Page images
PDF
EPUB

man, it is bad: the law not only withdraws its countenance, but mulets you in damages.

If the slave-trade is to be regarded as piracy, Great Britain's present position is right. If it is not, then the law which so denounces it ought to be repealed.

I should be glad, if time permitted, to discuss the question of slavery in its local aspects, and show how it elevates the white man. How, instead of degrading the non-slaveholder in the social scale, as has been asserted, it elevates him; and how, instead of reducing the wages of his labor, it increases them. I should be glad to show how it is that in all non-slaveholding communities capital competes directly with labor, and why it is that exactly the reverse is true in all communities where slavery exists. But all this I must reserve for some other occasion.

I have been asked to state my views as to the future of the Union, and I will do so with the utmost freedom and frankness. In twenty years I have not changed my opinion as to the great fact, that you must give up the Union, or give up slavery. That they can and ought to exist together in harmony, and be, as they have been, mutually beneficial, is certainly true; but that they will not, is, in my judgment, just as true. The sentiment of hostility to the South and its institutions, is widening and deepening at the North every day. Those who tell you otherwise are themselves deceived, or they wilfully deceive you. Twenty years ago, this sentiment was confined to a few fanatics; now it pervades all classes, ages, and sexes of society. It is madness to suppose that this tide is ever to roll back. To-day, Seward, the great arch spirit of Abolitionism, marshals his hosts. In twenty years he has not changed his plan. He means to bring the Union, with all its power and patronage, its prestige and its glory, into direct conflict with slavery. The day of battle cannot much longer be delayed. When it comes, when the power of the Union is turned against slavery, when its arm is raised to strike down the South, I know not where other men will stand, but for myself, I will stand where I have always stood, on the side of slavery and the South.

I was raised in awe, in almost superstitious reverence of the Union. But if the Union is to be converted into a masked battery for assailing my property and my domestic peace, I will destroy it if I can; and if this cannot be done by a direct assault, I would resort to sapping and mining. This is plain talk. I mean that you should understand me, and that others shall know where I stand. Now, as in 1850, I do not fear the consequences of disunion. I do not court it, but I do not dread it. On the 30th of January of that year I said :

"The South afraid to dissolve the Union-why should we fear? Are we not able to take care of ourselves? Shall eight millions of people, with more than one hundred millions of dollars in annual products, fear to take their position among the nations of the earth? Neither Old England or New England will make war on us—our cotton bags are our bonds of peace."

Nearly nine years have passed away, and the convictions of 1850 have been strengthened by each year's experience.

It is futile, if, indeed, it is not puerile, to attempt a compromise of the slavery question. The difference between the North and South is radical and irreconcilable. Discussion has only served to exasperate the feelings of the two sections, and every attempt to adjust their differ

ences by congressional compromise, has but widened the breach between them. In a much-abused speech, pronounced by me at Elwood Springs, near Port Gibson, on the 2d of November, 1850, I said :—

"We are told that our difficulties are at an end; that, unjust as we all know the ate action of Congress to have been, it is better to submit, and especially is it better ince this is to be the end of the slavery agitation. If this were the end, fellowitizens, I might debate the question as to whether it would not be the better policy. Such is my love of peace, such my almost superstitious reverence for the Union, that might be willing to submit if this was to be the end of our troubles. But I know t is not to be the end.

*

*

*

*

"Look to the success of the Free-Soilers in the late elections. Listen to the notes of preparation everywhere in the Northern States, and tell me if men do not wilfully deceive you when they say that the slavery agitation is over. I tell you, fellowcitizens, it is not over."

I then predicted that the compromise would be observed just so long as it suited the purposes of the North to observe it, and no longer. Whether that prediction has been verified, I leave to the decision of all men of all parties.

What is there in the future to encourage the South? The enemy is growing stronger every day, that is true. But thanks to the good sense of our people, we are becoming more united. The day is not far distant when we will stand in the breach as one man, determined to do or die in defence of our common heritage. Never within my recollection has the South stood so closely united; and seeing this, I feel encouraged. Still, I would now, as in 1850, give Cromwell's advice to his army: Pray to the Lord, but keep your powder dry."

66

I have undiminished confidence in the soundness of Democratic theories; and I believe now, as I have always believed, that the Democratic party is the only national party on which the country can rely. Indeed, since the disruption of the old Whig party, it is the only one which has a decent claim to nationality. But I will not so far stultify myself as to say that all who claim to be National Democrats are worthy of confidence. I utterly repudiate the men of seven principles-the five loaves and two fishes men-the men who expect a great deal of bread for very little Democracy. I will fellowship with no such Swiss guard. They will be at Charleston, and if they carry the day, it will be time for honest men to retire.

It is expected of us, I suppose, that we are to go into the convention at Charleston for a presidential candidate for 1860. I am not overhopeful of good results following from that convention, and yet I am willing to go in and try what can be done. That we should get a sound platform and sound candidates, I do not question. That we shall elect our candidate is probable-that we shall sustain him after he is elected, is not probable. National Democracy has not the cohesive power it had in the days of Jackson, else General Pierce would not have been sacrificed at the North for doing his duty, and Mr. Buchanan would not now be abandoned for standing square on the platform of his party. Still, so long as they give us sound platforms and sound candidates upon them, I do not see what better we can do than meet them in national convention.

A few partial friends have connected my humble name with the presi dency; I thank them for their kindness, but I am not deceived as to my true position. No man entertaining the sentiments I have expressed to

day, can be elected President of the United States. I never doubted that a camel might go through the eye of a needle, but I am wholly incredulous as to any man who entertains sound views on the subject of Southern rights, ever being crowded into the presidential chair. He may entertain sound views, and keep them to himself, or he may so disguise them in general verbiage, as to make them palatable. But, if his views are sound, and he expresses them with the boldness of a freeman, and the independence of a man, he seals his prospects for ever.

No, no; I have no silly aspirations for the presidency, and, therefore, have no occasion to suspect that my judgment has been warped by ambition-I am ambitious, but my ambition does not lead me towards the presidency. That is the road to apostacy; I would rather be the independent senator that I am, and speak for Mississippi, than be president, and be subject to the call of every demagogue, and compelled to speak for a heterogeneous mass, with as many opinions as the rainbow has hues. Whenever the South can no longer rely on the National Democracy, and feels that the time has come for her to go it alone, I will stand for her, if she can find no son more worthy of her confidence. But I will never consent to compromise my principles, or flatter FreeSoilers for their votes. When it comes to that, I stand out.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 20, 1859, ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD.

BEFORE the vote is taken, I have a word or two to say, but I have no intention of making a speech. I understand, from the course which the debate has taken, that the constitutionality of this measure is made to depend on its necessity for the purposes of military defence. I yield very much to that argument; but I have resting on my own mind a very clear and distinct conviction that when you undertake to justify an appropriation from the national treasury, on the ground of necessity, that necessity must be direct and absolute, or it must be so probable that in the mind of a reasonable man, it is likely to occur. A remote and contingent necessity does not, and in my judgment cannot, justify the exercise of a doubtful constitutional power.

And, sir, in addition to this suggestion, I have to say that where appropriations are made on the ground of necessity, they must not exceed the occasion which requires the exercise of the power. If there be a direct and immediate necessity for building this road as a means of national defence, I agree that Congress can make the appropriation; but I believe no one has pretended that any direct or immediate necessity does exist. Then is there such a contingent necessity as, in the judgment of the Senate, is so likely to occur, that you are called upon to make the appropriation? I think all will admit that if there be a contingent necessity at all, it is very remote and very uncertain. It may occur next year, or ten years hence, or it may never occur. But, admitting that there may be a remote contingency--a remote probability

that the road will be necessary--does the amount called for to construct the work bear any reasonable proportion to that remote and uncertain contingency? I have said heretofore, and now repeat, that if every necessity which gentlemen may imagine has arisen or can arise, justifies the exercise of this power, I do not see where it is to stop; I do not see but that one may suppose there is a necessity for building a railroad to any point that you may name, for military defence, and therefore you have, according to the argument, the power to do it.

In this case I see no direct or immediate necessity; I see no remote necessity which justifies me in giving a vote in favor of this proposition; and, if I did, I should still say that the amount of money required to construct the road is of too great magnitude to justify me in giving it to meet the necessities of the case.

My friend from Missouri [Mr. Green], the other day, wanted to know of me where I got the power to construct a fortification. Well, sir, I will take the fortification in Virginia which he mentioned-Fortress Monroe. It is necessary for the defence of the town of Norfolk which lies above it. But suppose the town of Norfolk was worth $10,000,000, and it would require $100,000,000 to construct the fortification: then I would rather give up the town than construct the fortification; because the expenditure would so far exceed the necessity of the case as not to justify me, under the Constitution, in voting for it. That is, if I put the case as a mere matter of dollars and cents. I agree to the proposition that, wherever an appropriation is necessary, absolutely necessary to the national defence, you must have the power to make it; but I see no such absolute necessity in this case. I go further, and admit that, if the necessity is so probable that by applying a just and fair discrimination to the case, it appears to be a necessity likely to arise, then you may make the appropriation, provided the amount of money asked for does not greatly exceed the necessity of the case. But I cannot agree that every supposed, ideal, or imaginary necessity, justifies appropriations from the national treasury.

And now, Mr. President, upon another point; that is, the point of difference between the powers of the government over the territories and the states. I have stated heretofore, and now reiterate, I hope more distinctly than I have expressed it before, because I want to be understood on the point, that if it be admitted that Congress has the power to make an appropriation to construct a railroad in a territory, I know of no reason why Congress cannot make appropriations to construct railroads in the states, except this, that by going into the states you violate the sovereignty of the states. I hold that a state is the guardian of its own sovereignty; and if the state, by memorial, expressed through a convention of its people, invites the federal government to make a road, I do not see but that the whole difficulty is avoided. You do not go into the state according to the argument, simply because, in doing so, you violate its sovereignty. If the state waives the right, it seems to me the argument is avoided. I strike the question lower down. I deny the right of the federal government to exercise this sort of authority over the treasury except upon the grounds that I have already stated—that is, a necessity immediate or so proximate that a prudent man would prepare to meet it. I deny your right as much to construct an unnecessary road in a territory, as I deny it to construct an unnecessary road in the

states. And I assert that the necessity must be immediate and pressing, and not remote and contingent; and that the appropriation must bear some proper relation to the necessity of the case.

I content myself with asserting that if you have the power to make appropriations for the construction of a railroad in a territory, you have the same power to make appropriations to construct railroads in a state, when you have the consent of the state expressed through its sovereignty. I yielded the point the other day, as a debatable one at least, that the legislature and governor cannot speak for the sovereignty of a state; but if the state, in convention, shall make it a part of her organic law, that a railroad may be constructed within her limits, then, for the life of me, I cannot see how the sovereignty of the state is outraged by the federal government doing that which the sovereign invites her to do. I do not see that the rights of my state are violated at all by your doing what she, speaking through a convention of her people, invites you to do.

It has been suggested, in the course of the argument, that the consent of the state could neither enlarge nor diminish the powers of the federal government. That is simply a truism. Indeed it cannot, in any proper sense. And yet, it is true, you may do that within the limits of a state, with the consent of the state, which you cannot do without it.

It has been said, in the course of the argument, that the federal government must have the assent of the state before you can establish arsenals, dock-yards, navy-yards, &c., within the limits of the state. That is true-and it is just as true that you cannot do these things without the consent of the state. I dare say that if railroads had been known when the Constitution was established, they would have been included in the same catalogue. Railroads belong to the same class as navy-yards, dock-yards, arsenals, &c.; and if they had been known at the day when the Constitution was framed, I dare say they would have been enumerated. I put railroads in the same category with dock-yards, arsenals, &c. You can establish a navy-yard within a state, by the consent of the state; so you may establish an arsenal with the consent of the state; and so if you have the power to make the appropriation at all for a railroad; if you have the power over the treasury which authorizes you to make the appropriation, I hold that you can make it as well in a state, with the consent of the state, as in a territory. But I say again, I strike the question lower down, and deny the power to use the national treasury for this purpose, except in such cases as I have named; that is, in cases of direct or immediate necessity, not in cases of remote and contingent necessity; and then your appropriation must be confined to the necessity of the case; and if it exceeds it, I hold it is as much a violation of the Constitution to make the appropriation as to usurp a clear and distinct power.

It may be necessary to have a navy; but will anybody pretend that because you must necessarily have a navy, you can therefore build a thousand ships? Would not that be a violation of the Constitution-as clear a trespass on the power given you as would be the usurpation of a distinct right? You have the right to have an army; but suppose you should propose to band the whole population into an army: would not that be a violation of the Constitution, as much as to usurp any given. power? I hold that even your granted powers are to be exercised with due and proper discretion, and with proper regard to the necessity of the case in hand.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »