Page images
PDF
EPUB

fere, by force or otherwise, with any Federal troops who may be within the limits of the State; but I say to Senators—and I wish it had been said to the President of the United States that if, after that State has withdrawn from the Union and a sufficient time has been given to this Government to withdraw its troops from those forts, this Government shall authoritatively deny to that people the right of self-government, and attempt to keep hostile armies within the borders of that State, those forts will be taken and blood will flow. The President, in his message, says that there is no power on the part of this Government to keep the Union together by force; and yet, in the very same breath, he says that he will collect the revenues in the port of Charleston even after the State has seceded. He says that there can be no conflict between the Federal judicial power and the authorities or people of the State because he has no judiciary there. Is there anything to prevent him from appointing a judge? Is there anything to prevent him from appointing a marshal ?

It is therefore important that there should be a construction put upon this message; it is important that it should be known what the President means; and if he intends to carry out that policy, or this Congress intends to do it-when that is made manifest I, for one, would urge forbearance no longer. Frederick the Great, on one occasion, when he had trumped up an old title to some of the adjacent territory, quietly put himself in possession and then offered to treat. Were I a South Carolinian, as I am a Texan, and I knew that my State was going out of the Union and that this Government would attempt to use force, I would, at the first moment that that fact became manifest, seize upon the forts and the arms and the munitions of war, and raise the cry "to your tents, oh, Israel! and to the God of battles be this issue."

WILLARD SAULSBURY [Del.]. I do not rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of protracting this unnecessary and most unfortunate debate, but simply to say, in the presence of the representatives of the different States, that my State, having been the first to adopt the Constitution, will be the last to do any act or countenance any act calculated to lead to the separation of the States of this glorious Union. She has shared too much of its blessings; her people performed too much service in achieving the glorious liberties which we now enjoy, and in establishing the Constitution under which we live, to cause any son of hers to raise his hand against those institutions or against that Union. Sir, when that Union shall be destroyed by the

madness and folly of others (if, unfortunately, it shall be so destroyed), it will be time enough then for Delaware and her representatives to say what will be her course. [Applause in the galleries.]

The effect of the President's message was most disastrous upon the prestige of the United States abroad. Said the London Times, on January 9, 1861:

Never for many years can the United States be to the world what they have been. Mr. Buchanan's message has been a greater blow to the American people than all the rants of the Georgian governor or the “ordinances” of the Charleston convention. The President has dissipated the idea that the States which elected him constitute one people. We had thought that the federation was of the nature of a nationality; we find that it is nothing more than a partnership.

During the entire session the President's message formed a subject of incidental discussion in the debates on more specific questions.

On January 3, 1861, Senator Stephen A. Douglas [Ill.] spoke as follows:

FEDERAL PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE SECEDED STATES

SENATOR DOUGLAS

I do not know that I can find a more striking illustration of this doctrine of secession than was suggested to my mind. when reading the President's last annual message. My attention was first arrested by the remarkable passage, that the Federal Government had no power to coerce a State back into the Union if she did secede; and my admiration was unbounded when I found, a few lines afterwards, a recommendation to appropriate money to purchase the island of Cuba. It occurred to me instantly what a brilliant achievement it would be to pay Spain $300,000,000 for Cuba, and immediately admit the island into the Union as a State and let her secede and reannex herself to Spain the next day, when the Spanish Queen would be ready to sell the island again for half price, or double price, according to the gullibility of the purchaser! [Laughter.]

During my service in Congress it was one of my pleasant duties to take an active part in the annexation of Texas; and, at a subsequent session, to write and introduce the bill which made Texas one of the States of the Union. Out of that annexation grew the war with Mexico, in which we expended $100,000,000, and were left to mourn the loss of about ten thousand as gallant men as ever died upon a battlefield for the honor and glory of their country! We have since spent millions of money to protect Texas against her own Indians, to establish forts and fortifications to protect her frontier settlements, and to defend her against the assaults of all enemies until she became strong enough to protect herself. We are now called upon to acknowledge that Texas has a moral, just, and constitutional right to rescind the act of admission into the Union; repudiate her ratification of the resolutions of annexation; seize the forts and public buildings which were constructed with our money; appropriate the same to her own use, and leave us to pay $100,000,000 and mourn the death of the brave men who sacrificed their lives in defending the integrity of her soil. In the name of Hardin, and Bissell, and Harris, and of the seven thousand gallant spirits from Illinois who fought bravely upon every battlefield of Mexico I protest against the right of Texas to separate herself from this Union without our consent.

CHAPTER XI

THE CONCILIATION BILL

Lazarus W. Powell (Ky.) Moves in the Senate That a Committee of Thir

teen Be Appointed to Report a Plan for Reconciling the North and the South-Speech of Senator Powell—Propositions of Preston King (N. Y.), James S. Green (Mo.), Milton 8. Latham [Cal.]-Debate on the Powell Resolution: Lafayette S. Foster [Conn.), Stephen A. Douglas {I1l.), Jefferson Davis (Miss.), Charles Sumner (Mass.], James Dixon [Conn.), Albert G. Brown (Miss.), George E. Pugh (0.), Judah P. Benjamin (La.), John P. Hale (N. H.), Alfred Iverson (Ga.), James M. Mason (Va.), William Bigler (Pa.), Senator Powell, Benjamin F. Wade (O.), Louis T. Wigfall [Tex.), William H. Seward [N. Y.), Kingsley S. Bingham (Mich.)—John J. Crittenden (Ky.) Introduces Compromise Resolutions: Debate, Senators Crittenden, Hale, Willard Saalsbury [Del.), Andrew Johnson [Tenn.), John Slidell [La.), Joseph Lane [Ore.), Senator Pugh, Alfred O. P. Nicholson (Tenn.), James R. Doolittle [Wis.], Senator Brown, Senator Benjamin, Edward D. Baker [Ore.], Senator Douglas, Robert Toombs [Ga.]-Message of President Buchanan on the Subject-Debate Continued: Senator Davis, Lyman Trumbull (Ill.), Robert M. T. Hunter (Va.), James Harlan (Ia.), Senator Seward-Daniel Clark [N. H.] Offers Substitute for the Crittenden Resolutions—It Is Carried—The Peace Convention; Its Plan Is Negatived by Congress—Alexander R. Boteler [Va.] Moves in the House to Appoint a Committee of Thirty-three (One Representative from Each State) to Prepare a Plan of Conciliation with States Contemplating Secession-Committee Appointed, with Thomas Corwin [0.] ChairmanVarious Plans of Conciliation Referred to the Committee of Thirty-three -William A. Howard [Mich.] Moves Resolution of Inquiry into the Situation of Fort Sumter; Carried-A Majority and Two Minority Reports Presented by the Committee Crittenden Plan of Conciliation Rejected, and Corwin Plan Adopted-Corwin Constitutional Amendment Forbidding Congress to Interfere with Slavery in the States Is Passed by House and Senate-Farewell Address of Jefferson Davis (Miss.] to the Senate Territorial Organization of Colorado, Nevada, and Dakota Without Slavery.

ON

N December 6, 1860, Lazarus W. Powell [Ky.]

moved in the Senate to refer that part of the

President's message which related to the present crisis to a Committee of Thirteen, to report a plan of averting digunion.

Senator Powell said that while legislation guaranteeing no interference with slavery would not restore harmony to the country it would be palliative, indicating good feeling on the part of the States in the Union to those out of it, and so preparing for friendly relations.

THE CONCILIATION BILL

SENATE, DECEMBER 10, 1860-FEBRUARY 4, 1861 In the succeeding days various amendments of Senator Powell's resolutions and additions thereto were made, with suggestions of kindred measures which would cement the Union.

Preston King [N. Y.] proposed to add the words “and persons” to “rights of property," which were to be protected throughout the country.

James S. Green [Mo.] desired that the Committee of Judiciary inquire into the property of establishing an armed police force between the slave and free States to prevent invasion of one State by another, and to execute the Fugitive Slave Law.

Milton S. Latham [Cal.], taking advantage of the crisis in behalf of his State, urged the building of a Pacific railroad as a means of insuring the loyalty of the people beyond the Rocky Mountains. (This was made a part of the Republican program, passing the Republican House though defeated in the anti-Republican Senate.)

Lafayette S. Foster [Conn.] took occasion to remind the Senate that the Democratic party was in power in the country.

Stephen A. Douglas [Ill.] deplored looking at the question from a partisan standpoint.

I had hoped that we could lay aside our party feuds until we had saved the country, and then, if we must, let us quarrel about who shall govern it afterwards. I am ready to act with any party, with any individual of any party, who will come to this question with an eye single to the preservation of the Constitution and the Union. [Manifestations of approbation in the gallery.) I do not desire to hear the word party, or to listen to any party appeal, while we are considering and discussing

« PreviousContinue »