CONGRESS, U. S. 



209 



CO 



re 



I speak from and for the capital of the greatest 

 of the States of the great West. That poten- 

 tial section is beginning to be appalled at the 

 -;il strides of revolution. It has immense 

 interests at stake in this Union, as well from its 

 position as its power and patriotism. We have 

 had infidelity to the Union before, but never in 

 such a fearful shape. We had it in the East 

 during the late war with England. Even so 

 late jis the admission of Texas, Massachusetts 

 resolved herself out of the Union. That reso- 

 lution has never been repealed ; and one Avould 

 infer, from much of her conduct, that she did not 

 regard herself as bound by our covenant. Since 

 1856, in the North, we have had infidelity to 

 the Union, more by insidious infractions of the 

 Constitution than by open rebellion. Now, sir, 

 as a consequence, in part, of these very infrac- 

 tions, we have rebellion itself, open and daring, 

 in terrific proportions, with dangers so formi- 

 dable as to seem almost remediless. And I must 

 warn the people of Ohio that it is the well- 

 grounded fear, almost the foregone conclusion 

 of the patriotic statesmen here, that the work 

 of breaking up will go on, until the entire 

 South shall be arrayed against the entire 

 North." 



He then submitted these propositions for 

 consideration : 



SThat secession is not a right in any possible 

 lation in which it can be viewed ; to tolerate 

 it in theory or practice is moral treason to pa- 

 triotism and good government. That, while it 

 may not involve such direful consequences as 

 other revolutions, still it is revolution. That 

 every effort of conciliation should be exhausted 

 to check it, before force is applied. That, if 

 the North does not do her part fully in reces- 

 sion from aggression, it will be impossible to 

 unite the Northern people, or any portion of the 

 Southern people, in repressing secession. That, 

 if the South will make a patient endeavor, equal 

 to the great occasion, to secure her rights in the 

 Union, he believed that she would succeed ; and 

 if she was then repulsed, it would be impossible 

 for her to receive any detriment from the North, 

 hut she will depart in peace. If she go incon- 

 siderately, as some States are going, the country 

 may incur the fearful hazard of war. If the 

 South press the one hard overmastering question 

 upon the North, and follow it up with seizure 

 of forts and revenue, cannonading of our ves- 

 sels, and other aggressive acts, without giving 

 .n opportunity for conciliation, there will be 

 o power in the conservatism of the North to 

 restrain the people. No sacrifice will be con- 

 sidered too great to make in the protection and 

 defence of the Union. That, in the present 

 state of facts, so long as the revenues can be 

 collected on land or sea, and the forts and har- 

 bors can be commanded by the Federal Gov- 

 ernment, that Government must be, as to these 

 matters, the Government de facto, as well as 

 dejure; and that, so long as this status can be 

 maintained by the Executive, it should be done 

 by all the legal forces of the Government. 

 14 



Only when revolution becomes so formidable 

 as to be irresistible, would it be proper to in- 

 quire whether coercion would not be both sui- 

 cidal to the Union and criminal to mankind. 



Mr. Reagan, of Texas, replied to both the 

 preceding speakers. He endeavored to correct 

 some of the errors upon which the arguments 

 advanced against the South seemed to be predi- 

 cated : " We do rightly estimate the value of 

 the Union. We do rightly estimate the value 

 of the blessings of this Government. We have 

 loved and cherished the Union. Nobody has a 

 better right than I have, although I say so my- 

 self, to make that declaration. I have loved 

 the Union with an almost extravagant devotion. 

 I have fought its battles whenever they were 

 to be fought in my section of the country. I 

 have met every sectional issue, at home in my 

 section, and in my State particularly, which 

 was attempted to he forced upon the public 

 mind, and which I thought would mar the har- 

 mony of the Democratic party. I have fought 

 the battles of the Union without looking for- 

 ward to the consequences. I have fought them 

 in times when the result for the Union seemed 

 hopeless. If I could believe we could have se- 

 curity of our rights within the Union, I would 

 go home and fight the battles of the Union in 

 the future with the same earnestness and energy 

 that I have done in times past." 



The debate was further continued by Mr. 

 Adrain, of New Jersey, Mr. Anderson, of Mis- 

 souri, Mr. Garnett, of Virginia, and Mr. Gurley, 

 of Ohio. 



Mr. Garnett argued that peace might end in 

 reconstruction, but war was inevitable, eternal 

 separation. Supposing war might follow, he 

 submitted what he regarded as the true policy 

 of the seceded States, both in respect to a 

 blockade and an invasion : 



"I will suppose you have the naval force 

 necessary, and the revenues, without resorting 

 to loans or direct taxes to maintain it. I will 

 suppose the Southern people quietly submit to 

 it even for a year ; and imagine not that their 

 hearts would grow weary, or fail them, once 

 embarked in the great cause. They are the 

 sons of men who endured and suffered under 

 the entire military power of England for ten 

 years, and by endurance came out conquerors. 

 During that period of blockade they would 

 have abundant provisions ; for every man who 

 has studied the statistics of the country knows 

 that the South produces more food, in propor- 

 tion to her population, than the North. For 

 her, it would be the loss of income only ; and 

 while her cotton was thus held up for a single 

 year, what would be the consequences to New 

 England, whose whole supply is drawn froiri 

 the South ; to France, where Southern cotton 

 furnishes employment directly to some two 

 hundred and seventy thousand persons, and in- 

 directly to more than a million? Above all, 

 what would be the effect of this withdrawal 

 from Great Britain of three-fourths of the cot- 

 ton she uses, upon which, as the London Timet 



