CONFEDERATE STATES. 



121 



CONFEDERATE STATES. At the 3d ses- 

 sion of the llth Congress, in 1811, the dissolu- 

 tion of the Union was spoken of for the first 

 time by a member from the State of Massa- 

 chusetts, as a possible event of the future. The 

 manner in which this was received by that 

 Congress seemed to indicate that it was looked 

 upon by them almost with sentiments of abhor- 

 rence. The circumstances are interesting at 

 this time. The bill to form a Constitution and 

 State Government for the Territory of Orleans, 

 and the admission of such State under the name 

 of Louisiana into the Union, was under consid- 

 eration. 



Mr. Quincy, of Massachusetts, in opposition to 

 the bill, said : i; I am compelled to declare it as 

 my deliberate opinion, that if this bill passes, 

 the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved ; 

 that the States which compose it are free from 

 their obligations ; and that, as it will be the 

 right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to 

 prepare definitely for a separation, amicably, 

 if they can, violently, if they must." 



Mr." Quincy was here called to order by Mr. 

 Poindexter. 



Mr. Quincy repeated and justified the remark 

 he had made, which, to save all misapprehen- 

 sion, he committed to writing, in the following 

 words : ' If this bill passes, it is my deliberate 

 opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of this 

 Union ; that it will free the States from their 

 moral obligation ; and as it will be the right of 

 all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to 

 prepare for a separation, amicably, if they can, 

 violently, if they must." 



After some little confusion, Mr. Poindexter 

 required the decision of the Speaker, whether 

 it was consistent with the propriety of debate, 

 to use such an expression. He said it was radi- 

 cally wrong for any member to use arguments 

 going to dissolve the Government, and tumble 

 this body itself to dust and ashes. It would be 

 found, from the gentleman's statement of his 

 language, that lie had declared the right of any 

 portion of the people to separate. 



Mr. Quincy wished the Speaker to decide, 

 for if the gentleman was permitted to debate 

 the question, he should lose one-half of his 

 speech. 



The Speaker said that great latitude in de- 

 bate was generally allowed ; and that*by way 

 of argument against a bill, the first part of the 

 gentleman's observations was admissible ; but 

 the latter member of the sentence, viz., " That 

 it would be the duty of some States to prepare 

 for a separation, amicably if they can, violently 

 if they must," was contrary to the order of 

 debate. 



Mr. Quincy appealed from his decision, and 

 required the ayes and noes on the appeal. 



The question was stated thus : " Is the deci- 

 sion of the Speaker correct ? " And decided, 

 ayes, 53 ; noes, 56. 



Occasionally the subject was alluded to in 

 the progress of time, until it was regarded as a 

 deed to be abhorred, but yet such as might be 



both possible and necessary under some circum- 

 stances of wrong and oppression. 



The war with Great Britain in 1812, was so 

 destructive to the commercial interests of the 

 New England States, that they, to a great ex- 

 tent, withheld and refused their cooperation 

 with the Federal Government. In Massachu- 

 setts, the State authorities took decisive meas- 

 ures to prevent the Federal Government from 

 obtaining volunteers. Separation from the 

 Union was discussed and advocated. 



Finally public sentiment became so .strong 

 that a Convention was held at Hartford, in the 

 State of Connecticut. It was convened to con- 

 sider the state of affairs, and to devise a remedy. 

 "What its view of public affairs might be, and 

 what would be the remedy it might suggest, 

 was too well known to the public to admit of a 

 doubt. Its sessions, like those of the Conven- 

 tions in the seceding States, were held in secret, 

 or with doors closed against every one except 

 members of the Convention. Whatever were 

 the recommendations of this body, no public 

 action took place upon them, in conseqnence of 

 the cessation of hostilities, and the speedy con- 

 clusion of peace with Great Britain. 



The result of this Convention was to recog- 

 nize and reaffirm the principle or doctrine 

 which had hitherto been unofficially, and only 

 by individuals announced, that a separation of 

 the States, or a dissolution of the Union, or 

 rather a withdrawal of a State or States from 

 the Union, could, under some circumstances, be 

 rightful and just. This justification would be 

 found to arise from acts of oppression and 

 wrong persistently enforced by the Federal 

 Government. So slow were the people of the 

 United States to recognize the right of revolu- 

 tion as against their own admirably formed 

 system of government, and so attached and 

 loyal were they to this system of government, 

 that the members of the Convention at Hart- 

 ford were ever after refused all public favor, 

 and carried with them the frowns of the people 

 down to their graves. 



The institution of domestic slavery had always 

 been repugnant to a large number of conscien- 

 tious persons in the Northern and Southern 

 States, but more extensively in the former. Upon 

 the application of the State of Missouri to be- 

 come a member of the Union in 1819, opposi- 

 tion was made, which was based upon hostility 

 to the extension of the institution of slavery. 

 At this time the strife ran so high as to present 

 to the consideration of the people the ques- 

 tion of a separation of the States, and render it 

 more familiar to their minds. This difficulty 

 was satisfactorily adjusted. 



The subject now disappeared from the pub- 

 lic mind until the years 1831 and '32, when the 

 State of South Carolina took the ground that 

 the tariff act passed by Congress in 182S, was 

 not only unconstitutional, but so unjust and 

 oppressive in its operation against her that 

 it should not be executed within her limits. 

 The issue joined in this case did not present 



