Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives. The Legislative
Council shall consist of five members, to continue in office five
years, unless sooner removed by Congress, any three of whom to be
a quorum, and the members of the Council, shall be nominated and
appointed in the following manner, to wit: as soon as representatives
shall be elected, the Governor shall appoint a time and place for them
to meet together, and, when met, they shall nominate ten persons,
residents in the district, and each possessed of a freehold in five
hundred acres of land, and return their names to Congress, five of
whom Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid; and
whenever a vacancy shall happen in the Council, by death or removal
from office, the House of Representatives shall nominate two persons
qualified as aforesaid, for each vacancy, and return their names to
Congress, one of whom Congress shall appoint and commission for the
residue of the term; and every five years, four months at least before
the expiration of the time of service of the Council, the said House
shall nominate ten persons qualified as aforesaid, and return their
names to Congress, five of whom Congress shall appoint and commission
to serve as members of the Council five years, unless sooner removed.
And the Governor, Legislative Council, and House of Representatives,
shall have authority to make laws in all cases for the good government
of the district, not repugnant to the principles and articles in this
ordinance established and declared. And all bills having passed by
a majority in the House, and by a majority in the Council, shall be
referred to the Governor for his assent; but no bill or legislative act
whatever, shall be of any force without his assent. The Governor shall
have power to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the assembly, when in his
opinion it shall be expedient.
The Governor, Judges, Legislative Council, Secretary, and such other
officers as Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath
or affirmation of fidelity, and of office—the Governor before the
President of Congress, and all other officers before the Governor. As
soon as a Legislature shall be formed in the District, the Council and
House, assembled in one room, shall have authority, by joint ballot,
to elect a delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress,
with the right of debating, but not of voting, during this temporary
government.
And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious
liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and
constitutions, are elected; _to fix and establish those principles as
the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which_ FOREVER
_hereafter shall be formed in the said Territory_; to provide also for
the establishment of States, and for their admission to a share in the
Federal Council on an equal footing with the original States, at as
early periods as may be consistent with the general interest:
_It is hereby ordained and declared_, by the authority aforesaid, that
the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact
between the original States and the people and States in the said
Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent;
viz.:
ARTICLE I. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly
manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or
religious sentiments in the said Territory.
ART. II. The inhabitants of the said Territory shall always be entitled
to the benefit of the writ of _habeas corpus_ and of the trial by jury;
of a proportionate representation of the people in the Legislature,
and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law;
all persons shall be bailable unless for capital offenses, where the
proof shall be evident, or the presumption great; all fines shall be
moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted; no
man shall be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of
his peers or the law of the land; and should the public exigencies make
it necessary for the common preservation to take any person’s property,
or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made
for the same; and, in the just preservation of rights and property,
it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or
have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever,
interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, _bona fide_,
and, without fraud, previously formed.
ART. III. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall
always be observed toward the Indians; their lands and property shall
never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property,
rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless
in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in
justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for preventing
wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with
them.
ART. IV. The said Territory, and the States which may be formed
therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United
States of America; subject to the Articles of Confederation,[2] and to
such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all
the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled,
conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers in the said Territory
shall be subject to pay a part of the Federal debts contracted, or to
be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government,
to be apportioned on them by Congress, according to the same common
rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on
the other States; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be
laid and levied by the authority and direction of the Legislatures
of the District, or Districts, or new States, as in the original
States, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
assembled. The Legislatures of those Districts, or new States, shall
never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United
States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may
find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the _bona fide_
purchasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United
States; and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher
than residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and
St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common
highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said
Territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any
other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any
tax, impost, or duty therefor.
[2] This ordinance was drawn up before the Constitution was formed.
ART. V. There shall be formed in the said Territory not less than
three, nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the States,
as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of session and consent to
the same, shall become fixed and established as follows, to wit: The
western State shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
Rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post Vincents due north
to the territorial line between the United States and Canada, and by
the said territorial line to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi.
The middle State shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash
from Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio, by direct line drawn due
north from the mouth of the Great Miami to the said territorial line,
and by said territorial line. The eastern State shall be bounded by
the last mentioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said
territorial line; _Provided_, however, and it is further understood and
declared, that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
far to be altered, and, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient,
they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part of the
said Territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through
the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan; and whenever any of
the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein,
such States shall be admitted, by their delegates, into the Congress
of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in
all respects whatsoever; and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
constitution and State government; _Provided_, the constitution and
government so to be formed shall be republican, and in conformity to
the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be
consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission
shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less
number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.
ART. VI. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted; _Provided_, always, that any
person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service as aforesaid.
_Be it ordained_, by the authority aforesaid, that the resolutions of
the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be,
and the same are hereby repealed, and declared null and void.
NOTE.—By this ordinance, Virginia ceded to the
United States the territory now composing the States of
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan, making
the ordinance the fundamental law of these States.
AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.
_By the President of the United Slates of America_:
WHEREAS, The President of the United States, on the 8th day of
December, 1863, and on the 26th day of March, 1864, did, with the
object of suppressing the existing rebellion, to induce all persons
to return to their loyalty and to restore the authority of the United
States, issued Proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to certain
persons who had directly or by implication engaged in said rebellion,
and
WHEREAS, Many persons who had so engaged in the said rebellion, have,
since the issue of said Proclamation, failed or neglected to take the
benefits offered thereby; and whereas, many persons who have been
justly deprived of all claim to amnesty and pardon thereunder by reason
of their participation directly or by implication in said rebellion,
and continued hostile to the Government of the United States since the
date of said Proclamation, now desire to apply for and obtain amnesty
and pardon; to the end, therefore, that the authority of the Government
of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and
freedom may be established.
I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do proclaim
and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have directly
or indirectly participated in the existing rebellion, except as
hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with the restoration of all
the rights of property, except as to slaves, except in cases where
legal proceedings under the laws of the United States, providing for
the confiscation of property of persons engaged in the rebellion,
have been instituted; but on the condition, nevertheless, that every
such person shall take and subscribe the following oath, which shall
be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be the tenor and
effect of the following, to wit:
“I do solemnly swear or affirm, in the presence of Almighty God, that
I will henceforth faithfully defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Union of the States thereunder; and that I will in like
manner abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which
have been made during the existing rebellion, with reference to the
emancipation of slavery, so help me God.”
The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this
proclamation:
_First_—All who are, or shall have been, pretended civil or diplomatic
officers or otherwise, domestic or foreign agents of the pretended
Confederate Government.
_Second_—All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid
the rebellion.
_Third_—All who shall have been military or naval officers of said
pretended Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the Army,
or Lieutenant in the Navy.
_Fourth_—All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid
the rebellion.
_Fifth_—All who resigned or tendered the resignation of their
commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States, to evade the duty
in resisting the rebellion.
_Sixth_—All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than
lawfully as prisoners of war, persons found in the United States
service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.
_Seventh_—All persons who have been or are absentees from the United
States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.
_Eighth_—All military or naval officers in the rebel service who were
educated by the Government in the military academy at West Point, or in
the United States Naval Academy.
_Ninth_—All persons who hold the pretended offices of Governors of
States in insurrection against the United States.
_Tenth_—All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and
protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military
lines into the so-called Confederate States for the purpose of aiding
the rebellion.
_Eleventh_—All persons who have engaged in the destruction of the
commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who
have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in
destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers
that separate the British Provinces from the United States.
_Twelfth_—All persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the
benefits hereof, by taking the oath prescribed, are in military, naval
or civil confinement or custody, or under bond of the military or naval
authorities, or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or
persons detailed for offenses of any kind, either before or after the
conviction.
_Thirteenth_—All persons who have voluntarily participated in said
rebellion, and the estimate value of whose taxable property is over
$20,000.
_Fourteenth_—All persons who have taken the oath of Amnesty as
prescribed in the President’s Proclamation, December 28th, 1863, or
the Oath of Allegiance to the Government of the United States since
the date of said Proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and
maintained the same inviolate. Provided that special application may
be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the
excepted class, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may
be consistent with the facts, and the peace and dignity of the United
States. The Secretary of State will establish rules and regulations
for administering and recording said Amnesty Oath, so as to insure its
benefits to the people, and guard the Government against fraud.
[Illustration: SEAL]
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal
of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington,
this 29th day of May, A. D. 1865, and of the Independence of the United
States, the eighty-ninth. (Signed.)
By the President: ANDREW JOHNSON.
W. H. SEWARD, _Secretary of State_.
PROPOSED CRITTENDEN COMPROMISE.
At the commencement of the Congressional session of 1860, the
portentous clouds of civil war, gathering and blackening in the
southern horizon of our national sky, filled the hearts of the stoutest
patriots with the most gloomy apprehensions, and cast a melancholy
shadow over every Union-loving soul throughout the country, somewhat
akin to that which hovers over an affectionate son or daughter, upon
the approaching dissolution of a cherished, devoted mother. The
following compromise, offered by Senator Crittenden, December 19, 1860,
is one of the many measures proposed in Congress for adjusting the
difficulties of that period:
_Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives_, That the
following articles be proposed and submitted as an amendment to the
Constitution, which shall be valid as a part of the Constitution, when
ratified by the conventions of three-fourths of the people of the
States:
1st. In all the territory now or hereafter acquired, north of 36° 30′,
slavery, or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime,
is prohibited; while in all the territory south of that, slavery is
hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by
Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of
the territorial government during its continuance. All the territory
north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may
prescribe, when it contains a population necessary for a member of
Congress, with a Republican form of government, shall be admitted into
the Union on an equality with the original States, with or without
slavery, as the Constitution of the State shall prescribe.
2d. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the State
permitting it.
3d. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia while ′t exists in Virginia and Maryland, or either; nor
shall Congress at any time prohibit the officers of Government, or
members of Congress, whose duties require them to live in the District
of Columbia, bringing slaves there and using them as such.
4th. Congress shall have no power to hinder the transportation of
slaves from one State to another, whether by land, navigable river, or
sea.
5th. Congress shall have the power, by law, to pay any owner the
full value of any fugitive slave, in all cases where the marshal is
prevented from discharging his duty by force or rescue, made after
arrest. In all such cases the owner shall have the power to sue the
county in which the rescue or violence was made; and the county shall
have the right to sue the individuals who committed the wrong, in the
same manner as the owner would sue.
6th. No future amendment or amendments shall affect the preceding
article; and Congress shall never have power to interfere with slavery
within the States where it is permitted.
EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
_Whereas_, On the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our
Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was
issued by the President of the United States, containing among other
things the following, to wit:
That, on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then,
thenceforth and forever free, and the Executive Government of the
United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof,
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, or any of
them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in
which the people therein respectively shall then be in rebellion
against the United States, and the fact that any State, or the people
thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the
Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto, at elections
wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have
participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony,
be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof
are not then in rebellion against the United States.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States,
by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion
against the authority and Government of the United States, and as a
fit necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this
first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do,
publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the
day of the first above-mentioned order, and designate, as the States
and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively are this
day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, except the parishes of St. Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension,
Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin and Orleans,
including the city of New Orleans. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, except the
forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties
of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess
Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, and
which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this
proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order
and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated
States and parts of States are, and henceforward, shall be free; and
that the Executive Government of the United States, including the
military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the
freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain
from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend
to them that, in all cases, when allowed, they labor faithfully for
reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable
condition will be received into the armed service of the United States,
to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man
vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted
by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate
judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
[Illustration: SEAL]
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, _Secretary of State_.
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINING THE
EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
The following letter, written in August, 1863, in answer to an
invitation to attend a meeting of unconditional Union men held in
Illinois, gives at length the President’s views at that time on his
Emancipation Proclamation:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 26th, 1863.
MY DEAR SIR: Your letter inviting me to attend a mass-meeting of
unconditional Union men, to be held at the capitol of Illinois on the
third day of September, has been received. It would be very agreeable
to me to thus meet my old friends at my own home, but I can not just
now be absent from this city so long as a visit there would require.
The meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional devotion
to the Union; and I am sure my old political friends will thank me for
tendering, as I do, the nation’s gratitude to those other noble men
whom no partisan malice or partisan hope can make false to the nation’s
life. There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would
say, You desire peace, and you blame me that you do not have it. But
how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways: First, to
suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are
you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it,
a second way is to give up the Union. I am against this. If you are,
you should say so, plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for
dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. I do not
believe that any compromise, embracing the maintenance of the Union, is
now possible. All that I learn leads to a directly opposite belief. The
strength of the rebellion is its military—its army. The army dominates
all the country and all the people within its range. Any offer of
any terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to
that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men
have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one
were made with them. To illustrate: Suppose refugees from the South
and peace men of the North get together in convention, and frame
and proclaim a compromise embracing a restoration of the Union; in
what way can that compromise be used to keep General Lee’s army out
of Pennsylvania? General Meade’s army can keep Lee’s army out of
Pennsylvania, and, I think, can ultimately drive it out of existence.
But no paper compromise, to which the controllers of Lee’s army are not
agreed, can at all affect that army. In an effort at such compromise we
would waste time, which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage,
and that would be all. A compromise, to be effective, must be made
either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people, first
liberated from the domination of that army by the success of our army.
Now, allow me to assure you that no word or intimation from the rebel
army, or from any of the men controlling it, in relation to any peace
compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. All charges and
intimations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless. And I promise
you that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be
rejected and kept secret from you. I freely acknowledge myself to be
the servant of the people, according to the bond of service, the United
States Constitution, and that, as such, I am responsible to them.
But, to be plain: You are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite
likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon
that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while you,
I suppose, do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure
which is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for the
Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied that
you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I have not asked you to
be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater
taxation, to save the Union exclusively by other means.
You dislike the Emancipation Proclamation, and perhaps would have it
retracted. You say it is unconstitutional. I think differently: I think
that the Constitution invests the Commander-in-Chief with the law of
war in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that the
slaves are property. Is there—has there ever been—any question that,
by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken
when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts
the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemies’ property when they
can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy.
Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt
the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. Among
the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes and non-combatants,
male and female. But the proclamation, as law, is valid, or is not
valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction; if it is valid,
it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to
life. Some of you profess to think that its retraction would operate
favorably for the Union. Why better after the retraction than before
the issue? There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress
the rebellion before the proclamation was issued, the last one hundred
days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming,
unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. The
war has certainly progressed as favorably for us since the issue of the
proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinion of
others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field, who
have given us our most important victories, believe the emancipation
policy and the aid of colored troops to be the heaviest blows yet
dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of these important
successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of
black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some
who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or
with “Republican party politics,” but who hold them purely as military
opinions. I submit their opinions as being entitled to some weight
against the objections often urged, that emancipation and arming the
blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such
in good faith. You say that you will not fight to free negroes. Some
of them seem to be willing to fight for you—but no matter. Fight
you, then, exclusively, to save the Union. I issued the proclamation
on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have
conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue
fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare that you will
not fight to free negroes. I thought that, in your struggle for the
Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy,
to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you
think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as
soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving
the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other
people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us if we
will not do any thing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they
must be prompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom.
And, the promise being made, must be kept. The signs look better. The
Father of Waters again goes unvexed to the sea. Thanks to the great
North-west for it. Not yet wholly to them. Three hundred miles up they
met New England, Empire, Keystone, and Jersey, hewing their way right
and left. The Sunny South, too, in more colors than one, also lent a
hand. On the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black
and white. The job was a great national one, and let none be blamed who
bore an honorable part in it; and, while those who have cleared the
great river may well be proud, even that is not all. It is hard to say
that any thing has been more bravely or better done than at Antietam,
Murfreesboro, Gettysburg, and on many fields of less note. Nor must
Uncle Sam’s web-fleet be forgotten. At all the waters’ margins they
have been present—not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the
rapid river, but also up the narrow, muddy bayou; and, wherever the
ground was a little damp, they have been, and made their tracks. Thanks
to all. For the great republic—for the principles by which it lives and
keeps alive—for man’s vast future—thanks to all. Peace does not appear
so far distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay;
and so come as to be worth keeping in all future time. It will then
have proved that among freemen there can be no successful appeal from
the ballot to the bullet, and that they who take such appeal are sure
to lose their case and pay the cost. And then there will be some black
men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and
steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to
this great consummation; while I fear that there will be some white
men unable to forget that, with malignant heart and deceitful speech,
they have striven to hinder it. Still, let us not be over-sanguine of
a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us diligently apply
the means, never doubting that a just God, in His own good time, will
give us the rightful result.
Yours, very truly, A. LINCOLN.
PROCLAMATION OF ANDREW JACKSON.
_The President of the United States to the nullifiers of South
Carolina_:
WHEREAS, A convention assembled in the State of South Carolina have
passed an ordinance, by which they declare, “that the several acts
and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to
be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of
foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within
the United States, and more especially,” two acts for the same purposes
passed on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, “are
unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the
true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law,”
nor binding on the citizens of that State or its officers; and by the
said ordinance, it is further declared to be unlawful for any of the
constituted authorities of the State or of the United States to enforce
the payment of the duties imposed by the said acts with the same State,
and that it is the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be
necessary to give full effect to the said ordinance:
AND, WHEREAS, By the said ordinance, it is further ordained that in
no case of law or equity decided in the courts of said State, wherein
shall be drawn in question the validity of the said ordinance, or of
the acts of the Legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of
the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall be allowed to the
Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be
permitted or allowed for that purpose; and that any person attempting
to take such appeal shall be punished as for a contempt of court:
And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South
Carolina will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard; and that
they will consider the passage of any act, by Congress, abolishing or
closing the ports of the said State, or otherwise obstructing the free
ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other
act of the Federal Government to coerce the State, shut up her ports,
destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the said act otherwise
than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with
the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union, and that the
people of the said State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved
from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political
connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith
proceed to organize a separate government and do all other acts and
things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.
AND, WHEREAS, The said ordinance prescribes to the people of South
Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of their duty as
citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country,
subversive of its Constitution, and having for its object the
destruction of the Union—that Union, which, coeval with our political
existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them
than those of patriotism and a common cause, through a sanguinary
struggle to a glorious independence—that sacred Union, hitherto
inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought
us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home, and
high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equaled in the history
of nations. To preserve this bond of our political existence from
destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of national honor and
prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have
reposed in me, I, ANDREW JACKSON, President of the United States, have
thought proper to issue this, my PROCLAMATION, stating my views of
the Constitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the
Convention of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth
to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to
pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of the
people, warn them of the consequences that must inevitably result from
an observance of the dictates of the convention.
Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of
those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be invested, for
preserving the peace of the Union, and for the execution of the laws.
But the imposing aspect which opposition has assumed in this case, by
clothing itself with State authority, and the deep interest which the
people of the United States must all feel in preventing a resort to
stronger measures, while there is a hope that any thing will be yielded
to reasoning and remonstrance, perhaps demand, and will certainly
justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation of the
views I entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct
enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require me to
pursue.
The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting
acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be
endured; but on the strange position that any one State may not only
declare an act void, but prohibit its execution—that they may do this
consistently with the Constitution—that the true construction of that
instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be
bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as
constitutional. It is true, they add, that to justify this abrogation
of law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution; but it is
evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description,
coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that
character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the
theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good
or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a
sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why
it is not deemed a sufficient guard against an unconstitutional act
of Congress? There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which
makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does
not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional
act passed by Congress—one to the judiciary, the other to the people
and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory,
and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against
an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to
decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous,
when our social compact, in express terms, declares that the laws of
the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are
the supreme law of the land; and, for the greater caution, adds “that
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no Federal
Government could exist without a similar provision. Look for a
moment to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenues
unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the
port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to
their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected
anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat,
that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its
legality is to be decided by the State itself; for every law operating
injuriously upon any local interest will be, perhaps, thought, and
certainly represented, as unconstitutional; and, as has been shown,
there is no appeal.
[Illustration: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.]
If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the
Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in
Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the eastern
States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional,
and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now
complained of; but fortunately none of those States discovered that
they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we
were forced to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our
citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory
and honor, if the States who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional
measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by
which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly
and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union,
to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as
it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature
in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen
of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that
State will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice.
If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with
it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional
history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been
repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in
our Government.
In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very
early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with
each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and, before the
Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character
as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step
was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by
several acts, and when the terms of our Confederation were reduced to
form, it was that of a solemn league of several States, by which they
agreed that they would collectively form one nation for the purpose of
conducting some certain domestic concerns and all foreign relations. In
the instrument forming that Union is found an article which declares
that “every State shall abide by the determination of Congress on all
questions which, by that Confederation, should be submitted to them.”
Under the Confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision
of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision
was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but
they were not complied with. The Government could not operate on
individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.
But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under
its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither
prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things
could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed,
but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed
for important objects that are announced in the preamble made in the
name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose
delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it. The most important
among those objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all
others rest, is, “to form a more perfect Union.” Now, is it possible
that even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the
Constitution and laws of the United States—can it be conceived, that an
instrument made for the purpose of “forming a more perfect Union” than
that of the Confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled
wisdom of our country as to substitute for that Confederation a form of
government dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party
spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State? Every man of
plain, unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give
such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in
pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that
is calculated to destroy it.
I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States,
assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union,
contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized
by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was
founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.
After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the
particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.
The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes,
as a fact, that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws
for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of
manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the
operation of these laws is unequal; that the amount raised by them is
greater than is required by the wants of the Government; and, finally,
that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the
Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open
opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from
the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first
virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a
power expressly given by the Constitution to lay and collect imposts;
but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of
those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the
present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position
that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained by the members who assent
to a law enacted under constitutional power, shall make the law void:
for how is that purpose to be ascertained? How often may bad purposes
be falsely imputed—in how many cases are they concealed by false
professions—in how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this
doctrine, and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide,
and every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the
absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted, that a State may
annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not
apply to the present case.
The next objection is, that the laws in question operate unequally.
This objection may be made with truth to every law that has been or
may be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of
taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal
operation of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that
description may be abrogated by any State for that cause, then indeed
is the Federal Constitution unworthy the slightest effort for its
preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of
our Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of
the nation. We have trusted to it as the sheet anchor of our safety in
the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have
looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and
with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our
lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its
defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching
this importance to the Constitution of our country? Was our devotion
paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy, contrivance which this new
doctrine would make it? Did we pledge ourselves to the support of an
airy nothing—a bubble, that must be blown away by the first breath
of dissatisfaction? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory, the
work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task
of constitutional reform was intrusted? Did the name of Washington
sanction, did the States deliberately ratify such an anamoly in the
history of fundamental legislation? No. We were not mistaken. The
letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault; its
language directly contradicts the imputation; its spirit—its evident
intent, contradicts it. No, we did not err! Our Constitution does not
contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another power
to resist them. The sages whose memory will always be reverenced, have
given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional
compact. The Father of his Country did not affix his revered name to
so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the States, when they severally
ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the
United States, was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it by
implication. Search the debates in all their conventions, examine the
speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority, look at
the amendments that were proposed; they are all silent—not a syllable
uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made, to correct the explicit
supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the States, or
to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it. No, we
have not erred! The Constitution is still the object of our reverence,
the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our
prosperity in peace; it shall descend as we received it, uncorrupted,
by sophistical construction, to our posterity, and the sacrifices of
local interest, of State prejudices, of personal animosities, that were
made to bring it into existence, will again be patriotically offered
for its support.
The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws,
are that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are
required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed.
The Constitution has given, expressly, to Congress the right of raising
revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require.
The States have no control over the exercise of this right, other than
that which results from the power of changing the representatives who
abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress may, undoubtedly, abuse
this discretionary power; but the same may be said of others with
which they are vested. Yet this discretion must exist somewhere. The
Constitution has given it to the representatives of all the people,
checked by the representatives of the States and by the executive
power. The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature
or the convention of a single State, where neither the people of the
different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the
chief magistrate elected by the people, have any representation.
Which is the most discreet disposition of the power? I do not ask
you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional disposition; that
instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. But if you were
assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest
depository of this discretionary power in the last resort? Would you
add a clause giving it to each of the States, or would you sanction
the wise provisions already made by your Constitution? If this should
be the result of your deliberations when providing for the future, are
you, can you be ready to risk all that we hold dear to establish, for
a temporary and a local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be
destructive, and even absurd, as a general provision? Carry out the
consequences of this right vested in the different States, and you must
perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day would recur
whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and
that we should soon cease to be a nation.
The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes
a former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will
be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with
certainty, the objection would, with more propriety, be reserved for
the law so applying the proceeds, but surely can not be urged against
the laws levying the duty.
These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them
seriously, my fellow-citizens; judge for yourselves. I appeal to you
to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave
no doubt of their correctness; and even if you should come to this
conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course
which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections, and the
conclusions drawn from them, once more. What are they? Every law, then,
for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina ordinance, may be
rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can
be framed. Congress has the right to pass laws for raising a revenue,
and each State has a right to oppose their execution—two rights
directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed
to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of
avoiding collisions between the States and the General Government, by
an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever
embodied for a similar purpose.
In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; in vain have
they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be
necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution; that those
laws and that Constitution shall be the “supreme law of the land, and
that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
In vain have the people of the several States solemnly sanctified
these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually
sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any
office. Vain provision! ineffectual restrictions! vile profanation
of oaths! miserable mockery of legislation! if the bare majority of
the voters in any one State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of
the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free
from its operation—say here it gives too little, there too much, and
operates unequally—here it suffers articles to be free that ought
to be taxed—there it taxes those that ought to be free—in this case
the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not
approve—in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it
is true, is invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding
these questions according to their sound discretion; Congress is
composed of the representatives of all the States, and of all the
people of all the States; but we, part of the people of one State, to
whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject, from whom it
has expressly taken it away—we, who have solemnly agreed that this
Constitution shall be our law—we, most of whom have sworn to support
it—we now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear that
it shall not be obeyed; and we do this, not because Congress have no
right to pass such laws—this we do not allege—but because they have
passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the
motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty
know; from their unequal operation, although it is impossible,
from the nature of things, that they should be equal; and from the
disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although
that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of
the ordinance, in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged
unconstitutionality. But it does not stop there. It repeals, in
express terms, an important part of the Constitution itself, and of
laws passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to be
unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers
of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the
United States; and that such laws, the Constitution and treaties, shall
be paramount to the State Constitutions and laws. The judiciary act
prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of
the United States by appeal, when a State tribunal shall decide against
this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares that there
shall be no appeal, makes the State law paramount to the Constitution
and laws of the United States, forces judges and jurors to swear that
they will disregard their provisions, and even makes it penal in a suit
to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be
lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that State, to
enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its
limits.
Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be
unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the
voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the Constitution,
which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority.
On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an
assertion of the right to annul the laws, of which it complains, but to
enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt is
made to execute them.
This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution,
which they say is a compact between sovereign States, who have
preserved their whole sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no
superior; that because they made the compact, they can break it, when,
in their opinion, it has been departed from by other States. Fallacious
as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds
advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the
nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which
it rests.
The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through
the State Legislatures in forming the compact, to meet and discuss
its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified
those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to
be a government in which the people of all the States collectively
are represented. We are _one people_ in the choice of President and
Vice-President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct
the mode in which the votes shall be given. The candidates having a
majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of
States may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another
may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in
the executive branch.
In the House of Representatives there is this difference: that
the people of one State do not, as in the case of President and
Vice-President, all vote for the same officers. The people of all
the States do not vote for all the members, each State electing only
its own Representatives. But this creates no national distinction.
When chosen, they are all Representatives of the United States,
not representatives of the particular State from whence they
come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor
are they accountable to it for any act done in the performance of
their legislative functions; and however they may, in practice, as
it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their
particular constituents, when they come in conflict with any other
partial or local interest, yet it is the first and highest duty of a
Representative of the United States to promote the general good.
The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a _government_, not
a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or
in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in
which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the
people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power
they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many
powers, as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation,
can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such
secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation;
and any injury to that unity is not only a breach, which would result
from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the
whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the
Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation; because
it would be a solecism to contend, that any part of a nation might
dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin,
without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary
act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but
to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of the
terms; and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those
who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a
revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.
Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that
compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but
it is precisely because it is a compact that they can not. A compact
is an agreement or binding obligation. It may, by its terms, have
a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains
no sanction, it may be broken, with no other consequences than moral
guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or
implied penalty. A league between independent nations generally has no
sanction other than a moral one; or, if it should contain a penalty,
as there is no common superior, it can not be enforced. A government,
on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and, in
our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An
attempt, by force of arms, to destroy a government, is an offense, by
whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and
such government has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts
for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained,
or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is
modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to
pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect; and, under
this grant, provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct
the due administration of the laws.
It would seem superfluous to add any thing to show the nature of that
Union which connects us; but as erroneous opinions on this subject
are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I
must give further development to my views on this subject. No one,
fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the
States than the magistrate who now addresses you; no one would make
greater personal sacrifices or official exertion to defend them from
violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an
improper interference with, or resumption of, the rights they have
vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to
avoid doubts, in some cases, of the exercise of power. Men of the best
intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some
parts of the Constitution; but there are others on which dispassionate
reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed
right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided
sovereignty of the States, and on their having formed, in this
sovereign capacity, a compact, which is called the Constitution, from
which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of
these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them
so have been anticipated.
The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It
has been shown that, in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a
league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty.
The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive
judicial and legislative powers, were, all of them, functions of
sovereign power. The States, then, for all these purposes, were no
longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred,
in the first instance, to the Government of the United States; they
became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the
United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested
in Congress. This last position has not been, and can not be, denied.
How, then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose
citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates
are sworn to disregard those laws when they come in conflict with
those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States can
not be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty is, that they
expressly ceded the right to punish treason—not treason against their
separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an
offense against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the
power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less
sacred because they have, for their common interest, made the General
Government the depository of these powers.
The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another
purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government
we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppressions
began as _united colonies_. We were the United States, under the
Confederation, and the name was perpetuated, and the Union rendered
more perfect by the Federal Constitution. In none of these stages did
we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation.
Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised
for the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that, under
all changes of our position, we had, for designated purposes, and with
defined powers, created national governments; how is it that the most
perfect of those several modes of union should now be considered as a
mere league, that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse
of terms. “Compact” is used as synonymous with “league,” although the
true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of
the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a
league; but it is labored to prove it a compact (which in one sense it
is), and then to argue that, as a league is a compact, every compact
between nations must, of course, be a league, and that from such an
engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been
shown that, in this sense, the States are not sovereign, and that even
if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact,
there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from its
obligations.
So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is
necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit
of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions.
Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously
surrender their title to the territories in the West, recall the grant?
Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that
may be imposed, without their assent, by those on the Atlantic or the
Gulf for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State,
and onerous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists,
in a single State, to involve the others in these and countless other
evils contrary to the engagements solemnly made. Every one must see
that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it, at all hazards.
These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention: A
repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the Government
without the means of support, or an acquiescence in the dissolution
of our Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first
was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened to for a
moment. It was known, if force was applied to oppose the execution
of the laws, that it must be repelled by force; that Congress could
not, without involving itself in disgrace and the country in ruin,
accede to the proposition; and yet, if this is not done on a given
day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the State is,
by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of
a convention, assembled for the purpose, have dictated these terms,
or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of
South Carolina. It is true that the Governor of the State speaks of
the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the States,
which, he says, they “sincerely and anxiously seek and desire.” Yet
this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the
other States, on the construction of the Federal compact, and amending
it if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the
State on to this destructive measure. The State might have proposed to
call for a general convention of the other States; and Congress, if
a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the
first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that, “on
a review by Congress and the functionaries of the General Government
of the merits of the controversy,” such a convention will be accorded
to them, must have known that neither Congress, nor any functionary
of the General Government, has authority to call such a convention,
unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This suggestion,
then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions
of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on;
or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy
has been sought and refused. If the Legislature of South Carolina
“anxiously desire” a general convention to consider their complaints,
why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution
points out? The assertion that they “earnestly seek” it is completely
negatived by the omission.
This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the
citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State
convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws
of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a
member of this Union. The Governor of that State has recommended to
the Legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into
effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in
the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has
yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended;
and it is the intent of this instrument to proclaim, not only that
the duty imposed on me by the Constitution “to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed,” shall be performed to the extent of the
powers already vested in me by law, or of such others as the wisdom
of Congress shall devise and intrust to me for that purpose, but to
warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an
opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience
to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention; to
exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their
determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country; and
to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people
of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to
pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they
affect to support.
Fellow-citizens of my native State, let me not only admonish you, as
the First Magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of
its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children
whom he saw rushing to certain ruin. In that paternal language, with
that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are
deluded by men who are either deceived themselves, or wish to deceive
you. Mark under what pretenses you have been led on to the brink of
insurrection and treason, and on which you stand! First, a diminution
of the value of your staple commodity, lowered by over-production in
other quarters, and the consequent diminution in the value of your
lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws.
The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil
was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to
believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to
your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was roused by the
assertion that a submission to those laws was a state of vassalage,
and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the
opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain.
You were told that this opposition might be peaceably—might be
constitutionally made; that you might enjoy all the advantages of the
Union, and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions,
to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real
injury, were used, to prepare you for the period when the mask, which
concealed the hideous features of disunion, should be taken off. It
fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which, not
long since, you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts
which have brought you to this state—look forward to the consequences
to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to what was first told
you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great
political truth was repeated to you, that you had the revolutionary
right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional and
intolerably oppressive; it was added that the right to nullify a law
rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy!
This character which was given to it, made you receive, with too much
confidence, the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality
of the law and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow-citizens, that,
by the admission of your leaders, the unconstitutionality must be
_palpable_, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification!
What is the meaning of the word _palpable_, in the sense in which it is
here used? that which is apparent to every one; that which no man of
ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality
of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who
once approved and advocated the principle of protective duties, answer
the question; and let them choose whether they will be considered as
incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to
every man of common understanding, or as imposing on your confidence,
and endeavoring to mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe
guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on
this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated
language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty,
emulating the fame of our revolutionary fathers; nor are you an
oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than
colonial vassalage.
You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no
settled design to oppress you. You have, indeed, felt the unequal
operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally
passed; but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very
moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you
have begun, a change in public opinion had commenced. The nearly
approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity
of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable
reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consumption in
your State. The importance of this change was underrated, and you are
authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burdens were
to be expected at the very time when the condition of the country
imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties as should
reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as if apprehensive
of the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were
precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves.
I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry
you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the
consequences it will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate
the condition of that country of which you still form an important
part. Consider its Government, uniting in one bond of common interest
and general protection so many different States—giving to all their
inhabitants the proud title of American citizens; protecting their
commerce; securing their literature and their arts; facilitating their
intercommunication; defending their frontiers, and making their names
respected in the remotest parts of the earth. Consider the extent of
its territory; its increasing and happy population; its advance in
arts, which render life agreeable; and the sciences, which elevate
the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality,
and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our
Territories and States! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched
and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of
happiness and honor, and say: “_We, too, are citizens of America!_
Carolina is one of these proud States—her arms have defended—her
best blood has cemented this happy Union!” And then add, if you can,
without horror and remorse, “this happy Union we will dissolve; this
picture of peace and prosperity we will deface; this free intercourse
we will interrupt; these fertile fields we will deluge with blood;
the protection of that glorious flag we renounce; the very name of
Americans we discard.” And for what, mistaken men—for what do you
throw away these inestimable blessings? for what would you exchange
your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of
separate independence—a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with
your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your
leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your
situation? Are you united at home—are you free from the apprehension of
civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring
republics, every day suffering some new revolution, or contending with
some new insurrection—do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a
high duty obliges me solemnly to announce that you can not succeed. The
laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary
power on the subject—my duty is emphatically pronounced in the
Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their
execution, deceived you—they could not have been deceived themselves.
They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution
of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled.
Their object is disunion; but be not deceived by names; disunion, by
armed force, is _treason_. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?
If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful
consequences—on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall
the punishment; on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the
evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country.
It can not accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would
be the first victims—its First Magistrate can not, if he would, avoid
the performance of his duty; the consequences must be fearful to you,
distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good
government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity
with a vexation they could not conceal—it was a standing refutation of
their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the
triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them.
There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the
Sumters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names, which adorn
the pages of your revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union,
to support which so many of them fought, and bled, and died.
I adjure you, as you honor their memory—as you love the cause of
freedom, to which they dedicated their lives—as you prize the peace of
your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame,
to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the
disorganizing edict of its convention—bid its members to re-assemble,
and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the
path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor.
Tell them that, compared to disunion, all other evils are light,
because that brings with it an accumulation of all. Declare that you
will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your
country shall float over you; that you will not be stigmatized when
dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the
first attack on the Constitution of your country. Its destroyers you
can not be. You may disturb its peace—you may interrupt the course of
its prosperity—you may cloud its reputation for stability; but its
tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the
stain upon its national character will be transferred, and remain an
eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.
Fellow-citizens of the United States! The threat of unhallowed
disunion—the names of those once respected, by whom it is uttered—the
array of military force to support it—denotes the approach of a crisis
in our affairs, on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity,
our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments,
may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, and explicit
enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action:
and as the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the
laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank
exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our
government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it
was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the
justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties, which
has been expressed, I rely, with equal confidence, on your undivided
support in my determination to execute the laws—to preserve the Union
by all constitutional means—to arrest, if possible, by moderate but
firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the
will of Heaven, that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for
the shedding of a brother’s blood should fall upon our land, that it be
not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.
Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided
support of your Government depends the decision of the great question
it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the
blessings it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No
one can doubt that the unanimity with which that decision will be
expressed, will be such as to inspire new confidence in republican
institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which
it will bring to their defense will transmit them unimpaired and
invigorated to our children.
May the Great Ruler of Nations grant that the signal blessings with
which He has favored ours, may not, by the madness of party or personal
ambition, be disregarded and lost; and may His wise providence bring
those who have produced this crisis to see their folly, before they
feel the misery of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration
for that Union, which, if we may dare to penetrate His designs, He has
chosen as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we
may reasonably aspire.
In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be
hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand.
Done at the city of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the
Independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.
By the President: ANDREW JACKSON.
EDWD. LIVINGSTON, _Secretary of State_.
HISTORY OF THE STATES.
VIRGINIA.
“The Old Dominion,” so distinguished as being the native State of
the Father of American Liberty, and the “Mother of Presidents,”
really seemed at one time, to be peculiarly favorable to the birth
and development of statesmen. It has furnished no less than five
Presidents, among whom are Washington, Monroe, Madison, and Jefferson.
It was the first Colony, on the Continent, settled by the English. In
1607, a company formed under the patronage of James I, obtained a grant
to make settlements in America, between the 34th and 38th degrees of
north latitude. In May, 1607, a colony of one hundred and five persons,
under direction of this company, arrived off the coast of South
Virginia. Their intention had been to form a settlement on Roanoke,
now in North Carolina; but being driven north by a violent storm, they
discovered and entered the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Passing up this
bay they named its capes—Henry and Charles—in honor of the king’s two
sons. They were commanded by Capt. Christopher Newport, an experienced
and distinguished navigator. Passing up James River, they arrived at a
peninsula, upon which they landed and established Jamestown.
After promulgating a code of laws which had been formed by the London
company, Capt. Newport sailed for England, leaving the colony under the
care of Capt. John Smith, whose subsequent relations to the settlement
became so important, and without whose efforts the enterprise would
doubtless have proved a failure. The colonists seem to have been very
poorly adapted to the labor required at their hands. Too many of them
were _gentlemen_, and came, it appears, only to enrich themselves by
gathering gold, which, they had heard, was very abundant.
Through a series of difficulties, which it is rarely the lot of man
to encounter, this colony progressed; the settlers awhile quarreling
among themselves, and awhile contending against savages and famine, for
bare existence, until the period of the Revolution, in which it was
one of the first colonies to take active part, furnishing to the young
republic many of its most efficient military chieftains and statesmen.
It ratified the Constitution June 26, 1788. After the Revolution its
course was for many years one of great prosperity. But, unfortunately,
the year 1861 found the majority of its statesmen arrayed against the
Government, on the side of secession, and on the 15th of April, 1861,
she seceded from the Union. On the 17th of June, 1861, all the counties
lying between the Alleghany Mountains and the Ohio River, were, by a
convention held at Wheeling, declared independent of the old State
government, and were organized into a new State, called West Virginia,
which remains loyal. The capital of the old State was selected as the
seat of government of the so-called Confederate States of America.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Massachusetts was settled in the year 1620, by the Puritans. These
people, having been severely persecuted in England, had previously
taken refuge in Holland; but for various reasons they determined,
after remaining in Holland a season, to emigrate to the New World.
Unfortunately, they started at a very unpropitious season of the year,
arriving at New England in the winter. The severity of the climate,
their scarcity of food at times, operated seriously against their
comfort and progress. It is said that they were frequently threatened
with starvation. At one time the entire company had but one pint of
Indian corn, which being divided equally among them, allowed to each
person eight grains. But, unlike the early settlers of Virginia,
they were all working men, and good economists. From the time of the
landing at Plymouth, up to 1691, this first settlement was known as the
Plymouth Colony. Meantime, another settlement had been formed, styled
the Massachusetts Colony. Both were for some years under the control
of a London company. In 1691, Massachusetts and Plymouth Colonies
were united, and thenceforward their history is one. The people of
Massachusetts were, during the early part of their colonial existence,
sorely vexed, at times, by the Indians, especially by the Pequods.
They, unfortunately, had imbibed, during their own persecutions, too
much of the spirit of conscription, and, although themselves refugees
from religious bigotry, sullied much of their history prior to the
Revolution by punishing what they called heresy in the Quakers and
Baptists. During 1774 and 1775, Massachusetts took a very prominent
part in favor of colonial rights, and was the first State to manifest
the spirit of resentment toward Great Britain. Its history during the
War for Independence is one of glory. It adopted the Constitution June
6, 1788.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
This State was a part of Massachusetts up to the year 1680. It was,
however, settled in 1624, the first settlement being formed at Dover
by the English. In 1680, it was erected into a separate colony, and
its first legislative assembly met this year. John Mason was its first
Governor. It suffered severely from Indian wars, and its progress,
during the first years of its existence, was slow. In 1742 it contained
only six hundred persons liable to taxation. Its first Constitution
was formed in 1683. It suffered from the effects of an insurrection
in 1686, although prior and subsequent to this affair, it seems to
have been one of the most peaceful and quiet of the colonies. It
is distinguished for its excellent pastures, towering hills, and
fine cattle. The White Mountains are the highest in New England.
It took a prominent and active part in the Revolution. It ratified
the Constitution June 21, 1788, since which time it has been highly
prosperous. Its present population is 326,073. Its course during the
rebellion has been highly commendable.
[Illustration: ANDREW JACKSON.]
MARYLAND.
In 1632, Sir George Calvert (Lord Baltimore) visited America, explored
a tract of country lying on the Chesapeake Bay, belonging to what was
then called South Virginia, and returned to England to procure a grant
for it. But before the patent was made out, he died, and it was given
to his son Cecil. The province was named by King Charles I, in the
patent, in honor of his Queen, Henrietta Maria. A part of the province
appears to have been included in the grant made some time afterward to
William Penn, and to have caused much contention between the successors
of Penn and Baltimore.
In March, 1634, Leonard Calvert, the brother of Cecil, arrived at the
mouth of the Potomac River, bringing with him two hundred emigrants,
most of whom were Roman Catholic gentlemen. Leaving the vessel, he
ascended in a pinnace as far as Piskataqua, an Indian village nearly
opposite Mount Vernon. The Indian Sachem gave him full liberty
to settle there if he chose; but not deeming it safe, he began a
settlement lower down on a branch of the Potomac, at the Indian town of
Yoacomoco. The settlement was called St. Mary’s.
Maryland made a very fortunate beginning. The colonists arrived in time
to make a crop for that year. Their neighbors in Virginia supplied them
with cattle, and protected them in great part from the Indians, while
their own kind and consistent course materially promoted their happy
relations with the savages.
The charter which had been granted them was very liberal—ceding to
them the full power of legislation, without any interference on the
part of the Crown. In 1635, they made laws for their government, which
were somewhat modified in 1639. In 1650, they had an upper and lower
legislative assembly, as had their Virginia neighbors.
Ten or twelve years after its settlement, Maryland was disturbed by an
insurrection, headed by one Clayborne; but this difficulty was soon
settled. It played a conspicuous part in the Revolution, and adopted
the Constitution April 28, 1788. Its progress has been fair, its
present population being 687,049. Its geographical position and the
mixed political character of its people caused it to assume a rather
dubious attitude at the commencement of the rebellion of 1861. Some of
its best statesmen, however, were among the most uncompromising friends
of the Union.
NEW YORK.
Captain Henry Hudson, the famous voyager, discovered what is now New
York, together with a considerable extent of territory contiguous to
it, in the year 1609. Although an Englishman by nativity, Hudson was
at this time employed by the Dutch, (Hollanders) who, consequently,
claimed the territory. Meantime the English set up a claim to it, as
being part of North Virginia. They also claimed it on account of Hudson
being an Englishman. The Dutch, however, determined to hold it, and in
1610 opened a trade with the natives at Manhattan Island, on the spot
where the city of New York now stands. They erected a fort on or near
the site of Albany, named the country in general, New Netherlands, and
the station at Manhattan, New Amsterdam. The Dutch retained the country
until the year 1664.
It seems that, up to this time, they claimed not only the present
territory of New York, but also that of Connecticut and New Jersey.
The liberal governments of the surrounding colonies stood in great
contrast with the despotic one imposed by the Dutch Government upon
their American colonists. And when, in 1664, the English squadron
dispatched by James, Duke of York, with instructions to take possession
of the province of New Netherlands, appeared before New Amsterdam,
the inhabitants were willing to capitulate without resistance. Peter
Stuyvesant, their Governor, and an able executive, made vain efforts
to rouse them to defense, and was forced to surrender. The English
Government was now acknowledged over the whole of New Netherlands, the
capital receiving the name of New York, as well as the province. From
this time forward to the Revolutionary War, New York remained in the
hands of the English, and was under the control of a very arbitrary
succession of Governors. The progress of the colony was steady, in
numbers, wealth, and civilization. It took an active part in the
Revolution, and adopted its Constitution July 26, 1788. After this it
outstripped every other State in the Union in every thing pertaining
to wealth and greatness, save education, in which matter no State can
compare with Massachusetts. At the commencement of the great Rebellion,
this noble State showed herself truly worthy to be ranked as the Empire
State. She has furnished the Government more money than any other
State. Her population is 3,880,735.
CONNECTICUT.
In the year 1633, the Puritans of Massachusetts, having heard very
flattering reports of the valley of Connecticut, resolved to make an
effort to settle it. Accordingly, a company of them sailed for the
Connecticut River, taking with them the frame of a house. Meantime the
Dutch, claiming the territory as theirs, built a fort on the river
where Hartford now stands, to prevent the emigrants from passing up.
The Yankees, however, with that steady perseverance which has always
marked their course, proceeded on their way, paying no attention to
the Dutch fort, whose only demonstration was an unexecuted threat to
fire on the emigrants if they passed it. Landing where Farmington
River enters the Connecticut, they founded the town of Windsor. Other
settlements were subsequently formed at Westerfield, Hartford, and
Watertown. The first general court was held at Hartford, in the year
1636. The province suffered severely from the depredations of the
Pequod Indians, with which tribe a great and decisive battle was
ultimately fought on the river Mystic, in the year 1636.[3] During
this year the towns of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield, met in
convention and formed a Government, electing John Haynes the first
Governor of the colony.
[3] This battle resulted in the destruction of the Pequod tribe.
Its course from this period forward was one of great prosperity. It
stood in the front rank during the war for Independence, and in no case
was ever known to flinch from duty. It ratified the Constitution June
9, 1788. Its present population is 460,147.
At the commencement of the Rebellion, in 1861, its voice was for the
Union and the Government of the Fathers. Its aid in behalf of freedom
has been earnest and efficient.
RHODE ISLAND.
In June, 1636, Roger Williams, an earnest, enthusiastic advocate of
religious liberty in the broadest sense, having been banished by the
Puritans of Massachusetts from that colony, went to what is now known
as Rhode Island, purchased the present site of Providence of the
Narragansett Indians, and founded a colony, of which he was at once
pastor, teacher, and father. He donated land to any whom he thought
worthy, and Providence Plantation, as it was long called, became an
asylum for persecuted Christians of all denominations, especially the
Baptists. The first settlement in Rhode Island proper, was formed
by William Codington, in the year 1636. Up to 1640, the citizens of
Rhode Island made their own laws in general convention. But, in 1644,
Roger Williams, with the aid of Gov. Vane, of Massachusetts, procured
a charter for two settlements, under the name of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations. The Constitution framed under this charter
was a good one; and lasted until the year 1818. For many years the
legislative assembly of this colony met twice a year.
Rhode Island is distinguished as the smallest State in the Union. It
did noble service in the war for Independence, but did not, for some
reason, adopt the Constitution till the 29th of May, 1790. It has been
a highly prosperous State; is distinguished for its good schools and
large manufactories.
At the breaking out of the Rebellion in 1861, it stepped nobly forward
in defense of the Government, sending its own Governor to Washington at
the head of a regiment of volunteers. Its population is 174,620.
NEW JERSEY,
At first, formed a part of the Dutch province of New Netherlands.
But soon after the latter came into the hands of the English, the
Territory of New Jersey was transferred to Lord Berkley and Sir George
Carteret, by the Duke of York. The first permanent settlement was
formed at Elizabethtown, in 1664, by emigrants from Long Island. Philip
Carteret arrived in the colony in 1665, and became its first Governor.
The province had very little trouble with the Indians. Many emigrants
from New England and New York soon arrived, and for a series of years
the colony advanced in prosperity. It enjoyed the blessings flowing
from a liberal form of government.
In the year 1685, the Duke of York became the King of England, under
the title of James II, and disregarding his former pledges, assumed,
in 1688, the government of New Jersey, placing it under the control of
Sir Edmund Andros, whom he had already made Governor of New York and
New England. This state of things was terminated by the revolution in
England, but left New Jersey for years in a very precarious condition.
In 1702, its proprietors having resigned their claims, it became a
royal province, and was united to New York. In 1738 it became again
a separate province, and so continued until the Revolution, in which
it took a very active part in favor of liberty. It ratified the
Constitution December 18, 1787. Thenceforward its career has been
a highly prosperous one. Its strength has been put forth to aid in
crushing the great Rebellion. Population 672,075.
DELAWARE.
Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, formed a plan of establishing
colonies in America as early as the year 1626. But as he died on the
field of Leutzen, during the German war in 1633, without carrying
his scheme into effect, his minister took it up, and employed Peter
Minuets, the first Governor of New Netherlands, to carry it into
effect. In 1638, a small Swedish colony arrived under the direction
of Minuets, and settled on Christian Creek, near the present town of
Wilmington. Notwithstanding the remonstrances of the Dutch Government
of New Netherlands, who claimed the territory, the Swedes continued
to extend their settlements from this time until they preëmpted all
the territory from Cape Henlopen to the falls of the Delaware. At this
time the colony was called New Sweden. In 1651, Governor Stuyvesant,
to check the aggressive movements of the Swedes, built a fort near the
present site of New Castle, of which the Swedes afterward obtained
possession by stratagem. Enraged at this movement, the Government of
Holland ordered Stuyvesant to reduce the Swedes to submission, which
he speedily accomplished with six hundred men, in 1655. The province
was soon after annexed to New Netherlands. Delaware was, after it fell
into the hands of the English, included in the grant made to William
Penn, in 1692. It remained attached to Pennsylvania till 1691, when
it was allowed a separate government. It was reunited to Pennsylvania
in 1692. In 1703, it was again separated, having its own legislature,
though the same Governor presided over both colonies. The ancient forms
of the government were preserved through the revolutionary struggle. It
ratified the Constitution December 7, 1787.
Its position, at the commencement of the rebellion of 1861, was
somewhat dubious. It being a northerly slave State, was somewhat
divided as to where its interests lay. It, however, finally came out
somewhat decidedly for the Union, although its entire strength has not
been exerted against the rebellion. Its population is 112,216.
THE CAROLINAS.
In the year 1563, the coast of Carolina was explored, and named after
Charles IX, of France. The first attempt to settle it was made by the
celebrated and accomplished Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1585, twenty-two
years before the settlement of Jamestown, and thirty-five years before
the Puritans landed at Plymouth. This effort failed, on account of the
incapacity of the Governor appointed by Raleigh, and the ill-behavior
of the colonists toward the natives.
The first successful attempt was made sometime between 1640 and 1650,
under the direction of Governor Berkley. The settlement was made in
Albemarle County, by a few Virginia planters. In 1663, a large tract
of land, lying between the 30th and 36th degrees of north latitude,
having the Atlantic Ocean for its eastern boundary, was conveyed by
Charles II, to Lord Clarendon and associates, under whose auspices a
settlement was made near the mouth of Cape Fear River, in the year
1665, by emigrants from Barbadoes. Sir James Yeomans was appointed
Governor. A settlement was made at Port Royal, South Carolina, in
1670; and in 1671, a few persons located at what was then called Old
Charleston, which place was abandoned in 1680, and the foundation of
the present city of Charleston laid, several miles nearer the sea.
All the various settlements here mentioned went under the general name
of Carolina, until 1571, when a division was made, and the northern
and southern portions were called by their distinctive names, North
and South Carolina. These States were the scenes of many revolutionary
tragedies. South Carolina, in particular, although the home of Sumter,
and Marion, and Rutledge, was replete with tories, (royalists) who
spared no efforts to annoy the infant Republic, and play into the hands
of the British Government. South Carolina ratified the Constitution
May 23, 1788, but threatened to break the compact in 1832, and was
only prevented by the stern will of President Jackson. After this the
State did nothing worthy of note until December 20, 1860, when it
seceded from the Union, taking the lead in the great Rebellion. Present
population 703,708.
North Carolina ratified the Constitution November 21, 1789, and seceded
from the Union May 21, 1861. Population 992,622.
PENNSYLVANIA.
The Old Keystone State, and one of the most wealthy and prosperous
in the Union, was settled by the Quakers, under the direction of Wm.
Penn, at Philadelphia, in the year 1682. The founder of this colony
showed himself a philosopher, a philanthropist, a thorough political
economist, at the very commencement of his labors. He put the province
under the government of a Council of Three and a House of Delegates,
chosen by the freemen, who, according to his arrangement, were all
those who acknowledged the existence of one God. He pursued such a
course with the natives as won their confidence and esteem. No Quaker
was ever murdered by an Indian; and to this day the “sons of Wm. Penn”
are everywhere respected by the savage. The treaty Penn made with
the Indians was never violated. In framing the colonial government,
he provided for the largest religious liberty, allowing every one
to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. Up to
1684, Delaware, as before mentioned, was included in Penn’s grant.
But about this time he procured a new charter, more strictly defining
the rights and limits of Pennsylvania, and Delaware was detached.
For seventy years prosperity smiled upon this colony, during much
of which time Penn was, according to the historian, its governor,
magistrate, preacher and teacher. It was troubled with no Indian wars
till 1754, when Penn’s example and teachings began to be forgotten. The
population, owing to a considerable influx from Sweden, Germany, and
some other countries, began, at a later date, to assume a more varied
aspect; and when the colonies rebelled against the mother country,
Pennsylvania contained sufficient “fighting” material to lend valuable
assistance to the cause of liberty.
She adopted the Constitution December 12th, 1787, since which time her
increase in wealth, and advancement in general improvement has been
almost without a parallel. Her vast coal fields and rich iron mines
constitute a source of eternal wealth. Upon the breaking out of the
rebellion of 1861, her position in favor of the Union was well defined.
Her population is 2,906,115.
GEORGIA.
General James Oglethorpe, and a company of twenty-one others, received,
in the year 1732, from George II, of England, a grant for all the land
between the Savannah and the Altamaha Rivers. In January, 1733, a
company of one hundred and fourteen men, women, and children, arrived
at Charleston, S. C., destined for Georgia. They were kindly treated
by the Charlestonians, and were greatly assisted by them in their
labor of forming a colony. The first laws made for the province by the
twenty-two grantees, prohibited the importation of rum, trade with
the Indians, and the use of negroes. They also provided that lands
should go back to the original owners in case the purchaser had no
male heirs. Although the first, second, and third of these provisions
were undoubtedly wholesome, the fourth was highly objectionable, and
tended very much to retard the progress of the colony. In the year
1740, General Oglethorpe, as commander-in-chief of the forces in
Georgia, at the head of two thousand men, invaded Florida with the
intention of forcibly annexing it to Georgia; but he was soon repelled
from the territory, and returned home bootless. The Spanish, in turn,
with two sail of vessels and three thousand men, invaded Georgia in
1742, and were likewise forced to return home thwarted. The progress
of this colony was for many years very slow; the people manifesting
that indolence and indifference which is still too prominent a
characteristic of Georgians. It was mainly on the side of freedom
during the revolution.
It ratified the Constitution January 9th, 1788. Since the Revolution,
the State has manifested but little life as compared with its sisters,
and its secession from the Union, May 19th, 1861, was followed by
speedy ruin.
VERMONT.
The territory of which this State is composed began to be settled in
the year 1731, but was for some years considered as a part of New
Hampshire. It was also claimed at one time by New York, and a contest
arose between that State and New Hampshire, which was adjusted by the
King of England in a manner by no means satisfactory to the settlers.
The result was a quarrel between Vermont and the Crown, in which the
Green Mountain Boys, led by Col. Ethan Allen, resisted the officers
of justice, as well as the New York militia, who were called out to
sustain them.
The province appears not to have had even a territorial government
until 1777, at which time a convention of delegates met at Westminster,
and declared themselves an independent State, under the name of New
Connecticut. Previous to this time, however, they had rendered material
aid to the Revolution. In May, 1755, Col. Allen, at the head of two
hundred and seventy men, reduced Fort Ticonderoga and Crown Point,
and thus became complete masters of Lake Champlain. During the whole
period of the Revolution the State did good service in the cause of
liberty, although it remained independent. Some time subsequent to its
declaration of independence its name was changed to Vermont. As it was
not one of the original States, it did not ratify the Constitution,
but, upon application, was admitted to the Union during the second
session of Congress, in the year 1791. It has been a highly prosperous
State, and added much to the luster of the Union in its palmy days
of peace. It fully sustained its Revolutionary reputation at the
commencement of the Rebellion of 1861. Its population is 315,098.
KENTUCKY
Was settled, in the year 1775, by Daniel Boone and a number of
associates from North Carolina. The trials and adventures of these
hardy pioneers, and especially those of Boone, constitute one of
the most romantic leaves in the history of the West. For over two
years, previous to 1775, Boone was busily employed in surveying
Kentucky, building roads and forts. One of the latter he erected at
Boonesborough; to which place he removed his family, in 1775. Boone
said that his wife and daughter were the first white women who ever
stood on the banks of the Kentucky River. For a number of years after
Boone’s settlement, he and his associates experienced many difficulties
with the natives—Boone’s daughter being at one time captured by
the Indians, though shortly afterward rescued by her father. But,
notwithstanding the difficulties with the savages, the young territory
grew rapidly in population and wealth, and on June 1st, 1792, was
admitted to the Union. Having a fertile soil, and affording excellent
pasturage, she has far outstripped most of her slaveholding sisters in
general improvement.
Her position for some time after the commencement of the Rebellion
was by no means promotive of her prosperity. Owing to her attempt
to observe strict neutrality, she became the scene of many guerrilla
outrages, and has suffered, perhaps, more than any other State during
the struggle.
Her population is 1,115,684.
TENNESSEE.
Was, for some time, a part of North Carolina. It was made a territorial
government in the year 1790, and was admitted into the Union in 1796.
The first permanent white inhabitants of Tennessee went there, in
the year 1775, and built Fort Louden, now in Blount County. They
were, in 1760, attacked by the savages, and two hundred persons were
massacred. But, in 1767, the natives were reduced to submission by
Colonel Grant, and a treaty was made with them, which encouraged
emigration. Settlements were formed on Holston River in 1765, which,
although frequently attacked by the Indians, made very fair progress.
Colonel John Sevier, with the Tennessee militia and a few Virginia
soldiers, gained a decisive victory over the savages, and, from this
time forward, though more or less harassed by the Indians, the progress
of the State, in population and improvement, was rapid. North Carolina
gave up the Territory in 1789, and, in 1790, Congress recognized it
as a separate province. It has great extent of territory, and, up to
1861, was considered as among the greatest of the agricultural States.
At this time, however, it was seduced by the voice of the siren,
Secession, and on the 24th of June, 1861, formally seceded from the
Union. It should be stated, however, in justice to the State, that the
eastern portion of it was generally loyal, and was only dragged out of
the Union by force. It has, since the Rebellion, been readmitted into
the Union.
OHIO.
Ohio was admitted to the Union on the 29th of November, 1802, the
State containing, at the time, 72,000 inhabitants—2,000 more than
was required in order to its admission. It was settled in the spring
of 1788, one year after it, with a vast additional extent of
North-western territory, had been ceded, by Virginia, to the United
States.
The year 1788 was a famous year for emigration. It witnessed the
passage of no less than 20,000 persons down the Ohio River. The company
which settled Ohio consisted of forty persons, under General Rufus
Putnam. They built a stockade fort at Marietta, of sufficient strength
to resist the attacks of the natives, cleared several acres of ground,
and planted a crop. They were joined by twenty additional families in
the autumn. Both these companies were New England people.
For a number of years they were not troubled by the savages, nor
did any of their number trouble the Indians, except in one or two
instances. The earliest settlers of Cincinnati arrived there, about
twenty in number in 1790. Until the year 1795, the attempts made to
settle most parts of Ohio were attended with great difficulties,
on account of Indian wars. Marietta, however, formed an exception
to this rule. After the great victory which General Wayne achieved
over the savages during Washington’s administration, the population
increased rapidly. Unembarrassed by any centralizing or aristocratic
institutions, possessed of the finest natural resources, and vitalized
by an enterprising population, Ohio, after its admission into the
Union, made an advancement of which any State might well be proud. In
population it is the third State in the Union, numbering 2,390,502.
At the breaking out of the Rebellion, Ohio took its position staunchly
for the Union, and has done much during the war for the restoration of
the authority of the Government over the seceded States.
LOUISIANA.
Was ceded by Spain to France in the year 1802, and was bought by the
United States of the latter power, in 1803, at a cost of $15,000,000.
Governor Clayborne took possession of it the same year. It was settled
by the French, at Iberville, in 1699, and was admitted into the Union
April 8th, 1812. It is an important State, in that it holds the keys
of entrance to the mouth of the Mississippi. In the year 1860, nearly
one-half of its population was slave. It seceded from the Union on the
26th of January, 1861. Its population in 1860 was 708,002. It has been
a very forward State in the great Rebellion.
INDIANA.
About the year 1690, a French settlement, the first in Indiana, was
made at Vincennes, that place being within the territory claimed, at
that time, by the French, upon priority of discovery by La Salle.
Indiana was long the residence of various Indian tribes, and the
theater of Indian wars. By the terms of the treaty of the peace of
1763, it, with the rest of the North-western Territory, was ceded to
Great Britain. It was still claimed by the Indians, but, by various
treaties, extensive tracts were obtained for settlement. The Indians,
however, retained possession of many parts of the State up to the year
1812, and to that portion known as the Indian Reserve, even later. It
was erected into a Territory in 1809, and on the 11th of December,
1816, was admitted into the Union. Its population—1,350,428, in the
year 1860—is an indication of its progress. In the matter of education,
Indiana is somewhat behind some of her Western sisters, but her efforts
in behalf of the Government during the great Rebellion shall halo her
future with glory.
MISSISSIPPI.
The territory comprising the present States of Mississippi and Alabama
having been divided, that portion lying next the river was, in 1817,
admitted into the Union as a State, under the name Mississippi, while
the eastern portion was organized as a Territory, and named Alabama.
The whole of this territory was explored, first by Ferdinand De Soto,
and afterward by La Salle. It suffered greatly during the wars of the
Natchez Indians. The Choctaws, for a long time, retained possession
of the northern portion of it, and were, to some extent, civilized.
Mississippi was settled by the French, in 1716, at Natchez. Its
population—791,305—shows fair progress. On the 9th of January, 1861, it
went the way of the seceding States, since which time, its course, like
theirs, has been downward.
ILLINOIS.
This most thriving and prosperous State came into the Union on the 3d
of December, 1818. Until 1809 it was a part of Indiana, at which time
it became a separate territory, and so remained till received into
the Union. This State has been little disturbed by civil divisions or
by Indian wars. Its most serious troubles arose from the appearance,
within its borders, of the Mormons, in 1838, and from attempts made to
curb their irregularities. This singular people, believing themselves
to be ill-treated, assembled to the number of 700, under their leaders,
in a remote part of the State, and proposed fighting for their rights.
But a body of three hundred troops marched against and captured them.
The whole sect was ultimately reduced to submission, and banished
the State. It was explored by La Salle, and settled by the French at
Kaskaskia,[4] in 1720. Its growth has been immense. Its population, in
1860, was 1,711,951. Its history has been one of the most glorious of
the loyal States during the great Rebellion.
[4] Kaskaskia, the first capital of Illinois, is located on Kaskaskia
River, and is the present site of Vandalia.
ALABAMA
Was admitted to the Union on the 14th of December, 1819. It has a deep,
rich soil, and in many places a healthful climate. It remained till
the Revolution a mere hunting-ground of the savages. From the peace
of 1783 to 1802 it was claimed by Georgia, and lands were sold to
settlers and speculators accordingly. In the year 1802, Georgia ceded
all her western territory to the United States for $1,250,000. In 1800,
the present State of Alabama became a part of Mississippi Territory,
from which it was separated when Mississippi became a State. It
was settled, in 1711, at Mobile, by the French, being a part of the
territory explored by La Salle in his Mississippi tour. It formally
seceded from the Union, January 11, 1861.
MAINE.
In the year 1638, the same year in which New Haven was settled,
Ferdinand Gorges procured a charter of the King of England for all
the lands from the borders of New Hampshire, on the south-west, to
Sagadahoc, on the Kennebeck River, on the north-east, under the name
of the Province of Maine. It remained a separate province till 1652,
when it became a part of Massachusetts. Various attempts were made,
between 1785 and 1802 to form it into an independent State; but these
efforts failed. In 1819 a large majority of the people were in favor of
separating from Massachusetts. A convention was called, a Constitution
prepared and adopted, and, in 1820, Maine was received into the Union.
It is, by no means, an agricultural State, but its extensive fisheries
and great lumber trade have greatly enriched it, and its progress in
morality has, perhaps, been superior to that of any other State. It is
the only State in the Union that has an efficient prohibitory liquor
law. It proved itself true to the Government in 1861, and there is no
danger of its ever ceasing to be so.
It was settled in 1625, at Bristol, by the English. Its population is
628,279.
MISSOURI.
This great, though crippled, State was admitted into the Union on the
10th of August, 1821. It, with all the territory then belonging to the
United States, west of the Mississippi, was included in the purchase of
Louisiana, made in 1803. Louisiana afterward was divided into Orleans
Territory, Louisiana proper, and Missouri Territory. In 1819, Missouri
Territory was divided into Arkansas, on the south, and Missouri on the
north; and it was about this time that the latter took the requisite
steps toward framing a State Constitution. It will be remembered that
this is the State, the discussion of the propriety of the admission of
which raised such a storm in Congress in 1820.
Being a border slave State, it was nearly equally divided on the
question of secession in 1861, and thus, like Kentucky, has been
overrun by both Southern and Northern troops during the Rebellion, and
has been the scene of much bloodshed and ruin. It was settled in 1764,
at St. Louis, by the French. Its population is 1,182,012.
FLORIDA.
The Peninsular States, discovered and explored by Ponce de Leon, a
voyager with Columbus, and whose name was suggested to the discoverer
by the abundance and beauty of its wild flora, was, from 1512 to 1819,
with the exception of the interval between 1763 and 1783, a province
of Spain. The first attempt to settle it was made in the year 1565,
at St. Augustine, which is said to be the oldest town in America, by
the Spaniards. This effort was attended with many difficulties, the
colonists contending, for the first few years, alternately with the
horrors of savage warfare and famine, at times being forced to subsist
on roots and acorns. In 1819 it was transferred to the United States
by treaty, which treaty was, after much delay, ratified by Spain, and
with still more delay by the United States. Possession of the colony
was granted the Government in July, 1821. The territory contained, in
1840, a population of 54,477, and on the 3d of March, 1845, became a
State, and was received into the Union. Florida was the theater of the
Seminole war, which cost the United States so much blood and treasure.
It went the way of the seceding States, January 7th, 1861. Florida,
like the Indian’s gun, has “cost more than she has come to.” Her
population in 1860, was 140,425.
ARKANSAS.
This State lies South of Missouri, and was once attached to it. It
has a fine climate and prolific soil. The first settlement of whites
within its limits was made at Arkansas Post, in the year 1685. The
earlier inhabitants were French. Its progress, for many years, was very
slow. It was not till about the year 1829 that the tide of emigration
began to flow from the Atlantic States in that direction. Little Rock,
the early seat of government and the present capital, was laid out
in the year 1820, during which year the first steamboat ascended the
Arkansas River. The boat was eight days in going from New Orleans to
the village of Arkansas—a distance of scarcely one hundred miles above
the mouth of the Arkansas River. The State once contained the remnants
of several powerful tribes of Indians. By a treaty made between the
Cherokees and the United States, the former agreed to give up all
their lands east of the Mississippi River, and to retire to a region
guaranteed to them in the present State of Arkansas.
The State was admitted into the Union on the 15th of June, 1836. It
seceded May 6th, 1861, and has since been the retreat of guerrillas,
and the scene of some sanguinary battles.
MICHIGAN.