form, from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at.
I had many props to support it through that period, which are now decayed and crumbled away. . . .
. . .
. . . Passion has helped us, but can do no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason—cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason—must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense. Le those materials be molded into general intelligence, sound morality, and, in particular, a reverence for the Constitution and laws. . . .
Source: http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/line a69.htm.
DOCUMENT 33: The Seventh of March Speech: Daniel
houn], that the North has prospered at the expense of the South . . . in the collecting of its revenues. . . . But I will allude to the other complaints of the South . . . that there has been found at the North, among individ- uals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their con- stitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the South, in my judg- ment, is right, and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and the article of the Con- stitution which says to these States that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as binding in honor and conscience as any other ar- ticle. . . .
. . .
Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be dis- solved, than the declaration of opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible.
I hear with distress and anguish the word ‘‘secession,’’ especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession!
Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convul- sion! . . . Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. . . . Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir!
I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe,in its twofold character.
Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary separa- tion, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what should be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to be seceded?
What is to remain American? What am I to be? An american no longer?
Am I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no coun- try in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of Congress? . . . Why, sir, our ancestors . . . would re-
buke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. . . .
. . .
And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility or util- ity of secession . . . let us enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union. . . . Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to come. . . . No monarchical throne presses these States together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man’s liberty; it has crushed no State. Its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and re- nown. . . .
Source: http://www.dartmouth.edu/⬃dwebster/speeches/seventh-march.html.
DOCUMENT 34: John C. Calhoun, the Compromise of 1850, and State Autonomy, First Session of Congress, 1850
In 1850, controversy over the territory the United States acquired during the Mexican War came to a head and nearly led to disunion.
In a speech before Senate colleagues, John C. Calhoun of South Car- olina addressed the causes of disunion. He warned that the causes were beyond the issue of slavery, although he found that issue to be at the heart of disagreement between the North and the South. At the center of his concern about the threat of disunion was the encroachment of the national government on the rights of the states.
As a leading politician and political theorist for the South and its most eminent spokesperson, Calhoun outlined the causes of the threat of disunion. He framed the frustrations of the South in the context of the change in equilibrium between the South and the North and the radical change in the national government’s character. He referred to the shift from a federal system to a consolidated system as a primary cause of the threat of disunion. His reference to documents of the 1780s reinvigorated the ideas expressed by Federalists and Antifederalists dur- ing the debates surrounding ratification.
* * *
Mr. Calhoun: I have Senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of each of the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a period when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest questions that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?
To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispen- sable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without familiar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause of the disease. The first question, then, presented for consideration, in the investigation I propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is: What is it that has endangered the Union?
To this question there can be but one answer: that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States compos- ing the southern section of the Union. This widely-extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. The next question, going one step further back, is: What has caused this widely-diffused and al- most universal discontent?
It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians, who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes.
On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section. Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense forces which this cause exerted against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But, as great as it was, it was not sufficiently so to prevent the
wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. No; some cause, far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed, must exist, to account for discontent so wide and deep. The question, then, recurs:
What is the cause of this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question to be considered is: What has caused this belief?
One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued agitation of the slavery question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. . . .
There is another, lying back of it, with which this is intimately con- nected, that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. That is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections in the Government, as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Gov- ernment put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the Govern- ment, which leaves the other without any means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. . . .
. . .
The result of the whole is to give the northern section a predominance in every part of the Government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which constitute the Federal Government—a majority of States and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. What- ever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire Government.
. . . [The] great increase of Senators, added to the great increase of members in the House of Representatives and the electoral college on the part of the North, which must take place under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when the Government was commenced.
Had this destruction been the operation of time, without the interfer- ence of Government, the South would have had no reason to complain;
but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this Gov- ernment. . . . [T]he original character of the Government has been radi- cally changed. . . . [T]he equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed [by a series of government acts], and the whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority.
The first of the series of acts by which the South was deprived of its due share of the territories, originated with the Confederacy, which pre- ceded the existence of the Government. It is to be found in the [North-
west] ordinance of 1787. . . . The next of the series is the Missouri compromise, which excluded the South from that large part portion of Louisiana. . . . The last of the series excluded the South from the whole of the Oregon Territory. . . .
I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it. . . .
Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections in the Government. . . .
. . .
But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections,the action of the Government was leading to a radical change in its character, by concentrating all the power of the system in itself[italics added]. . . .
That the Government claims, and practically maintains, the right to decide in the last resort as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political history of the country.
That it also claims the right to resort to force to maintain whatever power she claims, against all opposition, is equally certain. Indeed, it is appar- ent, from what we daily hear, that this has become the prevailing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. Now, I ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a Government claiming and exercising such rights? And, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the States maintain and protect the powers reserved to them by the Constitution[italics added], or the people of the several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sov- ereign powers by which they ordained and established, not only their separate State constitutions and governments, but also the Constitution and Government of the United States? But, if they have no constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this Govern- ment, it necessarily follows that they hold them at its pleasure and dis- cretion, and that all the powers of the system are in reality concentrated in it. It also follows that the character of the Government has been changed, in consequence, from a Federal Republic, as it originally came from the hands of its framers, and that it has been changed into a great national consolidated Democracy. It has indeed, at present, all the char- acteristics of the latter, and not one of the former, although it still retains its outward form.
The result of the whole of these causes combined is, that, the North has acquired a decided ascendancy over every department of this Gov- ernment, and through it a control over all the powers of the system. . . . Source: Speech of John C. Calhoun,Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st session, 1850, pp. 451–452.
DOCUMENT 35: William H. Seward, the Compromise of 1850, and an Appeal to a Higher Law, First Session of Congress, 1850
William H. Seward was a U.S. senator from New York. The ‘‘Wizard of the North’’ entered into debate with Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina during the Compromise of 1850. Although the debate between Calhoun and Seward centered around whether the Mexican cession lands would be slave or free, their discourse ultimately focused on the issue of states’ rights and federalism. Seward described the or- igins of the Constitution as an equilibrium but in a different way than Calhoun did (see Document 34). Seward argued that an acceptance of Calhoun’s plan would return the nation to the period of the Articles of Confederation.
* * *
Allowing due consideration to the increasing density of our popula- tion, we are safe in assuming, that long before this mass shall have at- tained the maximum numbers indicated, the entire width of our possessions, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, will be covered by it, and be brought into social maturity, and complete political organization.
The question now arises, Shall this one great people, having a common origin, a common language, a common religion, common sentiments, interests, sympathies, and hopes, remain one political State, one nation, one Republic, or shall it be broken into two conflicting, and probably hostile nations or Republics? There cannot ultimately be more than two;
for the habit of association is already formed, as the interests of mutual intercourse are being formed. It is already ascertained where the centre of political power must rest; it must rest in the agricultural interests and masses, who will occupy the interior of the continent. These masses, if they cannot all command access to both oceans, will not be obstructed in their approaches to that one which offers the greatest facilities to their commerce.
Shall the American people then be divided? Before deciding on this question, let us consider our position, our power, and capabilities.
The world contains no seat of empire so magnificent as this. . . . The nation thus situated . . . must command the empire of the seas, which alone is real empire.
We think, that we may claim to have inherited physical and intellec- tual vigor, courage, invention, and enterprise, and the systems of edu-
cation prevailing among us, open to all the stores of human science and art.
The Old World and the past were allotted by Providence to the pu- pilage of mankind, under the hard discipline of arbitrary power, quell- ing the violence of human passions. The New World and the future seem to have been appointed for the maturity of mankind with the devel- opment of self-government operating in obedience to reason and judg- ment.
We have thoroughly tried our novel system of democratic Federal Government, with its complex, yet harmonious and effective, combina- tion of distinct local elective agencies, for the conduct of domestic affairs, and its common central elective agencies, for the regulation of internal interests, and of intercourse with foreign nations; and we know, that it is a system equally cohesive in its parts, and capable of all desirable expansion; and that it is a system, moreover, perfectly adapted to secure domestic tranquility, while it brings into activity all the elements of na- tional aggrandizement [glorification]. . . .
And now it seems to me, that the perpetual unity of our empire hangs on the decision of this day and of this hour.
California is already a State—a complete and fully-appointed State.
She never again can be less than that. . . . . . .
It is now avowed by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, (Mr.
Calhoun,) that nothing will satisfy the slave States but a compromise that will convince them that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. And what are the concessions which will have that effect? . . .
. . .
These terms amount to this: that the free States having already, or although they may hereafter have, majorities of States, majorities of pop- ulation, and majorities in both houses of Congress, shall concede to the slave States, being in a minority in both, the unequal advantage of an equality—that is, that we shall alter the Constitution so as to convert the Government from a national democracy, operating by a constitutional majority of voices, into a Federal alliance, in which the minority shall have a veto against the majority. And this is to return to the original Articles of Confederation!
I will not stop to protest against the injustice or the inexpediency of an innovation which, if it was practicable, would be so entirely subver- sive of the principle of democratic institutions. It is enough to say, that it is totally impracticable. The free States, northern and western acqui- esced, in the long and nearly unbroken ascendancy of the slave States under the Constitution, because the result happened under the Consti- tution. But they have honor and interests to preserve; and there is noth- ing in the nature of mankind, or in the character of that people, to induce