on the basis of the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been wilfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event, the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union. "I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union, in accordance with the Constitution, and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in Convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a Convention. "In order to justify a secession as a constitutional remedy it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any one of the States. In this manner our 33 States may resolve themselves to as many petty jarring and ile Republics, each one reg from the Union, without re sponsibility, whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks, which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. "Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed, with the greatest deliberation and care, it was submitted to Conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, while its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country, it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labour, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution. The truth is, that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who, in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Ca rolina to Congress, employs the following language:-The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberty and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the general Government is constituted, and to the objects which it was expressly formed to attain.' . "It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of the Confederation were entitled Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States,' and by the 13th Article it is expressly declared that the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established in order to form a more perfect Union.' And yet it is contended that this more perfect Union' does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.' "But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon Congress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the States from interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has, in strong prohibitory language, expressly declared that no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bilis of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.' Moreover, without. the consent of Congress, no State shall lay any imposts or duties on any imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws;' and, if they exceed this amount, the excess shall belong to the United States.' "And no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage; keep troops or ships of war in time of peace; enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power; or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.' "In order still further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of these high powers against State interposition, it is provided that this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of one State to the contrary notwithstanding." "The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the obligations of official duty, and all senators and representatives of the United States, all members of State Legislatures, and all executive or judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.' .. "In short, the Government country, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' and from this obligation he cannot be absolved by any human power, But what if the performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered impracticable by events over which he could have exercised no control? Such, at the present moment, is the case throughout the State of South Carolina, so far as the laws of the United States to secure the administration of justice by means of the Federal judiciary are concerned. All the Federal officers within its limits, through whose agency alone these laws can be carried into execution, have already resigned. We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney, or a marshal in South Carolina; in fact, the whole machinery of the Federal Government necessary for the distribution of remedial justice among the people has been demolished; and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace it. "It may be asked, then, are the people of the States without redress against the tyranny and oppression of the Federal Government? By no means. The right of resistance on the part of the governed against the oppression of their Governments cannot be denied. It exists independently of all Constitutions, and has been exercised at all periods of the world's history.. Under it old "The only Acts of Congress on Governments have been destroyed, the statute-book bearing upon this and new ones have taken their subject are those of the 28th of place. It is embodied in strong February, 1795, and 3rd of March, and express language in our own 1807. These authorize the PresiDeclaration of Independence. But dent, after he shall have ascerthe distinction, must ever be obtained that the marshal, with his served, that this is revolution against an established Government, and not, a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look the danger fairly in the face; secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may, or it may not, be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution. "What, in the mean time, is the responsibility and true position of the Executive? He is bound, y solemn oath before God and the posse comitatus, is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the militia and employ the army and navy to aid him in performing this service, having first by proclamation, commanded the insurgeuts to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time.' This duty cannot by possibility be performed in a State where no judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there is no marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were such an officer, the entire population would constitute one solid combination to resist him.. "Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina, this has been purchased for a fair equivalent by the consent of the Legislature of the State, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,' &c., and over these the authority to exercise exclusive legislation has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants. The question, fairly stated, is, -Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn, from the confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest, upon an inspection of the Constitution, that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not ne cessary and proper for carrying into execution' any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution. It appears, from the proceedings of that body, that on the 31st of May, 1787, the clause authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State' came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:-The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than any infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. Upon this mo tion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards-on the 8th of June, 1787 when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: Any Government for the United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the Government of Congress-evidently meaning the then-existing Congress of the old confederation. "Without descending to particu lars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State, how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province, and govern it by despotio power? In the nature of things we could not, by physical force, control the will of the people, and compel them to elect senators and representatives to Congress, and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition, and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the confederacy. . . "The fact is, that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation; but the sword was not placed in their hands to preserve it by force. "But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and deliberate before they determine to destroy this, the grandest temple which has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began? It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has already made us the most prosperous, and, before long, will, if preserved, render us the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign region of the globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest respect, and when pronounced in a foreign land, it causes the hearts of our countrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely, when we reach the brink of the yawning abyss, we shall recoil with horror from the last fatal plunge. By such a dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night of leaden despotism would Our ex enshroud the nations. ample for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for selfgovernment. "GREAT BRITAIN.-Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since the commencement of my administration the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty, and from the right of search claimed by the British Government, have been amicably and honourably adjusted. "The discordant constructions of the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty between the two Governments, which at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this Government. In my last annual Message I informed Congress that the British Government had not then completed treaty arrangements with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in pursuance of the understanding between the two Governments. It is, nevertheless, confidently expected that this good work will, ere long, be accomplished.' This confident expectation has since been fulfilled. Her Britannic Majesty concluded a treaty with Honduras on the 28th of November, 1859, and with Nicaragua on the 28th of August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito protectorate. Besides, by the former, the Bay Islands are recognized as part of the Republic of Honduras. It may be observed that the stipulations of these treaties conform, in every important particular, to the amendments adopted by the Senate of the |