The New Jersey
Resolutions.

Latham's Views.

Thursday, in both Houses, was a landmark | the provision, that citizens of each State are in the legislative history of the revolution. entitled to all the privileges in every State. On that day Mr. Seward, in the Senate, and He would not prohibit the transportation of Mr. Adams, in the House, made their last and slaves through the States, but would prohibit utmost bids for peace. Representing the the traffic in African slaves. If disunion dominant party and the incoming Adminis- comes, the baseness of the act would only be tration, their declarations assumed even more equalled by its stupendous folly. But, he than usual significance. The replies of Ma- would not say disunion, for it could not come. son and Wigfall, also, embody the sentiments Nations do not die easy; man, in his mad entertained by the revolutionists at this time. folly, may attempt the destruction of the Their conjoined speeches will, therefore, Union, but humanity denounces the act, and serve, in an historical view, as a resumé of the God would not permit it. practical position of the two sections and Mr. Latham's views posparties. We shall, in consequence, dissever sessed interest, apart from them from our current Congressional record, their intrinsic nature, as an and accord them the more proper position of exposition of the feeling of his far-removed a special chapter. [See Chapter XXI.] State, in regard to the crisis. He adverted In the Senate session of to the loyalty and devotion of California to Friday, February 1st, the the Union. Lying in the arms of the Sierra NePresident's Message being vadas, she was removed from the evils which under consideration, Latham, (Dem.,) of Cal- might come upon some sections, but was not, ifornia, expressed his views at length on the therefore, a disinterested spectator of events state of the country. Previous to the Mes- when the Union was in danger. Disunion! sage being called up, Ten Eyck, (Rep.,) of It was never pronounced by Calhoun; it was New Jersey, presented the joint resolutions a crime which the boldest ventured even to of the New Jersey Legislature, [see page 251,] infer, only a short time since; now it was faexpressing a willingness to accept the Crit-miliar as a household word to American ears. tenden Resolutions, advising a Convention of the States, appointing Commissioners to Washington, and instructing Members of Congress from the State to act in accordance with the resolutions of the Legislature. Mr. Ten Eyck said he owed a higher duty to the country than to the State. He refused to be instructed to the extent of having his actions controlled by the Legislature; a machine would do as well as a man, if he was to be ordered from Trenton. But, these particular instructions he should particularly hesitate to obey, because he did not believe they presented the feelings of the people of New Jersey. The Legislature, by an accidental vote, had undertaken to instruct Senators here against the will of a majority of the people. He would not be shackled in such a way. He objected to the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, because they provided an unconstitutional mode of amending the Constitution. He was willing to have an efficient law for the rendition of fugitives, and to repeal all laws interfering with such law; but he would insist on the effectual carrying out of

The great fact was upon us, as the empty seats in the Senate would testify. Whatever the cause, it only remained now for legislators to meet the crisis with words and deeds calculated to heal the great discord reigning, and to restore peace and harmony once again.

He then proceeded to a discussion of the causes, and to suggest the cure. Secession, as a constitutional right, he considered a fallacy--there could be no such thing. It was revolution, as Mr. Toombs properly characterized it. The right of revolution undoubtre-edly was inherent in man, but must as strenuously be denied by Government. A recognition of that right would be to sign the death-warrant of Government. It must depend for its justification upon its success-its failure will recoil upon its leaders. But, as this Government was founded upon the principle of the consent of the governed, it was the right of that class to decide for itself its own relations, if the question were viewed merely as a personal matter. Viewed, however, in all its relations, it was a question to be decided by all partics affected by its solution.

Latham's Views.

MR. LATHAM'S VIEWS.

309

Latham's Views.

He reviewed the causes | submitted by Messrs. Critof the estrangement of the tenden, Bigler and Douglas, two sections, and found in but proposed that offered the Republican party the centralization of a by Mr. Rice, of Minnesota, as the one best calsentiment on the question of Slavery at once culated to give peace and harmony to the insulting and injurious to the South. There country [see p. 232.] He drew a sad sketch of prevailed, to a limited extent, a conservative the results depending upon the settlement of feeling among a large class in the party; but, the question. If the agitation were to increase the one cardinal principle of the organization, and war was to threaten, one thousand milof enmity to Slavery, was logically and sen- lions of dollars would not cover the loss, in sibly construed as enmity to the South. the way of depreciated property, paralyzed Acting in unison, the Slave States were rap- commerce, crippled manufactories. His peridly concentrating this opposition to their oration was as follows: enemies in the formation of a Government all their own, wherein the radical sentiment of the North could no longer interfere for their disaster. To resort to brute force in order to "conquer the South to obedience," was unworthy of men of this enlightened century. If we granted the power of the majority to rule, even to the employment of force, might instate mob law at any moment, anywhere. It would produce its legitimate fruits of disorganization if conceded to any majority which might band together to effect any specific purpose. The property, the peace of the few might be at the mercy of the many, who are ever in the majority. No! Our Government was one of peace-founded upon the consent of the governed; and, when six States rise up and proclaim their resolve to govern themselves, the question of authority must not be met by force.

"A Government sustained only by force, must, from its very nature, be arbitrary, or must soon become a despotism, and in the disorganization and general chaos, we shall be happy if we escape foreign intervention, and are spared the humiliating sight of a European soldiery perambulating in triumph the streets of our once proud Atlantic cities. For what reason shall all these calamities befall us? Why shall we thus, in the midst of unparalleled success-in the full vigor of our national youth, for we have not yet reached even man's estate-become possessed of such a legion of devilsa prey to such insanity as to wilfully shatter our own household gods-to heap the ashes of our own hearth-stone on our devoted heads, and, with spiteful hands and flaming torches, set fire to and destroy that friendly and wide-spreading roof that has so sheltered all true Liberty's children in the whole world-casting to utter and eternal destruction the hopes and elevated aspirations of mankind? I implore you, Senators, as others have done before me,

Peaceful remedies he considered possible nay, within their reach. The Democratic party of the North were friends and allies of the South. They had but to unite their forces, to forget their own unhappy and useless divisions, to inaugurate a great Constitutional party, which would sweep all before it at the ballot-box. A divided country he could only contemplate with horror. The pictures presented by the other Senators of the results sure to follow the downfall of the Government were not overdrawn. It could only be palliated by the peaceful formation of two new confederacies, which, patriots, sages, and heroes of the Revolution might though disunited with themselves, were one speak to us, for whom while living they so toiled to the world. A peaceful separation was and labored, and spilled freely their heart's-blood, demanded, if all efforts at compromise must how they would implore us to pause and retrace our fail. steps from this perilous brink of destruction and fraHe approved of the several propositions | ternal strife! How would the voices of Washington,

by everything dear to our hearts and sacred to our consciences, not to turn a deaf ear to the voice of the people, calling upon us, from all sections, to pause in our political career, and to prove to the North and to the South, and to the civilized world, that our hearts and our minds expand with the magnitude of the subject on which we are called to deliberate; that our patriotism can rise above party considerations; that when the honor, dignity, and existence of our institutions are at stake, there is no sacrifice of personal vanity, or the narrow sphere of partisan politics, that we are not eager, nay, proud to make, to save our common country. Senators, neficent Providence that the shades of our departed if from the realms on high it were vouchsafed by a be

The report of the Comsub-mittee of Thirty-three being resumed, Mr. Hamilton, (Democrat,) of Texas, addressed the House in a speech characterized by good sense and a spirit of kindness quite in contrast

Hamilton's Speech.

MR. HAMILTON'S SPEECH.

by the adoption of the Constitution, on any State, or the citizens of any State, growing out of that Consti

311

Hamilton's Speech.

in fact, there was no State that | in concert? Hamilton recould secede. Then could it be plied that the right of revosaid that the right of secession lution was not defined by was one of the reserved rights of the States, when it any geographical lines. Not only any State did not exist prior to the formation of the Govern- might rebel, but any number of persons in a ment? Certainly not. There was no right conferred, State had the same right, if any such right existed at all. All persons could resort to revolution, if they were prepared to take the consequences. The only justification for the violent act was to be found in oppression, which it needed violence to correct. Did any such oppression exist? He said not. No grievance of which the South complained, which could not have been remedied in the Union! Nor did he believe the grievances of such a nature as to justify a withdrawal of the public confidence in the good faith of the Government. The South had a right to demand that the North should treat them with fairness, and that they should receive protection for their slave property in transit in the Territories. The Republicans themselves admitted that the Constitution recognized property in slaves.

tation, or on the part of any State, or the citizens of any State, growing out of that compact, that was not permanently provided for by the Constitution, either in precise or general terms. Were this and the other proposition true, then it followed that no constitutional or legal right of secession existed at all. The right of revolution he admitted; but that right could not be exercised properly, unless it was exercised to oppose oppression and tyranny. The question of moral right depended on that of oppression; and no person had a right to revolutionize

against a Government until the Government had become oppressive. Then, if secession involved all the consequences of revolution, why quarrel about

the terms?"

He therefore declared that those States which had seceded, or were preparing so to do, must take the consequences of revolution. That they were acting most despotically and recklessly, for the interests of other States, he asserted to be true. He contended, with much force, that the most despotic power in Europe would not dare to change its Constitution or form of government, whereby its relations would be changed with other powers, and the interests of others would be affected, without first consulting those peoples or nations so affected. Thus, Louisiana had seceded, and, by that act, had cut off the State of Texas from the still existing States of the Union. Now this was one of the most flagrant breaches upon the rights of others that had ever come under his knowledge. Had Texas foreseen the likelihood of a secession of this kind-had she, for a moment, imagined that this right of secession existed in the States, and that, by virtue of it, Louisiana could, at any moment, have seceded from the Union-Texas would never have joined the Confederacy.

This forcible argument appealed with such power to the common sense of his hearers, that Hindman, of Arkansas, sought to parry its force by reverting to the inherent right of revolution. He asked Hamilton if it were only to be allowed when several States acted

To this Lovejoy, of Illinois, dissented. Mr. Hamilton asked whether or not he (Lovejoy) believed that the Constitution recognized the right of Southern men to the service of those who owed them labor? The Illinois member replied that, in his view, Slavery, so far as the Constitution was concerned, existed outside of that instrument, under the protection of State rights, which the Constitution had nothing to do with, one way or the other.

Hamilton replied that he saw no use in the Constitution, if it guaranteed protection to nothing but what was first protected by State laws. It was contended, on the other side, that Congress had the right to exercise power on the subject of Slavery, as between the States, so far as trade, in that property, was concerned, and that it had the right to deal with it, without restriction on the question, in the Territories, all which the South denied. He had ever admitted, even since 1836, and at a time when no other man in his State dare dispute the dictation of politicians-he had ever contended, since that time, that the people of a Territory had themselves the power of dealing with Slavery as a domestic institution, to be established