there is any such law as this on the statute-book of Pennsylvania? If he has, why then I am satisfied. Mr. MEMMINGER. In reply to the gentleman I would say that I hold in my hand an elaborate report made on this point by a Committee of the Legislature of Virginia in which the laws of each State are professed to be correctly stated.

Mr. INGLIS. Will the gentleman give me the date of that report?

Mr. MEMMINGR. It was made at the last session, January 26th, 1860.

Mr. INGLIS. To what law do they refer? for Pennsylvania has recently revised her criminal code, and, I understand, has omitted some portion of that law. Mr. MEMMINGER. This is all the information I have on the subject. It confirms what is stated in the report. Mr. ENGLISH read from De Bow's Review an article [a very erroneous one] in support of the assertion contained in the Declaration, that nearly all the Free States had refused to sustain the Constitution.

tain that this State did triumph then. Mr. Clay said before the nullification, that the tariff system had been established for all time. After the nullification ordinance Mr. Clay said that that ordinance abol ished the American system, and that the State had triumphed. It is true that we were cheated in the compromise. The tariff is not the question which has brought us up to our present attitude. We are giving a list of the causes to the world-to the Southern States. Let them not quarrel with us now, when we are brought up to a dissolution of the Union, by the discussion of debatable and doctrinal points. The Whig party, throughout all the States, have been protective tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark-are we to go off on debatable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics around which so many passions cluster? Names, sir, are much. Opinions, prejudiced passions, cluster around names. Our people have come up to this great act. I am willing in this issue to rest disunion upon the question of slavery. It is the great central point from which we are now proceeding. I believe, sir, that the reference to other States in this address is all correct. The gentleman from Chester

Another

Mr. GREGG. If this address was to be a declaration of the immediate causes which produced the secession of South Carolina, what the gentleman had said might be applicable, but its title does not say so. document has been submitted to this body-an Address to the Southern States. This is inconsistent In the latter address all the causes with the other. are stated in full. If we wish to find the immediate cause of the secession of South Carolina, the immediate cause of all is the election of Lincoln.

Mr. MAXCY GREGO. The gentleman who just resumed his seat, has pointed out in detail the various questions referred to in this report. He has shown that things have been said there which ought not to to have been said, and of the correctness of which we have not sufficient evidence. But my objection to the paper is greater than this. It is that, as a State paper, to go out as a new Declaration of Independ-field says that a certain construction of one act of ence, it is entirely defective and imperfect. It pur- the Pennsylvania code is denied by the citizens of that ports to be a declaration of the causes which justify State. I myself have very great doubts about the propriety the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal of the fugitive slave law. The Constitution was, in the Union. The causes! And yet in all this declaration first place, a compact between the several States, and not one word is said about the tariff, which for so in the second a treaty between the sections; and, I many years caused a contest in this State against the believe the fugitive slave law was a treaty between Federal Government. Not one word is said about sections. It was the act of sovereign States as secthe violations of the Constitution in expenditures tions; and I believe, therefore, and have very great not authorized by that instrument; but the main doubts whether it ought not to have been left to the stress is laid upon an incomparably unimportant point execution of the several States, and, failing of enrelative to fugitive slaves, and the laws passed forcement, I believe it should have been regarded as by Northern States obstructing the recovery of fugi-a casus belli. I go for the address because I believe it tíve slaves. Mr. President, if we undertake to set does present succinctly and conspicuously what are forth a declaration of the causes which justify our the main primary causes. Secession, we ought to publish a complete document - document which might vie in its completeness with that which was adopted in 1776-not that I mean to say that that is a model cause! that would be to say a good deal too much. This declaration might be put forth by gentlemen who had no objection whatever to the lavish and unconstitutional expenditures which have been made by the Federal Government for forty years past. This is not the sort of paper which, in my opinion, ought to go forth to justify o'r action. A correct designation of this paper would be a declaration of some of the causes which justify the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. If it is proper to set forth in a solemn declaration some of the causes, why let the title be altered, and, if the Convention think proper, let it go forth; but if we undertake to set forth all the causes, do we not dishonor the memory of all the statesmen of South Carolina, now departed, who commenced forty years ago a war against the tariff and against internal improvements, saying nothing of the United States Bank and other measures which may now be regarded as obsolete. Many of the acts of the non-slaveholding States obstructing the recovery of fugitive slaves have been passed since 1852-I think the majority of them; but I do not regard it as a matter of any importance. But when the people of South Carolina, eight years since, declared that the causes then existing fully justified the State in seceding, did they confine themselves to these miserable fugitive slave laws? No! Sir, I regard it as unworthy of the State of South Carolina to send forth a new declaration now, and in it to say nothing about any other cause justifying their action but fugitive slaves. I am in favor of laying this report on the table, or recommitting it.

Mr. KEITT. I agree with the gentleman that the power of taxation is the central power of all Goveraments. If you put that into my hands, I do not care what the form of Government may be, I will control your people through it. But that is not the question in this address. We have instructed the Committee to draw up a statement of the reasons which influenced us in the present case in our withdrawal. My friend suggests that sufficient notice has not been paid to the tariff. Your late Senators, and every one of your members of the House of Representatives voted for the premut tariff. If the gentleman had been there he would also have voted for it. (Laughter.] The question of the tariff did agitate us in 1832, and did array this State against the Federal Government. And I main

Mr. INGLIS. Will the gentleman inform us whether the statutes of Virginia do not contain a paragraph relating to kidnapping, precisely similar to that of Pennsylvania?

A VOICE. It is the case with Georgia.

Mr. KEITT. It may be so, sir, but I do not know. Mr. INGLIS. I say, Mr. President, I make no attack upon this report; but I propose to amend it by strik ing out the word "fifteen" and inserting "many" instead; and then to strike out the sentence which coatains the enumeration of States. It will not disturb the order to omit that.

Mr. DARGAN. I confess my difficulty results from the same sources as the gentleman from Richland Let me express also my earnest conviction of the eminent propriety of obtaining a concurrence and symmetry in the declaration of the causes which led to the secession of South Carolina, and in the senti ments enunciated in the Address to the Southern States; and as the Address to the Southern States, which was read here to-day, was made the special order for to-morrow, I move that this document be also made the special order at the same time and in connection with that subject.

Mr. MIDDLETON. They are very different matters -the one an address to the Southern people and the other an address to the world.

Mr. DARGAN. The subject-matter is the same.

The PRESIDENT. The question will be on making the report of the Committee declaring Secession the special order for one o'clock to-morrow, in connection with the report of the Committee on Slaveholding States upon the same subject.

to.

The question was taken and the motion was agreed

On Monday, December 24th, 1860, the Convention proceeded to consider both the Address and the Declaration, when further debate ensued.

Many verbal amendments having been only one. The back was nearly broken before. The made to the latter,

Mr. J. J. P. Smith moved to adopt the former for the present, and table the latter. A DELEGATE. I second the motion, and call for the previous question. Mr. LOUIS WARDLAW. I trust that this Convention is not going to act hastily. Whatever is done should be done well. This address will reach no one of the Southern States before the elections, unless it be the State of Georgia. There is, therefore, no special need of hurrying the reference. There is not one single sentence of that address to which I do not heartily subscribe. It is an able and admirable exposition of the structure of our Government and its general operation. And yet I do not think it is exactly that which an address to our Southern sisters should be. I think it treats too much upon some sub-, jects, and does not touch others that are very important. From the beginning I have been very anxious that these two papers should be consistent one with the other, and contain all those matters which we confess should operate either upon the opinion of the Southern people or the opinion of the world. Now, sir, my objection to the address to the Southern people is that it does not dilate as it should upon matters connected with the immediate cause of our secession, but on matters connected with slavery. My objection to the other address is, that it dwells too much upon those fugitive slave laws and those personal liberty bills, which give it too much the appear. ance of special pleading. The address which we have under consideration does not set off to the Southern people, as it should, our defenceless condition. Already our adversaries have the House of Representatives; they will soon have the Senate, and then they can make the Judiciary what they please, and thus have entire power over the Government. It does not set forth, as I think it should, that the election of Lincoln is, in fact, an edict of emancipation. It does not set forth what would be the deleterious effects of emancipation; that emancipation would be destruction to the blacks and degradation to the whites. Nor does this address set forth the shameless hypocrisy of the North, who, whilst they cry out against what they call the sin of slavery, do not choose to relieve themselves of that which they assert is an evil by withdrawing from the Confederacy. When these addresses go forth, they go forth as solemn State papers, by which we must be able to stand. For this reason, every word should be most carefully considered, and nothing superfluous shonld be contained in them; nothing important should be omitted. Mr. MEMMINGER next took the floor and defended the address to the nations of the world, which was reported by himself. After reciting its points and the principles it enunciated, he said: We show by law of compact that we are entitled to leave this Government. My friend from Abbeville says, in this regard, he does not exactly approve this document. Allow me to say to the honorable gentlemen that when you take the position that you have a right to break your faith, to destroy an agreement which you have made, to tear off your seal from the document to which it is affixed, you are bound to justify your self fully to all the nations of the world; for there is nothing that casts such a stain upon the escutcheon of a nation as a breach of faith. Therefore the document shows fully that both in measure and in spirit our co-States have broken the Constitution and the Union. Not only in letter has this been done, but also in spirit. The common agent which should have acted for our common good has been converted into an instrument for our destruction. And now as a consummating act a section. President has been, elected, whose chief recommendation was that he desires to see slavery abolished. The great objection that we raise is not to Abraham Lincoln himself, but because he is the representative of a hostile opinion, destructive of every interest of the South.

Mr. RHETT next spoke in explanation of the Address to the Southern States, which was reported by himself. This committee, he said, determined that, whilst setting forth the immediate cause which induced South Carolina to secede, it was not improper to go into previous causes which led to that result. The secession of South Carolina is not an event of a day, It is not any thing produced by Mr. Lincoln's election, or by the non-execution of the fugitive slave law. It has been a matter which has been gathering head for thirty years, The election of Lincoln and Hamlin was the last straw on the back of the camel. But it was not the

point upon which I differ from my friend is this: He
says he thought it expedient for us to put this great
question before all the world upon this simple matter
of wrongs on the question of slavery, and that ques-
tion turned upon the fugitive slave law. Now, in re-
gard to the fugitive slave law, I myself doubt its consti-
tutionality, and I doubted it on the floor of the Senate,
when I was a member of that body. The States,
acting in their sovereign capacity, should be respon-
sible for the renditio fugitive slaves. That was
our best security. This report has proceeded upon
the elaborate discussion of a constitutional question,
about which the very ablest men in this State have
doubted. When we go before the world, if we put it
upon mere matter of this kind, we do not do justice
to our cause. Sir, to whom are we to speak? Is it
simply to the North? We are about to sunder our
relations with that section, and I trust forever. Our
treaties, I suppose, will be with the nations of Eu-
rope. Do you suppose the nations of Europe will
have any sympathy with us, or confidence, or affec-
tion, because of the violation of the fugitive slave
law? Germany, and France, and England, what do
they all say? Sir, in setting up our independence we
are not to narrow it down simply to the question of
slavery. We do not do ourselves justice.
aggression upon slavery is the last consequence of
a great cause, and that great cause is the dissolution
of the Constitution of the United States by the agents
of the North. It is that which led them to the ag-
gressions upon the taxing power. It is that which
led to the aggressions upon the appropriation power.
It is that which led to the aggressions on slavery in
the District of Columbia. And now the great cause
is, that we do not live in a free Government.
Mr. MEMMINGER. The gentleman who has just
taken his seat is not as familiar with this document
as I am, or he would have been saved the necessity
of a good deal he has said. I entirely concur in the
opinion that the Constitution of the United States
requires the rendition of slaves by the States and not
by the General Government; and if any one will read
this report he will perceive that that is precisely the
ground upon which it proceeds. We there complain
that the States have not fulfilled their constitutional
obligations-not that the Federal Government has
not done its duty. We there complain that when
the Federal Government undertakes to do that which
the States had obligated themselves to do, they inter-
fere to prevent its faithful execution.

The

Judge WITHERS said: I have not much to say to this Convention, but the first thing which I desire to submit to them is this: that the addresses which are now upon your table, and which are the subject-matter of a motion for further reference to the two committees reporting them, are, in my understanding, diplomatic papers. I profess not to be much of a diplomat myself, yet I profess to have a desire that this Convention shall confine itself to the object which it prescribes to itself.

What is the object of the Address to the Southern People? Is it not to conciliate the Southern States towards the purposes of a Southern Confederacy; and, as far as we can, to persuade them to enter into a compact with South Carolina? Is that the object of the Address to the Slaveholding States? If not, why should it be issued?

It is said in the discussion that the Address to the Slaveholding States should descant upon the taxing power and the power to lay duties upon imports, as well as the expenditures of money in undue proportion upon the part of the Federal Government among the Free States, as matters of grievances of the greatest importance; that such topics ought to be found in this paper setting forth the causes of Secession. Well, in an Address to the People of the Slaveholding States is it expedient to dwell and insist upon a topic which will not find favor with all the Southern States? I submit to the experience of the able gentleman who prepared that address to say whether, if we declared that we separated from the Confederacy because of the tariff of protection to domestic manufactures, he will find that, be it ever so true, a sentiment corresponding to public opinion in Louisiana, Missouri, or Kentucky?

All this matter of the tariff has been enacted while the Confederacy existed, and with South Carolina as a party to the transaction. When it begun in 1816, who was it voted for a tariff highly protective to domestic manufactures? Did not that great man whom we all reverence, both living and dead-I mean Mr. Calhoun-vote for this measure? Did not the Representative in the House from the Congressional

a cause for which she separates from the United States. It was a matter, as long ago as 1643, of stipulation be tween Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and another colony, that they should deliver each other's fugitive slaves. It was a matter between the colonies that each colony should deliver fugitives. As long ago as that period Congress did exercise this power, and we did acquiesce and never voted against it.

district including Richland vote for the tariff of 1816? Has there over been a time when Louisiana, Missouri, and Kentucky were not in favor of a protective tariff; not only for protection of domestic manufactures, but for protection on the products of sugar and hemp? Are you sure they will join you in saying they should dissolve the Union on account of the existing tariff giving protection to domestic manufactures? You believe, and so do I, that there has been a perversion of the Constitution in relation to imposts for the purpose of protection to domestic manufactures. I know of no time, from the period of my entering college in 1923, that I did not believe it was a bold and daring invasion of the Constitution of the United States. Undoubtedly this is my opinion, undoubtedly this is the opinion of South Carolina. Then, if I had to draw these papers, if I should present my views and opinions in a common address to the Slaveholding States, I should sug-manded justice under the compact. It was then I would gest the propriety of leaving out all topics of that description, when I believe that three of these States differ in sentiment with South Carolina. It appears to me, therefore, we have not exactly hit upon the matter which is the most expedient and proper in an Address to the People of the Slaveholding States. It is a diplomatic document. I shall vote for it. But at the same time I do not think as a diplomatic paper, that with respect to the levying of duties on imports, it is likely to find favor with all our slaveholding friends for whom this tariff was designed as well as for the North.

In regard to expenditures by the Federal Government of its income, we all know very well that the great bulk has gone within the Northern States-that there have been, on the part of the Federal Government, favorite

States.

When we complain in the aggregate, or in general terms, when we say that the grievances of South Carolina are found in the fact that the Treasury has been depleted by illegal means, and in undue proportion administered to the North, I question whether we are quite safe in alleging that as a grievance of South Carolina, without qualification. There has been an unfaithful execution of the Constitution on the part of its own general agent in that respect. But let us not forget to confess the truth under any and all circumstances. What have we ourselves been doing? And in the city of Charleston, too, where have you bought your supplies, and with whom do you trade? Where has the great surplus of your money been necessarily speat? Where has it gone to? Has it not gone to these people who have received the Federal money? Government and individuals have sought the same market. Why? Because nobody else could furnish the articles each wanted. Can you say, therefore, that the Federal Government is to be blamed for spending a large amount of money in the non-slaveholding States? Where was the Federal Government obliged to get its necessary support for the army and navy? Where could the Federal Government fill up the ranks of its army and navy? Will you not allow the Government to buy of its own citizens, as we have all done? If by the cunning of these men in the non-slaveholding States they have been able to present to the Government inducements to obtain their supplies, can we complain? Where else could they have been procured? So far, the Government has been obliged to spend its money among the people of the North and Northwest for bacon, lard, and all the supplies of the army and navy. I submit these views for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Convention to the fact that we may go too far in this document, and use assertions too strong.

In respect to the argument of the fugitive slave law, I concur fully. I heard something said here questioning the Constitutionality of the fugitive slave law, as it is called. This is a difficult question. In the case of Prigg and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, all the Judges of the United States Court but two declared that Congress, and Congress alone, could provide legislation to execute the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States. Immediately after that decision the astute Legislatures of the New England States seized upon that decision and passed their liberty laws, invoking the doctrine announced in the case of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Could any man say that South Carolina should separate from the United States in consequence of the Congress of the United States passing such a law? A like law was passed in 1793. Did our people object to it then? I confess I have a reverence for antiquity. I profess to have a veneration of the men of 1793-Christopher Gadsden, John Rutledge, the Pinckneys, and others. I profess to believe that they were as patriotic as I profess to be. If we made no objection at that time to the power of Congress to pass a fugitive slave law, under the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, I hold it would be unsafe for the Convention of South Carolina to say that that is

If I were to stand here and declare the various causes which led me to subscribe my name to the Act of Secession, I should insist on some other considerations besides those suggested by this address. I would have said that when a citizen of Maryland went to Pennsylvania to recover his fugitive under an act of Congress they murdered him, and his murderer* escaped from justice in the court of Pennsylvania. Then was the time for Maryland to have dehave stood up for the rights of that slaveholder. If I chose further to afflict this Convention I could bring before them a long catalogue of grievances. I think if every member of the Convention should draw up an indictment against the people of the unfaithful confederate States, and you might have any number of addresses upon that subject, you would probably find no two very nearly alike. Since, therefore, every one's taste and judgment cannot be answered, if there be no substantial objection to the addresses before us, as I think there is not, it is proper to vote for them, and I shall do so.

The papers were both adopted.

A third report was made to the Convention by Judge Withers from the Committee on ReAmerica, which should be included, to make lations with the Slaveholding States of North the catalogue complete :

states of North America," beg leave to report that they The committee on "relations with the slaveholding have carefully considered the three several propositions con tained in the resolutions referred to them, which were subPhillip's and St, Michael's. All the resolutions referred to mitted in convention by three several members from St. the committee look to the purpose of confederate relations with our sister states of the South, having common interests with us, and every cause, as we trust, to indulge towards us common sympathies and to contract cordial relations. In such a purpose the committee entirely and unanimously concur, and they recommend that every proper measure be adopted to accomplish such an end. Upon this subject so auch unanimity prevails, and has long prevailed in this state, that an argument thereupon would be wholly su perfluous. All seem to agree that the first step proper to confederation we seck, is the appointment of commissionbe taken for the purpose of promoting and securing the ers, by the authority of this convention, to such states of the South as may call conventions to consider and determine their future political relations.

The committee advise that such steps be taken by this convention, hoping and believing that our sister states of initiative as arising, by no means, from any presumptuous the South will correctly interpret our action in taking the arrogance, but from the advance position which circumstances have given to this state in the line of procedure for the great design of maintaining the rights, the security and the very existence of the slaveholding South.

It has been a subject of anxious consideration with the committee whether the commissioners, whose appointment they recommend, should be instructed to tender any basis of a temporary or provisional government to the states to which they may be accredited.

The instrument called the constitution of the United
States of America, has been suggested as a suitable and
proper basis to be offered for a provisional government.
by various considerations, which cannot now be set forth
The suggestion has been commended to the committee
in full or at large. Among these are:

first order, in strength and accomplishment.
That the said instrument was the work of minds of the

views and careful examinations of details.
That it was most carefully constructed by comprehensive

That experience has proved it to be a good form of govpatriotic to cause it to be fairly and honestly construed ernment for those sufficiently virtuous, intelligent and and impartially administered.

That the settled opinion of this state has never been adverse to that plan of government of confederated states, on is attributable to the false glosses, and dangerous misinteraccount of anything in its structure; but the dissatisfaction pretation, and perversion of sundry of its provisions, even

* In 1847.