CHAPTER IX

THE MODERN ORATORS

The need of orators is as great today as when John Hampden spoke

against the exactions of Charles I, James Otis argued against writs

of assistance, or Daniel Webster expounded the Constitution of his

country. The need is here, but where are the orators? Questions of

great moment now confront America and the world, but there is no

Demosthenes to arouse men to the necessity of action, no Cicero to

drive out the traitor Injustice, no Patrick Henry to consolidate the

forces of Liberty. The power of the newspaper is great, and today it

is doing noble work for progress; but this power can be used, and is

being used, for evil as well as for good. A subsidized press is as

dangerous as a Catiline or an Aeschines, and government by newspapers

is as tyrannous as was the rule of Nero, Louis XI, or George III. The

questions of the tariff, the trusts, finance, religion, education,

and civic justice are burning, vital ones that closely affect the

well-being of man on earth and his preparation for a larger existence

in a hopeful spiritual future, and they should be plainly and

honestly presented, clearly discussed, and justly settled. These

results cannot be reached through papers that are owned by the great

financiers and trust magnates, and where the complaints and demands

of the people receive scant consideration. Wherein, then, lie the

hopes of the masses? In the power of the spoken word. All great

reforms, through all ages, have been brought about by the voiced

thoughts of men who not only knew their rights but had the courage

that gave them the ability to enforce them. A band of noble

missionaries should be created, composed of men and women who not

only have ideas concerning the questions of today but who know how to

express those ideas by word of mouth.

The eighteenth century produced oratorical giants that were

undoubtedly equal in many cases to the orators of Greece and Rome in

their palmiest days. Such men as the Earl of Chatham, Charles James

Fox, Henry Grattan, Lord Brougham, Thomas Erskine, and William C.

Plunket of Great Britain, and James Otis, Samuel Adams, Alexander

Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee of America, compare

favorably with any group of ancient orators existing within a like

period of time; while in behalf of the nineteenth century, America

boasts of Pinckney, Prentiss, Wirt, Clay, Calhoun, Everett, Choate,

Phillips, Lincoln, and Webster, and Great Britain points to

Gladstone, Cobden, Curran, O'Connell, and Bright. The great

rhetorician Burke is not placed among the foremost orators for the

reason that he was a great constructor of speeches but not equally

great in the art of delivery. His speeches are masterpieces of

composition, and live today as such, but he was a poor speaker, and

consequently should not be called an orator, because an orator, in

the true sense of the word, is primarily a speaker, whereas Burke's

genius consisted of his masterly logic and his marvellous power of

composition.

Today, America has many beautiful writers and clever constructors of

speeches, but not one really great orator. Theodore Roosevelt and

William J. Bryan are two representatives of the best this country can

offer in the way of orators, but neither of them measures up to the

standard of Edward Everett, Wendell Phillips, or Daniel Webster. The

main reason for the dearth of real orators is the lack of training in

the art of delivery. Much attention is given to gaining a knowledge

of the matter that is to be spoken, but little consideration is given

to the delivery of that matter to the listener after once it has been

gathered by the speaker. It is unfortunate that men like John

Mitchell and Dr. Washington Gladden, who are standing up so nobly for

the rights of labor, should be poorly equipped as speakers. Both

these men possess noble thoughts which read impressively, but, when

spoken, lack much force and power, on account of the poor delivery.

This point can be illustrated further by citing the manner and

delivery of two men well known to the public of today--Andrew

Carnegie and John H. Finley. Both have done considerable public

speaking, and one is the president of a college.

On a night in 1911, the members of the Young Men's Bible Class of the

Fifth Avenue Baptist Church of New York were addressed by these

gentlemen. Both were at a considerable disadvantage from the fact

that they had been invited to address a "Young Men's Bible Class,"

and as they naturally concluded the class would be composed of young

men, they arranged their speeches accordingly; consequently, their

plans of address were upset on finding that the majority of the class

was composed of men close to the half-century mark, and many beyond

it; or, as Mr. Carnegie wittily stated it, "with parts in their hair

a lot wider than my own."

However, no exception could be taken to the matter of either speaker,

although both changed their themes on finding the audience more

matured in years than they had expected, and both had to pocket their

notes on the subjects upon which they had intended to talk, and to

speak extemporaneously. Both speakers cleverly switched to matters

upon which they were thoroughly informed--Mr. Carnegie narrating

events in his busy and influential life, and Dr. Finley discussing

how to get the most benefit out of a twenty-four hour day. The matter

of both was good, but the manner was unsatisfactory. Mr. Carnegie

talked in a pleasant, conversational way which would have been most

enjoyable had it not been that his delivery was slow. His utterance

was often so slow as to mar the expressive force of his good

language. He also leaned on the reading desk in front of him, not

because he needed physical support, he looked strong and rugged on

the eve of his seventy-sixth birthday, but from the force of a bad

habit.

He was perfectly at home before the audience, spoke in clear tones,

at times with considerable force, particularly when quoting from Rev.

John Home's tragedy of "Douglas," was winning in manner, took

immediate hold of his audience, was witty in appropriate places, and

would have been altogether delightful but for length and attitude.

Mr. Carnegie was perfectly at home while facing the audience, and had

his delivery equaled his matter, the speech would have been a most

happy and effective one.

From Dr. Finley, because of his being President of the College of the

City of New York, one might reasonably expect much in the way of

delivery, but on this occasion the assembly received less than from

the other speaker. He stood on the platform awkwardly, hands in

pockets most of the time, and seldom did he utter a really smooth

sentence, but separated his words in a manner to irritate the

audience. He would say, for instance,

"We--have--been--progressing--upward--and--onward--for--millions--of--years--,"

as though he had only one word in his mind at a time, whereas the

learned President's head was full of grand and glorious thoughts that

only needed to be spoken in phrases and sentences, instead of single

words, in order to make him a most instructive and entertaining

speaker. Dr. Finley's matter was well arranged, his diction

excellent, but his delivery was unfortunate.

The orators of old, with few exceptions, studied the art of delivery

as faithfully as they studied rhetoric, as did the British and

American orators of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but the

public speakers of the twentieth century sadly neglect this most

important part of the speaker's art. Dr. Arthur T. Hadley, President

of Yale University, is an able and learned man whose compositions are

chaste and effective but whose delivery mars the force of his matter.

He looks down on the floor immediately in front of him, instead of

sweeping his glance over his audience, awkwardly swings his arms, and

speaks his lines as though he were wound up and compelled to utter

his matter within the given time. This is said with all respect to

the famous educator, but his style of delivery should be avoided.

Educators, more than most professional men, should be entertaining

and convincing speakers, but, as a rule, they are woefully deficient

in the qualities necessary to the making of orators. They, of all

men, should set an example to the generation that is soon to take up

the duties of life, and if college presidents improved their

delivery, a long step would be taken toward making them oratorical

beacons for the guidance of their students.

William J. Bryan, one of the best orators, if not the best, of today,

owes his success mainly to his delivery. It is not so much what he

says but how he says it that makes him a successful speaker. He

possesses a rich, strong, and flexible voice that adds greatly to the

effectiveness of his matter, and his speeches invariably sound better

than they read. He will hold an audience absolutely in hand, sway it

at his will, and force it against its inclination momentarily to

agree with him, even though, after mature deliberation, his reasoning

may be disputed and his conclusions rejected. Mr. Bryan's power lies

not in the beauty or force of his composition but in his mastery over

the spoken word.

Theodore Roosevelt, contrary to the views of many, is, in the opinion

of the author, an orator. He is not merely a speaker, because his

speeches possess him as much as he possesses his speeches. He

impresses an audience by his sincerity, convinces it by his

reasoning, and persuades it by his earnestness. His matter reads as

well as it sounds, thus demonstrating his ability as a rhetorician,

his manner is graceful and forceful, and the general feeling, after

listening to one of his addresses, is that a master has spoken. The

author has heard Mr. Roosevelt many times during the past twenty

years, and the improvement in his delivery is marked. There was a

time when everything was sacrificed to force, he would snap his jaws

and try to drive the voice through his clenched teeth, but now his

enunciation is clear, and his entire delivery delightful. This shows

the good that is to be derived from a speaker considering his manner

as well as his matter.

Joseph H. Choate and W. Bourke Cockran are excellent examples of

effective speakers of a decade or so ago, the former having been the

most alluring and convincing in both his matter and his manner, and

the latter entrancing and powerful in diction and delivery.

Forensic oratory has almost ceased to exist, while pulpit oratory is

rarely to be found. This is a sad state of affairs, and requires

immediate attention if the art of all arts is to be saved from

extinction. The two essentials most missing in our public speakers

are constructive skill and effective delivery--some lacking in one

and some in the other--and the author asserts that great orators will

not arise until both these essentials are found in the one man. Two

thousand years ago Cicero, discoursing on oratory, said:

And why need I add any remarks of delivery itself, which is

to be ordered by action of body, by gesture, by look, and

by modulation and variation of the voice, the great power

of which, alone and in itself, the comparatively trivial

art of actors and the stage proves; on which though all

bestow their utmost labor to form their look, voice, and

gesture, who knows not how few there are, and have ever

been, to whom we can attend with patience? . . . In those

arts in which it is not indispensable usefulness that is

sought, but liberal amusement for the mind, how nicely, how

almost fastidiously, do we judge? For there are no suits or

controversies which can force men, though they may tolerate

indifferent orators in the forum, to endure also bad actors

upon the stage. The orator, therefore, must take the most

studious precaution not merely to satisfy those whom he

necessarily must satisfy, but to seem worthy of admiration

to those who are at liberty to judge disinterestedly.

How many modern orators measure up to this standard set by the

ancient master? The author knows of none.

_How is one to obtain an effective delivery?_

By close observation, hard study, and diligent practice. The student

should observe his delivery, note the defects in breathing, voice

production, articulation, inflection, and emphasis, and correct them;

he should be sure to understand all he aims to explain, see all he

desires others to see, and believe all he aims to make others

believe. No speaker whose delivery is poor will be able to hold,

convince, and persuade an audience, and unless he can do these three

things he should refrain from speaking, as no man possesses a valid

commission publicly to address his fellows unless he has a message to

communicate and knows how to deliver it.

EXAMPLES OF MODERN ORATORY

PATRICK HENRY

LIBERTY OR DEATH[1] (1775)

No man thinks more highly than I do of patriotism, as well

as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just

addressed the house. But different men often see the same

subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will

not be thought disrespectful of those gentlemen, if,

entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite

to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and

without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question

before the house is one of awful moment to this country.

For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than the

question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the

magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the

debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive

at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold

to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at

such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should

consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and

of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which

I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the

illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a

painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till

she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise

men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?

Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having

eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which

so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part,

whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to

know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for

it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that

is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of

the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish

to know what there has been in the conduct of the British

Ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with

which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and

the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our

petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it

will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to

be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious

reception of our petition comports with those warlike

preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.

Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and

reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be

reconciled that force must be called in to win back our

love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the

implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to

which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, What means this

martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to

submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive

for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the

world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and

armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they

can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and

rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have

been so long forging. And, what have we to oppose to them?

Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for

the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the

subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every

light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain.

Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What

terms shall we find, which have not already been exhausted?

Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert

the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we

have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated

ourselves before the throne, and have implored its

interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the

Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted:

our remonstrances have produced additional violence and

insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we

have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the

throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the

fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer

any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to

preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which

we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to

abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long

engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to

abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be

obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is

left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so

formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?

Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when

we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be

stationed in every home? Shall we gather strength by

irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of

effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and

hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies

shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if

we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature

hath placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in

the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that

which we possess, are invincible by any force which our

enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight

our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over

the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to

fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the

strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough

to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the

contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and

slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard

on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it

come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may

cry, peace, peace--but there is no peace. The war is

actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north

will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our

brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is

life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the

price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I

know not what course others may take; but as for me, give

me liberty or give me death!

DANIEL WEBSTER

ON THE CLAY COMPROMISE[2]

(Known as "The Seventh of March Speech," 1850)

Slavery did exist in the states before the adoption of this

Constitution, and at that time. Let us, therefore, consider

for a moment what was the state of sentiment, North and

South, in regard to slavery--in regard to slavery at the

time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has

taken place since; but what did the wise and great men of

all parts of the country think of slavery then? In what

estimation did they hold it at the time when this

Constitution was adopted? It will be found, sir, if we will

carry ourselves by historical research back to that day,

and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still

existing among us, that there was no diversity of opinion

between the North and the South upon the subject of

slavery. It will be found that both parts of the country

held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It

will not be found that, either at the North or at the

South, there was much, though there was some, invective

against slavery as inhuman and cruel.

The great ground of objection to it was political; that it

weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free

labor, society became less strong and labor less

productive; and therefore we find from all the eminent men

of the time and clearest expression of their opinion that

slavery is an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not

without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and

force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother

country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these

evils upon the Colonies.

The whole interest of the South became connected, more or

less, with the extension of slavery. If we look back to the

history of the commerce of this country in the early years

of this government, what were our exports? Cotton was

hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. In 1791 the

first parcel of cotton of the growth of the United States

was exported, and amounted only to 19,200 pounds. It has

gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may now,

perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices,

amount to a hundred millions of dollars. In the years I

have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of indigo, more

of rice, more of almost every article of export from the

South, than of cotton. When Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty

of 1794 with England, it is evident from the Twelfth

Article of the Treaty, which was suspended by the Senate,

that he did not know that cotton was exported at all from

the United States.

Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there

is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination

between the North and the South. There are lists of

grievances produced by each; and these grievances, real or

supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country

from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the

sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual

regard. I shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon those

various grievances existing on the one side and on the

other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will not

answer, further than I have, the general statements of the

honorable senator from South Carolina, that the North has

prospered at the expense of the South in consequence of the

manner of administering the government, in the collection

of its revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics,

and I have no inclination to enter into them.

But I will allude to other complaints of the South, and

especially to one which has, in my opinion, just

foundation, and that is, that there has been found at the

North, among individuals and among legislators, a

disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties

in regard to the return of persons bound to service who

have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the

South, in my judgment, is right, and the North is wrong.

Every member of every Northern Legislature is bound by

oath, like every other officer in the country, to support

the Constitution of the United States; and the article of

the Constitution which says to these states that they shall

deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor

and conscience as any other article. No man fulfils his

duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses,

evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. I

have always thought that the Constitution addressed itself

to the legislatures of the states or the states themselves.

It says that those persons escaping to other states "shall

be delivered up," and I confess I have always been of the

opinion that it was an injunction upon the states

themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into

another state, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction

of that state, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the

import of the clause is, that the state itself, in

obedience to the Constitution, shall cause him to be

delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always

entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now.

Then, sir, there are abolition societies, of which I am

unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very

clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I

think their operations for the last twenty years have

produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I

believe thousands of their members to be honest and good

men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited

feelings; they think they must do something for the cause

of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see

what else they can do than to contribute to an abolition

press, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition

lecturer.

I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders

of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences

of their proceedings. I can not but see what mischief their

interference with the South has produced. And is it not

plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts

on this point, recur to the debates in the Virginia House

of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a

proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph, for the gradual

abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. Every one

spoke of slavery, as he thought; very ignominious and

disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The

debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I

believe were all published. They were read by every colored

man who could read, and to those who could not read, those

debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not

unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let

that part of her population know as much of the discussion

as they could learn.

That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable member

from South Carolina, these abolition societies commenced

their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know

how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications

into the slave states; at any rate, they attempted to

arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other

words, they created great agitation in the North against

southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of

the slaves were bound more firmly than before; their rivets

were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in

Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was

opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back

and shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether

anybody in Virginia can now talk openly, as Mr. Randolph,

Governor McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent

their remarks to the press. We all know the fact, and we

all know the cause; and everything that these agitating

people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain,

not to act free, but to bind faster, the slave population

of the South.

Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from

every member on this floor declarations of opinion that

this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration

of opinion by anybody, that in any case, under the pressure

of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I

hear with distress and anguish the word "secession"

especially when it falls from the lips of those who are

patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the

world for their political services. Secession! peaceable

secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to

see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country

without convulsion! The breaking up of the foundations of

the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so

foolish--I beg everybody's pardon--as to expect to see any

such thing?

Sir, he who sees these states now revolving in harmony

around a common center, and expects to see them quit their

places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next

hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres,

and jostle against each other in the realms of space,

without causing the crush of the universe. There can be no

such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is

an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under

which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be

thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the

mountains melt under the influence of a vernal sun,

disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, sir! No, sir!

I will not state what might produce the disruption of the

Union; but sir, I see, as plainly as I see the sun in

heaven, what the disruption itself must produce; I see that

it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe,

_in its twofold character._

Peaceable secession! peaceable secession! The concurrent

agreement of all the members of this great Republic to

separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side

and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is

the line to be drawn? What states are to secede? What is to

remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am

I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist,

with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around

me here, or who fill the other House of Congress? Heaven

forbid! Where is the flag of the Republic to remain? Where

is the eagle still to tower?--or is he to cower, and

shrink, and fall to the ground?

Why, sir, our ancestors--our fathers and our grandfathers,

those of them that are yet living among us, with prolonged

lives--would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and

our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we, of

this generation, would dishonor these ensigns of the power

of the government and the harmony of that Union, which is

every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude.

What is to become of the army? What is to become of the

navy? What is to become of the public lands? How is any one

of the thirty states to defend itself?

Sir, we could not sit down here today, and draw a line of

separation that would satisfy any five men in the country.

There are natural causes that would keep and tie us

together; and there are social and domestic relations which

we could not break if we would, and which we should not if

we could.

Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country, at the

present moment, nobody can see where its population is the

most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and

compelled to admit, that ere long the strength of America

will be in the valley of the Mississippi. Well, now, sir, I

beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on

the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving

free states at its source and on its branches, and slave

states down near its mouth, each forming a separate

government? Pray, sir, let me say to the people of this

country, that these things are worthy of their pondering

and of their consideration. Here, sir, are five millions of

freemen in the free states north of the river Ohio.

Can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by

a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign

and alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where,

upon the lower banks of the Mississippi? What would become

of Missouri? Will she join the _arrondissement_ of the

slave states? Shall the man from the Yellowstone and the

Platte be connected, in the new Republic, with the man who

lives on the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida?

Sir, I am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. I dislike

it; I have an utter disgust for it. I would rather hear of

natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine,

than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up this

great government! to dismember this glorious country! to

astonish Europe with an act of folly such as Europe for two

centuries has never beheld in any government or any people!

No, sir! no, sir! There will be no secession! Gentlemen are

not serious when they talk of secession.

And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the

possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in

these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those

ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us

come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air

of liberty and union; let us cherish those hopes which

belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great

objects that are fit for our consideration and our action;

let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the

importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our

comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act,

our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not

be pigmies in a case that calls for men. Never did there

devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now

devolve upon us, for the preservation of this Constitution,

and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live

under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest

and brightest links in that golden chain, which is

destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all

the states to this Constitution for ages to come.

We have a great, popular, constitutional government,

guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the whole

affections of the people. No monarchic throne presses these

states together; no iron chain of military power encircles

them; they live and stand upon a government popular in its

form, representative in its character, founded upon

principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to

last forever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it

has trodden no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. Its

daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet

youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and

honorable love of glory and renown. Large before, the

country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger.

This Republic now extends, with a vast breadth, across the

whole continent. The two great seas of the world wash the

one and the other shore. We realize, on a mighty scale, the

beautiful description of the ornamental edging of the

buckler of Achilles--

Now the broad shield complete, the artist crowned

With his last hand, and poured the ocean round:

In living silver seemed the waves to roll,

And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole.

ROBERT YOUNG HAYNE

ON THE FOOTE REVOLUTION[3] (1830)

When the gentleman from Massachusetts adopts and reiterates

the old charge of weakness as resulting from slavery, I

must be permitted to call for the proof of those blighting

effects which he ascribes to its influence. I suspect that

when the subject is closely examined, it will be found that

there is not much force even in the plausible objection of

the want of physical power in slave-holding states. The

power of a country is compounded of its population and its

wealth, and in modern times, where, from the very form and

structure of society, by far the greater portion of the

people must, even during the continuance of the most

desolating wars, be employed in the cultivation of the soil

and other peaceful pursuits, it may be well doubted whether

slave-holding states, by reason of the superior value of

their productions, are not able to maintain a number of

troops in the field fully equal to what could be supported

by states with a larger white population, but not possessed

of equal resources.

* * * * * * *

There is a spirit which, like the father of evil, is

constantly "walking to and fro." It is the spirit of false

philanthropy. The persons whom it possesses do not indeed

throw themselves into the flames, but they are employed in

lighting up the torches of discord throughout the

community. Their first principle of action is to leave

their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to

regulate the affairs and duties of others. Theirs is the

task to feed the hungry and clothe the naked of other

lands, while they thrust the naked, famished, and shivering

beggar from their own doors--to instruct the heathen while

their own children want the bread of life.

When this spirit infuses itself into the bosom of a

statesman (if one so possessed can be called a statesman),

it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast. Then

it is that he indulges in golden dreams of national

greatness and prosperity. He discovers that "liberty is

power," and, not content with vast schemes of improvement

at home which it would bankrupt the treasury of the world

to execute, he flies to foreign lands to fulfil obligations

to "the human race," by inculcating the principles of

"political and religious liberty," and promoting the

"general welfare" of the whole human race. It is a spirit

which has long been busy with the slaves of the South and

is even now displaying itself in vain efforts to drive the

government from its wise policy in relation to the Indians.

It is this spirit which has filled the land with thousands

of wild and visionary projects which can have no effect but

to waste the energies and dissipate the resources of the

country. It is the spirit of which the aspiring politician

dexterously avails himself when, by inscribing on his

banner the magical words, Liberty and Philanthropy, he

draws to his support that class of persons who are ready to

bow down at the very name of their idols.

But, sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to

the effect of slavery on national wealth and prosperity, if

we may trust to experience, there can be no doubt that it

has never yet produced any injurious effect on individual

or national character. Look through the whole history of

the country from the commencement of the Revolution down to

the present hour; where are there to be found brighter

examples of intellectual and moral greatness than have been

exhibited by the sons of the South? From the Father of his

Country down to the distinguished chieftain who has been

elevated by a grateful people to the highest office in

their gift, the interval is filled up by a long line of

orators, of statesmen, and of heroes, justly entitled to

rank among the ornaments of their country, and the

benefactors of mankind. Look at "the Old Dominion," great

and magnanimous Virginia, "whose jewels are her sons." Is

there any State in this Union which has contributed so much

to the honor and welfare of the country? Sir, I will yield

the whole question--I will acknowledge the fatal effects of

slavery upon character, if any one can say that for noble

disinterestedness, ardent love of country, exalted virtue,

and a pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the

southern states have ever been surpassed by any in the

world.

The senator from Massachusetts tells us that the tariff is

not an eastern measure, and treats it as if the East had no

interest in it. The senator from Missouri insists it is not

a western measure, and that it has done no good to the

West. The South comes in, and in the most earnest manner

represents to you that this measure, which we are told "is

of no value to the East or the West" is "utterly

destructive of our interests." We represent to you that it

has spread ruin and devastation through the land and

prostrated our hopes in the dust. We solemnly declare that

we believe the system to be wholly unconstitutional and a

violation of the compact between the states and the Union;

and our brethren turn a deaf ear to our complaints, and

refuse to relieve us from a system "which not enriches

them, but makes us poor indeed." Good God! Mr. President,

has it come to this? Do gentlemen hold the feelings and

wishes of their brethren at so cheap a rate that they

refuse to gratify them at so small a price? Do gentlemen

value so lightly the peace and harmony of the country that

they will not yield a measure of this description to the

affectionate entreaties and earnest remonstrances of their

friends? Do gentlemen estimate the value of the Union at so

low a price that they will not even make one effort to bind

the states together with the cords of affection? And has it

come to this? Is this the spirit in which this government

is to be administered? If so, let me tell, gentlemen, the

seeds of dissolution are already sown, and our children

will reap the bitter fruit.

What, sir, was the conduct of the South during the

Revolution? Sir, I honor New England for her conduct in

that glorious struggle. But great as is the praise which

belongs to her I think at least equal honor is due to the

South. They espoused the quarrel of their brethren with a

generous zeal which did not suffer them to stop to

calculate their interest in the dispute. Favorites of the

mother country, possessed of neither ships nor seamen to

create a commercial rivalship, they might have found in

their situation a guaranty that their trade would be

forever fostered and protected by Great Britain. But

trampling on all consideration either of interest or of

safety, they rushed into the conflict and fighting for

principle, periled all in the sacred cause of freedom.

Never was there exhibited in the history of the world

higher examples of noble daring, dreadful suffering, and

heroic endurance than by the Whigs of Carolina during the

Revolution. The whole state, from the mountains to the sea,

was overrun by an overwhelming force of the enemy. The

fruits of industry perished on the spot where they were

produced, or were consumed by the foe. The "plains of

Carolina" drank up the most precious blood of her citizens!

Black and smoking ruins marked the places which had been

the habitations of her children! Driven from their homes

into the gloomy and almost impenetrable swamps, even there

the spirit of liberty survived, and South Carolina

(sustained by the example of her Sumpters and her Marions)

proved by her conduct that though the soil might be

overrun, the spirit of her people was invincible.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

THE "HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF" SPEECH[4] (1858)

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are

tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do

it, we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was

initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of

putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of

that policy, that agitation not only has not ceased, but

has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease

until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house

divided against itself can not stand." I believe this

government can not endure permanently half slave and half

free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not

expect the house to fall; but I do expect that it will

cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all

the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the

further spread of it, and place it where the public mind

shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of

ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward

till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as

well as new, North as well as South. Have we no tendency to

the latter condition? Let any one who doubts carefully

contemplate that now almost complete legal

combination-piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of

the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision.

Put this and that together, and we have another nice little

niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another

Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of

the United States does not permit a state to exclude

slavery from its limits. And this may especially be

expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be

voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind

sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be

maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being

alike lawful in all the states. Welcome or unwelcome, such

decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us,

unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be

met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming

that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making

their state free, and we shall awake to the reality,

instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave

state. To meet and overthrow that dynasty is the work

before all those who would prevent that consummation. That

is what we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends

and yet whisper to us softly that Senator Douglas is the

aptest instrument there is with which to effect that

object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he

now has a little quarrel with the present head of the

dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a

single point, upon which he and we have never differed.

They remind us that he is a great man and that the largest

of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. "But a

living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if

not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and

toothless one.

How can he oppose the advance of slavery? He does not care

anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the

"public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas

Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will

be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade.

Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is

approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so?

But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has

labored to prove it is a sacred right of white men to take

negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show

that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can

be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought

cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question

of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such,

how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade? How can he

refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly

free," unless he does it as a protection to the home

production? And as the home producers will probably ask the

protection, he will be wholly without a ground of

opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully

be wiser today than he was yesterday--that he may

rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we,

for that reason run ahead, and infer that he will make any

particular change, of which he himself has given no

intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such

vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent

Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught

that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever,

he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause

may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have

interposed no adventitious obstacle. But, clearly, he is

not now with us--he does not pretend to be, he does not

promise ever to be.

Our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by,

its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free,

whose hearts are in the work--who do care for the result.

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over

thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the

single impulse of resistance to a common danger. With every

external circumstance against us, of strange, discordant,

and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds,

and formed and fought the battle through, under the

constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered

enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now?--now, when

that same energy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent!

The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail--if we stand

firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or

mistakes delay it; but, sooner or later, the victory is

sure to come.

ON LEAVING SPRINGFIELD[5]

My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my

feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place and the

kindness of this people I owe everything. Here I have lived

a quarter of a century and have passed from a young to an

old man. Here my children have been born and one is buried.

I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return,

with a task before me greater than that which rested upon

Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who

ever attended him I can not succeed. With that assistance I

can not fail.

Trusting in Him who can go with me and remain with you and

be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all

will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in

your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate

farewell.

WENDELL PHILLIPS

ON THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY[6] (1837)

A comparison has been drawn between the events of the

Revolution and the tragedy at Alton. We have heard it

stated here in Faneuil Hall, that Great Britain had a right

to tax the Colonies; and we have heard the mob at Alton,

the drunken murderers of Lovejoy, compared to those patriot

fathers who threw the tea overboard! Fellow citizens, is

this Faneuil Hall doctrine? The mob at Alton were met to

wrest from a citizen his just rights--met to resist the

laws. We have been told that our fathers did the same; and

the glorious mantle of Revolutionary precedent has been

thrown over the mobs of our day. To make out their title to

such defense the gentleman says that the British Parliament

had a right to tax these Colonies.

It is manifest that, without this, his parallel falls to

the ground; for Lovejoy had stationed himself within

constitutional bulwarks. He was not only defending the

freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, in

arms with the sanction of the civil authority. The men who

assailed him went against and over the laws. The mob, as

the gentleman terms it--mob, forsooth! certainly we sons of

the tea-spillers are a marvelously patient generation!--the

"orderly mob" which assembled in the Old South to destroy

the tea were met to resist, not the laws, but illegal

exactions! Shame on the American who calls the tea tax and

Stamp Act laws! Our fathers resisted not the king's

prerogative, but the king's usurpation. To find any other

account, you must read our Revolutionary history upside

down. Our state archives are loaded with arguments of John

Adams to prove the taxes laid by the British Parliament

unconstitutional--beyond its power. It was not till this

was made out that the men of New England rushed to arms.

The arguments of the Council-chamber and the House of

Representatives preceded and sanctioned the contest.

To draw the conduct of our ancestors into a precedent for

mobs, for a right to resist laws we ourselves have enacted,

is an insult to their memory. The difference between the

excitements of those days and our own, which the gentleman

in kindness to the latter has overlooked, is simply this:

the men of that day went for the right, as secured by the

laws. They were the people rising to sustain the laws and

Constitution of the province. The rioters of our day go for

their own wills, right or wrong. Sir, when I heard the

gentleman lay down principles which place the murderers of

Alton side by side with Otis and Hancock, with Quincy and

Adams, I thought those pictured lips [pointing to the

portraits in the hall] would have broken into voice to

rebuke the recreant American--the slanderer of the dead.

The gentleman said that he should sink into insignificance

if he dared not gainsay the principles of these

resolutions. Sir, for the sentiments he has uttered, on

soil consecrated by the prayers of Puritans and the blood

of patriots, the earth should have yawned and swallowed him

up.

Fellow citizens, I can not take back my words. Surely, the

attorney-general, so long and well known here, needs not

the aid of your hisses against one so young as I am--my

voice never before heard within these walls!

Another ground has been taken to excuse the mob, and throw

doubt and discredit on the conduct of Lovejoy and his

associates. Allusion has been made to what lawyers

understand very well--the "conduct of laws." We are told

that nothing but the Mississippi River rolls between St.

Louis and Alton; and the conflict of laws somehow or other

give the citizens of the former a right to find fault with

the defender of the press for publishing his opinions so

near their limits. Will the gentleman venture that argument

before lawyers? How the laws of the two states could be

said to come into conflict in such circumstances I question

whether any lawyer in this audience can explain or

understand. No matter whether the line that divides one

sovereign state from another be an imaginary one or

ocean-wide, the moment you cross it, the state you leave is

blotted out of existence, so far as you are concerned. The

Czar might as well claim to control the deliberations of

Faneuil Hall, as the laws of Missouri demand reverence, or

the shadow of obedience, from an inhabitant of Illinois.

I must find some fault with the statement which has been

made of the events at Alton. It has been asked why Lovejoy

and his friends did not appeal to the executive--trust

their defenses to the police of the city. It has been

hinted that, from hasty and ill-judged excitement, the men

within the building provoked a quarrel, and that he fell in

the course of it--one mob resisting another. Recollect,

sir, that they did act with approbation and sanction of the

mayor. In strict truth there was no executive to appeal to

for protection. The mayor acknowledged that he could not

protect them. They asked him if it was lawful for them to

defend themselves. He told them it was, and sanctioned

their assembling in arms to do so. They were not, then, a

mob, they were not merely citizens defending their own

property; they were in some sense the _posse comitatus,_

adopted for the occasion into the police of the city,

acting under the order of a magistrate. It was civil

authority resisting lawless violence. Where, then, was the

imprudence? Is the doctrine to be sustained here that it is

imprudent for men to aid magistrates in executing the laws?

Men are continually asking each other, had Lovejoy a right

to resist? Sir, I protest against the question instead of

answering it. Lovejoy did not resist, in the sense they

mean. He did not throw himself back on the natural right of

self-defense. He did not cry anarchy, and let slip the dogs

of civil war, careless of the horrors which would follow.

Sir, as I understand this affair, it was not an individual

protecting his property; it was not one body of armed men

resisting another, and making the streets of a peaceful

city run blood with their contentions. It did not bring

back the scenes to old Indian cities, where family met

family, and faction met faction, and mutually trampled the

laws under foot. No! the men in that house were regularly

enrolled under the sanction of the mayor. There being no

militia in Alton, about seventy men were enrolled, with the

approbation of the mayor. These relieved each other every

other night. About thirty men were in arms on the night of

the sixth, when the press was landed. The next evening it

was not thought necessary to summon more than half that

number; among these was Lovejoy. It was, therefore, you

perceive, sir, the police of the city resisting

rioters--civil government breasting itself to the shock of

lawless men.

Here is no question about the right of self-defense. It is

in fact simply this: Has the civil magistrate a right to

put down a riot?

It has been stated, perhaps inadvertently, that Lovejoy or

his comrades fired first. This is denied by those who have

the best means of knowing. Guns were first fired by the

mob. After being twice fired on, those within the building

consulted together and deliberately returned the fire. But

suppose they did fire first. They had a right so to do--not

only the right which every citizen has to defend himself,

but the further right which every civil officer has to

resist violence. Even if Lovejoy fired the first gun, it

would not lessen his claim to our sympathy or destroy his

title to be considered a martyr in defense of a free press.

The question now is, did he act within the Constitution and

the laws? The men who fell in State Street on the 5th of

March, 1770, did more than Lovejoy is charged with. They

were the first assailants. Upon some slight quarrel they

pelted the troops with every missile within reach. Did this

bate one jot of the eulogy with which Hancock and Warren

hallowed their memory, hailing them as the first martyrs in

the cause of American liberty?

If, sir, I had adopted what are called peace principles, I

might lament the circumstances of this case. But all you

who believe, as I do, in the right and duty of magistrates

to execute the laws, join with me and brand as base

hypocrisy the conduct of those who assemble year after year

on the Fourth of July to fight over the battles of the

Revolution, and yet "damn with faint praise" or load with

obloquy the memory of this man who shed his blood in

defense of life, liberty, property, and the freedom of the

press!

Imagine yourself present when the first news of Bunker Hill

Battle reached a New England town. The tale would have run

thus: "The patriots are routed--the redcoats

victorious--Warren lies dead upon the field." With what

scorn would that Tory have been received who should have

charged Warren with imprudence! who should have said that,

bred a physician, he was "out of place" in that battle, and

"died as a fool dieth!" How would the intimation have been

received that Warren and his associations should have

waited a better time? But, if success be indeed the only

criterion of prudence, _Respice finem_--Wait till the end.

Mr. Chairman, from the bottom of my heart I thank that

brave band at Alton for resisting. We must remember that

Lovejoy had fled from city to city; suffered the

destruction of three presses patiently. At length he took

counsel with friends; men of character, of tried integrity,

of wide views, of Christian principle. They thought the

crisis had come. It was full time to assert the laws. They

saw around them, not a community like our own, of fixed

habits, of character molded and settled, but one "in the

gristle, not yet hardened into the bone of manhood." The

people there, children of our older states, seem to have

forgotten the blood-tried principles of their fathers the

moment they lost sight of our New England hills. Something

was to be done to show them the priceless value of the

freedom of the press, to bring back and set right their

wandering and confused ideas. He and his advisers looked

out on a community staggering like a drunken man,

indifferent to their rights, and confused in their

feelings. Deaf to argument, haply they might be stunned

into sobriety. They saw that of which we can not judge: the

necessity of resistance. Insulted law called for it. Public

opinion, fast hastening on the downward course, must be

arrested.

Does not the event show they judged rightly? Absorbed in a

thousand trifles, how has the Nation all at once come to a

stand! Men begin, as in 1779 and 1640, to discuss

principles, to weigh characters, to find out where they

are. Haply we may awake before we are borne over the

precipice.

I am glad, sir, to see this crowded house. It is good for

us to be here. When liberty is in danger, Faneuil Hall has

the right, it is her duty, to strike the keynote for these

United States. I am glad, for one reason, that remarks such

as those to which I have alluded have been uttered here.

The passage of these resolutions, in spite of this

oppression, led by the attorney-general of the

commonwealth, will show more clearly, more decisively, the

deep indignation with which Boston regards this outrage.

JEFFERSON DAVIS

ON WITHDRAWING FROM THE UNION[7] (1861)

I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the

Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of

Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in

convention assembled, has declared her separation from the

United States. Under these circumstances, of course, my

functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper,

however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce

that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little

more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument,

and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if

it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say

something on the part of the state I here represent, on an

occasion so solemn as this.

It is known to senators who have served with me here that I

have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of

state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the

Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was

justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was

acting without sufficient provocation, or without an

existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the

government, because of my allegiance to the state of which

I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however,

may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable

cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her

people before the act was taken, counseled them then that

if the state of things which they apprehended should exist

when the convention met, they should take the action which

they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of

mine with the advocacy of the right of a state to remain in

the Union, and to disregard the constitutional obligations

by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory.

Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are

indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy

which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against

the agent of the states. It is only to be justified when

the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a

state, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of

the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of

the Union for a decision; but when the states themselves,

and when the people of the states, have so acted as to

convince us that they will not regard our constitutional

rights then, and then for the first time, arises the

doctrine of secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has

been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union,

advocated the doctrine of nullification because it

preserved the Union. It was because of his deep seated

attachment to the Union, his determination to find some

remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties

which bound South Carolina to the other states, that Mr.

Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he

proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of state

power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of

bringing the agent before the tribunal of the states for

their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is

to be justified upon the basis that the states are

sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the

time may come again when a better comprehension of the

theory of our government, and the inalienable rights of the

people of the states, will prevent any one from denying

that each state is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the

grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

I therefore say I concur in the action of the people of

Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and

should have been bound by their action if my belief had

been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point

which I wish on this last occasion to present to the

Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and

secession that the name of the great man, whose ashes now

mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify

coercion against a seceded state. The phrase "to execute

the laws" was an expression which General Jackson applied

to the case of a state refusing to obey the laws while yet

a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now

presented. The laws are to be executed over the United

States, and upon the people of the United States. They have

no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of

terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case,

which cites that expression for application to a state

which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a

foreign state. If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may

make war against a state which has withdrawn from the

Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be

executed within the limits of a seceded state. A state

finding itself in the condition in which Mississippi has

judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should

provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union,

surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be

many), deprives herself of the advantages (they are known

to be great), severs all ties of affection (and they are

close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union; and

thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon

herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any

power to execute the laws of the United States within her

limits.

I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was

arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the

doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her

because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My

opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit

of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my

opinion because the case is my own, I refer to that time

and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then

entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I

then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated

line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which

separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I

will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her

back; but will say to her, Godspeed, in memory of the kind

associations which once existed between her and the other

states.

It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been

a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the

rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has

brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has

heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free

and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her

social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of

Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of

the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence

is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for

which it was made. The communities were declaring their

independence; the people of those communities were

asserting that no man was born--to use the language of Mr.

Jefferson--booted and spurred to ride over the rest of

mankind; that men were created equal--meaning the men of

the political community; that there was no divine right to

rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there

were no classes by which power and place descended to

families, but that all stations were equally within the

grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the

great principles they announced; these were the purposes

for which they made their declaration; these were the ends

to which their enunciation was directed. They have no

reference to the slave, else how happened it that among the

items of arraignment made against George III was that he

endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring

of late to do--to stir up insurrection among our slaves?

Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free

and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for stirring

up insurrection among them? And how was this to be

enumerated among the high crimes which caused the Colonies

to sever their connection with the mother country? When our

Constitution was formed the same idea was rendered more

palpable, for there we find provisions made for that very

class of persons as property; they were not put upon the

footing of equality with white men--not even upon that of

paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was

concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste,

only to be represented in the numerical proportion of

three-fifths.

Then, senators, we recur to the compact which binds us

together; we recur to the principles upon which our

government was founded; and when you deny them, and when

you deny us the right to withdraw from a government which,

thus perverted, threatens to be destructive to our rights,

we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim

our independence, and take the hazard.

I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of

my constituents toward yours, I am sure I feel no hostility

to you, senators from the North. I am sure there is not one

of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been

between us, to whom I can not now say, in the presence of

my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the

feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom

you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their

desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful

relations with you, though we must part. They may be

mutually beneficial to use in the future as they have been

in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring

disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will

have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who

delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us

from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust

in God, and in our firm hearts and strong arms, we will

vindicate the rights as best we may.

In the course of my service here, associated at different

times with a great variety of senators, I see now around me

some with whom I have served long; there have been points

of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me,

I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance.

Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed,

or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have,

senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my

apology for any pain which, in the heat of discussion, I

have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance

of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of

making the only reparation in my power for any injury

offered.

Mr. President and senators, having made the announcement

which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains

for me to bid you a final adieu.

ROBERT TOOMBS

ON RESIGNING FROM THE SENATE[8] (1861)

The success of the Abolitionists and their allies, under

the name of the Republican party, has produced its logical

results already. They have for long years been sowing

dragons' teeth and have finally got a crop of armed men.

The Union, sir, is dissolved. That is an accomplished fact

in the path of this discussion that men may as well heed.

One of your confederates has already, wisely, bravely,

boldly confronted public danger, she is only ahead of many

of her sisters because of her greater facility for speedy

action. The greater majority of those sister states, under

the circumstances, consider her cause as their cause; and I

charge you in their name today: "Touch not Saguntum."[9] It

is not only their cause, but it is a cause which receives

the sympathy and will receive the support of tens and

hundreds of thousands of honest patriot men in the

non-slaveholding states who have hitherto maintained

constitutional rights, and who respect their oaths, abide

by compacts, and love justice.

And while this Congress, this Senate, and this House of

Representatives are debating the constitutionality and the

expediency of seceding from the Union, and while the

perfidious authors of this mischief are showering down

denunciations upon a large portion of the patriotic men of

this country, those brave men are coolly and calmly voting

what you call revolution--aye, sir, doing better than that:

arming to defend it. They appealed to the Constitution,

they appealed to justice, they appealed to fraternity,

until the Constitution, justice, and fraternity were no

longer listened to in the legislative halls of their

country, and then, sir, they prepared for the arbitrament

of the sword; and now you see the glittering bayonet, and

you hear the tramp of armed men from your capital to the

Rio Grande. It is a sight that gladdens the eyes and cheers

the hearts of other millions ready to second them.

Inasmuch, sir, as I have labored earnestly, honestly,

sincerely, with these men to avert this necessity so long

as I deemed it possible, and inasmuch as I heartily approve

their present conduct of resistance, I deem it my duty to

state their case to the Senate, to the country, and to the

civilized world.

Senators, my countrymen have demanded no new government;

they have demanded no new Constitution. Look to their

records at home and here from the beginning of this

national strife until its consummation in the disruption of

the empire, and they have not demanded a single thing

except that you shall abide by the Constitution of the

United States; that constitutional rights shall be

respected, and that justice shall be done. Sirs, they have

stood by your Constitution; they have stood by all its

requirements, they have performed all its duties

unselfishly, uncalculatingly, disinterestedly, until a

party sprang up in this country which endangered their

social system--a party which they arraign, and which they

charge before the American people and all mankind with

having made proclamation of outlawry against four thousand

millions of their property in the Territories of the United

States; with having put them under the ban of the empire in

all the states in which their institutions exist outside

the protection of federal laws; with having aided and

abetted insurrection from within and invasion from without

with the view of subverting their institutions, and

desolating their homes and their firesides. For these

causes they have taken up arms.

I have stated that the discontented states of this Union

have demanded nothing by clear, distinct, unequivocal,

well-acknowledged constitutional rights--rights affirmed by

the highest judicial tribunals of their country; rights

older than the Constitution; rights which are planted upon

the immutable principles of natural justice; rights which

have been affirmed by the good and the wise of all

countries, and of all centuries. We demand no power to

injure any man. We demand no right to injure our

confederate states. We demand no right to interfere with

their institutions, either by word or deed. We have no

right to disturb their peace, their tranquility, their

security. We have demanded of them simply, solely--nothing

else--to give us equality, security and tranquility. Give

us these, and peace restores itself. Refuse them, and take

what you can get.

What do the rebels demand? First, "that the people of the

United States shall have an equal right to emigrate and

settle in the present and any future acquired territories,

with whatever property they may possess (including slaves),

and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment until

such territory may be admitted as a state into the Union,

with or without slavery, as she may determine, on an

equality with all existing states." This is our territorial

demand. We have fought for this territory when blood was

its price. We have paid for it when gold was its price. We

have not proposed to exclude you, though you have

contributed very little of blood or money. I refer

especially to New England. We demand only to go into those

territories upon terms of equality with you, as equals in

this great Confederacy, to enjoy the common property of the

whole Union, and receive the protection of the common

government, until the territory is capable of coming into

the Union as a sovereign state, when it may fix its own

institutions to suit itself.

The second proposition is, "that property in slaves shall

be entitled to the same protection from the government of

the United States, in all its departments, everywhere,

which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend

to any other property, providing nothing herein contained

shall be construed to limit or restrain the right now

belonging to every state to prohibit, abolish, or establish

and protect slavery within its limits." We demand of the

common government to use its granted powers to protect our

property as well as yours. For this protection we pay as

much as you do. This very property is subject to taxation.

It has been taxed by you and sold by you for taxes.

The title to thousands and tens of thousands of slaves is

derived from the United States. We claim that the

government, while the Constitution recognizes our property

for the purposes of taxation, shall give it the same

protection that it gives yours.

Ought it not to be so? You say no. Every one of you upon

the committee said no. Your senators say no. Your House of

Representatives says no. Throughout the length and breadth

of your conspiracy against the Constitution there is but

one shout of no! This recognition of this right is the

price of my allegiance. Withhold it, and you do not get my

obedience. This is the philosophy of the armed men who have

sprung up in this country. Do you ask me to support a

government that will tax my property; that will plunder me;

that will demand my blood, and will not protect me? I would

rather see the population of my native state laid six feet

beneath her sod than they should support for one hour such

a government. Protection is the price of obedience

everywhere, in all countries. It is the only thing that

makes government respectable. Deny it and you can not have

free subjects or citizens; you may have slaves.

We demand, in the next place, "that persons committing

crimes against slave property in one state, and fleeing to

another, shall be delivered up in the same manner as

persons committing crimes against other property, and that

the laws of the state from which such persons flee shall be

the test of criminality." That is another one of the

demands of an extremist and rebel.

But the non-slaveholding states, treacherous to their oaths

and compacts, have steadily refused, if the criminal only

stole a negro and that negro was a slave, to deliver him

up. It was refused twice on the requisition of my own state

as long as twenty-two years ago. It was refused by Kent and

by Fairfield, governors of Maine, and representing, I

believe, each of the then friendly parties. We appealed

then to fraternity, but we submitted; and this

constitutional right has been practically a dead letter

from that day to this. The next case came up between us and

the state of New York, when the present senior senator (Mr.

Seward) was the governor of that state; and he refused it.

Why? He said it was not against the laws of New York to

steal a negro, and therefore he would not comply with the

demand. He made a similar refusal to Virginia. Yet these

are our confederates; these are our sister states! There is

the bargain; there is the compact. You have sworn to it.

Both these governors swore to it. The senator from New York

swore to it. The governor of Ohio swore to it when he was

inaugurated. You can not bind them by oaths. Yet they talk

to us of treason; and I suppose they expect to whip freemen

into loving such brethren! They will have a good time in

doing it!

It is natural we should want this provision of the

Constitution carried out. The Constitution says slaves are

property; the Supreme Court says so; the Constitution says

so. The theft of slaves is a crime; they are a

subject-matter of felonious asportation. By the text and

letter of the Constitution you agreed to give them up. You

have sworn to do it, and you have broken your oaths. Of

course, those who have done so look out for pretexts.

Nobody expected them to do otherwise. I do not think I ever

saw a perjurer, however bald and naked, who could not

invent some pretext to palliate his crime, or who could

not, for fifteen shillings, hire an Old Bailey lawyer to

invent some for him. Yet this requirement of the

Constitution is another one of the extreme demands of an

extremist and a rebel.

The next stipulation is that fugitive slaves shall be

surrendered under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act

of 1850, without being entitled either to a writ of habeas

corpus, or trial by jury, or other similar obstructions of

legislation, in the state to which he may flee: Here is the

Constitution:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the

laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence

of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such

service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the

party to whom such services or labor may be due."

This language is plain, and everybody understood it the

same way for the first forty years of your government. In

1793, in Washington's time, an act was passed to carry out

this provision. It was adopted unanimously in the Senate of

the United States, and nearly so in the House of

Representatives. Nobody then had invented pretexts to show

that the Constitution did not mean a negro slave. It was

clear; it was plain. Not only the federal courts, but all

the local courts in all the states, decided that it was a

constitutional obligation. How is it now? The North sought

to evade it; following the instincts of their natural

character, they commenced with the fraudulent fiction that

fugitives were entitled to habeas corpus, entitled to trial

by jury in the state to which they fled. They pretended to

believe that our fugitive slaves were entitled to more

rights than their white citizens; perhaps they were right,

they know one another better than I do. You may charge a

white man with treason, or felony, or other crime, and you

do not require any trial by jury before he is given up;

there is nothing to determine but that he is legally

charged with a crime and that he fled, and then he is to be

delivered up upon demand. White people are delivered up

every day in this way; but not slaves. Slaves, black

people, you say, are entitled to trial by jury; and in this

way schemes have been invented to defeat your plain

constitutional obligations.

Senators, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all

our obligations and the duties of the federal government. I

am content and have ever been content to sustain it. While

I doubt its perfection, while I do not believe it was a

good compact, and while I never saw the day that I would

have voted for it as a proposition _de novo,_ yet I am

bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would

induce men to abide by established forms rather than to

rush into unknown dangers. I have given to it, and intend

to give to it, unfaltering support and allegiance, but I

choose to put that allegiance on the true ground, not on

the false idea that anybody's blood was shed for it. I say

that the Constitution is the whole compact. All its

obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my

people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded

any conclusion against them, by declaring that "The powers

not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or

forbidden by it to the states, belong to the states

respectively or the people."

Now I will try it by that standard; I will subject it to

that test. The law of nature, the law of justice, would

say--and it is so expounded by the publicists--that equal

rights in the common property shall be enjoyed. Even in a

monarchy the king can not prevent the subjects from

enjoying equality in the disposition of the public

property. Even in a despotic government this principle is

recognized. It was the blood and the money of the whole

people (says the learned Grotius, and say all the

publicists) which acquired the public property, and

therefore it is not the property of the sovereign. This

right of equality being, then, according to justice and

natural equity, a right belonging to all states, when did

we give it up? You say Congress has a right to pass rules

and regulations concerning the territory and other property

of the United States. Very well. Does that exclude those

whose blood and money paid for it? Does "dispose of" mean

to rob the rightful owners? You must show a better title

than that, or a better sword than we have.

What, then, will you take? You will take nothing but your

own judgment; that is, you will not only judge for

yourselves, not only discard the court, discard our

construction, discard the practice of the government, but

you will drive us out, simply because you will it. Come and

do it! You have sapped the foundations of society; you have

destroyed almost all hope of peace. In a compact where

there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally

decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the

real, if not the constitutional, arbiter. Your party says

that you will not take the decision of the Supreme Court.

You said so at Chicago; you said so in committee; every man

of you in both Houses says so. What are you going to do?

You say we shall submit to your construction. We shall do

it, if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other

manner. That is settled. You may call it secession, or you

may call it revolution; but there is a big fact standing

before you--that fact is, freemen with arms in their hands.