lewis™
EXTRA.
LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE
o F
JAMES BUCHANAN,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF IHE SENATE AND HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES :—Throughout the year
since our last meeting, the country lias been
eminently prosperous in all its material inter
ests. The general health has been excellent,
our li irvests have been al un iant, and plenty
Bmiles throughout the land. Our commerce
and manufactures have btea prosecuted with
energy and industry, and have yielded fair and
ample returns,. In short, no nation in the
tide of time has ever presented a spectacle of
greater material prosperity than we have done
until within a very recent period.
Why is it, then, that discontent now so ex
tensively prevails, and the Union of the States,
which is the source of all these blessings, is
threatened with destruction? The long con
tinued and intemperate interference of the
Northern people with the question of slavery
iu the Southern States has at length produced
its natural effects. The different tections of
the Union are now arrayed against each other,
and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by
theFatlnrof his Country, when hostile geo
graphical parties have been formed. 1 have
long foreseen and often forewarned my country
meu of the now impending danger. This does
not proceed solely from the claim on the part
of Congress or the territorial legislatuies to ex
clude slavery from the Territories, nor from the
efforts of different States to defeat the execu
tion of the Fugitive Slave law. All or any of
these evils might have been endured by the
South without danger to the Union, (as others
have been,) in the hope that time and reflection
might apply the reineJy. The immediate peril
arises not so much from these causes as from
the fact that the incessant and violent agita
tion of tho slavery question throughout the
North for the last quarter of a century, has at
length produced its malign influence upon the
slaves, aud inspired them with vague notions
of freedom. Hence a cense of security no
longer exists around the family altar. This
feeling of peace at home has given place to ap
prehensions of servile insurrection. Many a
matron throughout the South retires at night
in dread of what may befall herself and her
children before the morning. Should this ap
prehensioa of domestic danger, whether real or
imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it
shall pervade the masses of thcSouthern people,
then disunion will become inevitable.—Self-pre
servation is the first law of nature, and lias been
implanted in the heart of man by his Creator
for the wisest purpose ; aud no political union,
however fraught with blessings and benefits in
all other re-pects, can long continue, if the ne
cessary const quence be to render the homes and
firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitu
ally aud hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later
the bonds of such a Union must he severed.—
It is my conviction that this fatal period has
not yet arrived ; and my prayer to God is that
He would preserve the Constitution and the
Union throughout all generations.
But let us take warning in time, and remove
the causa of danger. It canuot be denied that,
for five and twenty years, the agitation at the
North against slavery in the South, has been
incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills, and in
flammatory appeals, were circulated extensive
ly throughout the South, of a character to ex
cite the passions of the slaves ; and, in the lan
guige ot General Jackson, "to stimulate them
to insurrection, aud produce all the horrors of
a servile war." This agitation has ever since
beeu continued by the public press, by the pro
ceedings of State and county conventions, and
by abolitiou sermons and lectures. The time
of Congress has been occupied in violent speech
es on this never-ending subject; and appeals in
pamphlet and other forms, endorsed by distin
guished names, have been 6ent forth from this
central point, and spread broadcast over the
Union.
How easy would it be for the American peo
ple to settle the slavery question forever, and
to restore peace and harmony to this distracted
country.
They, and they alone, can do it. All that is
necessary to accomplish the object, and all for
which the slave States ever contended, is
to be let alone, and permitted to manage their
domestic institutions in their own way. As
sovereign States, they, and they alone, are re
sponsible before God aud the world for the
Elavery existing among them. For this, the
people of the North are not more responsible,
and have no more right to interfere, than with
similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.
Upon their good sense and patriotic forbear
ance I confess I still greatly rely. Without
their aid, it is bej'ond the power of any Presi
dent, no matter what may Le his own political
proclivities, to restore peace and harmony
among the States. Wisely limited and re
strained as is his power, under our Constitu
tion and laws, he alone can accomplish hut lit
tle, for good or for evil, on such a momentous
question.
And this brings mo to observe that the elec
tion of any one of our fellow-citizens to the cf
fice ot President does not of itself afford just
cause for dissolving the Union. This is more
especially true if his election has been effected
by a mere plurality, and not a majority, of the
people, and has resulted from transient and
temporary causes, which may probably never
again occur, la order to justify a resort to
revolutionary resistance, the Federal Govern
ment must be guilty of "a deliberate, palpa
ble, and dangerous exercise" of powers not
granted by the Constitution. The late presi
dential election, however, has been held in
strict conformity with its express provisions.
How, then, can the result justify a revolution
to destroy tkiß very Constitution? Keason,
justice, a regard for the Constitution, all re
quire that we shall wait for some overt and
dangerous set on the part of the President
elect before resorliDg to such a remedy.
It is said, however, that the antecedents of
the President elect Lave been sufficient to jus
tify the fears of the South that he will attempt
to invade their constitutional rights. But are
such apprehensions of contingent danger in the
future sufficient to justify the immediate des
truction of the noblest system of government
ever devised by mortals? From the viry na
ture of Iris office, audits high responsibilities,
he must ntcessarly be conservative. The stern
duty of administering the vast and com plicated
concerns of this Government affords in itself a
guarantee that he will not attempt any viola
tion of a clear constitutional right. After all,
he is no mote than the chief cxtcu'ive officer
of the Government. His province is not to
make, but to ex- cute, the laws; and it is a re
markable fact in our history, that, notwith
standing the repeated efforts of the ami slavery
party, no single act has ever passed Congress,
unless we may possibly except the Missouri
Compromise,impairing in the slightest degree,
the rights of the South to their property in
t slaves. And it may also he observed, judging
| from present indications, that no possibility
exists of tLe passage of such an act, by a ma
jority of both Houses, either ia the preseut or
the next Congress Surely, under these cir
cumstances, we ought to be restrained from
present action by the precept of Him who spake
as never mas spoke, that "sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof." The day of evil may
I never come, unless we shall rashly bring it
j upon ourselves.
i It is alleged as one cause for immediate ss
j ces-ion that the Southern States are denied
; equal rights with the other States in the coui
| moil Territories. But by what authority are
| these dtnied? Not by Congress, which has
j never passed, and I believe never will pass, any
act to exclude slavery from these Territories:
and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which
has solemnly decided that slaves are property,
and, like all other property, their owners have
a right to take them into the common Terri
tories, and hold them there under the protee
i tion of the Constitution.
80 far, then, as Congress is concerned, the
objection is not to anything they have already
doue, but to what they may do hereafter. It
will surely be admitted that this apprehension
of future danger is no good reason for an imme
diate dissolution of the Union. It is true that
the territorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23d
of February, 1800, passed in great haste an act,
over the veto of the governor, declaring that
slavery "is and shall be, forever prohibited in
this Tciritory." Such an act, however, plainly
violating the rights of property secured by the
Constitution, will surely be declared void by
the judicialy whenever it shall he presented in
a legal form.
Only three days after my inauguration the
Supreme Couitofthe United States solemnly
adjudged that this power did not exist in a ter
ritorial legislature. Yet such has been the
factious temper of the times that the correct
ness of this decision has been extensively im
pugned before the people, and the question has
given rise to angry political conflicts through
out the country. Those who have appealed
from this judgment of our highest constitu
tional tribunal to popular assemblies would,
if they could, invest a ierritorial legislature
with power to annul the scrtd rights of prop
erty. This power Congress is expressly for
bidden by the Federal Constitution to ex
ercise. Every State legislature in the
Union is forbidden by its own constitution
to exercise it. It cannot be exercised in
any State except by the people in their high
est sovereign capacity when framing or amend
ing their State constitution. In like manner,
it can only he exercised by the people of a Ter
ritory represented in a convention of delegates
for the purpose of fsaming a constitution pre
paratory to admission as a State into the Union.
Then, and not until then, are they invested
with power to decide the question whether
slavery shall or 6hall not exist within their
limits. This is an act of sovereign authoTity,
and not of subordinate territorial legislation.
Were it otherwise, then indeed would the
equality of the States in the Territories be de
stroyed, and the rights of property in slaves
would depend, not upon the guarantees of the
Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities
of au it responsible territorial legislature. Such
a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can
not long influence auy considerable portion of
our people, much less can it afford a good rea
son for a dissolution of the Union.
The most palpable violations of constitution
al duty which have yet been committed consist
iu the acts of different State legislatures to de
feat the execution of the fugitive slave law.
It ought to be remembered, however, that for
these acts, neither Congress nor any President
can justiy be held responsible. Having been
passed in violation of the Federal Constitution,
they are therefore null and void. All the
courts, both State and National, before whom
the question has arisen, have from the
beginuing declared the fugitive slave law
to be constitutional The single exception
is that of a State court in Wisconsin;
and this has not only been reversed by the
proper appellate tribunal, but has met with
such universal reprobation that there can be
no danger from it as a precedent. The validi
ty of this law has beeu established over and
over again by the Supreme Court of the United
States with perfect unauimity. It is founded
upon an express provision of the Constitution,
requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from
service in one Stats to another shall be "deliv
ered up" to their masters. Without this pro
vision it is a well-known historical fact thatthe
Constitution itself could never have been adopt
ed by the Convention. Jn one form or other
under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being
substantially the same, the fugitive slave law
has beeu the law of the laud from the davs of
Washington until the present moment. Here,
then, a clear case is presented, in which it will
be the duty of the next President, as it has
been my own, to act with vigor in executing
this supreme law against the conflicting enact
ments of State legislatures. Should he fail in
the performonce of this high duty, he will then
have manifested a disregard of the Constitu
tion and laws, to the great injury of the people
of nearly one-half of the States of the Union.
But are we to presume in advance that he will
thus violate his duty ? This would be at war
with every principle of justice and of Christian
charity. Let us wait for the overt act. The
fugitive-slave law has beeen carried into execu
tion in every contested case since the commence
ment of the present administration ; though
often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and
inconvenience to the master, and with consid
erable expense to the government. Let us
trust that the State lsgislatures will repeal their
unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments.
Unless this shall be done without unnecessary
delay, it is impossible for arty human power to
save the Union.
The Southern States, standing: on the basis of
the Constitution, have a right to demand this
act of justice from the States of the North -
Should it ba refused, thou the Constitution, to
which all the States are parties, will have been
willfully 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 peace
ful 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 Las been
claimed within the last two 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 < f its own people assembled ia Conven
tion, so any one < f them in ty retire from the
Union in a similar uiauuer by the vote of such a
convention.
in order to justify secession as a constitution
al nno dy, it must be on the principle that the
Federal Government is a mere voluntary asto
ciatiou of States, to be dissolved ut 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 of the States.—
In this manner our thirty-three States may re
solve themselves into as many petty, jarrine,
and hostile republics, each one retiring from
the t nion, without responsibility, whenever j
any sudden excitenunt might impel them to |
such a course. By this process a Union might i
be entirely broken iuto fragments in a few I
weeks, which cost our forefathers manv years
of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with
the history as well as the character of the Fed
eral Constitution. After it was framed, with
the greatest deliberation and care, it was sub
mitted to conventions of the people of the
several States for ratification. Its provisions
were discussed at length in these bodies, COHI
p sed of the first men of the country. Its op
ponents contended that it conferred powers
upon the Federal Government dangerous to the
rights of the States, whilst its advocates main
tained that under a fair construction of the
instrument there was no foundation for such
apprehensions. In that mighty struggle be
tween the first intellects ot 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 lal or, because the moment that
any State felt herself aggrieved she might
secede from the Union. What a crushing ar
gument would this have proved against those
who dreaded that the rights of the States
would he endangered by the Constitution. The
tiuth is, that it was not until many years afL-r
the origin of the Federal Government that
such a proposition was first advanced. It was
then met aud refuted by the conclusive argu
ments of Gene.al Jacksou, who in his message
of 16th January, 1833, transmitting the nulli
fying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress,
employs the following language: "The right
of the people o a single State to absolye them
selves at will, and without the consent of the
other States, from their most solemn obliga
tions, and hazard the liberty aud happiness of
the millions composing this Union, cannot be
acknowledged. Such authority is believed to
be utterly repugnant both to the principles
upou which the General Government is consti
tuted aud to the objects which it was expressly
formed to attain."
It is not pretended that any clause in in the
the Constitution gives countenance to such a
theory. It is altogether founded upou iufer
ence, not from any language contained in the
instrument itself, but from the sovereign char
acter of the several States by which it was
ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State,
like au iudividval, to yield a portion of its
sovereign right to secure the remainder? In
the language of Mr. Madisou, who has been
called thefather of the Constitution : "It was
formed by the States—that is, by the people in
each of the States, acting in their highest sov
ereign capacity ; and formed consequently by
the same authority which formed the State
constitution."
" Nor is the Government of the United
States, created by the Constitution, less a Gov
ernment iu the strict sense of the term, within
the sphere of its powers, than the governments
created by the constitutions of the States are,
within tbeir several spheres. It is, like them,
organized into legislative, executive, and ju
diciary departments. It operates, like them,
directly on persons and things ; and, like them
it has at command a physical force for execu
ting the powers committed to it.
It was intended to he perpetuated, and not
to he annulled at the pleasure of any one of the
contracting parties. The old articles of con
federation were entitled "Articles of Confeder
ation and Perpetual Union between the States;"
and by the 13 th article it is expressly declared
that "the articles of this Confederation shall
be inviolably observed by every State, and the
Uuion shall be perpetual." The preamble to
the Constitution ot the United States, having
express reference to the articles of Confedera
tion, 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 per
petuity.
But that the Union was designed to be per
petual appeals conclusively from the nature aud
extent of the powers conferred by the Constitu
tion on the Federal Government. These pow
ers embrace the very highest attributes of na
tional sovereignty. They place both the sword
and the purse under its control. Congress has
power to make war, and to make peace; to raise
and support aimies and navies, and to conclude
treaties with foreign governments. It is in
vested with the power to coin money, and to
regulate the value thereof, and to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several States. It is not necessary to enumer
ate the other high powers which have been con
ferred upon the Federal Government. In order
to carry the enumerated powers into effect, Con
gress possesses the exclusive right to lay and
collect duties on imports, and in common with
the States to lay and collect all other taxes.
Bnt 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 bills of credit ; make anything but gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of debts ;
pass any bill of attainder ex pott 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 abso
lutely necessary lor 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 eDgage in
war, unless actually invaded, or in such immi
nent danger as will not admit of delay."
In order still further to secure the uninter
rupted 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 marie, un
der the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land ; and the judges
in every State shall be hound thereby, anything
in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding."
The solemn sanction of religion has been
superadded to the obligations of official duty,
aud all senators and representatives of the
United States, .all members of State legislatures,
and all executive and judicial officers, "both of
the United States and of the Eeveral States,
shall be bound by oatli or affirmation to sup
port this Constitution."
In order to carry into effect these powers,
the Constitution has established a perfect Gov
ernment in all iis forms, Legislative, Execu
tive, and Judicial; and this Government, to
the extent of its powers, acts directly upon the
individual citizens of every State, and exe
cutes its own decrees by the agency of its own
officers. In this respect it diffeis entirely from
the Government under the old Confederation,
wnich was confined to making requisitions on I
the States in their sovereign character. This
left it in the discretion of each whether to c bey
or to r- fuse, and they often declined to comply
wsth such requisition-. It thus became nec<s
sary, lor the purpose of removing this barrier,
and ''in order to form a more perfect Union,"
to establnh a Gove, nine ut which could act di
rectly upon the people, and execute its own
laws without the intermediate ageucy of the
States. This has b.eu accomplished by the
Constitution of the United States.
la short, the Government creat d by the
Constitution, aud deriving its authority from
the sovereign people oi tacit ol the several
States, has precisely the same right to exercise
its power over the people cf 11 these Stats, iu
the enumerated cases, that each one of tneni
pissts-es over subjects not delegated to the
United States but "reserved to the Slates, res
pectively, or to the people."
To the extent of the delegated powers the
Constitution of the United States is as much a
part o! the constitution of each S ate, and is
as binding upon its people, as though it had
been textually instrttd therein.
Ibis Government, 1! en lute, is a great and
powerful Government, invested jth all the at
tributes of sovereignty over the special sub
jects to which its authority extends. Its tra
nters nc ter intended to implant iu its bosout
the seeds ot its own d-. struct ion, nor were they
at its cie tion guilty ot the absurdity of provid
ing fur i'..- own dissolution. It was not intended
by its tramcis to be the baseless fabric of a
virion, which, at the touch of the enchanter,
would vanish ito ihiu air, bat a substantial
and mighty fabii , capable of resisting the slow
decay of time and ot defying thestoimsot ages.
Indeed, well may 'lie jealous patriots of that
day have indulged leans that a government of
such high poweis might violate the reserved
rights of the Statts, and wisely did they adopt
the rule of a strict construction of these pow
eis to prevent the danger ! But they <!i.l not
fear, nor bad they any teas n to imagine, that
the Constitution would ever be so interpreted
as to enable auy State, by her nut act, and
without the consent ot her sister States to dis
charge her people from all or any of their Fed
eral obligations.
It may be asked, then, are the people of the
St ates without redress against the t\ rany and
oppression of the Federal Government ? By 110
means. The right of resistance on tiie part of
the governed against the oppression of the-ir
governments cannet be denied. It exists inde
pendently of all constitutions, and has been
exercised at all periods of the world's history
Under it old governments have been destroyed,
and new ones have taken their place. It is
embodied in strong and express language in
our own. Declaration of Independence. But
the distinction must ever be observed, that this
is revolution against an established Govern
ment, 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 he justifia
ble revolution, hut still it is revolution.
What, in the mean cime, is the responsibility
and true position cf the Executive? He
is bound by solemn oath before God and
the country "to take care thatthe laws
be faithfully executed," and from this obliga
tion he cannot be absolved by any human
power. But what if the performance of this
duty, in whole or in pirt, has been rendered
impracticable by eve nts over which he couid
have exercised no emit o!Such, at the pres
| ene moment, is the ca>e through ut the State
ot South Carolina, so far as the laws of the
United Stat, s to secuie the administiation 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 re
signed. We no longer have a district judge, a
district attorney, or a marshal, in South Caro
lina. In fact, the whole machinery of the Fed
eral Government, necessary for the distribution
of remedial justice among the pet pie, has been
demolished ; and it would b,; difficult, if not
impossible, to replace it.
The only acts of Congress on the statute
book, bearing upou this subject, are those of
the 28th February, 1795, ami il l March, 1807.
These authorize the President, after he shall
have ascertained that the marshal with hia/xJtw
comituius 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 insurgents "to
disperse and retire peaceably to tbeir respective
abodes, within a limited time " This duty
cannot by possibility be performed in a State
where no judicial authority exists to issue pro
cess, and where there is no marshal to execute
it, and where, even if there were 6uch an tffi
cer, the entire population would constitute one
solid combination to resist him.
The bare enumeration of these provisions
prove how inadequate they are without further
legislation to overcome a united opposition in
a single State, not to speak of other States who
may place themselves in a similar attitude.—
Congress alone has power to decide whether
the present laws can or cannot be amended so
as to carry out more effectually the objects of
the Constitution.
The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in
the way of executing the laws for the collection
of the customs. The revenue still continues
to be collected, as heretofore, at the custom
house in Cliailestou; and should the collector
unfortunately resign, a successor may be ap
pointed to perform this duty.
Then in regard to the property of the United
States in South Carolina. This has been pur
chased for a tair equivalent, "by the consent of
the legislature of the State,'' "lor the erection
of forts, magazines, arsenals," &c., and over
these the authority "to exercise exclusive legis
lation" has been expressly granted by the Con
stitution 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 contin
gency, the responsibility for consequences
would rightfully rest upon the heads of the as
sailants.
Apart from the execution of the laws, so far
as this may be practicable, the Executive has
no authority to decide what shall be the rela
tions between the Federal Government and
South Carolina. He Las been invested with no
such discretion. He possesses no power to
change the relations heretofore existing between
them, much less to acknowledge the independ
ence of that State. This would be to invest a
mere Executive officer with the power of re
cognising the dissolution of the Confederacy
among our thirty-three sovereign States. It
bears no resemblance to the recognition of a
foreign de facto government, involving no such
responsibility. Any attempt to do this would,
on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It
is, therefore, my duty to submit to Congress
the whole question in all its bearings. 'Jhe
course of events is so rapidly hastening ffir
watd, that the emergency may soon arise, when
you may be called upon to decide the momc-n
tons question whether you possess the power,
by force ot arms, to compel a State to remain
in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to
my duty were I not to express an opinion on
this important subject.
The question fairly stated is: Has the Consti
tution delegated toCongrcss the power to coerce
a State into submission which is attempting to
withdraw or has actuaMy withdrawn from the
Confederacy ? If answered in the affirmative,
it must he on the priuciple that the power has
been conferred upon Congress to declare and to
make war against a State. After much serious
reflection 1 have arrived at the conclusion that
no such power has been delegated to Cogress or
to any other department of the Federal Govern
ment. It is manifest, upon an inspection of the
Constitution, that this is not among the specific
and enumerated powers granted to Congress ;
aud it is equally apparent that its exercise is
not "oecwmy aud proper for carrying into ex
ecution' any oue 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 "au
thorizing an ex rtion of the force of the whole
against a delinquent Siate" came up for con
sideration. Mr. Madison op osed it in brief
but powerful speech, from which I shall extract
hut a single sentence. lie observed: "The use
of force against a Stale would look more like a
declaration of war than an infliction of punish
ment : and would probably be considered by
the party attacked as a dissolution of all pre
vious compacts by which it might be bound,'
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously
postponed, a id was never again I believe pre
sentui St on afterwards, on the Bth June,
1787, when incidentally adverting to the sub
ject, he said : "Any Government for the United
States, formed tn the supposed practicability
of tiring force against the unconstitutional pro
ceedings of the Stabs, would prove asvisiora
ry and fallacious as the'government of Con
gre.-s, ' evidtntly meaning the then existing
Congress of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be
safely asseited, that the power to make war
against a State is at vatiance with the whole
spit it and intent of the Constitution. Suppose
such a war should result in the conquest of a
State, how ate we to govern it afterwards?
Shall we hold it as a province, and govern it
by despotic power ? In the nature of things
we could not, by physical force, control the
will of the people and compel them to elect
senators aud representatives to Congress, and
to perform all the other duties depending upon
their own volition, aud required from the free
citizens of a ftee State as a constituent member
of the Confederacy.
But, if possessed of this power, would ft be
wise to exercise it under existing circumstau
cs ? The object would doubtless be to pre
rv the Union. War would not only present
the most effectual means of destroying it; but
would banish all hope of its peaceable rocon
struction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a
v st amount of blood and treasure would be
expended, rendering future reconciliation be
tween the States impossible. In the mean
time, who can foietell what would be the suf
fering and privation of the people during its
existence ?
T he fact is, that our Uuion rests upon public
opinion, and can never be cemented by the
blood i f its citizens shed in civil war. If it
can not live in the atTections of the people, it
must one day perish. Congress possesses
many means of preserving it by conciliation ;
hut 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, be
fore they determine to destroy this, the grand
est 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, ere long, will, if
preserved, render us the most powerful nation
on the face of the eatth. In every foreign re
gion of tire globe the title of American citizen
is held in the highest respect, and when pro
nounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts
of our countrymen to swell witlr honest pride.
Surely when we reach the brink of the yawn
ing abyss, we shall recoil with horror from the
last fatal plunge. By such a dread catastro
phe the hopes of the friends of freedom
throughout the world would be destroyed, and
a long night of despotism would enshroud the
nations. Our example for more than eighty
years would not only be lost; but would be
quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unlit
fur self government.
It is not every wrong—nay, it is not every
grevious wrong—which can jnstify a resort to
such a fearful alternative This ought to be
the last desperate remedy of a despairing peo
ple, after every other constitutional means of
couciliatiou had been exhausted. We 6hould
re.fkct that under this free government there
is an incessant ebb and flow in public opinion.
The slavery question, like everything human,
will have its day. I firmly believe that it has
already reached and passed the culminating
point. But if, in the midst of the existing ex
citement, the Union shall perish, the evil may
then become irreparable. Congress can con
tribute much to avert it by proposing and re
commending to the Legislatures of the several
States the remedy for existing evils, which the
Constitution has itself provided for its own pre
servation. This has beeti tried at different criti
cal periods of our history, and always with
eminent success. It is to be found in the fifth
article providing for its own amendment.—
Under this article amendments have been pro
posed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress
and have been " ratified by the Legislatures
of three fourths of the several States," and
consequently become parts of the Constitution.
To this process the country is indebted for the
clause prohibiting Congress from passing any
law respecting the establishment of religion, or
abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press, or of the right of petition. To this we
arc also indebted for the Bill of Rights which
secures the people against any abuse of power
by the Federal Government. Such were the
apprehensions justly entertained by the friends
of States rights at that period as to have ren
dered it extremely doubtful whether the Con
stitution could have long survived without these
amendments.
Again, the Constitution was amended by the
same process after the election ot President
Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in
February, 1803. 'This amendment was render
ed necessary to prevent a recurrence of the
dangers which had seriously threatened the
existence of the Government during the pen
dency of that election. The article for its own
amendment was intended to secure the amicable
adjustment of conflicting constitutional ques
tions like the present, which might arise be
tween the governments of the States and that
of the United States. This appaars from con
temporaneous history.
In this connection, I shall merely call atten
tion to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's justly
celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of
Virginia In this he ably and conclusively
defended the resolutions of the preceding
legislature agaiost the strictures of several
other State legislatures. These were mainly
founded upon the protest of the Virginia legis
lature against the "Allen and Sedition Acts,"
as "palpable aud alarming infractions of the
Constitution." In pointing out the peaceful
and constitutional remedies, and he referred to
none other, to which the States were authori
zed to resoit, on such occasions, be concludes
by saying, "that the legislatures of the States
might have made a direct representation to
Congress with a view to obtaiu the rescinding
of the two offensive acts, or they might have
represented to their respective Senator in Con
gress their wish that two-thirds thereof would
propose an explanntory amendment to the Co
nstitution, or two thirds of themselves, if such
had been their option, might, by an applica
tion to Congress, have obtained a convention
for the same object."
This is the very course which I earnestly re
commend in order to obtain an "explanatory
amendment" of the Constitution on the the
subject slavery. This might originate with Con
gress or the State Legislatures, as may be deem
ed mcst advisable to attain the object.
The explanatory amendment might be con
fined to the final settlement of the true con
struction of the Constitution on three special
points:
1. An express recognition of the right
property in slaves in the States where it now
exists or may hereafter exist.
2 The duty of protecting this right in all
the common territories throughout their ter
ritorial existence, and until tiny shall be ad
mitted as States into the Uniuu, with cr with
out slavery, as their constitutions may pie
sciibe.
8 A like recognition of the right of the
master to have his 6lave, who h is escaped from
one State to another, restored and "delivered
up" to him, and of the validity of the fugitive
slave law enacted for this purpose, together
wiih a declaration that all State laws impairing
or defeating this right are violations of the
Constitution, and aie consequently null and
void.
It may be objected that this constiuction of
the Constitution has already been settled by the
Supreme Court of the United States, and what
more ought to be required. The answer is,
that a very large proportion of the people of
the United States still contest the correctness of
tliis decision, and never will cease fiom agitu
tion and admit its binding force until clearly
established by the people oi the several States
in thtir sovereign character. Such an explana
tory amendment would, it is believed, tuiever
terminate the existing dissensions aud le.-tor o
peace and harmony among the States
It ought not to be doubted that such au ap
p<al to the arbitrayment established by the
Constitution itself would be received with favor
by all the States of the Confederacy. In any
ewut it ought to be tried in a spirit of coucil
liation before any of those States shall separate
themselves from the Union.
When I entered upon the duties of tli • Presi
dential office, the aspect of neither our for
eign nor domestic affairs was at all satisfactory.
We wete iuvolved in dangerous complications
with several nations, and two of Our territories
were in a state of revolution against the Govern
ment.
A restoration of the Afiicau slave trade had
numerous and powerful advocates. Unlawful
military expeditions were countenanced by
many of our citizens, and were suffered, in de
fiance of the effoits of the Government, to es
cape frotn our shores, for the put pose of mak
ing war upon the unoffending people of n< iidi
boring republics with whom we were at peace.
In addition to these and other difficulties we
experienced a revulsion in monetary* affairs,
soon after my advent to power, of unexampled
severity and of ruinous consequences to all the
great interests of the country. When we take
a retrospect of what was then our condition,
and contrast this with its material prosperity at
the time of the late Presidential election, we
have abundant reason to return our grateful
thanks to that merciful Providence which has
never forsaken ua as a nation in all our past
trials.
OUR FOREIGN RELATION.
GREAT BRITAIN.
Our relations with Great Britain are of tlio
most friendly character Since the commence
ment of my administration, the two dangerous
questions, arising from the Clayton and liulwer
treaty and from the light of search claimed by
the British government, hove been aiuiably
and honorably adjusted.
The discordant construction of the Cay toil
and Bu|wer treaty between the two govern
ments, which at different periods of the discus
sion, bore a threatening aspect, have resulted
in a final settlement entirely satisfaclory to this
Government. In my annual message 1 inform
ed Congress that the British government with
the republics of Honduras aud Nicaragua, in
pursuance of tlie understanding between the
two governments. It is nevertheless confident
ly expected that this good work will ere be ac
complished." This confident expectation has
siiice been fulfilled. Her Britanic Majesty con
cluded a treaty with Honduras on the 2Tth No
vember, 1859, and with Nicaragua on the 28th
August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito pro
tectorate. Besides, by the former, the Bay
Islands are recognized as a part of the republic
of Honduias. It may be observed that the
stipulations of these treaties conform in every
important particular to the amendments adopt
ed by the Senate of the United States to the
treaty concluded at London on the 19th of
October, 1856, between the two governments.
It will be recollected that this treaty was reject
ed by the British government because of its ob
jection to the just aud important amendment
of the Senate to the article relatiug to Ruatan
and the other islands in the Bay of Honduras.
It must be a source ot sincere satisfaction to
all classes of our fellow-iitiztns, ami especially
to those engaged in foreign commerce, ttiat the
claim on the part of Great Biitain, forcibly to
visit and search American merchant vessels on
the high seas in time of peace, has been aban
doned. This was by far the most dangerous
question to the peace of the two countries which
has existed since the war of 1812. Whilst
it remained open, they might at any moment
have been precipitated into a war. This was
rendered manifest by the exasperated state of
public feeling throughout our entire country,
produced by the forcible search of American
merchant vessels by British cruisers on the
coast of Cuba, in the spriug of 1858. The Ame
rican people hailed with general acclaim the
orders of the Secretary of the Navy to our
naval force in the Gulf of Mexico, "to protect
all vessels of the United States on the high
seas from search or detention by the vessels of
war of any other nation."
These orders might have produced an imme
diate collision between the naval forces of tlio
two countries. This was most fortunately pre
vented by an appeal to the justice of Great
Britain and to the law of nations as expounded
by her own moat eminent jurists.
The only question of any importance which
still remains open is the disputed title between
the two governments to the island of San Juan,
in the vicinity of Washington Territory. As
this question is still under negotiation, it is not
deemed advisable at the present moment to
make any other allusion to the subject.
The recent visit of the Prince of \Valeß, in
private character, to the people of this country,
has proved to he a most auspicious event. In
its consequences, it cannot fail to increase the
kindred and kindly feelings which I trust may
ever actuate the government and people of
both countries in their political nnd social In
tercourse with each other.
FRANCE.
With France, our ancient and powerful ally,
our relations continue to be of the most friend
ly character. A decision has recently been
made by a French judicial tribunal, with the
approbation of the Imperial Government,
which cannot fail to foster the sentiments of
mutual regard that have so long existed be
tween the two countries. Under the French
law no person can serve in the armies of Franca
unless he be a French citizen
The law of France recognissfr.g the natural
right of expatriation, it follows as a necessary
consequence that a Frenchman, by the fact of
haviDg become a citizen of the United States,
has changed his allegiance and has lost his na
tive character. He cannot, therefore, be com
pelled to serve in tiie French armies in case he
should return to his native country. These
principles were announced in 1802 by the
French Minister of War, and in two late cases
have been confirmed by the French judiciary.
In these, two natives of France have been dis
charged from the French army, because they
bad become American citizens. To employ the
language of our present Minister to Franco,
who has rendered good service on this occasion,
"I do not think our French naturalized fellow
citizens will hereafter experience ranch annoy
ance on this subject." I venture to predict
tbat the time is not for distant when the other
continental powers will adopt the same wise
and just policy which has done so much honor
to the enlightened government of the Emperor.
In any event, our Government is bound to pro
tect the rights of onr naturalized citizens every-