fraternity," and when that was destroyed, the government of the fathers ceased to exist. He said he could "not comprehend the policy of the Southern Senator who would substitute Federal force for State obligations and authority." "I fear," he said, "his proposition is to rear a monster which will break the feeble chain provided, and destroy rights it was intended to guard." Mr. Green, nettled by the opprobrious designation of "quack nostrums," applied to the propositions which had been made, replied with some spirit. He referred to the greater hazard and loss of the border as compared with those of the gulf States, Mississippi and Louisiana losing, he said, "but one boxed-up negro," while Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland had "lost thousands and thousands and thousands." Their wrongs, he contended, were real, and needed practical remedies, while those of the extreme South were rather "ideal and imaginary."

Charles Sumner spoke briefly, and contented himself with calling public attention to the testimony of General Jackson in 1833, in which he characterized the nullifiers as "wicked demagogues." "The tariff," said the hero of the Hermitage, "it is now known, was a mere pretext, . . disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question." James Dixon of Connecticut pleaded the cause of harmony. Declaring his dissent from the idea that there was any necessary antagonism between free and slave labor, he expressed the conviction that if slavery should destroy the Union it would be because "the statesmen of the day are incompetent to the task"; and his belief that, if the matter could be left to the people, the "States would continue to be bound together in eternal union by the golden chains of mutual advantage." Albert G. Brown of Mississippi avowed his purpose to vote against the resolution because he had no faith in its efficacy, and because he would not encourage hopes among his people that he knew to be groundless. Acts of Congress, he said, could not extinguish "sectional hate." "You might as well undertake to extract a cancer with a mustard plaster as to root up this political disease by means like these." Mr. Pugh of Ohio opposed with warmth

these remarks of Mr. Brown, and pleaded earnestly for harmony and concession. He pronounced Mr. Iverson's assertion, that the two sections hated each other, "a calumny." He deprecated, however, all resort to coercive measures. "What," he inquired, "would South Carolina be worth to herself or to us, if she were dragged captive in chains? . . . . If she cannot be retained by bonds of affection, or, if estranged, cannot be brought back to us by acts of kindness, why, let her depart in sorrowful silence." Mr. Mason of Virginia would vote for the resolution, though he had no faith that Congress could do anything effective, saying that he should regret extremely if its passage should encourage or lead the non-slaveholding States to look to Congress for any hope of an adjustment of these differences. The difficulty, he said, was not the failure to execute the fugitive slave laws, nor the passage of personal liberty bills, but it was "a social war, a war of sentiment, of opinion; a war of one form of society against another form of society." He deprecated the proposition that the executive should have the necessary power placed in his hands to execute the laws. That means, he said, that "the law is to march straight forward, like the car of Juggernaut, crushing all who may oppose it." The only ground of hope, he thought, was with the people, who, meeting in conventions at the North as they were then doing at the South, must "determine whether anything and what can be done to save this Union." The debate of the 11th turned largely upon the question whether or not the compromises of the Constitution had been carried out in good faith. Douglas and Pugh contended that they had been, while Green and Iverson maintained that practically they had not been, faithfully executed.

Near the close of the debate Mr. Wade of Ohio made a long and manly speech. With earnest and eloquent voice he vindicated the demands of justice and humanity; characterized with ability and refreshing boldness the course of those who discarded the doctrine of human rights, denied to others what they claimed for themselves, and proved traitorous to their country; and announced with unflinching firmness the purposes of those with whom he acted, and who were soon to

assume the reins of power. Referring to the complaints against the Republicans so rife, he remarked that the Republican party had never had an executive officer, while those who made the complaints, though representing a little more than one fourth of the free people of the United States, had generally had the men of their choice in every department of the government, dictating its policies and controlling its action. He alluded to the admissions of Iverson, Mason, and Brown that they had suffered little from personal liberty bills or the failure of Northern States to carry out the compromises of the Constitution; adding the specific testimonies and claims of the Democratic Senators from the North, Pugh, Douglas, and Fitch,-that the free States had ever proved themselves faithful in that regard. Indeed, he asserted that where one slave had been lost through the unfaithfulness of Northern tribunals, ten men had been murdered by either Southern mobs, or those inspired by Southern hate. The Fugitive Slave Act was fearfully repugnant to Northern feelings, and yet it had generally been faithfully executed, though, at the same time, Northern seamen were habitually imprisoned in Southern ports. And not only had the North been thus generally innocent of the infraction of laws, even those most odious, but he claimed that the distinctive doctrines of those he represented were no new doctrines." "We stand," he said, "where Washington stood, where Jefferson stood, where Madison stood, where Monroe stood. We stand where Adams and Jackson and even Polk stood. . . . . You have changed your opinion. We stand where we used to stand. That is the only difference." He closed his speech by avowing the purpose of the Republican party to prohibit slavery in all free territory, to oppose all further compromises, to use the power its recent victory had placed in its hands to maintain the Union, and to coerce, if needed, any seceding States to return to their indebted allegiance. If, however, he added, they should secede and maintain their independence, he warned them that those who rallied around the flag would find "in the fair fields of Mexico" an adjunct that would invite the protectorate of the United States, which "would be sevenfold

66

indemnified by the trade and commerce of that country for what it would lose by secession." The resolution was adopted on the following day, without a division. On the 20th the Vice-President announced the committee, which consisted of Powell, Hunter, Crittenden, Seward, Toombs, Douglas, Collamer, Davis, Wade, Bigler, Rice, Doolittle, and Grimes.

In the House, Alexander H. Boteler of Virginia moved to refer so much of the President's message as pertained to the perilous condition of the country to a committee of one from each State. The motion was promptly adopted by a vote of one hundred and forty-five to thirty-eight, although all the South Carolina delegation and most of those of Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi refused to vote on the plea that their respective States had ordered conventions which alone had the power to settle the matter. On the announcement of the committee, a sharp debate sprang up on requests to be excused from serving thereon. George S. Hawkins of Florida, in his speech urging his request, alluded to the fact that his State had already inaugurated measures looking towards secession, and to his own belief that "the time of compromise had passed forever." He criticised the composition of the committee because it did not, he thought, represent fully the sentiment of the country. He said, too, that no Southern man should have made the proposition; that the South "should have stood aloof and assumed an attitude of self-defence, of stern defiance, awaiting an overture from the North." Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio indorsed the sentiments of Mr. Hawkins, protested against the arrangement of the committee, and expressed his unwillingness to compel any one to serve upon it. Reuben Davis of Mississippi deprecated the appointment of the committee, and expressed the conviction that every Southern member should resign. But, as that would not be, he accepted his appointment, to "aid in preventing deception," though he regarded the measure "a tub thrown to the whale to amuse till the 4th of March next," and to "arrest the manly movement of the Southern States." But Hawkins's request was refused by a decisive vote, as was also another by Boyce of South Carolina.

John A. McClernand of Illinois, a prominent member of the conservative Democracy, approved of the committee, though he complained of its composition and of what he chose to regard a "proscription," or a discrimination against those Democrats who had stood up for Southern rights, - an advocacy and support, he thought, which rendered the course of the seceding States all the more reprehensible. "The South," he said, "whose battles we have been fighting, are about to desert us in the hour of our extremity by withdrawing from the Union. I will not believe it until I am forced to do so." But he was not compelled to wait long before the conviction was forced upon him and Northern Democrats generally, that the men who had broken faith with the government, and violated the solemn oaths of office they had voluntarily taken, would have few scruples of party fealty, or anything like adequate remembrance of past services and sacrifices in their behalf; and that they who had for generations disregarded the requirements of all laws, human and Divine, would not be held back from the realization of their long-cherished dreams and plans by any considerations of even partisan comity and obligation.

It having been voted that all resolutions and propositions upon the general subject should be referred to the committee, twenty-five such different propositions were presented and thus referred. A resolution offered by Isaac N. Morris, a Democratic member from Illinois, that the election of Abraham Lincoln did not justify a dissolution of the Union, was adopted by a vote of one hundred and fifteen to forty-four. Another, offered by Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, declaring that the Constitution recognizes property in slaves who cannot become citizens, gave rise to a two days' debate, but was finally laid on the table. During the discussion of the motion Mr. McClernand offered a substitute proposing an amendment of the Constitution; but it was voted down.

The committee was appointed, with Mr. Corwin of Ohio chairman. It held its first meeting on the 11th of December, although it did not report until five weeks later. On the 14th of January there were presented eight reports.

That of the