"I would not have a slave to till my ground, To watch me when I wake--to fan me when I sleep;"

and much more of the same stuff!

In this way false ideas are inculcated throughout the North. The whole scheme is full of falsehood. It would be far better for each man to look for the beam in his own eyes before he troubles himself about the mote in his neighbor's.

England, also, has been very fierce in denouncing slavery in this country, and yet we have no slavery or misery to be compared with that existing in the India provinces. It is said that in a single season two hundred thousand of her subjects were starved to death in one province of Hindostan.

I might say the same thing almost of Ireland. Two millions have died there from famine, and G.o.d knows how many more would have perished but for the relief sent from this country. I say, and I have abundant reason for saying, that I never have, and I never will, favor any of these denunciations of southern slaveholders and slavery.

Let us rather look at this subject as members of a common family--let us acknowledge our mutual faults. The slave trade was once fostered by the North. That was when it was profitable, and when large fortunes were made in that trade by northern men. When it became unprofitable the North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now, we fastened this inst.i.tution upon the South, cannot we permit her to deal with it as she chooses?

I do not say that there is a necessary conflict between the white and the black races, but I a.s.sert that they cannot unite--that they cannot occupy the same country upon an equality. Our free laborers of the North will not work with slaves or with blacks. I have had experience in this matter, and I know I am right. The only way we can do, is to divide the common territory--divide it fairly, honestly.

Suppose there were two sons who succeeded to a joint inheritance of lands. One says to the other, "Your family is not so moral as mine, therefore your sons shall have none of the lands." Would this be right or honest? Would any one attempt to justify it? And yet this is what extreme men of the North are practically saying to the citizens of the South.

The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the rights of the respective sections in the territories. The line adopted was not unfair to the North. The same line will answer now. I am for adopting it and arranging this difficult subject finally.

But one and another says, "Don't let us extend slavery." To that I answer, that our action will not make one slave more or less. There is no question of humanity involved in our propositions. I cannot see what question is involved so far as the North is concerned. We need no more territory. We do not want New Mexico. We have territory enough now for one hundred and fifty millions of people, and enough for the expansion of our people for one hundred and fifty years.

If gentlemen are found here who wish to make trouble, who cannot see the peril we are in, and how easily we can avoid the danger which threatens us, I shall be much pained, but not half so much as I shall be, to see this Union broken up and the Government destroyed.

I was surprised to hear the a.s.sertion of the gentleman from Connecticut, that this was an unconst.i.tutional a.s.sembly. I hear to-day the statement made that it is a revolutionary a.s.sembly. If these a.s.sertions were true I would not be a member of it for one moment. If revolutionary, it is either treasonable or seditious. But it is neither. These gentlemen forget the const.i.tutional right of pet.i.tion.

We have the right to meet here. We have the right to do just what we are proposing to do, and the right is to be found in the Const.i.tution.

I am surprised, too, at the a.s.sertion, that there is a wish here to limit or cut off debate--that this resolution would cut off New York.

Would it not cut off Ohio? I have no intention of depriving any gentleman or any State of any right. I do not believe such an intention exists in the Conference.

Mr. MORRILL:--In my judgment many subjects have been considered here, and many things said to the North especially, that are superfluous, and much more that is useless. I have listened to the gentleman from Ohio and to some gentlemen who have preceded him. They have all referred, in terms which I do not choose to characterize, to the action and the opinions of the North.

The gentleman from Ohio refers in strong terms to what he calls the sentimentalism of the North. He has recited poetry which he says is popular there.

Now, once for all, let me ask those gentlemen who are proposing various methods of settling our differences: Do you propose to make war upon the _sentiments_, the _principles_ of the North? If you do, we may as well drop the discussion here. Our people, and we, their representatives, cannot meet you upon that ground. Our principles cannot be interfered with; we carry them with us always. Our consciences approve them. We can negotiate with you, and treat with you upon subjects which do not involve their sacrifice. If it is your purpose to attack them, you may abandon all other purposes so far as this body is concerned. The people of the North will never sacrifice their principles. It is useless for you to ask them to do so. It is entirely useless for you to urge war upon the sentiments or opinions of the North.

Again; let me tell you there is no disloyalty in the free States. The word dissolution has not been thought of there during the last half century. In all your discussions, in all your action, remember that we are loyal to the Const.i.tution and the Union.

Strong appeals are made here to the free States. You call them by the general name of the Northern States. Gentlemen undertake to pledge different sections to this or that policy. We are told that New York--that Ma.s.sachusetts--that Pennsylvania will adopt or will not adopt various propositions that are made here.

Sir, in my judgment all such questions are unworthy of our consideration. We spend time to little purpose upon them. The true question here is, "What will Virginia do? How does Virginia stand?"

She to-day holds the keys of peace or war. She stands in the gateway threatening the progress of the Government in its attempts to a.s.sert its legal authority. Evade it as you may--cover it as you will--the true question is, "What will Virginia do?" She undertakes to dictate the terms upon which the Union is to be preserved. What will satisfy her?

Mr. CLAY:--Has not Virginia spoken? Has she not already told us what she wants?

Mr. MORRILL:--I am coming to that point very soon. I a.s.sert again that Virginia must not be misunderstood in this matter.

The peril of the time is _Secession_. Six States are already in revolution. A distinct confederacy, a new government, has been organized within the limits of the United States.

Does Virginia to-day, frown upon this atrocious proceeding? No! so far from that she affirms that these States have a right to do what they have done. She boasts that she has armed her people, that she has raised five millions of money, and that she will use both to prevent the interference of the National Government with these States, now in revolution. Whether her course will conciliate the free States--whether under such circ.u.mstances the free States will negotiate with Virginia or others in her position, I leave for others to consider. It is my opinion that the people of this country will first of all _demand the recognition of the supremacy of the Government_.

Mr. RUFFIN:--No! I do not understand such to be the position of Virginia. She appeals to both sides to refrain from violence while these negotiations are pending.

Mr. SEDDON:--No! A little farther than that. Virginia _will not permit coercion_. She has plainly declared she will not. But in the very highest spirit of patriotism, she has asked for this Convention, and she proposes to exhaust the very last means of restoring peace to the Union. This is exactly her position. She hopes, and I hope, that this Convention will interpose to preserve the peace and to save this country from war.

Mr. MORRILL:--I thought I did not misunderstand the position of Virginia. She is armed to the teeth, and she now proposes to step in between the Government and the States. I understand her att.i.tude. It is an att.i.tude of menace. It gives aid and comfort to those who trample upon the laws and defy the authority of this Government.

No action of the Conference can be consummated for months: I might almost say for years. Any propositions we may make must go to the people. They must and will take time for consideration. Endeavor to force their action and you will secure the rejection of the terms proposed. While the people are acting you will have a Government and it must operate. It must operate not upon a section only, but upon the whole country. During this time, does Virginia propose to maintain the position she has a.s.sumed? To prevent by force of arms the execution of the laws of the Union in the seceded States? Yes, and we are told that her position is one exhibiting the highest patriotism. In my judgment her position is one of menace, and not of pacification. If I rightly understand her, nothing that is here proposed to be done will satisfy her even if adopted.

And now I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SEDDON) a plain question, and I wish to receive a frank answer. If this Conference agrees to the amendments proposed by the majority of the committee, will Virginia sustain the Government and maintain its integrity, while the people are considering and acting on the new proposals of amendment to the Const.i.tution? If she will not do this, if this proposition does not meet the heart of Virginia, there is no use--

Mr. SEDDON:--I can let Virginia speak for herself. She has spoken for herself in most emphatic language. She has told you what will satisfy her in the resolutions under which this body is convened. I have no right whatever to suppose that she will accept less. She is solemnly pledged to resist coercion. She will resist it to the very last extremity. She arrived at that conclusion after grave deliberation, and it was attended with every manifestation of concurrence on the part of the people. I have no reason to suppose there was any hesitation at the time, or that there has been any change since, or that there is any hesitation in her purpose now.

Now, if the gentleman wants my private opinion, I will tell him that whether the propositions of the majority of the committee or her own be adopted here, or by the people, the purpose of Virginia to resist coercion is _unchanged_ and _unchangeable_.

Mr. HITCHc.o.c.k:--I rise to a point of order. It appears to me that this discussion is very foreign to the subject before the Conference. It is so long since that subject has been named, that many have doubtless forgotten it. The question is upon the adoption of the resolution limiting the debate. I think we had better keep to the question.

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman is undoubtedly correct in his statement of the question, but the discussion of the general subject has been permitted to go on without objection by the Convention, and I do not think it would be right to stop it now.

Mr. SEDDON:--I said the position of Virginia was unchanged. She considers this a Government of love and not of force. She thinks there should be no force or coercion used toward any sovereign State acting in its collective capacity. She does not propose to permit such coercion to be used.

And now, having answered the gentleman frankly, as he desired, I wish to ask him a question, and I wish also an explicit and frank answer.

My question is this: Is it the purpose or is it the policy of the incoming administration to attempt to execute the laws of the United States in the seceded States by an armed force? The answer to this question involves information of the utmost importance to my State and others whose interests are involved with hers. It should be at once communicated, and especially to my part of the country. I now ask the gentleman, if he knows what the purpose of the incoming administration is in this respect, to state it here, and now. His relations to some of the officers elected will ent.i.tle his opinions to grave consideration. I invite a full and frank answer to my question.

Mr. MORRILL:--There is a point in the gentleman's answer which may as well be met, but I will not be diverted from the question I was discussing. I will show him in a moment why I cannot answer his inquiry from any personal knowledge of my own.

Sir, I was endeavoring to ascertain what was the present position of Virginia; to find out what she would accept and be contented. I wanted her to speak emphatically. She has done so. I now understand from Mr.

SEDDON, that he has no a.s.surances to give that Virginia will accept the propositions of the committee, and that while any propositions are pending she will resist the enforcement of the laws in the seceded States.

Then let it be understood that Virginia _has_ spoken. That she makes the Crittenden resolutions her _ultimatum_, that she must have them and all of them, that nothing less will satisfy her. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is idle for us to stay here, useless for us to discuss the various propositions which are made here, unless we expect to satisfy Virginia.

It is important for us to understand her position. I do not under-estimate her influence. When the propositions of this Conference are presented to the people of the free States, the first question they will ask is, "Will Virginia adopt them? Will she be satisfied with them?" If she will not, there will be no action upon them. If she will, her position will exercise a powerful influence upon the people of the North in favor of their adoption.

But if Virginia puts her ancient Commonwealth across the path of the Government, if she stands between the administration and the enforcement of the laws, the execution of its official duty, its positive obligations--if this is the manner in which she proposes to mediate, her mediation will be accepted nowhere. Such I understand to be the position she a.s.sumes. It is a position of menace.

Mr. STOCKTON:--If the gentleman from Maine wants to get up a row, we are ready for him. He shall have enough of it right here! I should like to know why he makes such charges against Virginia? They are unfounded; we don't wish to hear them.

(There was at this point considerable confusion in the Conference, which was promptly suppressed by the PRESIDENT.)

Mr. MORRILL:--Gentlemen need not be disturbed or excited. I have accomplished my object. I know now what to expect from Virginia; the North will know what the course of Virginia is to be, and we can all act understandingly. I do not propose to waste valuable time in idle discussions in this hall, when we can come to the true point at once.

I do not propose to talk around this question, nor to deceive or mislead the Conference. Other gentlemen may think differently, but I now understand Virginia to say, that the Federal authority shall not be reestablished by the ordinary means, (where it is resisted) in certain of the States comprised in the Federal Union.

I will now answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia, in relation to the proposed policy of the incoming administration. I have no personal knowledge upon this subject. Mr. LINCOLN I never saw in my life. I know nothing of his opinions, except from his speeches; but I will say, that if he and his administration do not use every means which the Const.i.tution has given them to a.s.sert the authority of the Government in all the States--to preserve the Union, and the Union in all its integrity, the people will be disappointed. I have felt and now feel the importance of the action of Virginia, and I have done what I could to learn here what we may expect from her.

In conclusion, let me say, that unless we can have the earnest concurrence of the slave States in whatever we do, and especially unless we have the heart of Virginia with us, our action will give no peace to the country.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER moved that the Conference adjourn. The motion was lost by a _viva voce_ vote.

Mr. BROWNE:--I think we have debated these matters long enough. Let us come back to the question before us. Personally I am in favor of limiting debate to the shortest time, for I feel the necessity for prompt action. I think if Mr. RANDOLPH would strike out the latter clause of his resolution, requiring the final vote to be taken on Thursday next, we should have no difficulty in agreeing to it. Its adoption in its present form might cut off some delegation or some gentlemen from speaking at all. I would not do this. Let every one speak, but let the speeches be short. I move to strike out the last clause of the resolution.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I did not expect to raise such a storm by introducing this resolution. I now ask to withdraw it and stop the debate.