PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



595 



reason for an immediate dissolution of the Union. It 

 is true that the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, on 

 1 of February, 1SGO, passed, in great haste, an 

 act, over the veto" of the Governor, declaring that 

 slavery "is, and shall ..be, forever prohibited in this 

 Territory." Such an act, however, plainly violating 

 tbc rielits of property secured by_ trie Constitution, 

 will surely be declared void bv the judiciary whenever 

 it shall be presented in a legal form. 



Only three days after my "inauguration, the Supreme 

 Court of the United States" solemnly adjudged that this 

 power did not exist in a Territorial Legislature. Yet 

 such has been the factious temper of the times that the 

 correctness of this decision has been extensively im- 

 1 before the people, and the question has given 

 rise to angry political conflicts throughout the country. 

 Those who have appealed from this judgment of pur 

 highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies, 

 would, if they could, invest a Territorial Legislature 

 with power to annul the sacred rights of property. 

 This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the 

 Federal Constitution to exercise. Every State Legis- 

 lature in the Union is forbidden by its own Constitu- 

 tion to exercise it. It cannot be exercised in any 

 State except by the people in their highest sovereign 

 capacity when framing or amending their State Con- 

 stitution. In like manner, it can only be exercised by 

 the people of a Territory, represented in a convention 

 of delegates, for the purpose of framing a Constitu- 

 tion preparatory to admission as a State into the 

 Union. Then, and not until then, are they invested 

 with power to decide the question whether slavery 

 shall or shall not exist within their limits. This is an 

 act of sovereign authority, and not of subordinate Ter- 

 ritorial 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 the shifting majorities of an irresponsible 

 Territorial Legislature, Such a doctrine, from its in- 

 trinsic unsoundness, cannot long influence any con- 

 siderable portion of our people; much less can it 

 afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union. 



The most palpable violations of constitutional duty 

 which have yet been committed, consist in the acts of 

 different State Legislatures to defeat the 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. Having 

 been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution, 

 they are therefore null and void. All the Courts, both 

 State and National, before whom the question has 

 arisen, have, from the beginning, declared the Fugi- 

 tive Slave Law to be constitutional. The single excep- 

 tion is that of a State Court in Wisconsin ; and this 

 has not only been reversed by the proper appellate 

 tribunal, but has met with sucfi universal reprobation 

 that there can be no danger from it as a precedent. 

 The validity of this law has been established over and 

 over atrain by the Supreme Court of the United States, 

 with perfect unanimity. It is founded upon an express 

 provision of the Constitution, requiring that fugitive 

 slaves who escape from service in one State to another, 

 shall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without 

 this provision it is a well-known historical fact that 

 .the Constitution itself could never have been adopted 

 by the Convention. In one form or other, under the 

 acts of 171*3 and 1850, both being substantially the 

 same, the Fugitive Slave Law has been the law of the 

 land from the days of Washington until the present 

 moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented, in 

 which it will be the duty of the next President, as it 

 has been my own, to act with vigor in executing this 

 supreme law against the conflicting enactments of 

 State Legislatures. Should he fail in the performance 

 of this high duty, he will then have manifested a dis- 

 regard of the Constitution and laws, to the great injury 

 of the people of nearly one-half of the States of the 

 Union. But are we to presume in advance that he will 

 thus violate his duty? This would be at war with 

 every principle of justice and of Christian charity. 



Let us wait for the overt act. The Fugitive Slave Law 

 has been carried into execution in every contested 

 case since the commencement of the present Adminis- 

 tration ; though often, it is to be regretted, with great 

 loss and inconvenience to the master, and with con- 

 siderable expense to the Government. Let us tru.-t 

 that the State Legislatures will repeal their uncon>!i- 

 tutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall 

 be done without unnecessary delay, it is impossible 

 for any human power to save the Union. 



The Southern States, standing on the basis of the 

 Constitution, have a right to demand this act of jus- 

 tice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, 

 then the Constitution, to which all the States are par- 

 til.-, will have been wilfully violated by one portion of 

 them in a provision essential to the domestic security 

 and happiness of the remainder. In that event, the 

 injured States, after having first used all peaceful and 

 constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justi- 

 fied in revolutionary resistance to the Government of 

 the Union. 



I have purposely confined my remarks to revolu- 

 tionary resistance, because it has been claimed, within 

 the last few years, that any State, whenever this shall 

 be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from 

 the Union, in Accordance with the Constitution, and 

 without any violation of the constitutional rights of 

 the other members of the Confederacy ; that as each 

 became parties to the Union by the vote of its own 

 people assembled in convention, so any one of them may 

 retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote 

 of such a convention. 



In order to justify secession as a constitutional 

 remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal 

 Government is a mere voluntary association of States, 

 to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contract- 

 ing parties. If this be so, ttie Confederacy is a rope of 

 sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first ad- 

 verse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In 

 this manner our thirty-three States may resolve them- 

 selves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile repub- 

 lics, each one retiring from the Union, without respon- 

 sibility, whenever any sudden excitement might impel 

 them "to such a course. By this process, a Union 

 might be entirely 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 the his- 

 tory as well as the character of the Federal Constitu- 

 tion. After it was framed, with the greatest delibera- 

 tion and care, it was submitted to conventions of the 

 people of the several States for ratification. Its 

 provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, 

 composed of the first men of the country. Its oppo- 

 nents contended that it conferred powers upon the 

 Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the 

 States ; while its advocates maintained that, under a 

 fair construction of the instrument, there was no 

 foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty 

 struggle between the nrst intellects of this or any 

 other country, it never occurred to any individual, 

 either among its opponents or advocates, to assert, or 

 even to intimate, that their efforts were all vain labor, 

 because the moment that any State felt herself ag- 

 grieved she might secede from the Union. What a 

 crushing argument would this have proved against 

 those who dreaded that the rights of the States would 

 be endangered by the Constitution ! The truth is, 

 that it was not until many years after the origin of the 

 Federal Government that such a proposition was first 

 advanced. It was then met and refuted by the con- 

 clusive arguments of General Jackson, who, in Las 

 message of the Iflth of January, 1S33, transmitting 

 the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Con- 

 gress, employs the following language : " The right of 

 the people of a single State to absolve themselves ar 

 will, and without the consent of the other States, from 

 their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberty 

 and happiness of the millions composing this Union, 

 cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed 

 to be utterly repugnant both to the principle upon 



