Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1ST SESS.]

Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions.

[MARCH, 1850.

The cords that bind the States together are | tion, but has finally snapped under its force-if not only many, but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political; others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and obligation.

not entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly weakened. To this extent the Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it can be, by snapping asunder and weakening the cords which bind it together.

If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. But surely that can, with no propriety of language, be called a union, when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States, in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the Government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of union.

The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the principle of our political institutions; beginning with smaller meetings corresponding with the political divisions of the country, their organization terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the character of Congress. At these meetings the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations from all parts of the Union met to transact business relating to their common concerns. It was not confined to what appertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective denominations, Having now, Senators, explained what it is but extended to plans for disseminating the that endangers the Union, and traced it to its Bible, establishing missionaries, distributing cause, and explained its nature and character, tracts, and of establishing presses for the pub- the question again recurs, How can the Union lication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, be saved? To this I answer, there is but one with a view of diffusing religious information, way by which it can be, and that is, by adopting and for the support of the doctrines and creeds such measures as will satisfy the States belongof the denomination. All this combined, con- ing to the southern section that they can retributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the main in the Union consistently with their Union. The strong ties which held each de- honor and their safety. There is, again, only one nomination together formed a strong cord to way by which that can be effected, and that is, hold the whole Union together; but, as pow- by removing the causes by which this belief erful as they were, they have not been able to has been produced. Do that, and discontent resist the explosive effect of slavery agitation. will cease, harmony and kind feelings between The first of these cords which snapped, the sections be restored, and every appreunder its explosive force, was that of the pow-hension of danger to the Union removed. The erful Methodist Episcopal Church. The nu- question then is, By what can this be done? merous and strong ties which held it together But, before I undertake to answer this quesare all broke, and its unity gone. They now tion, I propose to show by what the Union form separate churches, and, instead of that cannot be saved. feeling of attachment and devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerly left, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their common property.

It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. The cry of "Union, Union, the glorious Union! " can no more prevent disunion than the cry of "Health, health, glorious health!" on the part The next cord that snapped was that of the of the physician can save a patient lying danBaptists, one of the largest and most respecta-gerously ill. So long as the Union, instead of ble of the denominations. That of the Presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given away. That of the Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations which remains unbroken and entire.

The strongest cord of a political character consists of the many and strong ties that have held together the two great parties, which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the Government. They both extended to every portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than the spiritual. It resisted for a long time the explosive tendency of the agita

being regarded as a protector, is regarded in the opposite character, by not much less than a majority of the States, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pronouncing eulogies on it.

Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we cannot believe to be sincere; it usually comes from our assailants. But we cannot believe them to be sincere; for, if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be devoted to the constitution. It made the Union, and to destroy the constitution would be to destroy the Union. But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the constitution is to abstain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the other,

MARCH, 1850.]

Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions.

[31ST CONG.

all attempts to violate it. It is only by faith--that between a parent country and her then fully performing these high duties that the con- colonies. It was a union that had much to stitution can be preserved, and with it the Union. endear it to the people of the colonies. Under But how stands the profession of devotion to its protecting and superintending care the colthe Union by our assailants, when brought to onies were planted and grew up and prospered, this test? Have they abstained from violating through a long course of years, until they be the constitution? Let the many acts passed came populous and wealthy. Its benefits were by the northern States to set aside and annul not limited to them. Their extensive agrithe clause of the constitution providing for the cultural and other productions gave birth to a delivery up of fugitive slaves answer. I cite flourishing commerce, which richly rewarded this, not that it is the only instance, (for there the parent country for the trouble and expense are many others,) but because the violation in of establishing and protecting them. Washthis particular is too notorious and palpable to ington was born and grew up to manhood be denied. Again, have they stood forth under that Union. He acquired his early disfaithfully to repel violations of the constitu- tinction in its service, and there is every reason tion? Let their course in reference to the to believe that he was devotedly attached to it. agitation of the slavery question, which was But his devotion was a rational one. He was commenced and has been carried on for fifteen attached to it, not as an end, but as a means years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing to an end. When it failed to fulfil its end, and, slavery in the States-an object all acknowl- instead of affording protection, was converted edged to be unconstitutional-answer. Let into the means of oppressing the colonies, he did them show a single instance, during this long not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the period, in which they have denounced the great movement by which that union was foragitators or their attempts to effect what is ever severed, and the independence of these admitted to be unconstitutional, or a single States established. This was the great and measure which they have brought forward for crowning glory of his life, which has spread that purpose. How can we, with all these his fame over the whole globe, and will transfacts before us, believe that they are sincere mit it to the latest posterity. in their profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the vigor of their assaults and to weaken the force of our resistance?

Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounce eulogies upon the Union, evidently with the intent of charging us with disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our assailants. If friends of the Union, their course should be to unite with us in repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union. Why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for them to explain.

[ocr errors]

Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the illustrious Southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the Potomac. He was one of us-a slaveholder and a planter. We have studied his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission to wrong. On the contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation that, while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and decided in repelling wrong. I trust that, in this respect, we profited by his example.

Nor can we find any thing in his history to deter us from seceding from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was instituted, by being permanently and hopelessly converted into the means of oppressing instead of protecting us. On the contrary, we find much in his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of deciding between submission and disunion.

There existed then, as well as now, a Union

Nor can the plan proposed by the distin guished Senator from Kentucky, nor that of the Administration, save the Union. I shall pass by, without remark, the plan proposed by the Senator, and proceed directly to the consideration of that of the Administration. I, however, assure the distinguished and able Senator, that in taking this course, no disrespect whatever is intended to him or his plan. I have adopted it, because so many Senators of distinguished abilities, who were present when he delivered his speech, and explained his plan, and who were fully capable to do justice to the side they support, have replied to him.

The plan of the Administration cannot save the Union, because it can have no effect whatever towards satisfying the States composing the southern section of the Union that they can, consistently with safety and honor, remain in the Union. It is, in fact, but a modification of the Wilmot proviso. It proposes to effect the same object, to exclude the South from all territory acquired by the Mexican treaty, It is well known that the South is united against the Wilmot proviso, and has committed itself by solemn resolutions, to resist should it be adopted. Its opposition is not to the name, but that which it proposes to effect. That the southern States hold to be unconstitutional, unjust, inconsistent with their equality as mem bers of the common Union, and calculated to destroy irretrievably the equilibrium between the two sections. These objections equally apply to what, for brevity, I will call the Executive proviso. There is a difference between it and the Wilmot, except in the mode of effecting the object, and in that respect I must say that the latter is much the least objection

[blocks in formation]

able. It goes to its object openly, boldly, and distinctly. It claims for Congress unlimited power over the territories, and proposes to assert it over the territories acquired from Mexico, by a positive prohibition of slavery. Not so the Executive proviso. It takes an indirect course, and in order to elude the Wilmot proviso, and thereby avoid encountering the united and determined resistance of the South, it denies, by implication, the authority of Congress to legislate for the territories, and claims the right as belonging exclusively to the inhabitants of the territories. But to effect the object of excluding the South, it takes care, in the mean time, to let in emigrants freely from the northern States, and all other quarters, except from the South, which it takes special • care to exclude by holding up to them the danger of having their slaves liberated under the Mexican laws. The necessary consequence is to exclude the South from that territory, just as effectually as would the Wilmot proviso. The only difference in this respect is, that what one proposes to effect directly and openly, the other proposes to effect indirectly and covertly. But the Executive proviso is more objectionable than the Wilmot, in another and more important particular. The latter, to effect its object, inflicts a dangerous wound upon the constitution, by depriving the southern States, as joint partners and owners of the territories, of their rights in them; but it inflicts no greater wound than is absolutely necessary to effect its object. The former, on the contrary, while it inflicts the same wound, inflicts others equally great, and, if possible, greater, as I shall next proceed to explain.

In claiming the right for the inhabitant, instead of Congress, to legislate for the territories, in the Executive proviso, it assumes that the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the former; or, to express it in the language used in a resolution offered by one of the Senators from Texas, (General HOUSTON, now absent,) they have "the same inherent right of self-government as the people in the States." The assumption is utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, without example, and contrary to the entire practice of the Government, from its commencement to the present time, as I shall proceed to show.

The recent movement of individuals in California to form a constitution and a State Government, and to appoint Senators and Representatives, is the first fruit of this monstrous assumption. If the individuals who made this movement had gone into California as adventurers, and if, as such, they had conquered the territory and established their independence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested in them, as a separate and independent community. In that case, they would have had the right to form a constitution, and to establish a government for themselves; and if, afterwards, they thought proper to apply to Congress for admission into the Union

[MARCH, 1850.

as a sovereign and independent State, all this would have been regular, and according to established principles. But such is not the case. It was the United States who conquered California, and finally acquired it by treaty. The sovereignty, of course, is vested in them, and not in the individuals who have attempted to form a constitution and a State, without their consent. All this is clear, beyond controversy, unless it can be shown that they have since lost or been divested of their sovereignty.

Nor is it less clear, that the power of legislating over the acquired territory is vested in Congress, and not, as is assumed, in the inhabitants of the territories. None can deny that the Government of the United States have the power to acquire territories, either by war or treaty; but if the power to acquire exists, it belongs to Congress to carry it into execution. On this point there can be no doubt, for the constitution expressly provides that Congress shall have power, "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," (those vested in Congress,) "and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof." It matters not, then, where the power is vested; for, if vested at all in the Government of the United States, or any of its departments or officers, the power of carrying it into execution is clearly vested in Congress. But this important proviso, while it gives to Congress the power of legislating over territories, imposes important restrictions on its exercise, by restricting Congress to passing laws necessary and proper for carrying the power into execution. The prohibition extends, not only to all laws not suitable or appropriate to the object of the power, but also to all that are unjust, unequal, or unfair; for all such laws would be unnecessary and improper, and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Having now established beyond controversy, that the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the United States-that is, in the several States composing the Union-and that the power of legislating over them is expressly vested in Congress, it follows that the individuals in California who have undertaken to form a constitution and a State, and to exercise the power of legislating without the consent of Congress, have usurped the sovereignty of the State and the authority of Congress, and have acted in open defiance of them both. In other words, what they have done, is revolutionary and rebellious in its character, anarchical in its tendency, and calculated to lead to the most dangerous consequences. Had they acted from premeditation and design, it would have been, in fact, actual rebellion; but such is not the case. The blame lies much less upon them than upon those who have induced them to take a course so unconstitutional and dangerous. They have been led into it by lan

MARCH, 1850.]

Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions.

[31ST CONG.

guage held here, and the course pursued by the | sufficiently numerous to authorize them to be Executive branch of the Government. formed into a State. This was done by taking a census. That being done, and the number proving sufficient, permission was granted. The act granting it fixed all the preliminaries

the time and place of holding the Convention; the qualification of the voters; establishment of its boundaries, and all other measures necessary to be settled previous to admission. The act giving permission necessarily withdraws the sovereignty of the United States, and leaves the inhabitants of the incipient State as free to form their constitution and government as were the original States of the Union after they had declared their independence. At this stage, the inhabitants of the territory became for the first time a people, in

I have not seen the answer of the Executive to the calls made by the two Houses of Congress for information as to the course which it took, or the part which it acted in reference to what was done in California. I understand the answers have not yet been printed. But there is enough known to justify the assertion that those who profess to represent and act under the authority of the Executive, have advised, aided, and encouraged the movement, which terminated in forming what they call a constitution and a State. Gen. Riley, who professed to act as civil governor, called the convention, determined on the number and distribution of the delegates, appointed the time and place of its meeting, was present dur-legal and constitutional language. Prior to ing the session, and gave its proceedings his this, they were, by the old acts of Congress, approbation and sanction. If he acted with- called inhabitants, and not people. All this out authority, he ought to have been tried or is perfectly consistent with the sovereignty at least reprimanded and disavowed. Neither of the United States, with the powers of Conhaving been done, the presumption is that his gress, and with the right of a people to selfcourse has been approved. This of itself is government. sufficient to identify the Executive with his acts Michigan was the first case in which there and to make it responsible for them. I touch was any departure from the uniform rule of not the question whether Gen. Riley was ap- acting. Hers was a very slight departure pointed or received the instructions under from established usage. The ordinance of which he professed to act from the present 1787 secured to her the right of becoming a Executive or its predecessor. If from the State when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. former, it would implicate the preceding as Owing to some neglect, Congress delayed takwell as the present Administration. If not, the ing the census. In the mean time her popularesponsibility rests exclusively on the present. tion increased until it clearly exceeded more It is manifest from this statement that the than twice the number which entitled her to Executive Department has undertaken to per- admission. At this stage she formed a conform acts preparatory to the meeting of the stitution and government without the census individuals to form their so-called constitution being taken by the United States, and Conand government, which appertain exclusively gress waived the omission, as there was no to Congress. Indeed, they are identical in doubt she had more than a sufficient number many respects with the provisions adopted by to entitle her to admission. She was not adCongress, when it gives permission to a terri-mitted at the first session she applied, owing tory to form a constitution and government in order to be admitted as a State into the Union. Having now shown that the assumption upon which the Executive and the individuals in California acted throughout this whole affair is unfounded, unconstitutional, and dangerous, it remains to make a few remarks in order to show that what has been done is contrary to the entire practice of the government from its commencement to the present time.

to some difficulty respecting the boundary be tween her and Ohio. The great irregularity, as to her admission, took place at the next session, but on a point which can have no possible connection with the case of California.

The irregularities in all other cases that have since occurred are of a similar nature. In all there existed territorial governments established by Congress, with officers appointFrom its commencement until the time that ed by the United States. In all the territorial Michigan was admitted, the practice was uni- government took the lead in calling convenform. Territorial Governments were first or- tions and fixing the preliminaries preparatory ganized by Congress. The Government of the to the formation of a constitution and admisUnited States appointed the governors, judges, sion into the Union. They all recognized the secretaries, marshals, and other officers, and sovereignty of the United States and the authe inhabitants of the territory were repre- thority of Congress over the Territories; and sented by legislative bodies, whose acts were wherever there was any departure from estabsubject to the revision of Congress. This state lished usage, it was done on the presumed conof things continued until the government of a sent of Congress, and not in defiance of its auterritory applied to Congress to permit its in- thority, or the sovereignty of the United States habitants to form a constitution and govern-over the Territories. In this respect California ment preparatory to admission into the Union. stands alone, without usage, or a single exThe preliminary act to giving permission was, ample to cover her case. to ascertain whether the inhabitants were

It belongs now, Senators, for you to decide

1ST SESS.]

Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions.

[MARCH, 1850,

for the territories. How then can you now, after the short interval which has elapsed, abandon the ground which you took, and thereby virtually admit that the power of legislating, instead of being in Congress, is in the inhabitants of the territories? How can you justify and sanction by your votes the acts of the Executive, which are in direct derogation of what you then contended for? But to

can you, after condemning, little more than a year since, the grounds taken by the party which you defeated at the last election, wheel round and support by your votes the grounds which, as explained recently on this floor by the candidate of the party in the last election, are identical with those on which the Executive has acted in reference to California? What are we to understand by all this? Must we conclude that there is no sincerity, no faith in the acts and declarations of public men, and that all is mere acting or hollow profession?

the South from the territory acquired from Mexico is an object of so paramount a character in your estimation, that right, justice, constitution, and consistency must all yield when they stand in the way of our exclusion?

what part you will act in reference to this un- | had the sole and absolute power of legislating precedented transaction. The Executive has laid the paper purporting to be the Constitution of California before you, and asks you to admit her into the Union as a State; and the question is, Will you or will you not admit her? It is a grave question, and there rests upon you a heavy responsibility. Much, very much will depend upon your decision. If you admit her, you endorse and give your sanction to all that has been done. Are you pre-approach still nearer to the present time, how pared to do so? Are you prepared to surrender your power of legislation for the territories a power expressly vested in Congress by the constitution, as has been fully established? Can you, consistently with your oath to support the constitution, surrender the power? Are you prepared to admit that the inhabitants of the territories possess the sovereignty over them, and that any number, more or less, may claim any extent of territory they please, may form a constitution and government, and erect it into a State, without ask ing your permission? Are you prepared to sur-Or are we to conclude that the exclusion of render the sovereignty of the United States over whatever territory may be hereafter acquired, to the first adventurers who may rush into it? Are you prepared to surrender virtually to the Executive department all the powers which you have heretofore exercised over the territories? If not, how can you, consistently with your duty and your oaths to support the constitution, give your assent to the admission of California as a State, under a pretended constitution and government? Again, can you believe that the project of a constitution which they have adopted has the least validity? Can you believe that there is such a State in reality as the State of California? No, there is no such State. It has no legal or constitutional existence. It has no validity, and can have none without your sanction. How, then, can you admit it as a State, when, according to the provision of the Constitution, your power is limited to admitting new States? To be admitted, it must be a State, an existing State, independent of your sanction, before you can admit it. When you give your permission to the inhabitants of a territory to form a constitution and a State, the constitution and State they form derive their authority from the people, and not from you. The State before admitted is actually a State, and does not become so by the act of admission, as would be the case with California, should you admit her contrary to constitutional provisions and established usage heretofore.

The Senators on the other side of the chamber must permit me to make a few remarks in this connection particularly applicable to them, with the exception of a few Senators from the South, sitting on that side of the chamber. When the Oregon question was before this body not two years since, you took (if I mistake not) universally the ground that Congress

But, it may be asked, what is to be done with California should she not be admitted? I answer, remand her back to the territorial condition, as was done in the case of Tennessee, in the early stage of the Government. Congress, in her case, had established a territorial government in the usual form, with a governor, judges, and other officers appointed by the United States. She was entitled under the deed of cession to be admitted into the Union as a State as soon as she had sixty thousand inhabitants. The territorial government, believing it had that number, took a census, by which it appeared it exceeded it. She then formed a constitution, and applied for admission. Congress refused to admit her, on the ground that the census should be taken by the United States, and that Congress had not determined whether the territory should be formed into one or two States, as it was authorized to do under the cession. She returned quietly to her territorial condition. An act was passed to take a census by the United States, containing a provision that the territory should form one State. All afterwards was regularly conducted, and the territory admitted as a State in due form. The irregularities in the case of California are immeasurably greater, and offer much stronger reasons for pursuing the same course. But, it may be said, California may not submit. That is not probable; but if she should not, when she refuses it will then be time for us to decide what is to be done.

Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the question with which I commenced, How can the Union be saved?

« ZurückWeiter »