It was as much Seward's duty to avoid saying anything that could be turned to the advantage of secession as to urge considerations that would directly strengthen national sentiment. Jefferson Davis had said, two days before, that if the doctrine of coercion were accepted as the theory of the government, its only effect would be to precipitate men of his opinion into an assertion of their ideas.' Seward now averred that there was no political good that he would seek by revolutionary action. Then, in sentences that were designed to soothe the South, he announced: "If others shall invoke that form of action to oppose and overthrow government, they shall not, so far as it depends on me, have the excuse that I obstinately left myself to be misunderstood. In such a case I can afford to meet prejudice with conciliation, exaction with concession which surrenders no principle, and violence with the right hand of peace." As evidence of what he was willing to do for the sake of peace and harmony, he formulated his views under five heads: First, he acknowledged the full force of the fugitiveslave clause of the Constitution, but thought that the special provisions for its execution should be so modified as not to endanger the liberty of free blacks, or to compel private citizens to assist in the capture of slaves. He also favored the repeal both of the personal-liberty laws of the free states and of the laws of the slave states that contravened the Constitution by restricting the liberties of citizens from the other states. Second, slavery in the states was free from congressional control, and he was willing to make it so permanently by constitutional amendment. Third, after the admission of Kansas as a free state, 1 Globe, 1860-61, 310. he would consent to the consolidation of all the territories into two states, and admit them without restriction as to slavery, if the right to make subdivisions into several convenient states could be reserved. But he thought that the Constitution did not permit such reservation. If it were feasible, he would prefer to have the present difficulties settled in a regular constitutional convention, "when the eccentric movements of secession and disunion shall have ended, in whatever form that end may come, and the angry excitement of the hour shall have subsided, . . . then, and not till then-one, two, three years hence." Fourth, he would favor laws to prevent invasion of any state by citizens of any other state. Fifth, since he regarded physical bonds-such as highways, railroads, rivers, and canals—as vastly more powerful than any covenants, he would support measures for a northern and for a southern railroad to the Pacific. In general explanation he added : "If, in the expression of these views, I have not proposed what is expected or desired by others, they will do me the justice to believe that I am so far from having suggested what, in many respects, would have been in harmony with cherished convictions of my own. I learned from Jefferson that, in political affairs, we cannot always do what seems to us absolutely best.... We must be content to lead when we can, and to follow when we cannot lead; and if we can not, at any time, do for our country all the good that we would wish, we must be satisfied with doing for her all the good that we can." The concluding sentences of this speech were a fitting climax to his appeal for forbearance and union: "Soon enough, I trust, for safety, it will be seen that sedition and violence are only local and temporary, and that loyalty and affection to the Union are the natural sentiments of the whole country. Whatever dangers there shall be, there will be the determination to meet them; whatever sacrifices, private or public, shall be needful for the Union, they will be made. I feel sure that the hour has not come for this great nation to fall. . . . This Union has not yet accomplished what good for mankind was manifestly designed by Him who appoints the seasons and prescribes the duties of states and empires. N; if it were cast down by faction to-day, it would rise again and reappear in all its majestic proportions to-morrow. It is the only government that can stand here. Woe! woe! to the man that madly lifts his hand against it. It shall continue and endure; and men, in after times, shall declare that this generation, which saved the Union from such sudden and unlooked-for dangers, surpassed in magnanimity even that one which laid its foundations in the eternal principles of liberty, justice, and humanity." Seward's patriotic eloquence was so impressive that more than one Senator was seen to express his sympathy in tears. If the plan was inadequate it was because human ingenuity was inadequate to the task. Considering the actual conditions and what was most urgent at that time, there is reason to believe that this was as wise, as patriotic, and as important a speech as has ever been delivered within the walls of the Capitol. If Seward had spoken as most of the Republicans had done, or if he had gone no farther than Lincoln had even confidentially expressed a willingness to go, by March 4th there would have been no Union that any one could have summoned sufficient force to save or to re-establish. To Seward, almost alone, belongs the credit of devising a modus vivendi. But the country was too excited to estimate justly the value of such a speech." 12 Seward, 494; 4 Works, 118. Seward wrote home on January 13th: "Distraction rules the hour. I hope what I have done will bring some good fruits, and, in any case, clear my own conscience of responsibility, if, indeed, I am to engage in conducting a war against a portion of the American people.' -2 Seward, 496. And again the next day: "The city is bewildered by the speech. But things look better."-Ibid. " Nearly every one demanded a comprehensive declaration either for compromise and peace or for coercion and war. The zeal of the abolitionists and of the secessionists had bred a fanaticism that made the importance of preserving the Union seem small indeed. While Garrison attacked Seward, he called upon the North to "recognize the fact that the Union is dissolved." Sumner and Chase had protested in advance against Seward's sentiments, and they deplored them afterwards.' So general was the disapprobation of the Republican Representatives that it was feared they would call a caucus to pass resolutions in disapproval of Seward's ideas.' Even Mrs. Seward objected to what she called his "concessions." Many persons understood the conciliatory tone to be equivalent to a promise to make a concession of principle. On the other hand, Lincoln wrote: "Your recent speech is well received here, and, I think, is doing good all over the country." Ray Palmer praised it in the highest terms, and pronounced it worthy of "the distinguished men of the best days of the republic."" George William Curtis wrote to a friend: "I hope you like Seward's speech as I do. I see by the New York papers that people are beginning to see how great a speech it is. Webster had his 7th of March, and went wrong; Seward his, and went right." On January 31st Seward presented a petition signed by many thousand citizens of New York, praying for a peaceable adjustment of the national difficulties. He told the Senate that he had asked the committee that had "And if nothing but the possession of the capital will appease you, take even that, without a struggle!"-4 Garrison, 15. 24 Pierce's Sumner, 9, 17, 22; Schuckers's Chase, 202. John M. Williams to Seward, January 16, 1861. Seward MSS. 'January 15, 1861. Seward MSS. Cary's Curtis, 141. brought the memorial to him to manifest, on their return home, their devotion to the Union, above all other interests and sentiments, by speaking for it, by voting for it, by lending it money, if it needed it, and, in the last resort, by fighting for it. Again he expressed his hope and confidence that the Union would still be preserved. One reason for this was his belief that the great question of the past-slavery in the territorieshad been practically settled, and that, too, in the interest of freedom. In opposition to what freedom had gained by the admission of the free states of California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas, slavery could count but twenty-four slaves in all the remaining territories, which were about twenty-four times the size of New York. There was no further danger from slavery, and the question of union or dissolution might well be given. precedence. At the conclusion of this speech, Mason sprang to his feet and made a persistent effort to misrepresent what had been said by Seward, whom he called "the exponent of the new administration." "Let the facts be what they may, he presents but one remedy— the argument of the tyrant-force, compulsion, power"; and the Virginian hoped by reiterating the idea to excite the people of his section into immediate action." In his most placid manner, Seward expressed surprise that his peaceful, fraternal, and cordial remarks could be construed into a declaration of war. He had considered every proposition, he said; offered up his own prejudices; made concessions and recommended New York to take part in the peace conference, in the hope of effecting an arrangement; and if all should fail, he expected that the controversy would be taken up and settled in a constitutional convention. In comparison with the question of union, the controversy about twenty-four slaves was "frivolous and contemptible." 14 Works, 671. Globe, 1860-61, 659. |