PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE.
"(Hall'- C(ti:(ias «31‘ the Senate
and 11mm of Represmtatirm : _
Throughout, the year since outlast meeting;
the country has been eminently prosperous in
:13} HS material interest]. The general health
“_as been excellent, our harvests have been
rhundam and plenty smiles thoroughout. the
‘iand. Our commerce and manufactures have
keen prosecuted with energy and industry, and
Pave yielded fair and ample returns. In short,
no nation infthe tide of time has ever presented
.2 spectacle of greater material prosperity than
we have done until within avery recent period.
Why is it, then, that discontent now so ex
:ensively prevails, and the Union of the States,
which is the source of ail these blessings, is
threatened with destruction? The long-con.
tinned and intempemte interference of the
Northern people with the question of slavery
in'the Southern States has at, length produced
its natural effects. The difl‘erent. sect-ions of
«the Union are now arrayed against each other,
and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by
the Father of his Country; when hostile geo
graphical parties have been formed. I have
long foreseen and often forewarned my coun
:»ymen of the now impending danger. This
ioes not proceed solely from the claim on the
f art of Congress or the territorial legislature to
exclude slavery from the Territories, nor from
:‘oe efforts of different States to defeat. the exe
_ution 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 remedy. The immediate peril
"irises not. so much from these causes as from
the fact that the incessant and violent agitation
of the slavery question throughout the North
for the last quarter of a century, has at. length
produced its malign influence on the slaves,
and inspired them with vague notions of free
:‘om.
Hence a sence of security no longer exists
ground the family altar. This feeling of peace
at home has given place to apprehensions of
eerrile insurrection. Many a. matron through
4_v;zt the South retires at night in dread of what
may befall herself and her children before the
morning. Should this apprehension of domes
tic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend
and intensify itself until it shall pervade the
masses of the Southern people, then disnnion
will been me inevitable. Self-preservation is the
first law of nature, and has been implanted in
ilze heart. of man by his Creator for the wisest
purpose: and no political union, however
fraught with blessings and benefits in all other
:espects, can long continue, if the necessary
:onseqnence he to render the homes and fire~
sides of nearly half the parties to it habitually
and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the
bonds of such a Union must be severed. It is
:33: conviction that this fatal period has not yet
arrived; and my prayer to God is that He would
preserve the Constitution and the Union
Ykronghout all generations.
But let us take warning in time, and remove
ilie cause of danger. It cannot. be denied that,
for five and twenty years, the agitation at the
North against slivery in the South has been
incessant. In 1835 pictorial hand-bills, and
‘nfiammatory appeals, were circulated exten
aively throughout the South, of :1 character to
excite the passions of the slaves; and, in the
language of General Jackson, “to stimulate
them to insurrection, and produce all the box--
rors of a senile war.” This agitation has ever
since been continued by the public press, by
the proceedings of State and county convelr
lions, and by abolition sermons and lectures.—
fi‘he time of Congress has been occupied in vio
lent speeches on this never-ending subject;
and appeals in pamphlet and other forms, en
iorsed by distinguished names, have been sent
forth from this central point, and spread broad
cast. over the Union.
How easy would it be for the American peo- J
lie 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 have 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—
eponsible before God and the world for the
slavery existing among them. For this, the
people of the North are not more responsible,
and have no more right to interfere, than with
similer institutions in Russia. or in Brazil.—
Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance
l confess I still greatly rely. Without their
aid, it is beyond the power of any President,
no matter what may be his own political pro
clivities, to restore peace and harmony among
the States. Wisely limited and restrained as
is his power, under our Constitution and laws,
he alone can accomplish but. little, {or good or
for evil, on such a momentous question.
And this brings me to observe that the elec
tion of any one of our fellow-citizens to the
cflioe of President does not of itself afi‘ord just
cause for dissolving the Union. This is more
especially true if his election has been efi‘ected
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. In order to justify a resort to
revolutionary resistance, the Federal Govern~
ment. must be guilty of “a deliberate, palpable
and dangerous exercise” of powers not granted
by the Constitution. The late Presidential
election, however, has been held in strict con
formity with its express provisions. How,
then, can the result justify a revolution to do
stroy this very Constitution ‘3 Reason, justice,
3 regard for the Constitution, all require that
we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act
on the part of the President elect before re
sorting to such a remedy.
It. is said, however, that. the antecedents of
the President elect have been suficient to jus
tify the fears of the South that he will attempt
to invitde their constitutional rights. But are
such apprehensions of contingent danger in the
future suflicient to justify the immediate des
truction of the noblest system of government
ever devised by mortals? From the very
nature of his office, and its high responsibili
ties, he must necessarily 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 violation of a clear constitutional right."
After all, he is no more than the 'chief execu
tive oflicer of the Government. His province
is not to make, but. to execute, the laws ; and
it is a remarkable fact in our history, that, not
withstanding the repeated efl'orts If the ami
slavery party, .no single act has ever passed
Congress, unless we may possibly except the
Missouri Compromise, impairing, in the slight.-
est degree, the rights 0f the South to their
property in slaves. And it may also be ob
served, judging from present indications, that
no probability exists of the passage of such an
act, by a majority of both Houses, either in
the present or the next Congress. Surely,
under these circumstances, we ought. to be re
strained from present action by the precept of
Him who spake as never man spoke, that “sufl
ficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The
day of evil may never come, unless we shall
rashly bring it upon ourselves.
It is alleged as one cause for immediate se
session that. the Southern States are denied
equal rights with the other States in the com
mon Territories. But by what authority are
these denied? Not by Congress, which has
never passed, and I believe never will pass,
any act to exclude slavery from these Territo
ries ;‘ and certamly not by the Supreme Court,
which has solemnly deemed that slaves are
property, and, like 811 Other property, their
owners have a. right to take them into the com-
Territories, and hold them there under the
protection of the Constitution. _ ,
So for, then, as Congress is concerned, the
objection is not to anything they have'already
done, but to what they may ‘lO hereafter. 1t
gill surely be adagmitted that this apprehen-
sicn of future danger is no good reason for an
immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true
, that the territorial legislature of Kansas, on
the 23(1 of February, 1860, passed in great
hasten“ act, over the veto of the Governor,
declaring that slavery “ is, and shall be, for
ever prohibited in this Territory.” Such an
”‘1 hOWEWI‘: plainly violating the rights of
properly secured by the Constitution, will
5 surely be declared void by the judiciary when
ever It shall be presented in a legal form.
Only tlll‘ee days after my inauguration the
Supreme Court of the United States solemnly
“fillldged that this power did not exist in a. ter
ritorial legislature. Yet such has been the fac
, tlous temper of the times that the correctness
l of this decision has been extensively impugned
1 before the people, and the question has given
‘ rise to angry political conflicts throughout the
[ country. Those who have appealed from this
, judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal
3 to popular assemblies would, it' they could,
invest a territorial legislature with power to
annul the sacred rights of property. This
power Congress is expressly forbidden by the
Federal Constitution to exercise. Every State
legislature in the Union is forbidden by its own
constitution to exercise it. It cannot be exer
cised in any State except by the people in their
highest sovereign capacity when framing or
amending their State constitution. In like man
ner, it can only be exercised by the people of
a Territory represented in a convention of del
egates for the purpose of framing a constitution
preparatory 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 shall not exist within
their limits. This is an act of sovereign au
thority, and not of subordinate territorial le
gislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed ;
would the equality of the States in the Terri
tories be destroyed, and the rights of property ;
in slaves would depend, not upon the guaran
tees of the Constitution, but upon the shifting j
majorities of an irresponsible territorial legis
lature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic l
nnsoundness, cannot long influence any Com 1
siderable portion of our people, much less can 3
it afi‘ord a good reason 'for a dissolution of the
Union.
The most palpable violations of constitu
tional duty which have yet been committed
consists in the acts of difl‘erent State legislafi
lures to defeat the execution of the fugitive
slave law. It ought to he remembered, how
ever, that for these acts, neither Congress nor
any President can justly be held responsible.
Having been passed in violation of the Fed
eral Constitution, they are therefore null and
void. All the courts, both State and national,
before Whom the question has arisen, have
from the beginning declared the‘fugitivc-slavc
law to he constitutional. The single exception
is that of a State court in Wisconsin; and this
has not only been reversed by the proper apv
pellete tribunal, but has met with such univer
sal reprobation that there can be no danger
from it as a precedent. The validity of this
law has been established over and over again
by the Supreme Court of the United States
with perfect unanimity. It is founded upon
an express provision of the Constitution, re
quiring that fugitive slaves who escape from
service in one State to another shall be “de
livered up” to their masters. Without. this
provision it is a well known historical fact that
the Constitution itself could never have been
adopted by the Convention. In one form or
other under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both
being substantially the same, the fugitive-slave
law has been the law of the land from the days
of Washington until the present moment. Here
then, aclear 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 exe
cuting this supreme law against the conflict
ing enactments of State legislatures. Should
he fail in the performance of this high duty,
he will then have manifested a disregard of
the Constitution 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 ad-‘
vance that he will thus violate his duty? This
would be at war with every principle of jus
tice and of Christian charity. Let us wait for
the overt act. The fugitive-slave law has been
carried into execution in every contested case
since the commencement of the present admin
istration; thong often it is to be regretted,
with great loss and inc onvenience to the master,
and with considerable expense to the govern
ment. Let us trust that the State legislatures
will repeal their unconstitutional and obnox
ious enactments. Unless this shall be. done
without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for
any 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 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 Govern
ment. of the Union.
I have purposely confined my remarks to revo
lutionary resistance, because it has been claimed
within the lent few years that any State, when
ever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure,
may ‘eecede 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 ofench
a convention. ’
In order to justify secession as a constitutional
remedy, it must he on the principle that the Fed
eral Government is a mere voluntary association
of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one
of the contracting parties. If this he so, the Con
federacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and
dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opin
ion in any of the States. In this manner our thir
ty-three States may resolve themselves into a!
many petty, jarring and hostile republics, each
one retiring from the Union, without responsi
bility, whenever any sudden excitement might im
pel 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
tail, 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, com
posed 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, in
strument there was no foundation for such ap
prehonsions. In that mighty struggle between
the first intellects of this or any other country,
it never occurred to any indiVidl-mlt either
among its opponents or advocates, to assert, or
even to intimate, that their efforts were all vain
labor, because the moment that any State felt
herself aggrieved she might secede from the
Union. What a crushing argument would ”“5
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 Feds
rol Government that sueh a proposition was
first‘advanced. It was then met and refuted
by the conclusive arguments of General J ack
son, who in his message of 16th January, 1833,
transmitting the nullifying ordinance of south
Carolina to Congress, employs the following
language :——“ The right of the people of a, sin
gie 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 compo
sing this Union cannot be acknowledged.—
1 Such authority 13 believed to be utterly repug.
nant both to the principles upon which the
General Government is constituted and to the
objects which it was expressly formed to at
lain.”
It is 1101 pretended that. any (clause in the
Constitution gives countenance to sucha theory. '
It is altogether founded upon inference, not
from any language contained in the Instrument
itself: but from the sovereign character of the
several States by which it was. ratified. But is
itheyond the power ofn Statedxkesn individual,
to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to
secure the remainder? 1n the language of‘ Mr
Madison, who has been called the father of the
Constitution: “It was formed by the States_
that is by the people in each of the States,nct
ing in their highest sovereign capacity; and
3 formed consequently by the some authority
1 which formed the State Constitutions."
“N or is the Government of the United States,
created by the Constitution, lessa Government
in the strict sense of the term: Within the
sphere of its powers, than the governments
created by the constitutions of the States are,
within their several spheres. It is. like them,
organized into legislative, executive, and ju
diciary departments. It operates, lllfe them,
directly on persons and things; andhhke them,
it has at command a physical_force tor execu—
ting the powers Committed to it.”
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 .con-'
federation were entitled “Articles of Confede-_
oration 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 pre
amble to the Constitution of the United States,
having express reference to the articles of Coil
federation, recites that it was established “in
order to form n 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 appears conclusively from the nature
and extent of thepowers conferred by the Con
stitution on the Federal Government. These
powers embrace the very highest attributes of
national sovereignty. They place both the
sword and purse under its control. Congress
has power to make war, and to make peace; to
.raise and support armies and navies, and to
conclude treaties with foreign governments.—
It is invested with the power to coin money,
and to regulate the value thereof, and to regu
late commerce with foreign nations, and among
the several States. It is not necessary to enu
merate the other high powers which have been
conferred upon the Federal Government. In
order to carry the enumerated powers into
efi'ect, Congress possesses the exclusive right
to lay and collect duties on imports, and in
common with the States to lay and collect all
other taxes.
‘But the Constitutionxhas 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,
expressively declared that “no State shall enter
into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprise]; coin money; emit
bills of credit; make anything but gold and
silver coin otender in payment of debts ; pass
any bill of attainder, axpost facto law, or law
impairing the obligation of contracts.” More
over “without the consent of Congress, no State
shall lay any imposts or duties on any imports
or exports, except what may be absolutely no
cesssary 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 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 pursuanod thereof j and
all treaties made, or which shall be made, un
der the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land; and the judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any
thing 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,
and all senators and representatives of the
United States, all members of State, Legisla
tures, and all executive and judicial oflicers,
“both of the United States, and of the several
States shall be bound _by oath or affirmation to
support this Constitution.”
In order to carry into effect these powers,
the Constitution has established a. perfect Gov
ernment in all its 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 executes
its own decrees by the agency of its own offi—
cers.
In this respect it difl‘ers entirely from the
Government under the old Confederation, which
was confined to making requisitions on the
States in their sovereign character. This left
it in the discretion of each whether to obey or
to refuse, and they often declined to comply
with such requisitions. It thus became neces
sary, for the purpose of removing this barrier,
and “in order to form a more perfect Union,”
to establish a. Government which could act di
rectly upon the people, and execute its own
laws without the intermediate agency of the
States. This has been accomplished by the
Constitution of the United States. ‘
In short, the Government created by the
Constitution, and deriving its authority from.
the sovereign people of each of the several
States, has precisely the same right. to exercise
its power over the people of all these States,
in the enumerated cases, that each one of them
possesses over subjects not delegated to the
United States but “reserved to the States, re
spectively, or to the people.”
To the extent of the delegated‘powers the
Constitution of the United States is as much a.
part of the constitution of each State, and is as
b‘inc‘ing upon its people, as though it had been
iextually inserted therein. '
This Government, therefore, is a great and paw
erful Government, invested with all the attributes
of sovereignty over the anecial subjects in which
its authority extends. .Its framers never intended
to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own des
truction, not were they at its creatiOn guilty of the
absurdity of providing for its own dissolution. It
was not intended by its framers to- be the baseless
fabric of a vision which, at the touch of the en
chanter, would vanish into thin air, but a. substan
tial and mighty fabric, capable of resisting the
slow decay of time, and of defying the storms of
ages.
Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that day
have indulged fears that a. government of such
high powers might violate the reserved rights of
the States, and wieely did they adopt the rule of a
strict construction of those powers to prevent the
danger! But they did not fear, nor had they any
reason to imagine, that the Constitution would
ever be so interpreted as to enable any State, by
her own not, and‘without the consent of her sister
States, to discharge her people from all or any of
their Federal obligations. ' ‘
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-"‘3o
- cannot be denied. It exists indepeg
dently of all constitutions, and has been exercised
at all periods of the world’s history. Undu- it
old governments have been destroyed and new
ones have taken their places. It is embodied in
strong and express language in our own Declare.-
tion of Independence. But the distinction must
ever be observed, that this is revolution against
an established government, and not a voluntary
secession from it- by virtue of an inherent consti
tutionalright.‘ In short, let ns look the danger
fairly in the face: Secession ls neither more nor
less than revolution. It 11331 o_l‘ may not be a
justifiable-revolution, but still it ll revolution. :
What, in the meantimegns the responsibility
and position of the'Exeentive? He 15 bound by
enlemn oath before God and the country “ to lake
care that the laws be faithfully vexecuted,”qand
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 mo
ment, 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 haven districtjudge, a. district
attorney, or 41: marshal in South Carolina. In
fact, the whole machinery of the Federal Gov
ernment, necessary for the distribution of re
"medial justice among the people, has been de
molished; and it would be difficult, if not
imposswlc to replace it. ,
The only acts of Congress on the statute-book,
beating upon this subject, are those of the 28th
February, 1795, and 3d March, 1807. These
authorize the President, after he shall have as
certained that the marshal with his posse comi
tatus is unable to execute civil or criminhl
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 their re
spective 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 exe
cute it, and where, even if there were such an
oflicer, the entire population would constitute
one solid combination to resist him.
The bare enumeration of these provisions prove:
how inadequate they are without further legisla
tion 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 of;
fectuaily 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 col
lected, as heretofore, at the custom-house in
Charleston ; and should the collector unfortunately
resign, a successor may be appointed to perform
this duty.
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 Logis
lature of the State,” “for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals,” Jno., and over these the au
thority “to exercise 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.
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 has been invested with no
such discretion. He possesses no power to
change the relations heretofore existing be
tween them, much less to acknowledge the in
dependence of that State. This would be to
invest a mere Executive officer with the power
of recognizing the dissolution of the Confed
eracy 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 ques
tion in all its bearings. The course of events
is so rapidly hastening forward that the,emer
gency may soon arise, when you may be called
upon to decide the momentous question whether
you possess the power, by force of arms, to com
pel aState to remain in the Union. Ishouldfeel
myself reoreant to my duty were I not to ex
press an opinion on this important subject.
The question fairly stated is: Has the Con
stitution delegated to Congress the power to
coerce a State into submission which is at
tempting to withdraw or has actually with
drawn from the Confederacy! If answered in
the affirmative, it must be on the principle
that the power has been-conferred upon Con
gress to declare and 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 depart
ment of the Federal Government. It is mani
fest, upon an inspection of the Constitution,
that this is not among the specific and enume
rated 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 for from this
power having been delegated to Congress, it
wasexpressly re't‘usedby the Convention which
framed the Constitution. '
It appears, from the proceedings of that
body, that on the Slst 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 thanran‘ inmo
tion of punishment; and would probably be
considered by the party attacked as a dissolu
tion. of all previous compacts _by which it
might be bound.” - ' .
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously
postponed, and was never I believe again pre
sented. Soon afterwards. on the Bth 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 pro
ceedings of the States. would prove as visionary
and fallacions as the government of Congress.”
evidently meaning the then existing Congress
of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, 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 despotic power? In the nature of things
we could not, by physical force, control the
will of tho poople 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.
But, if possessed of this power, would it be
wise to exercise it under existing circumstan
ces? The object would doubtless be to pre
serve the Union. War would not only present
the most efl'eetual means of destroying it; but
would banish all hope of its peaceable recon
struction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a
vast amount of blood and treasure would be
expended, rendering future reconciliation he
tWeen the States impossible. In the mean time,
who can foretell what would be the suffering
and privation of the people during its exig
tence? '
The fact is, that our Union rests upon pub
lic opinion, and can never be cemented by the
blood of its citizens she'd in civil war. If it
cannot live in the affections of the people, it
must one day perish. Congress possess many
moons of preserving it by conciliation; but
the sword was not placed in their hand to pre
serve 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 are long will, if pre
served, render us the most powerfulnetion on
the face of the earth. In every foreign region
of the globe the title of American citizen he
held in high respect, and when. pronounced in
a. foreign‘land it. causes the hearts of on: conn
trymen 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
hOPcs of the friends of freedom throughout. the
world would.be destroyed, and a. long night of
laden despohsm would enshroud the nations.
0‘1" example for more than eighty years would
n°t only be 105‘: but it. would be quoted as a
conclusxve proof that. man is unfif. for self-gov
ernment.
I"! i 5 not veryang—nay. it is not- every grie— ‘
V 0!“ wrong—"Mb can justify a. resort to such a.
fearful alternauve. This ought to be the lust des
perate remedy of 8- despaifing people, after every
other constitutional means of conciliation had been 1
exhausted. We should reflect that undhr this free ‘
Government there is on incessant ebb and flow in
public opinion. The slavery question, like every
thing human, will have its day. I firmly believe
that it has already reached and passed the culmi
nating point. But if, in the midst of the existing
excitement, the Union shall perish,‘ the evil may
then become irreparable. Congress an omnibus
much to avert it by proposing and recommending
to the Legislatures of the several States the remedy
for existing evils, which the Constitution has itself
provided for its own preservation. This has been
tried at different critical periods of our history, and
always with imminent success. It is -to be found
in the sth article providing for its own amendment.
Under this article amendments have been proposed
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 county; is indebted for
the clause prohibiting Congress from passing,
any law respecting an establishment of religion,
or abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press, or of the right of petition. To thiswe
are also indebted for the Bill of Rights which
secures the people against any abuse of power
by the Federal Government. Snch were the
apprehensions justly entertained by the friends
of State—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 of President
J efi'erson bf the House of Representatives, in
February, 803. This amendment was ren
dered 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 0f the States and that
of the United States. This appears from con
temporaneous history. , 4 _
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 leg
islature against the strictures of several other
State legislatures. These were mainly founded
upon the protest of the Virginia. legislature
against the “ Alien and Sedition Acts,” as
“ palpable and alarming infractions of' the
Constitution.” In pointing out the peaceful
and constitutional remedies, and he referred to
none other, to which the States were authorized
to resort, on such dccesions, he concludes by
saying,~ “that the legislatures of the States
might have made a direct representation to
Congress, with a. View to obtain the rescinding
of the two offensive acts, or they might have
represented to their respective Senators in Con
gress their wish that two-thirds thereof would
propose an explanatory amendment to the Con
stitution, or two-thirds of themselves, if such
had been their option, might, by an application
to Congress, have obtained a. convention for the
some object.” -
This is the very course which I earnestly re
commend in order to obtain an “explanatory
amendhxeut?’ of the Constitution on the subject
of slavery. This might originate with Con
gress or the State legislatures, as * may be
deemed most advisable to attain thepbject.
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 of
property in slaves in the States where it now
exist or may hereafter exist. ‘
2. The duty of protecting this right in all
the common Territories throughout their terri
torial existence, and until they shall be ad
mitted as States into the Union, with or with
out slavery, as their constitutions may pre
scribe.
3}. A like recognition of the right of the
master to have his slave, who has 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
with a declaration that all' State laws impair
ing or defeating this right are violations of the
Coaistitution, and are consequently null and
701 .
II they be objected that this construction of the
Constitution has already been settled by the Sn
preme Court of the United States, and what more
ought to be required. The answer is, that a very
large proportion of therpeople of the United States
still contest the correctness of this decision, and
never will cease from agitation, and admit its bind
ing force, until clearly established by the people of
the several States in their sovereign character.—
Such an explanatory amendment would, it is be
lieved, forever terminate the existing dissensionl,
and restore peaee and harmony among the States.
It’ought not to be doubted that such an appeal
to the arbitrament established by the Constitu
tion itself would be received with favor by all the
States of the Confederacy. In any event it ought
to be tried in a spirit of conciliation before any of
those States shall separate themselves from the
Union. ‘ "
When I entered upon the duties of the Presi—
dential office. the aspect neither of our foreign nor
domestic afl'aire was at all satisfactory. We were
involved in dangerous complicationsvwith several
nations, and two of our Territories were in a. slate
of revolution _against the Goyernment.
A restoration of the African 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 eifort's of the Government, to es
cape from our shores, for the purpose of making
wa-r upon the uuofl'ending people of neighboring
republics with whom we were at peace.
In addition to these and other difficulties, we
experienced a revulsion in monetary afi‘nirs,
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 usas a. nation in all our past
trials.
OUR FOREIGN RELATION
GREAT BRITAIN
Our relations with Great Britain are of the
most friendly character. Since the commence
ment of my administration, the two dangerous
questions, arising from the Clayton and Bulwcr
treaty and from the right of search claimed by
the British government, have been amicably
and honorably adjusted.
The discordant construction of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty between the two governments,
which at difi‘erent periods of the discussion,
bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a
final settlement entirely, satisfactory to this
Government. In my annual message I informed
Congress that the British government with the
republics of Honduras and Nicaragua, in pur
suance of the understanding between the two
governments. It is nevertheless confidently
expected that this good work will erelong be ac
complished.” This confident expectation has
since been fulfilled. Her Britanie Majesty
concluded a. treaty with Honduras on the 24th
November, 1859, and with Nicaragua. on the
28th Augnst, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito
protectorate. Besides, by. the former, therßay
Islands are recognized asa'part of the republic
of Hondumz‘ It _.may be obsessed that the
stipulations of. these treaties conform iniever'y
particularto the amendments adoptedby the
Senate either-United States ~to theft'r‘eaty can:
eluded atiLondon on'th‘e' 19th? Obtéfier; 1856,?
between the two governments.‘ It will’be‘recolir
lected that this treaty was rejected by the Bri
tiSh government because of its objection to 21.,
just. and important amendment of the Senate
to the article relating to Ruatan and the other
islands in the Bay of Honduras.
It, must be a. source of sincere satisfaction . ~
all classes of our fellow-citizens, and especially
to those engaged in foreign commerce, that u”
claim on the part of Great. Britain, forcibly 1.”
visit and search American merchant vessels on
the high sees in time of peace, has been alum.
doned. This was by far the most dangerous
question to the peace of the two countries
which has existed since the war of 1812. Whilgt
it remained open, they might at. any momem,
have been precipitated into a war. This Was
rendered manifest by the exasperated state 0;:
public feeling throughout our entire country,
produced by the forcible search of American
‘ merchant vessels by British cruisers 0n the
coast of Cuba, in the spring of 1858. The
American people hailed with general acclaim
the orders of the Secretary of the Navy to our
naval force in the Gulf of Mexico, “ to protecr
all vessels of the United States on the 11th
seas from search or detention by the vessels-3r
war of any other nation.”
These orders might have produced an imme.
diate collision between the naval forces of the
two countries. This was most fortunately pre
vented by an appeal to the justice of Great.
Britain and ‘to the law of nations as exyounded
by her own most eminent jurists.
The only question of any importance which still
remains open, is the disputed title between the
two governments to the island of Sun J Inn, in the
vicinity of Washington Territory. As this ques..
tion is still under negotiation, it in not deemed
advisable at the present moment to make any
other allusion to the subject. '
The recent visit of the Prince of Wales, in pri
vate character, to the people of this country. has
proved to be a. most auspicious event. In its con
sequences it cannot fail to lug-ease the kindred
and kindly feelings which I trust may ever actuate
the government and people of both countries in
their political and social intercourse with each
other. ' u
FRANCE
With France, our ancient and powerful ally, on:
relations continue to be of the most friendly char
acter. A decision has recently been made by a,
French judicial tribunal, with the approbation o"
the Imyerial Government, which cannot: fail to
foster the sentiments of mutual regard that have.
so long existed between the two countries. Under
the French law no person can serve in the armies
of France unless he be a French citizen.
The law of France recognizing the natural
right of expatriation, it follows as a necessary
conseéiuence that a Frenchman, by the fact of
having 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 the French armies in case he
should return to his native country. ‘ These
principles were announce:l' in 1852 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' ‘th ey
had become American citizens. To employ
the language of our. present Minister to France,
who has rendered good service on this occasion,
“I do not think our French naturalized fellow
citizens will hereafter experience much annoy
ance'on this subject.” I venture to predict that
the time is not far distant. when the other can
tinental powers will adopt the same wiec amt.
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 our naturalized citizens ev~
erywhere to the same extent as though they
had drawn their first breath in this coun
try. We can recognize no distinction between
our native and naturalized citizens.
RUSSIA
Between the great empire of Russia and. Mn-
United States the mutual friendship and regard
which has so long existed still continues to
prevail, and if possible, to increase. Indeed,
our relations with that empire, are all that we
could desire. '
S PAI N
Our relations with Spain are now of a more
complicated though less dangerous character
than they have been for many years. Our
citizens have long held, and continue to hold,
numerous claims against the Spanish-govern
ment. These had been ably urged for a he
ries of years by our successive diplomatic rep
resentatives at Madrid, but without obtaimng
redress, The Spanish government finally
agreed to institute a joint. commission for the
adjustment of these claims, and on the sth day
of March, 1860, concluded a convention for
this purpose with our present minister at Mad
rid. Under this convention, what have been
denominated the "‘ Cuban claims,” amounting
to $128,635.44, in which more than one hund
red of our fellow-citizens are interested,'were
recognized, and the Spanish government agreed
to pay $lOO,OOO of this amount “within three
months-following the exchange of ratifications.’ ’
Thefpayment of the remaining $28,635.54 ‘was
to await the decision of the commissioners for
or against the “Amistad claim;” but in any
event, the balance was to be paid to the claim
ants either by Spain or the United States.—
These terms I have every reason to know are
highly satisfactory to the holders of the Cuban
claims. Ixfileed, they have made aformal offer
authorizing the State Department to settle
these claims, and to deduct the amount of the
Amistad claim from the sums which they are
entitled to receive from Spain. This otfer,
of course, cannot be accepted.
All other claims of citizens of the United States
against Spain, or of subjects of the Queen of Spain
against the'United States, including the “Amiatad
claim,” were by this convention referred to a board
of commissioners in the usual form. Neither the
validity of the Amistad claim nor of any other
claim against either party, with the single excep
tion of the Cuban claims, was recognized by the
convention. Indeed, the Spanish government did
not insist that the validity of the Amistsd claim
should be thus recognized. notwithstanding its
payment. had been‘reoommenrled to Congress by
two of my predecessors as well as by myself, and
an appropriation for that purpose had been passed
by the Senate of the United States. They were
content that it should be submitted to the board for
examination and decision, like the other claims.»-
Both governments were bound respectively to pay
the amounts awarded to the several claimants “at
such times and places as may be fixed by and ac --
cording to the tenor of said awarde.”
I transmitted this convention to the Senate for
their constitutional action on the 3d May, 1860, and
on the 27th of the suoceeding June, they deter
mined that they would “not advise and consent” to
its ratification.
These proceedings place our relations with Spain
in an nwkward and embarrassing position. It is
more than probable that. the final adjustment of
these claims will devolve upon my successor.
I reiterate the recommendation contained in
my Annual Message of' December, 1858, and
repeated in that of December, 1859, in favor
of the acquisition of Cuba from Spain by fair
purchase. I firmly believe that such an acqui
sition yould contribute essentially to the wellr
being and prosperity of both countries in all
future time, as well as prove the certain means
of immediately abolishing the African slave
trade throughout the world. I would not re
peat this recommendation upon the present
occasion, if I believed that the transfer of Cuba
to the United States, upon conditions highly
favorable to Spain, could justly tarnish the
national honor of the prondand ancient SynmSh
Monarchy. Surely no person ever attributed
to the first Napoleon a disregard of thenational
honor of France, for transferring Louisiana to
the United States for a fair equivalent both In
money and commercial advantages. .
AUSTRIA, M 3
With the, Emperor of Austria. and the I'9-
gnmning continental powers of Europe, includ
mg that, of the Sultan, our relations continue
to be of the most friendly character.
CHINA
The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by
;the Government of the United States towams
Ithe empire of China-has produced the most‘sat
.isfactory results. The treaty of Tientsin' of
Ethy I’Sph‘pfl Jupe; .1858, has bggn faithfully ob
fser'ved by the jGflifiga”. authorities. The con
‘vention 'ofthe’Bth "N'ovsfixber, 1858, supplemen-