properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the
people. But while the present is bright with promise and the future full of
demand and inducement for the exercise of active intelligence, the past can
never be without useful lessons of admonition and instruction. If its
dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfill the
object of a wise design. When the grave shall have closed over all who are
now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, the year 1850 will be
recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehension. A successful war
had just terminated. Peace brought with it a vast augmentation of
territory. Disturbing questions arose bearing upon the domestic
institutions of one portion of the Confederacy and involving the
constitutional rights of the States. But notwithstanding differences of
opinion and sentiment which then existed in relation to details and
specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose
devotion to the Union can never be doubted, has given renewed vigor to our
institutions and restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind
throughout the Confederacy. That this repose is to suffer no shock during
my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may
be assured. The wisdom of men who knew what independence cost, who had put
all at stake upon the issue of the Revolutionary struggle, disposed of the
subject to which I refer in the only way consistent with the Union of these
States and with the march of power and prosperity which has made us what we
are. It is a significant fact that from the adoption of the Constitution
until the officers and soldiers of the Revolution had passed to their
graves, or, through the infirmities of age and wounds, had ceased to
participate actively in public affairs, there was not merely a quiet
acquiescence in, but a prompt vindication of, the constitutional rights of
the States. The reserved powers were scrupulously respected. No statesman
put forth the narrow views of casuists to justify interference and
agitation, but the spirit of the compact was regarded as sacred in the eye
of honor and indispensable for the great experiment of civil liberty,
which, environed by inherent difficulties, was yet borne forward in
apparent weakness by a power superior to all obstacles. There is no
condemnation which the voice of freedom will not pronounce upon us should
we prove faithless to this great trust. While men inhabiting different
parts of this vast continent can no more be expected to hold the same
opinions or entertain the same sentiments than every variety of climate or
soil can be expected to furnish the same agricultural products, they can
unite in a common object and sustain common principles essential to the
maintenance of that object. The gallant men of the South and the North
could stand together during the struggle of the Revolution; they could
stand together in the more trying period which succeeded the clangor of
arms. As their united valor was adequate to all the trials of the camp and
dangers of the field, so their united wisdom proved equal to the greater
task of founding upon a deep and broad basis institutions which it has been
our privilege to enjoy and will ever be our most sacred duty to sustain. It
is but the feeble expression of a faith strong and universal to say that
their sons, whose blood mingled so often upon the same field during the War
of 1812 and who have more recently borne in triumph the flag of the country
upon a foreign soil, will never permit alienation of feeling to weaken the
power of their united efforts nor internal dissensions to paralyze the
great arm of freedom, uplifted for the vindication of self-government.
I have thus briefly presented such suggestions as seem to me especially
worthy of your consideration. In providing for the present you can hardly
fail to avail yourselves of the light which the experience of the past
casts upon the future.
The growth of our population has now brought us, in the destined career of
our national history, to a point at which it well behooves us to expand our
vision over the vast prospective.
The successive decennial returns of the census since the adoption of the
Constitution have revealed a law of steady, progressive development, which
may be stated in general terms as a duplication every quarter century.
Carried forward from the point already reached for only a short period of
time, as applicable to the existence of a nation, this law of progress, if
unchecked, will bring us to almost incredible results. A large allowance
for a diminished proportional effect of emigration would not very
materially reduce the estimate, while the increased average duration of
human life known to have already resulted from the scientific and hygienic
improvements of the past fifty years will tend to keep up through the next
fifty, or perhaps hundred, the same ratio of growth which has been thus
revealed in our past progress; and to the influence of these causes may be
added the influx of laboring masses from eastern Asia to the Pacific side
of our possessions, together with the probable accession of the populations
already existing in other parts of our hemisphere, which within the period
in question will feel with yearly increasing force the natural attraction
of so vast, powerful, and prosperous a confederation of self-governing
republics and will seek the privilege of being admitted within its safe and
happy bosom, transferring with themselves, by a peaceful and healthy
process of incorporation, spacious regions of virgin and exuberant soil,
which are destined to swarm with the fast growing and fast-spreading
millions of our race.
These considerations seem fully to justify the presumption that the law of
population above stated will continue to act with undiminished effect
through at least the next half century, and that thousands of persons who
have already arrived at maturity and are now exercising the rights of
freemen will close their eyes on the spectacle of more than 100,000,000 of
population embraced within the majestic proportions of the American Union.
It is not merely as an interesting topic of speculation that I present
these views for your consideration. They have important practical bearings
upon all the political duties we are called upon to perform. Heretofore our
system of government has worked on what may be termed a miniature scale in
comparison with the development which it must thus assume within a future
so near at hand as scarcely to be beyond the present of the existing
generation.
It is evident that a confederation so vast and so varied, both in numbers
and in territorial extent, in habits and in interests, could only be kept
in national cohesion by the strictest fidelity to the principles of the
Constitution as understood by those who have adhered to the most restricted
construction of the powers granted by the people and the States.
Interpreted and applied according to those principles, the great compact
adapts itself with healthy ease and freedom to an unlimited extension of
that benign system of federative self-government of which it is our
glorious and, I trust, immortal charter. Let us, then, with redoubled
vigilance, be on our guard against yielding to the temptation of the
exercise of doubtful powers, even under the pressure of the motives of
conceded temporary advantage and apparent temporary expediency. The minimum
of Federal government compatible with the maintenance of national unity and
efficient action in our relations with the rest of the world should afford
the rule and measure of construction of our powers under the general
clauses of the Constitution. A spirit of strict deference to the sovereign
rights and dignity of every State, rather than a disposition to subordinate
the States into a provincial relation to the central authority, should
characterize all our exercise of the respective powers temporarily vested
in us as a sacred trust from the generous confidence of our constituents.
In like manner, as a manifestly indispensable condition of the perpetuation
of the Union and of the realization of that magnificent national future
adverted to, does the duty become yearly stronger and clearer upon us, as
citizens of the several States, to cultivate a fraternal and affectionate
spirit, language, and conduct in regard to other States and in relation to
the varied interests, institutions, and habits of sentiment and opinion
which may respectively characterize them. Mutual forbearance, respect, and
noninterference in our personal action as citizens and an enlarged exercise
of the most liberal principles of comity in the public dealings of State
with State, whether in legislation or in the execution of laws, are the
means to perpetuate that confidence and fraternity the decay of which a
mere political union, on so vast a scale, could not long survive.
In still another point of view is an important practical duty suggested by
this consideration of the magnitude of dimensions to which our political
system, with its corresponding machinery of government, is so rapidly
expanding. With increased vigilance does it require us to cultivate the
cardinal virtues of public frugality and official integrity and purity.
Public affairs ought to be so conducted that a settled conviction shall
pervade the entire Union that nothing short of the highest tone and
standard of public morality marks every part of the administration and
legislation of the General Government. Thus will the federal system,
whatever expansion time and progress may give it, continue more and more
deeply rooted in the love and confidence of the people.
That wise economy which is as far removed from parsimony as from corrupt
and corrupting extravagance; that single regard for the public good which
will frown upon all attempts to approach the Treasury with insidious
projects of private interest cloaked under public pretexts; that sound
fiscal administration which, in the legislative department, guards against
the dangerous temptations incident to overflowing revenue, and, in the
executive, maintains an unsleeping watchfulness against the tendency of all
national expenditure to extravagance, while they are admitted elementary
political duties, may, I trust, be deemed as properly adverted to and urged
in view of the more impressive sense of that necessity which is directly
suggested by the considerations now presented.
Since the adjournment of Congress the Vice-President of the United States
has passed from the scenes of earth, without having entered upon the duties
of the station to which he had been called by the voice of his countrymen.
Having occupied almost continuously for more than thirty years a seat in
one or the other of the two Houses of Congress, and having by his singular
purity and wisdom secured unbounded confidence and universal respect, his
failing health was watched by the nation with painful solicitude. His loss
to the country, under all the circumstances, has been justly regarded as
irreparable.
In compliance with the act of Congress of March 2, 1853, the oath of office
was administered to him on the 24th of that month at Ariadne estate, near
Matanzas, in the island of Cuba; but his strength gradually declined, and
was hardly sufficient to enable him to return to his home in Alabama,
where, on the 18th day of April, in the most calm and peaceful way, his
long and eminently useful career was terminated. Entertaining unlimited
confidence in your intelligent and patriotic devotion to the public
interest, and being conscious of no motives on my part which are not
inseparable from the honor and advancement of my country, I hope it may be
my privilege to deserve and secure not only your cordial cooperation in
great public measures, but also those relations of mutual confidence and
regard which it is always so desirable to cultivate between members of
coordinate branches of the Government.
***
State of the Union Address
Franklin Pierce
December 4, 1854
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:
The past has been an eventful year, and will be hereafter referred to as a
marked epoch in the history of the world. While we have been happily
preserved from the calamities of war, our domestic prosperity has not been
entirely uninterrupted. The crops in portions of the country have been
nearly cut off. Disease has prevailed to a greater extent than usual, and
the sacrifice of human life through casualties by sea and land is without
parallel. But the pestilence has swept by, and restored salubrity invites
the absent to their homes and the return of business to its ordinary
channels. If the earth has rewarded the labor of the husbandman less
bountifully than in preceding seasons, it has left him with abundance for
domestic wants and a large surplus for exportation. In the present,
therefore, as in the past, we find ample grounds for reverent thankfulness
to the God of grace and providence for His protecting care and merciful
dealings with us as a people.
Although our attention has been arrested by painful interest in passing
events, yet our country feels no more than the slight vibrations of the
convulsions which have shaken Europe. As individuals we can not repress
sympathy with human suffering nor regret for the causes which produce it;
as a nation we are reminded that whatever interrupts the peace or checks
the prosperity of any part of Christendom tends more or less to involve our
own. The condition of States is not unlike that of individuals; they are
mutually dependent upon each other. Amicable relations between them and
reciprocal good will are essential for the promotion of whatever is
desirable in their moral, social, and political condition. Hence it has
been my earnest endeavor to maintain peace and friendly intercourse with
all nations.
The wise theory of this Government, so early adopted and steadily pursued,
of avoiding all entangling alliances has hitherto exempted it from many
complications in which it would otherwise have become involved.
Notwithstanding this our clearly defined and well-sustained course of
action and our geographical position, so remote from Europe, increasing
disposition has been manifested by some of its Governments to supervise and
in certain respects to direct our foreign policy. In plans for adjusting
the balance of power among themselves they have assumed to take us into
account, and would constrain us to conform our conduct to their views. One
or another of the powers of Europe has from time to time undertaken to
enforce arbitrary regulations contrary in many respects to established
principles of international law. That law the United States have in their
foreign intercourse uniformly respected and observed, and they can not
recognize any such interpolations therein as the temporary interests of
others may suggest. They do not admit that the sovereigns of one continent
or of a particular community of states can legislate for all others.
Leaving the transatlantic nations to adjust their political system in the
way they may think best for their common welfare, the independent powers of
this continent may well assert the right to be exempt from all annoying
interference on their part. Systematic abstinence from intimate political
connection with distant foreign nations does not conflict with giving the
widest range to our foreign commerce. This distinction, so clearly marked
in history, seems to have been overlooked or disregarded by some leading
foreign states. Our refusal to be brought within and subjected to their
peculiar system has, I fear, created a jealous distrust of our conduct and
induced on their part occasional acts of disturbing effect upon our foreign
relations. Our present attitude and past course give assurances, which
should not be questioned, that our purposes are not aggressive nor
threatening to the safety and welfare of other nations. Our military
establishment in time of peace is adapted to maintain exterior defenses and
to preserve order among the aboriginal tribes within the limits of the
Union. Our naval force is intended only for the protection of our citizens
abroad and of our commerce, diffused, as it is, over all the seas of the
globe. The Government of the United States, being essentially pacific in
policy, stands prepared to repel invasion by the voluntary service of a
patriotic people, and provides no permanent means of foreign aggression.
These considerations should allay all apprehension that we are disposed to
encroach on the rights or endanger the security of other states.
Some European powers have regarded with disquieting concern the territorial
expansion of the United States. This rapid growth has resulted from the
legitimate exercise of sovereign rights belonging alike to all nations, and
by many liberally exercised. Under such circumstances it could hardly have
been expected that those among them which have within a comparatively
recent period subdued and absorbed ancient kingdoms, planted their
standards on every continent, and now possess or claim the control of the
islands of every ocean as their appropriate domain would look with
unfriendly sentiments upon the acquisitions of this country, in every
instance honorably obtained, or would feel themselves justified in imputing
our advancement to a spirit of aggression or to a passion for political
predominance. Our foreign commerce has reached a magnitude and extent
nearly equal to that of the first maritime power of the earth, and
exceeding that of any other. Over this great interest, in which not only
our merchants, but all classes of citizens, at least indirectly, are
concerned, it is the duty of the executive and legislative branches of the
Government to exercise a careful supervision and adopt proper measures for
its protection. The policy which I had in view in regard to this interest
embraces its future as well as its present security. Long experience has
shown that, in general, when the principal powers of Europe are engaged in
war the rights of neutral nations are endangered. This consideration led,
in the progress of the War of our Independence, to the formation of the
celebrated confederacy of armed neutrality, a primary object of which was
to assert the doctrine that free ships make free goods, except in the case
of articles contraband of war--a doctrine which from the very commencement
of our national being has been a cherished idea of the statesmen of this
country. At one period or another every maritime power has by some solemn
treaty stipulation recognized that principle, and it might have been hoped
that it would come to be universally received and respected as a rule of
international law. But the refusal of one power prevented this, and in the
next great war which ensued--that of the French Revolution--it failed to be
respected among the belligerent States of Europe. Notwithstanding this, the
principle is generally admitted to be a sound and salutary one, so much so
that at the commencement of the existing war in Europe Great Britain and
France announced their purpose to observe it for the present; not, however,
as a recognized international fight, but as a mere concession for the time
being. The cooperation, however, of these two powerful maritime nations in
the interest of neutral rights appeared to me to afford an occasion
inviting and justifying on the part of the United States a renewed effort
to make the doctrine in question a principle of international law, by means
of special conventions between the several powers of Europe and America.
Accordingly, a proposition embracing not only the rule that free ships make
free goods, except contraband articles, but also the less contested one
that neutral property other than contraband, though on board enemy's ships,
shall be exempt from confiscation, has been submitted by this Government to
those of Europe and America.
Russia acted promptly in this matter, and a convention was concluded
between that country and the United States providing for the observance of
the principles announced, not only as between themselves, but also as
between them and all other nations which shall enter into like
stipulations. None of the other powers have as yet taken final action on
the subject. I am not aware, however, that any objection to the proposed
stipulations has been made, but, on the contrary, they are acknowledged to
be essential to the security of neutral commerce, and the only apparent
obstacle to their general adoption is in the possibility that it may be
encumbered by inadmissible conditions. The King of the Two Sicilies has
expressed to our minister at Naples his readiness to concur in our
proposition relative to neutral rights and to enter into a convention on
that subject.
The King of Prussia entirely approves of the project of a treaty to the
same effect submitted to him, but proposes an additional article providing
for the renunciation of privateering. Such an article, for most obvious
reasons, is much desired by nations having naval establishments large in
proportion to their foreign commerce. If it were adopted as an
international rule, the commerce of a nation having comparatively a small
naval force would be very much at the mercy of its enemy in case of war
with a power of decided naval superiority. The bare statement of the
condition in which the United States would be placed, after having
surrendered the right to resort to privateers, in the event of war with a
belligerent of naval supremacy will show that this Government could never
listen to such a proposition. The navy of the first maritime power in
Europe is at least ten times as large as that of the United States. The
foreign commerce of the two countries is nearly equal, and about equally
exposed to hostile depredations. In war between that power and the United
States, without resort on our part to our mercantile marine the means of
our enemy to inflict injury upon our commerce would be tenfold greater than
ours to retaliate. We could not extricate our country from this unequal
condition, with such an enemy, unless we at once departed from our present
peaceful policy and became a great naval power. Nor would this country be
better situated in war with one of the secondary naval powers. Though the
naval disparity would be less, the greater extent and more exposed
condition of our widespread commerce would give any of them a like
advantage over us.
The proposition to enter into engagements to forego a resort to privateers
in case this country should be forced into war with a great naval power is
not entitled to more favorable consideration than would be a proposition to
agree not to accept the services of volunteers for operations on land. When
the honor or the rights of our country require it to assume a hostile
attitude, it confidently relies upon the patriotism of its citizens, not
ordinarily devoted to the military profession, to augment the Army and the
Navy so as to make them fully adequate to the emergency which calls them
into action. The proposal to surrender the right to employ privateers is
professedly founded upon the principle that private property of unoffending
noncombatants, though enemies, should be exempt from the ravages of war;
but the proposed surrender goes but little way in carrying out that
principle, which equally requires that such private property should not be
seized or molested by national ships of war. Should the leading powers of
Europe concur in proposing as a rule of international law to exempt private
property upon the ocean from seizure by public armed cruisers as well as by
privateers, the United States will readily meet them upon that broad
ground.