Newspaper Page Text
VOL. XXXVII.
President's Message.
Fellow Citizens of the Senate,
and House of Representatives:
Throughout the year since our last meeting,
the country has been eminently prosperous in ail
its material interests. The general health has
been excellent, our harvests have been abundant,
and plenty smiles throughout the land. Our
commerce and manufactures have been prosecuted
witb energy and industry, and have yielded fair
and ample returns. In short, no nation in
of time has ever presented a spectaole of greater
material prosperity than we bave done until
within a veiy recent period.
Why is it, then, that discontent now so
extensively prevails, and the uoion ot the States,
which is the source of all these blessings, is
threatened with destruction? Tbe long-contin- '
ued and intemperate interference of the North
ern people with the question of slavery in the '
Southern States has at length produced its nat
ural effects. The different sections of the Union '
are now arrayed against each other, and the time '
bas arrived, so much dreaded by the "Father of '
his Country," when hostile geographical parties '
been formed. I have long foreseen and !
often forewarned my countrymen ot the now
impending danger. This does not proceed solely
from the claim on the part of Congress or the
territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from
tbe territories, nor from tbe efforts of different
States to defeat the execution of the fugitive
slave law.
Ail or any of these evils might bave been en
dured by the South without danger to tbe Uoioo,
(as others bave been) in the hope that time and
reflection might apply the remedy. The imme
diate peril arises not so much from these causes
as from the fact tbat the incessant and violent
agitation of the slavery question tiirongbout the
North for tbe last quarter of a century, bas at
length produced its malign influence on tbe
slaves, and inspired tbem with vague notions of
freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer
exists around tbe family altar. This feeling of
peace at home bas given place to apprehensions
of servile insurrection. Many a matron through
out tiie South retires at night in dread ot what
may befall herself and her cbildreu before morn
ing. Should this apprehension of domestic dan
ger, whether real or imaginary, extend and in
tensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of
tbe Southern people, then disunion will become
inevitable.
Selt-preservation is the first law of nature, and
ha. oeen implanted in tbe heart of man by bis
Creator for the wisest purpose; and no political
union, however fraught with blessings and
benefits in all other respects, can long continue,
if tbe necessary consequence be to render the
homes and the firesides of nearly half the par
ties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure.—
Sooner or later tbe bonds of such a union must
be severed. It is my conviction tbat this fatal
period has not yet arrived ; and my prayer to
God is that He would preserve tbe Constitution
and the Union throughout all generations.
But let us take warning in time, aud remove
the cause of danger. It cannot be denied tbat,
for five and twenty years, the agitation of the j
North against slavery in the Soath has been in- |
cessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflam
matory appeals, were circulated extensively
throughout the South, of a character to excite
the passions of the slaves ; and, in tbe language
of Gen. Jackson, "to stimulate them toinsuirec
tion, aud produce all the horrors of a eervile
war." This agitation has ever since been con
tiuued by the public press, by tbe proceedings
of State and county conventions, aud by aboli
tion sermons and lectures. The time of Congress
bas been occupied in violent speeches on this
never ending subject; aud appeals in pamphlet
and other forms, endorsed by distinguished
names, have been sent forth from this central
point, and spread Oroad-cast over the Union.
How ea-iy would it be for the American peo
ple to settle the slavery question forever, and to
restore peace and harmony to this distracted
country. -
Tbey, and tbey alone, can do it. All that is
necessary to accomplish the object, and all for
wbicb the slave States bave ever contended is
to be let alone, and permitted to manage tbeir
domestic institutions in tbeir own way. As sov
ereign Sta*es, tbey, and they alone, are respon
sible before God and the world for tbe slavery
existing among tbem. For this tbe people of
tbe North are not more responsible, and have no
more right to interfere, than with similar insti
tutions in Russia or in Brazil. Upon their good
sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still
greatly rely. Without tbeir aid it is beyond the
power of tbe President, no matter what may be
bis own political proclivities, to restore peace
and harmony among tbe States. Wisely limited
and restrained as is bis power, under oar con
stitution and laws, be alone can accomplish but
little, for good or tor evil, on sucb a momentous
question.
And this brings me to observe that the elec
tion of any one of our fellow-citizens to tbe of
fice of President does not of itself afford just
cause for dissolving the Union. This is more
especially true if bis election bas been effected
by a mere plurality, and not a majority, of tbe
people, and bas resulted trom transient and tem
porary causes, which may probably never again
occur. In order to justify a resort to revo
lutionary resistance, tbe federal government
must be guilty of "a deliberate, palpable and
dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by
the constitution. Tbe late presidential election,
however, bas been held in strict conformity
witb its express provisions. How, tben, can
tbe result justify a revolution to destroy this
very constitution ? Reason, justice, a regard
for tbe constitution, all require that we shall
wait tor some overt and dangerous act on the
part of tbe President elect before resorting to
such a remedy.
It is said, however, that the antecedents ofthe
President elect bave been sufficient to justify tbe
fears ot tbe South that be will attempt to invade
their constitutional rights. Bat are such appre
hensions of contingent danger iv the future suf
ficient to justify tbe immediate destructionjof the
.loDiest system of Government ever devised by
mortals ? From the very nature ot bis office,
and its high responsibilities, be must necessarily ■
be conservative. The stem duty of administer
ing the vast aud complicated concerns of this gov
ernment affords in itself a guarantee tbat be
wiil not attempt any violation of a clear consti
tutional right. After all, he is no roe.re than tbe
chief executive officer of the government.
His province is not to make, but to execute i
the laws; and it is a remarkable fact in our his-1
tory, notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the ''
anti-slavery party, uo single act has ever pa-sed
Congress, unless we may possibly except the
Missouri Compromise, impairing in tbe slightest
degree, tbe rights of tbe South to tbeir property j
in slaves. And it may also be observed, judging
from present indications, tbat no probability ex-!
Ist-, ot the passage of suoh an act, by a majority
of both Bouses, either in the present or tbe next
Congress. Surely, under these circamstances,
we ought to be restrained from present action by
the precept of Him wbo spake as never man spoke,
tbat "sufficient unto the day is tbe evil thereof."
The day of evil may never come, unless we shall
rashly bring it upon ourselves.
It is alleged as one cause tor immediate seces
sion, that the Southern States are denied equal
rights with the other States io tLe common ter
ritories. But by authority are these de
nied ? Not by Congress, which bas never passed
and i believe never will pas-, any act to exclude
slavery from tbe territories; and certainly not >
by tbe Supreme Court, which has solemnly de
cided tbat slaves are property, and, like all other i
property, their owners have a right to take them I
into the common territories, and bold them there
nuder the protection of tbe Constitution. ,
So tar, then, as Congress is concerned, the ob
jection is not to anything tbey bave already
done, but to what tbey may do hereafter. It
will surely be admitted tbat this apprehension I
of future dauger is no good reason for an iinrae- j
diate dissolution of the Union. It is true tbat,
the territorial legislature of Kansas, on tbe 23rd i
of February, 1860, passed in great ba9te an act, i
over tbe veto of the Governor, declaring tbat j
slavery "is, and shall \fd, forever prohibited in j i
this Territory." Sucb an act, however, plainly j I
Btmtnton Spectator.
violating the rights of property secured by the
constitution, will sorely be declared void by tho
judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a le
gal form.
Only three days after my inauguration the Su
preme Court of tbe United States sedeinnly ad
judged that this power did not exist in a terri
torial legislature. Yet such has been the fac
tious temper of the times that the correctness at
this decision has been extensively impugned be
fore the people, and the question has given rise
to agry political conflicts throughout the country.
Those who bave appealed from this judgment of
our highest Constitutional tribunal to popular
assemblies would, if they could, invest a territo
rial 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
exercised in aDy State except by the people in
tbeir highest sovereign capacity when framing
or amending their State constitution. In like
manner, it can only be exercised by the people
of a territory represented in a convention ol del
egates for the purpose of framing a constitution
preparatory to admission as a State into the
Union.
Tben, and not nntil then, are they invested
witb power to decide the question whether
slavery shall or shall not exist within tbeir lim
its. This is an act of sovereign authority, and
not of subordinate territorial legislation. Were
it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of
the States in the territories be destroyed, and
the rights of property in slaves would depend,
not upon the guarantees of the Constitution, but
upon tbe shitting majorities of an irresponsible
territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its
intrinsic unsoundness, cannot long influence any
considerable portion of onr people, much less can
it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the
Union.
The most palpable violations of constitutional
duty which bave yet been committed, consists in
tbe acts of different State Legislatures to defeat
tbe execution of the fugitive slave law. It ought
to be remembered, however, that for these acts,
neither Congress nor any President can justly be
held responsible. Haviug been passed in viola
tion ot the federal constitution, they are there
fore null aud void. All tbe courts, both State
and national, before wnom the question bas
arisen, bave trom the beginning declared tbe
fugitive slave law to be constitutional. The
_iogle exception is tbat of a State court in Wis
consin ; and this bas not only been reversed by
tbe proper appellate tribunal, but has met with
such universal reprobation that tbere can be no
danger lrom it as a precedent.
The validity of this law has been established
over and over again by the Supreme Court of
tbe United States witb perfect unanimity. It is
founded upon an express provision of tbe Con
stitution, requiring tbat fugitive slaves who es
cape from service in one State to another shall
be "delivered up" to tbeir masters. Without
this provision it is a well known historical fact
tbat the Constitution itself could never have
been adopted by tbe Convention. In one form
jor otber under tbe acts of 1793 and 1850, both
being substantially tbe same, tbe fugitive slave
law lias been tbe law of the land from the days
of Washington until tbe present moment. Here,
then, a clear case is presented, in wbicb it will
be tbe duty of the next President, as it bas been
been my own, to act witb vigor in executing this
supreme law against tbe conflicting enactments
of State Legislatures.
Should be fail in the performance of this high
duty, be will then bave maaifested a disregard
of tbe Constitution and laws, to the great injurj
of tbe people of nearly one-half of tbe States ot
the Union. But are we to presume in advance
tbat be will thus violate bis duty ? This would
be at war witb every piinciple of justice and ot
Christian charity. Let us wait for tbe overt act.
Tbe fugitive slave law has been curried into ex
ecution in every contested case since the com
mencement of tbe present administration; though
often it is to be regretted, with great loss aud
inconvenience to tbe master, and witb consider
able expense to tbe government. Let us trust
that tbe State legislatures will repeal tbeir un
constitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless
this shall be done without unnecessary delay, it
is impossible for any human power to save the
Union.
Tbe Sontbern States, standing on tbe basis of
the Constitution, bave a right to demand this
act of justice from the States of the North.—
Should it be refused, then tbe constitution, to
wbicb all tbe States are parties, will have been
wilfully violated by one portion of tbem in a
provision essential to the domestic security and
happiness of tbe remainder. In that event, tbe
injured States, after having first used all peace
ful a_d constitutional means to obtain redress,
would be justified in revolutionary resistance to
tbe government of tbe Union.
I bave purposely confined my remarks to rev
olutionary resistance, because it bas been claimed
within tbe last few years tbat any State, when
ever this shall be its sovereign will aud pleasure,
may secede from the Union, in accordance with
the constitution, and without any violation of
the constitutional rights of tbe other members ot
the contederacy. That as each became parties.
to the Union by tbe vote of its own people as
sembled in convention, so any one of tbem may
retire from tbe Union in a similar manner by
tbe vote of such a convention.
In order to justify secession as a constitutional
remedy it mutt be on tbe principle tbat the fed
eral government is a mere voluntary association
of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one
ot tbe contracting parties. It this be so, the con
tederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and
dissolved by the first adverse waves ot public
opinion iv any of tbe States.
In this manner our thirty-three States may re
solve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and
hostile republics, each one retiring from the
Union, without responsibility, whenever any
sudden excitement might impel tbem to such a
oourse. By this process a Union might be en
tirely broken into fragments in a few weeks,
which cost our forefathers many years of toil,
privation and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with
tbe history as well as tbe character ot the federal
Constitution. After it was framed, with the
greatest deliberation aud care, it was submitted
to conventions of the people of the States for
ratification. Its provisions were discussed at
length in these bodies, composed of tbe first men
of the country.
Its opponents contended that it conferred pow
ers npon tbe Federal Government dangerous to
the rights of the States, whilst its advocates
maintained that under a fair construction of the
instrument there was no foundation for such ap
prehensions. In that mighty struggle between
the first intellects of this or any other country,
it never occurred to any individual, either
among its opponents or advocates, to assert, or
evec to intimate, that tbeir efforts were all vain
labor, because the moment tbat any State felt
herself aggrieved she might secede from tbe U
nion. What a crushing argument would this
have proved against thus, who dreaded that tbe
rights of the States would be endangered by tbe
Oonstitutiou.
The truth is, that it was not until many years
after tbe origiu of the federal government tbat
such a proposition was first advanoed. It was
then met aud refuted by the conclusive argu
ments of General Jackson, wbo, in hia message
of 16th of January, 1833, transmitting tbe nulli
fying ordinance ot South Carolina to Congress,
etnployß tbe tollowiug language : "The right of
tbe people of a siugle State to absolve themselves
at will, and without tbe consent of tbe otber
States, from their in6st solemn obligations, and
hazarel the liberty and happiness ot tbe millions
composing this Union, caunot be acknowledged.
Such authority is believed to be utterly repug
nant both to tbe principles upon wbicb tbe Gen
eral Government is constituted and to the ob
jects which it was expressly formed to attain."
It is not pretended that any clause in tbe con
stitution gives countenance to such a theory.
It is altogether founded upon inference, not
from any language contained in tbe instrument
itself; but from tbe sovereign character of tbe
several States by wbicb it was ratified. Bat is
it beyoud tbe power of a State, like an individ
STAUNTON, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1860.
nal, to yield a portion ot its sovereign rights to
secure the remainder? In the language of Mr.
Madison, who has been called the father of the
Constitution : "It was formed by the States—
tbat is, by the people in each of tbe States, act
ing in tbe highest sovereign oapacity ; and form
ed consequently by the same authority which
formed the State constitutions."
"Nor is the Government of the United States
created by the Constitntion less a Government
in tbe strict sense of the terra, within the sphere
of it powers, than the governments created by
the constitutions of the States aro within their
several spheres. It is like them, organized into
legislative, executive, and judiciary departments.
It operates, like tbem, directly on persons and
things; and, like tbem, it has at command a
physical force for executing the powers commit
ted to it."
But that the Union was designed to be per
petual appears conclusively from the nature and
extent of the powers conferred by the Constitu
tion ou the Federal Government. These powers
embrace the very highest attributes of national
sovereignty. Tbey place both the sword and
the purse under its control.
Congress Las power to make war, and to make
peace; to raise and support armies and navies,
and to conclude treaties with foreign govern
ments. It Is invested with the power to coin
money, and to regulate the value thereof, and to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and a
mong the several States. It is not necessary to
enumerate the otber high powers which have
been conferred upon the federal government.—
In order to carry the enumerated powers into
effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right to
lay and collect duties on imports, and in common
with the States to lay and collect ail otber taxes.
It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be
anulled at the pleasure of any one of the contract
ing parties. The old articles of confederation
were entitled * l Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union between the States;" and by
the 13th article it is expressly declared that "the
articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably
observed by every State, and tbe Union shall be
perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution
of the United States, having express reference
to the Articles of Confederation, recites tbat 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 ess
sential attribute ot perpetuity.
But tbe coßstitution has not only conferred
these high powers upon Congress, but it has a
dopted effectual meaos to restrain the States
from interfering with their exercise. For that
purpose it has, in a strong prohibitory language,
expressly declared that "no State shall enter in
to any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant
letters of marque-or reprisal; coin money; emit
bills of credit; make anything but gold and sil
ver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any
bill of attainder, expost facto law, or law impair
ing the obligation of contracts." Moreover,
"without the consent of Congress, no State shall
lay any imposts or duties on any imports or ex
ports except what may be absolutely neces
sary for executing its inspection laws;" and
if they exceed this amount, the excess shall be
long to t!ie 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 ot these high powers against
State interposition, it is provided "that this
Constitution aod tbe laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and
all treaties made, or which shall be made under
the authority ot the United States, shall be tbe
supreme law of the land ; and the judges in eve
ry State shall be bound thereby, and anything in
the.Oonstitution or laws of any State to the con
trary notwithstanding."
The solemn sanction of religion has been su
peradded to the obligations of official duty, and
all Senators and Representatives of tbe United
States, all members ot State legislatures aud all
executive and judicial officers, "both or the Uui
ted 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 Govern
ment in all its forms. Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial; and this Government, to the ex
tent of its powers, acts directly upon the indi
vidual citizens of every State, and executes its
own decrees by the agency of its own officers.—
In this respect it differs entirely from tbe Gov
ernment under the old Confederation, wbicb
was confined to making requisitions on the
States in their sovereign character. This left it
in tbe discretion ot each, whether to obey or to
refuse, and they often declined to comply witb
sucb requisitions. It thus became necessary,
for the purpose of removing this barrier, and
"in order to form a more perfect Union," to es
tablish a Government wbicb could aot directly
upon the people, and execute its own laws
without the intermediate ageDcy of the States.
This bas been accomplished by tbe Constitution
of tbe United States.
Io short, the government created by the Con
stitution, and deriving its authority from tbe
sovereign people of each of tbe several States,
has precisely tbe same right to exercise its pow
er over the people of all these States, in tbe e
numerated cases, that each one of them possesses
over subjects not delegated to the United States
but "reserved to tbe States, respectively, or to
the people."
To the extent ofthe delegated powers the Con
stitution of the United States is as much a part
of tbe Constitution of each State, and is as bind
ing upon its people as though it had been tex
tually inserted therein.
This Government, therefore, is a great and
powerful Government, invested witb all the at
tributes of sovereignty over the special subjects
to which its authority extends. Its framers nev
er inteuded to implant in its bosopi tbe seeds of
its own destruction, nor were they at its crea
tion guilty of tbe absurdity of providing for its
own dissolution. It was not intended by its
framers to be the baseless fabric of a visiou
which, at the touch of the enchanter, would
vanish iuto thin air, but a substantial 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 tbat a government of sucb high
powers might violate tbe reserved rights of tbe
States, and wisely did tbey adopt tbe rule of a
strict construction of these powers to prevent
tbe danger! But they did not fear, nor had
they any reason to imagine, that the constitu
tion would ever be so interpreted as to enable
any State, by ber own act, aud without the con
sent of ber sister States, to discbarge ber people
from all or any of tbeir federal obligations.
It may be asked, then, are the people of tbe
States without redress against the tyranny and
oppression of the Federal Government? By no
means. Tbe right of resistance on tbe part of
the governed against the oppression of their
governments cannot be denied. It exists inde
pendently ot all constitutions and bas been exer
cised at all periods of the world's history. Un
der it old governments bave been destroyed, and
new ones have taken ttieir place. It is embodied
in strong and express language in our own Dec
laration of Independence. But tbe distinction
must ever be observed, tbat this is revolution a
gainst au established Government, and not a vol
untary secession trom it by virtue of an inherent
constitutional right. In short, let us look tbe
danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither
more nor less than revolution. It may or it may
not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is rev
olution.
What, in tbe meantime, is the responsibility
and true position of the Executive? He is
bound by solemn oath before God and the conn
try "to take care that the laws be faithfully ex
ecuted," and from this obligation be cannot be
absolved by any human power. But what if the
performance ot this duty, in whole or in part,
ba9 beeu rendered impracticable by events over
which be could bave exercised no control?—
Sucb, at tbe present moment, is tbe case
throughout tbo State of South Carolina, so far
as the laws of the United Stats to secure the'
administration of justice by dans ofthe Federal
Judiciary are ooncerned. A] the Federal offi
cers within its limits, through whose agency a
lone these laws can ba carrijd into execution,
have already resigned.
We no longer have a distrid judge, a distriot
attorney, or a marshal in Sojth Carolina. In
fact, the whole machinery of £ie Federal Gov
ernment, necessary for the distribution of reme
dial justice among the people bas been demol
ished ; and it would be djfficuj, if not impossi
ble, to replace it.
The only acts of Congress oij the statute-book,
bearing upon this subject, arefchose of the 28th
February, 1795, and 3rd Mate, 1807. These
authorize the President, after be shall have as
certained that tbe marshal with bis posse coini
tatus is unable to execute civil or criminal pro
cess in any particular case, to cill forth the mili
tia and employ the army and navy to aid him in
performing this service, having first by Procla
raation commandad the insurgents "to disperse
and retire peaceably lo their respective abodes,
within a limited time."
This duty cannot by possibility be performed
in a State where no judicial authority exists to
issue process, and where there is no marshal to
execute it, and where, even if tbere were such
an officer, the entire population would constitute
one solid combination to resist him.
The bare enumeration of these provisions
proves.how inadequate tbey are without further
legislation to overcome a united opposition in a
single State, not to speak of otber States who
may place themselves in a similar attitude. —
Congress alone bas power to decide whether the
present laws can or cannot be so amended as to
carry out more effectually tbe objects of the
Constitution.
Tbe same insuperable obstacles do not lie in
tbe way of executing the laws for the collection
of the customs. The revenue still continues to
be collected, as heretofore, at tbe custom bouse
in Charleston; and sboulel the collector unfor
tunately resign, a successor may be appointed to
perform this duty.
Then in regard to the property of tbe United
States in South Carolina. This bas been pur
chased for a fair equivalent, "by the consent of
the Legislature of the State," "for the erection
of forts, magazines, arsenals," &c, and over
these the authority "to exercise exclusive legis
lation" has been expressly granted by tbe con
stitution to Congress.
It is not believed tbat any attempt will be
made to expel tbe United States trom this prop
erty by force; but if in this I should prove to be
mistaken, tbe officer in command of tbe forts bas
received orders to act strictly on the defensive.
In such a contingency, the responsibility for con
sequences would rightfully rest upon tbe beads
of tbe assailauts.
Apart from tbe execution of tbe laws, so far
as this may be practicable, the Executive has no
authority to decide what shall be the relations
between tbe Federal Government and South
Carolina. He has been invested witb no such
discretion. He possesses no power to change
tbe relations heretofore existing between them,
much less to acknowledge tbe independence of
that State. This would be to invest a mere Ex
ecutive officer with the power ot recognizing the
dissolution of the Confederacy among our tbirty
tbree sovereign States, it bears no resemblance
to the recognition of a foreign de facto govern
ment, involving no such responsibility. Any
attempt to do this would, on bis part, be a na
ked act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty
to submit to Congress tbe whole question in all
its bearings. The course of events is so rapidly
hastening forward tbat the emergency may soon
arise when you may be called upon to decide the
momentous question whether you possess the
power, by force otarms, to compel a State to re
main in the Union. I should feel myself recre
ant to my duty were I not to express an opinion
on this important subject.
Tbe question fairly stated is: Has tbe Con
stitution delegated to Congress tbe power to co
erce a Slate into submission wbicb is attempting
to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the
Confederacy ? If answered in tbe affirmative, it
must be on tbe principle tbat the power bas been
conferred upon Congress to declare and to make
war against a State. After much serious refleo
tion I bave arrived at the conclusion that no
"such power has been delegated to Congress or to
any other department of the Federal Govern
ment. It is manifest, upon an inspection of tbe
Constitution, that this is not among the specific
and enumerated powers granted to Congress;
and it is equally apparent tbat its exercise is not
"necessary and proper tor carrying into execu
tion" any one of these powers. So far from
this power having been delegated to Congress,
it was expressly refused by the convention wbicb
framed tbe Constitution.
It appears from tbe proceedings of tbat body,
that on the 31st of May, 1787, the clause "au
thorizing an exertion ot the force of tbe whole
against a delinquent State," came up tor consid
eration. Mr. Madison opposed it io a brief but
powerful speech, from which I shall extract but
a single sentence. He observed :
"Tbe use of force against a State would look
more like a declaration of war than an infliction
ot punishment; and would probably be consid
ered by the party attacked as a dissolution ot al!
previous compacts by which it might be bound."
Upon bis motion the clause was unanimously
postponed, and was never I believe again pre
sented. Soon afterwards, on tbe Bth June, 1787,
when incidentally adverting to the subject, be
said : "Any government for tbe United States,
formed on tbe supposed practicability of using
force against tbe unconstitutional proceedings of
tbe States, would prove as visionary and falla
cious as the government of Congress," evidently
meaning the tben existing Congress of the old
confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be
safely asserted that the power to make war *-
gainst a State is at variance witb tbe whole
spirit and intent of tbe Constitution. Suppose
such a war should result in the conquest of a
State, how are we to govern it afterwards?—
Shall we bold 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 tbem to elect Senators
and Representatives to Congress, and to perform
all tbe other duties depending upon their own
volition, and required from the free citizens of
a free State as a constituent member of tbe con
federacy.
3at, if we possessed this power, would it be
wise to exercise it under existing circumstances?
Tbe object would doubtless be to preserve tbe
Union. War would not only present the most
effectual means of destroying it, but would ban
ish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction.—
Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount
of blood and treasure would be expended, ren
dering future reconciliation between the States
impossible. In the mean time wbo can foretell
what would be tbe sufferings and privations of
tbe people during its existence ?
Tbe fact is, tbat our Union rests upon public
opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood
ot its citizens shed in civil war. It it oannot
live in tbe affections of the people, it must one
day perish. Congress possesses many means of
preserving it by conciliation ; but tbe sword was
not placed in tbeir band to preserve it by force.
But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke
my countrymen to pause aud deliberate, before
tbey determine to destroy Ibis, tbe grandest
temple which bas ever been dedicated to human
freedom since the world began ? It bas been
consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the
glories of tbe past, and by tbe hopes of tbe fu
ture. Tbe Union has already made us tbe most
prosperous and, ere long, will, if preserved, ren
der us the mo9t powerful nation on the face of
the earth. In every foreign region of the globe
the title of American citizen is held in the high
est respect, and when pronounced in a foreign
land it causes the bearts ot our countrymen to
swell witb honest pride.
Surely when we reach tbe brink ofthe yawn
ing abyss, we shall recoil with horror from the
last fatal plunge. By sucb a dread catastrophe
the bopeß of the friends of freedom throughout
the world would be destroyed, and a long night
of leaden despotism would enshroud tbe nations.
Our example tor more than eighty years would
not only be lost; but it would be quoted as a
conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-gov
ernment.
It is not every wrong—nay, it is not every
grievous wroDg —which can justify a resort to
such a fearful alternative. This ought to be the
last desperate remedy of a despairing people, af
ter every otber constitutional means of concilia
tion had been exhausted. We should reflect
that under this free government tbere is an in
cessant ebb and flow in public opinion. Tbe
slavery question, like everything human, will
bave its day. I firmly believe that it has al
ready reached and passed the culminating point.
But if, in tbe midst of the existing excitement,
the Union shall perish, the evil may tben be
come irreparable. Congress can contribute
much to avert it by proposing and recommend
ing to tbe legislatures of the several States tbe
remedy for existing evils which the constitution
has itself provided for its own preservation.
This has been tried at different critical periods
ol our history, and always with eminent success.
It is to be found in tbe sth article providing for
its own amendment. Under this article amend
ments bave been proposed by two-thirds ot both
houses of Congress, and bave been "ratified by
the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States," and bave consequently become parts of
the Constitution.
To this process the country is Indebted for the
clause prohibiting Congress from passing any
law respecting an establishment of religion, or
abridging the freedom of speech or of tbe press
or of the right of petition. To this we are, also,
indebted lor tbe Bill of Rights, which secures
the people against any abuse of power by the
federal government. Such were the apprehen
sions justly entertained by tbe friends of State
rights at tbat period as to have rendered it ex
tremely doubtful whether the Constitution could
have long survived without these amendments.
Again, the constitution was amended by the
same process after the election of President Jef
ferson by the House of Representatives, in Feb
ruary, 1803. Thia amendment was rendered
necessary to prevent a recurrence of the dangers
which bad seriously threatened the existence of
the government during tbe pendency of that e
lection. The article for its own amendment
was intended to secure the amicable adjustment
of conflicting constitutional questions like the
present, which might arise between the govern
ments of tbe States and tbat of the United
States. This appears from contemporaneous his
tory. In this connection I shall merely call at
tention to a tew sentences io Mr. Madison's just
ly celebrated report, io 1799, to tbe Legislature
of Virginia.
In this be ably and conclusively defended tbe
resolutions of tbe preceding legislature against
tbe strictures of several other State Legislatures.
These were mainly founded upon the protest ot
the Virginia Legislature against tbe "Alien and
Sedition Acts," as "palpable and alarming in
fractious of tbe Constitution."
In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional rem
edies, and he referred to none other, to which the
States were authorized to resort, on such occasions,
he concludes by saying, "that the legislatures of the
States might have made a direct representation to
Congress with a view to obtain a rescinding of the two
offensive acts, or they might have represented to their
respective senators in Congress their wish that two
thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amend
ment to the Constitution, 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 ooject."
This is the very course which I earnestly recom
mend in order to obtain an "explanatory amendment"
ofthe constitution on the subject of slavery. This
might originate with Congress or the State Legisla
tures, as may be deemed most advisable to attain the
object. The explanatory amendment might be con
fined to the final settlement of the true construction
ofthe constitution on three special points :
1. An express recognition of the right of property
in slaves in the States where it now exists or may
hereafter exist.
2. The duty of protecting this right in all the com
mon Territories throughout their territorial existence,
and until they shall be admitted as States into tbe
Union; with or without slavery, as their Constitutions
may prescribe.
3. A like recognition of the right of the master to
have his slave, who has escaped from one State to an
other, restored and "delivered up" to bim, and ofthe
validity of the fugitive slave law enacted for this pur
pose, together with a declaration that all State laws
impairing or defeating this right are violations ofthe
Constitution, and are consequently null and void.
It may be objected that this construction ofthe Con
stitution 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 pro
portion ofthe people ofthe United States still contest
the correctness of this decision, and never will cease
from agitation and admit its binding force until clear
ly established by the people of the several States in
their sovereign character. Such an explanatory a
mendment. would, it is believed, forever terminate the
existing dissentions and restore peace and harmony
among the States.
It ought not to be doubted tbat such an appeal to
the arbitrament established by the Constitution 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 these States shall
separate themselves from the Union.
When I entered upon the duties of the presidential
office, the aspect neither of our foreign or domestic
affairs was at all satisfactory. We were involved in
dangerous compbeations with several nations, and two
of our territories were in a state of revolution, against
the government. A restoration of the African Slave
Trade had numerous and powerful advocates. Un
lawful military expeditions were countenanced by ma
ny of our citizens, and were suffered, in defiance ofthe
offorts of the Government, to escape from our shores,
tor the purpose of making war upon tbe unoffending
people of neighboring 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 Providenoe which has never forsaken
us as a nation in all our past trials.
OUE FOKEIGN RELATIONS.
GREAT BRITAIN.
Our relations with Great Britain are of the most
friendly character. Since the commencement of my
administration, the two dangerous questions, arising
from the Clayton and £ulwer treaty, and from the
right of search claimed by the British government,
have been amicably and honorably adjusted.
The discordant construction of the Clayton and Bul
wer treaty between the two governments, which, at
different periods of the discussion, bore a threatening
aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely sat
isfactory to this government. In my last annual mes
sage, I informed Congress that the British govornment
had not then "completed treaty arrangements with
the republics of Honduras and Nicaragua, in pursu
ance of the understanding between the two govern
ments. It is nevertheless confidently expected that
this good work will ere long be accomplished." This
confident expectation has since been fulfilled.
Her Brittanic Majesty concluded a treaty with Hon
duras on the 28.h November, 1859, and with Nicara
gua on the 2. th August, 1860, relinquishing the Mos
quito protectorate. Besides, by tne former, the Bay
Islands are recognized as a part of the Bepublic of
Honduras. It may be observed that the stipulations
of these treaties conform in every important particu
lar to tbe amendments adopted by the Senate of the
United States to the treaty concluded at London on
the 17th of October, 1856, between the two govern
ments. It will be recollected that this treaty was re
jected by the British government beaause of its objec
tion to the just and important amendment ofthe Sen
ate to the article relating to Kuatan and the other Is
lands in the Bay of Honduras.
It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all
classes of our fellow-citizens, aud especially to those
engaged in foreign commerce, that the claim, on the
part of great Britain, forcibly to visit aud search A
merican merchant vessels on the high seas in time of
peace, has been abandoned, 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 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 protect all vessels of the United States
on the high seas from search or detention by the ves
sels of war of any other nation.". These orders might
have produced an immediate collision between the na
val forces of the two countries. This was most fortu
nately prevented by an appeal to the justice of Great
Britain and to the law of nations as expounded by her
own most eminent jurists
The only question of any importance which still re
mains open is the disputed title hetween the two gov
ernmen s 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 Wales, in a private
character, to the people of this country, has proved to
be a most conspicuous event. In its consequences, it
cannot fail to increase the kindred and kindly feel
ings which I trust may ever actuate the government
and people of both countries in their political and so
cial intercourse with each other.
..BANCS.
With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our re
lations continue to-be of the most friendly character.
A decision has recently been made by a French Judi
cial tribunal, with the approbation "of the Imporial
Government, which cannot fail to foster the senti
ments ot mutual regard that have so long existed be
tween 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
consequence that a Frenchman, by the fact of having
become a citizen of the United States, has changed
his allegiance and has lost bis native character. He
cannot, therefore, be compelled to serve in the French
armies in case he should return to his native country.
These principles were announced, in 1852, by the
French Minister of War, and in two late cases have
been confirmed by the French judioiary. In these,
two natives of France have been discharged from the
French army because they had become American citi
zens. Tq,employ the language of our present minis
ter to France, who has rendered good service on this
occasion, "I do not think our French naturalized fel
low-citizens will hereafter experience much annoy
ance on this subject."
I venture to predict that the time is not far distant
when the other continental powers will adopt the
same wise and just policy which bas done so much
honor to the enlightened government of the Emperor.
In any event, our government is bound to protect the
rights of our naturalized citizens everywhere to the
same extent as though they had drawn their first
breath in this country. We can recognize no distinc
tion between our native and naturalized citizens.
RUSSIA.
Between the great empire of Russia and the United
States the mutual friendship and regard Which bas so
long existed still continues to prevail, and, if possible,
to increase. Indeed, our relations with that Empire
are all that we coald desire.
SPAIN.
Our relations with Spain are now of a more compli
cated, though less dangerous character, tbau they
have been for many years. Our citizens have long
held, and continue to hold, numerous claims against
the Spanish government. These had been ably urged
for a series of years by our successive diplomatic re
presentatives at Madrid, but without obtaining re
dress. The Spanish government finally agreed to in
stitute 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 minis
ter at Madrid. Under this convention what have oeen
denominated "the Cuban claims," amounting to $128,-
--635.54, in which more than one hundred of our fellow
citizens are interested, were recognized, and the Span
ish government agreed to pay $100,000 of this amount
"within three months following the exchange of rati
fication. T.e payment of the remaining $23,635 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 claimants either by
Spain or the United States. These terms I have eve
ry reason to know are highly satisfactory to the hold
ers of the Cuban claims. Indeed, they have made a
formal offer authorizing the State Department to set
tle these claims, and to deduct the amount of the Am
istad claim from the sums which they are entitled to
receive from Spain. This offer, of course, cannot be
accepted.
All other claims of citizens of the United States a
gainst Spain, or of subjects of the Queen of Spain a
gainst the United States, including the "Amistad
claim," were by this convention referred to a board of
commissioners in tbe usual form. Neither the validi
ty of the Amistad claim nor of any other claim against
either party, with the single exception of the Cuban
claims, was recognized by the convention.
Indeed, the Spanish government did not insist that
the validity of the Amistad claim should be thus re
cognized, notwithstanding its payment had been re
commended to Congress by two of my predecessors, as
well as by myself, and an appropriation for that pur
pose had passed the Senate of the United States.—
'i'hey were content it should be submitted to tbe board
for examination aud decision, like the other claims.—
Both governments were bound respectively to pay the
amounts awarded to tbe several oiaimants, "at such
times aud places as may be fixed by and according to
the tenor of said awards."
I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their
constitutional action on the 3d May, 1860, and on the
. 7th of the succeeding June they determined that they
would "not advise snd consent" to its ratification.
These proceedings place our relations with Spain in
an awkward and embarrassing position. It is more
than probable that the final adjustmentof these claims
will devolve upon my successor.
I reiterate the recommendation contained in my an
nual message of December, 1858, and repeated in that
of December, 1859, in favor ofthe acquisition of Cuba
from Spain by fair purchase. I firmly believe that
such an acquisition would contribute essentially to the
well-being and prosperity of both countries in all fu
ture time, as well as prove the certain means of im
mediately abolishing tbe African slave-trade through
out the world. I would not repeat this recommenda
tion upon tbe present occasion, if I believed that the
transfer of Cuba to the United States, upon conditions
highly favorable to Spain, could justly tarnish the na
tional honor of the proud and ancient Spanish mon
archy. Surely no person ever attributed to the first
Napoleon a disregard of the national honor of France,
for transferring Louisiana to the United States for a
fair equivalent both in money and commercial advan
tages.
AUSTRIA, ETC.
With the Empire of Austria, and the remaining con
tinental powers of Europe, including that of the Sul
tan, our relations continue to be of the most friendly
character.
CHINA.
The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by the
Government of the United states towards tbe empire
of China has produced tne most satisfactory results.
The treaty of Tientsin of the lath of June, 1858, has
been faithfully observed b_, the Chinese authorities.
The convention of the Bth November, 1858, supple
mentary to this treaty, for the adjustment and satis
faction of the claims of our citizens on China, referred
to in my last annual message, has been already car
ried into effect so far as this was practicable.
Under this conventiou the sum of 500,u00 taels, e
qual to about $700,000, was stipulated to be paid in
satisfaction of the claims of American citizens, out of
the one-tilth of the receipts for tonnage import, and
export duties on American vessels at the ports of Can
ton, Shanghae and Fuchau; and it was "agreed that
this amount shall be in full liquidation of all claims
of American citizens at the various ports to this date."
Debentures for this amount, to wit: 300,000 taels for
Canton, 100,000 for Shanghae, and 100,000 for Fuchau,
were delivered according to tbe terms of the conven
tion by the respective Chinese collectors of the cus
toms of these ports to the agent selected by our min
ister to receive the same.
Since that time the claims of our citizens have been
adjusted by the board of commissioners appointed foi
tbat purpose under the act Of March 3d, 185y, and their
awards, which proved satisfactory to the claimants,
have been approved by our minister. In the aggre
gate they amount to the sum of $498,664 78. The
claimants have already received a large proportion of
the sums awarded to them out of the fund provided,
and it is confidently expected that the remainder will
ere long be entirely paid. After the awards shall
have been satisfied", there will remain a surplus of
more than $200,000 at the disposition of Congress.—
As this will iv equity belong to the Chinese govern
ment, would not justice require its appropriation to
some benevolent oDject in which the Chinese may be
specially interested ?
Our minister to China, in obedience to his instruc
tions, has remained perfectly neutral in the war be
twen Great Britain and France and the Chinese em
pire; although, in conjunction with the Russian min
ister, he was ever ready and willing, had the opportu
nity offered, to employ his good offices in restoring
peace between the parties. It is but au act of simple
justice, both to our present minister and his predeces
sor, to state that they have proved fully equal to the
delicate, trying, and responsible positions in which
they have on different occasions been placed.
JAPAN.
The ratification of the treaty with Japan concluded
at Yedo on ihe 2ath July, 1»58, were exchanged at
Washington on the ___._ —ay last, and tbe treaty itself
was proclaimed on the'succeeding day. There is good
reason to expect that, uuder its protection aud influ
euce, our trade and intercourse with that distant and
interesting people will rapidly increase.
The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged with
unusual soleuiuHy. For this purpose the Tycoon had
accredited three of his most distinguished subjects as
envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary,
who were received and treated with marked distinc
tion and kindness both by the Government and peo
ple of the United States. There is every reason to
believe that they have returned to their native land
entirely satisfied with their visit, and inspired by the
most friendly feelings for our country. Let us ar
dently hope, in the language of the treaty itself, that
"there shall hencetorward be perpetual peace and
friendship between the United States of America aud
bis Majesty the Tycoon of Japan and his successors."
BRAZIL.
With the wise, conservative, and liberal govern
ment of the empire of Brazil our relations continue to
be of the most amicable character.
NEW GRANADA.
The exchange of the ratifications of the convention
with the republic of New Granada, signed at Wash
ington on the 10th September, 1857, has been long de
layed from accidental causes, for which neither party
is censurable. These ratifications were duly ex
changed iv this city on the sth November last. Thus
has a controversy been amicably terminated which
had become so serious at the period of my inaugura
tion, as to require me, on the 17th of April, 1857, to
direct our minister to demand his passports and re
turn to the United States.
Under this convention the government of New Gra
nada has specially acknowledged itself to be respon
sible to our citizens "for damages which were caused
by the riot at Panama ou the 15th April, 1856." These
claims, together with other claims ot our citizens
which bad Deen long urged in vain, are referred for
adjustment to a board ot commissioners. I submit a
copy of the convention to Congress, and recommend
the legislation necessary to carry it into effect.
COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA.
Persevering efforts have been made for the adjust
ment of the claims of American citizens against tbe
government of Costa Rica, aud I am happy to inform
I you that these have finally prevailed. A convention
was signed at the city of San Jose, on the 2d of July
last, between the minister resident of the United
States in Costa Rica and the plenipotentiaries of that
republic, referring these claims to a board of commis
sioners, and providing for the payment of their a
wards. This convention will be submitted immedi
ately to the Senate for their constitutional action.
The claims of our citizens upon the republic of Ni
caragua have not yet been provided for by treaty, al
though diligent efforts for this purpose have been
made by our minister resident to that republic.—
These are still continued, with a fair prospect of suc
cess.
MEXICO.
g"Our relations with Mexico remain in a most unsat
isfactory condition. In my last two annnal messages
I discussed extensively the subject of these relations,
and do not now propose to repeat at leDgth the facts
and arguments then presented.
They proved conclusively that our citizens resid
ing in Mexico and our merchants trading thereto had
suffered a series of wrongs and outrages, such aa we
have never patiently borne from any other nation.—
For these our successive ministers, invoking the faith
of treaties, had, in the name of tbeir country, persist
ently demanded redress and indemnification, but
without the slightest effect.
Indeed, so confident had the Mexican authorities
become of our patient endurance universal
ly believed they might commit these outrages with
absolute impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 18M,
and expressed the opinion that "nothing but a mani
festation of the power of the government and of its
purpose to punish these wrongs will avail."
Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new
constitution for Mexico, the election of a President
and Congress under its provisions, and the inaugu
ration of tbe President. Within one short month,
however, this President was expelled from the capi
tal by a rebellion in the army, and the supreme pow
er of the republic was assigned to General Zuloaga.—
This usurper was in his turn soon compelled to retire
and give place to General Miramon.
Under the constitution which had thus been adopt
ed, Senor Juarez, as chief justice of the Supreme
Court, became the lawful President of the Republic;
and it was for the maintenance of tbe constitution and
his authority derived from it that the civil war com
'■ menced, and still continues to be prosecuted.
Throughout the year 1858 the constitutional party
grew stronger and stronger. In the previous history
of Mexico a successful military revolution at the cap
ital had almost universally been the signal for sub
mission throughout tbe repubiic.
Not so on the present occasion. A majority ofthe
citizens persistently sustained the constitutional gov
ernment. When this was recognized in April, 1859,
by the government ofthe United States, its authority
extended over a large majority of tbe Mexican States
and people, including Vera Cruz and all the other im
portant seaports of the republic. From that period
our commerce with Mexico began to revive, and the
constitutional government bas afforded it all the pro
tection in their power.
Meanwhile, the government of Miramon, still held
sway at the capital and over the surrounding country
and continued its outrages against the few American
citizens who still had the courage to remain within
its power. To cap the climax: After the buttle of
Tacubaya, in April, 1859. Gen. Marquez ordered three
citizens ofthe United States, two of them physicians,
to be seized in the hospital of that place, taken out
and shot without crime and without trial. This was
done, notwithstanding our unfortunate countrymen
were at that moment engaged in the holy cause of af
fording relief to the soldiers of both parties who bad
been wounded in the battle, without making any dis
tinction between them.
The time had arrived in my opinion, when this
govc-Dment was bound to exert its power to avenate
and redress the wrongs of our citizens and to afford
tbem protection in Mexico. The interposing obstacle
was, that the portion of country under the sway of
Miramon could not be reached without passing over
territory under the jurisdiction of the constitutional
government.
Under these circumstances I deemed it my duty to
recommend to Congress, in my last annual message,
the employment of a sufficient military force tc pene
trate to the interior,, where the government of Mira
mon was to be found, with, or if need be, without the
consent ofthe Juarez government, though it was not
doubted that this consent could be obtained. Nev
er have I had a clearer conviction on any subject
than of the justice as well as the wibdom of such a
policy.
No other alternative was left, except the entire a
bandonment of our fellow-citizens who had gone to
Mexico, under the faith of treaties, to the systematic
injustice, cruelty, and oppression of Miramon's gov
ernment. Besides, it is almost certain tbat the sim
ple authority to employ this force would of itself have
accomplished all our objects without striking a single
blow. The constitutional government would then,
ere this, have been established at the city of Mexico,
and would have been ready and willing, to the extent
of its ability, to do us justice.
In addition—and I deem this a most important con -
sideration European governments would have been
deprived of all pretext to interfere in the territorial
and domestic concerns of Mexico. We should thus
have been relieved from the obligation of resisting e
ven by force, should this become necessary, any at
tempt by these governments to deprive our neighbor,
ing republic of portions of her territory; a duty from
which we could not shriuk without abandoning the
traditional and established policy of the American
people. lam happy to observe, that, firmly relying
upon the justice and good faith of these governments,
there is no present danger that such a contingency
will happen.
Having discovered that my recommendations would
not be sustained by Congress, the next alternative
was to accomplish, in some degree, if possible, the
same objects by treaty stipulations with the constitu
tutional government. Such treaties were accordingly
concluded by our late able and excellent minister to
Mexico, and on the 4th of January last were submit
ted to the Senate for ratification. As these bave not
yet received the final action of that body, it would be
improper for me to present a detailed statement of
their provisions.
Still I may be permiited to express the opinion in
advance that they are calculated to promote tbe agri
cultural, manufacturing and commercial interests of
the country, and to secure our just influence with an
adjoining republic, as to whose fortunes and fate we
can never feel indifferent; whilst at the same time
tbey provide for tbe payment of a considerable
amount towards the satisfaction of the claims of our
injured fellow-citizens.
KANSAS AND UTAH.
At the period of my inauguration I w«s confronted
in Kansas by a revolutionary government, existing
under what is called the Topeka constitution. Its a
vowed object was to subdue the territorial govern
ment by force, and to inaugurate what was called tbe
Topeka government in its stead. To accomplish this
object an extensive military organization was formed,
and its command entrusted to the most violent revo
lutionary leaders.
Under these circumstances, it became my impera
tive duty to exert the whole constitutional power of
the executive to prevent the flames of civil war from
l aging iv Kansas, which in the excited state of tbe
public mind, both North and South, might have ex
tended into neighboring States.
The hostile parties in Kansas had been inflamed a
gamst each other by emissaries both from the North
and the South, to a degree of malignity without par
allel in our history. To prevent actual col lision and
to assist tbe civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a
strong detachment of the army was stationed in tbe
Territory, ready to aid the marshal and his deputies,
when lawfully called upon, as a posse comitatus in
the execution of civil and criminal process.
Still the troubles in Kansas could not bave been
permanently settled without »n plppt-nn hy ti»* j>_opio.
The ballot-box is the surest arbiter of disputes among
freemen. Under this conviction, every proper effort
was employed to induce the hostile parties to vote at
the election of delegates to frame a State constitution,
and afterwards at the election to decide whether Kan
sas should be a free or slave State. The insurgent
party refused to vote at either, lest this might be con
sidered a recognition on their part of the territorial
government established by Congress.
A better spirit, however, seemed soon after to pre
vail, and the two parties met face to face at the third
election, held on the first Monday in January, 1858,
for members ofthe Legislature and State officers uu
der the Lecompton constitution. The result was the
triumph of the anti-slavery party at the polls. This
decision of the ballot box proved clearly that this
party were iv the majority, and removed the danger
of a civil war. From that time we have heard little
or nothing of the Topeka government; and all seri
ous danger of revolutionary troubles in Kansas was
at an end.
The Lecompton constitution, which had been thus
recognized at this State election by the votes of both
political parties in Kansas, was transmitted to me
with the request that I should present it to Congress.
This I could not have refused to do without violating
my clearest and strongest convictions of duty. The
constitution, and all the proceedings which preceded
and followed its formation, were fair and regular upon
their face. I then believed, and experience has prov
ed, that the interests of the people of Kansas would
have been best consulted by its admission as a State
tnto the Union, especially as the majority, within a
brief period, could have amended the constitution ac
cording to their will and pleasure. If fraud existed
in any or all of these proceedings, it was not for the
President, but for Congress to investigate and deter
mine the question of fraud, acd what ought to be its
consequences. If, at the two first elections, the ma
jority refused to vote, it cannot be pretended that this
refusal to exercise the elective franchise could Invali
date au election fairly held uuder lawful authority,
even if they had not subsequently voted at the third
election. It is true that the whole constitution had
not been submitted to the people, as I always desired;
but the precedents are numerous of the admission of
States into the Union without such submission.
It would not comport with my present purposes to
review the proceedings of Congress upon the Lecomp
ton constitution. It is sufficient to observe that their
final action has removed the last vestige of serious
revolutionary troubles. The desperate band recently
assembled under a notorious outlaw, in the southern
portion of the Territory, to resist the execution of the
laws and to plunder peaceful citizens, will, 1 doubt
not, be speedily subdued and brought to juatice.
Had I treated the Lecompton constitution as a
nullity and refused to transmit it to Congress, it ia
not difficult to imagine, whilst recalling the position
of the country at that moment, what would hare been
NO. LI.
