I rise, Mr.
President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have
satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of
her people, in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the
United States. Under these circumstances, of course, my functions are
terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in
the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very
little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my
physical condition would not permit me to do so, if it were otherwise; and yet
it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here
represent on an occasion as solemn as this.
It is known to Senators who have served with me here that I have for
many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the
right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had thought that
Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing
necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my
allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her
action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has
justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people
before that act was taken, counseled them then that, if the state of things
which they apprehended should exist when their Convention met, they should
take the action which they have now adopted.
I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the
advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its
constitutional obligation by the nullification of the law. Such is not my
theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed,
antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply
within the Union, against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified
when the agent has violated his constitutional obligations, and a State,
assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and
appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but, when the States
themselves and when the people of the States have so acted as to convince us
that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the
first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.
A great man who now reposes with his
fathers, and who has often been arraigned for want of fealty to the Union,
advocated the doctrine of nullification because it preserved the Union. It was
because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union -- his determination to
find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which
bound South Carolina to the other States -- that Mr. Calhoun advocated the
doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within
the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of
bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.
Secession belongs to a different class
of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are
sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope that time may come
again when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the
inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from
denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which
it has made to any agent whomsoever.
I, therefore, say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing
it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if
my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which
I wish, on this last occasion, to present to the Senate. It is by this
confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man whose
ashes now mingle with his mother earth has been invoked to justify coercion
against a seceded State. The phrase, "to execute the laws," was an expression
which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws
while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented.
The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the
United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a
perversion of terms -- at least, it is a great misapprehension of the case --
which cites that expression for application to a State which has withdrawn
from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State. If it be the purpose of
gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the
Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the
limits of a seceded State. A State, finding herself in the condition in which
Mississippi has judged she is -- in which her safety requires that she should
provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union -- surrenders all
the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the
advantages (and they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection
(and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union; and thus
divesting herself of every benefit -- taking upon herself every burden -- she
claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States
within her limits.
I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and
when the doctrine of coercion was rife, and to be applied against her, because
of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that
it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in
my opinions because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion
as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present
conduct is based. I then said that if Massachusetts -- following her purpose
through a stated line of conduct -- chose to take the last step, which
separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote
one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but I will say to her, Godspeed, in
memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other
States.
It has been a conviction of
pressing necessity -- it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the
Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought
Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that
all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon
her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has
been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That
Declaration is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for
which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the
people of those communities were asserting that no man was born -- to use the
language of Mr. Jefferson -- booted and spurred, to ride over the rest of
mankind; that men were created equal -- meaning the men of the political
community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the
right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended
to families; but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each
member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced;
these were the purposes for which they made their Declaration; these were the
ends to which their enunciation was directed. They had no reference to the
slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment against
George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been
endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the
Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the
prince to be arraigned for raising up insurrection among them? And how was
this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever
their connection with the mother-country? When our Constitution was
formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable; for there we find provision
made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the
equality of footing with white men -- not even upon that of paupers and
convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated
against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion
of three-fifths. So stands the compact which binds us together.
Then, Senators, we recur to the principles upon
which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us
the right to withdraw from a Government which, thus perverted, threatens to be
destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we
proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility
to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own
pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and
protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our duty to transmit
unshorn to our children.
I find in myself perhaps a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours.
I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators from the North. I am sure
there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between
us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and
such, I feel, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom
you represent. I, therefore, feel that I but express their desire when say I
hope, and they hope, for peaceable relations with you, though we must part.
They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the
past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of
the country, and, if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our
fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the
ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God and in our firm hearts
and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.
In the course of my service here, associated at different
times with a variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have
served long; there have been points of collision, but, whatever offense there
has been to me, I leave here. I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever
offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction
has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer
you my apology for any pain which, in the heat of discussion, I have
inflicted. I go hence unencumbered by the remembrance of any injury received,
and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for
any injury offered.
Mr. President and Senators, having made the
announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for
me to bid you a final adieu.