, for the
first time, I believe, did the Union flag fly in the air; and that was
in October, 1775. When he took the position and threw up a temporary
battery with palmetto-logs and sand, upon the site called Fort Moultrie,
that fort was assailed by the British fleet, and bombarded until the old
logs, clinging with stern tenacity, were filled with balls, but the flag
still floated there, and, though many bled, the garrison conquered.
Those old logs are gone; the eroding current is even taking away the
site where Fort Moultrie stood; the gallant men who held it now mingle
with the earth; but their memories live in the hearts of a brave people,
and their sons yet live, and they, like their fathers, are ready to
bleed and to die for the cause in which their fathers triumphed.
Glorious are the memories clinging around that old fort which now, for
the first time, has been abandoned--abandoned not even in the presence
of a foe, but under the imaginings that a foe might come; and guns
spiked and carriages burned where the band of Moultrie bled, and, with
an insufficient armament, repelled the common foe of all the colonies.
Her ancient history compares proudly with the present.
Can there, then, be a point of pride upon so sacred a soil as this,
where the blood of the fathers cries to heaven against civil war? Can
there be a point of pride against laying upon that sacred soil to-day
the flag for which our fathers died? My pride, Senators, is different.
My pride is that that flag shall not set between contending brothers;
and that, when it shall no longer be the common flag of the country, it
shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used; that it
shall be kept as a sacred memento of the past, to which each of us can
make a pilgrimage and remember the glorious days in which we were born.
In the answer of the commissioners which I caused to be read yesterday,
I observed that they referred to Fort Sumter as remaining a memento of
Carolina faith. It is an instance of the accuracy of the opinion which I
have expressed. It stood without a garrison. It commanded the harbor,
and the fort was known to have the armament in it capable of defense.
Did the Carolinians attack it? Did they propose to seize it? It stood
there safe as public property; and there it might have stood to the end
of the negotiations without a question, if a garrison had not been sent
into it. It was the faith on which they relied, that the Federal
Government would take no position of hostility to them, that constituted
its safety, and by which they lost the advantage they would have had in
seizing it when unoccupied.
I think that something is due to faith as well as fraternity; and I
think one of the increasing and accumulative obligations upon us to
withdraw the garrison from that fort is from the manner in which it was
taken--taken, as we heard by the reading of the paper yesterday, while
Carolina remained under the assurance that the _status_ would not be
violated; while I was under that assurance, and half a dozen other
Senators now within the sound of my voice felt secure under the same
pledge, that nothing would be done until negotiations had terminated,
unless it was to withdraw the garrison. Then we, the Federal Government,
broke the faith; we committed the first act of hostility; and from this
first act of hostility arose all those acts to which reference is made
in the message as unprovoked aggressions--the seizing of forts
elsewhere. Why were they seized? Self-preservation is the first law of
nature; and when they no longer had confidence that this Federal
Government would not seize the forts constructed for their defense, and
use them for their destruction, they only obeyed the dictates of
self-preservation when they seized the forts to prevent the enemy from
taking possession of them as a means of coercion, for they then were
compelled to believe this Federal Government had become an enemy.
Now, what is the remedy? To assure them that you do not intend to use
physical force against them is your first remedy; to assure them that
you intend to consider calmly all the propositions which they make, and
to recognize the rights which the Union was established to secure; that
you intend to settle with them upon a basis in accordance with the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
When you do that, peace will prevail over the land, and force become a
thing that no man will consider necessary.
I am here confronted with a question which I will not argue. The
position which I have taken necessarily brings me to its consideration.
Without arguing it, I will merely state it. It is the right of a State
to withdraw from the Union. The President says it is not a
constitutional right. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade], and his ally,
the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Johnson], argued it as no right at all.
Well, let us see. What is meant by a constitutional right? Is it meant
to be a right derived from the Constitution--a grant made in the
Constitution? If that is what is meant, of course we all see at once
that we do not derive it in that way. Is it intended that it is not a
constitutional right, because it is not granted in the Constitution?
That shows, indeed, but a poor appreciation of the nature of our
Government. All that is not granted in the Constitution belongs to the
States; and nothing but what is granted in the Constitution belongs to
the Federal Government; and, keeping this distinction in view, it
requires but little argument to see the conclusion at which we
necessarily arrive. Did the States surrender their sovereignty to the
Federal Government? Did the States agree that they never could withdraw
from the Federal Union?
I know it has been argued here that the Confederation said the Articles
of Confederation were to be a perpetual bond of union, and that the
Constitution was made to form a more perfect union; that is to say, a
Government beyond perpetuity, or one day, or two or three days, after
doomsday. But that has no foundation in the Constitution itself; it has
no basis in the nature of our Government. The Constitution was a compact
between independent States; it was not a national Government; and hence
Mr. Madison answered with such effectiveness to Patrick Henry, in the
Convention of Virginia, which ratified the Constitution, denying his
proposition that it was to form a nation, and stating to him the
conclusive fact that "we sit here as a convention of the State to ratify
or reject that Constitution; and how, then, can you say that it forms a
nation, and is adopted by the mass of the people?" It was not adopted by
the mass of the people, as we all know historically; it was adopted by
each State; each State, voluntarily ratifying it, entered the Union; and
that Union was formed whenever nine States should enter it; and, in
abundance of caution, it was stated, in the resolutions of ratification
of three of the States, that they still possessed the power to withdraw
the grants which they had delegated, whenever they should be used to
their injury or oppression. I know it is said that this meant the people
of all the States; but that is such an absurdity that I suppose it
hardly necessary to answer it--for to speak of an elective Government
rendering itself injurious and oppressive to the whole body of the
people by whom it is elected is such an absurdity that no man can
believe it; and to suppose that a State convention, speaking for a
State, and having no authority to speak for anybody else, would say that
it was declaring what the people of the other States would do, would be
an assumption altogether derogatory to the sound sense and well-known
sentiments of the men who formed the Constitution and ratified it.
But in abundance of caution not only was this done, but the tenth
amendment of the Constitution declared that all which had not been
delegated was reserved to the States or to the people. Now, I ask, where
among the delegated grants to the Federal Government do you find any
power to coerce a State; where among the provisions of the Constitution
do you find any prohibition on the part of a State to withdraw; and, if
you find neither one nor the other, must not this power be in that great
depository, the reserved rights of the States? How was it ever taken out
of that source of all power to be given to the Federal Government? It
was not delegated to the Federal Government; it was not prohibited to
the States; it necessarily remains, then, among the reserved powers of
the States.
This question has been so forcibly argued by the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Benjamin] that I think it unnecessary to pursue it. Three times the
proposition was made to give power to coerce the States, in the
Convention, and as often refused--opposed as a proposition to make war
on a State, and refused on the ground that the Federal Government could
not make war upon a State. The Constitution was to form a Government for
such States as should unite; it had no application beyond those who
should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none
which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State.
As a right of sovereignty it remained to the States under the
Confederation; and, if it did not, you arraign the faith of the men who
framed the Constitution to which you appeal, for they provided that nine
States should secede from thirteen. Eleven did secede from the thirteen,
and put themselves in the very position which, by a great abuse of
language, is to-day called treason, against the two States of North
Carolina and Rhode Island; they still claiming to adhere to the
perpetual Articles of Confederation, these eleven States absolving
themselves from the obligations which arose under them.
The Senator from Tennessee, to whom I must refer again--and I do so
because he is a Southern Senator--taking the most hostile ground against
us, refers to the State of Tennessee, and points to the time when that
State may do those things which he has declared it an absurdity for any
State to perform. I will read a single paragraph from his speech,
showing what his language is, in order that I may not, by any
possibility, produce an impression upon others which his language does
not justify. Here are the expressions to which I refer. I call the
Senator's attention to them:
"If there are grievances, why can not we all go together, and write them
down and point them out to our Northern friends after we have agreed on
what those grievances were, and say: 'Here is what we demand; here our
wrongs are enumerated; upon these terms we have agreed; and now, after
we have given you a reasonable time to consider these additional
guarantees in order to protect ourselves against these wrongs, if you
refuse them, then, having made an honorable effort, having exhausted all
other means, we may declare the association to be broken up, and we may
go into an act of revolution.' We can then say to them, 'You have
refused to give us guarantees that we think are needed for the
protection of our institutions and for the protection of our other
interests.' When they do this, I will go as far as he who goes the
farthest."
Now, it does appear that he will go that far; and he goes a little
further than anybody, I believe, who has spoken in vindication of the
right, for he says:
"We do not intend that you shall drive us out of this House that was
reared by the hands of our fathers. It is our House. It is the
constitutional House. We have a right here; and because you come forward
and violate the ordinances of this House, I do not intend to go out;
and, if you persist in the violation of the ordinances of the House, we
intend to eject you from the building and retain the possession
ourselves."
I wonder if this is what caused the artillery companies to be ordered
here, and the militia of this city to be organized? I think it was a
mere figure of speech. I do not believe the Senator from Tennessee
intended to kick you out of the House; and, if he did, let me say to
you, in all sincerity, we who claim the constitutional right of a State
to withdraw from the Union do not intend to help him. He says, however,
and this softens it a little:
"We do not think, though, that we have just cause for going out of the
Union now. We have just cause of complaint; but we are for remaining in
the Union, and fighting the battle like men."
What does that mean? In the name of common sense, I ask how are we to
fight in the Union? We take an oath of office to maintain the
Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States
was formed for domestic tranquillity; and how, then, are we to fight in
the Union? I have heard the proposition from others; but I have not
understood it. I understand how men fight when they assume attitudes of
hostility; but I do not understand how men, remaining connected together
in a bond as brethren, sworn to mutual aid and protection, still propose
to fight each other. I do not understand what the Senator means. If he
chooses to answer my question, I am willing to hear him, for I do not
understand how we are to fight in the Union.
Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee: When my speech is taken altogether, I think
my meaning can be very easily understood. What I mean by fighting the
battle in the Union is, I think, very distinctly and clearly set forth
in my speech; and, if the Senator will take it from beginning to end, I
apprehend that he will have no difficulty in ascertaining what I meant.
But, for his gratification upon this particular point, I will repeat, in
substance, what I then said as to fighting the battle in the Union. I
meant that we should remain here under the Constitution of the United
States and contend for all its guarantees; and by preserving the
Constitution and all its guarantees we would preserve the Union. Our
true place, to maintain these guarantees and to preserve the
Constitution, is in the Union, there to fight our battle. How? By
argument; by appeals to the patriotism, to the good sense, and to the
judgment of the whole country; by showing the people that the
Constitution had been violated; that all its guarantees were not
complied with; and I have entertained the hope that, when they were
possessed of that fact, there would be found patriotism and honesty
enough in the great mass of the people, North and South, to come forward
and do what was just and right between the contending sections of the
country. I meant that the true way to fight the battle was for us to
remain here and occupy the places assigned to us by the Constitution of
the country. Why did I make that statement? It was because on the 4th
day of March next we shall have six majority in this body; and if, as
some apprehended, the incoming Administration shall show any disposition
to make encroachments upon the institution of slavery, encroachments
upon the rights of the States, or any other violation of the
Constitution, we, by remaining in the Union, and standing at our places,
will have the power to resist all these encroachments. How? We have the
power even to reject the appointment of the Cabinet officers of the
incoming President. Then, should we not be fighting the battles in the
Union, by resisting even the organization of the Administration in a
constitutional mode, and thus, at the very start, disable an
Administration which was likely to encroach on our rights and to violate
the Constitution of the country? So far as appointing even a Minister
abroad is concerned, the incoming Administration will have no power
without our consent, if we remain here. It comes into office handcuffed,
powerless to do harm. We, standing here, hold the balance of power in
our hands; we can resist it at the very threshold effectually; and do it
inside of the Union, and in our House. The incoming Administration has
not even the power to appoint a postmaster whose salary exceeds one
thousand dollars a year, without consultation with and the acquiescence
of the Senate of the United States. The President has not even the power
to draw his salary--his twenty-five thousand dollars per annum--unless
we appropriate it. I contend, then, that the true place to fight the
battle is in the Union, and within the provisions of the Constitution.
The army and navy cannot be sustained without appropriations by
Congress; and, if we were apprehensive that encroachments would be made
on the Southern States and on their institutions, in violation of the
Constitution, we could prevent him from having a dollar even to feed his
army or his navy.
Mr. Davis: I receive the answer from the Senator, and I think I
comprehend now that he is not going to use any force, but it is a sort
of fighting that is to be done by votes and words; and I think,
therefore, the President need not bring artillery and order out the
militia to suppress them. I think, altogether, we are not in danger of
much bloodshed in the mode proposed by the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. Johnson: I had not quite done; but if the Senator is satisfied--
Mr. Davis: Quite satisfied. I am entirely satisfied that the answer of
the Senator shows me he did not intend to fight at all; that it was a
mere figure of speech, and does not justify converting the Federal
capital into a military camp. But it is a sort of revolution which he
proposes; it is a revolution under the forms of the Government. Now, I
have to say, once for all, that, as long as I am a Senator here, I will
not use the powers I possess to destroy the very Government to which I
am accredited. I will not attempt, in the language of the Senator, to
handcuff the President. I will not attempt to destroy the Administration
by refusing any officers to administer its functions. I should vote, as
I have done in Administrations to which I stood in nearest relation,
against a bad nomination; but I never would agree, under the forms of
the Constitution, and with the powers I bear as a Senator of the United
States, to turn those powers to the destruction of the Government I was
sent to support. I leave that to gentlemen who take the oath with a
mental reservation. It is not my policy. If I must have revolution, I
say let it be a revolution such as our fathers made when they were
denied their natural rights.
So much for that. It has quieted apprehension; and I hope that the
artillery will not be brought here; that the militia will not be called
out; and that the female schools will continue their sessions as
heretofore. [Laughter.] The authority of Mr. Madison, however, was
relied on by the Senator from Tennessee; and he read fairly an extract
from Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Webster, and I give him credit for
reading what it seems to me destroys his whole argument. It is this
clause:
"The powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective and
responsible governments, under the control of its constituents, the
people, and the Legislatures of the States, and subject to the
revolutionary rights of the people in extreme cases."
Now, sir, we are confusing language very much. Men speak of revolution;
and when they say revolution they mean blood. Our fathers meant nothing
of the sort. When they spoke of revolution they meant an unalienable
right. When they declared as an unalienable right the power of the
people to abrogate and modify their form of government whenever it did
not answer the ends for which it was established, they did not mean that
they were to sustain that by brute force. They meant that it was a
right; and force could only be invoked when that right was wrongfully
denied. Great Britain denied the right in the case of the colonies, and
therefore our revolution for independence was bloody. If Great Britain
had admitted the great American doctrine, there would have been no blood
shed; and does it become the descendants of those who proclaimed this as
the great principle on which they took their place among the nations of
the earth, now to proclaim, if that is a right, it is one which you can
only get as the subjects of the Emperor of Austria may get their rights,
by force overcoming force? Are we, in this age of civilization and
political progress, when political philosophy had advanced to the point
which seemed to render it possible that the millennium should now be
seen by prophetic eyes--are we now to roll back the whole current of
human thought, and again to return to the mere brute force which
prevails between beasts of prey, as the only method of settling
questions between men?
If the Declaration of Independence be true (and who here gainsays it?),
every community may dissolve its connection with any other community
previously made, and have no other obligation than that which results
from the breach of an alliance between States. Is it to be supposed;
could any man, reasoning _a priori_, come to the conclusion that the men
who fought the battles of the Revolution for community independence--
that the men who struggled against the then greatest military power on
the face of the globe in order that they might possess those unalienable
rights which they had declared--terminated their great efforts by
transmitting posterity to a condition in which they could only gain
those rights by force? If so, the blood of the Revolution was shed in
vain; no great principles were established; for force was the law of
nature before the battles of the Revolution were fought.
I see, then--if gentlemen insist on using the word "revolution" in the
sense of a resort to force--a very great difference between their
opinion and that of Mr. Madison. Mr. Madison put the rights of the
people over and above everything else, and he said this was the
Government _de jure_ and _de facto_. Call it by what name you will, he
understood ours to be a Government of the people. The people never have
separated themselves from those rights which our fathers had declared to
be unalienable. They did not delegate to the Federal Government the
powers which the British Crown exercised over the colonies; they did not
achieve their independence for any purpose so low as that. They left us
to the inheritance of freemen, living in independent communities, the
States united for the purposes which they thought would bless posterity.
It is in the exercise of this reserved right as defined by Mr. Madison,
as one to which all the powers of Government are subject, that the
people of a State in convention have claimed to resume the functions
which in like manner they had made to the Federal Government....
The question which now presents itself to the country is, What shall we
do with events as they stand? Shall we allow this separation to be
total? Shall we render it peaceful, with a view to the chance that, when
hunger shall brighten the intellects of men, and the teachings of hard
experience shall have tamed them, they may come back, in the spirit of
our fathers, to the task of reconstruction? Or will they have that
separation partial; will they give to each State all its military power;
will they give to each State its revenue power; will they still preserve
the common agent, and will they thus carry on a Government different
from that which now exists, yet not separating the States so entirely as
to make the work of reconstruction equal to a new creation; not
separating them so as to render it utterly impossible to administer any
functions of the Government in security and peace?
I waive the question of duality, considering that a dual Executive would
be the institution of a King Log. I consider a dual legislative
department would be to bring into antagonism the representatives of two
different countries, to war perpetually, and thus to continue, not
union, but the irrepressible conflict. There is no duality possible
(unless there be two confederacies) which seems to me consistent with
the interests of either or of both. It might be that two confederacies
could be so organized as to answer jointly many of the ends of our
present Union; it might be that States, agreeing with each other in
their internal policy--having a similarity of interests and an identity
of purpose--might associate together, and that these two confederacies
might have relations to each other so close as to give them a united
power in time of war against any foreign nation. These things are
possibilities; these things it becomes us to contemplate; these things
it devolves on the majority section to consider now; for with every
motion of that clock is passing away your opportunity. It was greater
when we met on the first Monday in December than it is now; it is
greater now than it will be on the first day of next week. We have
waited long; we have come to the conclusion that you mean to do nothing.
In the Committee of Thirteen, where the resolutions of the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] were considered, various attempts were made,
but no prospect of any agreement on which it was possible for us to
stand, in security for the future, could be matured. I offered a
proposition, which was but the declaration of that which the
Constitution announces; but that which the Supreme Court had, from time
to time, and from an early period asserted; but that which was necessary
for equality in the Union. Not one single vote of the Republican portion
of that committee was given for the proposition.
Looking, then, upon separation as inevitable, not knowing how that
separation is to occur, or at least what States it is to embrace, there
remains to us, I believe, as the consideration which is most useful, the
inquiry, How can this separation be effected so as to leave to us the
power, whenever we shall have the will, to reconstruct? It can only be
done by adopting a policy of peace. It can only be done by denying to
the Federal Government all power to coerce. It can only be done by
returning to the point from which we started, and saying, "This is a
Government of fraternity, a Government of consent, and it shall not be
administered in a departure from those principles."
I do not regard the failure of our constitutional Union, as very many
do, to be the failure of self-government--to be conclusive in all future
time of the unfitness of man to govern himself. Our State governments
have charge of nearly all the relations of person and property. This
Federal Government was instituted mainly as a common agent for foreign
purposes, for free trade among the States, and for common defense.
Representative liberty will remain in the States after they are
separated. Liberty was not crushed by the separation of the colonies
from the mother-country, then the most constitutional monarchy and the
freest Government known. Still less will liberty be destroyed by the
separation of these States, to prevent the destruction of the spirit of
the Constitution by the mal-administration of it. There will be
injury--injury to all; differing in degree, differing in manner. The
injury to the manufacturing and navigating States will be to their
internal prosperity. The injury to the Southern States will be mainly to
their foreign commerce. All will feel the deprivation of that high pride
and power which belong to the flag now representing the greatest
republic, if not the greatest Government, upon the face of the globe. I
would that it still remained to consider what we might calmly have
considered on the first Monday in December--how this could be avoided;
but events have rolled past that point. You would not make propositions
when they would have been effective. I presume you will not make them
now; and I know not what effect they would have if you did. Your
propositions would have been most welcome if they had been made before
any question of coercion, and before any vain boasting of power; for
pride and passion do not often take counsel of pecuniary interest, at
least among those whom I represent. But you have chosen to take the
policy of clinging to words [the Chicago platform], in disregard of
passing events, and have hastened them onward. It is true, as shown by
the history of all revolutions, that they are most precipitated and
intensified by obstinacy and vacillation. The want of a policy, the
obstinate adherence to unimportant things, have brought us to a
condition where I close my eyes, because I can not see anything that
encourages me to hope.
In the long period which elapsed after the downfall of the great
republics of the East, when despotism seemed to brood over the civilized
world, and only here and there constitutional monarchy even was able to
rear its head--when all the great principles of republican and
representative government had sunk deep, fathomless, into the sea of
human events--it was then that the storm of our Revolution moved the
waters. The earth, the air, and the sea became brilliant; and from the
foam of ages rose the constellation which was set in the political
firmament, as a sign of unity and confederation and community
independence, coexistent with confederate strength. That constellation
has served to bless our people. Nay, more; its light has been thrown on
foreign lands, and its regenerative power will outlive, perhaps, the
Government as a sign for which it was set. It may be pardoned to me,
sir, who, in my boyhood, was given to the military service, and who have
followed, under tropical suns and over northern snows, the flag of the
Union, if I here express the deep sorrow which always overwhelms me when
I think of taking a last leave of that object of early affection and
proud association; feeling that henceforth it is not to be the banner
which, by day and by night, I was ready to follow; to hail with the
rising and bless with the setting sun. But God, who knows the hearts of
men, will judge between you and us, at whose door lies the
responsibility. Men will see the efforts made, here and elsewhere; that
we have been silent when words would not avail, and have curbed an
impatient temper, and hoped that conciliatory counsels might do that
which could not be effected by harsh means. And yet, the only response
which has come from the other side has been a stolid indifference, as
though it mattered not: "Let the temple fall, we do not care!" Sirs,
remember that such conduct is offensive, and that men may become
indifferent even to the objects of their early attachments.
If our Government should fail, it will not be from the defect of the
system, though each planet was set to revolve in an orbit of its own,
each moving by its own impulse, yet being all attracted by the
affections and interests which countervailed each other; there was no
inherent tendency to disruption. It has been the perversion of the
Constitution; it has been the substitution of theories of morals for
principles of government; it has been forcing crude opinions upon the
domestic institutions of others, which has disturbed these planets in
their orbit; it is this which threatens to destroy the constellation
which, in its power and its glory, had been gathering stars one after
another, until, from thirteen, it had risen to thirty-three.
If we accept the argument of to-day in favor of coercion as the theory
of our Government, its only effect will be to precipitate men who have
pride and self-reliance into the assertion of the freedom and
independence to which they were born. Our fathers would never have
entered into a confederate Government which had within itself the power
of coercion; they would not agree to remain one day in such a Government
after I had the power to get out of it. To argue that the man who
follows the mandate of his State, resuming her sovereign jurisdiction
and power, is disloyal to his allegiance to the United States, which
allegiance he only owed through his State, is such a confusion of ideas
as does not belong to an ordinary comprehension of our Government. It is
treason to the principle of community independence. It is to recur to
that doctrine of passive obedience which, in England, cost one monarch
his head and drove another into exile; a doctrine which, since the
Revolution of 1688, has obtained nowhere where men speak the English
tongue. Yet all this it is needful to admit, before we accept this
doctrine of coercion, which is to send an army and a navy to do that
which there are no courts to perform; to execute the law without a
judicial decision, and without an officer to serve process. This, I say,
would degrade us to the basest despotism under which man could live--the
despotism of a many-headed monster, without the sensibility or regardful
consideration which might belong to an hereditary king.[207]
* * * * *
There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present
day to that which the colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right
to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent
troops to Boston Harbor and to Charlestown, and he quartered troops in
those towns. The result was, collision; and out of that collision came
the separation of the colonies from the mother-country. The same thing
is being attempted to-day. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but
troops, are relied upon now to execute the laws. To gather taxes in the
Southern ports, the army and navy must be sent to perform the functions
of magistrates. It is the old case over again. Senators of the North,
you are reënacting the blunders which statesmen in Great Britain
committed; but among you there are some who, like Chatham and Burke,
though not of our section, yet are vindicating our rights.
I have heard, with some surprise, for it seemed to me idle, the
repetition of the assertion heretofore made, that the cause of the
separation was the election of Mr. Lincoln. It may be a source of
gratification to some gentlemen that their friend is elected; but no
individual had the power to produce the existing state of things. It was
the purpose, the end, it was the declaration by himself and his friends,
which constitute the necessity of providing new safeguards for
ourselves. The man was nothing, save as he was the representative of
opinions, of a policy, of purposes, of power, to inflict upon us those
wrongs to which freemen never tamely submit.
Senators, I have spoken longer than I desired. I had supposed it was
possible, avoiding argument and not citing authority, to have made to
you a brief address. It was thought useless to argue a question which
now belongs to the past. The time is near at hand when the places which
have known us as colleagues laboring together can know us in that
relation no more for ever. I have striven to avert the catastrophe which
now impends over the country, unsuccessfully; and I regret it. For the
few days which I may remain, I am willing to labor in order that that
catastrophe shall be as little as possible destructive to public peace
and prosperity. If you desire at this last moment to avert civil war, so
be it; it is better so. If you will but allow us to separate from you
peaceably, since we can not live peaceably together, to leave with the
rights we had before we were united, since we can not enjoy them in the
Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us,
drawn from the associations of our struggles from the Revolutionary era
to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us.
If you will not have it thus--if in the pride of power, if in contempt
of reason, and reliance upon force, you say we shall not go, but shall
remain as subjects to you--then, gentlemen of the North, a war is to be
inaugurated the like of which men have not seen. Sufficiently numerous
on both sides, in close contact, with only imaginary lines of division,
and with many means of approach, each sustained by productive sections,
the people of which will give freely both of money and of store, the
conflicts must be multiplied indefinitely, and masses of men, sacrificed
to the demon of civil war, will furnish hecatombs, such as the recent
campaign in Italy did not offer. At the end of all this what will you
have effected? Destruction upon both sides; subjugation upon neither; a
treaty of peace leaving both torn and bleeding; the wail of the widow
and the cry of the orphan substituted for those peaceful notes of
domestic happiness that now prevail throughout the land; and then you
will agree that each is to pursue his separate course as best he may.
This is to be the end of war. Through a long series of years you may
waste your strength, distress your people, and yet at last must come to
the position which you might have had at first, had justice and reason,
instead of selfishness and passion, folly and crime, dictated your
course.
Is there wisdom, is there patriotism in the land? If so, easy must be
the solution of this question. If not, then Mississippi's gallant sons
will stand like a wall of fire around their State; and I go hence, not
in hostility to you, but in love and allegiance to her, to take my place
among her sons, be it for good or for evil.
I shall probably never again attempt to utter here the language either
of warning or of argument. I leave the case in your hands. If you solve
it not before I go, you will have still to decide it. Toward you
individually, as well as to those whom you represent, I would that I had
the power now to say there shall be peace between us for ever. I would
that I had the power now to say the intercourse and the commerce between
the States, if they can not live in one Union, shall still be
uninterrupted; that all the social relations shall remain undisturbed;
that the son in Mississippi shall visit freely his father in Maine, and
the reverse; and that each shall be welcomed when he goes to the other,
not by himself alone, but also by his neighbors; and that all that
kindly intercourse which has subsisted between the different sections of
the Union shall continue to exist. This is not only for the interest of
all, but it is my profoundest wish, my sincerest desire, that such
remnant of that which is passing away may grace the memory of a glorious
though too brief existence.
Day by day you have become more and more exasperated. False reports have
led you to suppose there was in our section hostility to you with
manifestations which did not exist. In one case, I well remember when
the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] was serving with me on a special
committee, it was reported that a gentleman who had gone from a
commercial house in New York had been inhumanly treated at Vicksburg,
and this embarrassed a question which we then had pending. I wrote to
Vicksburg for information, and my friends could not learn that such a
man had ever been there; but, if he had been there, no violence
certainly had been offered to him. Falsehood and suspicion have thus led
you on step by step in the career of crimination, and perhaps has
induced to some part of your aggression. Such evil effects we have
heretofore suffered, and the consequences now have their fatal
culmination. On the verge of war, distrust and passion increase the
danger. To-day it is in the power of two bad men, at the opposite ends
of the telegraphic line between Washington and Charleston, to
precipitate the State of South Carolina and the United States into a
conflict of arms without other cause to have produced it.
And still will you hesitate; still will you do nothing? Will you sit
with sublime indifference and allow events to shape themselves? No
longer can you say the responsibility is upon the Executive. He has
thrown it upon you. He has notified you that he can do nothing; and you
therefore know he will do nothing. He has told you the responsibility
now rests with Congress; and I close as I began, by invoking you to meet
that responsibility, bravely to act the patriot's part. If you will, the
angel of peace may spread her wings, though it be over divided States;
and the sons of the sires of the Revolution may still go on in friendly
intercourse with each other, ever renewing the memories of a common
origin; the sections, by the diversity of their products and habits,
acting and reacting beneficially, the commerce of each may swell the
prosperity of both, and the happiness of all be still interwoven
together. Thus may it be; and thus it is in your power to make it.
[Footnote 207: Here occurred a colloquy with another Senator, followed
by some paragraphs not essential to the completeness of the subject.]
APPENDIX I.
Correspondence and extracts from correspondence relative to Fort Sumter,
from the affair of the Star of the West, January 9, 1861, to the
withdrawal of the envoy of South Carolina from Washington, February 8,
1861.
_Major Anderson to the Governor of South Carolina.
To his Excellency the Governor of South Carolina._
Sir: Two of your batteries fired this morning upon an unarmed vessel
bearing the flag of my Government. As I have not been notified that war
has been declared by South Carolina against the Government of the United
States, I can not but think that this hostile act was committed without
your sanction or authority. Under that hope, and that alone, did I
refrain from opening fire upon your batteries.
I have the honor, therefore, respectfully to ask whether the
above-mentioned act--one I believe without a parallel in the history of
our country, or of any other civilized Government--was committed in
obedience to your instructions, and to notify you, if it be not
disclaimed, that I must regard it as an act of war, and that I shall
not, after a reasonable time for the return of my messenger, permit any
vessels to pass within range of the guns of my fort.
In order to save as far as in my power the shedding of blood, I beg that
you will have due notification of this my decision given to all
concerned.
Hoping, however, that your answer may be such as will justify a further
continuance of forbearance on my part, I have the honor to be,
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
_Major First Artillery U. S. A., commanding_.
Fort Sumter, South Carolina, _January 9, 1861_.
_Extracts from reply of the Governor to Major Anderson_.
State of South Carolina, Executive Office, Headquarters,
Charleston, _January 9, 1861_.
Sir: Your letter has been received. In it you make certain statements
which very plainly show that you have not been fully informed by your
Government of the precise relations which now exist between it and the
State of South Carolina. Official information has been communicated to
the Government of the United States that the political connection
heretofore existing between the State of South Carolina and the States
which were known as the United States had ceased, and that the State of
South Carolina had resumed all the power it had delegated to the United
States under the compact known as the Constitution of the United States.
The right which the State of South Carolina possessed to change the
political relations it held with other States, under the Constitution of
the United States, has been solemnly asserted by the people of this
State, in convention, and now does not admit of discussion.
* * * * *
The attempt to reënforce the troops now at Fort Sumter, or to retake and
resume possession of the forts within the waters of this State, which
you have abandoned, after spiking the guns placed there, and doing
otherwise much damage, can not be regarded by the authorities of this
State as indicative of any other purpose than the coercion of the State
by the armed force of the Government. To repel such an attempt is too
plainly its duty to allow it to be discussed. But, while defending its
waters, the authorities of the State have been careful so to conduct the
affairs of the State that no act, however necessary for its defense,
should lead to a useless waste of life. Special agents, therefore, have
been off the bar, to warn all approaching vessels, if armed, or unarmed
and having troops to reënforce the forts on board, not to enter the
harbor of Charleston; and special orders have been given to the
commanders of all the forts and batteries not to fire at such vessels
until a shot fired across their bows would warn them of the prohibition
of the State.
Under these circumstances, the Star of the West, it is understood, this
morning attempted to enter this harbor, with troops on board; and,
having been notified that she could not enter, was fired into. The act
is perfectly justified by me.
In regard to your threat in relation to vessels in the harbor, it is
only necessary to say, that you must judge of your responsibilities.
Your position in this harbor has been tolerated by the authorities of
the State. And, while the act of which you complain is in perfect
consistency with the rights and duties of the State, it is not perceived
how far the conduct which you propose to adopt can find a parallel in
the history of any country, or be reconciled with any other purpose of
your Government than that of imposing upon this State the condition of a
conquered province.
F. W. PICKENS.
To Major Robert Anderson, _commanding Fort Sumter_.
_Major Anderson to the Governor._
Headquarters, Fort Sumter, South Carolina, _January 9, 1861_.
To his Excellency F. W. PICKENS,
_Governor of the State of South Carolina._
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication
of to-day, and to say that, under the circumstances, I have deemed it
proper to refer the whole matter to my Government; and that I intend
deferring the course indicated in my note of this morning until the
arrival from Washington of the instructions I may receive. I have the
honor also to express a hope that no obstructions will be placed in the
way of, and that you will do me the favor to afford every facility to,
the departure and return of the bearer, Lieutenant T. Talbot, U. S.
Army, who has been directed to make the journey.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
_Major U. S. Army, commanding._
_The Governor to the President of the United States._
State of South Carolina, Executive Office,
Headquarters, Charleston, _January 11, 1861_.
Sir: At the time of the separation of the State of South Carolina from
the United States, Fort Sumter was, and still is, in the possession of
troops of the United States, under the command of Major Anderson. I
regard that possession as not consistent with the dignity or safety of
the State of South Carolina; and I have this day addressed to Major
Anderson a communication to obtain from him the possession of that fort,
by the authorities of this State. The reply of Major Anderson informs me
that he has no authority to do what I required, but he desires a
reference of the demand to the President of the United States.
Under the circumstances now existing, and which need no comment by me, I
have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the
Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him
to demand the delivery of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to
the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina.
The demand I have made of Major Anderson, and which I now make of you,
is suggested because of my earnest desire to avoid the bloodshed which a
persistence in your attempt to retain the possession of that fort will
cause, and which will be unavailing to secure you that possession, but
induce a calamity most deeply to be deplored.
If consequences so unhappy shall ensue, I will secure for this State, in
the demand which I now make, the satisfaction of having exhausted every
attempt to avoid it.
In relation to the public property of the United States within Fort
Sumter, the Hon. I. W. Hayne, who will hand you this communication, is
authorized to give you the pledge of the State that the valuation of
such property will be accounted for, by this State, upon the adjustment
of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part.
F. W. PICKENS.
_To the_ President _of the United States_.
_Extracts from instructions of the State Department of South Carolina to
Hon. I. W. Hayne_.
State of South Carolina, Executive Office,
State Department, Charleston, _January 12, 1861_.
Sir: The Governor has considered it proper, in view of the grave
questions which now affect the State of South Carolina and the United
States, to make a demand upon the President of the United States for the
delivery to the State of South Carolina of Fort Sumter, now within the
territorial limits of this Sate and occupied by troops of the United
States.
* * * * *
You are now instructed to proceed to Washington, and there, in the name
of the government of the State of South Carolina, inquire of the
President of the United States whether it was by his order that troops
of the United States were sent into the harbor of Charleston to
reënforce Fort Sumter; if he avows that order, you will then inquire
whether he asserts a right to introduce troops of the United States
within the limits of this State, to occupy Fort Sumter; and you will, in
case of his avowal, inform him that neither will be permitted, and
either will be regarded as his declaration of war against the State of
South Carolina.
The Governor, to save life, and determined to omit no course of
proceeding usual among civilized nations, previous to that condition of
general hostilities which belongs to war, and not knowing under what
order, or by what authority, Fort Sumter is now held, demanded from
Major Robert Anderson, now in command of that fort, its delivery to the
State. That officer, in his reply, has referred the Governor to the
Government of the United States at Washington. You will, therefore,
demand from the President of the United States the withdrawal of the
troops of the United States from that fort, and its delivery to the
State of South Carolina.
You are instructed not to allow any question of property claimed by the
United States to embarrass the assertion of the political right of the
State of South Carolina to the possession of Fort Sumter. The possession
of that fort by the State is alone consistent with the dignity and
safety of the State of South Carolina; but such possession is not
inconsistent with a right to compensation in money in another
Government, if it has against the State of South Carolina any just claim
connected with that fort. But the possession of the fort can not, in
regard to the State of South Carolina, be compensated by any
consideration of any kind from the Government of the United States, when
the possession of it by the Government is invasive of the dignity and
affects the safety of the State. That possession can not become now a
matter of discussion or negotiation. You will, therefore, require from
the President of the United States a positive and distinct answer to
your demand for the delivery of the fort. And you are further authorized
to give the pledge of the State to adjust all matters which may be, and
are in their nature, susceptible of valuation in money, in the manner
most usual, and upon the principles of equity and justice always
recognized by independent nations, for the ascertainment of their
relative rights and obligations in such matters....
Respectfully, your obedient servant, A. G. MAGRATH.
_To Hon._ W. Hayne, _special envoy from the State of South Carolina to
the President of the United States_.
_Letter of Senators of seceding States to Hon. I. W. Hayne_.
Washington City, _January 15, 1861_.
Hon. Isaac W. Hayne.
Sir: We are apprised that you visit Washington, as an envoy from the
State of South Carolina, bearing a communication from the Governor of
your State to the President of the United States, in relation to Fort
Sumter. Without knowing its contents, we venture to request you to defer
its delivery to the President for a few days, or until you and he have
considered the suggestions which we beg leave to submit.
We know that the possession of Fort Sumter by troops of the United
States, coupled with the circumstances under which it was taken, is the
chief, if not only, source of difficulty between the government of South
Carolina and that of the United States. We would add that we, too, think
it a just cause of irritation and of apprehension on the part of your
State. But we have also assurances, notwithstanding the circumstances
under which Major Anderson left Fort Moultrie and entered Fort Sumter
with the forces under his command, that it was not taken, and is not
held, with any hostile or unfriendly purpose toward your State, but
merely as property of the United States, which the President deems it
his duty to protect and preserve.
We will not discuss the question of right or duty on the part of either
Government touching that property, or the late acts of either in
relation thereto; but we think that, without any compromise of right or
breach of duty on either side, an amicable adjustment of the matter of
differences may and should be adopted. We desire to see such an
adjustment, and to prevent war or the shedding of blood. We represent
States which have already seceded from the United States, or will have
done so before the 1st of February next, and which will meet your State
in convention on or before the 15th of that month. Our people feel that
they have a common destiny with your people, and expect to form with
them, in that Convention, a new Confederation and Provisional
Government. We must and will share your fortunes, suffering with you the
evils of war if it can not be avoided; and enjoying with you the
blessings of peace, if it can be preserved. We, therefore, think it
especially due from South Carolina to our States--to say nothing of
other slaveholding States--that she should, as far as she can,
consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her
and the United States or any other power. We have the public declaration
of the President that he has not the constitutional power or the will to
make war on South Carolina, and that the public peace shall not be
disturbed by any act of hostility toward your State.
We, therefore, see no reason why there may not be a settlement of
existing difficulties, if time be given for calm and deliberate counsel
with those States which are equally involved with South Carolina. We,
therefore, trust that an arrangement will be agreed on between you and
the President, at least till the 15th of February next; by which time
your and our States may, in convention, devise a wise, just, and
peaceable solution of existing difficulties.
In the mean time, we think your State should suffer Major Anderson to
obtain necessary supplies of food, fuel, or water, and enjoy free
communication, by post or special messenger, with the President; upon
the understanding that the President will not send him reënforcements
during the same period. We propose to submit this proposition and your
answer to the President.
If not clothed with power to make such arrangement, then we trust that
you will submit our suggestions to the Governor of your State for his
instructions. Until you have received and communicated his response to
the President, of course your State will not attack Fort Sumter, and the
President will not offer to reënforce it.
We most respectfully submit these propositions, in the earnest hope that
you, or the proper authority of your State, may accede to them.
We have the honor to be, with profound esteem,
Your obedient servants,
LOUIS T. WIGFALL,
JOHN HEMPHILL,
D. L. YULEE,
S. R. MALLORY,
JEFFERSON DAVIS,
C. C. CLAY, Jr.,
BENJAMIN FITZPATRICK,
A. IVERSON,
JOHN SLIDELL,
J. P. BENJAMIN.
_Letter of Hon. I. W. Hayne in reply to Senators from seceding States._
Washington, _January, 1861_.
Gentlemen: I have just received your communication, dated the 15th
instant. You represent, you say, States which have already seceded from
the United States, or _will have_ done so before the 1st of February
next, and which will meet South Carolina in convention, on or before
the 15th of that month; that your people feel they have a common destiny
with our people, and expect to form with them in that Convention a new
Confederacy and Provisional Government; that you must and _will_ share
our fortunes, suffering with us the evils of war, if it can not be
avoided, and enjoying with us the blessings of peace, if it _can_ be
preserved.
I feel, gentlemen, the force of this appeal, and, so far as my authority
extends, most cheerfully comply with your request.
I am _not_ clothed with power to make the arrangements you suggest, but
provided you can get assurances, with which you are entirely satisfied,
that _no_ reënforcements will be sent to Fort Sumter in the interval,
and that public peace shall _not_ be disturbed by any act of hostility
toward South Carolina, I will refer your communication to the
authorities of South Carolina, and, withholding their communication,
with which I am at present charged, will wait for their instructions.
Major Anderson and his command, let me assure you, _do_ now obtain all
necessary supplies of food (including fresh meat and vegetables), and, I
believe, fuel and water; and _do_ now enjoy free communication, by post
and special messengers, with the President, and will continue to do so,
certainly, until the door of negotiation shall be closed.
If your proposition is acceded to, you may assure the President that
_no_ attack will be made on Fort Sumter until a response from the
Governor of South Carolina has been received by me, and communicated to
him.
With great consideration and profound esteem,
Your obedient servant,
ISAAC W. HAYNE,
_Envoy from the Governor and Council of South Carolina._
_Letter of Senators of seceding States to the President._
Senate-Chamber, _January 19, 1861_.
Sir: We have been requested to present to you copies of a correspondence
between certain Senators of the United States and Colonel Isaac W.
Hayne, now in this city, in behalf of the government of South Carolina,
and to ask that you will take into consideration the subject of said
correspondence. Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
BENJAMIN FITZPATRICK,
S. R. MALLORY,
JOHN SLIDELL.
To his Excellency James Buchanan, _President United States_.
To the letter above, an evasive reply was returned on the 22d by the
Hon. Joseph Holt, Secretary of War _ad interim_, on behalf of the
President, the material points of which are contained in the following
paragraph:
In regard to the proposition of Colonel Hayne, that "no reënforcements
will be sent to Fort Sumter in the interval, and that the public peace
will not be disturbed by any act of hostility toward South Carolina," it
is impossible for me to give you any such assurances. The President has
no authority to enter into such an agreement or understanding. As an
executive officer, he is simply bound to protect the public property, so
far as this may be practicable; and it would be a manifest violation of
his duty to place himself under engagements that he would not perform
this duty either for an indefinite or limited period. At the present
moment it is not deemed necessary to reënforce Major Anderson, because
he makes no such request, and feels quite secure in his position. Should
his safety, however, require reënforcements, every effort will be made
to supply them.
Mr. Holt concludes his letter by saying:
Major Anderson is not menacing Charleston; and I am convinced that the
happiest result which can be attained is, that both he and the
authorities of South Carolina shall remain on their present amicable
footing, neither party being bound by any obligations whatever, except
the high Christian and moral duty to keep the peace, and to avoid all
causes of mutual irritation. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. HOLT, _Secretary of War ad interim._
_Letter of Senators of seceding States to Hon. I. W. Hayne._
Hon. Isaac W. Hayne. Washington, _January 23, 1861_.
Sir: In answer to your letter of the 17th inst. we have now to inform
you that, after communicating with the President, we have received a
letter signed by the Secretary of War, and addressed to Messrs.
Fitzpatrick, Mallory, and Slidell, on the subject of our proposition,
which letter we now inclose to you. Although its terms are not as
satisfactory as we could have desired, in relation to the ulterior
purposes of the Executive, we have no hesitation in expressing our
entire confidence that no reënforcements will be sent to Fort Sumter,
nor will the public peace be disturbed within the period requisite for
full communication between yourself and your government; and we trust,
therefore, that you will feel justified in applying for further
instructions before delivering to the President any message with which
you may have been charged.
We take this occasion to renew the expression of an earnest hope that
South Carolina will not deem it incompatible with her safety, dignity;
or honor to refrain from initiating any hostilities against any power
whatsoever, or from taking any steps tending to produce collision, until
our States, which are to share her fortunes, shall have an opportunity
of joining their counsels with hers.
We are, with great respect, your obedient servants,
LOUIS T. WIGFALL,
D. L. YULEE,
J. P. BENJAMIN,
A. IVERSON,
JOHN HEMPHILL,
JOHN SLIDELL,
C. C. CLAY, Jr.
P.S.--Some of the signatures to the former letter addressed to you are
not affixed to the foregoing communication, in consequence of the
departure of several Senators, now on their way to their respective
States.
_Letter of Hon. I. W. Hayne to Senators of seceding States._
To the Honorable Louis T. Wigfall, D. L. Yulee, J. P. Benjamin, A.
Iverson, John Hemphill, John Slidell, and C. C. Clay, Jr.
Gentlemen: I have received your letter of the 23d inst., inclosing a
communication dated the 22d inst., addressed to Messrs. Fitzpatrick,
Mallory, and Slidell, from the Secretary of War _ad interim_. This
communication from the Secretary is far from being satisfactory to me.
But, inasmuch as you state that "we (you) have no hesitation in
expressing an entire confidence that no reënforcement will be sent to
Fort Sumter, nor will the public peace be disturbed within the period
requisite for full communication between yourself (myself) and your (my)
Government," in compliance with our previous understanding, I withhold
the communication with which I am at present charged, and refer the
whole matter to the authorities of South Carolina, and will await their
reply.
Mr. Gourdin, of South Carolina, now in this city, will leave here by the
evening's train, and will lay before the Governor of South Carolina and
his Council the whole correspondence between yourselves and myself, and
between you and the Government of the United States, with a
communication from me, asking further instructions.
I can not, in closing, but express my deep regret that the President
should deem it necessary to keep a garrison of troops at Fort Sumter for
the protection of the "_property_" of the United States. South Carolina
scorns the idea of appropriating to herself the _property_ of another,
whether of a government or an individual, without accounting, to the
last dollar, for everything which, for the protection of her citizens
and in vindication of her own honor and dignity, she may deem it
necessary to take into her own possession. As _property_, Fort Sumter is
in far greater jeopardy occupied by a garrison of United States troops
than it would be if delivered over to the State authorities, with the
pledge that, in regard to that and all other property claimed by the
United States within the jurisdiction of South Carolina, they would
fully account, upon a fair adjustment.
Upon the other point of the preservation of the peace, and the avoidance
of bloodshed--is it supposed that the occupation of a fort in the midst
of a harbor, with guns bearing upon every position of it, by a
Government no longer acknowledged, can be other than the occasion of
constant irritation, excitement, and indignation? It creates a condition
of things which I fear is but little calculated to advance the
observance of the "high Christian and moral duty to keep the peace, and
to avoid all causes of mutual irritation," recommended by the Secretary
of War in his communication.
In my judgment, to continue to hold Fort Sumter, by United States
troops, is the worst possible means of protecting it as property, and
the worst possible means for effecting a peaceful solution of present
difficulties.
I beg leave, in conclusion, to say that it is in deference to the
unanimous opinion expressed by the Senators present in Washington,
"representing States which have already seceded from the United States,
or will have done so before the 1st of February next," that I comply
with your suggestions. And I feel assured that suggestions from such a
quarter will be considered with profound respect by the authorities of
South Carolina, and will have great weight in determining their action.
With high consideration, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your
obedient servant,
ISAAC W. HAYNE,
_Envoy from the Governor and Council of South Carolina._
_Mr. Hayne to the President of the United States_.
Washington, _January_ 31, 1861.
To his Excellency James Buchanan, _President_.
Sir: I had the honor to hold a short interview with you on the 14th
inst., informal and unofficial. Having previously been informed that you
desired that whatever was official should be, on both sides, conducted
by written communications, I did not at that time present my
credentials, but verbally informed you that I bore a letter from the
Governor of South Carolina in regard to the occupation of Fort Sumter,
which I would deliver the next day under cover of a written
communication from myself. The next day, before such communication could
be made, I was waited upon by a Senator from Alabama, who stated that he
came on the part of all the Senators then in Washington from the States
which had already seceded from the United States, or would certainly
have done so before the 1st day of February next. The Senator from
Alabama urged that he and they were interested in the subject of my
mission in almost an equal degree with the authorities of South
Carolina. He said that hostilities commenced between South Carolina and
your Government would necessarily involve the States represented by
themselves in civil strife, and, fearing that the action of South
Carolina might complicate the relations of your Government to the
seceded and seceding States, and thereby interfere with a peaceful
solution of existing difficulties, these Senators requested that I would
withhold my message to yourself until a consultation among themselves
could be had. To this I agreed, and the result of the consultation was
the letter of these Senators addressed to me, dated 15th January, a copy
of which is in your possession. To this letter I replied on the 17th,
and a copy of that reply is likewise in your possession. This
correspondence, as I am informed, was made the subject of a
communication from Senators Fitzpatrick, Mallory, and Slidell, addressed
to you, and your attention called to the contents. These gentlemen
received on the 22d day of January a reply to their application,
conveyed in a letter addressed to them, dated the 22d, signed by the
Hon. J. Holt, Secretary of War _ad interim_. Of this letter you of
course have a copy. This letter from Mr. Holt was communicated to me
under the cover of a letter from all the Senators of the seceded and
seceding States, who still remained in Washington; and of this letter,
too, I am informed you have been furnished with a copy.
This reply of yours through the Secretary of War _ad interim_ to the
application made by the Senators, was entirely unsatisfactory to me. It
appeared to me to be not only a rejection in advance of the main
proposition made by these Senators, to wit, that "an arrangement should
be agreed on between the authorities of South Carolina and your
Government, at least until the 15th of February next, by which time
South Carolina and the States represented by the Senators might, in
convention, devise a wise, just, and peaceable solution of existing
difficulties"; "in the mean time," they say, "we think" (that is, these
Senators) "that your State" (South Carolina) "should suffer Major
Anderson to obtain necessary supplies of food, fuel, or water, and enjoy
free communication, by post or special messenger, with the President,
upon the understanding that the President will not send him
reënforcements during the same period"; but, besides this rejection of
the main proposition, there was in Mr. Holt's letter a distinct refusal
to make any stipulation on the subject of reënforcement, even for the
short time that might be required to communicate with my government.
This reply to the Senators was, as I have stated, altogether
unsatisfactory to me, and I felt sure that it would be so to the
authorities whom I represented. It was not, however, addressed to me, or
to the authorities of South Carolina; and, as South Carolina had
addressed nothing to your Government, and had asked nothing at your
hands, I looked not to Mr. Holt's letter but to the note addressed to me
by the Senators of the seceded and seceding States. I had consented to
withhold my message at _their_ instance, provided they could get
assurances _satisfactory to them_ that no reënforcements would be sent
to Fort Sumter in the interval, and that the peace should not be
disturbed by any act of hostility. The Senators expressed, in their note
to me of the 23d instant, their "entire confidence that no
reënforcements will be sent to Fort Sumter, nor will the public peace be
disturbed within the period requisite for full communication between you
(myself) and your (my) Government"; and renewed their request that I
would withhold the communication with which I stood charged, and await
further instructions. This I have done. The further instructions arrived
on the 30th instant and bear date the 26th. I now have the honor to make
to you my first communication as special envoy from the government of
South Carolina. You will find inclosed the original communication to the
President of the United States from the Governor of South Carolina, with
which I was charged in Charleston on the 12th day of January, instant,
the day on which it bears date. I am now instructed by the Governor of
South Carolina to say that "his opinion as to the propriety of the
demand which is contained in this letter has not only been confirmed by
the circumstances which your (my) mission has developed, but is now
increased to a conviction of its necessity. The safety of the State
requires that the position of the President should be distinctly
understood. The safety of all seceding States requires it as much as the
safety of South Carolina. If it be so, that Fort Sumter is held as
_property_, then as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the
United States can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these
rights the pledge of the State of South Carolina you are" (I am)
"authorized to give. If Fort Sumter is not held as property, it is
held," say my instructions, "as a military post, and such a post within
the limits of South Carolina can not be tolerated."
You will perceive that it is upon the presumption that it is solely as
property that you continue to hold Fort Sumter that I have been selected
for the performance of the duty upon which I have entered. I do not come
as a military man to demand the surrender of a fortress, but as the
legal officer of the State, its Attorney-General, to claim for the State
the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the
State to make good all injury to the rights of property which may arise
from the exercise of the claim.
South Carolina, as a separate, independent sovereignty, assumes the
right to take into her possession everything within her limits essential
to maintain her honor or her safety, irrespective of the question of
property, subject only to the moral duty requiring that compensation
should be made to the owner. This right she can not permit to be drawn
into discussion. As to compensation for any property, whether of an
individual or a Government, which she may deem it necessary for her
honor or safety to take into her possession, her past history gives
ample guarantee that it will be made, upon a fair accounting, to the
last dollar. The proposition now is, that her law officer should, under
authority of the Governor and his Council, distinctly pledge the faith
of South Carolina to make such compensation in regard to Fort Sumter,
and its appurtenances and contents, to the full extent of the money
value of the property of the United States delivered over to the
authorities of South Carolina by your command.
I will not suppose that a pledge like this can be considered
insufficient security. Is not the money value of the property of the
United States in this fort, situated where it can not be made available
to the United States for any one purpose for which it was originally
constructed, worth more to the United States than the property itself?
Why, then, _as property_, insist on holding it by an armed garrison? Yet
such has been the ground upon which you have invariably placed your
occupancy of this fort by troops; beginning, prospectively, with your
annual message of the 4th December; again in your special message of the
9th (8th) January, and still more emphatically in your message of the
28th January. The same position is set forth in your reply to the
Senators, through the Secretary of War _ad interim_. It is there
virtually conceded that Fort Sumter "is held merely as property of the
United States, which you deem it your duty, to protect and preserve."
Again, it is submitted that the continuance of an armed possession
actually jeopards the property you desire to protect. It is impossible
but that such a possession, if continued long enough, must lead to
collision. No people, not completely abject and pusillanimous, could
submit, indefinitely, to the armed occupation of a fortress in the midst
of the harbor of its principal city, and commanding the ingress and
egress of every ship that enters the port, the daily ferry-boats that
ply upon the waters moving but at the sufferance of aliens. An attack
upon this fort would scarcely improve it as property, whatever the
result; and, if captured, it would no longer be the subject of account.
To protect Fort Sumter, merely as property, it is submitted that an
armed occupancy is not only unnecessary, but that it is manifestly the
worst possible means which can be resorted to for such an object.
Your reply to the Senators, through Mr. Holt, declares it to be your
sole object "to act strictly on the defensive, and to authorize no
movement against South Carolina unless justified by a hostile movement
on their part," yet, in reply to the proposition of the Senators that no
reënforcements should be sent to Fort Sumter, provided South Carolina
agrees that during the same period no attack should be made, you say:
"It is impossible for me (your Secretary) to give you (the Senators) any
such assurance," that it "would be a manifest violation of his (your)
duty to place himself (yourself) under engagements that he (you) would
not perform the duty either for an indefinite or a limited period."
In your message of the 28th inst., in expressing yourself in regard to a
similar proposition, you say: "However strong may be my desire to enter
into such an agreement, I am convinced that I do not possess the power.
Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making power, can exercise
the discretion of agreeing to abstain 'from any and all acts calculated
to produce a collision of arms' between this and other governments. It
would, therefore, be a usurpation for the Executive to attempt to
restrain their hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he
has no constitutional control. If he were thus to act, they might pass
laws which he should be bound to obey, though in conflict with his
agreement." The proposition, it is suggested, was addressed to you under
the laws as they now are, and was not intended to refer to a new
condition of things arising under new legislation. It was addressed to
the Executive discretion, acting under existing laws. If Congress
should, under the war-making power, or in any other way, legislate in a
manner to affect the peace of South Carolina, her interests or her
rights, it would not be accomplished in secret. South Carolina would
have timely notice, and she would, I trust, endeavor to meet the
emergency.
It is added in the letter of Mr. Holt that "at the present moment it is
not deemed necessary to reënforce Major Anderson, because he makes no
such request, and feels quite secure in his position. But, should his
safety require it, every effort will be made to supply reënforcements."
This would seem to ignore the other branch of the proposition made by
the Senators, viz., that no attack was to be made on Fort Sumter during
the period suggested, and that Major Anderson should enjoy the
facilities of communication, etc.
I advert to this point, however, for the purpose of saying that to send
reënforcements to Fort Sumter could not serve as a means of _protecting_
and _preserving_ property, for, as must be known to your Government, it
would inevitably lead to immediate hostilities, in which property on all
sides would necessarily suffer.
South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace, and
feels, I am sure, in full force, those high "Christian and moral duties"
referred to by your Secretary; and it is submitted that on her part
there is scarcely any consideration of mere property, apart from honor
and safety, which could induce her to do aught to jeopard that peace,
still less to inaugurate a protracted and bloody civil war. She rests
her position on something higher than mere property. It is a
consideration of her own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her
people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer
be used as a military post by a Government she no longer acknowledges.
She feels this to be an imperative duty. It has, in fact, become an
absolute necessity of her condition.
Repudiating, as you do, the idea of coercion, avowing peaceful
intentions, and expressing a patriot's horror for civil war and bloody
strife among those who once were brethren, it is hoped that on further
consideration you will not, on a mere question of property, refuse the
reasonable demand of South Carolina, which honor and necessity alike
compel her to vindicate. Should you disappoint this hope, the
responsibility for the result surely does not rest with her. If the
evils of war are to be encountered, especially the calamities of civil
war, an elevated statesmanship would seem to require that it should be
accepted as the unavoidable alternative of something still more
disastrous, such as national dishonor or measures materially affecting
the safety or permanent interests of a people--that it should be a
choice deliberately made, and entered upon as war, and of set purpose.
But that war should be the incident or accident, attendant on a policy
professedly peaceful, and not required to effect the object which is
avowed as the only end intended, can only be excused when there has been
no warning given as to the consequences.
I am further instructed to say that South Carolina can not, by her
silence, appear to acquiesce in the imputation that she was guilty of an
act of unprovoked aggression in firing on the Star of the West. Though
an unarmed vessel, she was filled with armed men entering her territory
against her will, with the purpose of reënforcing a garrison held,
within her limits, against her protest. She forbears to recriminate by
discussing the question of the propriety of attempting such a
reënforcement at all, as well as of the disguised and secret manner in
which it was intended to be effected. And on this occasion she will say
nothing as to the manner in which Fort Sumter was taken into the
possession of its present occupants.
The interposition of the Senators who have addressed you was a
circumstance unexpected by my government, and unsolicited certainly by
me. The Governor, while he appreciates the high and generous motives by
which they were prompted, and while he fully approves the delay which,
in deference to them, has taken place in the presentation of this
demand, feels that it can not longer be withheld.
I conclude with an extract from the instructions just received by me
from the government of South Carolina:
"The letter of the President, through Mr. Holt, may be received as the
reply to the question you were instructed to ask, as to his assertion of
his right to send reënforcements to Fort Sumter. You were instructed to
say to him, if he asserted that right, that the State of South Carolina
regarded such a right when asserted, or with an attempt at its exercise,
as a declaration of war.
"If the President intends it shall not be so understood, it is proper,
to avoid any misconception hereafter, that he should be informed of the
manner in which the Governor will feel bound to regard it.
"If the President, when you have stated the reasons which prompt the
Governor in making the demand for the delivery of Sumter, shall refuse
to deliver the fort upon the pledge you have been authorized to make,
you will communicate that refusal without delay to the Governor. If the
President shall not be prepared to give you an immediate answer, you
will communicate to him that his answer may be transmitted within a
reasonable time to the Governor at this place (Charleston, South
Carolina).
"The Governor does not consider it necessary that you (I) should remain
longer in Washington than is necessary to execute this, the closing duty
of your (my) mission, in the manner now indicated to you (me). As soon
as the Governor shall receive from you information that you have closed
your mission, and the reply, whatever it may be, of the President, he
will consider the conduct which may be necessary on his part."
Allow me to request that you would, as soon as possible, inform me
whether, under these instructions, I need await your answer in
Washington; and, if not, I would be pleased to convey from you, to my
government, information as to the time when an answer may be expected in
Charleston.
With high consideration,
I am, very respectfully,
ISAAC W. HAYNE, _Special Envoy_.
Some further correspondence ensued, but without the presentation of any
new feature necessary to a full understanding of the case. The result
was to leave it as much unsettled in the end as it had been in the
beginning, and the efforts at negotiation were terminated by the
retirement from Washington of Colonel Hayne on the 8th of February,
1861.
APPENDIX K.
THE CONSTITUTIONS.
The Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States, adopted on the
8th of February, 1861, is here presented, followed by the Constitution
of the United States, with all its amendments to the period of the
secession of the Southern States, and the permanent Constitution of the
Confederate States (adopted on the 11th of March, 1861), in parallel
columns. The variations from the Constitution of the United States, in
the permanent Constitution of the Confederate States, are indicated by
italics; the parts omitted by periods.
Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of
America.
We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States of South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana,
invoking the favor of Almighty God, do hereby, in behalf of these
States, ordain and establish this Constitution for the provisional
Government of the same: to continue one year from the inauguration of
the President, or until a permanent Constitution or Confederation
between the said States shall be put in operation, whichsoever shall
first occur.
ARTICLE I.
Section 1.--All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in
this Congress now assembled until otherwise ordained.
Section 2.--When vacancies happen in the representation from any State,
the same shall be filled in such manner as the proper authorities of the
State shall direct.
Section 3.--1. The Congress shall be the judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of its members; any number of deputies from
a majority of the States being present, shall constitute a quorum to do
business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be
authorized to compel the attendance of absent members; upon all
questions before the Congress each State shall be entitled to one vote,
and shall be represented by any one or more of its deputies who may be
present.
2. The Congress may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two
thirds, expel a member.
3. The Congress shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time
to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment
require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members on any question
shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, or at the instance
of any one State, be entered on the journal.
Section 4.--The members of Congress shall receive a compensation for
their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury
of the Confederacy. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and
breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance
at the session of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the
same; and for any speech or debate they shall not be questioned in any
other place.
Section 5.--1. Every bill which shall have passed the Congress shall,
before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the
Confederacy; if he approve, he shall sign it; but, if not, he shall
return it with his objections to the Congress, who shall enter the
objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If,
after such reconsideration, two thirds of the Congress shall agree to
pass the bill, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes
shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the persons
voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal. If any
bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a
law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by
their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a
law. The President may veto any appropriation or appropriations, and
approve any other appropriation or appropriations, in the same bill.
2. Every order, resolution, or vote intended to have the force and
effect of a law, shall be presented to the President, and, before the
same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved
by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Congress, according to
the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
3. Until the inauguration of the President, all bills, orders,
resolutions, and votes adopted by the Congress shall be of full force
without approval by him.
Section 6.--1. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts, and excises, for the revenue necessary to pay the debts
and carry on the Government of the Confederacy; and all duties, imposts,
and excises shall be uniform throughout the States of the Confederacy.
2. To borrow money on the credit of the Confederacy.
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes.
4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the
subject of bankruptcies throughout the Confederacy.
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and
fix the standard of weights and measures.
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the Confederacy.
7. To establish post-offices and post-roads.
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the
high-seas, and offenses against the law of nations.
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water.
12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that
use shall be for a longer term than two years.
13. To provide and maintain a navy.
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces.
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Confederacy, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion.
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
Confederacy, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress.
17. To make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers expressly
delegated by this Constitution to this provisional Government.
18. The Congress shall have power to admit other States.
19. This Congress shall also exercise executive powers until the
President is inaugurated.
Section 7.--1. The importation of African negroes from any foreign
country, other than the slaveholding States of the United States, is
hereby forbidden; and Congress are required to pass such laws as shall
effectually prevent the same.
2. The Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.
3. The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be suspended
unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may
require it.
4. No bill of attainder or _ex post facto_ law shall be passed.
5. No preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or
revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall
vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay
duties in another.
6. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the
receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from
time to time.
7. Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury unless it be
asked and estimated for by the President or some one of the heads of
departments, except for the purpose of paying its own expenses and
contingencies.
8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederacy; and no
person holding any office of profit or trust under it shall, without the
consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or
title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.
9. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of such grievances
as the delegated powers of this Government may warrant it to consider
and redress.
10. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
11. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house
without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to
be prescribed by law.
12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not
be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
13. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation.
14. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him;
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to
have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
15. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no
fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reëxamined in any court of the
Confederacy than according to the rules of the common law.
16. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
17. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
18. The powers not delegated to the Confederacy by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
19. The judicial power of the Confederacy shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
of the States of the Confederacy, by citizens of another State, or by
citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Section 8.--1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit
bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, or
law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of
nobility.
2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts
or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and
imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use
of the Treasury of the Confederacy, and all such laws shall be subject
to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall, without the
consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, enter into any agreement
or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war
unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of
delay.
ARTICLE II.
Section 1.--1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the
Confederate States of America. He, together with the Vice-President,
shall hold his office for one year, or until this Provisional Government
shall be superseded by a permanent Government, whichsoever shall first
occur.
2. The President and Vice-President shall be elected by ballot by the
States represented in this Congress, each State casting one vote, and a
majority of the whole being requisite to elect.
3. No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of one of the
States of this Confederacy at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither
shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident of one
of the States of this Confederacy.
4. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
office (which inability shall be determined by a vote of two thirds of
the Congress), the same shall devolve on the Vice-President; and the
Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation,
or inability both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what
officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act
accordingly, until the disability be removed or a President shall be
elected.
5. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services during
the period of the Provisional Government a compensation at the rate of
twenty-five thousand dollars per annum; and he shall not receive during
that period any other emolument from this Confederacy, or any of the
States thereof.
6. Before he enters on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following oath or affirmation:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the Confederate States of America, and will, to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
thereof.
Section 2.--1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and
Navy of the Confederacy, and of the militia of the several States, when
called into the actual service of the Confederacy; he may require the
opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive
departments, upon subjects relating to the duties of their respective
offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
offenses against the Confederacy, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Congress, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Congress concur;
and he shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the
Congress, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and
consuls, judges of the courts, and all other officers of the Confederacy
whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by law. But the Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
3. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may
happen during the recess of the Congress, by granting commissions which
shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3.--1. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
information of the state of the Confederacy, and recommend to their
consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Congress at such times
as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public
ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and
shall commission all the officers of the Confederacy.
2. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the
Confederacy shall be removed from office on conviction by the Congress
of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; a vote of
two thirds shall be necessary for such conviction.
ARTICLE III.
Section 1.--1. The judicial power of the Confederacy shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as are herein directed,
or as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
2. Each State shall constitute a district in which there shall be a
court called a District Court, which, until otherwise provided by the
Congress, shall have the jurisdiction vested by the laws of the United
States, as far as applicable, in both the District and Circuit Courts of
the United States, for that State; the judge whereof shall be appointed
by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Congress, and
shall, until otherwise provided by the Congress, exercise the power and
authority vested by the laws of the United States in the judges of the
District and Circuit Courts of the United States for that State, and
shall appoint the times and places at which the courts shall be held.
Appeals may be taken directly from the District Courts to the Supreme
Court, under similar regulations to those which are provided in cases of
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, or under such
regulations as may be provided by the Congress. The commissions of all
the judges shall expire with this provisional Government.
3. The Supreme Court shall be constituted of all the district judges, a
majority of whom shall be a quorum, and shall sit at such times and
places as the Congress shall appoint.
4. The Congress shall have power to make laws for the transfer of any
causes which were pending in the courts of the United States to the
courts of the Confederacy, and for the execution of the orders, decrees,
and judgments heretofore rendered by the said courts of the United
States; and also all laws which may be requisite to protect the parties
to all such suits, orders, judgments, or decrees, their heirs, personal
representatives, or assignees.
Section 2.--1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases of law and
equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States
and of this Confederacy, and treaties made, or which shall be made,
under its authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Confederacy shall be a
party; controversies between two or more States; between citizens of
different States; between citizens of the same State claiming lands
under grants of different States.
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as
to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the
Congress shall make.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but, when not committed within any State, the
trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have
directed.
Section 3.--1. Treason against this Confederacy shall consist only in
levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid
and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
open court.
2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason;
but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or
forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.
ARTICLE IV.
Section 1.--1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such
acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect of such
proof.
Section 2.--1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime,
who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on
demand of the Executive authority of the State from which he fled, be
delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the
crime.
3. A slave in one State escaping to another shall be delivered up, on
claim of the party to whom said slave may belong, by the Executive
authority of the State in which such slave shall be found, and, in case
of any abduction or forcible rescue, full compensation, including the
value of the slave and all costs and expenses, shall be made to the
party by the State in which such abduction or rescue shall take place.
Section 3.--1. The Confederacy shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature can not be convened), against domestic
violence.
ARTICLE V.