How is this body const.i.tuted? Do we, its members, represent the people of the several States? Have they had an opportunity to elect delegates, to select those in whom they had confidence and whom they could trust? Not at all. Why should we a.s.semble here and express our wishes to Congress in reference to the Const.i.tution without permitting California, Oregon, or many other States not here represented, to unite in our deliberations? I cannot a.s.sent to such an unfair proceeding toward other States.

Suppose one-half the States should request Congress to propose amendments, will Congress agree to it? No, sir. The Const.i.tution provides that Congress shall not propose amendments without the consent of two-thirds of the States. Congress has not deemed any amendments necessary, so far as we know, and yet a majority of the committee of this body ask Congress to propose the amendments on our responsibility alone. It appears to me, then, that this proceeding must be regarded not as one known to the Const.i.tution, but as a revolutionary proceeding. All the States are not represented here, nor have all had an opportunity to be so represented. Some of us are acting under the appointment of the Legislatures of our States; other delegates are simply appointed by the Executives of their States and are acting without any legal authority. We are not standing upon equal ground; some are only acting upon their own judgment; others are acting under instructions from their several Legislatures. If the Virginia Legislature itself were here, its action would differ materially from the present views of the delegates from that State.

But how is this? The Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia make the statement that unless these questions are settled, and settled soon, there is danger of the disruption of the Union. Admit this to be so, and it furnishes no reason for changing the mode of proposing const.i.tutional amendments. The Const.i.tution knows no such danger. It is a self-sustaining Const.i.tution, and was supposed to contain within itself the power to secure its own preservation. The Const.i.tution ought not to be amended without the deliberate action of the people themselves. I cannot and I will not disregard their rights. I cannot recognize the claim that the secession of a State, by an ordinance of its Convention, can carry either the State or its people out of the Union. There is no such thing as _legal_ secession, for there is no power anywhere to take the people out of the protecting care of the Government, or to relieve them from their obligations to it.

And where is the clause in the Const.i.tution that authorizes the call upon Congress to do what Congress is asked to do here? The Const.i.tution was adopted "to form a more perfect Union." The people were not to be allowed to alter it, except in the two modes prescribed in it. The Convention which adopted it did not propose that changes should be made in it without ample time for deliberation and discussion. We are here, then, simply as conferees from States expressing our individual opinions. We are now asked to recommend to Congress amendments to our fundamental law; we have no more right to do so than members of the so-called Southern Confederacy. We, a mere fraction of the people, propose to unite in bringing a pressure upon Congress, which shall induce it to propose these amendments. This was not one of the modes contemplated or provided by the framers of that sacred instrument.

General WASHINGTON presided over the Convention which prepared our Const.i.tution. None knew better than he the reasons which made its adoption necessary to the preservation of the Government--none knew better the dangers which would probably surround it in after years. In that last counsel of his to the American people--his Farewell Address--a paper drawn up with the greatest deliberation, embodying opinions which he entertained as the result of a long life of active study and reflection, he warns us against all such proceedings as those contemplated by the majority of the committee. I am sure the delegates from Virginia will not now refuse to listen to the words of that ill.u.s.trious man, uttered upon the most solemn and momentous occasion of his life. Hear his words:

"Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel."

Again:

"But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress, against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Are not these admonitions at the present moment peculiarly worthy of our attention? And with them before us, can we invoke the action of Congress for the alteration of the fundamental law of the Government in any other ways than those provided in the Const.i.tution? I earnestly hope not. If we act at all, let us act in that regular method which gives time for consultation, for consideration, and for action among the people of all the States. It appears to me, that in adopting the line of policy proposed by the majority of the committee, we are doing the very thing which WASHINGTON warned us not to do.

He said further:

"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts, can be an adequate subst.i.tute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Const.i.tution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unmoved, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and _containing within itself a provision for its own amendment_, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Const.i.tutions of Government. But the Const.i.tution which at any time exists, _till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole_ people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

And again:

"Toward the preservation of your Government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you should steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of a.s.sault may be to affect in the forms of the Const.i.tution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human inst.i.tutions."

And still further:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the const.i.tutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Const.i.tution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."

If we adopt the majority report here, we attempt to correct the Const.i.tution by an amendment in a way which, the Const.i.tution does _not_ designate. WASHINGTON says if there is any thing wrong, let it be corrected in a const.i.tutional way; and that, sir, is just what Kentucky has said, and that is what every loyal State will say.

Kentucky has inaugurated this proceeding, and it is one eminently worthy of her--true as she has always been to the Union. I cannot disregard this action of her Legislature. I do not think any exigency exists which requires us to disregard it. I am ready, and my State is ready, to confer with other States in reference to the Const.i.tution, when asked to do so in any of the modes pointed out by that instrument.

Entertaining these opinions, and with these convictions, I should be untrue to my sense of duty to the Government and the State I represent, and to the people of the United States, if I should consent to disregard the Const.i.tution and my obligations to it.

I have stated these considerations because they are powerful enough to influence and control my course. Others must act upon their own convictions. I have come to the conclusion that I ought to submit this minority report with distrust, and with distrust only, because so many of the able statesmen composing the majority of the committee have seen fit to adopt different views. My report leaves every thing to the people, where I think every such question should be left. When they consult together and decide in the const.i.tutional way I shall bow to their decision, whatever it may be.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I do not propose to follow the gentleman (Mr. BALDWIN) through all the ramifications of his speech. I have made the Const.i.tution my study for many years, and I have looked at the causes which give it strength and the causes which give it weakness. I believe that our fathers organized this Government in great wisdom.

Its strength was in the affections of the people. It never had any other strength, and it was never intended it should have. It was not intended to be sustained by standing armies. Its strength was intended to be placed in the affections of the people, and I had hoped it would endure forever. Without the affections of the people it is the weakest Government ever established. The people! What a spectacle do we witness now! One portion of the people has lost confidence in the Government, and now seven States have left it. The Government cannot realize that they are gone. We have established the right of revolution, and that right gave to the world this splendid Government.

This was the first precedent; it will stand for all time. It will always be acted upon when the people have lost confidence in the Government. I _hate_ that word secession, because it is a cheat! Call things by their right names! The Southern States have framed another Government; they have originated a _revolution_. There is no warrant for it in the Const.i.tution, but it is like the right of self-defence, which every man may exercise. The gentleman from Connecticut has forgotten that the Government made Congress the recipient of pet.i.tions. Why was this? It was that Congress might be influenced by the wishes of the people and act upon them.

We are twenty States a.s.sembled here. Congress has been in session more than two months. The Government is falling to pieces. Congress has not had the sagacity to give the necessary guarantees, the proper a.s.surances to the slaveholding States. This session will make a shameful chapter in the history of this Government, to be hereafter written. Why should this Congress refuse to give the people guarantees? The proudest Governments in the world have been compelled to give their people guarantees.

We are a.s.sembled here to consult, and see what can be done; to consult as representatives of the States. Is there any impropriety in our stating what would restore confidence, to our putting this in writing, and to our proposing the plan of restoration we think should be adopted to Congress, and asking Congress to submit that plan to the people? Are we not the representatives of the people, sent here to do what we think ought to be done, and to ask Congress by way of pet.i.tion to repair the foundations of the Government? It is all legitimate, and legitimate in the most technical sense.

Suppose we ask Congress to act on this proposition. We come directly from the people. We ask Congress to submit a plan which we think will save the Government, to the people. Is this taking any advantage of the States? _They_ can take all the time they wish for deliberation, and we can bring no pressure to bear on them. In these times of great peril and trouble, we ask Congress, backed by the moral force of the States we represent, to act and save the country.

Two or three years hence will not answer. The foundations of the Government are undermined and growing weaker every day, and if the people who may give to it the necessary repair and strength do not do so, they will be called to a fearful account. When the building is on fire, it is no time to inquire who set it on fire. The North say the South did it, and the South say the North did it.

We are all interested in this Government; we love the Const.i.tution; we love the Union; we want to repair it--we want to lay the foundation for bringing back the States who have left us, by reason and not by the sword. The delay which the gentleman proposes is too long; the Const.i.tution has provided a shorter way. In adopting that we are only recognizing the right of pet.i.tion.

I, sir, will answer to Kentucky; I don't want the gentleman to come between me and the people of Kentucky. He has no right to speak for the people of that State--her representatives here have that right and will exercise it. Why were these resolutions pa.s.sed? Because Congress had failed to provide the means needful to our safety. The resolutions under which the Kentucky delegation came here were pa.s.sed on the 29th, not the 25th of January. They were pa.s.sed after the resolutions to which the gentleman refers. They ought to be regarded, as they are in fact, as the deliberate expression of the Legislature of Kentucky in favor of this Conference. In them it is stated that Kentucky heartily accepts the invitation of her old mother Virginia. She acts in no unwilling spirit, she hastens to avail herself of any opportunity to save the Government. She believes a favorable opportunity is offered by this Conference. I repeat again: Adopt the report of the majority of the committee and I will answer to Kentucky. I will go farther. I will answer that Kentucky herself will adopt the very proposals of amendment to the Const.i.tution contained in the committee's report.

But the gentleman insists that the action proposed is not only improper but that it is _revolutionary_. I deny that it is revolutionary. It is no more revolutionary than any other form of pet.i.tion. It is a pet.i.tion sustained by the moral force of twenty States--a pet.i.tion which Congress will not disregard.

But if the report of the majority is revolutionary, what of the gentleman's report? Is that provided for by the Const.i.tution? Is that according to the forms of the Const.i.tution? No, sir. Every argument he has brought against the report of the majority, applies with equal force to his own. His views will answer for those who are willing to stand by and see this Government drift toward destruction--to see this country involved in civil war. It will answer for those who will oppose all action, and who wish to do nothing at all. His report is a new excuse for inaction. It will not answer for us.

Sir, we are acting under a fearful responsibility. The eyes of every true patriot in the nation are turned toward this body. The people are awaiting our action, with anxious and painful solicitude. They know and we know that, unless the wisdom of this Conference shall devise some plan to satisfy the people of the slaveholding States--to quiet their apprehensions, a disruption of the Government is inevitable. If we adopt the gentleman's views, go home and do nothing, we take the responsibility of breaking up the Government.

I do not propose to discuss the merits of the majority report at the present time. I have only sought to answer the arguments of the gentleman against our acting at all. But I claim that this way of proceeding is entirely irregular. The report of the gentleman is not in order. The report of the majority was first presented, and should be first acted upon. I move to lay the report of the gentleman from Connecticut upon the table.

Mr. LOGAN:--I would ask Mr. GUTHRIE to withdraw his motion. If the motion were adopted it would prevent discussion. It was expected that we were to discuss the subject to-day. It is not of much consequence which report is first acted upon. They are all before the Conference, and the merits of all of them are under discussion.

Mr. GUTHRIE withdrew the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky, took the chair.

Mr. CURTIS:--I am a member of the present Congress; I have faithfully attended its deliberations, and have anxiously watched its course. Mr.

GUTHRIE will find that there are other and different objections to the line of policy he proposes, to which he has not alluded, and which he does not understand. But they are objections which have determined, and will determine, the action of Congress. I would ask Mr. GUTHRIE if the adoption of his propositions, previous to their action, would have prevented the States which have already seceded from going out.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it would have prevented them; all but South Carolina. I did not intend to a.s.sail Congress, or any member of it, personally.

Mr. CURTIS:--I do not agree with the gentleman. We know, and the gentleman knows, that there has been for a long time a purpose, a great conspiracy in this country, to begin and carry out a revolution.

That has been avowed over and over again in the halls of Congress. Can you expect a member of Congress to do more than reflect the will of his const.i.tuents, the will of his people? Would you have him do any thing different? There were forty or fifty different propositions before the Congressional Committee of Thirty-three. There are many here. There are many difficulties attending the solution of this question in every respect. But we may as well speak plainly. I cannot go for the majority report of the committee, and among other reasons, for this reason: Their proposition makes all territory we may hereafter acquire slave territory.

Mr. JOHNSON:--No; such is not the fact.

Mr. CURTIS:--I have read it, and such is my construction.

Mr. JOHNSON:--Such is not the intention.

Mr. CURTIS:--Any future territory which we acquire must be from the south; we have extended as far as we can to the north and the northwest.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Will you agree to divide all future territory?

Mr. CURTIS:--I will do almost any thing to save the Union. I will reflect the will of my const.i.tuents. I think it ought not to be divided equally, but the South ought to have its share. There is another trouble. Look at the difficulty of getting any proposition through Congress. Congress has only fifteen days of life. I ask you, even with general unanimity, if you can hope to pa.s.s at this session any new proposals of amendments? If you do, you will get along faster than is generally the case. There is one proposition before Congress that I believe can pa.s.s. It is the Adams proposition, to admit all the territories south at once. It is already slave territory. It is now applying for admission. If this is acceptable to the South, I will go for it. We are bound to admit it under the ordinance of 1789.

Mr. GOODRICH:--Do I understand my friend to claim that the ordinance of 1789 involves a proposition to divide the territory?

Mr. CURTIS:--I understand that in connection with the subsequent legislation it does.

Mr. GOODRICH:--The concession of territory from North Carolina contains a prohibition from acting on the subject of slavery in the territory ceded.

Mr. CURTIS:--I agree entirely with the gentleman. I am opposed to slavery, but we must divide the territory. Let us leave slavery where it is, and admit the territory for the purpose of settling the question. I do not agree with Mr. GUTHRIE that this Government depends on the will of the people. It is a self-supporting government; it will support itself. There is no justification for the action of the seceded States, and I cannot agree that Congress is responsible for their action. The secession plot was formed before Congress a.s.sembled.

There _was_ a power to check it. If our President had acted as Jackson did, there would have been an end of it. The day for hanging for treason has gone by. We must look at things as they are. Even in battle the white flag must be respected. Let this subject be frankly discussed in a conciliatory manner. If any State has the right to go out of the Union at its own volition, then this Government, in my opinion, is not worth the trouble of preserving. The President is sworn to protect and uphold the Government. So long as there is a navy, an army, and a militia, it is his sworn duty to uphold it--to uphold it as well against an attack from States as from individuals.

The Government is one of love and affection, it is true, but it is also one of strength, and power. Where was there ever a more indulgent people than ours? Our forts have been taken, our flag has been fired upon, our property seized, and as yet nothing has been done. But they will not be indulgent forever. Beware, gentlemen, how you force them further. Gentlemen talk about the inefficiency of Congress; I wish there was some efficiency in the Executive. If there was, or had been, our present troubles would have been avoided.

Mr. TURNER:--I do not understand that the report of the majority is applicable to future territory. I move the recommitment of the report, to have that question settled.