vise their laws concerning the Fugitive Slave Act so that no obstacles would prevent its enforcement. This was unanimously adopted.

On December 21, South Carolina having seceded, the representatives of that State resigned their seats.

William A. Howard [Mich.] offered a resolution referring the message of the President to a special committee of five, to report on the exact situation of the Federal property in Charleston; what demands, if any, had been made for its surrender; what pledges, if any, had been given to the secessionists not to send reinforcements to Fort Sumter; what efforts, if any, had been made to recover Federal property which had been seized by the secessionists, etc. The resolution was adopted by 133 yeas to 62 nays.

On January 14, 1861, the Committee of Thirty-three presented three reports, that of the majority, embracing Mr. Davis's resolution, recognizing slavery in the States and the right of these that it should not be interfered with; proposing the admission of New Mexico into the Union, with slavery if its people so voted; maintaining the duty of the Federal Government to enforce the Federal laws, protect the Federal property, and preserve the Union," and to protect citizens of one State when traveling in another in all these civil rights, and requesting the States to enact laws preventing and punishing attempts within their borders lawlessly to invade other States.

One of the two minority reports, presented by two radical Republicans, Cadwalader C. Washburn [Wis.] and Mason W. Tappan [N. H.], declared that, in view of the rebellion now in progress, no concessions should be made. The other minority resolution, presented by John C. Burch [Cal.] and Lansing Stout [Ore.], propose a convention of the States to amend the Constitution.

The Crittenden (Senate) plan was moved in the House as a substitute for the majority report and rejected by 80 yeas to 113 nays, and the majority report was adopted by 136 yeas to 53 nays, the ratio of Republicans to Democrats being about the same in the yeas as in the nays. Mr. Corwin further reported a joint reso

lution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, whereby any future amendment giving Congress power over slavery in the States is forbidden; which was defeated, not receiving the requisite two-thirds—yeas 123; nays 71. It was reconsidered, however, on motion of Daniel Kilgore, of Indiana, seconded by Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio, and on February 28, 1861, was adopted: yeas 133, nays 65; and the Senate concurred: yeas 24, nays 12.

The debate in the House on this "Conciliation Bill" was one of the longest and most interesting in the annals of Congress. Nevertheless in ability the speeches in general fell below those in the Senate on the same subject, and therefore are here omitted.

As soon as their respective States passed ordinances of secession representatives in both Houses of Congress resigned their positions. Those in the Senate made farewell speeches, all of which are memorable for the spirit which informed them, and most of them for the ability with which this was expressed.

The speech of Jefferson Davis [Miss.] is here presented as typical of all.

"WE TREAD IN THE PATH OF OUR FATHERS"

FAREWELL SPEECH TO THE SENATE BY JEFFERSON DAVIS

It is known to Senators who have served with me here that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that, if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of

mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed, antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union and against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man [Senator Calhoun], whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded State. The phrase "to execute the laws" was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented. The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country.

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

belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born-to use the language of Mr. Jefferson-booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal— meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do-to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men-not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.

Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which, thus perverted, threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defend

ing and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God, and in our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.

In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offence there has been to me I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offence I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

At this session, after the withdrawal of Southern members in such numbers as to give the Republicans a large majority in the House and a practical control of the Senate, three separate acts were passed, organizing the Territories of Colorado, Nevada, and Dakota, covering a large part of the remaining territory of the United States. These acts were silent with regard to slavery, leaving whatever rights had accrued to the South under the Constitution, as interpreted in the Dred Scott decision, not merely unimpaired but unquestioned by any Federal legislation. Their passage in this form was intended to strengthen the Unionists of the South, especially of the border States.