-1 -.
a 
I II III I
W;L-j -~-;; 
A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW
OF THE LATE
-R BETWEEN THE
CAUSES, CHARACTER, CONDUCT AND RESULTS.
PRESENTED IN A'
SERIES OF COLLOQUIES
AT LIBERTY HALL.
BY
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
Times change and men often change with them, but principles never!
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL.1I.
NATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.; CINCINNATI, OHIO; ST. LOUIS, MO.;
BOSTON, MASS.; ATLANTA, GA.
ZEIGLER,  McCURDY  &  CO.,
CHICAGO, ILL.; ST. LOUIS, MO.
A
ITS 
P
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by
J.  R.  JONES,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
DEDICATION.
TO
The Memory of those whose lives in the late War
tween the States were sacrificed, either in Battle, in
ospital, in Prison, or elsewhere-in defence of the
,overeign Right of Local Self-government, on the part
of the Peoples of the several States of the Federal Union;
and in defence of those Principles upon which that
Union was established, and on which alone, it, or any
other Union of the States, can be maintained consistently with the preservation of Constitutional Liberty
throughout the Country-this Volume is most solemnly,
and sacredly dedicated! While others are, to-day, strewing flowers upon their graves, this oblation, with like
purpose and kindred emotions, is thus contributed by the
Author, to the same hallowed shrine!
Liberty IIall,
Crawfordville, Ga.,
26th April, 1870.
IV
40.
.I+   I                z%*    
A*
I 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS................To Fatce Title Page.
GUSTAVE T. BEAUREGARD................"  Page 39
ROBERT TOOMBS............................. 109
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS....................... 243
ABRAHAM LINCOLN (With Atutograph Letters)............... 266
JEFFERSON DAVIS..........................  340
ROBERT E. LEE.............................. " 3S2
JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON....................... " 471
ULYSSES S. GRANT.......................... " 596
0 
CO  N'T'E NTS.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................ r
COLLOQUY XIII.
BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT-SOVEREIGNTY AND PARA MOUNT AUTHORITY DISCUSSED BY MR. STEPHENS AND PROF. NORTON
-SOVEREIGNTY NOT DIVISIBLE BUT SOVEREIGN POWERS ARE-THE
WAR SPRUNG FROM A CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES-SLAVERY OR LEGAL SUBORDINATION OF THE BLACK RACE THE IMMEDIATE AND EXCITING
QUESTION WHICH BROUGHT THE PRINCIPLES IN CONFLICT-SLAVERY
AS IT EXISTED AT THEF SOUTH CONSIDERED-WHICH SIDE INAUGURATEDI
THE WAR DISCUSSED BY MR. STEPHENS AND JUDGE BYNUM-WAR N!
THE OBJECT OF THE CONFEDERATE AUTHORITIES-FALL OF FORT
SUMTER-SOUTH CAROLINA AS A SOVEREIGN STATE HAD A RIGHT TO
DEMAND ITS POSESSSION-BREACH OF FAITH BY NORTHERN CONFED ERATES-EVIDENCE DEMANDED BY MAJOR HEISTER-PROOFS ADDUCED
-SOUTHERN STATES EVER TRUE TO THE CONSTITUTION-WHICH SIDE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR DISCUSSED............................................
COLLOQUY XIV.
A NEW TURN IN THE DISCUSSION-NORTHERN STATES DEFENDED BY
JUDGE BYNUM-SLAVERY WITH ITS AGGRESSIONS REVIEWED BY HIM THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION-MISSOURI COMPACT ITS REPEAL-ACQUISITION OF LOUISIANA, FLORIDA AND TEXAS-LAWS
OF SOUTH CAROLINA IMPRISONING NORTHERN SEAMEN-TREATMENT
OF MR. HOAR IN CHARLESTON-JUDGE CHASERS PROPOSITION-SECES SION A CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT-CONCOCTED
AT WASHINGTON-DEFENCE OF NORTHERN STATES REPLIED TO BY MR.
STEPHENS AT LENGTH-LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA VINDICATED- THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION REVIEWED-CAUSES AS SIGNED BY CONVENTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR SECEDING-CAUSES
FOR SECESSION ASSIGNED BY MR. TOOMBS IN UNITED STATES SENATE.. 54
COLLOQUY XV.
REPLY OF MR. STEPHENS TO JUDGE BYNUM CONTINUED-MISSOURI COM PROMISE, SO-CALLED, CONSIDERED-MR. BUCHANAN'S STATEMENT IN
REFERENCE TO, REVIEWED-MR. CLAY'S POSITION IN REFERENCE TO,
STATED-NEVER REGARDED AS A COMPACT BY THE CENTRALISTS MISSOURI WAS NOT ADMITTED UNDER IT-THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT
WAS BASED UTTERLY REPUDIATED BY EVERY NOETHERN STATE-MANY
INTERESTING FACTS CONNECTED WITH IT EXHIBITED....................... 131
vi
17 
CONTENTS.
COLLOQUY XVI.
REPLY TO JUDGE BYNUM CONTINUED-COMPROMISE OF 1850 -FULL EX POSITION OF THIS NEVER BEFORE GIVEN-EXCITEMENT OF THE SESSION
-ELECTION OF SPEAKER IN THE HOUSE-POSITION OF A PORTION OF
SOUTHERN WHIGS -SPEECHES OF MR. TOOMBS-THE SENATE AT THAT
TIME-POSITION OF MR. CLAY, MR. WEBSTER, AND MR. CALHOUN MR. CLAY'S OMNIBUS BILL-PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY COMPROMISE
OF 1850, WAS THE ABANDONMENT OF TERRITORIAL DIVISION  BE TWEEN THE TWO GREAT SECTIONS OF THE UNION AND THE AFFIRM ANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NO CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTION UPON
ANY PORTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN-THIS PRINCIPLE ENDORSED
BY BOTH THE GREAT PARTIES AND BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES IN THE
ELECTION OF MR. PIERCE IN 1852..................................................... 176
COLLOQUY XVII.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED —COMPOSITION OF SENATE IN 185 —LEGISLATION
OF THAT YEAR-NO REPEAL OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE —IT WAS
CARRYING OUT THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN 1850-CLAMOR OF
RESTRICTIONISTSKANSAS WAR OF 1856-TRIUMPH OF THE PRIN CIPLE OF 1850 BY THE ELECTION OF MR. BUCHANAN-HIS DEPAR'URE
FROM THIS PRINCIPLE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT
TROUBLES..................   -..................... 241
COLLOQUY XVIII.
THE DISCUSSION TAKES ANOTHER NEW TURN-MAJOR HEISTER ASKS A
QUESTION WHICH PUTS MR. STEPHENS IN A NEW ATTITUDE OF
DEFENCE-REASONS GIVEN WHY HE DID NOT FAVOR SECESSION AS
A REDRESS OF WRONGSCORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN CALLED
FOR AND PRODUCED-CHARLESTON AND BALTIMORE CONVENTIONS
THE NEW PLANK IN THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM-MILLEDGEVILLE
UNION SPEECH —THE UNION PLATFORM IN SECESSION CONVENTION SPEECH IN THAT CONVENTION-IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT DOCTRINE
CONSIDERED............................................................................... 263
COLLOQUY XIX.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MAIN SUBJECT RESUMED-ACTION OF THE OTHER
SECEDING STATES BEFORE THE FALL OF SUMTER REVIEWED-THE
CONVENTION OF GEORGIA-HER ORDINANCE OF SECESSION-COURSE
OF THE UNION MEN OF THE STATE-OTHER ORDINANCES OF THIS
CONVENTION-ACTION OF OTHER SECEDING STATES SIMILAR-THE
CONGRESS OF MONTGOMERY-PROVISIONAL AND PERMANENT CONSTI TUTIONS-ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
CONFEDERACY-MR. DAVIS'S INAUGURAL-COMMISSIONERS SENT TO
WASHINGTON-CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. SEWARD-EFFECT OF THE
" BREACH OF FAITH " AS TO SUMTER AND THE INAUGURATION OF THE
WAR UPON THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE............................................ 310 
CON'1'EN'I'S.
COLLOQUY XX.
CHARACTER OF THE WAR DISCUSSED BY JUDGE BYNUM AND MR.
STEPHENS-CONSIDERATION OF MAIN SUBJECT RESUMED-CONDITION
OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHERN STATES ON THE
ELECTION OF MR. LINCOLN BEFORE THE FALL OF SUMTER-EFFECT
OF THE PROCLAMATION OF 15TH APRIL-THIS PROCLAMATION AND
SUBSEQUENT ONES REVIEWED-THEIR USURPATIONS EXHIBITED SECESSION OF VIRGINIA-CONVENTION WITH CONFEDERATE STATES GENERAL LEE-SECESSION OF ARKANSAS, TENNESSEE, AND NORTH
CAROLINA-USURPATIONS OF MR. LINCOLN DISCUSSED-JUDGE BYNUM' S
DEFENCE AND MR. STEPHENS'S REPLY.............................................. 360
COLLOQUY XXI.
CHARACTER OF TIHEI WAR-NEITHER REBELLION NOR CIVIL WAR, BUT
WAR BETWEEN STATES-CONDUCT OF THE WAR ON BOTH SIDES AS
IT PROGRESSED-ACTION OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS-ACTION  OF
FEDERAL  CONGRESS-SUBJECT  OF  PRISONERS-PRIVATEERS —MR.
STEPHENS'S OPINION OF MR. LINCOLN DRAWN OUT BY PROF. NORTON
-DISCUSSION BETWEEN JUDGE BYNUM AND MR. STEPHENS IN RELA TION TO MR. LINCOLN AND HIS ACTS-DANTON-ROBESPIERRE-CfSAR
-HAZAEL-MR. ANDREW  JOHNSON'S RESOLUTION AND SPEECH IN
U.S. SENATE-MEETING OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS AT RICHMOND MR. DAVIS'S MESSAGE-GENERAL JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON-EVENTS TO
THE CLOSE OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND ORGANIZATION UNDER
PERMANENT CONSTITUTION-COMMISSION TO EUROPE-TRENT AFFAIR
-EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS-CONVENTIONS WITH MISSOURI  AND
KENTUCKY............................................................................... 425
COLLOQUY XXII.
DISCUSSION TAKES NEW AND VARIOUS TURNS-DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
MR. DAVIS AND MR. STEPHENS INQUIRED INTO BY PROF. NORTON FULL EXPOSITION GIVEN-DIFFERED ON INTERNAL AS WELL AS
EXTERNAL POLICY-BUT NEVER WAS ANY PERSONAL BREACH OR FEUD
BETWEEN THEM-TREATMENT OF PRISONERS DISCUSSED-THE CONFED ERATES NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUFFERINGS AT ANDERSONVILLE
OR ELSEWHERE-POSITION OF MR. STEPHENS UPON THIS SUBJECT, AS
WELL AS THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE PEOPLE
OF THE NORTHERN STATES-PROGRESS OF EVENTS IN BOTH A
MILITARY AND A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW DURING THh SECOND
AND EARLY PART OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE WAR-GLANCE AT
THE BATTLES OF ELKHORN, SHILOH, " STONEWALL" JACKSON'S
VALLEY CAMPAIGN-THE SIX DAYS' FIGHTING AROUND RICHMOND,
CEDAR RUN, SECOND MANASSAS, HARPER'S FERRY, FREDERICKSBURG,
PERRYVILLE, MURFREESBORO, CHANCELLORSVILLE, AND THE SIEGE
OF VICKSBURG-GLANCE AT POLITICAL EVENTS DURING THE SAME
TIME-THE CONDITION OF NORTHERN SENTIMENT PRODUCED BY MR.
viii 
CONTENTS.
LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATIONS OF EMANCIPATION AND MARTIAL LAWTHE PROPOSED PEACE MISSION OF MR. STEPHENS IN 1863-FULL
HISTORY OF IT-BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG-SURRENDER OF VICKSBURG
-THE GEORGIA PEACE RESOLUTIONS, SO-CALLED, IN 1864-POSITION
OF MR. STEPHENS ON FINANCIAL QUESTIONS-COTTON AS A FINANCIAL
POWER-HIS POSITION ALSO UPON SUSPENSION OF WRI  OF HABEAS
CORPUS, CONSCRIPTION, AND IMPRESSMENT..................................... 498
COLLOQUY XXIII.
HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE-BRIEF REVIEW OF PRECEDING MILITARY
AND POLITICAL EVENTS - BATTLE  OF CHICKAMAUGA - MEADE'S
ATTACKS ON LEE-GRANT THE COMING MAN-BATTLE OF MISSIONARY
RIDGE-JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON SUPIERSEDES BRAGG-GRANT  MADE
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL-GLOOM AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 186 BRILLIANT CONFEDERATE VICTORIES EARLY IN 1864, AT OCEAN
POND AND MANSFIELD-SHERMAN'S EXPEDITION TO MOBILE CHECKED
BY FORREST-SHERMAN ASSIGNED TO COMMAND THE " ONWARD " INTO
GEORGIA-THE TWO GRAND CAMPAIGNS-PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN
THE NORTH-GRANT'S GREAT LOSSES OF MEN IN THE SUMMER CAM PAIGN-JOHNSTON REMOVED  AND HOOD APPOINTED-BATTLES OF
ATLANTA; ITS FALL-HOOD'S TENNESSEE CAMPAIGN: BATTLES OF
FRANKLIN AND NASHVILLE-SHERMAN'S MARCH TO THE SEA-SHERI DAN DEVASTATES THE VALLEY OF VIRGINIA-MR. STEPHENS'S VIEWS
OF THE SITUATION-BLAIR'S VISITS TO RICHMOND-FIRST INTERVIEW
WITH GRANT, AND IMPRESSIONS MADE BY HIM-THE CONFERENCE
AND ITS RESULTS —FALL OF FORT FISHER-MR. DAVIS'S SPEECH AT
THE AFRICAN CHURCH-LAST SCENES OF THE WAR-CHANGES IN
THE CONFEDERATE CABINET-GRANT'S OPERATIONS: LEE'S LINES
BROKEN-RICHMOND GIVEN UP-LEE'S SURRENDER-LINCOLN ASSAS SINATED - SURRENDER OF JOHNSTON, DICK TAYLOR, AND KIRBY
SMITH-END OF THE WAR............................................................. 576
COLLOQUY XXIV.
RESULTS OF THE WAR-REFUSAL OF MR. JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE
SHERMAN-JOHNSTON CONVENTION-EFFECTS OF THIS-THE PRES IDENT'S POLICY-THE RECONSTRUCTION POLICY OF CONGRESS-THE
XIVTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION-GENERAL SITUATION OF
THE SOUTH-CONDITION OF THINGS IN GEORGIA-GOVERNOR BROWN'S
POSITION-THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE WAR THUS FAR-THE ABO LITION OF SLAVERY-THE ADOPTION OF THE XIIITH AMENDMENT, BUT
NO ESSENTIAL FEATURE IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AS YET AFFECTED
-TENDENCIES TO ULTIMATE CENTRALISM AND EMPIRE.................... 631
1
.x 
CONTENTS.
APPENDIX A.
DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY
THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION...... 671
APPENDIX B.
GEORGIA PLATFORM OF 1850............................................................
APPENDIX C.
LETTER OF THIRTEEN GENTLEMEN OF MACON, AND MR. STEPHENS'S RE PLY, ON THE RUPTURE IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, AT CHARLES TON, IN 1860................................................................... 677
APPENDIX D.
LETTER OF MR. STEPHENS TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM, OF LEXINGTON, GEORGIA,
ON THE RUPTURE IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, AT BALTIMORE,
N 1860...................................................................................... 685
APPENDIX E.
SPEECH OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, FAVORING THE ELECTION OF
MESSRS. DOUGLAS AND JOHNSON AS PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT,
DELIVERED IN THE CITY HALL PATRK, AUGUSTA, GA., SEPTEMBER 1,
1860...................................................... 691
APPENDIX F.
RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS. MONT GOMERY, ALABAMA, 1861.............................................................. 710
APPENDIX G.
CONSTITUTION FOR THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDER  ATE STATES OF AMERICA.............................................................. 714
APPENDIX H.
CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.................... 722
APPENDIX I.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS AND
MR. SECRETARY SEWARD, WITH JUDGE CAMPBELL'S LETTERS UPON
THE SUBJECT.............................................................................. 735
APPENDIX J.
" MY MARYLAND........................................................................... 646
APPENDIX K.
DECISION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN THE MERRYMAN CASE................ 749
x
676 
CONTENTS.
APPENDIX L.
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES GOVERNMENT UNDER THE
PERMANENT CONSTITUTION, ON THE 22D OF FEBRUARY, 1862............. 759
APPENDIX M.
EXTRACTS FROM A PAMPHLET ON THE DESTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, PUJBLISHED IN 1865....................................................... 766
APPENDIX N.
" A PRAYER FOR PEACE "................................................................. 774
APPENDIX 0.
I.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OF 1ST JANUARY,
1863, REFERRED TO ON PAGE 551................................................... 776
II.
PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW, OF THE 24TH OF SEPTEMBER, 1862,
WITH THE ORDERS REFERRED TO ON PAGES 551 AND 554.................. 777
APPENDIX P.
COMMISSION OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS TO ESTABLISH CARTEL FOR EX CHANGE OF PRISONERS REFERRED TO ON PAGE 566 OF THE TEXT....... 779
APPENDIX Q.
I.
SPEECH OF THE AUTHOR (REFERRED TO ON PAGE 574) ON THE USE OF
COTTON AND OTHER RESOURCES FOR CARRYING ON THE WARS, ETC.
DELIVERED IN CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., 1ST. NOVEMBER, 1862. REPORTED
BY J. HENLY SMITH.................................................................... 781
II.
LETTER OF THE AUTHOR ON MARTIAL LAW; AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE
SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INTRODUCED BY HON.
LINTON STEPHENS IN THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE AND PASSED BY THAT
BODY, IN MARCH, 1864, WHICH WERE APPROVED IN A PUBLIC SPEECH,
BY THE AUTHOR; AND WHICH WITH THE LETTER PRESENT HIS VIEWS
UPON THOSE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT, PAGE 574............. 786
III.
A SYNOPSIS OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL CON  SCRIPTION ACT OF MARCH 3D, 1863, AS PUBLISHED IN MCPHERSON'S
" HISTORY OF THE REBELLION," PAGE 273, AND WHICH EMBODIES THE
AUTHOR'S VIEWS OF THE CONFEDERATE ACT OF CONSCRIPTION. PASSED
APRIL 16TH, 1862, WHIChI IS REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT ON PAGE 574, 790
xi 
CONTENTS.
APPENDIX R.
I.
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT DAVIS ON THE HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.... 791
II.
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN ON THE HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE. 793
APPENDIX S.
I.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GENERALS GRANT AND LEE PRECEDING THE
SURRENDER OF GEN. LEE, WITH HIS LAST GENERAL ORDER TO HIS
ARMY.............................................................................................. 803
II.
MEMORANDUM, OR, BASIS OF AGREEMENT, MADE THIS 18TH DAY OF
APRIL, A. D. 1865, NEAR DURHAM'S- STATION, AND IN THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA, BY AND BETWEEN GEN. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, COM MANDING THE CONFEDERATE ARMY, AND MAJOR-GEN. W. T. SHERMAN,
COMMANDING THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES IN NORTH CAROLINA,
BOTH PRESENT............................................................................. 806
III.
TERMS OF A MILITARY CONVENTION HELD THIS TWENTY-SIXTH (26TH)
DAY OF APRIL, 1865, AT BENNETT'S HOUSE, NEAR DURHAM'S STATION,
KW. C., BETWEEN GEN. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, COMMANDING THE CON FEDERATE ARMY, AND MAJOR-GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN, COMMANDING
THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN NORTH CAROLINA............................. 807
— ii 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
IN presenting to the Public the Second Volume of "A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," it is
proper to say, in the first place, that I have greatly regretted
the delay which has attended its publication. This has been
occasioned by a long serious bodily affliction, from which I
have been in an almost helpless condition for more than twelve
months. I have been enabled to complete the Work at last,
only through the slow process attending the reliance upon
others entirely in the manual execution.
The readers of the First Volume will recollect, that the actual
conversations, of which the Colloquies are but an elaborate reproduction, took place between the parties in 1867. They
therefore do not embrace any public events which have occurred
subsequently to that period.
Since the Publication of the First Volume, several attacks
have been made upon positions therein assumed. The most
important of these which has come to my notice, was the one
by Mr. Greeley, in the New York Tribune, during  the last
summer.  As it is important in matters of this sort as well as
others, that positions in the rear be made perfectly secure before
further advances in front, it is also deemed quite proper that
that attack shall be here noticed before the reader's attention is
invited to the Colloquies which follow.
This attack of Or. Greeley was answered at the time-17th
of Aug,ust, 1869-through the Constitutionalist newspaper of
Augusta, Ga.  But as many readers of the Tribune, who may
be readers of this Work, have doubtless never seen the answer,
and might not otherwise ever see it, it is deemed altogetler
5 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
appropriate to give it a place here, that it may go with the
"Colloquies" and constitute a part of the general discussion.
What I then said in reply to him, I now repeat "nunc pro tunc,"
and in "totidemn verbis," viz.:
In this article, Mr. Greeley, after alluding to my work upon
the "War between the States," and late letters in reply to
Judge Nicholas upon the same subject, goes on to say:
"Mr. Stephens' theory is, that the Union was a mere league of Sovereign Powers and of course dissoluble at the pleasure of those Powers
respectively-of a minority, or, in fact, of any one of them, so far as
that one is concerned. And he quotes sundry conspicuous Republicans
-among them, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin F. Wade, and Horace
Greeley-as having, at some time, favored this view.
"Mr. Stephens is utterly mistaken. Leaving others to speak for themselves, we can assure him that Horace Greeley never, at any moment
of his life, imagined that a single State, or a dozen of States, could rightfully dissolve the Union. The doctrine of Horace Greeley, which Mr.
Stephens has confounded with State Sovereignty, is that of Popular Sovereignty, or the right of a people to recast or modify their political institutions and relations-the right set forth by Thomas Jefferson in the
Declaration of American Independence, as follows:
"' We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
that, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving, their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers
in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.'
"This doctrine of Jefferson's we have ever received; and we have
held it precisely as it reads.  The same is true, we presume, of Messrs.
Lincoln, Wade, and other Republicans. Mr. Stephens may say it justifies the so-called Secession of the South; we think differently.  We
hold that Secession was the work of a violent, subversive, bullying,
terrorizing minority, overawing and stifling the voice of a decided
majority of the Southern people. The facts which justify this conclusion
are embodied in The American Conflict4 more especially in vol. i, chap.
xxii. According to Mr. Stephens' conception, a majority of the people
of Delaware, consisting of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully dissolve the Union, but the whole population of New York, south of the
6 
INTRODUCTORY PRiEFACE.
highlands-at least 1,500,000 in number-could do nothing of the kind.
Mr. Stephens's may possibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never
was ours, nor of any Republican so far as we know. The right we affirm
is not based on the Federal Constitution, but is before and above any
and all Constitutions."
I quote him in full on the points to be commented on, that
your readers and the public may thoroughly understand them,
and be able to judge fairly and justly between us, and come to
a correct conclusion as to whether I or he was or is mistaken in
the premises.
Now what is affirmed by me in the first.volume of the "Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," and what
Mr. (Greeley, with other Republicans, is quoted therein to sustain, is this:
" Men of great ability of our own  day-men who stand high in the
Republican ranks at this time, who had and have no sympathy with the
late Southern movement, are fully committed to the rightfulness of that
movement. Mr. Lincoln himself was fully committed to it. Besides
him, I refer you to but two others of this class, now prominent actors
in public affairs.  They are Senator Wade, of Ohio, at this time Vice
President of the United States, and Mr. Greeley, of the New York
Tribune, who is'a power behind the throne greater than the throne
itself.'"
Then after quoting Senator Wade, with comments on his
utterances, I go on to quote from the New York Tribune, of the
9th of November, 1860, an article which is acknowledged by
Mr. Greeley to be his, and published in his history of the war,
the "American Conflict," page 359, vol. i, as follows
"The telegraph informs us that most of the Cotton States are meditating a withdrawal from the Union, because of Lincoln's election. Very
well: they have a right to meditate, and meditation is a profitable employment of leisure. We have a chronic, invincible disbelief in Disunion
as a remedy for either Northern or Southern grievances. We cannot
see any necessary connection between the alleged disease and this ultraheroic remedy; still, we say, if any one sees fit to meditate Disunion,
let him do so unmolested. That was a base and hypocritic row that was
once raised at Southern dictation, about the ears of John Quincy Adams,
because he presented a petition for the dissolution of the Union. The
petitioner had a right to make the request; it was the Member's duty to
7 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
present it. And now, if the Cotton States consider the value of the
Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it.  Nay:
we hold with Jefferson, to the unalienable right of Communities to alter
or abolish forms of Government that have become oppressive or injuri ous; and, if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the
Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace.  Thle right to secede
mtay be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how
one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to preven.
We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to renain in the Union,
and nullifyeor defy the laws thereof; to withdraw from the Union is quite
another matter.  And, whenever a considerable section of our Union
shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures
designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic, whereof
one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.
"But, while we thus uphold the practical liberty, if not the abstract
ri,ght of Secession, we must insist that the step be taken, if it ever shall
be, with the deliberation and gravity befitting so momentous an issue.
Let ample timne be given for reflection; let the subject be fully canvassed
before the people; and let a popular vote be taken in every case, before
Secession is decreed. Let the people be told just why they are asked to
break up the Confederation; let them have both sides of the question
fully presented; let them reflect, deliberate, then vote; and let the act
of Secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat.  A judgment
thus rendered, a demand for Separation so backed. would either be acquiesced in without the effusion -of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to defy and defeat it, would place themselves clearly in the wrong.'
I give above, this quotation in full, as I did in the Book
referred to, that no injustice may be done to him by partial
extracts.
What I quoted him to sustain, was, as clearly appears, the
rightfulness of Secession in itself, and no particular theory of mine
touching the principles upon which it was based. Does not the
article from his own Paper and Book, above spread before your
readers, fully sustain my affirmation for which the quotation
was made?   Was I "utterly mistaken?."  Or did I in any way
confound State Sovereignty with Popular Sovereignty? What
difference Mr. Greeley sees between State Sovereignty and
Popular Sovereignty I know not. By State Sovereignty I
understand the Sovereignty of the people composing a State in
an organized political Body. But what I affirmed, and quoted
him to sustain, rested upon no distinction between these phrases.
8 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
It was simply as to the Rightfulness of the act in itself, on the
part of the people of a State, without reference to the source of the
Right. My comments on this question ill the Book, page 518,
are as follows. I give them in full also that it may be clearly
seen that no injustice was done to him:
"What better argument could I make to show the rightfulness of
Secession, if the Southern States, of their own good will and pleasure,
chose to resort to it, even for no other cause than Mr. Lincoln's election,
than is herein set forth - in his own pointed, strong, and unmistakable
language?  It is true, he waives all questions of Compact between the
States. He goes deeper into fundamental principles, and plants the
right upon the eternal truths announced in the Declaration of Independence. That is bringing up principles, which I have not discussed, not
because I do not endorse them as sound and correct, to the word and
letter, but because it was not necessary for my purpose. Upon these
immutable principles, the justifiableness of Georgia in her Secession Ordinance of the 19th of January, 1861, will stand clearly established for
all time to come. For if, with less than one hundred thousand population, she was such a people in 1776 as had the unquestionable right to
alter and change their form of Government as they pleased, how much
more were they such a people, with more than ten times the number, in
1861? The same principle applies to all the States which quit the old
and joined the new Confederation.  Mr. Greeley here speaks of the
Union as a Confederation, and not a Nation.  This was, perhaps, the
unconscious utterance of a great truth when the true spirit was moving
him.
"The State of Georgia did not take this step, however, in withdrawing from the Confederation, without the most thorough discussion. It
is true it was not a dispassionate discussion. Men seldom, if ever, enter
into such discussions with perfect calmness, or even that degree of calmness with which all such subjects ought to be considered. But the subject was fully canvassed before the people. Both sides were strongly presented. In the very earnest remonstrance against this measure made by
me, on the 14th of November, 1860, to which you have alluded, was an
appeal equally earnest for just such a vote as he scuggests in order that
the action of the State on the subject might be'the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat.' On the same occasion I did say, in substance, just
what he had so aptly said before, that the people of Georgia, in their
Sovereign capacity, had the right to secede if they chose to do so, and
that in this event of their so determining to do, upon a mature consideration of the question, that I should bow in submission to the majesty of
their will so expressed I
"This, when so said by me, is what it seems was'the dead fly in the
9 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
ointment' of that speech, so sadly' marring its general perfume.' This
was' the distinct avowal of the right of the State to overrule my personal
convictions and plunge me,' as he says,'into treason to the Nation.'
"Was not the same'dead fly in the ointment' of his article of the 9th
of November, only five days before? And if going with my State, in
what he declared she had a perfect right to do, plunged me into treason
to the Nation, is he not clearly an accessory before the fact, by a rule
of construction not more strained than that laid down in the trial of
State cases by many judges not quite so notoriously infamous as Jeffreys?
By a rule not more strained than that which would make out treason in
the act itself! But I do not admit the rule in its application either to
the accessory or the principal."
So much for the allegation that I was utterly mistaken!
Now, let me turn upon Mr. Greeley and ask, how it is with
him in the premises?  Was he not " utterly mistaken" when he
said so vauntingly for himself, in the article now under review,
that "Horace Greeley never at any moment of his life imagined that
a single State or a dozen of States could rightly dissolve the Union!"
Did he not expressly say, on the 9th of November, 1860,
through the columns of the Tribune, that "if the Cotton States
shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we
insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a
revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless, and we do not see how
one party can have a right to do what another party has a right
to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State
to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the laws thereof;
to withdraw from the Union is quite another matterI"
But, besides what I quoted him as saying, did he not, on the
17th day of December, 1860, three days before the Secession of
South Carolina, in the Tribune, assert:
"If it'" (the Declaration of Independence) "justified the Secession from
the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why
it would not justify the Secession of five millions of Southrons fronm the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some
one attenmpt to show wherein and why?"
Again: Did he not in the Tribune, on the 23d day of February, 1861, five days after the inauguration of President Davis
at Montgomery, use this language:
10 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
"We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence,
that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,
is sound and just; and that if the Slave States, the Cotton States, or the
Gulf States only, choose to form an Independent Nation, THEY HAVE A
CLEAR MORAL RIGHT TO DO SO."
These quotations from the Tribune I see set forth by exPresident Buchanan, in his work entitled, "Buchanan's Administration," page 97. I take it for granted they are correct.
Then how, in the face of all these proofs, can the Tribune now
say, that "Horace Greeley never, at any moment of his l?fe, imagined, that a single State, or a dozen States, could rightfully dissolve
the Union."
Is not this a full, and explicit acknowledgment of the right
of a State to withdraw or secede?  Did the Southern States ever
attempt to dissolve the Union in any other way t n by peaceably seceding or withdrawing from it? Mr. Greeley knows, and
the world knows, that they did not.
One other remark upon this editorial now under consideration. In it Mr. Greeley says:
"According to Mr. Stephens'  conception, a majority of the people
of Delaware, consisting of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully
dissolve the Union, but the whole population of New York, south of
the highlands-at least 1,500,000 in number-could do nothing of the
kind. MIr. Stephens' may possibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never was ours, nor of any Republican, so far as we know.
The right, we affirm, is not based on the Federal Constitution, but is
before and above any and all Constitutions."
Just so, let it be said to Mr. Greeley, with the doctrine
advanced by me in the Book referred to! It is not based on
the Federal Constitution, but upon the authority that made that
Compact.  It is based upon principles existing "before and
above any and all Constitutions." It is based upon the Paramount Authority (call it Popular Sovereignty or State Sovereignty, or by any other name) by which all organized States or
Peoples can rightfully make or unmake State or Federal Constitutions at their pleasure; subject only to the great moral law,
which regulates and governs the actions and conduct of Nations I
11 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
My conception, however, involves no such nonsense  as that
exhibited in his statement of it, touching the relative populations of the whole State of Delaware, and a portion only (being
a large minority, however,) of the population of the State of
New York. Populations in this respect must be looked to, and
considered, in their organized character. The doctrine advo
cated by me with all its corollaries rests upon thefact that Delaware, however small her population, is a perfectly organized
State-is a Sovereign State-and as such is an integral Member
of our Federal Republic, and that New York with her ever so
many more people is no more. The doctrine is that ours is
indeed a Federal Republic-constituted, not of one people in mass,
as a single Republic is, but composed of a number of separate
Republics.
In this Febral Republic, the little Republic of Delaware by
the Constitution of the United States, which sets forth the terms
of the Compact between these several Republics composing the
Union, has just as much political power in the enactment of all
Federal laws, as the great Republic of New York has, without
any regard to their relative, respective populations.  In the
Congress of States, which is provided for by the Constitution to
take charge of all Federal matters entrusted to its control, Delaware, to-day, with her little over one hundred thousan(d population, stands perfectly equal in political power to New York with
her nearly forty times that number!  Congress under our system
means the same now it ever meant.  It means the Meeting or
Assemblage of the States composing the Union by their accredited Representatives in Grand Council.  In this Grand
Council or Congress of States, Delaware has as much political
power as New York.  It is true in one Hiouse of this Congress,
her one member has but little showing against the thirty odd
members of New York.  But her equality ofpower is maintained
in the other.  Here this perfect equality of political power
between all the States is as distinctly retained under the second
Articles of Union as it was under the first. No law can be
passed by the Congress, if a majority of the States, through their
"Ambassadors" in the Senate, object.
It is on this principle, that the- six New England States with
12 
INTRODU-CTORY PREFACE.
a fraction over three millions of population, under the census of
1860, have in the last resort in the Council Chambers of the
Congress, six times as much power in determining all questions
before them, as the State of New York, though New York
alone has a population of over half a:million more than all thew
other States together I It is upon this principle that these six
States have as much power in the administration of the Govern
ment as the six States of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois had with their aggregate population
of thirteen and a half millions in 1860!
These are facts which neither Mr. Greeley nor anybody else
can successfully controvert.
Ours, therefore, being a Federal Government, is and must be,
as all other Federal Governments are, "a Government of States,
and for States," with limited powers directed to specific objects;
and not a Government in any senise or view for the masses of
the people of the respective States in their internal and municipal affairs. This great Sovereign Power of local Self-government,
for which Independence was declared and achieved, resides with
the people of the respective States.
A  ready and sufficient answer  to Mr. Greeley's distorted
"conception" about the political power of the comparative
populations of Delaware and New York, may be given to him
from his own doctrines.  It is this: If a majority of the people
of Delaware, after due deliberation and full consideration, have
the same right, whether by virtue of State Sovereignty or
Popular Sovereignty, to withdraw from the Union which they
had to declare their Independence of Great Britain, which he
admits they have, it does tot therefore follow that less than hayl the
population of the State of New York can, with equal right, carry
that State out. against the will of the majority, though  the
minority in New York wishing to do so be five hundred or five
thousand times greater in number than the majority in Delaware I
He may, therefore, not be alarmed at any of the legitimate consequences of his own doctrines I
What he says about Secession having been carried in the
Southern States by a violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing,
minority, overawing, and stifling a majority of the people of
13 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
these States, is nothing but bald and naked assertion, which
cannot be maintained against the facts of history. The question
was as thoroughly discussed as any ever was before the people.
Conventions were regularly called by the duly constituted
authorities of the States, and members duly elected thereto,
according to law in all the States, which seceded before Mr.
Lincoln's Proclamation of War. These elections were as orderly
as elections usually are in any of the States on great occasions.
In these Conventions, Ordinances of Secession were passed by
decided majorities I  It is true that a large minority in all
these Conventions, save one, and in all these States, were opposed to Secession as a question of policy; very few in any of
them questioned the Right, or doubted their duty to go with
the majority. But after Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation of Warafter his illegal and unconstitutional call for troops-after his
suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, no people on earth were
ever more unanimous in any Cause, than were the people of the
Southern States, in defence of what they deemed the great
essential principles of American Free Institutions! There was
not one in ten thousand of the people, in at least ten of the
Southern States, whose heart and soul were not thoroughly enlisted in the Cause! Nor did any people on earth ever make
greater or more heroic sacrifices for its success, during four long
years of devastation, blood, and carnage I
A majority of the people overawed and terrorized by a
minority! Indeed!
If so, what became of this majority when the Confederate
Armies, which stood between them and their deliverers, were
overpowered? Where is this majority now, even with the
sweeping disfranchisement which silences so many of the overawing tyrants? Why has it not been permitted to exercise the
irnalienable right of Self-government, even with the reinforcemrnent of the enfranchised Blacks? Why are so many of these
States, till this day, held under Military rule, with their whole
populations "pinned" to very bad Government by Federal bayoicts, under the pretext of their continued disloyalty?  This
assertion as to the state of things in the beginning, is as utterly
14 
INTRODUCTORY PREFACE.
groundless in fact, as it is utterly inconsistent with the gratuitons assumptiohs on which the present pretext is based I
Is it not amazing, Messrs. Editors, that Mr. Greeley in the
face of the facts for the last four years, to say nothing of those
of the war, when according to his own showing the Administration at Washington in rushing into it, were in "the wrong-"
I say, to omit all mention of the wrongs of the war, its immense
sacrifices of blood and treasure, is it not amazing in the highest
degree, that Mr. Greeley, in the face of the facts of the last four
years only, should now repeat to us the Principles of American
Independence as his creed? Have not the Constitutions of ten
States, as made and adopted by the People thereof, founded on
such principles and organized in such form as seemed to themn
most likely to effect their safety and happiness, been swept from
existence by military edict? Have not the People in these ten
States, including the arbitrarily enfranchised Blacks, been denied
the right to form new Constitutions "laying their foundations
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness?"  Have they not been required and literally compelled to
form such Constitutions as seemed most likely to effect the
safety and security of the dominant faction at Washington?
Is this holding up to our gaze these immnutable and ever-tobe-reverenced Principles of the Declaration of Independence, at
this time and under the present circumstances, intended only as
mnockery added to insult, injury, and outrage!
ALEXANDER IHI. STEPHENS.
Liberty Hall,
Crawfordville, Ga.,
5th Ai)ril, 1870.
15  
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.
COLLOQUY XIII.
BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT-SOVEREIGNTY AND PARAMOUNT
AUTHORITY DISCUSSED BY MR. STEPHENS AND PROF. NORTON-SOVER EIGNTY NOT DIVISIBLE BUT SOVEREIGN POWERS ARE-THE WAR SPRUNG
FROM A CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES-SLAVERY OR LEGAL-SUBORDINATION
OF THE BLACK RACE THE IMMEDIATE AND EXCITING QUESTION WHICH
BROUGHT THE PRINCIPLES IN CONFLICT-SLAVERY AS IT EXISTED AT THE
SOUTH CONSIDERED-WHICH SIDE INAUGURATED THE WAR DISCUSSED BY
MR. STEPHENS AND JUDGE BYNUM-WAR NOT THE OBJECT OF THE CON FEDERATE AUTHORITIES-FALL OF FORT SUMTER-SOUTH CAROLINA AS A
SOVEREIGN STATE HAD A RIGHT TO DEMAND ITS POSSESSION-BREACH OX
FAITH BY NORTHERN CONFEDERATES-EVIDENCE DEMANDED BY MAJOR
HEISTER-PROOFS ADDUCED-SOUTHERN STATES EVER TRUE TO THE
CONSTITUTION-WHICH SIDE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR DISCUSSED.
MR. STEPHENS. We have now, gentlemen, gone through
with the preliminary questions; we have taken that historical review, which was necessary and essential for a
correct understanding of the nature and character of the
Government of the United States, from a violation of the
organic principles of which, as I stated in the outset, the
war had its origin. We have seen from this review that
ours is a Federal Government. In other words, we have
seen that it is a Government formed by a Convention, a
Foedus, or Compact between distinct, separate, and Sovereign States. We have seen that this Federal or Con'ventional Government, so formed, possesses inherently no
power whatever.   All its powers -are held by delegation
2                                           17 
18      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
only, and by delegation from separate States.  These
powers are all enumerated and all limited to specific
objects in the Constitution. Even the highest Sovereign
Power it is permitted to exercise-the war power, for
instance-is held by it by delegation only. Sovereignty
itself-the great source of all political power-under the
system, still resides where it did before the Compact was
entered into, that is, in the States severally, or with the
people of the several States respectively. By the Compact, the Sovereign Powers to be exercised by the Federal
Head were not surrendered by the States-were not
alienated or parted with by them. They were delegated
only.   The States by voluntary engagements, agreed
only to abstain from their exercise themselves, and to
confer this exercise by delegation upon common agents
under the Convention, for the better security of the great
objects aimed at by the formation of the Compact, which
was the regulation of their external and inter-State
affairs.
Our system, taken  altogether, we  have seen, is a
peculiar one.  The world never saw its like before.  It
has no prototype in any of all the previous Confederations,
or Federal Republics, of which we have any account.  It
is neither a "Staaten-bund" exactly, nor a "Bundesstaat,"
according to the classification of Federal Republics by
the German Publicists.  It differs from their "Staatenbund" in this, that the powers to be exercised by the
Federal Head are divided into three departments, the
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive, with a perfectly
organized machinery for the execution of these powers
within its limited sphere, and for the specific objects
named, upon citizens of the several States without the
intermediate act or sanction of the several States. In
the "Staaten-bund," or "States' Confederation," accord 
COL. XIII.] RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT.
ing to their classification, the Federal Government can
enact no laws which will operate upon the citizens of the
several States composing it, until the States severally
give them their sanction.  Such was our Federal Union
under the first Articles. But our present system, as we
have seen, went a step further, and introduced a new
principle in Confederations. While, therefore, our system
differs specifically in this particular from their "Staatenbund," or "States' Confederation," yet it agrees entirely
with it in its essential Generic difference from their
Bundesstaat, in this, that the States collectively constitute
an international unit as regards third parties, but do not
cease to be international units as regards each other.*
It differs further Generically from their "Bundesstaat,"
or "Federative State," or what may properly be called "an
incorporate Union," in this, that no Sovereign Power
whatever, under our system, is surrendered or alienated
by the several States; it is only delegated. The difference
between our system and their "Staaten-bund," is, however, only specific, as we see. It is not Generic. They
are both essentially the same. Ours is a newly developed
species of Government of their Genuqs "Staaten-bund."
This specific difference is what struck De Tocqueville as
"a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as a
great discovery in modern political science," and for
which there was as yet no specific name. Ilis language,
you recollect, is:
"This Constitution, which may at first be confounded
with the Federal Constitutions which have preceded it,
rests, in truth, upon a wholly novel theory, which may
be considered as a great discovery in modern political
science. In all the Confederations which preceded the
American Constitution of 1789, the allied States, for a
* Ante, vol. i, p. 393.
19 
20     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
common object, agreed to obey the injunctions of a
Federal Government; but they reserved to themselves
the right of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the
laws of the Union. The American States, which combined in 1789, agreed, that the Federal Government
should not only dictate, but should execute its own
enactments.  In both cases, the right is the same, but
the exercise of the right is different; and this difference
produced the most momentous consequences."*
Further on, he says: "The new word, which ought to
express this novel thing, does not  yet exist.   The
human understanding more easily invents new things
than new words, and we are hence constrained to employ
many improper and inadequate expressions."t
This new principle of so constituting a Federal Repul>
lic as to make us "one nation as to Foreign concerns,
and to keep us distinct as to domestic ones~" with a
division of the delegated powers into Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive Departments, and with an organization and machinery in the Conventional Government,
thus formed, for the full exercise of all its delegated and
limited powers, similar to those of the separate States
creating it, we have seen, was indicated as early as
December 1786, by Mr. Jefferson in a letter to Mr.
Madison. This was the grand principle finally carried
out. It was a grand step in progress in the science of
Government. This was what so signalized our career for
sixty years, and this is the peculiar specific difference
between our Federal Republic and all others of similar
general type, to which Lord Brougham alludes when he
says:
"It is not at all a refinement that a Federal Union
should be formed; this is the natural result of men's
* Ante, vol. i, p. 481.      t Ante, vol. i, p. 486. 
PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY.
joint operations in a very rude state of society. But the
regulation of such a Union upon pre-established principles, the formation of a system of Government and legislation in which the different subects shall be not individuals but States, the application of legislative principles to
such a body of States, and the devising means for keeping
its integrity as a federacy, while the rights and powers
of the individual States are maintained entire, is the
very greatest refinement in social policy to which any
state of circumstances has ever given rise, or to which
any age has ever given birth."*
From this exposition, we see clearly the proper solution of the vexed question, whether the United States
constitute a Nation or not.  We see clearly not only that
they do constitute a Nation, but also what sort of a
Nation it is. It is not a Nation of individuals, blended in
a common mass, with a consolidated Sovereignty over the
whole; but a Nation the constituent elements, or members
of which, are separate and distinct political organizations,
States, or Sovereignties.  It is a "Confederated Republic,"t as Washington styled our present Union. This is
the same as if he had styled it a Confederated Nation.
It is, in truth, a Confederated Nation. That is, it is a
Nation of States, or in other words, a Nation of Nations.
In this sense, these States, thus united, do constitute a
Nation, and a Nation of the highest and grandest type
the world ever saw!
PROFESSOR NORTON. Mr. Stephens, will you allow me
to ask what you mean by Sovereignty, and ultimate
Sovereignty, and Paramount authority, terms which you
have frequently used; but I do not know if I get the
exact ideas you intend to convey by them. It has oc        * Bro,,gham's Political Philosophy, vol. iii, p. 336.
t Ante, vol. i, p. 168.
COL. XIII.]
21 
22     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
curred to me as you have progressed in your argument,
that a State or Nation might part absolutely with some
of her Sovereign powers, and yet retain others, and that
this was what our States really did in the formation of
the present Constitution. May not the States be fully
Sovereign for some purposes, but not for all? May they
not be Sovereign over such subjects only as are reserved
to them by the Constitution, and the Federal Government be absolutely Sovereign as to all others?
MR. STEPHENS. I perceive your meaning. It involves
the idea of a divisibility of Sovereignty itself. It is essential that we shall first clearly understand the real import
of this word in its proper political sense. I will therefore answer you, first, by stating as distinctly as I can,
what I mean by Sovereig,ity in this connection. It is a
word the meaning of which I supposed was well enough
understood for our purposes.  It is true, we have  no
very clear or accurate definition of it, by any political
writer or publicist, that I have seen. Most of themn have
given their ideas of it by explanations and descriptions.
By Sovereignty and Paramount authority I mean the
same thing. If I were to undertake to express my ideas
of it in regular formula, I should say that Sovereignty
or Paramount authority, in a proper political sense, is that
inherent, absolute power of self-determination, in every
distinct political body, existing by virtue of its own social
forces, which, in pursuit of the well-being of its own
organism, within the limitations of natural justice, cannot be rightfully interfered with by any other similar
body, without its consent. With this explanation, in
answer to your view, I have only to add, that Sovereignty, as I understand it, is that innate attribute of the
Political Body so possessing it, which corresponds with
the will and power of self action in the personal body, 
COL. XIII.] SOVEREIGNTY AND SOVEREIGN POWERS.  23
and by its very nature is indivisible; just as much so as
the Mind is in the individual organism.
This is the doctrine clearly taught by all writers of
note on the subject, in both ancient and modern times.
Hence, no Political Body can be absolutely Sovereign for
any purpose, and not Sovereign for all purposes which
lie within tile domain of Sovereignty itself. BodiesPolitic may, by delegation, exercise certain Sovereign
powers for some purposes and not for all.  This is the
case with all Conventional States. We must, moreover,
discriminate between the powers of Sovereignty and
Sovereignty itself. Sovereign powers are divisible. The
exercise of them in all good Governments has been and
is entrusted by delegation to different hands; such as the
Executive Power, the Legislative Power, the Judicial
Power. These are all high Sovereign powers committed
to separate and distinct hands. Sovereignty itself, however, from which they all emanate, remains meanwhile
the same indivisible unit. This is the Trinity in Unity
exhibited in all properly constituted Representative
Governments. Nor is the delegation to another of the
right to exercise a power of any kind, whether Sovereign
or not, an alienation of it. The fact of its being delegated, shows that the source from which the delegation
proceeds continues to exist.
In our system, or united systems, Sovereign powers
are not only divided into the three great branches, as I
have stated, both in the Federal Government and in the
several State Governments; but they are also divided in
like manner between these two systems of Governments.
Some of the Sovereign powers are delegated to all the
States to be exercised jointly by them in Congress assembled, as well as by special officers of the Federal Government; and some of them are delegated to the various 
24      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
officers of the several State Governments. Those delega ted to each, being delegated by the Sovereign power of
the people of the several States separately; and divided
similarly in each case. There is no alienation of any
portion of Sovereignty itself in either case. This continues to reside with the people of the several States as
separate, integral units. I have only further to add in
answer to your inquiry, that by ultimate Sovereignty in
this argument, I mean that original, inherent, innate and
continually existing rightful Power, or Wtll of the several
Bodies Politic, or States of our Union-that source and
fountain of all political power-which is unimpaired by
voluntarily assumed obligations; and which at any time,
within the terms stated, can rightfully resume all its
delegated powers-those to the Federal Government as
well as those to the several State Governments.
These great and essential truths of our history, therefore, being thus forever established beyond question or
doubt, we will now, if agreeable to you, proceed to consider the immediate and exciting question, which brought
the organic principles of the Government into such terrible physical conflict in the inauguration of the war. This
was, as stated in the outset, the question of negro Slavery,
or more properly speaking that political and legal subordination of the black race to the white race, which existed in the Seceding, States.*
I thus speak of Slavery as it existed with us, purposely.
For, it is to be remembered in all our discussions on this
subject, that what was called Slavery with us, was not
Slavery in the usual sense of that word, as generally
used and understood by the ancients, and as generally
used and understood in many countries in the present
age.  It was with us.a political Institution.  It was,
* Ante, vol. i, p. 29. 
COL. XIII.]   THE EXCITING QUESTION IN ]860.            25
indeed, nothing but that legal subordination of an Inferior race to a Superior one which was thought to be the
bein the organizatton of society for the welfare politi cally, socially, morally and intellectually of both races.
The slave, so-called, was not in law regarded entirely as
a chattel, as has been erroneously represented. He was
by no means subject to the absolute dominion of his
master. He had important personal rights, secured by
law. His service due according to law, it is true, was
considered property, and so in all countries is considered
the service of all persons, who according to law are
bound to another or others for a term, however long or
short. So is the legal right of parents to the service of
their minor children in all the States now considered as
property.  A  right or property that may be assigned,
transferred or sold. Hamilton expressed the idea of this
peculiar Institution, as it existed with us, clearly, when he
said: "The Federal Constitution, therefore, decides with
great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views
them in the mixed character of persons and of property.
This is in fact their true character.  It is the character
bestowed on them by the laws under which they live."*
They were so viewed and regarded by the Constitutions
and laws of all the States. The relation of master and
slave under the Institution, as before said, was but one
of "reciprocal service and mutual bonds."t  The view of
them as property related to their services due according
to law.
But not to digress. This matter of negro subordina  tion, I repeat, was the exciting question in 1860. There
were, it is true, many other questions involving the same
principles of the Government, which had agitated the
* The Federalist, No. 53, Dawson's Edition, p. 379.
t Ante, vol. a, p. 539. 
26     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
public mind almost from the time it went into operation,
still exciting the public mind to a greater or less degree:
but this question of the status of the Black race in the
Southern States, was by far the most exciting and allabsorbing one, at that time, on both sides, and was the
main proximate cause which brought those principles of
the Government into active play, resulting in the conflict
of arms. This relation of political and legal subordination
of the Inferior to the Superior race, as it existed in 1860,
in all the Seceding States, had at one time, be it constantly kept in mind, existed in all the States of the
Union, and did so exist in all, save one, in 1787, when
the present Articles of Union were entered into.
By these Articles this relation was fully recognized, as
appears from the solemn covenant therein made, that
fugitives from service, under this system, as it then thus
existed, escaping from one State into another, should,
upon claim, be delivered up to the party to whom the
service was due. This was one of the stipulations of the
Compact upon which the Union was formed, as we have
seen, and of which Judge Story said, on an important
occasion, in delivering an opinion from the Bench of the
Supreme Court of the United States, t!it cannot be doubted
that it constituted a fundamental article, without the
adoption of which the Union could not have been formed."*
These are all great facts never to be lost sight of in
this investigation of the rightfulness of this most terrible
war, and in determining correctly and justly upon which
side the huge responsibility of its inauguration, and of
the enormous wrongs, and most disastrous consequences
attending its subsequent conduct, must, in the judgment
of mankind, forever rest.
It is not at all germane to our purpose in this inyestigation, at this time, to inquire into the Right, or Wrong
* Pri,g v. Pa., 16 Peters's Reports, p.611. 
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT.
of the Institution of Slavery itself, as it thus existed in
what were then known as the Slave States. Neither is
it in the line of my argument now, to treat of the defects,
or abuses of the system. Nor is it at all necessary, or
pertinent to my present object, to trace from its inception
to its culmination, the history or progress of that movement against it, which was organized for the purpose of
bringing the questions it involved into the arena of
Federal Councils, and within the range of Federal action.
Suffice it here barely to say, and assume as a fact what
is known to us all so well, that, in 1860, a majority-of
the Northern States, having long previously of their own
accord abolished this Institution, within their own limlits
respectively, had, also, by the action of their Legislatures, openly and avowedly violated that clause in the
Constitution of the United States, which provided for the
rendition of fugitives of this class from service.
To give a history of that movement to which I allude,
to trace its progress from its origin, would require a
volume of itself. A volume both interesting and instructive, might be devoted to it. This is what is known as
the Abolition movement in this country, and this is
what Mr.  Greeley is pleased to style the "American
Conflict." But from entering into an investigation of
that sort, I now forbear. It is in no way pertinent or
essential to my purpose. Whoever feels an interest in
the subject, will see it treated fully, truthfully, and al)ly
by the master hand of Mr. George Lunt, of Boston, in
his history of the "Origin of the War."
Suffice it, therefore, for me, at present, on this subject,
only to say, generally, that such a movement was started,
such a conflict was begun at an early day after our present
system of Government went into operation. As early as
the 12th day of February, 1790, within twelve months
COL. XIII.]
27
.1 
28     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
after Washington was inaugurated as President, a petition invoking the Federal authorities to take jurisdiction
of this subject, with a view to the ultimate abolition of
this Institution in the States respectively, was sent to
Congress, headed by Dr. Franklin.*  This movement, in
its first step thus taken so early, was partially checked
by the Resolution to which the house of Representatives
came, after the most mature consideration of the petition
and its objects.  That Resolution declared: "That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation
of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the
States; it remaining with the several States alone to
provide any regulations therein, which humanity and
true policy may require."
This clear exposition of the nature of the Federal
Government, and its utter want of power to take any
action upon the subject, as sought for by the petitioners,
checked, I say, for a time, this movement, or conflict so
started and commenced. The conflict, however, was
only partially checked; it went on until in 1860, when
those who so entered into this movement standing forth
as the Abolition or Anti-Slavery Party under the name
of Republican, but which in truth was the party of Centralism and Consolidation, organized upon the principle
of bringing the Federal Powers to bear upon this Institution in a way to secure its ultimate Abolition in all the
States, succeeded in the election of the two highest officers of the Government, pledged to carry out their principles, and to carry them out in open disregard of the
decision of the Supreme Court, which highest Judicial
Tribunal under the Constitution, had by solemn adjudication denied the power of the Federal Government to
take such action as this Party and its two highest officers
* Annals of Congress, vol. ii, p. 1239. 
THE CONFLICT.
stood pledged to carry out. With all these questions, I
repeat, I have nothing now to do, except to say that the
conflict from its rise to its culmination, was not a conffict between the advocates and opponents of the Institution itself. It seems to have been Mr. Greeley's leading
object, throughout his work, to give this idea of the
nature of the conflict, as I stated in the beginning. This,
however, was in no sense the fact of the case. The conflict, fierce and bitter as it was for seventy years, was a
conflict between those who were for maintaining the
Federal character of the Government, and those who
were for centralizing all power in the Federal Head..
This was the conflict.  It was a conflict between the  \
true supporters of the Federal Union of States established 
by the Constitution, and those whose object was to over.,
throw this Union of States, and by usurpations to erect a 
National Consolidation in its stead.
The same conflict arose upon divers other questions,
also, at an early day. It exhibited itself in the discussions of the first Judiciary Act. In the financial measures submitted by Mr. Hamilton, the then Secretary of
the Treasury. In the assumption of the State debts.
In the first Apportionment Bill, which was vetoed on
these grounds by Washington, in 1792, and much more
formidably it exhibited itself in the passage of the Alien
and Sedition Acts, in 1798, under the elder Adams.
This Party, as we have seen, then assumed the popular
name of Federal,* as it assumed the popular name of
Republican in 1860. These latter measures of 1798
came near stirring up civil war, and would most probably have resulted in such a catastrophe, if the Party,
so organized with such principles and objects, had not
been utterly overthrown, and driven from power by the
*Ante, vol. i, p. 441.
CoL. XIII.]
29 
30     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
advocates of our true Federal system of Government,
under the lead of Mr. Jefferson, in 1800.  It was after this
complete defeat on these other questions, that the Centralists rallied upon this question oY the Status of the Black
race in the States, where it continued to exist, as the most
promising one for them to agitate and unite the people
of the Northern States upon, for the accomplishment of
their sinister objects of National Centralization or Consolidation.
On this question, Mr. Greeley and other writers speak
of only two Parties during the entire conflict. The ProSlavery party, and the Anti-Slavery or Liberty party.
The truth is there never was in the United States, or in
any one of them, an organized Pro-Slavery party. No
such antagonism, as he represents, ever existed in the
Federal Councils.   The antagonism on this question,
which was clearly exhibited in the beginning, as appears
from the Resolution of the House of Representatives referred to, was an antagonism growing out of Constitutional principles, and not any sort of antagonism growing
out of the principles involved in the right or wrong of
negro Slavery, as it then existed in -the several States of
the Union. It was an antagonism growing out of principles lying at the foundation of the conmmon Government
of the States. Of those men, for instance, who voted for
the Resolution referred to, in 1790, how many can be
supposed to have been Pro-Slavery in their sentiments, or
in favor of the Institution? Let us look into it. Here is
the record of the vote.* Amongst the prominent supporters of the Resolution, and on the list of those who
voted for it, is the name of Roger Sherman, of Connecticut.  hiere is Benjamin Huntington,  also of the
same State. From Massachusetts, we see the names of
* Annals of Congress, vol. ii, p. 1523. 
CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES.
Theodore Sedg,wick, Elbridge Gerry, and Benjamin Goodhue. From New Hampshire, we see the name of Nicholas
Gilman. From New Jersey, Elias Boudinot and Lambert
Cadwallader. From Pennsylvania, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Thomas Hartley, and Daniel Heister.  These were
all prominent men in the formation of the Constitution.
All from the Northern States. The vote shows, that not
only a majority of the members from the Northern States
voted for the Resolution, but that a majority of those
who did vote for it, were from the Northern States.
Those from the South who voted against it, the debate
shows so voted, because they did not think the petition
should be considered, or acted upon at all, as it related
to subjects not within their Constitutional jurisdiction.
But how many of this majority of the Northern members
who voted for it, can be reasonably supposed to have been
Pro-Slavery in sentiment? In their action in entertaining the petition, they intended only to show what they
considered a due regard to the right of petition, and at
the same time prove themselves true to the Constitution
of their country. This the debate conclusively shows.
So in all after times up to the election in 1860. Those
who resisted the action of the Abolitionists did so, because it was  based upon  revolutionary principles
principles utterly at war with those upon which the
Union was established. As a striking illustration of
this, Mr. Jefferson himself is well-known to have been as
much opposed to the Institution of Slavery, as it then
existed in the United States, as any man in either of
them; and yet he headed the great party in opposition
to this mode of effecting the object of those who desired
its Abolition, as he had led the same party to success
over the Centralists on other questions, in 1800.  He
utterly denied that the Federal Government could right
COL. XIII.]
31 
32      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II
fully exercise any power with the view to the change of
any of the Institutions of the States respectively.
The same is true of all the prominent leaders of this
party, as well as the great mass of the people composing it,
from the days of Jefferson to those of General Cass and
Mr. Douglas. Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Clay, though Southern
men as Mr. Jefferson was, were decidedly Anti-Slavery
in their sentiments, and yet they ever acted with the
party of Mr. Jefferson upon this question. Gen. Cass
and Mr. Douglas were Northern men with sentiments
equally averse to Slavery, and for the same reasons opposed the Abolition movement in the Federal Councils.
Even Chief Justice Taney, who delivered the opinion of
the Supreme Court in the case referred to, was by no
means individually Pro-Slavery in his sentiments. His
views upon the Institution are understood to have been
very similar to those of Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Clay.
[Qut of the million and half, and more, of men in the
Northern States who voted against Mr. Lincoln, in 1860,
perhaps not ten thousand could be said, with truth, to be
in favor of the Institution, or would have lived in a State
where it existed.  It was a subject with which they
were thoroughly convinced they had nothing to do, and
could have nothing to do under the terms of the Union
by which the States were confederated, except to carry
out and faithfully perform all the obligations of the Constitutional Compact in regard to it.  In opposing the
"Liberty Party," so-called, they enlisted under no banner
of Slavery of any sort, but only arrayed themselves
against that organization, which had virtually hoisted
the banner of Consolidation. The struggle or conflict,
therefore, from its rise to its culmination, was between
those who, in whatever State they lived, were for maintaining, our Federal system as it was established, and 
COL. XIII.]  SECESSION OF THE SEVEN STATES.
those who were for a consolidation of power in the
Central Head.
But the great fact now to be considered in this investigation, is, that this Anti-Constitutional Party, in
1860, came into power upon this question in the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
This is the state of things which produced so much
excitement and apprehension in the popular mind of the
Southern States at that time. This Anti-Slavery Party
had not only succeeded in getting a majority of the
Northern States to openly violate their Constitutional
faith in the avowed breach of the Compact, as stated;
but had succeeded in electing a President and Vice.
President pledged to principles which were not only at war
with the domestic Institutions of the States of the South,
but which must inevitably, if carried out, ultimately lead
to the absorption of all power in the Central Government,
and end sooner or later in Absolutism or Despotism.
These were the principles then brought into conflict,
which, as stated, resulted in the conflict of arms.
The Seceding States feeling no longer bound by a Compact which had been so openly violated, and a majority of
their people being deeply impressed with the conviction
that the whole frame-work of the Constitution would be
overthrown by this Party which would soon have control of
the Executive Department of the Government, determined
to    withdraw from the Union, for the very reasons which
had  induced them to enter it in the beginning.   evn- ofthb States, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, did withdraw.  Conventions of their people, regularly called by the proper authorities in each of these States respectively-Conventions representing the Sovereignty of the States similar in all respects to those which by Ordinances had ratified the Con
3
33
'N
a 
34     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
stitution of the United States-passed Ordinances resum ing the Sovereign Powers therein delegated. These were
the Secession Ordinances, which we may hereafter have
occasion to look into. These Conventions also appointed
Delegates, to meet in Montgomery, Alabama, on the 4th of
February, 1861, with a view to form a new Confederation
among themselves, upon the same essential basis of the
Constitution of the United States.
It was not in opposition to the principles of that Gov ernment that they withdrew from it. They quit the Union
to save the principles of the Constitution, and to perpetu ate, on this Continent, the liberties which it was intended
to secure and establish.  Mr. Buchanan was then Presi dent of the United States. He held that the Federal Gov ernment had no power to coerce a Seceding State to re main in the Union, but, strangely enough, at the same
time held, that no State could rightfully withdraw from
the Union. Mr. Lincoln came into power on the 4th of
March, 1861.  He held that the Federal Government did
possess the Constitutional Power to maintain the Union of
States by force, and it was in the maintenance of these
views, the war was inaugurated by him.
JUDGE BYNUM.  Do you mean to say, Mr. Stephens,
that the war was inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln?
MR. STEPHENS. Most assuredly I do.
JUDGE BYNUM. Why, how in the world, can you do
that in the face of the well-known facts of the case?
Did not General Beauregard in command of the Con federate forces, so-called, at Charleston, South Carolina,
fire upon Fort Sumter in that Harbor? Did he not
* compel Major Anderson, the United States officer in
command of that Fort, to capitulate and surrender?
Was it not this outrage upon the American flag that
caused such deep and universal excitement and indig 
COL. XIII.]  WHO INAUGURATED THE WAR.
nation throughout the entire North? Was it not this
that caused the great meetings in New York, Boston and
every Northern city?  Can you maintain in the face of
these notorious facts, that the war was begun by
Mr.  Lincoln, or the Federal  authorities?   You  rely
mainly upon facts, as you say.  Your whole argument
professes to be based upon the facts of history. If there
is any great fact that must go down to posterity forever,
it is the fact that the Insurgents, or Confederates, if you
please, begun this war.  This is a fact, which, as you
have said of other matters, "can never be erased or obliterated."
MR. STEPHENS. Not quite so fast, Judge. My whole
argument is based upon facts, and upon facts that can
never be erased or obliterated.  It is a fact that the first
gun was fired by the Confederates.  It is a fact that
General Beauregard did, on the 12th of April, 1861,
bombard Fort Sumter, before  any blow had  actually
been struck by the Federal authorities. That is not
disputed at all. That is a fact which I have no disposition to erase or obliterate in any way. That is a
great truth which will live forever. But did the firing
of the first gun, or the reduction of Fort Sumter inangurate or begin the war? That is a question to be first
solved, before we can be agreed upon the fact as to who
inaugurated the war; and in solving this question, you
must allow me to say that in personal or national conflicts,
it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first
gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict. Hallam
has well said that "the Qaggressor in a war (that is, he
who begins it,) is not the first who uses force, but the first
who renders force necessary."*
Which  side, according to this high authority,  (that
* Iallamn's Conistitutional History of England, vol. ii, p. 219.
35 
36      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
only announces the common sentiments of mankind,)
was the aggre88ssor in this instance? Which side was it
that provoked and rendered the first blow necessary?
The true answer to that question will settle the fact as
to which side began the war.
I maintain that it was inaugurated and begun, though
no blow had been struck, when the hostile fleet, styled
the "Relief Squadron," with eleven ships, carrying two
hundred and eighty-five guns and two thousand four
hundred men, was sent out from New York and Norfolk,
with orders from the authorities at Washington, to reenforce Fort Sumter peaceably, if permitted-" but forcibly if they must."
The war was then and there inaugurated and begun
by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard
did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was,
to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston,
and until he had inquired of Major Anderson, in command of the Fort, whether he would engage to take no
part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him
from the approaching fleet. Francis W. Pickens, Governor of South Carolina, and General Beauregard, had
both been notified that the fleet was coming, and of its
objects by a messenger from the authorities at Washington. This notice, however, was not given until it was
near its destination. When Major Anderson, therefore,
would make no such promise, it became necessary for
General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did;
otherwise the forces under his command might have been
exposed to two fires at the same time-one in front, and
the other in the rear.
To understand this fully, let us see how matters stood
in Charleston Harbor at the time.
The Confederate States, then seven in number, had, as 
COL. XIII.]   THE SOUTH DESIRED PEACE.                37
stated, all passed Ordinances of Secession. All of them,
in regularly constituted Conventions, had withdrawn all
their Sovereign powers previously delegated to the United
States. They had formed a new Confederation, with a
regularly constituted Government, at Montgomery, Alabama, as they had a perfect right to do, if our past conclusions were correct, and these you have not been able
to assail. This new Confederation had sent a commission to the authorities at Washington, as we shall see, to
settle all matters amicably and peacefully. War was by
no means the wish or desire of the authorities at Montgomery. Very few of the public men in the Seceding
States even expected war. All of them, it is true, -held
themselves in readiness for it, if it should be forced upon
them against their wishes and most earnest protestations.
This is abundantly and conclusively apparent from the
speeches and addresses of their leading public men at the
time. It is apparent from the resolutions of the State
Legislatures, and the State Conventions, before, and in
their acts of Secession. It is apparent and manifest fromn
their acts in their new Confederation at Montgomery.
It is apparent from the inaugural address of President
Davis. It is apparent from the appointment of commissioners to settle all matters involved in the separation
from their former Confederates honorably, peaceably,
amicably, and justly. It is apparent and manifest from
every act that truly indicates the objects and motives of
men, or from which their real aims can be justly arrived
at. Peace not only with the States from which they had
separated, but peace with all the world, was the strong
desire of the Confederate States.
It was under these circumstances, that the Confederate
commissioners were given to understand, that Fort
Sumter would be peacefully evacuated. An assurance 
38      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II
to this effect was given, though in an informal manner,
by Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State under Mr. Lincoln.
This pledge was most strangely violated by sending tihe
armed squadron, as stated, to re-enforce and provision the
Fort.   The information that this fleet had put to sea
wvith such orders, reached General Beauregard, when it
was already near the offing, as I have stated. He immediately communicated the fact, by telegraph, to the
authorities at Montgomery. In reply, he received this
order from the Secretary of War of the Confederate States
Government:
If you have no doubt of the authorized character of
the agent who communicated to you the intention of the
Washington  Government  to supply Fort Sumter by
force, you will at once demand its evacuation; and if this
is refused, proceed in such manner as you may determine,
to reduce it."
Accordingly, on the 11th of April, General Beauregard
made a demand on Major Anderson, in command of the
Fort, for its evacuation.
In reply Major Anderson stated:
"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
communication demanding the evacuation of this Fort,
and to say in reply thereto, that it is a demand with
which I regret that my sense of honor and my obligation
to my Government prevent my compliance."
To this he added, verbally, to the messenger: "I will
await the first shot, and, if you do not batter us to pieces,
we will be starved out in a few days."
This written reply, as well as the verbal remark, were
forthwith sent by General Beauregard to the Secretary of
War at Montgomnery, who immediately returned the
following response:
"Do not desire needlessly to bombard  Fort Sumter.
.1  
Th
~><ffi' 
COL. XIII.]     FALL OF FORT SUMTER.                 39
If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by himself, he will evacuate, and agree that, in the
meantime, he will not use his guns against us, unless
ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are
authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this
or its equivalent be refused, reduce the Fort, as your
judgment decides most practicable."
This was communicated to Major Anderson. He refused to comply with the terms. He would not consent
to any such arrangement.
Whereupon, General Beauregard opened fire on the
Fort at 4.30, on the morning of the 12th of April. The
fire was returned. The bombardment lasted for thirtytwo hours, when Major Anderson agreed to capitulate.
General Beauregard exhibited no less of the magnanimity
of the true soldier in the terms of capitulation, than he
had of high military skill and genius in forming his plans,
and in their execution for the reduction of the Fort.
The entire garrison numbering eighty in all, officers and
men, was permitted to be marched out with their colors
and music.   They were permitted to salute their flag
with fifty guns. All private as well as company property
was also allowed to be taken by those to whom it
belonged. These were the same terms that General
Beauregard had offered on the 11th, before he opened
fire. As Providence ordered it, not a life was lost in this
most memorable and frightful combat.   The firing on
both sides, at some times, particularly at night, was represented by those who witnessed it, as both "grand arid
terrific."
This was the first blow.  It is true, the first gun was
fired on the Confederate side. That is fully admitted.
But all the facts show that, if force was thus first used
by them, it was so first used only, because it was 
40     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VoJL. II.
rendered necessary in self-defence on the part of those
thus using it, and so rendered necessary by the opposite
side. This first use of force, therefore, under the circumstances, cannot, in fact, be properly and justly considered
as the beginning of the war.
What has been stated, also, shows how earnestly the
authorities at Montgomery, had in every possible way,
consistent with honor and safety, endeavored to avoid a
collision of forces. The whole question of the right or
wrong, therefore, in striking this first blow, as well as
the right or wrong of the war, depends upon the Constitutional points we  have been discussing.  If the
Seceding States were right on these points, then this
first blow was perfectly justifiable, even if it had not
been given, as it was, to avert one then impending over
them.
LJUDGE BYNUM. Please allow me to interrupt you for a
moment. The views you express seem to me not only
novel, but altogether unsuited to the facts, even as you
state them. Allow me to ask, if the Fort did not belong
to the United States? Was it not the property of the
United States? Were not the officers and men in it
attached to the service of the United States? What
right, therefore, had General Beauregard, or any body
else, to attempt to prevent the United States Government
from provisioning the garrison then holding it, and reenforcing it, if they thought proper? Was it not the
duty of Mr. Lincoln to do it, as well as his right?
MR. STEPRHENS. Not if South Carolina had the Sovereign right to demand the possession of the Fort.
Rights, whether civil, moral, or political, never conflict.
If South Carolina had this Sovereign right to demand
the possession of the place, which was within her jurisdiction, then Mr. Lincoln could have had no right to con 
THE PROPERTY VIEW.
tinue to hold it against this demand; nor was it his duty,
in any sense, to attempt, even, to provision it by force,
under the circumstances.
The Fort was within the jurisdiction of South Carolina. It was built specially for her protection, and
belonged to her in part as well as to the other States
jointly. On the 11th of January, Governor Pickens, ill
behalf of the Sovereign Rights of the State, demanded
its possession of Major Anderson for the use of the State.
On his refusal to deliver it up, the Governor immediately
sent I. W. Hayne, the Attorney General of the State, to
Washington, and made a like demand for its possession
of Mr. Buchanan, the President, alleging that the possession of this Fort was necessary for the safety of the
State for whose protection it had been erected. In this
letter, Governor Pickens also stated, that a full valuation
of the property would be accounted for, on settlement of
the relations of South Carolina with the United States.
This whole question, relating to the right in this matter, and the side on which the right existed, depends, as
I have said, upon the correctness of our conclusions on
the points discussed. If South Carolina, after the resumption of her delegated powers, was a separate, Sovereign State (which is one of our established truths),
then, of course, she had a perfect right to demand the
possession of any landed property whatever, lying within
the limits of her jurisdiction, if she deemed it of importance for her public use and benefit. This perfect right
so to do, was subject to but one limitation, and that was
the moral obligation to pay a fair and just compensation
for the property so demanded for public use. There can
be no question of the correctness of this principle. It is
the foundation of the great right of Eminent domain,
which ever accompanies Sovereignty. We have seen
COL. XIII.]
41 
42     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
that this right of Eminent domain was never parted with
by her, even under the Constitution.* South Carolina,
then, even before Secession, and while she held herself to be
bound by the Constitution, had a perfect right to demand
of the United States Government the possession of this
identical property, on paying a just compensation for it,
if she had deemed it essential for her public interests.
This Fort never could have been erected on her soil
without her consent, as we have seen.t The title, therefore, of the United States to the land on which Fort
Sumter was built, was in no essential respect different
from the title of any other land-holder in the State. The
tenure by which the United States claimed and held this
property, differed in no essential respect from the tenure
by which every other land-owner held similar property
in the State; nor was this property of the United States,
so purchased and held under grant from South Carolina,
any less subject to the right of Eminent domain on the
part of the State, than any other lands lying within her
limits. If this was so even before Secession, (and no one
can successfully assail the position,) then how much more
clearly this right (by virtue of the principle of Eminent
domain,) to demand the possession of this property for
public use, for her own protection, appears after she had
expressly resumed the exercise of all of her Sovereign
powers? This right to demand the possession of this
Fort, therefore, being unquestionably perfect in her as a
Sovereign State after Secession, whether it was before or
not, she had transferred to the Confederate States. Hlence,
their right to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter, was
perfect, viewed either morally, or politically.
The Confederate States had offered to come to a fair
and just settlement with the United States, as to the
* Ante, vol. i, pp. 82, 192, 493.  t Ante, vol. i, p. 192. 
COL. XIII.]  VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPACT.
value of this property, as well as all other public prolperty belonging to all the States in common, at the time
of their separation. This Fort, as well as all else that
belonged to the United States, belonged in part to these
seven Seceded States. They constituted seven of the
United States, to which all this joint property belonged.
All the Forts which lay within the limits of the Seceded
States, had been turned over by these States, respectively, to the Confederacy, as we shall see. The Confederate States, therefore, through their authlorities, had a
right to demand, and take possession of all of these Forts,
so lying within their limits, for their own public use,
upon paying a just compensation for them to their former
associates of the United States, who still adhered to that
Union. These principles cannot be assailed. The offer
so to pay whatever should be found to be due upon a
general and just account, had been made. Mr. Lincoln,
therefore, had no right under the circumstances, to hold
any of these Forts by force, after the demand for the
possession had been made; much less was it his duty
either morally, or politically, when it was known that
the attempt would inevitably lead to a war between the
States.  This is my answer to your property view.
Now, sir, I do stand upon facts, and these are the incontestable facts of this case, which will forever perpetuate the truth of my assertion, that upon the head of the
Federal Government will forever rest the inauguration
of this most terrible war which did ensue.
No part of its responsibility rests upon the Southern
States. They were the aggressors in no instance. They
were ever true to their plighted faith under the Constitution. No instance of a breach of its mutual covenants
can be ever laid to their charge. The open and palpable
breach was committed by a number of their Northern
43 
44      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Confederates. No one can deny this. Those States at
the North, which were untrue to their Constitutional engagements, claimed powers not delegated, and elected a
Chief Magistrate pledged to carry out principles openly
in defiance of the decision of the highest Judicial Tribunal known to the Constitution.
Their policy tended inevitably to a Centralized Despotism. It was under these circumstances that Secession
was resorted to, as before stated; and, then, the war was
begun alnd waged by the North to prevent the exercise
of this Right. All that the Southern States did, was in
defence, even in their firing the first gun.
MAJOR HEISTER. Do you say, Mr. Stephens, that the
Southern States had never violated their Constitutional
obligations, and that Northern States had openly repudiated theirs?
MR. STEPHENS. I do.
MAJOR HEISTER. How did they thus repudiate?  What
do you mean?
MR. STEPHENS. They did what I say by passing State
laws-" Personal Liberty Bills," so-called-which effectively prevented the execution of that clause of the Constitution which provided for the rendition of fugitives
from service.  Several of these States also refused to
deliver fugitives from justice, when the crime charged
was that of stealing or enticing away any person owing
service to another. For, besides their personal liberty
acts, which nullified, in the language of Mr. Webster,
that provision of the Constitution for the rendition of
slaves, the Governors of Maine, New York, and Ohio,
had refused to deliver up fugitives from justice, who had
been charged with a breach of the laws of the Southern
States, in matters relating to the status of the Black
race. 
PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.
MAJOR HEISTER. Where are those laws?  Have you
got them? I should like to see them.
MR. STEPHENS. I have some of them, perhaps not all.
But as to the fact, there can be no doubt. Here, for instance, is the law of Vermont upon the subject.
"Every person who may have been held as a slave,
who shall come or who may be brought into this State,
with the consent of his or her alleged master or mistress,
or who -shall come or be brought, or shall be in this State,
shall be free.
"Every person who shall hold, or attempt to hold, in
this State, in slavery, as a slave, any free person, in any
form or for any time, however short, under the pretence
that such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the State prison for a term
not less than five years, nor more than twenty, and be
fined not less than one thousand dollars, nor more than
ten thousand dollars."
From this it clearly appears, that that State utterly
refused to comply with her Constitutional obligations. She
did more. She made it penal for any person to attempt
to carry out this provision within her limits.
The acts of Massachusetts were not dissimilar, as, I
suppose, Judge Bynum will admit. But it is useless to
go through with them.   I have a document here which
renders all that unnecessary. It is the speech of Judge
Chase before the Peace Congress, so-called, in February,
1861.
So anxious were the people of the South to continue
the Union under the Constitution, so desirous were they
to stand by and perpetuate the principles of the Constitution, that even after South Carolina seceded, Virginia,
the mother of States and Statesmen, she that took the
lead in the separation from Great Britain and in the for
COL. XIII.]
45 
46       CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THIE WAR.   [VOL,. II.
mation of our Federal Republic, as we have seen, made a
great and strong effort still to save the Union by calling
an informal Congress of the States to deliberate and see
if no scheme could be devised to save the country from
impending dangers and feuds. A number of States sent
deputies to this Congress. Amongst these deputies was
Judge Chase, then a distinguished leader of the AntiSlavery Party, so-called, subsequently Mr. Lincoln's
Secretary of Treasury, and now Chief Justice of the
United States. In that Peace Congress, so assembled,
Judge Chase, on the 6th of February, 1861, in all the
candor of his nature, declared most emphatically to the
Southern members, that the Northern States never would
fulfil that part of their Constitutional obligations. His
whole speech is exceedingly interesting as one of the
"footprints" of the momentous events of that day. Let
me call your special attention to these parts:
"The result of the national canvass which recently
terminated in the election of Mr. Lincoln, has been spoken
of by some as the effect of a sudden impulse, or of some
irregular excitement of the popular mind; and it has been
somewhat confidently asserted that, upon reflection and
consideration, the hastily formed opinions which brought
about that election will be changed. It has been said, also,
that subordinate questions of local and temporary character have augmented the Republican vote, and secured
a majority which could not have been obtained upon the
national questions involved in the respective platforms of
the parties which divide the country.
"I cannot take this view of the result of the Presidential election. I believe, and the belief amounts to
absolute conviction, that the election must be regarded
as a triumph of principles cherished in the hearts of the
people of the Free States. These principles, it is true, 
COL. XIII.]  CHASE'S PEACE CONGR,ESS SPEECHI.
were originally asserted by a small party only. But,
after years of discussion, they have, by their own value,
their own intrinsic soundness, obtained the deliberate
and unalterable sanction of the people's judgment.
"Chief among these principles is the Restriction of
Slavery within State limits; not war upon Slavery within
those limits, but fixed opposition to its extension beyond
them. Mr. Lincoln was the candidate of the people opposed to the extension of Slavery. We have elected him.
After many years of earnest advocacy and of severe trial,
we have achieved the triumph of that principle. By a
fair and unquestionable majority, we have secured that
triumph.   Do  you  think  we,  who  represent  this
majority, will throw it away? Do you think the
people would sustain us if we undertook to throw it
away?   I must speak to you plainly, gentlemen of
the South. It is not in my heart to deceive you. I
therefore tell you explicitly, that if we of the North and
West would consent to throw away all that has been
gained in the recent triumph of our principles, the people
would not sustain us, and so the consent would avail you
nothing. And I must tell you further, that under no inducements, whatever, will we consent to surrender a principle which we believe to be so sound and so important
as that of restricting Slavery within State limits."
This part of the speech was in reference to the claim
of power on the part of the Federal Government to prevent the people of the Southern States -from going into
the common Territories with their slaves, and which
power the Supreme Court had decided the General Government had no right to exercise. He here deliberately
asserted, that the Party which elected Mr. Lincoln would
not regard this decision of the Supreme Court. But then
he goes on to say:
47 
48     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"Aside from the Territorial question-the question of
Slavery outside of Slave States-I know of but one
serious difficulty. I refer to the question concerning
fugitives from service. The clause in the Constitution
concerning this class of persons is regarded by almost all
men, North and South, as a stipulation for the surrender
to their masters of slaves escaping into Free States. The
people of the Free States, however, who believe that
Slave-holding is wrong, cannot and will not aid in the
reclamation, and the stipulation becomes, therefore, a
dead letter. You complain of bad faith, and the complaint is retorted by denunciations of the cruelty which
would drag back to bondage the poor slave who has
escaped from it. You, thinking Slavery right, claim the
fulfilment of the stipulation; we, thinking Slavery wrong,
cannot fulfil the stipulation without consciousness of
participation in wrong. Here is a real difficulty, but it
seems to me not insuperable. It will not do for us to
say to you, in justification of non-performance,' the stipulation is immoral, and therefore we cannot execute it;'
for you deny the immorality, and we cannot assume to
judge for you. On the other hand, you ought not to
exact from us the literal performance of the stipulation
when you know that we cannot perform it without conscious culpability.   A  true solution of  the difficulty
seems to be attainable by regarding it as a simple case
where a contract, from changed circumstances, cannot be
fulfilled exactly as made. A court of equity in such a
case decrees execution as near as may be. It requires
the party who cannot perform to make compensation for
non-performance. Why cannot the same principle be
applied to the rendition of fugitives from service? We
cannot surrender-but we can compensate. Why not
then avoid all difficulties on all sides and show respec 
COL. XIII.] COMMENTS ON CHASE-TRUE LOYALTY.
tively good faith and good-will by providing and accepting compensation where masters reclaim escaping servants and prove their right of reclamation under the
Constitution? Instead of a judgment for rendition, let
there be a judgment for compensation, determined by the
true value of the services, and let the same judgment
assure freedom to the fugitive. The cost to the National
Treasury would be as nothing in comparison with the
evils of discord and strife. All parties would be gainers."  Whatever may be thought of this as a proposed compromise to induce the Parties to remain in the Union, no
one can doubt its unequivocal declaration that the NonSlave-holding States would not comply with their acknowledged obligations under the Constitution. It was
a confession of one high in authority that that part of
the Constitution was a dead letter, and, of course, if the
Southern States would not agree to his offer, they were
absolved from all further obligation to the Compact.
This is conclusive upon well settled principles of public law.
This declaration that the Northern States would
not comply with their Constitutional obligations, bear in
mind, was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
under Mr. Lincoln. He spoke for the President and his
Party. He spoke for that Party which, after the Southern States had seceded, in the House, passed this Resolution:
"Resolved, That as our country, and the very existence
of the best government ever instituted by man, are imperilled by the most causeless and wicked rebellion that
the world has seen, and believing, as we do, that the,
only hope of saving this country and preserving this
Government is by the power of the sword, we are for the
most vigorous prosecution of the war until the Constitution and laws shall be enforced and obeyed in all parts
4
49 
50      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of the United States; and to that end we oppose
any armistice, or intervehtion, or mediation, or proposition for peace from any quarter, so long as there shall
be found a Rebel in arms against the Government; and
we ignore all party names, lines, and issues, and recognize but two parties in this war-patriots and traitors."*
This Resolution passed the House, December 17, 1863,
by a vote of ninety-four to sixty-five. The ninety-four
votes all belonged to that party for which Judge Chase
spoke.
Was there ever an instance in the history of the world
of such inconsistency, or,-no! I will withhold the word I
was about to utter. But let me ask, if the Federal arms
had been directed against those who resisted the enforcement of the Constitution and the laws of the United States,
with the real purpose of preserving "the best Government ever instituted by man," was there a single one of'
those who voted for this Resolution, who would not justly
have been the first subjects of slaughter? These are the
men who still talk of "loyal States!"  Who still have so
much to say of "loyal men!" Was ever noble word,
when properly applied, so prostituted, as this is in its
present use by this class of boasting patriots?
The Southern States were ever loyal and true to the
Constitution. This I maintain as a great truth for history
The only true loyalty in this country is fidelity to the
principles of the Constitution!  The openly "disloyal,"
or those avowedly untrue to the Constitution, were those
who instigated, inaugurated, and waged this most unrighteous war against their Confederate neighbors! If I
express myself with too much fervor on this point, you
will please excuse me. I do, however, but express the
thorough convictions of my judgment.
* fcPhersoi's History of the Rebellion, p. 298. 
CoL. XIII.] CONVERSATIONS TO BE FREE AND FULL.  51
MAJOR HEISTER. Judge Bynum, how is this? Is it
true, as stated, that any of the Northern States did thus
openly and avowedly refuse to comply with their Consti tutional engagements, while the Southern States were
always true to theirs?  Is this correct?  I often heard of
"Personal Liberty Bills" at the North, but I thought
they were intended only to secure the liberty of our own
free Blacks against Kidnappers. I never supposed it was
true, that the Northern States deliberately refused to obey
or enforce that clause of the Constitution in relation to
actual fugitives from service. I am utterly astonished
at what Mr. Stephens has read from the law of Vermont,
and from Judge Chase's speech in the Peace Congress.
You are better posted than I am on these matters, but I
feel assured that the people at the North, generally, did
not look upon the questions, as he presents them; and it
must be, that there is some answer to what he says and
maintains with so much apparent confidence. Let us
know how these things really are.
JUDGE BYNUM. I have a great deal that I might say in
reply to him. But I think it best, perhaps, in these
conversations to forbear, as it might stir up ill-blood and
do no good. We are Mr. Stephens's guests, and if I were
to go into a full explanation of the matter, I might have
to refer to questions that he would not like to hear, especially about the violations of Compacts.
MR.  STEPHENS. Hlave no uneasiness on  that point.
These conversations I wish to be perfectly free, full, and
exhaustive. So long as they are conducted on the plan
and within the bounds first stated, you are at liberty to
speak your mind fully and freely. Have no fear of ruffling my temper in the least.
PROFESSOR NORTON. Not even if he goes into the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, that time-honored Compact between the North and the South. 
52     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
MR. STEPHENS. None. Have no fears of the sort in
relation to any subject.
MAJOR HEISTER. But how do you know what he may
say?
MR. STEPHENS. I do not, of course, know what he will
or may say, but I do know that there is nothing that he
can say on any of these subjects, in accordance with truth
and fact, which can ruffle me in the least. It is truth
when told to one's disadvantage which generally ruffles
temper the quickest. There is a great moral in the anecdote about Mr. Petigru,* so distinguished for his wit and
learning, at which we laughed so heartily the other day,
when talking upon another matter.
In this case, I know there is no truth, that can hurt,
and as for bare epithets, or declamation, after I have
heard with perfect equanimity all that Mr. Giddings, Mr.
Lovejoy, and Mr. Sumner have said about "Slavery,"
* In speaking of Mr. Petigru's imperturbable temper his biographer
says:
"At another time hlie was assailed in the court-yard with the most
violent abuse by a turbulent fellow of.the village, who lavished on himni
all the foul epithets and appellations he could remember or invent, of
which rogue and scoundrel were among the most moderate.   The
assaulted party stood unmoved, with a half smile of amusement on his
face.  At last the noisy bully, having exhausted his ordinary vocabulary of abuse, bethought himself of a term of reproach which, at that
day, comprised everything hateful-he called him a'damned Federal.'
The word was no sooner uttered than a blow, altogether unexpected by
the brawler, laid him in the sand.  He became as quiet as a lamb, and
moved away without a comment. But an old gentleman present, Mr.
William Hutson, one of the remains of the defunct Federal party,
thought the proceeding a sort of imputation on his old creed.' How is
this,' he said to Petigru,' you seem to think it a greater offence to be
called a Federalist than to be called a rogue or rascal?''Certainly,'
was the reply;'I incur no injury from being abused as a rogue, for
nobody believes the charge; but I may be thought a Federalist readily
enough, and be proscribed accordingly, anid so I knocked the man
down by way of protest against all current misconstructions.'"-Grayson's fMemnoir of James Louis Petigru, p. 83. 
CoL. XIII.]    A DRIVE TO THE HOMESTEAD.
"the Slave Power," the "Slavery Oligarchy," the "Slave
Driver," etc., I can promise you, in advance, that nothing
that our friend, the Judge, here can say upon these subjects, or any other within the range of our conversations
will ruffle me in the least. I give him full latitude to
speak with perfect freedom and liberty.
MAJOR HEISTER. Well, Judge, let us hear from you. I
am anxious to know what our defence against these
statements of Mr. Stephens is; for he seems to me, to be
candid with you, to be putting us clearly in the wrong.
JUDGE BYNUM. Well, as the subject is a long one, and
may lead us into new fields, perhaps we may as well
adjourn it until to-morrow.
MR. STEPHENS. This is quite agreeable to me. Meantime, Judge, my library is at your service, if you wish to
hunt up any documents or other matters to sustain you.
If you have any desire to indulge in the arguments
ad hominizem, you will find a volume of my speeches,
compiled by Cleveland, containing all the speeches of
importance I made while I was in Congress, and nearly
all of importance I ever made. That, as well as anything else I can command, is at your service. If it is
agreeable, we will now adjourn for the present, and the
rest of us will take a drive to the old Homestead, my
birth-place, about two miles off. This excursion will not
only afford us some relaxation, but topics, perhaps, of a
more pleasant character.
53 
COLLOQUY XIV.
A NEW TURN IN THE DISCUSSION-NORTHERN STATES DEFENDED BY JUDGE
BYNUI-SLAVERY WITH ITS AGGRESSIONS REVIEWED BY HIM-THREE FIFTHS' CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION-MISSOURI COMPACT-ITS REPEAL
-ACQUISITION OF LOUISIANA, FLORIDA AND TEXAS-LAWS OF SOUTH CARO LINA IMPRISONING NORTHERN SEAMEN-TREATMENT OF MR. HOAR IN
CHARLESTON-JUDGE CHASE'S PROPOSITION- SECESSION A CONSPIRACY TO
OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT-CONCOCTED AT WASHINGTON-DEFENCE
OF NORTHERN STATES REPLIED TO BY MR. STEPHENS AT LENGTH-LAWS
OF SOUTH CAROLINA VINDICATED-THREE-FIFTHS' CLAUSE OF THE CON STITUTION REVIEWED-CAUSES ASSIGNED BY CONVENTION OF SOUTH CARO LINA FOR SECEDING-CAUSES FOR SECESSION ASSIGNED BY MR. TOOMBS IN
UNITED STATES SENATE.
MAJOR IEISTER. Well, Judge Bynum, how it is with
the others present, I do not know; but as for myself, I
confess, I am rather impatient to hear what you have to
say in defence of those Northern States, against which
Mr. Stephens has brought so serious a charge. Is it true
that any of them did so disregard their obligations under
the Constitution, and prove themselves so faithless, to the
Compact, as by their breach of it, to release the Seceding
States from their obligations under it? This is about the
substance of his position, as I understand it. How is the
fact?  What say you?
JUDGE BYNUM. In reply to your question, as well as in
reply to all that Mr. Stephens has said on this subject, I
have a great deal to say: much more than can be said by
me under present circumstances. As Mr. Stephens remarked in reference to himself, I can here repeat that a
volume might be filled with what I could say upon the
54 
COL. XIV.]   NORTHERN STATES DEFENDED.
subject; but to be as brief and pointed as possible on this
occasion and in offering what I think will be quite sufficient for my present purpose, I will observe in the beginning, that the conflict upon the subject of "Slavery socalled," as he styles it, but what I call the conflict between
the principles of human rights, and human bondage, between justice and wrong, commenced long anterior to the
formation of the Constitution. It commenced in the Continental Congress. It showed itself at the time of the
Declaration of Independence. This the history of that
Instrument shows. Even then that spirit which was subsequently embodied in what has well been denominated
the Slave Power, showed its Hydra head with many of
its hideous features. But for its imperious arrogance and
domineering insolence, Slavery then and there in accordance with the promptings of the Christian and Philanthropic principles of the age, would have been abolished
throughout the whole country, and we never should have
been cursed with it as we have been.
The same dictatorial spirit showed itself afterwards in the
Confederation, when by the yielding of timid members of
the North to its unjust demands it was again triumphant. I
use strong language, but it is the language of truth, and I
trust Mr. Stephens will bear it with patience, though he admits that the truth sometimes hurts most. This spirit
showed itself again in the Convention that framed the
Constitution. It there again triumphed most unfortunately
in the same way. This never would have been the result
but for the time-serving and truckling spirit of Northern
men who in those days were but too willing to bow and
yield to the dictation of what may be properly called the
Slavery Oligarchy. This triumph was then secured by the
threats of disunion, and by a compromise then made, the
Slave Power, not then it is true confined to the South,
55 
56      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
secured to itself that provision in the Constitution which
gives a three-fifths representation in Congress to the
Slave population. By this arrangement the man who
owned five Slaves was endowed with as much political
power as three free white men.
It was this undue Slave Power which enabled the Southern States to carry in after times the like triumph in 1820,
in the conflict on the admission of the State of Missouri
into the Union. By this undue power it was enabled to
effect that Compromise. By the same undue power the
annexation of Texas was carried in 1845. The Missouri
Compromise was carried in 1820, bythe threats of disunion,
if these demands of the Slave Power were not complied
with. It is true, there were men at the North who then
stood upon principle and refused to bow the knee to this
Baal of Iniquity. The conflict all the time was between
the principles of Justice and Right, and the principles of
Wrong and Oppression.  These principles of right gradually triumphed in all the States north of Delaware, and
this Institution so-called, which was a blot upon the American name, found a resting place alone in the Southern
States. Here it fortified itself. As the "Man of Sin," as
it has justly been called, it took its position in high places,
and even desecrated the Temples of the Living God by
reaching that it was right and sanctioned by His oracles
in the very face and teachings of the Saviour of the
World, whose whole moral system rested upon the eternal
principle of Right-that all men should do unto others,
as they would have others do unto themselves. When,
in 1860, the advocates of universal freedom-those who'
stood on the immutable truths of the Declaration of
American Independence, and maintained that all men are
born free and equal-carried the election of the President
and Vice President, it was, then, that this spirit seeing, 
COL. XIV.] SEWARD ON RENDITION OF SLAVES.
and feeling that its ultimate doom was approaching, attempted to carry out its original wicked design of frcing
its principles over the whole Union, by tearing down the
Government of our Fathers and establishing a Slavery
Oligarchy over the whole country, II the corner-stone" of
which was to be human bondage, and with this object
the great conspiracy called Secession was concocted. This
was but another name for an attempt to revolutionize the
Government and to set up a Slavery Oligarchical dynasty
in its stead.
Now as to the matter of the rendition of fugitive slaves
under the Constitution, I freely admit that Judge Chase
stated the case fairly, as quoted. Mr. Seward had announced the same thing in the Senate, March 11th, 1850.
Hie then stated as quoted by Mr. Greeley:
"The law of nations disavows such Compacts;  the
law of nature, written on the hearts and consciences of
freemen, repudiates them.  I know that there are laws,
of various sorts, which regulate the conduct of men.
There are constitutions and statutes, codes mercantile
and codes civil; but when we are legislating for States,
especially when we are founding States, all these laws
must be brought to the standard of the law of God,
must be tried by that standard, and must stand or fall
by it. To conclude on this point: we are not slaveholders. We cannot, in our judgment, be either true Christians or real freemen, if we impose on another a chain
that we defy all human power to fasten on ourselves."*
The Northern mind was thoroughly and deeply impressed with the full consciousness that Slavery was a
great crime in the sight of men as well as in the sight of
God. It was the summation of all iniquity. They could
* Greeley's Amnerican Conflict, vol. i, p. 48.
App. Cong. Globe, vol. xxii, part 1, p. 263.
0
57 
58      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
not and would not violate their consciences by aiding in
the capture and return of fugitives from oppression. They
did feel, as Mr. Seward said, that there was "a higher
law" regulating human conduct, than any which time serving politicians might presume to enact to effect their
worldly advantages and that "as true Christians and real
freemen they could not impose upon another a chain
which they defied all human power to fasten on them selves."  It was upon this "higher law" they stood.
That law which was older than the Constitution!
And what had the South to complain of under Judge
Chase's fair proposition? That was to pay to the owner
the value of the slave in money. The entire North would
have cheerfully complied with that. Was it not right
and equitable and just? I can but believe that Mr.
Stephens so considered it himself, as well as all fairminded men both North and South. I also take this
occasion to say that I do not believe that he had any
sympathy with these Slavery Oligarchists in their purposes notwithstanding his "Corner-Stone" speech, for I
well remember what he said on the annexation of Texas.
His language was strong-truly patriotic, and made a
deep impression upon my mind. He then declared that
he was no defender of Slavery, that "liberty always had
charmns for him," and that he "would rejoice to see all of
Adam's family in the possession of the rights set forth in
the Declaration of American  Independence."   These
sentiments have no affinity with those of the conspirators
who concocted Secession.
But Mr. Stephens has said that the South had never
broken the Constitution, that they were always true to
their plighted faith, that no charge of infidelity or breach
of faith could be brought against them from the beginning
of the Government! Now, on the contrary, I think it can 
CoL. XIV.]'I'HE SLAVE POWER-ITS AGGRESSIONS.
be made clearly to appear that from the beginning this
Slave Power by insinuating itself craftily with the interests of subservient allies of the North, just as it did when
the Declaration of Independence was made, and in the Confederation, and in the formation of the Constitution, has all
along looked to nothing butthe perpetuation of its dominion.
Did not these States, controlled by this power, acquire
Louisiana at a cost of $15,000,000, with the sole view
of strengthening their interest, and without the least
semblance of authority in the Constitution? Did they
not get Florida, for the same purpose, at a cost of five
million more? Did they not annex Texas with the
same object, though that measure brought a war with
the cost of near one hundred million of dollars, to say
nothing of the lives sacrificed in the unholy strife? Did
they not by their power, by their undue representation
in the House and by their menaces and threats, carry
their Compromise measures of 1850, with the sole object
of strengthening their power, of extending their peculiar
Institution? nay, more, did they not afterwards, in 1854,
when strong enough, openly repudiate this Compromise,
as well as the solemn Compact entered into on the admission of Missouri? Did they not then repeal the prohibition of Slavery over the whole North-Western Territory, which was the condition upon which Missouri was
admitted; and by this act desecrate to human bondage
soil, which had by this Compact been forever consecrated
to human liberty?  Was there no breach of faith here?
Breach of faith indeed!
Did not South Carolina herself, openly and avowedly,
as he says, fail to fulfil her obligations under the Constitution, when she passed a law to imprison, without
charge of crime, free citizens of the North who might
visit her ports, if they happened to be of the African race?
59 
60     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
When Massachusetts, in 1844, sent down the venerable
Samuel Hoar, as her agent to look into this matter, was
he not driven from the State? Was not this a breach of
faith? Those who live in glass houses should not be the
first to throw stones. These are all facts which Mr.
Stephens will hardly undertake to deny. So if the
Northern States did fail on their part to degrade themselves by turning slave-catchers, they were justified in
it by the previous bad faith of this State herself, which
was the first to secede, and which, so far from having
acted on the basis of what Mr. Stephens says, did nothing
but carry out a long cherished design to overthrow the
Government.
It was not the matter of the rendition of slaves, or the
breach of the Constitutional Compact on the part of the
Northern States in this particular, that caused South
Carolina to secede. It was but the execution of a long
cherished purpose. This is clear from the speeches of Mr.
Rhett, Mr. Keitt, and others at the time. It was done,
too, not by the mass of the people of that State. It was
effected by the Slavery Oligarchy which had complete
sway in the State. This, too, was the state of things generally in the South. All this about the breach of faith,
is but an after-thought. The Slave Power by secret conspiracy usurped the liberties of the mass of the white
people in the entire South. Their conspiracy was concocted at Washington. It was there conceived, perfected
and thoroughly organized in secret conclave, on the night
of the 5th of January, 1861. Mr. Davis was there chosen
President of this new dynasty. This was all done by
leading Southern Senators, who by usurpation took control of public affairs throughout the South, and presented
the naked question to the American people of a Slavery
Dynasty or the Constitution of our Fathers.
I 
COL. XIV.]  BREACHI OF COMPACT ADMITTED.
This was the conflict which commenced in the Continental Congress. Mr. Greeley, I think, was right, and
he has given a truthful history of it from its beginning to
its culmination. This is all I have to say at present, and
I should not have spoken so freely and fully as I have
on this occasion, but for Mr. Stephens's invitation, given
before-hand, to speak as freely as I chose. What I have
stated under the circumstances, I trust he will in no way
consider personally offensive.
MR. STEPHENS. Not in the least.  A full, free, thorough
and fair discussion is what I expect; and if you are
through, let us now proceed calmly and dispassionately
to consider each point in order. Declamation is often resorted to' when argument fails. You admit, then, that
Judge Chase did set forth the state of things correctly, as
far as it related to the then dominant party at the North,
that is, you admit, that they could not and would not
violate their consciences in the matter of the fulfilment
of their obligation under the Constitution referred to?
JUDGE BYNUMI. I do. But I insist that his offer was a
fair one, and that South Carolina and the other Southern
States had no just reason to complain of it. They had
violated the Constitution in much more important particulars before, and I maintain that South Carolina was
not governed by this at all. In my opinion, she did not
care a button for that.
MR. STEPHENS. We will dispose of one thing at a time.
You do admit, then, that it is a fact that several of the
Northern States did openly and intentionally fail to fulfil
their clearly stipulated obligation under the Compact of
Union?
JUDGE BYNUM. Yes; I say I admit that with the other
things I have said. They must both and all go together.
MR. STEPHENS. No. They both and all ought not to
61 
62       CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VOL. II.
go together, and cannot all go together unless they are all
equally true. The truth in each case must stand upon
the nature of the proofs brought to sustain it. These
must all be examined separately.
JUDGE BYNUM. Well, then, do you question the facts
of what I have said about South Carolina's breach of the
Compact and the other instances of a breach of Compact
by the other States?
MR. STEPHENS. Most assuredly I do. I join issue with
you on the whole and in detail.
JUDGE BYNUM. Well, what have you to say against my
statement taken in detail? Did not South Carolina
openly and defiantly break the Constitution in the matter
of the imprisonment of colored Northern seamen which
clearly violated that clause in the Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several
States;" and in the expulsion of Mr. Ihoar, who was sent
to Charleston to defend the rights of the colored citizens
of Massachusetts who had been so outrageously wronged?
Do you join issue with what Mr. Greeley says upon that
point?
MR. STEPHENS. I do most pointedly in the essential
particulars.
But, first and foremost, let it be remembered that it is
admitted that Northern States did openly and avowedly
disregard their obligations under the Constitution in the
matter stated by me. This we will, therefore, consider as
an established fact. You admit its truth, but attempt to
justify. We will now see how far the facts sustain you
in this attempt.
The act of South Carolina referred to, which you seem
to think so clearly violated the Constitution of the United
States, was not passed "in the year 1835," as Mr. Greeley 
ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
says,* but on the 21st December, 1822.t At least an
act containing all you complain of, was then passed by
that State. It had, however, no such purpose or intent as
you seem to think. This was not its professed object, nor
was it at all in violation of the Constitution, according to
a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, as
we shall see. It was passed soon after an attempted insurrection by the Blacks in Charleston. This attempte4
insurrection was in June 1822.1 It was supposed to have
been instigated by that class of persons against whom the
law was enacted; and it was only intended to secure the
domestic peace and tranquillity of the State against the
future schemes and mischievous operations of such foreign
emissaries, not from the Northern States exclusively, but
from all other countries, against the safety and welfare of
the State. This, the State had a perfect right to do under the Constitution, as I shall clearly show.
Here is the section of the act complained of ~. It is
the third section of an act passed 21st December, 1822,
entitled "An Act for the better regulation and government of free negroes and persons of color, and for other
purposes," and is in these words:
"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
That if any vessel shall come into any port or harbor of
this State, from any other State or foreign port, having on
board any free negroes, or persons of color, as cooks, stewards, mariners, or in any other employment on board said
vessel, such free negroes, or persons of color shall be liable
to be seized and confined in gaol, until said vessel shall
clear out and depart from this State; and that when said
* American Cofict, vol. i, page 179.
2 riles's Register, vol. xxiv, pagfe 31.
. Niles's Register, vol. xxiii, page 10.
Y Niles's Register, vol. xxvii, page 261.
COL. XIV.]
63
II 
64      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
vessel is ready to sail, the captain of said vessel shall be
bound to carry away the said free negro or person of
color, and pay the expenses of his detention; and in case
of his neglect or refusal so to do, he shall be liable to be
indicted, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined a sum
not less than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not
less than two months; and such free negroes or persons
of color shall be deemed and taken as absolute slaves, and
sold in conformity to the provisions of the act passed on
the twentieth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, aforesaid."
JUDGE BYNUM. *Yes, that is the law I complain of; and
could anything be in plainer violation of any part of the
Constitution, than it is in violation of that clause to which
I have alluded?
MR. STEPHENS. We will soon see. I do not think that
it violated the Constitution at all, nor did the Legislature
of South Carolina so think. It is true, there were differences of opinion upon the subject, at the time, by eminent
jurists both in and out of the State. The only way to
settle the point was by judicial decision. In this way it
was settled by the courts in Soutli Carolina. Suits were
brought by persons coming under its operation, and the
Constitutionality of the act was sustained.* But I do
not rest, what I affirm of its Constitutionality, solely upon
that adjudication. After that decision, the subject was
brought to the attention of the Federal authorities at
Washington, both by a memorial from the commanders of
American vessels, complaining of wrongs suffered by
seamen under their charge, and by the British Minister,
in behalf of like wrongs suffered by colored seamen, subjects of his Majesty, the King of England. Let me get
the letter of the British Minister to the Secretary of State
* riles's Register, vol. xxiv, p. 31. 
COL. XIV.] LETTERS OF MR. CANNING AND MR. WIRT.  65
upon the subject.  Hlere it is, dated Washington, February 15th, 1823.* In it he says:
"It is my duty to bring under your notice an act lately
passed by the Legislature of South Carolina, which
cannot remain in force without exposing the vessels of
his Majesty's subjects, entering the ports of that State, in
prosecution of their lawful commerce, more especially
such as are engaged in the colonial trade, to the treatment of the most grievous and extraordinary description.
"The accompanying transcript of the third section of
the act, to which I refer, will make you acquainted with
the particular nature of the grievance attendant on the
enforcement of the law in question. I am confident that
a mere perusal of the enactment will suffice to engage
your interference for the purpose of securing his Majesty's
subjects, when trading with this country, from the effects
of its execution.
" One vessel, under the British flag, has already experienced a most reprehensible act of authority under the
operation of this law; and if I abstain, for the present,
from laying before you the particulars of the transaction,
it is only in the persuasion that ample redress has, by
this time, been obtained on the spot, at the requisition of
his Majesty's consul, at Charleston, and that the interference of the General Government, in compliance with
the representation which I have now the honor to address
to you, will be so effectual as to prevent the recurrence
of any such outrage in future."
Let us now go on with the subject and see how it
ended.
This letter of Mr. Canning, the British Minister, was
submitted to the consideration of the Attorney-General
by the Secretary of State, under instructions from the
* N7es's Register, vol. xxvii, p. 261.
5 
66       CONS'ITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
President. Mr. Wirt, who, at that time, was the Attorney-General, gave it as his opinion that the act in
question was in violation of the Constitution of the United
States, but not upon the grounds you maintain. That
clause of the Constitution, to which you refer, has no
bearing upon the subject whatever, as we shall see. Mr.
Wirt, however, held that it did violate that clause which
gives Congress the power to regulate commerce as well as
the clause relating to the Treaty power. His letter to
the Secretary of State, giving this opinion, is dated the
8th of May, 1824, and in it he uses this language:*
"All foreign and domestic vessels, complying with the
requisitions prescribed by Congress, have a right to enter
any port of the United States, and a right to remain
there unmolested, in vessel and crew, for the peaceful
purposes of commerce. No State can interdict a vessel
which is about to enter her ports, in conformity with the
laws of the United States, nor impose any restraint or
embarrassment on such vessel in consequence of her
having entered in conformity with those laws. It seems
very clear to me, that this section of the law of South
Carolina is incompatible with the National Constitution,
and the laws passed under it, and is therefore void. All
nations in amity with the United States, have a right to
enter the ports of the Union for the purpose of commerce,
so long as, by the laws of the Union, commerce is permitted, and so far as it is permitted; and inasmuch as this
section of the law of South Carolina is a restriction upon
this commerce, it is incompatible with the rights of all
nations which are in amity with the United States.
"There is another view of this subject.   By  the
National Constitution, the power of making treaties with
Foreign Nations, is given to the General Government,
* TNiles's Register, vol. xxvii, p. 262. 
COL. XIV.] THE ACT DEFENDED-NEW YORK LAW.
and the same Constitution declares that the treaties so
made shall constitute a part of the Supreme Law of the
land. The National Government has exercised this
power, also, of making treaties. We have treaties subsisting with various nations, by which the commerce of
such nations, with the United States, is expressly authorized, without any restriction as to the color of the crews
by which it shall be carried on. We have such a treaty
with Great Britain, as to which nation this question has
arisen. This act of South Carolina forbids, or what is
the same thing, punishes, what this treaty authorizes.
"I am of the opinion, that the section of the law under
consideration is void, for being against the Constitution,
treaties and laws of the United States, and incompatible
with the rights of all nations in amity with the United
States."
This opinion of the Attorney-General, under the direction of the President of the United States, was communicated by the Secretary of State to the Governor of South
Carolina, under date the 6th of July, 1824, with the
expression of a hope, on the part of the President, that
"the inconvenience complained of, would be remedied by
the Legislature of the State of South Carolina itself."
The whole matter was subsequently submitted by the
Governor to the Legislature, in a message, in which he
put the right upon the grounds of "police regulations,"
and claimed that, " under the Constitution, South Carolina
had the right to interdict the entrance of such persons
into her ports, whose organization of mind, habits, and
associations rendered them peculiarly calculated to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the State, in the same
manner as she could prohibit those afflicted with infectious disease to touch her shores."  "The necessity of
self-preservation," said he, "was alone to be determined
67
. 
68      CONSTITRUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
by the power to be preserved; it, therefore, rested with
those whose rights were to be affected to judge how long
such laws should exist, as were enacted for the peace and
security of the community."
The Legislature sustained the position of the Governor.
This presented a new view of the subject; and so the matter rested for a time. If the British Government took
any further action on the subject, I am not aware of it.
No case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United
States under this act. But a case involving the same
principle, arising under a law of the State of New York,
passed in 1824, was carried up to that court, and the
decision in it fully sustained the position of the Governor
and Legislature of South Carolina upon this subject. This
is the decision to which I refer as settling the question,
and from which I now read.*
"This case," said the judge who delivered the opinion
of the court, "comes before this court upon a certificate
of division of the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Southern District of New York.
"It was an action of debt brought in that couprt by the
plaintiff, to recover of the defendant, as consignee of the
ship called the Emily, the amount of certain penalties
imposed by a statute of New York, passed February 11th,
1824; entitled, An act concerning passengers in vessels
coming to the port of New York.
"The statute, amongst other things, enacts, that every
master or commander of any ship, or other vessel, arriving at the port of New York, from any country out of the
United States, or from any other of the United States
than the State of New York, shall, within twenty-four
hours after the arrival of such ship or vessel in the said
port, make a report in writing, on oath or affirmation, to
* Peters's Reports, vol. xi, p. 130. 
COL. XIV.]    DECISION OF SUPREME COURT.
the mayor of the city of-New York, or, in case of his sickness, or absence, to the recorder of said city, of the name,
place of birth, and last legal settlement, age and occupation, of every person who shall have been brought as a
passenger in such ship or vessel, on her last voyage from
any country out of the United States into the port of New
York, or any of the United States, and from any of the
United States other than the State of New York, to the
city of New York, and of all passengers who shall have
landed, or been suffered or permitted to land, from such
ship, or vessel, at any place, during such her last voyage,
or have been put on board, or suffered, or permitted to go
on board of any other ship or vessel, with the intention
of proceeding to the said city, under the penalty on such
master or commander, and the owner or owners, consignee
or consignees of such ship or vessel, severally and respectively, of seventy-five dollars for every person neglected
to be reported as aforesaid, and for every person whose
name, place of birth, and last legal settlement, age, and
occupation, or either or any of such particulars, shall b)e
falsely reported as aforesaid, to be sued for and recovered
as therein provided."
From this statement of the case by the court, it clearly
appears that the principle involved in the New York law
was identical with the principle involved in the South
Carolina law, so far as concerned the Constitutional
power to pass it, and that is the point we are now upon.
On this point, and in direct reply to Mr. Wirt's view, the
court say:
" We shall not enter into any examination of the question, whether the power to regulate commerce, be or be
not exclusive of the States, because the opinion which
we have formed renders it unnecessary: in other words,
we are of opinion that the act is not a regulation of cornm
69 
70     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. 11.
nerce, but of police; and that being thus considered, it
was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully
lbelonged to the States.
"That the State of New York possessed power to pass
this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States, might probably be taken as a truism, without the necessity of proof. But as it may tend to present
it in a clearer point of view, we will quote a few passages
from a standard writer upon public law, showing the
origin and character of this power.
"Vattel, book 2d, chap. 7th, sec. 94.' The Sovereign
may forbid the entrance of his Territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain
persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he
may think it advantageous to the State.'
"Ibid. chap. 8, sec. 100.' Since the lord of the Territory may, whenever he thinks proper, forbid its being entered, he has, no doubt, a power to annex what conditions he pleases, to the permission to enter."'
We have seen that this Right of Eminent Domain here
referred to still resides in the States under the Constitution.* But to proceed with the decision:
"The power then of New York to pass this law having
undeniably existed at the formation of the Constitution,
the simple inquiry is, whether by that instrument it was
taken from the States, and granted to Congress; for if it
were not, it yet remains with them.
"If, as we think, it be a regulation, not of commerce,
but police; then it is not taken from the States. To
decide this, let us examine its purpose, the end to be attained, and the means of its attainment.
"It is apparent, from the whole scope of the law, that
the object of the Legislature was, to prevent New Yolk
* Ante, vol. i, pp. 82, 192, 493; et ante, p. 42. 
Cot.. XIV.] POWERS RESERVED TO THE SEVERAL STATES. 71
from being burdened by an influx of persons brought
thither in ships, either from foreign countries, or from any
other of thIe States; and for that purpose a report was required of the names, places of birth, etc., of all passengers,
that the necessary steps might be taken by the city authorities, to prevent them from becoming chargeable as
paupers.
"Now, we hold that both the end and the means here
used, are within the competency of the States, etc. * *'The
Federalist, in the 45th number, speaking of this subject,
says: the powers reserved to the several States, will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of
affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the
people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.'
"And this Court, in the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9
Wheat. 203, which will hereafter be more particularly
noticed, in speaking of the inspection laws of the States,
say: they form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the Territory of
a State, not surrendered to the General Government, all
which can be most advantageously exercised by the States
themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health
laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating
the internal commerce of a State, etc.
"Now, if the act in question be tried by reference to
the delineation of power laid down in the preceding
quotations, it seems to us that we are necessarily brought
to the conclusion, that it falls within its limits. There
is no aspect in which it can be viewed in which it transcends them. If we look at the place of its operation, we
find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within
the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person
on whom it operates, he is found within the same Terri 
72      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  RVOL. I1.
tory and jurisdiction.   If we look at the persons for
whose benefit it was passed, they are the people of New
York, for whose protection and welfare the Legislature
of that State are authorized and in duty bound to provide.
"If we turn our attention to the purpose to be attained,
it is to secure that very protection, and to provide for
that very welfare. If we examine the means by which
these ends are proposed to be accomplished, they bear a
just, natural, and appropriate relation to those ends.
"There is, then, no collision between the law in question, and the acts of Congress just commented on; and,
therefore, if the State law were to be considered as partaking of the nature of a commercial regulation; it would
stand the test of the,most rigid scrutiny, if tried by the
standard laid down in the reasoning of the court, quoted
from the case of Gibbons against Ogden.
"But: we do not place our opin,ion on this ground.  We
choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider
impregnable positions. They are these: That a State
has the same' undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over
all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any
foreign nation; where that jurisdiction is not surrendered
or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.
That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the
bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the
safety, hapliess and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of
legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these
ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the
manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in
the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus 
COL. XIV.] RIGHT TO PUNISH OR PREVENT CRIME.
surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in
relation to these, the authority of a State is complete,?nqualified, and exclusive.
"We are aware, that it is at all times difficult to define
any subject with proper precision and accuracy; if this be
so in general, it is emphatically so in relation to a subject
so diversified and multifarious as the one which we are
now considering.
"If we were to attempt it, we should say, that every
law came within this description which concerned the
welfare of the whole people of a State, or any individual
within it; whether it related to their rights, or their
duties; whether it respected them as men, or as citizens
of the State; whether in their public or private relations;
whether it related to the rights of persons, or of property,
of the whole people of a State, or of any individual
within it; and whose operation was within the territorial
limits of the State, and upon the persons and things
within its jurisdiction. But we will endeavor to illustrate our meaning rather by exemplification, than by
definition.  No one will deny, that a State has a right to
punish any individual found within its jurisdictions, who
shall have committed an offence within its jurisdiction,
against its criminal laws. We speak not here of foreign
ambassadors, as to whom the doctrines of public law
apply. We suppose it to be equally clear, that a State
has as much right to guard, by anticipation, against the
commission of an offence against its laws, as to inflict
punishment upon the offender after it shall have been
committed.  The right to punish or to prevent crime,
does in no degree depend upon the citizenship of the party
who is obnoxious to the law. The alien who shall just
have set his foot upon the soil of the State, is just as subject to the operation of the law, as one who is a native
73 
74     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL II.
citizen. In this very case, if either the master, or one
of the crew of the Emily, or one of the passengers who
were landed, had, the next hour after they came on shore,
committed an offence, or indicated a disposition to do so;
he would have been subject to the criminal law of New
York, either by punishment for the offence committed,
or by prevention from its commission where good ground
for apprehension was shown, by being required to enter
into a recognizance with surety, either to keep the peace,
or be of good behavior, as the case might be; and if he
failed to give it, by liability to be imprisoned in the discretion of the competent authority.
*      e        e       e       e.*      e      e
"We think it as competent and as necessary for a
State to provide precautionary measures against the moral
pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts;
as it is to guard against the physical pestilence, which
may arise from unsound and infectious articles imported,
or from a ship, the crew of which may be laboring under
an infectious disease."*
This decision of the Supreme Court covered every
principle of Constitutional power involved in the act of
South Carolina as a police regulation of the State, and so
fully and clearly sustained the position of the Governor
and Legislature of that State in that view of it, that
nothing further was done by the Federal Authorities
upon the subject. You see it fully meets and completely
answers your views as to the rights of the citizens of
Massachusetts in South Carolina, under the Constitution.
When they are in South Carolina, they are upon the
same footing as the citizens of that State, so far as
concerns the criminal law of the State; and that imprisonment may be as rightfully resorted to, to prevent
* Peters's Beports, vol. xi, p. 130, et sequentes. 
CoL,. XIV.]   JUST'ICE McLEAN'S OPINION.
the commission of crime, as to punish it after its
commission.
But besides this, I refer you to what Justice McLean,
who was well known to be no sympathizer with Slavery,
said, in his separate opinion delivered from the Bench of
the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of
Groves vs. Slaughter, as late as 1841. In that opinion,
this eminent jurist said:
"Each State has a right-to guard its citizens against
the inconvenience and dangers of a slave population.
The right to exercise this power by a State is higher and
deeper than the Constitution. The evil involves the
prosperity, and may endanger the existence of a State.
Its power to guard against, or to remedy the evil, rests
upon the law of self-preservation; a law vital to every
community, and especially to every Sovereign State."*
It very clearly appears from these decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States, that South Carolina
acted strictly within her Constitutional rights, in the
passage of the law in question. There was no violation
of the Constitution by it, either intentionally or otherwise.
This is not pretended to be the case in reference to those
acts of the Legislatures of the Northern States to which
I have referred. You admit that those States did intentionally and avowedly violate their obligations under the
Constitution; while South Carolina not only did not
avow, nor intend any such thing, but stands perfectly
justified in all she did in this matter by the judgment
of the highest judicial Tribunal of the land!
What becomes, now, of your plea of justification, so
far as concerns this act of South Carolina? Not being
sustained by the facts, it cannot be permitted to go with
the confession of guilty, on the part of the Northern
* Peters's Rel)ports, vol. xv, p. 508.
75 
76      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THlE WAR.  [VOL. II.
States referred to, even in mitigation of the great wrong
established by that confession. Moreover, South Carolina did not object to a judicial judgment upon her acts.
The mission of Mr. Hoar was not intended for the
purpose of obtaining an adjudication by the Supreme
Court of the United States on this law. He went down
to South Carolina on a mission really of strife.  It was
to stir up ill blood. If any persons aggrieved under the
operation of this act, or any other law of South Carolina,
had been disposed to seek redress by suits at law, actions
could have been brought, either in the State Courts or
the Federal Courts, as well without his mission as with it.
By the terms of this law, as appears in another part of
it, a public registry was required to be made of all persons so put in custody or imprisoned, which wvas open to
the inspection of any and every person.
Whether  the  action of the  people of Charleston
towards Mr. Hoar (which, by-the-by, was nothing but
an urgent request  by some of the most respectable
citizens for him to leave, lest his presence on such a
mission might excite a mob,) was politic or not, is not
the question. The question we have in hand is, whether
the act of the Legislature alluded to was, or was not
Constitutional? We have seen that it was; and that the
plighted faith of South Carolina was in no way sullied or
tarnished by its adoption. So you will have to present
some other, and very different instance, before you can
make good your assault upon my position, that no State
of the South was ever untrue to her plighted faith under
the Constitution. I repeat, no instance of the kind can
be named.
The proverb, about casting stones, is a very good one,
when properly applied.   In this instance, however, the
whole force of its logic, as well as its rhptorip roi,;l witfh 
COL,. XIV.]    PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC LAW.
damaging effect upon him who uses it. These Northern
Stattes referred to, were the dwellers in glass houses, who
charged the Southern States with violating the Constitu tion when they were the only violators of it themselves.
But, Judge Bynum asks if Judge Chase's proposition
was not a fair and just one for the admitted breach of
the Compact on their part; and even assumes to think
that I could not but have so considered it, as well as all
other fair-minded men everywhere. To this, it would
be enough for me to say, that there was no obligation on
the part of the Southern States to accept it, even if they
had thought it fair and just. It was not in accordance
with the provisions of the Compact. It could in effect be
considered in no other light than a proposition to amend
the Constitution in this particular. In this view, it was
certainly a matter of discretion entirely with them,
whether they would agree to it or not. In the exercise
of this discretion, they did not agree to it. How far they
were influenced by the consideration that a people, who
would not stand to the terms of one Compact, might not
stand to those of another, I do not know.  It is quite
sufficient that they did not agree to it, and they had a
perfect right to refuse so to do.
How then stood the political as well as moral aspect
of the question?  Politically, this failure to perform their
obligations under the existing Compact, as it was, on the
part of the Northern States, according to the universal
principles of public law, totally absolved their Southern
Confederates from any further obligations under it. This
principle of public law cannot be denied. If that Party,
then controlling these derelict States, from an enlighten ment of their consciences, had been brought to see that
this Compact of their Fathers was founded in sin, or, in
other words, if they had come to see that the Constitu
77 
78      C('ONSTITUT'IONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL,. II.
tion, as it was made, and as it then stood, was but "a
Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell," as
many of the leading men of this party declared, and as
nearly all really believed, not excepting even the Judge
himself, (as we may legitimately infer from his remarks,)
what, then, was their proper course as a truly moral and
upright people?  Was it not peacefully to withdraw
from an alliance founded upon such "a summation of all
iniquity," or at least to permit those peacefully to withdraw with whom they were bound in stipulations, which
they confessed they could not in conscience perform?
Ought they not to have agreed to separate in peace? If
the Compact was in truth so founded in sin, in violation
of the laws of God, it was utterly void from the beginning.
No rights or obligations could arise under it on either
side. The parties were remitted to their original positions. They stood towards each other just as they did
before it was made. I fully agree to the doctrine of a
higher law-that Supreme law of right, ordained by the
Most High, which governs the moral universe, and to
which all human laws, as well as Compacts, must conform.
But what sort of Christian consciences must an intelligent world think those people possessed, who could
and did swear to support and defend a Compact at the
same time they held it to be so great a sin in the sight
of men and of God? Who refused to perform an acknowledged obligation, and yet in the face of this refusal,
insisted upon holding on to all the advantages of the
Compact, to them, even at the point of the bayonet? This
seems to me to be a strange enlightenment of conscience!
Such an enlightenment it seems to me could not have
come from studying the precepts of Him who said, "as
ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise." This does not imply, much less enjoin, that 
COL. XIV.] CHASE'S PROPOSITION NOT FAIR OR JUST.  79
there should be no distinctions in society, and no differences between the relations of the various members of it
towards each other. It clearly means that all, of every
class and condition in life, at all times and under all
circumstances, should do unto others as they would have
others do unto them, on a reversal of relative positions.
In this sense, it is equally applicable to the high and the
low, the rich and the poor, the judge and the convict, the
ruler and the ruled, the parent and the child, the
guardian and the ward, the teacher and the pupil, the
employer and the laborer, the master and the slave!
This is the whole of it, and upon this view of this precept, however unholy the war with Mexico may have
been, in the estimation of Judge Bynum, or any one else,
he must permit me to say that this war, so waged under
the circumstances as stated by himself, must, by all rightminded men, ever be considered infinitely more wicked,
and much more horribly sinful, if the doctrines of Christ
are to be taken as the standard.
But, besides this, I say to him that I did not consider
Judge Chase's proposition either fair or just. There was
no such change of circumstances, as he stated. The
relations of the Parties to the Compact remained just
as they were left when it was made; nor did he propose
an equitable equivalent for its breach. The penalty for
a failure to perform, was under his proposition, not to fall
exclusively upon the delinquents. The money equivalent was to come out of the common Treasury, and to
be equally contributed by the faithful and the faithless.
It was, therefore, not just either to the Southern States,
or those Northern States who were true to their engagements.
One digression I am here compelled to make in following Judge Bynum. He speaks of Slavery as it existed 
80      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
with us, as a "sin in the sight of men and in the
sight of God"-as the "summation of all iniquity!"  I
stated in the outset that the right or wrong of this Institution did not legitimately come within the purview of
our present discussion. That related exclusively to the
rightful powers of the Federal Government over it, to
interfere with it in any way, except as is expressly provided in the Compact. But these remarks of his demand
notice. They require a reply. In replying briefly as
possible, but pointedly, I have to say I know of but one
sure standard in determining what is, and what is not sin
or sinful. That standard is the written law of God as
prescribed in the Old and the New Testament. By that
standard the relation of master and slave, even in a much
more abject condition than existed with us, is not founded
in sin. Abram, afterwards called Abraham, the father of
the faithful, with whom the Divine Covenant was made
for man's salvation and the redemption of the world firom
the dominion of sin, was a slave-holder. He was enjoined
to impart the seal of this everlasting covenant not only to
those who were born in his house; but to those who were
"bought with his money."  It was into his bosoin, in
Heaven, that the poor man, who died at the rich man's
gate, was borne by angels, according to the Parable of the
Saviour. Job certainly was one of the best men we read
of in the Bible. He was a large slave-holder. So, too,
were Isaac and Jacob and all the Patriarchs. The great
moral law which defines sin, the Ten Commandments given
to Moses on Mount Sinai, written on stone by the finger
of God himself, expressly recognizes Slavery, and enjoins
certain duties of masters towards their slaves. The chosen
people of God, by the Levitical Law, proclaimed under
divine sanction, were authorized to hold slaves-iinot of
their own race-(of these they were to hold bondmen for 
SLAVERY NOT SINFUL.
a term of years)-but of the Heathen around them-of
these they were authorized to buy slaves "bondmen and
bondwomen," for life, who were to be to them "an inheritance" and "possession forever."
Slavery existed when the gospel was preached by
Christ and his Apostles, and where they preached it was
all around them. And though the Scribes and Pharisees
were denounced by Christ for their hypocrisy and robbing widows' houses and divers other sins, yet not a
word did he utter, as far as we are informed, against slaveholding. On the contrary, he said he had not found so
great faith in all Israel, as in the slave-holding Centurion!
Was he truckling to a Slavery Oligarchy when he made
this declaration? In no place in the New Testament is
the relation of master and slave spoken of as sinful.
Several of the Apostles alluded to it; but none of them,
not one of them, condemned it as sinful in itself, or as
violative of the laws of God, or even of Christian duty.
They enjoin the relative duties of both masters and
slaves. Paul sent a fugitive slave, Onesimus, back to
Philemon his master.   He did not consider it any
violence to his conscience to do this, even when he was
under no stipulated obligation to do it.
He frequently alludes to Slavery in his letters to the
Churches, but in no case speaksof it as sinful. What he says
in one of these epistles, I must read to you. It is the first
five verses of chapter vi. of the First Epistle to Timothy:
1. "Let as many  servants" (aovxo~, in the original,
which according to Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon, which you can see, means slaves, or those bound to
serve, and were the property of their masters,) " as are
under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all
honor, that the name of God and hi8 doctrine be not
blasphemed.
6
I
COL. XIV.]
81 
82      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL. II.
2. "And they that have believing masters," (according
to the judge's idea, there could be no such thing as a
Slave-holding believer, but so did not think Paul,) "let
them not despise" (xar,povE av, that is, as it might
better be rendered, think slightly of, or neglect) "themn,
because they are brethren; but rather do themr service,
because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the
benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3. "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4. " He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,
strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5. "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and
destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness:
from such withdraw thyself."
Can we suppose that Paul would have so written, if he
had considered that there was anything morally wrong
in the relation of master and slave, much less if he had
looked upon it as the "summation of all iniquity;" and
if our Ministers of the Gospel did continue to teach the
same doctrine, to enjoin the same duties upon master
and slave, can it be justly said that they thereby "desecrated the Temples of the Living God?" If they withdrew themselves from those who taught otherwise, and
whose doctrines brought "envy, strife, railings," and
finally war, did they not follow the advice of the great
Apostle of the Gentil-s, and likewise the words, as he
affirms, of -Ur L ord Jesus Christ, "that the name of
God and his doctrine be not blasphemed?"
It is not, as I have said, within the purview of this discussion, to speak of the right or wrong of Slavery morally, 
CoL. XIV.] RECOGNIZED BY THE BIBLE OR DIVINE,LAW. 83
or the evils of the Institution politically, arising from anl
abuse of power under it, any more than it is to speak of
the institution of marriage, or the relation of parent and
child, as it is regulated in any State. These are matters
which under the Federal system belong exclusively to
the several States. What I have here said in reply to
Judge Bynum, is therefore a digression. From this I
will now return, with but one single additional remark
upon what he has said on this point; and that is this:
To maintain that Slavery is in itself sinful, in the face
of all that is said and written in the Bible upon the subject, with so many sanctions of the relation by the Deity
himself, does seem to me to be little short of blasphemous! It is a direct imputation upon the wisdom and justice, as well as the declared ordinances of God, as they
are written in the inspired oracles, to say nothing of
their manifestation in the universe around us.*
* James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, one of the most intellectual
men this country ever produced, when Governor of his State, in 1844, in
reply to a communication he received from the Free Church of Glasgow,
Scotland, upon the subject of Slavery, amongst other things, said:
"Your memorial, like all that have been sent to me, denounces Slavery
in the severest terms; as' traversing every law of nature, and violating
the most sacred domestic relations, and the primary rights of man.
You and your Presbytery are Christians. You profess to believe, and
no doubt do believe, that the laws laid down in the Old and New Testaments for the government of man, in his moral, social and political relations, were all the direct revelation of God himself. Does it never occur
to you, that in anathematizing Slavery, you deny this divine sanction
of those laws, and repudiate both Christ and Moses; or charge God with
downright crime, in regulating and perpetuating Slavery in the Old
Testament, and the most criminal neglect, in not only not abolishing,
but not even reprehending it, in the New? If these Testaments came
from God, it is impossible that Slavery can'traverse the laws of nature,
or violate the primary rights of man.' What those laws and rights
really are, mankind have not agreed. But they are clear to God; and
it is blasphemous for any of His creatures to set up their notions of them
in opposition to His immediate and acknowledged Revelation. Nor
does our system of Slavery outrage the most sacred domestic relations. 
84     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
To return, then, to other points presented by Judge
Bynum.
In one thing he has done me full justice, and that was
in his assumption, that I had no sympathy with any
conspirators or conspiracy aiming at the overthrow of
the Constitution of the United States, with the view of
establishing a'" Slavery Dynasty" in its stead. If any such
body of men existed in the country, they certainly had
no sympathy from me. Nay, more, if any such body was
organized in Washington or elsewhere, or had any existence anywhere, it was wholly unknown to me. I think
it had existence, if he will allow me respectfully to say
so, only in his imagination, and that of others who have
written fictions called histories. The only real conspiracy
against the Constitution organized in Washington, as I
understand it, was that of the seven Governors, from
seven Northern States, who assembled there, and by
their mischievous machinations caused Mr. Lincoln to
change his purpose as to the evacuation of Fort Sumter.
Caused him to fail to "keep faith as to Fort Sumter."
This was the conspiracy which inaugurated the war.
It was a conspiracy well typified by the Seven Headed
monster Beast in the Apocalypse! The analogy.I will
not stop to trace, striking as it is, but will follow the
Judge.
Ile quotes from my speech on the annexation of
Texas.   He did not, however, quote fully.  In that
speech I said, and said truly, that I was "no defender of
Slavery in the,8bstract."  I was speaking of it politically
(1and not ))iorally, and of Slavery in the geieral sense of
1I usbands and wives, parents and children, among our Slaves, are seldoin separated, except from necessity or crime. The same reasons induce much more frequent separations among, the white population in
this, and, I imagine, in almost every other country."
See "Speeches ancd Letters" of Hon. J. H. Hammond, p. 107. 
COL. XIV.] THE TEXAS AND CORNER-STONE SPEECHES. 85
that term applied to men of the same race, and not as it
existed in the States of this Union. This was true then,
and now, and always with me. I said also on that occasion, in the next sentence, and now repeat, that "Liberty
always had charms for me, and I would rejoice to see all
the sons of Adam's family, in every land and clime, in
the enjoyment of those rights which are set forth in our
Declaration of Independence as'natural and inalienable,'
if a stern nece88ssity, bearing the marks and impress of the
hand of the Creator himself, did not, in some cases,
interpose and prevent. Such is the case with the States
where Slayery now exists."
Here is that speech. The Judge was as much at fault
in his memory in regard to it, as he was in regard to the
Union speech of 1860.
There is, moreover, nothing in the " Corner-Stone"
speech, as he calls it, inconsistent with the sentiments
delivered in the Texas speech.  Here is the "CornerStone" speech, also. In it I said:
"Many Governments have been founded upon the
principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain
classes of the same race; such were, and are in violation
of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such
violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white
race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the
eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination
is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against
Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in
our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the
granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The
substratum of our society is made of the material fitted
by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is
best, not only for the Superior, but for the Inferior race, 
86      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with
the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire
into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them.
For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ
from another, as he has made'one star to differ from
another star in glory.'
"The  great objects of humanity  are best attained
when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the
formation of Governments as well as in all things else.
Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict
conformity with these laws. This stone which was
rejected by the first builders' is become the chief of the
corner'-the real'corner-stone'-ill our new edifice."
In the corner-stone metaphor, I did but repeat what
Judge Baldwin of the Supreme Court of the United
States, had said of the Federal Government itself, in the
case of Johnson vs. Tompkins. In that case he declared
that "the foundations of this Government are laid, and
rest on the rights of property in slaves, and the whole
fabric must fall by disturbing the corner-stone."*
It was disturbed, as we have seen, and the only intended difference between the old "edifice" and the
new," in this respect, was to fix this corner-stone more
firmly in its proper place in the latter, than it had been
in the former. This,is the substance of that speech;
and there is no conflict between the sentiments expressed
in both upon the same subject matter.
So much for all these points, irrelevant as all of them,
and ad hominem as some of them are, which have been
presented by the Judge. I assure him, none of them
announced any truth which hurts in the least, according
to the Petigru rule. But what bearing have they upon
the matter under immediate consideration?
* Sectional Controversy, by Wm. Chauncey Fowler, LL.D., p. 267. 
THE CONFLICT STATED.
How stands the issue between us as to the character of
the conflict about Slavery? My position was that in the
Federal Councils and before Federal Authorities it was
not a conflict between the advocates of the system of
Slavery, as it existed, and its opponents, as Mr. Greeley
has treated it throughout; but that it was in all its
stages and phases so far as Federal Politics were concerned, a conflict between those who claimed, and those
who denied, that the Federal Authorities had any rightful power, under the Constitution, to take any action
whatever upon it, with a view to its immediate or ultimate extinction, or its regulation in any way in contravention of the Rights of the States.
By Judge Bynum's reference to the Congress of the
Colonies and what occurred upon drawing up the Declaration of their Independence, or subsequently, has he
stated a single fact to unsettle or even jostle that position?
Why was the Declaration finally made without any
allusion to the subject? Was it not because it was a
matter over which each Sovereign State was to exercise
its own discretion as it ought to? Was not Mr. Jefferson, the draftsman of that instrument, as much opposed
to Slavery as Mr. Adams, or Dr. Franklin, or Roger
Sherman, or Robert R. Livingston, his colleagues on the
committee, and all of whom, except himself, were Northern
men? Did he who penned that soul-stirring defiance to
British power "truckle" to the "insolent" demands of
any miserable " Slavery Oligarchy," or did John Adams,
Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, or Robert R. Livingston,
to say nothing of John Hancock, and others who voted
for it, as it stands, so "truckle?"  Did the Supreme Court
so truckle in declaring the Constitution to be as they did,
in the case I have read? Especially did Justice McLean,
well known to have been an opponent of Slavery, as I
COL. XIV.]
87 
88      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
have said, so truckle in delivering the opinion cited from
him?
In a word, has the Judge ventured to deny a single
fact, stated by me in our last Colloquy, in relation to the
nature of this conflict, and the position of the great
names mentioned upon it, from the time of its first introduction in Congress down to the election of Mr. Lincoln?
He has not, and I am sure he will not. We are bound,
therefore, to take it as a fact, admitted by silence, at least,
that the conflict on this subject in the Federal Councils
and before Federal Authorities, was not one between the
"principles of human rights and human bondage" at all;
but that it was a conflict between the advocates and
supporters of a Federal Government, with limited and
specific powers, on the one side, and those who favored
Centralism and Consolidation on the other.
The States South were all on the side of the Constitutionl. They never invoked any stretch of Federal power
to aid or protect that peculiar Institution, either in the
States or Territories. Their position from the beginning
to the end, upon the Territorial question, was "non-ntervention," by Congress, either for or against the Institution. All they asked of Congress, in this particular,
was simply not to be denied equal rights in settling and
colonizing the common public domain, and that the
people in these inchoate States might be permitted to
act as they pleased upon the subject of the status of the
Negro race amongst them, as upon all other subjects of
internal policy, when they came to form their Constitutions for admission into the Union, as perfect States upon
an equal footing with the original Parties, without dictation or control from the Federal Authorities, one way or
the other. They claimed the same Sovereign Right of
local Self-government on the part of these new States 
ACQUISITION OF LOUISIANA.
which was the moving cause of the Declaration of Independence, and was the basis upon which our whole
system of Government rested. This was their position
on the admission of Missouri, and their position throughout.  They never asked the Federal Government to extend, or strengthen their particular interest in any such
way, as stated. No case of the kind can be named.
MAJOR IIEISTER. How about the acquisition of Louisiana and Florida, and the annexation of Texas?
MR. STEPHENS. Louisiana cannot be said to have been
acquired by the Southern States. It is true, that Mr.
Jefferson, a Southern man, was the President under whose
auspices the treaty for it was negotiated; and it is true,
he doubted whether he was fully authorized, under the
treaty-making power to enter into such a negotiation.
The acquisition, however, was of so much importance in
his opinion, not for the advancement of the interest of
the "Slave Power," however, but for the benefit and welfare
of the great Northwest, as well as the Union generally,
that he thought it best not to permit the occasion for its
acquisition to pass, preferring to submit the question to
Congress for an amendment of the Constitution, after the
acquisition, if it should be thought to be necessary, than
to let the then favorable opportunity pass, which might
never again recur, without securing, when he could, the
great public advantages of the acquisition. But the
overwhelming opinion North and South, was that the
treaty-making power was sufficient, that there was no
violation of the Constitution in the acquisition, and this
view of the case was afterwards fully sustained, by the
Supreme Court, in the case of The American Insurance
Company vs. Canter,* and subsequently re-affirmed in a
great many cases.
* Peters's Reports, vol. i, p. 511.
COL. XIV.]
89 
90     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
So there was no breach of the Constitution in that
matter, and especially none that can be properly laid to
the charge of the Southern States, or the "Slave Power"
so-called. For Mr. Jefferson under whose auspices, as
President, the treaty was negotiated, was as much opposed to the Institution of Slavery, as it existed in the
United States, as any man in the whole country; and,
moreover, Northern States joined in carrying out the
treaty and approved it as heartily as the Southern States
did. So in the acquisition of Florida. The treaty with
Spain by which that Territory was secured was negotiated by Mr. John Quincy Adams, who cannot be
supposed to have been actuated by any undue desire to
pander to the "Slave Power" in doing it, or to strengthen
in any way the particular interests of the Southern States.
This view of Judge Bynum about the acquisition of
Louisiana, Florida and Texas, I cannot answer more
pointedly than I did when the same view was presented
in the House of Representatives by Mr. Campbell, of
Ohio, in 1855.   The answer  then given him, I then
thought, and still think, was conclusive upon the subject.
What I then said to Mr. Campbell, I now repeat to Judge
Bynum on that point:*
"To this I say, it was not the South alone that secured
the acquisition of Louisiana. Nor was it alone for the
benefit of the South.   There were  but twenty-three
votes in this House against that acquisition. It was a
national acquisition. Sustained by national men from
all sections, there was hardly a show of opposition to it
from any quarter. I should suppose that Ohio would be
the last State in this Union to raise her voice against
that measure, or hold that it was exclusively for the
benefit of the South. What would have become of her
* Gong. Globe, App., vol. xxxi, p. 103. 
CoL. XIV.]  NO BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION.
trade and commerce if Louisiana and the mouth of the
Mississippi were still in the hands of Spain or France?
If the fifteen millions of money, which we paid, be the
grounds of the gentleman's objection, all that has been
more than refunded by the sale of public lands embraced
within the limits of that acquisition. These sales, up to
this time, have amounted to $25,928,732.23, besides
what is yet to be realized from the hundreds of thousands of square miles yet to be sold. So the fifteen
millions was no bonus to the South, even if the South
had carried the measure for their own benefit.
"Again, was the acquisition of that territory made to
extend the southern area of the country?  Let us examine this view of the subject. What extent of territory
was comprised within the limits of Louisiana? It extended not only far up the Mississippi river, to Iowa and
Minnesota, but westward to the Rocky Mountains, even,
without now mooting the question whether Oregon was
not then acquired. Grant, for the sake of this argument,
that Oregon was not then acquired. The Territory of
Louisiana stretched from the extreme south on the Gulf
to the extreme north on parallel 49~ of north latitude.
All that immense domain, including Kansas and Nebraska, was part of it. Was all this Southern territory?
The object of the gentleman from Ohio in alluding to this
subject seemed to be to intimate that all this acquisition
was for the South. But how is the fact? Let.us look
at it. By this acquisition, taking all the Indian Territory
into account, the South acquired only 231,960 square
miles, while the North got by it 667,599 square miles!
Is this the way the South is to be taunted? When the
very acquisition, held up as the taunt, brought more than
double the extent of territory to the North than it did to
the South!
91 
92       CONSTITI'UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VOL. 11.
"Again, in the acquisition of Florida, the gentleman
from Ohio says, that the South carried that measure at a
cost of $5,000,000. This is the tenor of his argument.
Sir, this measure was not carried by the South, nor for
the South exclusively. There was not even a division
in this House on the question. As to the extent of the
acquisition, if we did not get Oregon when we acquired
Louisiana, we certainly acquired it when we purchased
Florida. It was by the treaty then made that we got
Spain's relinquishment to Oregon. The North, by this
measure, got 308,052 square miles of territory, including
the Territories of Oregon and Washington, while the
South got only the State of Florida, 59,268 square miles.
If the South carried this question by her votes, I ask,
were those who gave the votes sectional in their policy?
Did not the South, if that be the gentleman's argument,
gain quite as much, nay, more, nay, double, nay, more
than five times as much territory for the North in that
acquisition, as she obtained for herself? Again, in the
acquisition of Texas, considering the Mexican war as
part of that proceeding, as the gentleman does, the South
only secured 237,504 square miles, while the North
secured 632,157 square miles, including California, New
Mexico, and Utah."
In another part of the same speech I also said, what
may here be very properly repeated; for it is true, that
the Southern States never did appeal to the Federal
Governmnient for any aid or protection, or legislation
which did not lie clearly within the stipulations of the
Articles of Union. They not only did not violate any
of these stipulations, but never looked to that Government
for the exercise of any power with a view to the advancement of their material interests. What I then said upon
that subject, and now repeat, is in these words: 
COL. XIV.1 SOUTH'S FIDELITY TO THE CONSTITUTION. 93
"The gentleman says, in his speech,'we are told that
the South gets nothing, that the South asks nothing.'
Now, sir, in my reply to the gentleman from Indiana,
[Mr. Mace,] I spoke of the great fact, well known, living,
and'fixed fact,' that the industrial pursuits of the South
do not, in the main, look for the protection or fostering
care of the Government, and that the general industrial
pursuits of the North do. I did not say that the South
gets nothing, or that the South asks nothing. I said that
the South asks but few favors; and I repeat it, sir. Nor
am I to be answered by being told that General Jackson
and Mr. Clay-Southern men-were in favor of fostering,
as far as they could by proper legislation, the interests of
the North. That does not disprove the fact which I
uttered, that the South does not generally look to the
Government for protection, and that the North does.
Sir, it rather proves the opposite, and confirms my statement. Because I stated that the industrial pursuits of
the North look to the Government for protection, is that
statement disproved by the fact that Southern men, or
even myself, have voted to favor those interests, as far as
was consistent with public duty? So far from disproving,
it tends rather to establish it. What I stated on this
point was in reply to the gentleman from Indiana, whose
tone of argument was, that the South carried measures
promotive of their interest by bluster."
The truth is they asked nothing of the sort, except the
performance, in good faith, of the clearly stipulated covenants of the Constitution by all the Parties to it. I was
in Congress sixteen years, and never, during that whole
period, asked the passage of any law for the particular
interests of my constituents, except the establishment of
Post Roads, and the making of the city of Augusta a Port
of Delivery. I do not mean to say that the Legislatures 
94      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vol. 11.
of the Southern States never passed any acts which were
in violation of some of the provisions of the Constisution.
Far from that. Many such acts were passed by them, as
by Northern States, which were set aside and declared
void by the Courts, either State or Federal. But what I
do nean to affirm is, that no Southern State ever did,
intentionally or otherwise, fail to perform her obligations
to her Confederates under the Constitution, according to
the letter and spirit of its stipulated covenants, and that
they never asked of Congress any action, or invoked their
powers upon any subject, which did not lie clearly within
the provisions of the Articles of Union.
This, Major Heister, I think is quite enough to satisfy
you and even the Judge himself, upon cool reflection, that
there was no breach of the Constitution in the acquisition
of Louisiana, Florida, or Texas, and if there was, the
breach cannot properly be laid at the door of the Southern
States, and, above all, that it was not made with a view
of advancing their interests exclusively-much less was
it carried by the undue power of the "three-fifths representation," to which he has alluded.
On  this  point of the "three-fifths" representation
clause of the Constitution, I should have been amazed at
what Judge Bynum said, if I had not so often heard the
same thing stated by others of equally high position and
equally distinguished for general intelligence: but he will
allow me to say, most respectfully, that it is utterly without foundation, in fact. There is no clause in the Constitution, the history or effects of which seem to be so
little understood by men of note and high standing, both
at the North and South, as this. It is not among the
compromises, so-called, of the Constitution at all.  It was
not carried by any bluster, insolence, or dictation, or
even demand of Southern members in the Convention. 
THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE.
It did not emanate in that body from the Slavery interest,
so-called, or any one connected with it, and its effects
whether so designed or not, have been greatly to weaken
and lessen the just powers in the Federal Government
of these States, in which Slavery existed, instead of
strengthening and enlarging them.
PROF. NORTON. I agree with you about the acquisition
of Louisiana, Florida, and Texas as well as on the question of sin in the matter of Slavery. I never could
concur with those who maintained that the relation of
master and slave was sinful in itself, though great sins, I
think, did grow out of it, or might have been traced to it,
as their immediate cause.
MR. STEPHENS. The same may be said of every other
relation of life.
PROF. NORTON. Well, we will not argue that question.
What I was going to say is, that while I agree with you
on the points stated, I think, on this " three-fifths" slave
representation, you must be in error.
MR. STEPHENS. Not at all. The proposition in the
Convention came from James Wilson, the distinguished
member from Pennsylvania. It was offered at an earlyday in their proceedings, on the 11th of June. Here is
the Journal.* It was offered in this way:
Mr. Rufus King, of Massachusetts, had submitted a
Resolution that the vote in the House of Representatives
ought not to be as it was under the Articles of Union as
they then were: that is, that each State ought not, in
that Branch of the Congress about to be established, to
be entitled to an equal vote without regard to population,
but that the votes in that Branch of the Congress ought
to be according to some equitable ratio of Representation.
Whereupon, Mr. Wilson offered aln amendment in these
words:
* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, p. 168.
COL. XIV.]
95 
96     CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"In proportion to the whole number of white and
other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex,
and condition, including those bound to servitude for a
term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not
comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians
not paying taxes, in each State."
This was intended to include only "three-fifths" of
the Negro population of the States, who were bound to
service, not for a term, but for life; in other words, it
was intended that five negro slaves should be counted
as only three, in fixing a basis of popular representation
in the lower House of the Congress.  His amendment was
immediately adopted, and it thus stands in the Constitution. Every State in the Convention voted for it,
North and South, except New Jersey and Delaware.
Here is the record of the vote.* It was not carried by
any bluster, insolence, threats, or menaces on the part of
Southern members, or any truckling on the part of
Northern members.
To understand how this came about as it did, why the
amendment was so offered as it was, and so readily and
generally accepted as it was, and thus became engrafted
in the Constitution, we shall have to go back to the
proceedings of the Congress in forming the first Articles
of Union, and their proceedings under those Articles.
This examination will make the whole matter perfectly clear, and utterly refute what the Judge and others
have said about this clause in our present Compact of
Union.
Bear in mind, then, if you please, that the same committee  which  was raised  by  Richard  Henry  Lee's
resolution to draw up a Declaration of the Independence
of the States, in June, 1776, were instructed also to
* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, p. 169. 
COL. XIV.] HISTORY OF THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE.
report Articles of Union and Confederation between
them.*
Bear in mind, also, that this committee did report
Articles of Union between the States on the 12th of
July, 1776.t
These Articles, then reported, contained this, amongst.
other clauses. I read from the Record made by Mr.
Jefferson:
"ART. XI. All charges of war, and all other expenses
that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general
welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled,
shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall
be supplied by the several colonies, in proportion to the
number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony-a true ac.
count of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants,
shall be triennially taken, and transmitted to the Assembly of the United States."I
This proposition for levying the quotas of taxes, for the
Federal Treasury, which each State was to bear in equal
and just proportion, rested upon the then generally received opinion that population was the best and most
reliable standard that could be resorted to in estimating
the capacity of any people, community or State, to raise
money for taxes. It was thought that the productive
capacity of a people, in the accumulation of wealth, which
was the proper subject of taxation, could be more nearly
arrived at by estimating their numbers than in any other
way. Hence numbers, or the relative entire population
of the States respectively, was thought to be the best
criterion for the levy of the quotas to be contributed by
each for the common defence.
* Ante, vol. i, p. 69.
I.liot's Debates, vol. i, p. 70.
97
t i, p. 74.
7 
98        CONSTITiiUTrIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VOL. II.
This is apparent from the discussion on this Article.
There were, then, not over two-thirds of the slaves in
all the States at the South, if General Bloomfield's estimate furnished the Convention in 1787, as it appears on
their Journal, was at all correct.* Two objections, however, were raised to the Article as reported.   These
objections were not confined to members from the
Southern States. The first was that negro slaves were
property, and as population, and not property, was to be
the basis of taxation, this species of property should not
enter at all in the count of numbers. The other was
much better founded in reason and justice. That was,
that the value of the labor of negroes was.not equal to
the value of the labor of white men. That the capacity
of the negro to produce wealth, was greatly inferior to
that of the white man; and hence in the count the negro
element, in the population of the several States, should
not be rated equal to the white element. Some contended
that the ratio, in this respect, should be one white person
to two negro Slaves. Mr. John Adams fully answers the
first objection, and insisted that there was no merit in
the second. Here is what lie said on both:
"Mr. John Adams observed, that the numbers of people are taken, by this article, as an index of the wealth
of the State, and not as subjects of taxation; that, as to
this matter, it was of no consequence by what name you
called your people, whether by that of freemen or of
slaves; that, in some countries, the laboring poor are
called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but
that the difference as to the State was imaginary only.
What matters it whether a landlord, employing ten
laborers on his farm, give them annually as much money
as will buy them the necessaries of life, or give them
* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, p. 194. 
Cot,. XIV.] ADAMS ON SLAVE REPRESENrTAION.
those necessaries at short hand?  The ten laborers a
as much wealth to the State, increase its exports. as muc
in the one case as the other. Certainly five hundre
freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus f
the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.  Ther
fore the State in which the laborers are called freem
should be taxed no more than that in which are thos
called slaves.  Suppose, by an extraordinary operation 
nature or of law, one half the laborers of a State coul
in the course of one night, be transformed into slave
would the State be made the poorer, or the less able
pay taxes?  That the condition of the laboring poor
most countries-that of the fishermen, particularly, (
the Northern States-is as abject as that of slaves.
is the number of laborers which produces the surplus f
taxation; and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, a
the fair index to wealth; that it is the use of the wo
'property' here, and its application to some of thie peop
of the State, which produce the fallacy.
"That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speec
be more properly called the wealth of his master, the
the free laborer might be called the wealth of his em
ployer; but as to the State, both were equally its wealt
and should therefore-equally add to the quota of its tax
The objection on the "property" view, after the co
clusive speech of Mr. Adams on that point, seems to hav
been given up, but from a failure to agree upon th
proper ratio between the relative capacities of the Negro
and Whites to produce wealth, the basis of populatio
as a standard for levying quotas on the States, in th
first Articles of Union, was abandoned, and the value (
lands in the several States was adopted in lieu, as 
have seen.*
* Ante, vol. i, page 551.
99 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
But that was not found to work well.  The subject
was again revived in the Congress, and a proposition was
made by that body on the 18th April, 1783, to amend
the Constitution in this particular, and to go back upon
population as the proper basis. It was then that this
"three-fifths" clause was agreed upon as the proper
ratio in this respect. The matter underwent a very full
discussion. It was not characterized by Sectional lines,
as we see from Mr. Madison's report. The whole debate
was upon the isolated point, as to how the negroes should
be rated in the count in reference exclusively to the
efficiency of their labor, or their relative capacity to produce wealth. Here is what he says of the position of
members upon it:*
"Mr. Wolcott was for rating them as four to three.
"Mr. Carroll as four to one.
"Mr. Williamson said, he was principled against
Slavery; and that he thought slaves an encumbrance to
society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes.
"Mr. Higginson, as four to three.
"Mr. Rutledge said, for the sake of the object, he would
agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely
thought three to one would be a juster proportion.
"Mr. Holten, as four to three.
"Mr. Osgood said, he did not go beyond four to
three."
Now, in this discussion, we see Mr. Wolcott, from Connecticut, was for rating them as four to three. Mr.
Higginson, the same.   Mr. Holten and Mr. Osgood, from
Massachusetts, the same.   Mr.  Rutledge, from South
Carolina, contended that three to one was a proper basis,
but he would agree to two to one. While Mr. Williamson, from North Carolina, stated that " he was principled
* Elliot,s Debates, vol. v, p. 79.
100 
COL. XIV.] ADOPTION OF THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE.
against Slavery," and looked upon the Blacks as "an encumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to
pay taxes."
The first vote was taken on rating the slaves at three
to two. On this the States were equally divided-ten
only voting. It was then that Mr. Madison (well known
to have been himself against Slavery), said "that in
order to give proof of the sincerity of his professions of
liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated
as five to three." This was accepted by Mr. Wilson,
and agreed to by a decided majority of the States-two
only voting against it-Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Massachusetts was divided on the question.
The debates on it, when and where it originated, and
when it was agreed to by the States, show that there
was nothing sectional in it. When agreed to it had no
reference whatever to representation, nor any rule or
ratio of representation in Congress, of either persons or
property. The States all, then, had an equal vote in the
Congress, without regard to the number or character of
their respective populations. But this counting of five
negro slaves as equal to three white persons, was agreed
upon after mature consideration, and a thorough investigation of the subject for years, as a proper basis of direct
taxation, when population was resorted to as the proper
standard of fixing the quotas of the States respectively.
It was offered by Mr. Wilson in the Convention that
framed the Constitution, and was adopted by that body,
as we have seen, unquestionably upon the then universally admitted doctrine, that representation in Legislative
Bodies and direct taxation should go together. It was
with this view, and upon this principle solely, and with
no view to a property representation at all, that it was
incorporated, as it is, in the Constitution. The counter
101 
CONSTI''TUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
part of this provision, which followed, as a matter of
course, from the principle on which it was adopted, is
the 4th Clause of the 9th Section of the 1st Article of the
Constitution, which declares that,
"No  Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid,
unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken."
And, as I have stated, whatever may have been the
design when  it was offered, the effect of this "threefifths" clause was greatly to weaken instead of strengthening the political power of the States in which Slavery
existed.   For very soon, the number of slaves in the
Southern States was considerably increased by accessions
from the Northern States. The acts of these Northern
States, to which the Judge has referred, abolishing the
Institution within their limits, were generally prospective in their character. Under the operation of these
acts, humane as they were, in his estimation, the slaves
in these States, were to some extent, to what is not and
never will be exactly known, brought South, and sold
before the period fixed for their final emancipation.
Less than half, it is believed by some, in point of fact,
ever became free under these acts, however philanthropic,
and however inspired by the "Christian principles of the
age," they may be considered by him to have been.
This is the way in which many of them, at least, found a
resting-place in the more Southern States.
But besides this, and mainly, it must be borne in mind,
that the system of direct taxation, which was looked to
,it the time, as the chief mode of raising the ordinary
revenues of the Federal Government, was soon virtually
abandoned; and the Southern States, in which the slaves
had almost entirely "found a resting-place," under the
Northern system of Abolition, lost their full and just
102 
COL. XIV.]    ITS EFFECTS ON THE SOUTH.
popular representation under it, without the compensating advantages contemplated at the time of its adoption,
in the matter of the assessment of the taxes. The taxes
were raised in another way, and by this clause these
States were deprived of their equal and just voice in
their imposition, though they had to pay their full part
of them. UTnder the operation of other clauses of the
Constitution, by construction, the principle intended to
be carried out by the adoption of this clause, was not
only ignored, but reversed. Taxation and Representation did not go together. For under the indirect mode
of raising the revenues of the Federal Government, there
is no reason in justice, or right, or any principles of
political or moral equity, whatever, why the entire population of the Southern States, should not have been
taken in the estimate for a basis of popular representa-tion in the House of Representatives, as well as the
entire population in the Northern States. Instead of
counting only "three-fifths" of the Negro portion of their
laboring population, the whole five-fifths should have
been counted.  The fact that they were called "property," made no difference in principle, whatever, as Mr.
Adams clearly showed in the speech quoted from him.
The "property" in them consisted in nothing but the
legal 9'ight to their services for life.
This legal right, on the part of the owner, was truly
called "property," but it in no respect differed in kind or
species of property from the leyal right of every em ployer, to the service of those who, by contract or law,
are bound to service for any time shorter than that of
life. This legal right to services so due for a term ever
so short, is as much "property" in the one case as the
other.  It is a "property" that is maintained in all
Courts, without reference to the length of the term for
103 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
which it is due. On this view, therefore, which is just
and correct, there is no reason why all those persons in
the Southern States, who were bound to service for life,
"should not have been counted in a census for a basis of
popular representation, as well as all minors, apprentices,
or others," bound to service for a shorter term in all the
States. The owner of five slaves at the South, therefore,
was not endowed, under this clause of the Constitution,
with as much political power as three white men at the
North. The owner of five, or a hundred, or a thousand,
was endowed with no political power under it. No more
than the employer of five, or a hundred, or a thousand
of operatives at the North.
What have you to say to this, PROF. NORTON?
PROF. NORTON. I have simply to candidly acknowledge,
as I do, that I did not so understand the history or the
effects of this clause in the Constitution. I have all my
life been of the opinion, how I got it I do not know, that
this three-fifths representation of the slaves of the South,
was a property representation, and was a concession on
the part of the North to demands of the South.  It seems
that I have been mistaken.
MR. STEPHENS. And what have you to say, Jud,ge
Bynum?
JUDGE BYNUM. I admit that I did not fully understand
the history of the clause, but my opinion is not changed
as to its effects. It did secure property representation to
the slave-owners. I am astounded at your attempting
to maintain that there was no difference between the
relation of a free laborer of the North, towards his
employer, and that of a slave at the South, towards his
owner.
MR. STEPHENS. YOU do not state me quite accurately.
I did not say that there was no difference, whatever,
104 
COL. XIV.]  CURTAILMENT OF SOUTH'S JUST POMIf5;.  105
between these relations. What I maintained is, that
there was no difference in the "property" view of them,
so far as relates to this clause of the Constitution. The
right to the service, or labor of the one, under contract,
whether, for a short or long term, was as much "property"
as the right to the service of the other, under law, though
it was for life. The only difference, in this respect, (and
that is what we are considering,) is that the labor of the
one, was for a term only, and that of the other, was for
life. The laborers in each case were equally recognized
by the laws, North and South, as persons; and they
were so equally recognized in the Constitution. In this
respect there was no difference; and in this respect there
is no reason why there should have been any difference
in the count for arriving at an equal basis of popular
representation.
The slave-owner was endowed with no political power
by this clause, no more than the employer of other kinds
of labor at the North. This was, and is, my position;
and from all this it clearly appears, I think, that this
"three-fifths" clause of the Constitution, was no "Slavery
Oligarchical," or "aristocratic provision" of the Constitution, carried at the dictation of the Southern States,
and for their especial benefit. On the contrary, it was a
curtailment of their just powers, as the Government has
been administered.   But  for it, the Southern States
would have had six more members than they had under
the first census. But for it, and the consequent want of
her full and just power in Congress, at the time, the Alien
and Sedition laws, might not, and, most probably, would not
have been passed; and the other centralizing acts of the
Government, passed during that decade, which have since
been claimed as precedents might, and, most probably,
never would have had existence. But for it, in 1820, 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
the Southern States would have had twelve more
members in the House of Representatives, than they then
had, and the Missouri Restriction of that year, which
you call a Solemn Compact, would not have been carried
as it was. Here I might properly reply to the points
made on that subject, and show that the conflict on that
measure, however portentous, was not a conflict, as I
have before said, between the advocates and opponents
of the Institution of Slavery, as it existed in the States,
but a conflict, as all others of a like character, between
those who defended the Federal principles of the Government, and those who were endeavoring to centralize
its powers. It can be easily shown that, for these political ends, this subject of Slavery was then seized upon, by
leaders defeated on other questions, as one which would
be most likely to enlist the general sympathy of the
people, and one on which, from conscientious scruples,
they might more easily be led to disregard the obligations
of Compacts.
But, at present, I wish to notice one or two other points
presented by the Judge. These relate to the position of
South Carolina on Secession, and the manner in which
the "Conspiracy," as he calls it, was concocted by a
"Slavery Oligarchy," and carried throughout the South
by impositions and usurpations.
Now, first, as to whether South Carolina "cared  a
button" for the breach of faith on the part of Northern
States, or not; let us see what she said of her own act,
and upon what grounds she put her withdrawal from the
Union. Whether Mr. Rhett, or Mr. Keitt, or others, made
the speeches you refer to or not, I do not know. But
South Carolina is by far the best and most authoritative
exponent of her own acts.  Here is her Ordinance of
Secession, and the Declaration of her people in Convention,
106
e 
Cor,. XIV.] SOUT'H CAROLINA'S CAUSES FOR SECESSION. 107
giving to the world their reasons for it. This Convention
was no "secret Junto" of Conspirators.  It was a Convention legally called and legally elected, according to law, bv
the regularly constituted authorities of the State-chosen
to consider and determine upon the Federal relations of
the State. Here is what this body of men, so selected
and so chosen, said of their own action and of their
reasons for it. In this paper, after giving a history of
the Union, and the nature of the Federal Government,
setting forth, specifically, the two mutual Covenants of the
States providing for the rendition of fugitives from service,
and fugitives from crime, they based their acts solely and
exclusively upon  breaches  of faitI on the part of their
Northern Confederates. Of these and other articles of the
Constitution they say:
"We maintain that in every Compact between two or
more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of
one of the contracting parties to perform a material part
of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the
other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party
is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact
of failure, with all its consequences."
Further, they say:
" The General Government, as the common agent,
passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the
States. For many years these laws were executed. But
an increasing hostility on the part of the non-Slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a
disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General
Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,  New
York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify 
CONSTITUTIONALI, VIEW OF THE WAR  [VorL. II.
the acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to
execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is
discharged from tile service or labor claimed, and in none
of them has the State Government complied with the
stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of
New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity
with her Constitutional obligation; but the current of
Anti-Slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact
laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by
her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State
of New York, even the right of transit for a Slave has
been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and
Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives
charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the Constitutional
Compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded
by these non-Slaveholding States, and the consequence
follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."*
This is quite enough to show the grounds upon which
South Carolina based her action in her Ordinance of
Secession. That was entitled, "An Ordinance to dissolve
the Union between the State of South Carolina and other
States, united with her under the Compact, entitled,
'The Constitution of the United States of America,"' and
is in these words:
"We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in
Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is
hereby declared and ordained,
" That the Ordinance adopted by us, in Convention, on
the twenty.third day of May, in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the
Constitution of the United States of America was ratified,
*For this Declaration of Causes in full see Appendix A.
108  
i' i                                                                         Ir~
I~~~~~~ 
COL. XIV.]  CAUSES ASSIGNED BY MR. TOOMBS.
and also, all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying Amendments of the said
Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the Union
now subsisting between South Carolina'and other States,
under the name of' The United States of America,' is
hereby dissolved."
Now, as further evidence of the reasons and motives
by which the extremest men of the South were governed,
in advising the people of their States, respectively, to
secede, I call your special attention to the speech made
by Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, in the Senate of the United
States, on the 7th of January, 1861, more than two
weeks after South Carolina had passed her Ordinance,
and two days after, you say, the conspiracy, of which he
was a prominent member, was organized in Washington,
with a view to overthrow the Federal Government, and
to establish, in its stead, a Slavery Oligarchy. Let us
look into this speech.  I will read such portions only as
present its substance upon the points we have under immediate consideration. In speaking of the action of the
people of South Carolina, and the Secessionists of the
South generally, in this assemblage of the Ambassadors
of the States, on that occasion, he said:
"Inasmuch, sir, as I have labored earnestly, honestly,
sincerely with these men to avert this necessity, so
long as I deemed it possible, and inasmuch as I heartily
approve their present conduct of resistance, I deem it my
duty to state their case to the Senate, to the country, and
to the civilized world.
" Senators, my countrymen have demanded no new
Government, they have demanded no new Constitution.
Look to their records at home and here, from the beginning of this strife until its consummation in the disruption of the Union, and they have not demanded a single
109
I 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL,. II.
thing, except that you shall abide by the Constitution of
the United States; that Constitutional rights shall be respected, and that justice shall be done. Sirs, they have
stood by your Constitution; they have stood by all its
requirements; they have performed all of its duties unselfishly, uncalculatingly, disinterestedly, until a Party
sprang up in this Country which endangered their social
system-a Party which they arraign, and which they
charge before the American people and all mankind with
having made proclamation of outlawry against thousands
of millions of their property in the Territories of the
United States; with having aided and abetted insurrection from within and invasion from without, with the
view of subverting their Institutions, and desolating their
homes and their firesides. I shall proceed to vindicate
the justice of their demands, the patriotism of their conduct. I will show the injustice which they suffer, and
the rightfulness of their resistance.
"The discontented States of this Union have demanded
nothing but clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-acknowledged Constitutional rights-rights affirmed by the highest
judicial Tribunals of their Country; rights older than the
Constitution; rights which are planted upon the immutable principles of natural justice; rights which have been
affirmed by the good and the wise of all countries and of
all centuries. We demand no power to injure any man.
We demand no right to injure our Confederate States.
We demand no right to interfere with their Institutions,
either by word or deed. We have no right to disturb
their peace, their tranquillity, their security.  We have
demanded of them simply, solely-nothing else-to give
us equality, security, and tranquillity. Give us these, and
peace restores itself.
"I will now read my own demands, acting under my
110 
COL. XIV.] DEMANDS OF THIE SOUTH-TOOMIBS.
own convictions.  They are considered the demands of
an extremist. I believe that is the appellation these
traitors employ. I accept their reproach rather than
their principles.' Accepting their designation of treason
and rebellion, there stands before them as good a traitor
and as good a rebel as ever descended from Revolutionary
loins.
"What do these Rebels demand?
"First.' That the people of the United States shall have
an equal right to emigrate and settle in the present, or
any future acquired Territories, with whatever property
they may possess, (including slaves,) and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment until such Territory
may be admitted as a State into the Union, with or without Slavery, as she may determine, on an equality with
all existing States.' That is our territorial demand.
We have fought for this Territory when blood was its
price. We have paid for it when gold was its price. We
have not proposed to exclude you, though you have contributed very little of either blood or money. I refer
especially to New England. We demand only to go into
those Territories upon terms of equality with you, as
equals in this great Confederacy, to enjoy the common
property of the whole Union, and receive the protection
of the common Government until the Territory is capable
of coming into the Union as a Sovereign State, when it
may fix its own institutions to suit itself.
"The  second proposition is:' that property in slaves
shall be entitled to the same protection from the Government of the United States, in all of its department,
everywhere, which the Constitution confers the power
upon it to extend to any other property, provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or
restrain the right now belonging to every State to pro
111 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
hibit, abolish, or establish and protect Slavery within its
limits.' We demand of the common Government to use
its granted powers to protect our property as well as
yours.  Ought it not to do so?  You say no.  Every
one of you upon the committee said no. Your senators
say  no.   Your  House  of  Representatives  say  no.
Throughout the length and breadth of your conspiracy
against the Constitution, there is but one shout of no!
This recognition of this right is the price of my allegiance.
Withhold it, and you do not get my obedience.
"We demand in the next place,'that persons com mitting crimes against slave property in one State, and
fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in the same
manner as persons committing crimes against other
property, and that the laws of the State from which such
persons flee shall be the test of criminality.' That is
another one of the demands of an extremist and rebel.
The Constitution of the United States, Article iv., Section 2, says:
"'A person charged in any State with treason, felony,
or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found
in another State, shall on demand of the executive
authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered
up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the
Crime.'   But  some  of  the non-Slaveholding  States,
treacherous to their oaths and Compacts, have steadily refused, if the criminal only stole a Negro, and that Negro
was a slave, to deliver him up. It was refused twice on
the requisition of my own State as long as twenty-two
years ago. It was refused by Kent and Fairfield, Governors of Maine, and representing, I believe, each of the
then Federal Parties.   We appealed to fraternity, but
we submitted, and this Constitutional right has been,
practically, a dead letter from that day to this.
112 
COL. XIV.]  RENDITION OF SLAVES-TOOMBS.
"The next case came up between us and the State of
New York, when the present senior Senator (Mr. Seward)
was the Governor of that State; and he refused it. Why?
He said it was not against the laws of New York to steal
a Negro, and therefore he would not comply with the demand.   He made a similar refusal to Virginia.  Yet
these are our Confederates-these are our sister States.
There is the bargain; there is the Compact. You have
sworn to it. Both these Governors swore to it. The
Senator from New York swore to it. The Governor of
Ohio swore to it when he was inaugurated. You cannot
bind them by oaths. Yet they talk to us of treason. It
is natural we should want this provision of the Constitution carried out. By the text and letter of the Constitution, you agreed to give them up. You have sworn to
do it, and you have broken your oaths!
"The next stipulation is, that fugitive slaves shall be
surrendered. Here is the Constitution:
"' No person held to service or labor in one State, under
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged
from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be
due.'
"This language is plain, and everybody understood it
the same way for the first forty years of our Government.
In 1793, in Washington's time, an act was passed to
carry out this provision. It was adopted unanimously
in the Senate of the United States, and nearly so in the
House of Representatives. Nobody, then, had invented
pretexts to show that the Constitution did not mean a
Negro slave. It was clear; it was plain. Not only the
Federal Courts, but all the local Courts in all the States,
decided that this was a Constitutional obligation.
8
113 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
" How is it now? I have heretofore shown that this
plain Constitutional provision has been violated by specific acts in thirteen of these States.
"The next demand made on behalf of the South is,
'that Congress shall pass efficient laws for the punishment of all persons, in any of the States, who shall, in any
manner, aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any
other State, or commit any other act against the laws of
nations tending to disturb the tranquillity of the people
or Government of any other State.'
"That is a very plain principle.  The Constitution of
the United States now requires, and gives Congress express power, to define and punish piracies and felonies
committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws
of nations. When the honorable and distinguished Sena
tor from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) last year, introduced a
bill for the purpose of punishing people thus offending
under that clause of the Constitution, Mr. Lincoln, in
his speech at New York, which I have before me, declared that it was a "Sedition Bill;" his press and party
hooted at it. So far from recognizing the bill as intended
to carry out the Constitution of the United States, it received their jeers and gibes. The Republicans of Massa
chusetts elected the admirer and eulogist of John Brown's
courage, as their Governor, and we may suppose he will
throw no impediments in the way of John Brown's successors.
"We  demand these five propositions.  Are they not
right?  Are they not just?  Take them in detail, and
show that they are not warranted by the Constitution,
by the safety of our people, by the principles of eternal
justice. We will pause, and consider them; but mark
me, we will not let you decide the questions for us.
But we are told by well meaning but simple minded
114 
COL. XIV.] UNION BETWEEN THE STATES-TOOMBS.
people that admit your wrongs, your remedies are not
justifiable. Senators, I have little care to dispute reme dies with you, unless you propose to redress my wrongs.
If you propose that in good faith, I will listen with respectful deference; but when the objectors to my remedies
propose no adequate ones of their own, I know what they
mean by the objection. They mean Submission. But,
still, I will as yet argue it with them.
"These thirteen Colonies originally had no Bond of
Union whatever-no more than Jamaica and Australia
have to-day. They were wholly separate Communities,
independent of each other, and dependent on the Crown
of Great Britain. All the Union between them that was
ever made is in writing. They made two written Compacts. One was known as the Articles of Confederation,
which declared that the Union thereby formed should be
perpetual-an argument very much relied upon by'the
friends of the Union,' now. Those Articles of Confederation, in terms, declared that they should be perpetual.
I believe that expression is used in our last treaty with
Billy Bowlegs, the Chief of the Seminoles. I know it is
a phrase used in treaties with all nations, civilized and
savage. Those that are not declared eternal are the exceptions; but usually treaties profess to be for'perpetual
friendship and amity,' according to their terms. So was
that treaty between the States. After awhile, though,
the politicians said it did not work well. It carried us
through the Revolution. The difficulty was, that after
the war there were troubles about the regulation of commerce, about navigation, but above all, about financial
matters. The Government had no means of getting at
the pockets of the people; and but for that one difficulty,
this present Government would never have been made.
The country is deluded with the nonsense that this Bond
115 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of Union was cemented by the blood of brave men in the
Revolution. Sir, it is false. It never cost a drop of
blood. A large portion of the best men of the Revolution voted against it. It was carried in the Convention
of Virginia by but ten majority, and among its opponents
were Monroe and Henry, and other men who had fought
the war, who recorded their judgment that it was not a
good Bond; and I am satisfied to-day that they were the
wiser men. Some of the bravest, and the boldest and
the best men of the Revolution, who fought from its beginning to its end, were opposed to the plan of Union.
Are we to be deterred by the cry that we are laying our
unhallowed hands on this holy altar?  Sir, I have no
hesitation in saying that a very large portion of the people of Georgia, whom I represent, prefer to remain in this
Union with their Constitutional rights-I would say
ninety per cent. of them-believing it to be a good Government. I think it had but little to do with their prosperity beyond securing their peace with other nations,
and that boon has been paid for at a price that no freeman ought to submit to. These are my opinions; they
have been announced to my constituents, and I announce
them here. Had I lived in that day, I should have voted
with the minority in Virginia, with Monroe, Henry, and
the illustrious patriots who composed the seventy-nine
votes [in the Virginia Convention] against the adoption
of the present plan of government. In my opinion, if
they had prevailed, to-day the men of the South would
have the greatest and most powerful nation of the earth.
Let this judgment stand for future ages.
"Senators, the Constitution is a Compact.  It contains
all our obligations and duties of the Federal Government.
I am content, and have ever been content, to sustain it.
While I doubt its perfection; while I do not believe it
116 
CoL. XIV.] THE CONSTITUTION A COMPACT-TOOMBS. 117
was a good Compact; and while I never saw the day
that I would have voted for it as a proposition de novo;
I have given to it, and intend to give to it, unfaltering support and allegiance; but I choose to put that allegiance
on the true ground, not on the false idea that anybody's
blood was shed for it. I say, that the Constitution is the
whole Compact. All the obligations, all the chains that
fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the Bond,
and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them,
by declaring that the powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the
States, belonged to the States respectively or the people.
Now I will try it by that standard; I will subject it to
that test. The law of nature, the law of justice would
say-and it is so expounded by the publicists-that
equal rights in the common property shall be enjoyed.
Even in a monarchy, the King cannot prevent the subjects from enjoying equality in the disposition of the
public property. Even in a despotic Government this
principle is recognized. It was the blood and the money
of the whole people (says the learned Grotius, and say
all the publicists) which acquired the public property,
and therefore it is not the property of the Sovereign.
This right of equality being, then, according to justice
and natural equity, a right belonging to all States, when
did we give it up? You say Congress has a right to
pass rules and regulations concerning the Territory and
other property of the United States. Very well. Does
that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it.
Does'dispose of' mean to rob the rightful owners.
"But, you say, try the right.  I agree.  But how?
By our judgment?  No; not until the last resort. What
then; by yours? No; not until the same time. How
then try it? The South has always said by the Supreme 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Court. But that is in our favor, and Lincoln says he
will not stand that judgment. Then each must judge
for himself of the mode and manner of redress. But you
deny us that privilege, and finally reduce us to accepting
your judgment. We decline it. You say you will enforce it by executing laws; that means, your judgment
of what the laws ought to be. The Senator from Kentucky comes to your aid, and says he can find no Constitutional Right of Secession. Perhaps not; but the
Constitution is not the place to look for State Rights.
If that right belongs to independent States, and they did
not cede it to the Federal Government, it is reserved to
thle States, or to the people. Ask your new Commentator
where hle gets your right to judge for us. Is it in the
Bond?
"The Supreme Court has decided that, by the Constitu,tion, we have a right to go to the Territories, and be protected there, with our property.   You say, we cannot
decide the Compact for ourselves. Well, can the Supreme
Court decide it for us? Mr. Lincoln says he does not
care what the Supreme Court decides, he will turn us out
anyhow. He says this in his debate with the honorable
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas). I have it before me.
He said he would vote against the decision of the
Supreme Court. Then you do not accept that arbiter.
You will not take my construction; you will not take
the Supreme Court as an arbiter; you will not take the
practice of the Government; you will not take the
treaties under Jefferson and Madison; you will not take
the opinion of Madison upon the very question of prohibition, in 1820. What, then, will you take? You will
take nothing but your own judgment; that is, you will
not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the Court,
discard our construction, discard the practice of the
118 
COL. XIV.] POSITION OF REPUBLICANS-TOOMBS.
Government, but you will drive us out, simply because
you will it. Your party says that you will not take the
decision of the Supreme Court. You said so at Chicago;
you said so in committee; every man of you in both
Houses says so. What are you going to do? You say
we shall submit to your construction. We shall do it,
if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other
manner.  That is settled.
"You have no warrant in the Constitution for this
declaration of outlawry. The Court says you have no
right to make it. The treaty says you shall not do it.
The Treaty of 1803 declares that the property of the
people shall be protected by the Government until they
are admitted into the Union as a State. That treaty
covers Kansas and Nebraska. The law passed in 1804,
or 1805, under Mr. Jefferson, protects property in slaves
in that very Territory. In 1820, when the question of
Prohibition came up, Mr. Madison declared it was not
warranted by the Constitution, and Jefferson denounced
its abettors as enemies of the human race. Here is the
Court; here are our fathers; here is contemporaneous exposition for fifty years, all asserting our right. The Republican Party says,' We care not for your precedents,
or practices; we have progressive Politics as well as a
progressive Religion.'
"But, no matter what may be our grievances, the
honorable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Crittenden,) says
we cannot secede. Well, what can we do? We cannot
revolutionize; he will say that is treason. What can we
do?  Submit?  They say they are the strongest, and
they will hang us. Very well, I suppose we are to be
thankful for that boon. We will take that risk. We
will stand by the right; we will take the Constitution;
we will defend it by the sword with the halter around
119 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
our necks! Will that satisfy the honorable Senator from
Kentucky?  You cannot intimidate my constituents by
talking to them about treason.  They are ready to fight
for the right with the rope around their necks!
"But, although I insist upon this perfect equality in
the Territories, yet, when it was proposed, as I understand the Senator from Kentucky now proposes, that the
line of 36~ 30' shall be extended, acknowledging and
protecting our property on the south side of that line, for
the sake of peace-permanent peace-I said to the Committee of Thirteen, and I say here, that with other satisfactory provisions, I would accept it.
"Yet, not only did your committee refuse that, but my
distinguished friend  from Mississippi,  (Mr. Davis,)another tnoderate gentleman like myself-proposed simply to get a recognition that we had the right to our
own: that man could have property in man; and it
met with the unanimous refusal even of the most
moderate, Union-saving, compromising portion of the
Republican Party. They do not intend to acknowledge it.
"Very well; you not only want to break down our Constitutional Rights; you not only want to upturn our social
system; your people not only steal our slaves and make
them freemen to vote against us; but you seek to bring
an Inferior race in a condition of equality, socially and
politically, with our own people. Well, sir, the question
of Slavery moves not the people of Georgia, one-half as
much as the fact that you insult their rights as a Community. You Abolitionists are right when you say, that
there are thousands and tens of thousands of men in
Georgia, and all over the South, who do not own slaves.
A very large portion of the people of Georgia own none
of them. In the mountains, there are comparatively but
120 
COL. XIV.]  FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE-TOOMBS.
few of them; but no part of our people are more loyal to
their race and country, than our bold and brave mountain population; and every flash of the electric wires
brings me cheering news from our mountain tops, and
our valleys, that these Sons of Georgia are excelled by none
of their countrymen in loyalty to the rights, the honor,
and the glory of the Commonwealth. They say, and
well say, this is our question; we want no Negro equality, no Negro citizenship; we want no mongrel race to
degrade our own; and as one man, they would meet you
upon the border with the sword in one hand, and the
torch in the other. We will tell you when we choose to
abolish this thing; it must be done under our direction,
and according to our will; our own, our native land,
shall determine this question, and not the Abolitionists of
the North. That is the spirit of our freemen.
"I have already adverted to the proposition in regard
to giving up criminals who are charged with stealing
Negroes, and I have referred to the cases of Maine, New
York, and Ohio.  I come now to the last specificationthe requirement that laws should be passed punishing all
who aid and abet insurrection. These are offences recognized by the laws of Nations, as inimnical to all society;
and I will read the opinions of an eminent Publicist,
when I get to that point. I said that you had aided and
abetted insurrection.   John  Brown  certainly invaded
Virginia. John Brown's sympathizers, I presume, are
not Democrats. Two of the accomplices of John Brown
fled-one to Ohio, one to Iowa. The Governors of both
States refused to give up the fugitives from justice. The
Party maintained them. I am aware that, in both cases,
pretexts were gotten up, to cover the shame of the transaction.  I am  going to show you that their pretexts
were hollow, unsubstantial, not only against Constitutional
121 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
law, but against the law of Nations.  I will show you
that it was their duty to seize them under the law of
Nations, and bring them to their Confederate States; or
even to a friendly State. The first authority I will read,
is Vattel on the Law of Nations. If there had been any
well-founded ground, if the papers had been defective, if
the case had  been defectively stated, what  was  the
general duty of a friendly State without any Constitutional obligations? This general principle is, that one
State is bound to restrain its citizens from doing anything tending to create disturbance in another State; to
ferment disorders; to corrupt its citizens, or to alienate
its allies.
"Vattel says, page 162:
"'And since the latter (the Sovereign) ought not to
suffer his subjects to molest the subjects of another State,
or to do them an injury, much less to give open, audacious offence to Foreign powers, he ought to compel the
transgressors to make reparation for the damage or injury,
if possible, or to inflict on him an exemplary punishment; or finally, according to the nature and circumstances of the case, to deliver him up to the offended
State, to be there brought to justice. This is pretty
generally observed with respect to great crimes, which
are equally contrary to the laws and safety of all Nations.
Assassins, incendiaries, and robbers, are seized everywhere at the desire of the Sovereign in whose Territories
the crime was committed, and are delivered up to his
justice. The matter is carried still further in States that
are more closely connected by friendship and good neighborhood. Even in cases of ordinary transgressions, which
are only subjects of civil prosecution, either with a view
to the recovery of damages, or the infliction of a slight
civil punishment, the subjects of two neighboring States
122 
LAW OF NATIONS-TOOMBS.
are reciprocally obliged to appear before the magistrate
of the place where they are accused of hlaving failed in
their duty. Upon a requisition of that magistrate, called
letter rogatory, they are summoned in due form by their
own magistrates, and obliged to appear.  An admirable
institution, by means of which many neighboring States
live together ill peace, and seem to form only one Republic! This is in force through all Switzerland. As
soon as the letters rogatory are issued in form, the
superior of the accused is bound to enforce them. It
belongs not to him to examine whether the accusation be
true or false; he is to presume on the justice of his
neighbor, and not to suffer any doubts on his own pait
to impair an Institution so well calculated to preserve
harmony and good understanding between the States.'
"That is the law of nations, as declared by one of its
ablest expouniders; but, besides, we have this principle
embodied in the Constitution. We have there the obligation to deliver up fugitives from justice; and though it is in
the Constitution: though it is sanctioned, as I said, by
all ages and all centuries, by the wise and the good everywhere, our Confederate States are seeking false pretexts
to evade a plain, social duty, in which are involved the
peace and security of all society. If we had no Constitution, this obligation would devolve upon friendly States.
If there were no Constitution, we ought to demand it.
But, instead of giving us this protection, we are met with
reproaches, reviling, tricks, and treachery, to conceal and
protect incendiaries and murderers.
"This man, Brown, and his accomplices, had sympathizers. Who were they? One of them, as I have before
said, who was, according to his public speeches, a defender
and laudator of John Brown, is Governor of Massachusetts. Other officials of that State applauded Brown's
COL. XIV.]
123 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
heroism, magnified his courage, and, no doubt, lamented
his ill success. Throughout the whole North, public
meetings, immense gatherings, triumphal processions, the
honors of the hero and conqueror, were awarded to this
incendiary and assassin. They did not condemn the
traitor; think you, they abhorred the treason?
"Yet, I repeat, when a distinguished Senator from a
non-Slaveholding State (Mr. Douglas) proposed to punish
such attempts at invasion and insurrection, Lincoln and
his Party come before the world and say,'Here is a
Sedition Law.' To carry out the Constitution, to protect
States from invasion, and suppress insurrection, to comply
with the laws of the United States, is a'Sedition Law,'
and the Chief of this Party treats it with contempt;
yet, under the very same clause of the Constitution which
warranted this important bill, you derive your power to
punish offences against the laws of nations. Under this
warrant you have tried and punished our citizens for
meditating the invasion of foreign States; you have
stopped illegal expeditions; you have denounced our citizens as pirates, and commended them to the bloody vengeance of a merciless enemy.
"Under this principle alone you protect our weaker
neighbors of Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua. By this
alone are we empowered and bound to prevent our people
from conspiring together, giving aid, giving money, or
arms, to fit out expeditions against any foreign nation.
Foreign nations get the benefit of this protection; but we
are worse off in the Union than if we were out of it.
Out of it, we should have the protection of the Neutrality
laws. Now you can come among us; raids may be made;
you may put the incendiary's torch to our dwellings, as
you did last summer, for hundreds of miles on the frontiers of Texas; you may do what John Brown did, and
124 
COL. XIV.] REDRESS OF WRONGS DEMANDED-TOOMBS. 125
when the miscreants escape to your States you will not
punish them; you will not deliver them up. Therefore,
we stand defenceless. We must cut loose from the accursed'body of this death,' even to get the benefit of the
law of nations.
"You will not regard Confederate obligations; you
will not regard Constitutional obligations; you will not
regard your oaths. What, then, am I to do? Am I a
freeman?  Is my State a free State?  We  are freemen.
We have rights; I have stated them. We have wrongs;
I have recounted them. I have demonstrated that the
party now coming into power has declared us outlaws,
and is determined to exclude thousands of millions of our
property from the common Territories; that it has declared us under the ban of the Union, and out of the
protection of the laws of the United States everywhere.
They have refused to protect us from invasion and insurrection by the Federal Power, and the Constitution denies
to us in the Union the right either to raise fleets or armies
for our defence. All these charges I have proven by the
record; and I put them before the civilized world, and
demand the judgment of to-day, of to-morrow, of distant
ages, and of Heaven itself, upon the justice of these
causes. I am content, whatever it be, to peril all in so
noble, so holy a cause. We have appealed, time and
time again, for these Constitutional rights. You have
refused them.  We appeal again.  Restore us these rights
as we had them, as your Court adjudges them to be, just as
our people have said they are; redress these flagrant
wrongs, seen of all men, and it will restore fraternity,
and peace, and unity, to all of us. Refuse them, and
what then? We shall then ask you,' Let us depart in
peace.' Refuse that, and you present us war. We
accept it; and, inscribing upon our banners the glorious 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR. [VOL. II.
words,'Liberty and Equality,' we will trust to the
blood of the brave, and the God of Battles, for security
and tranquillity."
PROF. NORTON. That was a strong speech.
MAJOR HEISTER. Yes. It strikes me as a speech of
great power.
MR. STEPHENS. Indeed it was. In the history of this
war it will take a place, side by side, with that of Pericles
addressed to the Athenian Council, just before the outbreak
of the Peloponnesian War, though not analogous, so far as
concerns the parties addressed. Its greatest power, however, consisted in the unquestionable facts, upon which it
rested.
JUDGE BYNUM. How you can say this of it, I cannot
understand. Even the grand flourish at the conclusion,
about "Liberty and Equality," seems to me but a mockery
of everything like fact, when we know that what he
meant was, not the advancement of Liberty at all, but the
perpetuation of Slavery. This was his whole object, as
well as that of his coadjutors.
MR. STEPHENS. His object and theirs was the perpetuation of that liberty and equality which was established
by the Constitution of the United States. This you must
admit. It was the same liberty and equality that the
men of 1776 had perilled their lives, their honor, and all
that they held sacred, to establish. The speech shows
clearly who were the real conspirators against our form
of Government, as established by the Fathers. It shows
that the "naked question," presented by him and the
other leading men from the South at Washington, at that
time, was not, as you maintained, to overthrow that
Government and to establish a " Slavery Oligarchy" in
its stead. On the contrary, it puts beyond all question
the fact, that the leading men of the South, whom you
126 
THE REAL CONSPIRATORS.
styled conspirators, even the extremest of them, for no
man was more extreme, as all will readily grant, not even
Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, or Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina,
than Mr. Toombs was, aimed at nothing, and desired nothing, but the maintenance, in good fyith, of the Constitution,
with all its guarantees as they stood! They wanted and
desired nothing but that Constitutional liberty and
equality which the Fathers had established! They wanted
no new Constitution, nor any new "Slavery Dynasty!"
That is the question!
In this speech, Mr. Toombs said, and said truly, that
ninety out of every hundred of the people of Georgia, were
devoted to the Union, under the Constitution, as it then
stood! Though he thought it not a good one, yet they
did, and he was willing, in good faith, to stand to it, if the
other Parties to it would. He said then, after South
Carolina had seceded, that if the Northern States would
comply with their obligations under the Constitution, that
it would restore Fraternity and Unity! lie said, truly,
that the non-slaveholders of Georgia were as much opposed to the policy of the Abolition Party, to carry out
their designs of Negro equality as the slaveholders were.
They were as truly "loyal" to the Constitution, as it
stood in this particular, as any class in the Commonwealth, and were as ready to defend the principles of that
Constitution, by defending the Sovereign Right of Secession,
even " with the rope around their necks," as their slaveholding neighbors. Indeed, I think he might have gone
further, and have said, with truth, that they were even
readier; for, in this State, I believe a majority of the
slaveholders were against the policy of Secession, at the
time. They were generally what were called Conservatives, and a large portion of them, if not a majority, voted
the Bell-Everett ticket in the Presidential election. My
COL. XIV.]
127 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
opinion is, that a majority of them, in this State, voted
against Secession Delegates to the Convention which was
called in this State. How this matter really was, there
is no way to determine, that is, on which side a majority
of this class was on that question; but it is well known
that a large portion of the most active opponents of that
measure, were amongst the largest slaveholders of the
State. This I state in reply to the Judge's idea, that it
was a movement gotten up by what he calls a Slavery
Oligarchy, at the South. The truth is, no such Oligarchy
existed.
But mark you, when and where this speech was made.
It was on the 7th of January, 1861, in the Senate of
the United States, two days after, you say, the conspirators
aiming at the overthrow of the Government had organized in secret junto at Washington! Is anything wanting more thoroughly to refute that idea than this speech?
It clearly shows that on the 7th January, 1861, after
South Carolina had seceded, as we have seen-after the
conspiracy had entered into a regular organization, with
a usurpation of all power over Southern public affairs,
according to this fabulous account of it, that Mr. Toombs,
and even Mr. Davis, who was the selected chief, were
willing to settle the whole controversy, if any assurance
would be given by the leading men of the Party coming
into power on the 4th of the ensuing March, that the
clearly stipulated guarantees of the Constitution would
be carried out in good faith by them? This assurance
it is well known was not given. It was refused to be
given. This is a correct version of that matter. The
whole story of any such conspiracy, and the election of
Mr. Davis as President of a new Dynasty, is altogether
fabulous.
After this refusal, if the Senators-the Ambassadors of
128 
COL. XIV.] CONSULTATION OF SOU'THERN SENATORS.   129
the Southern States at Washington-did assemble together
in that city, and did resolve jointly upon such action as
they thought best for the people of their States, respec tively, to adopt in their State Conventions, then called by
the regularly constituted authorities, in this emergency;
and if, after this meeting and consultation, Mr. Toombs,
one of them, did go into the Senate, and there deliver
this manifesto, and make another appeal for the Union,
even after the advice was given, who can justly maintain that they, in the performance of this high duty, were
a set of secret conspirators or anything like it? It is
notorious that they did so meet, so consult, and so advise.
But their meeting was  no secret.   Nothing was more
generally known in Washington. It was announced in
the newspapers of the day.
But it is utterly untrue, as I am informed, and have
good reasons to believe, that there was any usurpation of
power by them, or any attempt or object on their part,
to do anything but advise such course as they thought
best for the people of the Southern States, in which Conventions were then called, to pursue in the crisis then
impending, if no assurance should be given, that the
Constitution would be maintained. There was no such
thing as an election of a Chief Commander of any military
forces, or any usurpation of power, whatever.   The
Sovereign people of these States were left to their own
free will to adopt the policy they advised, or reject it as
they pleased. The sum and substance of the advice was
embodied in this speech. Their wrongs demanded redress, and if it were not granted, that they should'I depart
in peace," and form a new Confederation amongst themselves. The redress was not given, and these States did
depart in peace. They all f)assed Ordinances of Secession
as South Carolina had done, and in Convention at Mont
9 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
gomery, formed a new Confederation. This is a correct
version of the matter.
But we have talked long enough on the subject for
one sitting. Perhaps too long, and, if agreeable, I will
postpone what I have to say further in reply toq Judge
Bynum on the Missouri question and his other instances
of breach of Compact. These points made by him remain
to be noticed. We will, if you please, return to them
after a little rest and refreshment.
MAJOR HEISTER. I have no objections to that, especially
the refreshments; and I know you must be tired, and
stand in need of something a little stronger than water.
PROF. NORTON. I am not so sure of that. I rather
think that both he and the Judge need a little cooling
down, particularly upon the subjects of sin, conscience
and oaths.
MR. STEPHENS. Well, Judge, what say you to an iced
lemonade for us, while the Major and the Professor indulge in something stronger, if they prefer?
JUDGE BYNUM. Just as you say, but I must confess,
notwithstanding the Professors remark, that if something
a little stronger should be put into mine "u unbeknownst
to me," as Mr. Lincoln's anecdote about the Temperance
lecturer has it, "I guess it wouldn't hurt me much."*
MR. STEPHENS. Well, have it as you like.  So we supend for the present.
* Post, p. 634.
130 
COLLOQUY XV.
REPLY OF MR. STEPHENS TO JUDGE BYNUM CONTINUED-MISSOURI COMPRO MISE, SO-CALLED, CONSIDERED-MR. BUCHANAN'S STATEMENT IN REFEtR ENCE TO, REVIEWED-MR. CLAY'S POSITION IN REFERENCE TO, STATED NEVER REGARDED AS A COMPACT BY THlE CENTRALISTS-MISSOURI WAS NOT
ADMITTED UNDER IT-TILE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS BASED UTTERLY
REPUDIATED BY EVERY NORTHERN STATE-MANY INTERESTING FACTS
CONNECTED WITH IT EXHIBITED.
MR.  STEPHENS. We  will now take up the Missouri
Compromise, and see how far your position, on that sulject, Judge, is sustained by the facts of the case: in other
words, we will see whether there was any "breach of
faith," or of "Compact," on the part of the South, in
regard to that measure, or in regard to the Compromise
Measures of 1850, which you spoke of in the same connection; and in regard to which you also alleged breach
of faith on the part of the "Slave Power," so-called.  I
shall consider both these matters together; for the subjects are both intimately connected, and there can be no
correct understanding of the latter, without a clear and
full understanding of the former.
MAJOR HEISTER. These are points I am now particularly anxious to hear from you upon. For, to be candid
with you, I must say that I have always thought that the
South, for the first time, became the aggressor in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. I agree entirely with
what Mr. Buchanan says upon that subject.  I mean
what he says upon the subject in his work, entitled,
"Buchanan's Administration." Have you seen this work?
131 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.
MR. STEPHENS. Yes; I have seen it, and have it in the
library. Let me get it. Here it is; and I was very
much struck, as well as greatly surprised, at what the
Ex-President wrote upon both of these measures. I read,
first, from page 24, where he speaks of the Compromise
of 1850:
"The Compromise of 1850 ought never to have been
disturbed by Congress. After long years of agitation and
alarm, the country, under its influence, had enjoyed a
season of comparative repose, inspiring the people with
bright hopes for the future.
But how short-lived and delusive was this calm!
The very Congress which had commenced so auspiciously,
by repealing the Missouri Compromise before the end of
its first session, re-opened the floodgates of sectional strife,
which, it was fondly imagined, had been closed forever.
This has ever since gone on increasing in violence and
malignity, until it has involved the country in the greatest
and most sanguinary civil war recorded in history."
Then after speaking of what hlie calls the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise in 1854, which he maintains reopened the floodgates of sectional strife that had been
closed by the Compromise of 1850, he uses this language
on page 28:
"After a careful review of the history of the AntiSlavery Party, from its origin, the candid inquirer must
admit that up till this period, [that is 1854,] it had acted
on the aggressIive against the South.  From the beginning
it had kept the citizens of the slaveholding States in constant irritation, as well as serious apprehension for their
domestic peace and security.   They were the assailed
Party, and had been far more sinned a(gaimt than sinning.
It is true, they had denounced their assailants with extreme rancor and many threats; but had done nothing
VOL. II.
132 
COL. XV.] BUCHANAN ON MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
more.   In sustaining the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, however, the Senators and Representatives of
the Southern States became the aggressors themselves,
and thereby placed the country in an alarming and
dangerous condition from which it has never since been
rescued?"
Upon the Missouri Compromise itself, he speaks thus
on page 25:
"The Missouri Compromise finally passed Congress by
large majorities. On a test question in the Senate on
the 2d March, 1820, the vote in its favor was twentyseven against fifteen; and in the House, on the same day,
it was one hundred and thirty-four against forty-two.
Its wisdom and policy were recognized by Congress, a
quarter of a century afterwards, in March, 1845, when
Texas, being a Slave State, was annexed to the Union.
Acting on the presumption that several new States
might be formed out of her territory, one of the express
conditions of her annexation was, that in such of these
States as might lie north of the Missouri Compromise
line, Slavery shall be prohibited.
"The Missouri Compromise had remained inviolate
for more than thirty-four years before its repeal. It was
a Covenant of peace between the free and the slaveholding States. Its authors were the wise and conservative
statesmen of a former generation. Although it had not
silenced Anti-Slavery discussion in other forms, yet it
soon tranquillized the excitement which for some months
previous to its passage had convulsed the country in regard to Slavery in the Territories. It is true that the
power of a future Congress to repeal any of the Acts
of its predecessors, under which no private rights had
been vested, cannot be denied, still the Missouri Compromise,   being in the nature of a Solemn Compact be
4~
133 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tween conflicting parties, whose object was to ward off
great dangers from the Union, ought never to have been
repealed by Congress.
"The question of its Constitutionality ought to have
been left to the decision of the Supreme Court, without
any legislative intervention. Had this been done, and
the Court had decided it to be a violation of the Constitution, in a case arising before them in the regular
course of judicial proceedings, the decision would have
passed off in comparative silence, and produced no
dangerous excitement among the people."
MAJOR HEISXER. Yes, these are the parts to which I
refer.
JUDGE BYNUM. They are certainly very high Democratic authority to sustain me in all that I said upon these
points. It also fully sustains all that Mr. Sumner, Mr.
Chase, and Mr. Seward, and the whole class of Restrictionists said in 1854.
MR. STEPHENS. That is very true, but we shall soon
see whether even this authority, however high, be it
Democratic or of whatever character, can avail anything
against the great indisputable facts of the case.   The
authority of names as well as theories, must yield to facts
in history.
I have said I was surprised at what Mr. Buchanan
wrote on the subject. I repeat, I am exceedingly surprised at it, not only because it is so utterly unsustained
by the facts, but so directly inconsistent with what he
affirmed in his letter, accepting the nomination of the
Democratic Party, for the Presidency, in 1856. HIere is
that letter, dated June 16, 1856; and in it he used this
language in reference to the action of Congress in 1854,
which, as he says, repealed the Missouri Compromise,
and opened afresh the agitation of the Slavery ques
134 
Cor.. XV.]  BUCHANAN'S LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE.
tion, and in which the South was, for the first time, the
aggressor. Hear what he said on this subject in 1856:
"The agitation of the question of domestic Slavery has
too long distracted and divided the people of this Union,
and alienated their affections from each other.  This
agitation has assunied many forms since its commencement, but it now seems to be directed chiefly to the
Territories; and judging from its present character, I
think we may safely anticipate that it is rapidly approaching a'finality.' The recent legislation of Congress
respecting domestic Slavery, derived, as it has been, from
the original and pure fountain of legitimate political
power, the will of the majority, promises, ere long, to
allay the dangerous  excitement.    This  legi8lation is
founded upon princi])le8 as ancient as free Government itself, and in accordance with them, has simply declared
that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall
decide for themselves, whether Slavery shall or shall not
exist within their limits."
This was the truth of the case, as we shall see; and I
cannot well see how he could have expressed himself, as
he did in his book, in 1865, on the same subject, without
a total forgetfulness, not only of the real facts of the case,
but of what he had himself expressly stated, when he
was before the people of the States, as a candidate for
the Presidency. But let that pass.
I shall now first take up the Missouri Compromise, socalled, and then the Compromise of 1850; and show that
if there was anything like a "Solemn Compact," or
" covenant" of any sort, between the States, in either, that
there was no breach of faith on the part of the Southern
States, in relation to either.
The history of the first of these measures, so little understood, and so greatly misrepresented, briefly stated, is this:
0
135 
CONSTIT''UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
In 1818, at the Second Session of the Fifteenth Congress,*
an application was made by the people of the Territory
of Missouri to be admitted into the Union as a State.
The Territory of Missouri, as is well known, was embraced in the Louisiana cession by France, in 1803. In
Article III, of the Treaty by which that whole acquisition was made, it was stipulated in behalf of the inhabitants then residing within its limits, that,
"The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the
Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights,
advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United
States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained
and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and the religion which they profess."t
Negro slaves were then held as property in this Territory, and were embraced in the Treaty as other property.
Now, in pursuance of this stipulation, as well as in
pursuance of the general principles and authority of the
Constitution of the United States, the application of the
people of Missouri for admission into the Union as a
State, was made in the usual way in 1818, as I have
remarked. The bill for this purpose came up for action
in the House of Representatives on the 13th day of
February, 1819. To that bill Mr. Tallmadge, of New
York, moved an amendment in these words:
"And  provided,  That the  further introduction of
Slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except
for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall
have been fully convicted; and that all children born
within the said State, after the admission' thereof into
* Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2d Session, p. 418.
i U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. viii, p. 202.
p
136
I 
137
COL,. XV.]  HISTORY OF MISSOURI'S ADMISSION.
the Union, shall be free at the age of twventy-five
years." *
This amendment presented an issue, mark you, not
between the advocates and opponents of Slavery,.as it
then existed in the States, but an issue between the
advocates and opponents of principles lying at the
foundation of the Federal system.   It presented the
question of the power of the Federal Government to
impose the restriction, as well as the question of the
power of Congress to violate a treaty stipulation: the
debate and votes upon it show that the members of the
House, North and South, took their position upon it, in
this view of the subject.
The vote in committee on agreeing to it, was seventynine for, and sixty-seven against it.t  On the report of
the Committee in the House, the question was divided.
On the first branch, the vote, by ayes and noes, was
eighty-seven for it, seventy-six against it.: On the second
branch, the vote was eighty-two for it, and seventy-eight
against it!
Mr. Storrs, of New York, who was opposed to the
restriction, but no advocate of Slavery, then moved to
amend the bill, by striking out so much as says, "that
the new State shall be admitted on an equal footing with
the original States;" for the very clear reason, that if
the bill should pass, and tlie State be admitted under the
restriction, she would not be a State in the Union on an
"equal footing" with the original States.  This motion,
however, did not prevail, and the bill passed the House
with this restriction.
When itwent to the Senate, the first branch of the restric
* Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1170.
t Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1193.
$ Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1214. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THIE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tion was stricken out, by avote of twenty-two to strike it out,
againist sixteen to retain it; and on the second branch of
the restriction, the vote to strike it out was thirty-one,
while only seven voted to retain it.*
The House adhered to the restriction, and the Senate
would not recede from their action upon it; so Missouri
failed to be admitted at that session of Congress.
The application was renewed on the 9th of December,
1819, on the opening of the First Session of the Sixteenth Congress. A bill, in the usual form, for the
admission of the State of Missouri on an equal footing
with the original States, was again reported.t
To this bill the same restriction, in effect, though not
in the same words, was renewed by Mr. Taylor, of New
York.1 This gave rise to a renewal of the conflict of the
session before, with increased spirit and vigor. Never
had a discussion so thoroughly shaken the very foundations of the Government, from its beginning, as this did!
The conflict, fierce and angry as it was, was a conflict,
however, between principles. It was one growing out of
the different views of members and Senators, as to the
legitimate power of the Federal Government over the
subject matter of debate. The South, to a man, held,
without any regard to the right or wrong of Slavery, or
the policy, or impolicy, of the Institution, that Congress
had no power to interfere with it, in the manner sought,
either one way or the other. Several gentlemen of the
North took the same ground. It would be interesting to
review these debates, as from these alone we can thoroughly understand the true nature of the conflict. I can
only glance at them, and thus present a few samples,
which will sufficiently characterize the whole for present
* Annals of Congress, 15th Congress, 2d Session, p. 273.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 711.
: See Amnendment, An'nals (f Congress, 16tI Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1558.
. ~.
138 
COL. XV.] MR. HOLMES ON SLAVERY RESTRICTION.
purposes. First, then, let me ask your attention to what
Mr. Holmes, from your own State, Judge, said upon this
occasion:
"Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, rose, and spoke as
follows: Mr. Chairman, when a man is fallen into distress, his neighbors surround him to offer relief. Some,
by an attempt at condolence, increase the grief which
they would assuage; others, by administering remedies,
inflame the disorder; while others, affecting all the solicitude of both, actually wish him dead. It is so with
Liberty.  Always ill danger-often in distress-she not
only suffers from open and secret foes, but officious and
unskilful friends. And among the thousands and millions
that throng her Temples, from curiosity, fashion, or policy,
how few-very  few-there  are, who  are  her sincere,
faithful, and intelligent worshippers!
"Among these few, I trust, are to be found all the advocates for restriction in this House.  And  I readily
admit, that most of those out of doors, whose zeal is excited on this occasion, are of the same description. But,
is it not probable that there are some jugglers behindl the
screen, who are playing a deeper game-who are combining to rally under this standard, as the last resort, the
forlorn hope of an expiring party?
"But, while we admit this in behalf of the respectable
gentlemen who advocate the restriction of Slavery in
Missouri, we ask, may we demand of them the same liberality? We are not the advocates or the abettors of Slavery.
For one, sir, I would rejoice if there was not a slave on
earth. Liberty is the object of my love-my adoration.
I would extend its blessings to every human being. But,
though my feelings are strong for the abolition of Slavery,
they are yet stronger for the Constitution of my country.
And, if I am reduced to the sad alternative, to tolerate
the holding of Slaves in Missouri, or violate the Consti
139 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tution of my country, I will not admit a doubt to cloud
my choice. Sir, of what benefit would be Abolition, if at
a sacrifice of your Constitution? Where would be the
guaranty of the Liberty which you grant? Liberty has
a temple here, and it is the only one which remains.
Destroy this, and she must flee-she must retire among
the brutes of the wilderness-to mourn and lament the
misery and folly of man. * * *
"Let us then proceed, with that candor and caution
which the subject demands, to examine the nature of this
power, and ascertain whether it is given in the Constitution of the United States.
"The extraordinary doctrines which  have been  advanced, on this subject, in and out of doors, render it
necessary to be exceedingly particular, and carefully to
examine the ground  as we  advance.   An American
politician would scarcely have deemed it necessary to
prove, at this day, that to regulate the relation between
the different members of a community, is an attribute of
Sovereign Power. That I may not be mistaken, I will
inform the Committee what I intend by Sovereign Power,
and the sense in which I purpose to use it in this discussion. It is the power of making and executing laws,
to regulate the conduct and condition of men. It is,
more or less, absolute, as it is limited and defined, or,
unlimited and undefined. In the origin of Government,
if we can conceive such a period, the rights vested in the
Sovereign, by the community, necessarily included the
power to determine the mutual dependence of the several
members. The community had a right to control and
establish it themselves, or delegate it to the Sovereign.
In either way the> could establish a difference of dependence of one, man upon another. The nearer equal
this dependence, however, the more perfect the Govern
140 
COl,. XV.] MR. HOLMES ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY.
ment. Yet, Sovereign Power can establish such a
dependence as that of the slave on his master. * *
"Then, did the Revolution alter the relation? We
have been made to understand, from very respectable
authority, that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed freedom to every slave in the United States! It
seems, then, that all the slaves have been free, in fact,
for more than forty years, and they do not know it.
And we are gravely legislating to perform that which
was most effectually performed in 1776.  Why attempt
to do what is already done? Why create all this excitemnent if we have no slaves? Hlumanity might, perhaps, require that we should pass a Declaratory Act, to
give notice to two millions of people, that, by applying
to the Supreme Court, they can be relieved from their
thraldom.   *   *
"Mr. Chairman, I should not have noticed this strange
and ridiculous vision, that the Declaration of Independence was a decree of universal emancipation, had it not
issued, from respectable sources, and been seriously
enforced upon the credulity of the public. * *
"At the Revolution, the rights of the Crown vested in
the States, and they succeeded to all the Sovereign
Power, which, until then, belonged to the Provinces and
the Mother Country. There was no suspension or death
of political power. Property was retained by the owner,
laws continued to have force, and Sovereign Power was
transferred to the States and vested temporarily in their
Legislatures, until a more permanent Government could
be established, originating from, and effected  by this
temporary power.  The doctrine that the lt svolution is
not the origin, but the perfection of the State Governments, and that the States are the successors, as well, of
the Crown, as the Colonies, has been so long and so well
141 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOl. 11.
established, that it is considered the foundation, not only
of Political Power, but of private right. This Political
Power existing, and having been exercised up to the
Revolution, was not thereby extinguished. This, also,
agrees with fact.  Those States which were disposed to
liberate their slaves, did not consider it as already effected
by the Revolution, but found it necessary to do it by
some Constitutional or Legislative Act. Consequently,
this Political or Sovereign Power, existed after the
Revolution. And, as there was no diminution of Sovereign Power, from that time, up to the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, it existed up to that time. Did
the Constitution of itself take it from the States? There
is no such prohibition upon the States, either express, or
implied.   Moreover, the Constitution  recognizes  and
confirms the right. The third Section, of the fourth
Article, inhibits a State from protecting or liberating
fugitive slaves from other States, and compels it to
deliver them up. The Constitution, so far from destroy
ing, establishes this power in a State."*
r wish I could read more of this very able and truly
patriotic speech. But what I have read shows the nature
of the conflict, fully and clearly: and it also shows that
there was no truckling to the "Slave Power" on the
part of Northern members who opposed the restriction;
but a stern devotion to the Constitution of their country.
Mr. Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Meigs, of New
York, took the same position as that taken by Mr.
Holmes, though their speeches are not reported in full.
Now, then, let us sample Southern sentiment in the
same debate.  Here, in passing, I see the speech of Mr.
Reid, of Georgia. In it, upon the subject of Slavery, he said:
"I would hail that day as the most glorious in its
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 966.
142 
COL. XV.] BARBOUR ON SLAVERY RESTRICTION.
dawning, which should behold, with safety to themselves
and our citizens, the Black population of the United
States placed upon the high eminence of equal rights,
and clothed in the privileges and immunities of American
citizens! But this is a dream of philanthropy which can
never be fulfilled; and whoever shall act in this country
upon such wild theories, shall cease to be a benefactor,
and become a destroyer of the human family."*
He opposed the restriction, however, as others did,
mainly upon Constitutional grounds. This his speech
abundantly shows.
Here are a few sentences from the speech of Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, which may be taken as a fair specimen
of the tenor of the whole of what he said:
"Are we now called to decide, as an abstract question,
whether Slavery is or is not justifiable? No, sir, that
question had been long settled, before the formation of
our Constitution: Slavery existed in many of the States
at that period; its existence and its continuance were
recognized by that Instrument; the States surrendered to
the Federal Government no power over the subject, except after a given period, to prohibit the importation of
Slaves from abroad. I tell gentlemen, then, that this is
neither the time nor the occasion for the discussion of the
abstract justice or injustice of Slavery. If we were called
upon in our respective State Legislatures to decide upon
its continuance or abolition; or if we were now in Convention for the purpose of forming a new Federal Constitution-in either of these cases their arguments of that
kind would have some application. But who are we, and
what are our functions? We are the creatures of the
Constitution, not its creators; we are called here to executte, not to make one.  Let gentlemen, then remember
* Annals of Congress, 16th Co)yl ss, 1st Scsston, p. o102;.).
143 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THIE WAR.  [VOL. II.
that it is not sufficient for them to show that Slavery cannot be justified in itself; that it is, if you please, a moral
and political evil; they will yet fail to maintain their
ground, unless they can also show that the Constitution
gives us power over it."*
Mr. Smyth, of Virginia, used the following language:
"By treaty we are bound to admit Missouri in the
Union;  *  *  to guaranty to her a Republican form of
Government, (that is, a government by and for the people themselves, not a government imposed on them, nor
a Patrimonial Government;) and to leave her all power
not delegated by the Constitution to the United States,
nor prohibited by it to the States. Treaties are in part
the Supreme law of the land, and paramount to the Constitution of any State; yet you propose to violate the
treaty with France by the means of a State Constitution,
which is of inferior obligation to a treaty. * * *
"Will you be unjust, false, and perfidious, because you
are powerful? Would it be honorable to violate a treaty
because those who claim the benefits of its provisions are
our own citizens?  *  *  *  By your Constitution, a
treaty is the Supreme law of the land, and paramount to
the Constitution which you propose to force Missouri to
adopt. You may, indeed, repeal the treaty by an Act of
Congress; but the effect of a measure of that kind should
be well considered. And you must repeal the treaty
directly or by implication before the proposed measure
can have the desired effect; for the treaty, until it is repealed, is paramount to the imposed Constitution; and
the Judges would sustain it."t
This is enough from the House speeches. I ask attention to one specimen only from the Senate. That is
* Annals of Congress, 16th1 Congress, 1st Session, p. 1219.
t Annals of Con?gress, 16'hl Congress, 1st Session, p. 1006.
144 
COL. XV.] PINKNEY ON SLAVERY RESTRICTION.
from the speech of the great William Pinkney, of Mary land, who was well known to have been against Slavery:
"'New States mnay be admitted by the Congress into
this Union?'  It is objected that the word'may' imports
power, not obligation-a right to decide-a discretion to
grant or refuse.
"To this it might be answered that power is duty, on
many occasions. But let it be conceded that it is discretionary. What consequence follows? A power to refuse,
in a case like this, does not necessarily involve a power
to exact terms. You must look to the result, which is
the declared object of the power. Whether you will arrive at it or not may depend on your will; but you cannot compromise with the result intended and professed.
"What, then, is the professed result?  To admit a
State into this Union.
"What  is that Union?  A Confederation of States
equal in Sovereignty, capable of everything which the
Constitution does not forbid, or authorize Congress to
forbid. It is an equal Union between parties equally
Sovereign. They were Sovereign, independently of the
Union. The object of the Union was common protection
for the exercise of already existing Sovereignty. * *
By acceding to it, the new State is placed on the same
footing with the original States. It accedes for the same
purpose, that is, protection for its unsurrendered Sovereignty. If it comes in shorn of its beams-crippled and
disparaged beyond the original States, it is not into the
original Union that it comes. For it is a different sort
of Union. The first was Union inter pares: This is a
Union between disparates, between giants and a dwarf,
between power and feebleness, between full proportioned
Sovereignties, and a miserable image of power-a thing
which that very Union has shrunk and shrivelled from
10
145 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
its just size, instead of preserving it in its true dimensions.
"It is into'this Union,' that is, the Union of the
Federal Constitution, that you are to admit, or refuse to
admit.  You can admit into no other.  You cannot make
the Union, as to the new State, what it is not as to the
old; for then it is not this Uition that you open for the
entrance of a new Party."*
So much for samples of the speeches in the debate on
the question. As additional strong proof on the same
line, establishing beyond doubt the nature of the conflict,
as well as the objects of the leaders of the Restrictionists,
who had espoused this question with so much apparent
zeal, I will ask your indulgence while I read something
Mr. Jefferson said of both. Here is a letter he wrote to
Mr. Pinkney, from whose speech I have just read. In
this letter, Mr. Jefferson said:
"The Missouri question is a mere party trick.  The
leaders of Federalism-(he here uses Federalism in the
sense in which it was used in 1798 and'99)t-defeated
in their schemes of obtaining power by rallying partisans
to the principle of Monarchism, a principle of personal,
not of local division, have changed their tack, and thrown
out another barrel to the whale. They are taking advantage of the virtuous feelings of the people to effect a
division of parties by a geographical line; they expect
that this will ensure them, on local principles, the mar
jority they could never obtain on principles of Federalism; but they are still putting their shoulder to the
wrong wheel; they are wasting jeremiades on the miseries
of Slavery, as if we were advocates for it." J
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 397.
t Ante, vol. i, p. 441.
$ Jefferson)'s Comnplete'Vorks, vol. vii, p. 180.
146 
COL. XV.] JEFFERSON ON SLAVERY RESTRICTION.
Here is another letter Mr. Jefferson wrote to Mr.
Holmnes, from whose speech I also read. In this lie
says:
"I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so
kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on
the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to
them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers,
or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were
in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark
to the shore from which I am not distant. But this moinentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened
me and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as
the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the
moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked
principle, moral and political, once conceived and held
up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and
deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is
not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I
would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any
practicable way. The cession of that kind of property,
for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost
me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and, gradually,
and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it
is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold
him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and
self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one State to
another, would not make a slave of a single human being
who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a
greater surface would make them individually happier,
and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their
147 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of coadjutors.  An  abstinence, too, from this act of
power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a State. This
certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which
nothing in the Constitution has taken from them and
given to the General Government. Could Congress, for
example, say, that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall
be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any
other State?
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the
useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776,
to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy
passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to
be, that I live not to weep over it. If they would but
dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away,
against an abstract principle, more likely to be effected
by Union than by scission, they would pause before they
would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and
of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself,
as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect."*
Then, here is another letter he wrote to Mr. Madison,
in which he says:
"I am indebted to you for your two letters of February
7th and 19th. The Missouri question, by a geographical
line of division, is the most portentous one I ever contemplated. * * * * is ready to risk the Union for any
chance of restoring his party to power, and wriggling
himself to the head of it; nor is * * * * without his
hopes, nor scrupulous as to the means of fulfilling them."
* Jefferso's ConmTplete Works, vol. vii, p. 159.
148 
CoL. XV.] THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE, SO-CALLED.
These evidences, without resorting to more, show fully
and conclusively, that the conflict in this Missouri Controversy, was not one between the advocates and opponents of Slavery, but between the advocates and opponents of our true Federal system under the Constitution.
But I must proceed with the narrative. On the 18th
of February, the House received from the Senate the bill
for the admission of the State of Maine, which the House
had passed on the 3d of January previous.* When this
House Bill was before the Senate, a motion was made,
and carried in that body, to tack on to it a bill for the
like admission of Missouri.   To this proposition Mr.
Thomas, of Illinois, moved the following amendment:
"And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory
ceded by France to the United States, under the name
of Louisiana, which lies North of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part
thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude,
otherwise than in the punishment of Crimes whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is
hereby forever prohibited: Provided alwatvys, That any
person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service
is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the
United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed,
and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service, as aforesaid."t
This was the M8ssouri Compromi8e, so-called. It did
not come from the South. It was not moved by any
member, or Senator from the South. Even Mr. Clay,
whose name has been so erroneously connected with it,
had nothing to do with its origination. It was proposed,
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 849.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 427.
149 
CONSTITUTIONAL YVIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
as I have stated, by Mr. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois,
as an additional section to the bill providing for the admission of Maine and Missouri, without any restriction
on either, as all the other new States had been admitted.
It related to matter entirely extraneous to the bill, and
passed the Senate the 17th day of February, by a vote
of thirty-four to ten.* Of the ten noes, every one was
from the South, except two. Noble and Taylor, Senators from Indiana, voted against it.
Now, let us see what reception it met with in the
House, where, on a test question, Mr. Buchanan says it
passed by one hundred and thirty-four against forty-two!
A greater historical error on an important matter was
hardly ever committed. This House Bill for the admission of Maine, which had passed that body on the 3d of
January, and which, as stated, was sent back to them
with these Senate amendments, (first, the admission of
Missouri, and secondly, the Slavery restriction outside of
the State,) was taken up in the House on the 19th day
of February, and its consideration was then postponed
until a future day.t Meantime, the House went on discussing their own separate bill for the admission of Missouri.
Before coming to any final vote upon that, they again,
on the 22d of February, resumed the consideration of
the Maine Bill, with the Senate amendments, and disagreed to both of them by separate votes: to this Thomas
Provision, they disagreed by a vote of one hundred and
fifty-nine to eighteen!l They then took up and went
on with their own bill for the admission of Missouri,
with the Restriction on the State in it. On the 28th of
February, the House received a message from the Senate,
that they insisted on their amendments to the Maine
*Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 428.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1410.
$ Annals of Congress, 16th Cozgress, 1st Sess.6n, p. 1457.
150 
COL. XV.] MR. BUCHANAN'S STATEMENT REFUTED.
Bill. The message was taken up, and after insisting on
their disagreement to this Thomas Provision by a vote of
one hundred and sixty to fourteen,* the House went on,
still, with their own separate bill as to Missouri.
The Senate asked a Committee of Conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Maine Bill.
This was granted by the House, 29th February, and
Messrs. Holmes, of Massachusetts, Taylor, of New York,
Lowndes, of South Carolina, Parker, of Massachusetts,
and Kinsey, of New Jersey, were appointed as the House
Committee,t every man of them from the Northern States
except Mr. Lowndes. After this, the House still went
on with their own Missouri Bill, and on the same day
adopted the Restriction of Mr. Taylor, by a vote of ninetyfour to eighty-six; and with this Restriction the Bill passed
the House the next day, March 1st, by the vote of ninetyone to eighty-two! It so went to the Senate. On the 2d of
March, Mr. Holmes, from the Conference Committee on the
part of the House, on the Maine Bill, reported. The Report was, that the Senate should recede from its Amendments to the Maine Bill, and that both Houses should pass
the House Bill for the admission of Mi.ssouri, by striking
out the House Restriction of Slavery on the State, and substituting, in lieu of it, the Thomas Provision, imposing a restriction on territory outside of the State, as we have seen.
This was the Compromise, so-called.. A similar report was
made to the Senate, on the 3d of March, and was agreed
to without a count.~ But, in the House, on agreeing to
this Report, the question was frst taken on striking out
the Slavery Re.estriction on the State, as it then stood in
the House Bill, for the admission of Missouri. Ths was
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1554.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1558.
Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1576.
i Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 472.
151 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
the test vote in that body, and on this vote the ayes and
noes, as they appear upon the record now open for inspec tion, stand, for it, ninety, and against it, eighty-seven.*
This is far from being as Mr. Buchanan says-one hun dred and thirty-four in favor of the Compromise, with
only forty-two against it!  Of the ninety votes in favor
of striking out the Restriction on the State, only fourteen
were  from  the  non-slaveholding  States.   These are
Messrs. Hill, Holmes, Mason, and Shaw, of Massa chusetts; Foot and Stevens, of Connecticut; Eddy, of
Rhode Island; Meigs and Storrs, of New York; Baldwin
and Fullerton, of Pennsylvania; Bloomfield, Kinsey, and
Smith, of New Jersey. The question, then, came up on
concurring with the Senate in the insertion of the Thomas
Amendment, which provided for the exclusion of Slavery
from all the Louisiana Cession outside of Missouri, and
north of 36~ 30' north latitude. 
This is the question on which the vote stood one hundred and thirty-four to forty-two. It is readily understood. Nearly all those who could not get the Restriction
on the State, very willingly took this Territorial Restriction, as the next best thing for the accomplishment
of their general objects, without the slightest abandonment of their most determined purpose to accomplish
these objects, whenever a case should again arise in
which they could effect them. This vote of one hundred
and thirty-four to forty-two was, in no sense, a test vote upon
the admission of Missouri without the State Restriction, in
consideration of the Territorial Restriction. If the question could then have come up for the admission of Missouri,
under the bill, as it then stood amended, the vote would
very certainly have been just as it was upon the motion to
strike out the Restriction upon the State; for all knew per
*Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st &ssion, p. 1586.
152 
COL. XV.]  POSITION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS.
fectly well what would be the result of that vote. There
was, however, no vote, and could be none, under the Rules,
on the direct question of the admission of the State, by
the Bill as it was then amende&   It passed from the
control of the House, and became a law, so far as they
were concerned, by the vote agreeing to the amendment.
The real test vote, therefore, was on striking out the
State Restriction.
Nearly all the forty-two noes against concurring with
the Senate amendment, as to this Territorial Restriction,
were from the South. They voted against it, because
they believed it to be equally as unconstitutional as the
restriction attempted to be put upon the State. They
believed that Congress had no more power to control this
Institution in the Territories, than they had to control
it in the States.  It is true, that a large number of
Southern members, a small majority of them, did vote
for it as a settlement of the Territorial controversy, upon
the principle of a division of the public domain between
the Sections. In this view they accepted it, agreed to it,
and voted for it, under the circumstances, as a compromise
on that question. This very clearly appears from the
speech of Mr. Kinsey, of New Jersey, one of the House
Committee of Conference. In this, addressing himself to
the northern side of the House, he said:
"Do our Southern brethren demand an equal division
of this wide-spread, fertile region; this common proprty,
purchased with the common funds of the Nation? No;
they have agreed to fix an irrevocable boundary, beyond
which Slavery shall never pass; thereby surrendering to
the claims of humanity and the non-slaveholding States,
to the enterprising agriculturist of the North, the Middle
and Eastern States, nine-tenths of the country in question. In rejecting so reasonable a proposition, we must
153 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
have strong and powerful reasons to justify our refusal;
and notwithstanding you may plead your conscientious
scruples, be it remembered, you must shortly account to
that'tlgust and stern tribunal-impartial history and
the strict scrutiny of public opinion. Can you plead
conscience in bar to such a Compromise? If so, how reconcile votes you have, on similar questions, already given?
"When  Mississippi, at the last Session, was received
into the Union, your votes made Slavery interminable.
*       e       *        e       e       e
"I much fear, notwithstanding all your solemn asseverations, a scrutinizing public will assign other views,
other motives; and what more probable than that unhallowed one of political Ascendency? And it is to be
feared that a lurking ambition, the bane of all government, has had too great an influence in this debate. If
so, it is time now to pause before we pass the Rubicon:
to hesitate before it is too late to retract. In persisting
in our Restriction on Missouri, are we dealing to our
brethren of the South, the same measures we would be
willing they should mete to us? When, with magnanimity unparalleled, they have conceded to us nine-tenths
of this great common property, can we wish to deprive
them of the remainder? And whilst gentlemen, on the part
of the majority, arrogate to themselves a greater portion
of moral refinement, it would be highly honorable to
exhibit greater manifestations of liberality in sentiment."*
With this view, looking to it as a divi-son of the public
domain between the Sections, these members did regard
this settlement so made as a compromise on the question.
PROF. NORTON. How they could vote for what they
deemed an unconstitutional measure, with any such view,
I cannot perceive.
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1579.
154 
COL. XV.] COMPROMISE REPUDIATED BY CENTRALISTS. 155
MR. STEPHENS. That is another matter. We will take
that up hereafter, if it shall be thought necessary.* I
am now upon what was the understanding of the nature
and effect of the Compromise, at the time, and what I
wish to impress upon your minds, at this point, is, that
the only conceivable parties to this understanding, agreement, or compact, or covenant, in relation to this division of the public domain, between the Sections, viewed
in that light, were the Restrictionist, or Centralist Party,
on the one side, and the State Rights, or State Sovereignty Party on the other. Did, then, the Restrictionist
* The Author's views on this question will be seen in the following
extract from a debate in the House of Representatives, 17th of January,
1856:
" MR. ZOLLICOFFER. If Congress has the power to exclude Slavery
from one half of the Territory, has it not power to exclude it from all
the Territory?
" MR. STEPHENS. No, sir.  That is the point.  It would be unjust;
and for that very reason no such power of general exclusion could be
properly exercised.  The Government of the United States, under the
operation of the Revenue Laws, and not within the purview or contemplation of any of the delegated powers of the Government, acquired
a surplus revenue. It was never contemplated, by the Constitution,
that stch a fund should be amassed.  A distribution of the fund fairly
and justly between all the States, I hold, was perfectly Constitutional.
But suppose the North had said,'Here is a case outside of the Constitution.  There is not a word in that instrument on the subject.  The
fund has been unexpectedly acquired under the operation of the Governmnent; but it shall not be divided among all the States equally; it shall
be taken exclusively by those where Slavery does not exist; that no
slavehol(ling State shall touch a dollar of it.' Would that have been
Constitutional?
"This is an apt case in point of illustration, for the Constitution is
silent on the subject. It was never contemplated, by that Instrument,
that a surplus fund should be accumulated; but such a fund did accumulate, and may again. The power of distribution was a resulting
power, and, when fairly and justly exercised, was Constitutional. I do
not now discuss the expediency of the distribution, but the Constitutionality of it. I do not doubt that it was Constitutional if the distribution
was fair and just, but it would have been nothing short of usurpation
for the North to have taken the whole of it. That is my answer, and 
CONSTITU'rIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. IL
Party so regard it at that time, or ever afterwards? I
affirm that they did not! These Annals of Congress,
from which I have just read, show that they utterly
ignored and repudiated it, at the very next Session of
Congress. Missouri was denied Representation in the
Senate, and in the House, as a State in the Unions under
the provisions of this bill, so passed, based upon this
agreement and understanding. Her vote for President
and Vice President, which had been cast at the election,
held ill the following fall, was not allowed to be
counted.*
On the resolution of Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina,
offered in the House, on the 13th of December, 1820,
recognizing Missouri as a State in the Union, under her
Constitution, adopted in pursuance of the Act of Congress, so passed at the Session before, the vote was
seventy-nine for it and ninety-three against it!  Here is
the record.t Of these ninety-three votes against it, seventytwo are the identical men who voted against striking out
the State Restriction on the test vote in the House, as
before stated, on the recommendation of the Committee of
Conference, on the 2d of March, at the last Session; and
sixty-seven of them are the identical men who voted, immediately afterward, (2d of March, 1820,) for the insertion
so with the Territories. Here was an acquisition of public domain,
which the Constitution never looked to or provided for, made by the
common treasure, by the common blood of Northern men and Southern
men-men from all sections contributed in acquiring it. In some States
Slavery existed, in others it did not; and was it not right that the
people of all the States should have an equal enjoyment of, or a just and
fiair participation in, this public domain? Just as in the case of the
surplus fund; when that fund came to be divided, it would have been
monstrous, and unjust, and violative of the Constitution-of its spirit,
if not of its letter-if the distribution had not been an equal and a fair
one."-Appendix, Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 34th Congress, p. 57.
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1154.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 669.
I
156 
COL. XY.] MR. CLAY'S COMMlITTEE OF THIRTEEN.
of the Territorial Restriction, which was carried by
one hundred and thirty-four to forty-two, which Mr.
Buchanan has styled, a Test Vote on the Missouri Compromise! If they had entered into any such covenant,
as he says, that Missouri should be admitted without the
State Restriction, in consideration of the Territorial Re.
striction adopted in lieu of it, why did they not abide by
it?  If there was any breach of "Compact" in this case,
who made it? Was the Compromise of 2d of March, 1820,
held inviolate by the Restrictionists for twelve months
much less for thirty years? If so, why was not Missouri
recognized as a member of the Union under it? The
pretext of this refusal so to recognize her, was, that the
Constitution of Missouri, as formed, directed the Legislature to pass laws to prevent free negroes and mulattoes
from going to or settling in the State. It was pretended,
that this was in violation of the Constitution of the
United States. It was, however, nothing but a pretext;
for if the State Constitution contained anything inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, it was,
of course, inoperative, void, and of no effect. This, therefore, was a proper matter for the Courts to determine.
But the same Party persistently refused to acknowledge
Missouri as a State in the Union. She was, in point of
fact, never admitted at all under the Missouri Compromise,
so-called.
The conflict was even fiercer at this Session than at
the last. It was, at this stage of the proceedings, that
Mr. Clay threw himself in the breach, and exerted his
transcendent powers in efforts of conciliation and harmony. He moved, on the 2d of February, that a Committee of thirteen be appointed to report such action as
was proper to be taken in view of the situation. The
Committee consisted of himself as Chairman, Messrs.
167 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
Eustis, of Massachusetts, Smith, of Maryland, Seargeant,
of Pennsylvania, Lowndes, of South Carolina, Ford, of
New York, Archer, of Virginia, Hackley, of New York, S.
Moore, of Pennsylvania, Cobb, of Georgia, Tomlinson, of
Connecticut, Butler, of New York, and Campbell, of Ohio.*
Mr. Clay, as Chairman of this Committee, reported
on the 10th of February. Here is the report and the
vote upon it.t The report, in substance, was, that
Missouri should be recognized as a State, in the Union,
upon the "fundamental condition," that her Legislature
should pass no law ill violation of the rights of citizens
of other States, and that the Legislature should, also, by
proper act, give its assent to this "fundamental condition"
before the fourth Monday in November, next ensuing;
and that the President of the United States, upon the
receipt of this assent of the Legislature, should announce
the fact by proclamation, and then the State was to be
considered in the Union. In other words, this Committee
reported that Missouri should be admitted into the
Union on an equal footing with the original States, upon
the "fundamental condition," that the State Government,
ih all its Departments, should be subject to the Constitution of the United States, as all the otiher State Governments were!  What more could the other "Conflicting
Party" have asked, if they had agreed to the Compromise on the question of Congressional Restriction. This
Resolution was rejected by a vote of eighty for it, and
eighty-three against it.t  This shows what was the real
objection to the admission of Missouri, at that time, and
that the Restrictionists had not agreed to the Compromise, and did not intend to abide by it.
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session p. 1027.
tAnnals of Congress, 16thl Congress, 2d Session 1). 1115.
Annals of Congress, 16th/ Congress, 2d( Sessionz p. 1116.
158 
COLI. XV.] GRAND JOINT COMMITTEE-THEIR REPORT. 159
The parties, in the main, continued to stand as they
stood in the beginning, and as they stood at the Session
before. The passions on both sides waxed warmer as
the conflict was prolonged. The excitement became intense, as  the debates show.   The  strife was really
between Centralism and Confederation. The rejection
of Mr. (lay's resolution was reconsidered the next day;
but, when it was again put on its passage, it was again
lost, by a vote of eighty-two to eighty-eight.* Discordant opinions now prevailed as to what was the real
status of the people of Missouri in their relations to the
Federal Government. Some held that they were still in
a Territorial condition, subject to Federal authority,
while others maintained that they constituted an independent State out of the Union.
Mr. Clay, undaunted by his previous failure, again
came to the rescue. On the 22d of February, he moved
that a grand joint Committee, consisting of members of
the House and Senate, should be raised, to propose suitable action for the alarming crisis. The Committee, on
the part of the House, was to consist of twenty-three
members. These were to be elected by the House.
This was agreed to.t The Senate concurred. The
Committee was raised.
Mr. Clay was Chairman of the Grand Committee on
the part of the House, and made the Report from it on
the 26th of February. It was a Joint Resolution, substantially the same as that reported by him before, from
the Committee of Thirteen.  Here it is:
"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress a8ssembled,
That Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1146.
t Annals of Ccngress, 16th Congrcss, 2d Session, p. 1219. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
equal footing with the Original States, in ahl respects
whatever, upon the fundamental condition, that the
fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third
Article of the Constitution, submitted on the part of said
State to Congress, shall never be construed to authorize
the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed,
in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of
the States in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to
which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of
the United States: Provided, That the Legislature of
the said State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the
assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United
States, on or before the fourth Monday in November
next, an authentic copy of the said Act; upon the receipt
whereof, the President, by proclamation, shall announce
the fact: whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said
State into this Union shall be considered as complete."*
This Resolution passed the House the same day, by
a vote of eighty-seven to eighty-one.t It was sent to
the Senate, and passed that body the next day, by a vote
of twenty-six to fifteen; I and was approved by the
President on the 2d of March, 1821.~ The Legislature
of Missouri readily passed the indicated Act on the 26th
of June thereafter, and on the tenth day of August,
1821, the President issued his Proclamation accordingly, declaring the admission of Missouri into the Union
as being complete.II
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1228.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 1239.
1 Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 388.
U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. iii, p. 645.
1ile~'s Register, vol. xx, pp. 388-9.
160 
THE REAL COMPROMISE.
This is the real Compromise, if it can be considered in
that light at all, under which Missouri entered the Union
as a State. It was on the fundamental condition that as
a member of the Union, she should be subject to the Con stitution as all the other States were. This is the sub stance of it, and this is the only Compromise, on the sub ject, in which Mr. Clay took any prominent part. It has
no direct connection whatever with the exclusion of
Slavery from any portion of the public domain. Of the
eighty-seven votes for this Resolution, every one was
from the Southern States, except seventeen.   These
seventeen were Messrs. Hill and Shaw, of Massachusetts;
Eddy, of Rhode Island; Stevens, of Connecticut; Ford,
Guyon, Hackley, Meigs, and Storrs, of New York; Baldwin, Moore, Rogers, and Udree, of Pennsylvania; Bateman, Bloomfield, Smith and Southard, of New Jersey;
only three more in all from the entire North than had
voted against the State Restriction on the 2d of March
the year before.
This is a correct account of the Missouri Compromise,
so-called, up to the recognition of that State as a member
of the Union. We see that it was utterly repudiated by
a large majority of the members of the House from every
Northern State, except Rhode Island and New Jersey,
even before the consummation of that admission. What
weight has Mr. Buchanan's bare assertion "that its wisdom and policy" had been "recognized by Congress," and
had "remained inviolate" for more than thirty years,
against the unassailable and enduring facts of history
here presented? Did the adoption of the Thomas Pro
vision for the exclusion of Slavery from all the Louisiana
Cession outside of Missouri, and north of 36~ 30' north
latitude, on the 2d of March, 1820, and the passage of the
Act for the admission of Missouri with that provision in
11
COL. XV.]
16,1 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11
it, quiet, or tranquillize the agitation of the Slavery question in Congress, for a day or a moment, much less for
thirty years? Was not the conflict over the recognition
of Missouri as a State in the Union, with a Constitution
tolerating Slavery, just as fierce in 1821, as it had been in
1820, if not fiercer, notwithstanding the Act of Congress
providing for her admission, with this extra territorial
exclusion in it, instead of the State Restriction, which had
been passed, as we have seen?  Most assuredly it was!
"A Solemn Compact between the conflicting Parties,"
Mr. Buchanan calls it! When and where did the Restrictionists or Centralists-they certainly were one of the
conflicting Parties, in his view-ever so regard it? Besides
the votes of their Senators and Members in the House, as
we have seen, did not a number of the Northern States,
in which this Party had got into power, by their leaders
seizing upon this question, immediately in their character
as States, enter their most solemn protest against any
such construction of the Act of Congress referred to?
Here are the Resolutions of the Legislatures of two of
these States, New York* and Vermont,t to say nothing
of others, sent up to the very next Session of Congress,
in direct renunciation of any such agreement or Compact.
Is any fact in our history more notorious than that the
Restrictionists and Centralists resorted to every epithet
in the vocabulary of detraction and abuse, in their
attempts to bring odium upon the names and memories
of the fourteen men of the North, who voted to strike out
the State Restriction, on the 2d of March, 1820; and the
seventeen who voted in favor of Mr. Clay's Resolution, in
1821, for their action on these measures, from the day the
votes were given down to the proposed legislation referred
* Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 23.
t Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2d Session, p. 78.
162 
COL. XV.] HISTORY OF THE MISSOURI LINE CONTINUED. 163
to by Mr. Buchanan, in 1854? This brings me to the
consideration of that measure, but before taking it up, I
must trace further the history of this "Missouri line,"
and the Compromise of 1850. In the subsequent history
of this question is to be found not only the reason, but
the complete justification of the legislation of 1854, as I
shall show. From this it will clearly appear, that this
legislation was founded upon no breach of faith or "of
Compact," on the part of the Southern States, but, as Mr.
Buchanan himself said, in his letter of acceptance referred
to, "upon principles as ancient as free Government itself!"
Then, let us proceed with the narrative. The next
time this question arose in Congress, was on the admission of Arkansas into the Union, in 1836. This State
was formed out of a part of the Louisiana purchase,
south of 36~ 30' north latitude. By the terms of the
Missouri Compromise, or Compact, as it has been called,
she was to come in as a slave State, if her people in their
Constitution so provided. Did the North then so recognize and act upon these terms? Did Northern members
then raise no objection to the admission of Arkansas,
because of her Constitution tolerating Slavery?   Was
this Compact then recognized, or adhered to, by that
Party which had so persistently resisted the admission
of Missouri for the same reason? In the House of Representatives, on the 13th of June, 1836, when the bill
for the admission of Arkansas was before that body, Mr.
John Quincy Adams, who was then the leader of the
Abolition agitators in Congress, and who had, for years,
presented there, the question of Slavery generally, as it
existed in the District of Columbia and in the States, by
petition, and in every conceivable form, for the purpose
of excitement and irritation, offered the following amendment: 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIHE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"And nothing in this act shall be construed as an
assent by Congress, to the article in the Constitution of
the said State, in relation to Slavery, or the emancipation
of slaves," etc.*
This amendment was cut off by the previous question,
so that no direct vote was taken upon it, but when he
presented it in Committee of the Whole, he said he wished
it to be inserted in the bill in italics, which showed the
spirit with which it was proposed, and that he did not
look upon the division of the public domain between the
sections on the line of 36~ 30' as a "Compact" binding
upon him or his Party. The same is shown by his vote,
and that of every other Abolitionist in the House, against
the admission of Arkansas as a slave State; though she
was south of the Missouri Compromise line. If Arkansas
came into the Union, therefore, without any restriction
as to Slavery, it was not because the Abolition agitators
recognized and acquiesced in the obligation of this Compact, but because of the very large majority of the Jefferson State Sovereignty Party then in Congress.
So of Texas in 1845. The same Party was then
largely in the majority, and this line was extended by
the members of it, to this new acquisition; but not with
the consent, or agreement of cc the other conflicting
Party." They resisted it with strong and bitter opposition, as the debates conclusively show.t In the settlement of the question as to Texas, it was provided that
Slavery should be forever excluded north of 36~ 30', and
that south of that line, the people forming Constitutions
for new States, might tolerate Slavery, as it existed in
other States, or not, as they pleased. The South did not
ask for anything more, than that the people of the new
* Congressional Globe, 24th Congress, 1st Session, pages 434, 442.
t+ Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2d Session, p. 193, et ante.
164 
WILMOT PROVISO.
States might regulate their domestic affairs in this par
ticular, and all others, as they might in Sovereign Conventions determine for themselves, without any dictation
or control from Congress, one way or the other.
Soon after this, on the 12th of May, 1846, the country
became involved in the Mexican war. It was apparent,
at an early day, that the administration of Mr. Polk, who
was then President, looked to a large acquisition of additional Territory as one of the results of that war. This
gave new and increased interest to the question of
Slavery in the public domain, and on the admission of
new States into the Union. On the 8th of August, 1846,
Mr. David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, offered in the
House his celebrated "Proviso," for the exclusion of
Slavery from all the public domain, which might be thus
acquired without any recognition of the principle of division.* Mr. Wilmot had, before this time, acted with the
Anti-Restrictionists, or State Sovereignty Party, on this
question. He had voted with them in the Texas settlement; and his "Proviso," coming from the quarter it did,
struck the House, especially the Southern members of it,
with very great surprise; but not greater than the result
of the vote which was taken upon it. A very large
majority of both of the then nominal Political Parties at
the North, Whig and Democratic, voted for it. This
measure, or Proviso, failed that Session, in the Senate, but
the vote referred to, and the discussion in and out of
Congress, upon the subject, awakened serious apprehen.
sions and disquietude throughout the entire Southern
States. Early, at the next Session, on the 15th of
January, when the bill for organizing a Territorial
Government for Oregon was up for consideration in the
House, Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, deemed it a proper
* Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1214.
COL. XV.]
165 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
occasion to test the sentiments of Northern members,
upon the principle of a division of the public domain, on
the line designated in the Act of March, 1820.  He
therefore moved an amendment to that clause of the
Oregon Bill, which excluded Slavery from that Territory,
in the following words:
"Inasmuch as the whole of said Territory, lies north
of 36~ 30' north latitude, known as the line of the
Missouri Compromise."
The object of this amendment was to put a direct test
to the Representatives of the Northern States, whether
they intended to recognize the principle upon which the
controversy on the subject of Slavery, in the public
domain, was disposed of in 1820, or not. Northern
members understood the object of the mover, as well as
the question involved in the amendment, clearly; and
they met it promptly. Their response was that they
did not. Here is the vote upon this question.* There
were in the House then, eighty-two votes for Mr. Burt's
amendment, and one hundred and thirteen against it.
Of these noes every man was from the North. Every
Southern man in the House voted for it. And of the
eighty-two who voted to adhere to the principle of the
adjustment made in 1820, there were but six from the
entire North. They were Clinton L. Hastings, of Iowa;
Francis A. Cunningham and Isaac Parrish, of Ohio;
Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania; and Robert Smith
and Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois. This bill for the
organization of a Territorial Government, for Oregon,
failed that Session in the Senate.
Mr. Calhoun had in the meantime, 19th February,
1847, introduced a series of Resolutions in the Senate
upon this subject, which were denounced at the time as
* Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2d Session, p. 187.
166 
COL. XV.]    MR. CALHOUN'S RESOLUTIONS.
factious abstractions and firebrands, intended to inflame
sectional excitement, and to produce disunion. They,
however. set forth with great clearness and power what
was the general view of the people of the Southern
States, in relation to the matter embraced in them. No
action was had on them, then or afterwards; but they
deserve special notice in this connection, and were in
these words:
"Resolved, That the Territories of the United States
belong to the several States composing this Union, and
are held by them as their joint and common property.
"Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and reps
resentative of the States of this Union, has no right to
make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall
directly, or by its effects, make any discrimination
between the States of this Union, by which any of
them shall be deprived of its full and equal right in
any territory of the United States, acquired or to.be
acquired.
"Resolved, That the enactment of any law which
should directly, or by its effects, deprive the citizens of
any of the States of this Union from emigrating, with
their property, into any of the Territories of the United
States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore, be a violation of the Constitution, and the rights
of the States from which such citizens emigrated, and in
derogation of that perfect equality which belongs to them
as members of this Union, and would tend directly to
subvert the Union itself.
"Resolved, That it is a fiundamental principle in our
political creed, that a people, in forming a Constitution,
have the unconditional right to form and adopt the Government which they may think best calculated to secure
their liberty, prosperity, and happiness; and that, in
167 
168      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
conformity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the
Federal Constitution on a State, in order to be admitted
into this Union, except that its Constitution shall be
Republican; and that the imposition of any other by
Congress would not only be in violation of the Constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which
our political system rests." *
So this subject remained until the first of March,
1847, when a bill appropriating three million of dollars,
to enable the President to effect such treaty with Mexico
as he wished, came up before the Senate for consideration. Mr. Upham, of Vermont, then moved to amend
the bill by the insertion of what had become well known
as the " Wilmot Proviso."  That is,
"That there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary
servitude in any Territory which shall hereafter be acquired or be annexed to the United States, otherwise
than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted: Provided always, That
any person escaping into the same from whom labor or
service is lawfully claimed in any one of the United
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed out of said Territory, to the person claiming his or
her labor or service.s
On agreeing to this amendment, the vote was twentyone for it, and thirty-one against it.t Every one of the
yeas was from the non-slaveholding States, except John
M. Clayton, of Delaware; and every one of the nays
was from the slaveholding States, except Sidney Breese
of Illinois, Jesse D. Bright and Edward A. Hannegan
of Indiana, Lewis Cass of Michigan, and Daniel S. Dickinson of New York.
* Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2d Session, p. 455.
t Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2d Session, p. 555. 
COL. XV.1 HISTORY OF MISSOURI LINE CONTINUED.  IG"
This proposition re-opened in thle Senate, as Mr.Wilmot's
motion did in the House the year before, the Missouri
question, so far as it related to the public domain, in its
totality, and as it was presented in the beginning.  We see
from the vote that there were then in the Senate but five
votes from the entire North who were in favor of abiding
by the settlement of that question as made in 1820.
These five votes from the North, with the Southern
votes, defeated the amendment, and the Three Million
Bill went from the Senate to the House without the restriction.  When it came up for consideration before that
body, on the 3d of March, Mr. Wilmot moved his Proviso
in the same words, substantially, as it had been presented
to the Senate by Mr. Upham. To this Mr. Graham, of
North Carolina, moved a substitute, as follows:
"Provided, That if any Territory be acquired by the
United States, from Mexico, the Missouri Compromise
Line of 36~ 30' shall be extended direct to the Pacific
Ocean; that is, Slavery shall be prohibited north of that
line, and allowed south of it."
Mr. Graham's substitute was rejected and the "Wilmot Proviso" was incorporated in the bill, by ayes ninety,
noes eighty, while the house was in Committee of the
Whole. When the bill was reported to the House from
the Committee of the Whole, the question came up on
agreeing to this amendment. Upon this direct question
of agreeing to this "Proviso" as it stood, the ayes were
ninety-seven, and the noes one hundred and two'! The
"Proviso" was therefore lost by a majority of five only.
Every one of the ninety-seven votes for it were from the
Northern States, except John W. Houston, of Delaware:
And of the one hundred and two against it, every one
was from the Southern States, except thirteen. These
were Stephen A. Douglas and Robert Srnith, of Illinois; 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11
James Black, Richard Brodhead, Charles J. Ing,ersoll,
and Jacob Erdman, of Pennsylvania; Francis A. Cunningham, Isaac Parrish, and William Sawyer, of Ohio;
Robert Dale Owen, and William W. Wick, of Indiana;
Joseph Russell, of New York; Joseph E. Edsall, of New
Jersey. Here is the record.*
A most insuperable obstacle it is, too, in the way of
those who undertake to maintain that the South was
the offending Party, in her want of fidelity in adhering
to the Missouri Line of Compromise, between the sections,
as agreed upon in 1820! It was, as we have seen, literally forced upon the Southern States at first. If they
had had their just representation in the House-the
twelve more members which they would have had, but
for the three-fifths clause of the Constitution-it never
would have been forced upon them as it was. A
bare majority of her Representatives accepted it under
the circumstances, reluctantly then, as an alternative of
two evils; but their entire people, nearly, were willing
ever afterwards to abide by it in good faith. Up to this
time, March, 1847, it had been preserved only, however,
by a united South, aided by a comparatively very small
number from the entire North, as this history of it
clearly shows. From this last vote, the people of the
Southern States still hoped that it might continue to be
so preserved for all time to come. This hope, however,
soon proved to be utterly delusive.
It is proper to state here, that a goodly number of the
members of Congress from the South, in the Hlouse, with
Mr. Calhoun in the Senate, had disapproved of the policy
which led to the war; and did not favor the acquisition
of Territory as one of the objects for which it should be
prosecuted. This great South Carolina Statesman had,
* Congressional Globe, 29thl Congress, 2d Session, p. 573.
170 
COL. XV.] ABANDONMENT OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 171
in language almost prophetic, characterized Mexican
Territory in this view as "the forbidden fruit" to the
United States. In this sentiment I fully concurred, and,
hence, in every possible way opposed the acquisition,
even as a cession by purchase, unless the Slavery question should be first settled in regard to it; and under no
circumstances was I in favor of it, as the spoils of conquest.  Mr. Toombs, my colleague, then in the House,
occupied in the main a similar position. But the great
majority of the South, however, both in the Senate and
House, under the delusive hope, perhaps, inspired by the
final vote on the Three Million Bill, sustained the Administration throughout, and thus secured the acquisition
without any previous settlement of this question.
This vote so given in both Houses, on the Three Million Bill, as stated, was the last, by which this line of
36~ 30' was ever even indirectly recognized by the joint
action of both Houses of Congress on any measure whatever.
We now approach the end-its final and total abandoninent in the Senate, as well as the House, not by the
Southern States, but by the Northern States! It was on
another bill for the organization of a Territorial Government for Oregon, which came up in the House of Representatives, on the 2d of August, 1848, after the treaty
of peace had been negotiated with Mexico, and the acquisition of an immense area of unsettled public domain,
including the Territories of California, Utah, and New
Mexico, amounting in all, to several hundred thousand
square miles, to which the Southern States had contributed as liberally, in blood and treasure, as their Northern
Confederates.
In this new bill for organizing a Territorial Government for Oregon, no provision was made touching the
I I 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
new acquisitions.  The bill came up and was passed in
the House with a general Slavery Restriction in it, on the
2d of August, 1848.* An effort was made to strike this
restriction out, but on the motion, the vote was eighty
eight to one hundred and fourteen. It was sent to the
Senate with the Restriction. In that body, on the 10th
of August, Mr. Douglas, then a Senator, moved to strike
out the restriction as it stood in the bill, and to insert in
lieu the following:
"That the line of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes of
north latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise line,
as defined by the eighth section of an Act entitled' An
act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to
form a Constitution and State Government,, and for the
admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit Slavery in
certain Territories,' approved March 6th, 1820, be, and
the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific
Ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the
Compromise therein effected, is hereby revived and declared to be in full force and binding for the future
organization of the Territories of the United States, in
the same sense and with the same understanding with
which it was originally adopted."t
His object appears clearly from the proposition itself.
It evidently was, that now, after these large additional
acquisitions had been made by the common blood and
treasure of all the States, to settle this Territorial question throughout the whole, by the recognition of this
line of division known as the Missouri Compromise. His
amendment was carried in the Senate by a vote of thirtythree to twenty-one.: But, when the bill went back, the
* Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1027.
t Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1061.
Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1061.
172 
Co. XV.] ABANDONMENT OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE.  173
House refused to concur by a vote of eighty-two to
one hundred and twenty-one.* The Hiouse continued
persistently to refuse. The Senate, finally, on the 12th
of August, gave way! They on that day receded from
their amendment and passed the House bill, with an unconditional Territorial Restriction in it, by a vote of
twenty-nine to twenty-five!t This was a complete and
total abandonment of the Missouri Compromise, so-called,
by both Houses of Congress. It met its final dbom on the
12th of August, 1848. On that day it fell, and was
buried in the Senate, where it had originated twentyeight years before, but had never quieted the Abolitionists
a day! It fell too, not by Southern, but by Northern
hands.  The very State to which it owed its paternity
struck the last decisive blow!
A few more words in relation to these last votes in
both Houses in the last stages of this memorable Compact, so-called, in the Federal Halls of Legislation.  On
the vote in the House, on the 2d of August, of the
eighty-eight in favor of still standing by this division as
a Compromise, every one was from the South, except
ten; and of the one hundred and fourteen against it,
every one was from the North, except two. Of the
thirty-three votes in the Senate on the 10th of August,
in favor of Mr. Douglas's Amendment, twenty-six were
from the South, and seven only were from the entire
North.  These seven were Bright anid Hannegan, of
Indiana; Douglas, of Illinois; Dickinson, of New York;
Fitzgerald, of Michigan; and Cameron and Sturgeon, of
Pennsylvania. Every Southern Senator present voted
for it. Of the twenty-one votes against it, every one was
from the North.
* Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1062.
t Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1078. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
An analysis of this vote, by States, presents the following results. There were sixteen States in favor of abiding by the line of 36~ 30', nine against it, three divided,
and two not voting. There were then thirty States in
the Union. Of the sixteen yeas, fourteen were Southern
States, to wit, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas,
and Texas, while only two were Northern States, to wit,
Indiana and Pennsylvania. Of the nine nays, every one
was a Northern State, to wit, Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont,
New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The three divided
States were Northern, to wit, New York, Michigan,
and Illinois. The two not voting, were Iowa, and
Florida; one a Northern State, and the other a Southern
State.
When this amendment was before the House, on the
11th of August, of the eighty-two votes for it, every one
of them was from the South, except four. These were
Ausburn Birdsall, of New York, Charles Brown, Charles
J. Ingersoll and Richard Brodhead, of Pennsylvania.
Of the one hundred and twenty-one against it, every one
was from the North, except one, John W. Houston, of
Delaware.
On the final vote, in the Senate, on receding, when
the yeas were twenty-nine, and nays twenty-five, every
Northern Senator voted with the yeas, and every Southern Senator with the nays, except Mr. Benton, of
Missouri. His vote would not have changed the result.
So that every Northern State, both in the Senate and in
the House, abandoned this principle of division, on the
12th of August, 1848. The vote by States on this question, thus presented for the last time in the Senate,
174 
COL. XV.] NORTH RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ABANDONMENT. 175
stands thirteen yeas for the Missouri Compromise line,
to wit, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-all Southern States; and fourteen nays against it, to wit, Maine,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New  Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all
Northern States. Missouri, a Southern State, was divided. Iowa and Florida failed to vote in this case as
before.
Now in the face of all the facts of these Records,
which no one can gainsay or deny, with any regard for
truth, who can justly charge upon the South, or the
Southern States, the abandonment of the Missouri Compromise, so-called, or a violation of this sacred Compact,
so-called? If there was any breach of faith in this matter, to whose door is it to be laid?  "Breach of faith,
indeed!" I think you said. Well, then, I repeat, if
there was any "breach of faith" on this subject, to
which side is it justly to be charged?  With what renewed force does your proverb react?
Having thus gone through with the Missouri Compromise, so-called, we will postpone the consideration of
the other matters now in hand, until evening. 
COLLOQUY XVI.
REPLYTO JUDGE BYNUM CONTINUED-COMPROMISE OF 1850-FULL EXPOSI TION OF THIS NEVER BEFORE GIVEN-EXCITEMENT OF THE SESSION-ELEC TION OF SPEAKER IN THE HOUSE-POSITION OF A PORTION OF SOUTHERN
WHIGS -SPEECHES OF MR. TOOMBS-THE SENATE AT THAT TIME-POSITION
OF MR. CLAY, MR. WEBSTER, AND MR. CALHOUN-MR. CLAY'S OMNIBUS BILL
-PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY COMPROMISE OF 1850, WAS THE ABANDON MENT OF TERRITORIAL DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO GREAT SECTIONS OF
THE UNION AND THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NO CONGRES SIONAL RESTRICTION UPON ANY PORTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN-THIS
PRINCIPLE ENDORSED wiY BOTH THE GREAT PARTIES AND BY THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATES IN THE ELECTION OF MR. PIERCE IN 1852.
MR. STEPHENS. We  come  now to the Compromise  of
1850.                            How far the measures of  that year are entitled to
that appellation, the facts will show. The general ideas
in relation to them are quite as erroneous, as in relation
to the one we have just gone through with. For a correct                           understanding  of the  subject   then,   this  must    be
borne distinctly in mind, that the old principle of a
division of the public domain between the sections having
been presented by the North, and reluctantly accepted
by the South, and then entirely rejected by the North,
as we have seen, the whole, Territorial controversy on
this question came up before the Thirty-first Congress,
w     h ich                    assembled in December, 1849, ju st as it did before
the Fifteenth Congress, as to the then unsettled public
l    a    n    d    s.       California, New Mexico, a nd Utah,    were still undi sp os ed    of, in any way, as we hav       e       seen.  It is true, two
o     t     h     e     r attempts, besides those notic ed, h ad been made  to
settle the controversy as to these new acquisitions, which
had both failed. One was known as the " Clayton Com                                                    176 
COL. XVI.] HISTORY OF THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.
promise" in 1848; and the other as the "Walker Amendment," in 1849. As neither of these measures, however,
had any direct bearing on the point, which we now have
in hand, they may both be passed by at this time, without any inquiry into their respective merits or demerits.*
The whole question, therefore, came up in 1849, as it
did in the beginning in 1818. A new Administration had,
in the meantime, come into power. The Democratic Party,
under whose auspices these acquisitions of Territory had
been made, had lost, not only the Presidential election in
1848, but had also lost their majority in the House of Representatives. Never had any Congress convened under so
much excitement, or under so great responsibility as did the
one on which then devolved the disposition of this question, under all the circumstances attending it. The embarrassments of the period were increased from the fact
that, for the first time, Southern Senators and Members
were greatly divided, as to the proper course to pursue,
in view of the question with all its bearings. Some
believed the time had come for a separation of the States,
and that everything should be done with a view to effect
that result. Others believed that the Union might still
be preserved upon Constitutional principles, and that the
object was worth thie most earnest and patriotic efforts.
This class believed, however, that the time had come
for a total abandonment of all old Party associations,
and that the united South should act in Party organization with those of the North only, who would maintain the
Federal system, as it was established by the Constitution.
The principle of division having been abandoned by
the North, from which side it had originally been pro
* For the author's views on the Clayton Compromise, see his speech
on the subject, Appendix to Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1103.
12
177 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11.
posed, this class maintained that the South should now
firmly and unitedly occupy their original position against
the Restrictionists from the beginning of the Government, and present the distinct question to the North of
a continued Union under the Constitution, or an immediate separation.   They  believed that on this issue,
squarely presented, a majority of the North would stand
by the Constitution.   The entire South, with few exceptions, were resolved not to submit to the "Wilmot
Proviso," or, what was the same thing, a total exclusion
from the public domain. Nearly all of the Southern States,
if not every one, had passed Resolutions to this effect.
But the particular class in Congress, so mentioned,
who were then of opinion that the best policy for the
South was thus to make a united effort, through a reorganization of Parties, to bring the administration of the
government back to original principles, with hopes thus
to preserve the Union, and the equality of the States,
was confined at first, almost exclusively, to those known
as Southern Whigs. They set the ball in motion by
refusing to act further with the Whig organization, as it
was then constituted, when the Party met in caucus to
nominate a candidate for Speaker of the House. A Resolution, previously prepared, was submitted to this meeting, which in substance was, that Congress ought not to
put any restriction upon any State Institution in the Territories, and ought not to abolish Slavery as it then
existed in the District of Columbia. Upon the refusal
of this Caucus even to entertain this proposition, this
class retired from the meeting and would not act with
the Whigs in the organization of the House. If all the
Southern Members had then occupied the same position,
with the view to an entire reorganization of Parties, as
stated, it would, I doubt not, have been much better for
178 
COL. XVI.] ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE IN 1849.
the country. But no Southern Democrat favored the
movement, while a majority of the Southern Whigs refused to sanction it. Hlowell Cobb, of Georgia, was the
Democratic nominee for the Speaker's Chair, and Robert
C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, was put in nomination
tor the same by the Whigs. But neither of these two
great Parties, then so called, as matters stood at the time,
had a majority in the House.   Besides the Southern
Whigs, who had thus separated themselves from their
former Party organization, there were fourteen extreme
Restrictionists from the North, composed partly of Whigs
and partly of Democrats, who refused to support either
of these nominees. In this way the election of a Speaker
was prevented for nearly a month, and would have been
prevented from ever taking place, on old Party lines, if
the entire South had united with this separate Southern
organization in their purpose, or if the Rules of the House
had not been violated by the passage of a Resolution declaring that a bare plurality of votes cast for any one,
instead of a majority of the whole, should constitute all
election. This, subsequent events clearly proved. The
position and views of these Southern Whigs, as well as
the temper of the times, can best be known from a sample of the debates in the House, on the question of the
election of a Speaker.
My colleague, Mr. Toombs, took the lead in this matter, in behalf of his associates. He it was who presented
the Resolution in the Whig caucus referred to. I now
call your attention to what he said in the midst of the
confusion and excitement attending the organization of
the House. It was on the 13th of December, after nine
days had been consumed in unsuccessful ballotings for
Speaker.  But before taking up this speech, it is proper
to add to what has been said, a few words more in further
179 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Voi,. II.
explanation. The Democrats, having become satisfied
that in no event could they concentrate a majority of
votes upon their regular candidate,[Mr. Cobb,]had informally taken his name down, and run up that of Mr.
William J. Brown, of Indiana. On the 12th of December, after Mr. Brown had received a full majority of all
the votes in the House, but before the result was announced, a very discreditable arrangement between him
and certain members belonging to the extreme Restrictionists referred to, then known as "Free-Soilers," by
which he had pledged himself to constitute three important committees in such way as they had required, was
exposed, when Southern Democrats immediately withdrew their votes, and he failed of an election.   Mr.
Albert G. Brown, of Mississippi, then introduced a
Resolution declaring Mr. Cobb the Speaker.
It was amidst the confusion growing out of this state of
things that Mr. Duer, of New York, next day, addressed
the House at some length. Amongst other things, he said:
"The  gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] had
introduced a. proposition, declaring the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Cobb] to be the Speaker of this House; in
other words, a proposition calling upon his (Mr. D's) side
of the House (the Whig side) to make an unconditional
surrender.   It appeared to him that this was asking
altogether too much; for his own part, so anxious was
he that an organization should be effected, that he was
willing to organize in almost any way, by electing to the
Speaker's chair either a Whig or a Democrat, or a FreeSoiler-any one, in short, except a Dis-unionist. He
never would give his vote for any man whom he believed to be inimical to the Union.
"Mr. Bayly (interposing) said: There are no Disunionists in this House.
180 
COL. XVI.] POSITION OF SOUTHERN WHIGS-TOOMBS.  181
"Mr. Duer. I wish I could think so, but I fear there
are."*
In this speech, Mr. Duer made no special mention of
the Southern Whigs, who thus stood aloof, and did all
in their power, to prevent an organization, under circumstances then existing; but he evidently referred to them,
in his remarks about not voting for a Dis-unionist; for,
the position of these Whigs was well known at the time
to be for a separation of the States, or the abandonment
by Congress of the general Territorial Restriction.
It was now that Mr. Toombs, in his own behalf, as well
as in behalf of these Southern Whigs, who, up to this
time, had been silent, rose, and in his bold, dashing,
impromptu, Mirabeau strain, delivered himself in these
words:
" Mr. Toombs said the difficulties in the way of the
organization of this House, are apparent and well understood here, and should be understood by the country. A
great sectional question lies at the foundation of all these
troubles. The disgraceful events of yesterday, and the
explanations consequent upon their exposure, prove conclusively that the Democratic Party and the Free-Soilers
were both acting in reference to it. The Southern Democrats were satisfied, from the public course and private
assurances both of the member whom they supported
and his friends, that he was worthy of trust upon these
important sectional issues. The disclosures which were
made proved that they were mistaken; and, with a promptness honorable to them, they instantly withdrew their
support, and left the discredit to fall where it properly
belonged. The Free-Soilers, who were engaged in the discreditable conspiracy, secretly and dishonorably sought
to acquire advantages in the organization of the House
* Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 27.
11 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
by private pledges, concealed and intended to be concealed from the great majority of those whose votes were
necessary to elect the person for whom they voted. They
sought, by a discreditable trick, to secure those advantages in the organization which they had not the courage
or the boldness openly to demand. They affected to rely
on a written pledge which they knew was given in fraud
and treachery. I leave the morality and honesty of this
Party to be tested by the simple fact of this transaction,
with the single remark, that these are the men whose
consciences have no rest on account of what they call
the sin of Slavery.   The Whig party presented their
nominee, who has received the support of the great majority of that Party. No pledges were asked by the
Northern members of that Party, for the very sufficient
reason that, being in a majority of nearly three to one,
they were very abundantly able to take care of themselves.
I did not act with them, because the events of the past,
of the present, and the prospect of the future, force the
conviction on my mind that the interests of my section
of the Union are in danger, and I am therefore unwilling
to surrender the great power of the Speaker's Chair without obtaining security for the future.
We have just listened to strong appeals upon the necessity
of organizing the House. I confess I do not feel that necessity. From the best lights before me, I cannot see that my
constituents have anything to hope from your legislation, but every thing to fear. We are not impatient to
have the doors of your Treasury thrown open, and forty
millions of the common taxes of the whole nation thrown
into the lap of one half of it. We ask for none of it;
we expect none of it; therefore gentlemen must pardon
my want of sympathy for their impatience.   By giving
you the control of the Treasury, we increase your ability
182 
COL. XVI.] POSITION OF SOUTHERN WHIGS-TOOMBS. 183
to oppress. I want grievances redressed, and security
against their further perpetration, before I am willing to
give you power over the supplies. Sir, I do not regret
this state of things in the House. It is time we understood one another; that we should speak out, and
carry our principles in our foreheads.
"It seems, from the remarks of the gentleman from
New York, that we are to be intimidated by eulogies
upon the Union, and denunciations of those who are not
ready to sacrifice national honor, essential interests, and
Constitutional rights, upon its altar.  Sir, I have  as
much attachment to the Union of these States, under
the Constitution of our Fathers, as any freeman ought to
have. I am ready to concede and sacrifice for it whatever a just and honorable man ought to sacrifice. I will
do no more. I have not heeded the aspersions of those
who did not understand, or desired to misrepresent, my
conduct or opinions in relation to these questions, which,
in my judgment, so vitally affect it. The time has come
when I shall not only utter them, but make them the
basis of my political action here. I do not, then, hesitate
to avow before this House and the country, and in the
presence of the living God, that if by your legislation you
seek to drive us from the Territories of California and
New Mexico, purchased by the common blood and
treasure of the whole people, and to abolish Slavery in
the District, thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon half the States of this Confederacy, I am for
disunion; and if my physical courage be equal to the
maintenance of my  convictions of right and duty, I
will devote all I am and all I have on earth to its
consummation.
"From 1787 to this hour, thile people of the South have
asked nothing but justice-nothing but the maintenance 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II
of the principles and the spirit which controlled our
Fathers in the formation of the Constitution. Unless we
are unworthy of our ancestors, we will never accept less
as a condition of Union. A great Constitutional right
which was declared by a distinguished Northern Justice
of the Supreme Court (Judge Baldwin) to be the corner stone of the Union, and without which he avers, in a
judicial decision, it would never have been formed, has
already practically been abrogated in all of the non-slave holding States. I mean the right to reclaim fugitives
from labor. I ask any and every Northern man on this
floor, to answer me, now, if this is not true-if this great
right, indispensable to the formation of the Union, is any
longer, for any practicable purpose, a living principle?
There are none to deny it. You admit you have not
performed your Constitutional duty; that you withhold
from us a right which was one of our main inducements
to the Union; yet you wonder that we look upon your
eulogies of a Union whose most sacred principles you
have thus trampled under foot as nothing better than
mercenary, hypocritical cant.  This District was ceded
immediately after the Constitution was formed. It was
the gift of Maryland to her sister States for the location
of their common Government. Its municipal law maintained and protected domestic Slavery. You accepted it.
Your honor waspledged for its maintenance as a National
Capital. Your faith was pledged to the maintenance of
the rights of the people who were thus placed under
your care. Your fathers accepted the trust, protected
the slaveholder and all other citizens in their rights, and
in all respects faithfully and honestly executed the trust;
but they have been gathered to their fathers, and it was
left to their degenerate sons to break their faith with us,
and insolently to attempt to play the master where they
184 
COL. XVI.] POSITION OF SOUTHERN WHIGS-TOOMBS. 185
were admitted as brethren. I trust, sir, if the representatives of the North prove themselves unworthy of their
ancestors, we shall not prove ourselves unworthy of ours;
that we have the courage to defend what they had the
valor to win.
"The Territories are the common property of the people
of the United States, purchased by their common blood
and treasure. You are their common agents; it is your
duty, while they are in a Territorial state, to remove all
impediments to their free enjoyment by all sections and
people of the Union, the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder. You have given the strongest indications that
you will not perform this trust-that you will appropriate
to yourselves all of this Territory, perpetrate all these
wrongs which I have enumerated; yet, with these
declarations on your lips, when Southern men refused to
act in Party caucuses with you, in which you have a
controlling majority-when we ask the simplest guarantee
for the future-we are denounced out of doors as recusants
and factionists, and in doors we are met with the cry of
' Union, Union.'
"Sir, we have passed that point. It is too late. I
have used all my energies, from the beginning of this
question, to save the country from this convulsion. I
have resisted what I deemed unnecessary and hurtful
agitation. I hoped against hope, that a sense of justice
and patriotism would induce the North to settle these
questions upon principles honorable and safe to both
sections of the Union. I have planted myself upon a
National platform, resisting extremes at home and abroad,
willingly subjecting myself to the aspersions of enemies,
and, far worse than that, the misconstruction of friends,
determined to struggle for, and accept any fair and
honorable adjustment of these questions. I have almost 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II
despaired of any such, at least from this House. We
must arouse and appeal to the Nation. We must tell
them, boldly and frankly, that we prefer any calamities
to submission, to such degradation and injury as they
would entail upon us; that we hold that to be the consummation of all evil. I have stated my positions. I
have not argued them. I reserve that for a future
occasion. These are the principles upon which I act
here. Give me securities that the power of the Organization which you seek will not be used to the injury of my
constituents, then you can have my co-operation; but not
till then. Grant them, and you prevent the recurrence
of the disgraceful scenes of the last twenty-four hours,
and restore tranquillity to the country. Refuse them,
and, as far as I am concerned,' let discord reign forever!'
"[Several times during the delivery of these remarks,
Mr. T. was interrupted by loud bursts of applause.]"*
This speech produced a profound sensation in the
House, and in the country. It received rounds of applause from the floor and the galleries. It did not,
however, assuage, in the slightest degree, either the
bitterness, or the determination of the Restrictionists.
This is apparent from the fact that, the next day, a
Resolution was passed prohibiting all further debate, and
also from another specimen of the proceedings, on the
22d of December, which deserves special notice. But
before referring to this specimen, it is proper to state that
after the disclosure of the arrangement which Mr. Brown
had entered into, his name was immediately withdrawn
by the Democrats, and that of Mr. Cobb again put up;
but no election had taken place, and it was evident that
none could take place under the Rules without an abandonment of the then Party organizations. The Whigs
* Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 27.
186 
COL. XVI.] PLURALITY RESOLUTION-TOOMBS.
and the Democrats, in order to get over the difficulty,
and to elect a Speaker without coming to the terms of
these Southern Whigs, as stated, had come to a joint
resolution, which was presented to the House by Mr.
Stanton, of Tennessee, from the Democratic side of the
Conference Committee between the two great Parties, on
the 22d of December, and which declared in substance
that that person should be speaker who should receive
the largest number of votes, barely, on a certain ballot;
provided the number so received should be a majority of
a qtuo2rum, though it fell short of a majority of the House.
This was the Plurality Resolution under which the House
was organized as before referred to, in direct violation of
its Rules. The scenes which occurred when it was presented, constitute the specimen of the proceedings on
that day to which I refer, and in which Mr. Toombs
again figured in the style we shall see. It is unnecessary
to read the whole.  A sample of the most striking points
in the general prevailing disorder will suffice. The parts
omitted have no material bearing upon those here reproduced:
"Mr. Stanton, of Tennessee, rose and said, that he
desired to present a proposition to the House. He presumed that, under the rule which had been adopted, it
would not be in order to debate it He would, however,
be permitted to say, that it was a proposition known to
have been presented on the part of the committee appointed by the Whig caucus, to confer with a similar
committee appointed by the Democratic caucus.
"Mr. Toombs inquired of the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. Stanton] if he yielded the floor?
"Mr. Stanton. I do, if it is understood that I am to
have the floor, as soon as the question is decided.
"Mr. Toombs, (still remaining upon the floor,) said: I
187 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
desire to be heard, to show this House, that they have
no right to pass such an order, as they adopted on the
14th instant; that, according to the Constitution, and
the act of Congress of 1789, this House [in its present
condition,] has not the right to pass that or any other Rule.
"Mr. Duer. I am willing to hear the gentleman from
Georgia, and I propose that the unanimous consent be
given, to allow that gentleman, and all other gentlemen,
to discuss the point.
"Mr. Baker. I move that by unanimous consent the
gentleman from Georgia be allowed to debate this question.
"Mr. Inge called attention to the fact, that the motion
of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Baker] could not be
received, as there was already a question pending upon
his motion, to rescind the Resolution of the 14th instant.
"The clerk, (to Mr. Toombs). Will the gentleman from
Georgia allow me to put the question upon the motion to
rescind the Rule?
"Mr. Toombs. No. I have the floor.  I deny the Constitutional right of this House, to pass that Resolution,
or any other rule or Resolution. It is an unauthorized
infringement of the great right of freedom of speech.
The Constitution and the law of 1789  [Loud cries to order.]
"Mr. Toombs.  You may cry order, gentlemen, till the
heavens fall; you cannot take this place from me. I
have the right to protest against this transaction. It is
not with you to say whether this righlt shall be
yielded, and when it shall be yielded. I desire, then,
gentlemen of the House, to show that you are without
rules, and that no orders can  [Cries to order-' Sit down;  you have no right to
debate.']
188 
I
COL. XVI.]  PLURALITY RESOLUTION-TOOMBS.
"Mr. Toombs, (continuing.) I am attempting to show
to you, that no man can rise to order  [Calls to order.]
"Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania. I call the gentleman to
order.
"Mr. Toombs, (continuing.) I say that, by the law of
1789, this House, until a Speaker is elected, and gentlemen have taken the oath of office, has no right to adopt
any rules, whatsoever.
[Loud cries of order!]
"Mr. Toombs. Gentlemen may amuse themselves by
crying order  [Calls to order.]
"Mr. Toombs. But I have the right, and I intend to
maintain the right to  "Mr. Van Dyke. I call upon the clerk to put the question, and let us see whether the gentleman will disregard
the order of this House.
"Mr. Toombs.  I have the floor, and the clerk cannot
put the question. I submit that  [Calls to order.]
"Mr. Toombg, (continuing.) The clerk has not the right
to put the question of order.
[Order!  Order!]
"Mr. Toombs, (continuing.) That it cannot be done. The
House has no right. Gentlemen may cry' order,' and interrupt me. It is mere brute force, attempting, by the power of
lungs, to put down a gentleman in the exercise of his right.
[Cries to order.]
"Mr. Toombs, (continuing.) But gentlemen cannot deprive me of my rights. I shall insist upon them to the
last extremity.
"Mr. Van Dyke. It is for the House to decide, whether
the gentleman is in order or not.
189 
t
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"The Clerk. The gentlemen from New Jersey rises to a
question of order. The question submitted to the House
is  " Mr. Toombs. I deny the right of the clerk, to put the
question. I am upon the floor, and it is my right to  [Calls for the yeas and nays, from various parts of the
House.]
"The Clerk, (Mr. T. still upon the floor.)  The yeas
and nays are demanded upon the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Inge.] Gentlemen, you, who
are in favor of agreeing to the motion, will, when your
names are called, say' aye;' those of a contrary opinion
will say' no.' The clerk will call the roll.
"Mr. Toombs, (continuing.)  I deny the right of these
gentlemen to  [Cries of order!-call the roll!]
"Mr. Toombs. I shall debate the question, whether you
call the roll or not.
[Great confusion.]
"Mr. Breck. I move that this House do now adjourn.
'"Mr. Toombs (continuing.) I keep upon the floor.
Shall the clerk deprive me of my Constitutional rights?
[Order, order.] Shall members, by crying'order,' deprive me of those rights? I desire to show my rights
under the Constitution. You do well to call the roll,
and to cry I order:' [loud calls to order] -but I deny the
right of any and every man to interrupt me.
[Cries of' Go it, Toombs'-' call the roll'-' order'and great confusion.]  In the midst of this, and while
Mr. Toombs was still addressing the House  "The Clerk commenced to take the yeas and nays, on
the motion of Mr. Inge.
"Mr. Toombs continued to speak.
[Great confusion prevailed.]
190 
COL. XVI.]  PLURALITY RESOLUTION-TOOMBS.
"He said: If you seek, by violating the common law of
Parliament, the laws of the land, and the Constitution of
the United  States, to put me  down, [order, order,
' call the roll,'] you will find it a vain and futile attempt.
[Order, order.] I am sure I am indebted to the ignorance of my character of those who are thus disgracing
themselves, [order, order,] if they suppose any such
efforts as they are now making, will succeed in driving
me from the position I have assumed. [Order, order.]
It is too strongly planted in the very foundations of public
liberty.   [Order, order.]   I stand upon the Constitution of mny country, upon the liberty of speech, [order,
order,] which you have treacherously violated, and upon
the rights of my constituents, and your fiendish yells
may be well raised to drown an argument which you
tremble to hear. You claim and have exercised the
power to prevent all debate upon any and every subject;
[order, order,] yet you have not even as yet, shown
your right to sit here at all. I will not presume that
you have any such right-[order, order.]  I will not
suppose that the American people have selected such
agents to represent them; and I therefore demand that
they shall comply with the act of 1789, before I shall be
bound to submit to their authority.. [Loud cries of
order, order.] The second section of that act is [in]
these words:
"'That at the first Session of Congress after every
general election of Representatives, the oath or affirmation aforesaid shall be administered by any one member
of the House of Representatives to the speaker, and by
him to all the members present, and to the clerk, p)eVioOus to entering on any other busingess.'
"This  you have  not done.  [Order, order.]  Your
power to make rules for your own Government does not
191 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
belong to you in your unorganized condition. [Cries of
order.] You must first be sworn to obey the Constitution, before you can bind me, or yourselves, or any other
citizen, by your rules. [Loud cries of' order, order.']
"You refuse to hear either the Constitution or the law,
or the comments upon it. Perhaps you do well to listen
to neither; they all speak a voice of condemnation to
your reckless proceedings. But if you will not hear
them, the country will. Every freeman, from the Atlantic to the Pacific shore, shall hear them, and every
honest man will consider them. They are the securities
for his rights as well as mine. You cannot stifle the
voice that shall reach their ears. The electric shock
shall proclaim to the freemen of this Republic, [order,
order,] that an American Congress, having conceived
the purpose to violate the Constitution and the laws, to
conceal those enormities, have disgraced the Record of
their proceedings by placing upon it a resolution that
their Representatives shall not be heard in their defence;
and finding this illegal resolution inadequate to secure so
vile an end, have resorted to brutish yells and cries, to
stifle the words of those whom they cannot intimidate.
[Order, order.] The law is clear, plain, and conclusive.
You cannot answer it. It has been solemnly affirmed by
an American  Congress, in 1839.   [Order, order.]   I
read from the Congressional Globe, page 56: On motion
of Mr. Dromgoole, of Virginia, to adopt the standing
rules and orders of the (then) last House of Representatives, as the rules and orders of that House, it was
moved by Mr. Louis Williams to lay the resolution on
the table. Mr. W. C. Johnson here made a point of
order, that by the act of 1789, to which I have referred,
the House had no power to adopt rules until they were
sworn. The speaker (Mr. R. M. T. Hunter,) suggested
192 
Cor,. XVI.]   LIBERTY OF SPEECIHI-TOOMBS.
that the better way of deciding the question would be
on the motion (of Mr. Williams) to lay it on the table.
The yeas and nays were called, and the Resolution was
laid upon the table by the casting vote of the speaker:
Congress thus deciding that, even after a more advanced
stage of the proceedings, after a speaker was elected, the
House could not, before its members were sworn, even
adopt rules for their own government. [The clerk still
continued to call the roll, a few members were answering,
others inquiring what was the question, others demand ing that their names should be called, and great confu sion; during all of which, Mr. Toombs held on in his
remarks.]
"I ask (said Mr. T.) by what authority that man
(pointing to the clerk's desk) stands there and calls those
names? By what authority does he interfere with the
rights of a member of this House? [The clerk continued
to call.]  Hle is an intruder, and how dares he to interrupt
members in the exercise of their Constitutional rights?
Gentlemen, has the sense of shame departed with your
sense of right, that you permit a creature, an interloper,
in no wise connected with you, to stand at that desk and
interrupt your order.  [Order, order.]
" I have shown you that the House of Representatives
decided this question in 1839, pending the New Jersey
contested election. At the head of the names affirming
it, stands that of John Q. Adams-a gentleman, distinguished at least for his vast and varied knowledge of
Constitutional law and the science of government. The
members of the House whose seats were not contested,
having decided (before they were sworn or organized,)
that the votes of certain members of New Jersey should
not be counted, and the validity of that decision being
insisted upoll, Mr. Adams said,'That decision was illegal,
13
-193 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
unconstitutional, null and void, on the ground, also. that
the House, in its then unorganized State, had no power
under the Constitution to decide any question.'  The
history of that whole controversy shows such to have
been the general opinion of the House, as I am prepared
to show from the debates now before me; but as the
House seems to be a little more patient, I will not inflict
further quotations upon them.   The House continued,
without making any new rules, for days, until it was
finally organized, and the members were sworn; then
rules were adopted for its government.
"If, then, the House, before its organization, could decide no question, how can it enact a law, binding upon
its members, abridging the liberty of speech? I venture
to say that no such rule was ever before adopted in any
deliberative assembly. It is without a precedent in the
annals of civilization. Even the Revolutionary tribunals
of France, during the Reign of Terror, did not soil their
blood-stained records with an order denying the liberty of
speech.  This deed was reserved for you, Representatives
of a free people.  [Order! order!]  What, then, is your
condition?-what your rights, and what your duties, in
your present condition?  Under the Constitution you
have the right'to choose your speaker and other officers.'
This must be done in conformity to existing laws, for you
cannot now make a new law. The general Parliamnentary
law, the common law of Parliament, as far as it is not
inconsistent withi your Constitution and Statute law, is
your law. By it you are bound, until you are in a condition to make others. It is amply sufficient for all legitimate purposes of organization. Thirty Congresses have
met and been organized under it, and no such tyrannical
proceeding as that which you have adopted has ever been
deemed necessary. But you find yourselves trammelled
194 
COL. X'VI.]  PLURALITY RESOLUTION-TOOMBS.
by your Party ties. Your plain duty is to break these
ties, and perform your Constitutional duty; but you prefer to break the Constitution of your country. Therefore, you will this day, do what you have already
determined  in caucus to do-you  will delegate that
power which the Constitution vests in the House of
Representatives to a minority of that House, and you
will permit that minority to exercise your Constitutional
duty to choose a Speaker. A power delegated to the
House must be used by a majority of the House. In
Jefferson's Manual, we find the true and correct doctrine
laid down, page 183:'The voice of the majority decides;
for the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided.' It
is not otherwise provided in the Constitution, nor laws,
nor rules of Parliament, nor in any rule of any preceding
Congress. They, one and all, where the question is referred to, sustain the majority rule. It is the basis of
our whole system. The will of any assembly can only
be known by a majority. Therefore, whether every
member of Congress is present, or but a majority of one,
it is but a'House,' and a majority must declare its will.
I, therefore, demand of you, before the country, in the
name of the Constitution and of the people, to repeal
your illegal rule, reject the one on your table, and proceed to the discharge of the high duties which the people
have confided to you, according to the unvarying precedents of your predecessors and the law of the land.
"[During the latter part of Mr. T's speech, the House
was more tranquil.]" *
This whole stenographic picture, from which I have
extracted the most prominent parts, by Henry W.
Wheeler, then reporter for the Congressional Globe, is
* Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 61.
195 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  IVOL. 1I.
one of the best of the kind ever put upon paper. The
concluding note, however, hardly does full justice to the
effect of the speech. The statement that the House was
more tranquil, falls short of conveying an exact idea of
its real condition. Members, it is true, were still out of
their seats, and standing in the aisles; but the clerk had
stopped calling the roll, all noise and interruptions had
ceased, and every eye was  staringly fixed upon the
speaker.
This speech of Mr. Toombs, as well as the other one
cited, in tone and manner, was deemed by some as bullying, menacing, and insolent; but the former seemed to
mne, then and now, to be justly obnoxious to no such censure, while the latter, I thought, should rather be considered in the light of a wonderful exhibition of physical
as well as intellectual prowess-in this, that a single
man should have been able, thus successfully, to speak
down a tumultuous crowd, and by declamatory denunciations, combined with solid argument, silence an infuriated
assemblage.  The  House at that time was little else.
Mr. Douglas tried a similar experiment some months
afterwards, at Chicago, but failed in it.
The Resolution, which had, been agreed upon by the
Representatives of the two nominal Parties, Whig and
Democratic, was immediately adopted by the House.
Under this Resolution, Mr. Cobb received one hundred
and two votes, and Mr. Winthrop ninety-nine. The
whole number of votes cast was two hundred and twentyone. So Mr. Cobb was declared to be the Speaker,
though he fell short by nine votes of receiving a majority of the whole, as required by law. These samples
must suffice for the phase of things as presented in the
hlouse.
We will now turn to the Senate. Mr. Clay had just
196 
COL. XVI.]    THE SENATE IN 1850-MR. CLAY.
been returned again after being in retirement for several
years. He had been defeated for the Presidency by
Mr. Polk, in 1844. He was in politics a disciple of the
Jefferson school, and had lost his election for the Presi dency by a defection at the North from the Party then
running him, because of their violent opposition to the
incorporation of Texas into the Union.   He had ex pressed himself in favor of that measure in a letter,
which was published not long before the election. He
had'stood amongst the most prominent of the AntiRestrictionists upon the Missouri question, though he was
known to be opposed to Slavery. His position on this
question, in 1821, and on the Tariff question, in 1832,
had secured to him the appellation of"  The Great Pacificator." Coming back to the Senate, therefore, now, in
this even more alarming crisis than either of the former
ones, all friends of the Constitution, and Union under it,
looked to him with more interest than ever before, and
with more hope than to any other man then living.  He
was approaching the sunset of life; and, personally, it
was a brilliant one to him. The clouds and tempests of
the morning, noon, and evening of,his day, had passed
away. All party and personal bitterness had ceased.
He had the respect and the confidence of the entire
country. He, therefore, took the lead in the Senate,
where he again met Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster, the
other two of the illustrious trio of their day. This body
never before presented a greater array of talent than it
did at the beginning of this Session of Congress.
Besides Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster, there
were, at this time, in the Senate of the older class, connecting and lapping the outgoing with the incoming
generation of Statesmen, quite a number who had gained
great distinction, and who will ever hereafter occupy a
197 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
high place on the Roll of the men who made their mark
upon the history of the country, during the period in
which they lived.
Amongst these, without invidious distinction, may be
named Lewis Cass, Thomas H. Benton, John McPherson
Berrien, William R. King, John Bell, Wilie P. Mangum,
James Alfred Pearce, Samuel S. Phelps, and Samuel
Houston.
Then of the younger class, just rising to note on that
august arena, may be, in like manner, named Stephen A.
Douglas, Jefferson Davis, Salmon P. Chase, William H.
Seward, Robert M. T. Hunter, James M. Mason, Moses
Norris, George E. Badger, John P. Hale, and Henry S.
Foote.
These, to say nothing of others, all added more or less
lustre, by vigor of thought or brilliancy of wit, to that
grandest intellectual constellation-moral qualities and
all considered-which was ever beheld in the Political
firmament of this or any other country.
The crowning halo was imparted by Millard Fillmore,
who presided over the whole as Vice President of the
United States. He was of most imperturbable temper,
and of a personal appearance, in every respect, exceedingly impressive. There was a dignity in this'Head of the
Ambassadors of the States in Grand Council assembled,
which fully accorded with all the surroundings. Order
and decorum, with all the proprieties which should
govern high debate, were stamped upon his brow. Of
him, taken altogether, it might be said with as much
truth as of any other public character I ever met with:
There, "indeed, is a man "in whom is no guile!"
On the 29th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay iniitroduced his
celebrated series of Resolutions covering, as was supposed,
all the questions involving sectional controversy, agitation
198 
COL. XVI.] MR. CLAY'S COMPROMISE PROPOSITIONS.   199
and alienation. It was known for several days previous,
that, on this day, he would address the Senate, and
present to their consideration propositions for the adjustment of all these questions.  The announcement of this
fact, which had gone to the country, had brought an
immense crowd of strangers to the city.  At an early
hour in the morning, long before the hour for the meeting
of the Senate, the chamber, in every aisle, nook and
corner, was jammed to hear the words which, on this
occasion, would fall from the lips of the "Sage of
Ashland." Thousands were disappointed from inability
to reach even within ear-shot of the speaker. On the
conclusion of this speech, one of the most eloquent of his
life, which was continued to the next day, he formally
submitted the Resolutions referred to, which were the
basis of what is known as the Compromise of that year.
They, however, did not contain the main provision
upon which the final legislation of that year depended
and turned. To understand the bearing of his Resolutions, and the difference between them and the final
acts of Congress upon the subjects embraced by them, it
is proper to state that before the meeting of this Session
of Congress, and without any authority from Congress,
the people of California had, during the Summer of 1849,
under a proclamation of General Riley, of the United
States Army, then in command of that Military District,
called a Convention, which had framed a Constitution,
with an exclusion of Slavery, and asked to be admitted
as a State into the Union under it. This was understood
to have been done in pursuance of the policy of General
Taylor's Administration, which was, to get rid of the
vexed question, by stimulating the people of the Territories to form State Constitutions, with the exclusion of
Slavery in them, and for them thus to apply for admission 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
into the Union without any previous authority from
Congress. This policy met the approval of very few of
any Party.  To say nothing of other considerations, the
people of Utah and New Mexico were in no condition to
become States.
Mr. Clay's Compromise proposed to admit California
under the Constitution so formed to organize Territorial
Governments for Utah and New Mexico, without any
restriction as to Slavery-to settle the question of
boundary between New Mexico and Texas by negotiation with that State-to pass an efficient act for the
rendition of fugitive slaves, and to abolish the slave
trade, as it was called, in the District of Columbia.
These propositions, taken together, like the Administration plan, satisfied very few members, either of the
Senate or the House. The great majority of the North
were utterly unwilling to abandon the Restriction of
Slavery in the Territories. A formidable minority of the
same section was equally as unwilling to comply with
that clause of the Constitution requiring the rendition of
fugitive slaves. This latter class, also, were not satisfied
with the bare suppression of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, but insisted upon a total abolition.
On the Southern side an overwhelming majority were
opposed to the admission of California as a State, under
the Constitution so formed, irregularly and without the
authority of law. The class of Southern Whigs referred
to were willing to admit California under her Constitution; but required that in the organization of the Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, the people
from the South, sottling and colonizing these Territories,
should be permitted to carry their slaves with them, if
they chose; and that the whole people, then, should be
permitted to frame such Constitutions as they might
200 
COL. XVI.]  COMPROMISE OF 1850 CONTINUED.
please in reference to African Slavery; and upon their
application for admission into the Union, they should be
received as States without any Congressional Restriction
upon that subject.   So matters stood in both Hlouses.
The debates in each were continued with great bitterness.
No active demonstration of forces was made in either
until the 18th of February.
On that day, Monday, which was the day of the week
under the Rules when Resolutions were in order from the
States, Mr. James D. Doty, of Wisconsin, offered, in the
House, a resolution instructing the committee on Territories,
to report a bill for the admission of California under her
Constitution, and called the previous question upon it. This
was a nigh cut to get California in without any settlement of the other questions. A large majority of the
Hlouse was in favor of the admission of California; but
there were some of this majority, to wit, the Southern
Whigs referred to, who were opposed to her admission,
until the Territorial question should be adjusted. They
therefore resisted the passage of Mr. Doty's resolution.
They could resist it successfully, in one way only-that
was by making dilatory motions; for, under the opera,
tion of the previous question, if the call for that had been
allowed to be sustained, the resolution of instruction
would have immediately passed by a large majority.
The only possible way, therefore, to defeat this result,
and the admission of California without the adjustment
of the other question, was to prevent the vote being taken.
This was done by repeated motions to adjourn, for calls
of the House, to go into Committee of the Whole, etc.,
and the consumption of time in taking the yeas and nays
upon these various motions. In this movement, Southern members generally joined zealously. One-fifth of the
members present, under the Constitution, could require
201 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11.
the yeas and nays to be taken upon any motion or question.   Forty-one members constituted a fifth of the
House. More than that number pledged themselves so
to resist the question and prevent its ever coming to a
vote under such circumstances. I made the list, saw the
members, and secured the pledges.  The whole of the
day, and the early hours of night, were consumued in this
way. The vote finally became almnost exclusively sectional. Nearly all, if not every one, on the one side,
were from the North; while nearly all, if not every one,
on the other, were from the South. The passions on both
sides became highly excited. Very little intercourse took
place between the members of either of the great Parties
from the two sections, even on the same sides of the House.
In this condition of affairs, Mr. John A. McClernand,
of Illinois, a gentleman whose general courtesy and urbanity of manner secured him the personal respect of
all, came round to the seats occupied by Mr. Toombs
and myself, and inquired if there was no possible way by
which the contest then going on in the House could be
ended. We stated to him our positions fully. We did
not object to the admission of California, if the Territorial
question could be first satisfactorily adjusted. On this
we insisted, not only that there should be no Congressional exclusion of Slavery from the public domain, but
that, in organizing Territorial Governments, the people
under each should be distinctly empowered so to legislate
as to allow the introduction of slaves, and to frame their
Constitutions in respect to African Slavery, as they
pleased, and when admitted as States into the Union,
should be received without any Congressional Restriction
upon the subject. We stated that we never would
permit California to be admitted, if we could possibly
prevent it, until these Territorial principles were first
202 
COL. XVI.]   MEETING OF HOUSE MEMBERS.
settled. The propositions were briefly set forth in
writing. I have given their substance only. He read
them, and stated that he thought a compromise might
be effected on the basis therein set forth, and he would
return to his side of the House and endeavor to get
enough members to agree to an adjournment, to see what
could be done in the premises. No adjournment, however, was effected until the hour of twelve arrived, when
the speaker ruled that the Legislative day had ceased,
that the motion of Mr. Doty was no longer in order for
consideration, as the resolution he had offered under the
Rules could only be entertained or considered on Mondays. The House acquiescing in this decision then adjourned. Mr. McClernand came round to our seats again,
and we agreed to meet him at the Speaker's house, the
next night, with such friends as he might bring with
him, from the North, to see if the terms we had proposed
could be agreed upon and put in proper language.
The meeting accordingly took place the next night at
Mr. Cobb's house. There were present Mr. Cobb, Mr.
Toombs, Mr. Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, and myself, from
the South; Mr. John A. McClernand, and Mr. William
A. Richardson, of Illinois, and Mr. John K. Miller, of
Ohio, from the North. Some one or two more, perhaps
were present whose names or where from, I do not now
recollect. Mr. McClernand stated that Mr. Douglas, of
the Senate, with whom he had consulted, would act in
concert with him in anything he might agree to on the
subject, and had declined being present simply because it
was a meeting of members of the House. Mr. Douglas
was Chairman of the Committee on Territories of the
Senate, and Mr. McClernand was Chairman of the like
Committee of the House.  They conferred freely together
and understood each other thoroughly.
203 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. II.
At this meeting it was agreed that California should
be admitted, and the Territorial Governments should be
organized as stated, and that all our joint efforts should be
united to effect these results, as well as the defeat of any
attempt to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia.
The words of the Territorial Bills, which in our judgment
would effect our objects, were reduced to writing. Mr.
McClernand and Mr. Douglas therefore prepared bills on
this basis for their respective Committees. - Mr. Douglas
reported his in the Senate on the 25th of March.* Mr.
McClernand announced to the House the substance of his
bills, as he had had no opportunity to report them, on
the 3d of April.t In the meantime, on the 27th of
February, Mr. Doty introduced into the House, in the
regular way, a bill for the admission of California, which
was referred to the Committee of the Whole.' On the
same day, Mr. Toombs addressed the House, at great
length, upon the whole subject. I cannot ask you to go
through with the entire speech which I have here, but a
short extract will suffice to show its tenor. Addressing
himself to the North, he said:
"We had our Institutions when you sought our alliance. We were content with them then, and we are
content with them now. We have not sought to thrust
them upon you, nor to interfere with yours. If you
believe what you say, that yours are so much the best to
promote the happiness and good government of society,
why do you fear our equal competition with you in the
Territories? We only ask that our common Government
shall protect us both, equally, until the Territories shall
be ready to be admitted as States, into the Union, then
* Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 592.
t Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 628.
$ Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 424.
204 
SPEECH OF MR. CALHOUN.
to leave their citizens free to adopt any domestic policy
in reference to this subject, which, in their judgment,
may best promote their interest and their happiness.
The demand is just. Grant it, and you place your prosperity and ours upon a solid foundation; you perpetuate
the Union, so necessary to your prosperity; you solve the
true problem of Republican Government; you vindicate
the power of Constitutional guarantees. * * * The fact
cannot longer be concealed-the declaration of members
here proves it, the action of this House is daily demonstrating it-that we are in the midst of a legislative
revolution, the object of which is to trample under foot
the Constitution and the laws, and to make the will of
the majority the supreme law of the land. In this emergency our duty is clear it is to stand by the Constitution
and laws, to observe in good faith all its requirements
until the wrong is consummated, until the act of exclusion is put upon the statute book.   It will then  be
demonstrated that the Constitution is powerless for our
protection; it will then be not only the right, but the
duty of the slaveholding States to resume the powers
which they have conferred upon this Government, and
to seek new safeguards for their future security." *
On the next day, February the 28th, Mr. John Bell,
of Tennessee, introduced into the Senate a series of
Resolutions, setting forth in substance what was then
considered a modified form of the Executive policy for a
proper adjustment, which he supported in a speech of
great length, and with all the powers he could command.
On the 4th of March, Mr. Calhoun's sentiments on
the crisis were delivered in the Senate. HIe was too
feeble to speak, but he was present, and Mr. Mason, of
Virginia, read what Mr. Calhoun had written for the
* Apoendix to Cong. Globe, Part I, 31st Cogress, 1st Session, p. 198.
CoL. XVI.]
205 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
occasion. In this speech he manifested strong attachment to the Union under the Constitution, but maintained that all the dangers which then threatened its
continuance arose from the Centralizing tendency of the
Government.  This had, by its Tariffs, and by several
other measures specified by him, given a preponderance
to the population of the non-slaveholding States, and the
tendency was towards Consolidation.. He said:
"What was once a Constitutional Federal Republic, is
now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of
the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency
as any absolute government that ever existed."
He alluded to the ligaments of the Union from the
beginning. They were chiefly ecclesiastical, social and
political.  The two former had already been broken.
Most of the churches North and South had separated.
"The political ties only remained, and these too, as the
tendency was, must soon be broken, except the sections
were held together by force. Force might keep them
connected, but the combination would partake more of
the character of subjugation on the part of the weaker to
the stronger than the Union of free, independent, sovereign
States in one Confederation, as they stood in the early
days of the Government, and which only is worthy the
name of Union. There was only one way in which the
Union could be preserved, and that was by adopting such
measures as would satisfy the States belonging to the
Southern section, that they could remain in the Union
consistently with their honor and safety."
"It" [the Union, said he] "cannot, then, be saved by
eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous.
The cry of'Union, Union, the glorious Union!' can
no more prevent disunion than the cry of' Health,
health, glorious health!' on the part of the physician
206 
COL. XVI.] PRESERVATION OF THE UNION-CALHOUN. 207
can save a patient lying dangerously ill. So long as
the Union, instead of being regarded as  a protector,
is regarded in the opposite character, by not much
less than a majority of the States, it will be in vain
to attempt to conciliate them by pronouncing eulogies
on it.
"Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from
those whom we cannot believe to be sincere. It usually
comes from our assailants. But we cannot believe them
to be sincere; for, if they loved the Union, they would
necessarily be devoted to the Constitution. It made the
Union, and to destroy the Constitution would be to destroy the Union.   But  the only reliable and certain
evidence of devotion to the Constitution is to abstain, on
the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the
other, all attempts to violate it. It is only by faithfully
performing these high duties that the Constitution can be
preserved, and with it the Union.
"But how stands the profession of devotion to the
Union  by our assailants, when  brought to this test?
Have they abstained from violating the Constitution?
Let the many acts passed by the Northern States to set
aside and annul the clause of the Constitution, providing
for the delivery up of fugitive slaves, answer. I cite this,
not that it is the only instance, (for there are many
others,) but because the violation in this particular is too
notorious and palpable to be denied. Again, have they
stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the Constitution? Let their course in reference to the agitation of
the Slavery question, which was commenced and has
been carried on for fifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing Slavery in the States-an object all
acknowledged to be unconstitutional, answer. Let them
show a single instance, during this long period, in which 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
they have denounced the agitators or their attempts to
effect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, orca single
measure which they have brought forward for that purpose. How can we, with all these facts before us, believe that they are sincere in their profession of devotion
to the Union, or avoid believing their profession is but
intended to increase the vigor of their assaults, and to
weaken the force of our resistance!
"Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the
Union, on the part of those who are not our assailants,
as sincere, when they pronounce eulogies upon the Union,
evidently with the intent of charging us with disunion,
without uttering one word of denunciation against our
assailants. If friends of the Union, their course should
be to unite with us in repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union.  Why
they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for
them to explain.
"Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name
of the illustrious Southerner, whose mortal remains
repose on the Western bank of the Potomac. He was
one of us-a slaveholder and a planter. We have studied
his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission
to wrong. On the contrary, his great fame rests on the
solid foundation that while he was careful to avoid doing
wrong to others, he was prompt and decided in repelling
wrong. I trust that, in this respect, we profited by his
example.
"Nor can we find anything in his history to deter us
from seceding from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the
objects for which it was instituted, by being permanently
and hopelessly converted into the means of oppressing,
instead of protecting us.   On  the contrary, we  find
much in his example to encourage us, should we be
208 
COL. XVI.] HOW rTO SAVE THiE UNION-CALHOUN.
forced to the extremity of deciding between submission
and disunion.
*       e       e       e       e       e      e       *
"Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I
return to the question with which I commenced, How
can the Union be saved? There is but one way by
which it can, with any certainty; and that is, by a full
and final settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the
questions at issue between the two sections. The South
asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to
take. She has no Compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession or surrender to make. She has
already surrendered so much, that she has little left to
surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of
the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying
the South she could remain honorably and safely in the
Union; and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal
feelings between the sections which existed anterior to
the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any
certainty, finally and forever settle the questions at issue,
terminate agitation, and save the Union.
"It is time, Senators, that there should be an open
and manly avowal on all sides, as to what is intended to
be done. If the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the
Representatives of the States of this Union, regarded as
Governments, should come to a distinct understanding,
as to our respective views, in order to ascertain whether
the great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you,
who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle
them on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so;
and let the States we both represent, agree to separate
and part in peace. If you are unwilling we should part
in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do, when
209
14 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
you reduce the question to submission or resistance. If
you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by your
acts what you intend. In that case, California will become the test question. * * *
"I have now, Senators, done my duty in expressing
my opinions fully, freely, and candidly, on this solemn
occasion.  In doing so, I have been governed  by the
motives which have governed me in all the stages of the
agitation of the Slavery question, since its commencement. I have exerted myself, during the whole period,
to arrest it, with the intention of saving the Union, if it
could be done; and, if it could not, to save the section
where it has pleased Providence to cast my lot, and which
I sincerely believe has justice and the Constitution on
its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the best of
my ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout
this agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will
come, that I am free from all responsibility."*
In this speech Mr. Calhoun also suggested, as a further
security for the permanency as well as the strength of
the Union, for the future, in case the then questions
should be settled upon right principles, a Constitutional
amendment providing for a dual Executive. The idea
was barely presented, not elaborated. But it was that the
Executive office should be filled with two instead of one.
One of these two to be selected by the slaveholding
States, and the other by the non-slaveholding States, who,
upon all sectional questions, should have the same check
upon each other as that which existed in the amended
Constitution of Rome between the Consuls and the Tribunes. This he thought would be necessary for harmony,
which he considered as essential for strength, after the
equality then existing between the number of slave     * Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 453.
210 
COL. XVI.]   MR. WEBST'ER'S UNION SPEECH.
holding and non-Slaveholding States would be destroyed
by the admission of California. But he lived to see the
end of none of these measures.   He died twenty-five
days afterwards, on the 31st of March. In his death
passed away one of the ablest, truest and most patriotic
public men this country ever produced. He was a close
reasoner, a clear and profound thinker. A model of
sobriety, temperance and morals in every respect. The
science of Government was his favorite study; and, in his
day, he had few equals and no superior in all the elements of real Statesmanship. The two survivors of the
illustrious trio referred to, both did honor to themselves,
in their feeling tributes to his memory on the occasion of
his funeral obsequies.
But I must proceed with a rapid glance at facts, with
their dates, during this stormy, as well as momentous
Session. On the 7th of March, three days after Mr.
Calhoun's speech, Mr. Webster addressed the Senate.
What he then said has become famous as his 7th of
March Speech, or "Union Speech."  In it he took, for
the first time, decided ground against Congressional
Restriction in the Territories. The speech made a profounder sensation upon the public mind throughout the
Union, than any one ever delivered by him before. The
friends of the Union, under the Constitution, were
strengthened in their hopes, and inspired with renewed
energies by its high and lofty sentiments.
Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate on the 13th of
March, on the same line, and with great power and
eloquence. On the 18th of April, a resolution, previously
offered by Mr. Henry S. Foote, of Mississippi, an active
and zealous co-operator with Mr. Clay in his general
objects, was passed in the Senate, to raise a select committee of thirteen, to whom the Resolutions of Mr. Clay
211
l 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL. II.
and Mr. Bell were referred.  This Committee was chosen
by that body the next day. The Chairmanship of it
was, by almost unanimous consent, awarded to Mr. Clay.
The other members of the Committee consisted of Gen.
Cass, of Michigan, Mr. Dickinson, of New York, Mr.
Bright, of Indiana, Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, Mr.
Phelps, of Vermont, Mr. Cooper, of Pennsylvania, Mr.
King, of Alabama, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Downs,
of Louisiana, Mr. Mangum, of North Carolina, Mr. Bell,
of Tennessee, and Mr. Berrien, of Georgia.
On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, as Chairman of this
Committee, reported to the Senate one bill, (which afterwards was known as the " Omnibus,") covering all the
matters embraced in his Resolutions on the 29th of
January before: that is, for the admission of California,
Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, the
settlement of the question of boundary with Texas, the
rendition of fugitive slaves, and the abolition of what was
called the slave trade in the District of Columbia.
Those portions of the bill providing Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico were identical with the
separate bills on the same subjects introduced by Mr.
Douglas, in the Senate, on the 25th of March, as before
stated, except in one particular; that is, after the words in
his bills declaring that the Territorial Legislatures should
pass "no law interfering with the primary disposal of the
soil," the Committee had added,  " nor in respect to
African Slavery."
This amendment, in the opinion of many Southern
men, was tantamount in legal effect to a positive Coingressional exclusion of the South; for, by the law of
Mexico, Slavery was prohibited in these Territories at
the time of their acquisition, and if the Legislative power
there were restrained by Congress from ever changing
212
I., 
MR. CLAY'S OMNIBUS BILL.
this law, then in force there, no Southern man could ever
colonize any of this portion of the public domain with his
slaves. Mr. Clay said this amendment had been put in
by a majority of the Committee, against his wishes; but
he did not regard it as all insuperable objection to the
bill, as it was not, in his opinion, a positive Congressional
Restriction. He said Slavery was abolished by Mexican
Law in these Territories at the time of their acquisition,
and he never would vote to change it.
Mr. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, on the 16th of
May, moved an amendment to the words added by the
Committee, which he afterwards, on the 27th of May,
modified so as to read as follows:
"That nothing herein contained shall be construed so
as to prevent said Territorial Legislature from passing
such laws as may be neoessary for the protection of the
rights of property of every kind, which may have been,
or may be hereafter, conformably to the Constitution and
laws of the United States, held in or introduced into said
Territory."
The object of this amendment, as he understood its
legal effect, was evidently to declare this Territory open
alike for settlement and colonization by citizens of all
the States, with their property, of every kind, while in
a Territorial condition, without any restriction or discrimination, one way or the other.  His amendment,
however, was rejected on the 5th of June, by a vote of
twenty-five to thirty.  Mr. Douglas then moved to strike
out the Select Committee's amendment to his original
bill, which left the Territorial Legislature free to pass all
laws consistent with the Constitution of the United
States, and the provisions of the Act. His motion, too,
was lost, but the same motion was renewed by Mr.
Norris, of New Hampshire, on the 31st of July, when
COL. XVI.]
213 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
it was adopted-which accomplished, in the opinion of
the Southern Whigs referred to, all that Mr. Davis's
amendment would have done.
We turn now to the House again. In that body, on
the 11th of June, Mr. Doty's bill, regularly introduced
on the 27th of February, as stated, came up for action
in that body, and was discussed, from day to day, in Committee of the Whole. Mr. Green, of Missouri, moved
as an amendment, the recognition of the Missouri line
through all the newly-acquired territory. This was rejected by a large majority. Mr. Stanton, of Tennessee,
on the 13th of June, offered the following amendment:
'"Provided, however, that it shall be no objection to the
admission into the Union, of any State which may be
hereafter formed out of the territory lying south of the
parallel of latitudetof 36~ 30', that the Constitution of
said State may authorize or establish African Slavery
therein." This proposition was rejected upon a count
by tellers-yeas seventy-eight, nays eighty-nine. This
was almost exclusively a sectional vote. The debates
grew warmer and more excited. Speeches on the question, under an order of the House, were now limited to
five minutes. The 14th of June was consumed in the
same way. On the 15th of June, the question was put,
in debate, to the ultra Northern advocates, of the admission of California, if they would ever, under any circumstances, vote for the admission of a Slave State into the
Union. They refused to say that they would. It was
in this condition of affairs that Mr. Toombs took the floor
and spoke as follows:
Mr. Toombs renewed the amendment, and said the
gentleman from Ohio had just charged that the opposition to California with her present Constitution, by the
South, was founded upon the Anti-Slavery Clause in her
214 
COL. XVI.]  MIR. TOOMBS'S HAMILCAR SPEECH.
Constitution, and therefore, in the denial of this right of
a people forming a State Constitution, to admit or exclude Slavery. Mr. T. denied the fact, and demanded
proof. On the contrary, he asserted that the South had
uniformly held and maintained this right. That in 1820,
on the Missouri question, the North denied it, but the
South unanimously affirmed it. From that day till this,
the South, through all her authorized exponents of her
opinions, has affirmed this doctrine; her Legislatures, her
Governors of States, her Members upon this floor, and
even her primary assemblies, have all affirmed it, and the
gentleman from Ohio cannot point to a single particle of
evidence to support his unfounded charge. The South
can proudly point to her whole political history for its
reputation. But how stands the case with the North?
She denied the truth of this great principle of Constitutional right in 1820, acquiesced in the Compromise then
made as long as it was to her interest, and then repudiated
the Compromise and re-asserted her right to dictate Constitutions to Territories seeking admission into the Union.
She put her Anti-Slavery proviso upon Oregon, and at
the last session of Congress, when the present Secretary
of the Navy introduced a bill to authorize California to
form a State government and come into the Union,
leaving her free to act as she pleased upon the question
of Slavery, the North put the Anti-Slavery proviso upon
this State bill. I know of no Northern Whig who voted
against that proviso. A few gentlemen of the Democratic Party from the North-west, and my friend firom
Illinois among them, [Mr. Richardson] boldly and
honestly struck for the right, and opposed it; but they
were powerless against the torrent of Northern opposition. The evidence is complete; the North repudiated
this principle-and while, for sinister and temporary pur
215 
CONSTrITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
poses, they may pretend to favor the President's plan,
which affirms it, they will not sustain it. They will not
find a right place to affirm it until they get California
into the Union, and then they will throw off the mask
and trample it under foot. I intend to drag off the mask
before the consummation of that act. We do not oppose
California on account of the Anti-Slavery clause in her
Constitution. It was her right, and I am not even pre pared to say that she acted unwisely in its exercise-that
is her business; but I stand upon the great principle that
the South has right to an equal participation in the
Territories of the United States. I claim the right for
her to enter them all with her property and securely to
enjoy it.  She will divide with you, if you wish it; but
the right to enter all, or divide, I shall never surrender.
In my judgment, this right, involving, as it does, political
equality, is worth a thousand such Unions as we have,
even if they each were a thousand times more valuable
than this. I speak not for others, but for myself. Deprive us of this right and appropriate this common property to yourselves, it is then your Government, not
mine. Then I am its enemy, and I will then, if I can,
bring my children and my constituents to the altar of
liberty, and like Hamilcar, I would swear them to eternal
hostility to your foul domination. Give us our just
rights, and we are ready, as ever heretofore, to stand by
the Union, every part of it, and its every interest. Refuse it, and for one, I will strike for Independence!"*
In sampling these debates with the view to present the
tone and temper of the times, I purposely select the
speeches made by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Toombs, because
they have been generally regarded as the extremest of
the Ultras on that side, and have both been very greatly
*Congressional &lobe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 1216.
216 
MR. SOULE'S AMENDMENT.
misrepresented on this subject. No man was ever more
so than Mr. Toombs. It has been the object of many to
hold him up as the embodiment of Slavery Propagandism.
Even histories have been written in which the statement
is made that he had declared that he would yet call the
roll of his slaves on Bunker Hill. This has been done,
too, without a particle of proof, and after the most positive
denial by him of his ever having made such a declaration.
But to proceed. This speech of Mr. Toombs delivered
on the 15th of June, produced the greatest sensation in
the House that I ever witnessed by any speech in that
body during my Congressional course. It created a perfect commotion. Several Southern Whigs who had not
before sympathized with the class first alluded to, now
openly took sides with them. The Hlouse adjourned
without coming to any further vote. The excitement in
the House increased that in the Senate. It extended to
the city, and the subjects discussed in the House became
the topics of heated conversations on the streets and at
the hotels. This was Saturday. Monday, Mr. Doty made
another effort to get a resolution passed, requiring the Committee of the Whole to report his bill.  The effort failed.
In the Senate, on the same day, the excitement was no
less than it was in the House. It was at this stage of
the proceedings, that Mr. Soule, of Louisiana, offered to
Mr. Clay's Compromise Bill an amendment to the first
section which related to the Territorial Government of
Utah in these words:
"And when the said Territory, or any portion of the
same, shall be admitted as a State, it shall be received
into the Union with or without Slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."*
This presented to that body the issue squarely, as it
* Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 1239.
COL. XVI.]
217 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
had been presented by Mr. Toombs in the House, on
Saturday, and covered one of the essential points made
by the Southern Whigs referred to in the beginning.
When the Missouri line was thus, for the last time, voted
down in the House, the South fell back in almost solid
column to their original position. They now maintained
that there should be no Congressional Restriction of
Slavery, either North or South of 36~ 30'.  On  this
principle alone would they now settle. This amendment, therefore, of Mr, Soul6 was the turning point, and
upon its adoption everything depended, so far as concerned Mr. Clay's proposed Compromise.  In this connection, allow me to read what I said on a former occasion,
in reference to the action of the Senate, that day, on this
amendment:
"I well recollect the intensity of interest felt upon the
fate of that proposition in the Senate. Upon its rejection, in the then state of the public mind, depended consequences, which no human forecast could see, or estimate. The interest was enhanced from the great uncertainty and doubt as to the result of the vote. Several
Northern Senators, who had before yielded the question
of positive restriction-that is, the'Wilmot Proviso'had given no indication of how they would act upon this
clear declaration, that the people of the Territories might,
in the formation of their State Constitutions, determine
this question for themselves.  Among  these was  Mr.
Webster. Just before the question was put, and while
anxiety was producing its most torturing effects, this
most renowned Statesman from New England arose to
address the Senate. An immense crowd was in attendance. The lobby was full, as well as the galleries. All
eyes were instantly turned toward him, and all ears
eager to catch every word that should fall from his lips
218 
COL. XVI.]  PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION.
upon this, the most important question, perhaps, which
had ever been decided by an American Senate. His own
vote, even, might turn the scale. That speech I now
have before me. In it he declared himself for the amendment. His conclusion was in these words:
"' Sir, my object is peace-my object is reconciliation.
My purpose is not to make up a case for the North, or to
make up a case for the South. My object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. I ani against
agitators North and South; I am against local ideas
North and South, and against all narrow  and local contests. I am an American, and I know no locality in
America.  That  is my country.  My heart, my  sentiments; my judgment, demand of me that I should pursue such a course as shall promote the good, and the
harmony, and the union of the whole country. This I
shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter.'
"The reporter says:
[' The honorable Senator resumed his seat amidst the
general applause from the gallery.']
" Yes, sir; he did. I was there and witnessed the
scene; and no one, I fancy, who was there, can ever
forget that scene. Every heart beat easier. The friends
of the measure felt that it was safe. The vote was taken
-the amendment was adopted.  The  result was  soon
communicated from the galleries, and, finding its way
through every passage and  outlet to the rotunda, was
received with exultation by the crowd there; with quick
steps it was borne through the city; and in less than
five minutes, perhaps, the electric wires were trembling
with the gladsome news to the remotest parts of the
country. It was news well calculated to make a nation
leap with joy, as it did, because it was the first decisive
step taken towards the establishment of that great princi
219 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOl,. II.
pie upon which this Territorial question was disposed of,
adjusted, and settled in 1850."
The per capita vote on this amendment, thus establishing the new principle of no Congressional intervention
anywhere in the Territories in lieu of the former principle of a division of the public domain, and thus bringing
the Government back to the original position of the South
upon the whole question, was thirty-eight yeas to twelve
nays. The twelve nays against it were, Messrs. Baldwin,
of Connecticut; Chase, of Ohio; Clark, of Rhode Island;
Davis, of Massachusetts; Dayton, of New Jersey; Dodge,
of Wisconsinf; Green, of Rhode Island; Hale, of New
Hampshire; Miller, of New Jersey; Smith, of Connecticut; Upham, of Vermont; and Walker, of Wisconsin.
By States, the vote for and against the new principle
was twenty yeas; six nays; two divided, and two not
voting. The yeas were Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas,
Louisiana and Texas. The six nays were, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin.
The two States divided, were New Hampshire and Massachusetts.   The  two not voting were Maine and  New
York. Mr. Seward, of New York, was within convenient
distance, but voted neither one way nor the other. Thus
two-thirds of the States in 1850, did affirm the original
position of the South upon the Territorial question. This
was the gist of that Compromise.
We have now to follow the progress of this principle,
thus established by the Senate on the 17th of June, to its
final consummation. On the 9th of July, President
Taylor died. Vice President Fillmore immediately assumed the duties of the Executive chair. He was known
220 
ITS HISTORY IN THE HOUSE.
to be in full sympathy with Mr. Clay in his objects. Mr.
Webster was transferred from the Senate to the Cabinet.
He became Secretary of State in the new Administration.
Mr. Doty's bill for the admission of California was not
again taken up in the House.
Mr. Clay's bill continued the subject matter of angry
discussion in the Senate until the 31st of July, when it
was so amended by striking out first one part and then
another, until nothing of it was left but that portion providing a Government for the Territory of Utah, with the
select Committee's amendment stricken out, and the Soul6
amendment of the 17 th of June incorporated in it, as
stated. This bill so passed the Senate the 1st of August
and went down to the House. In this way Mr. Clay's
Omnibus Bill," as it was called, went to pieces on the
31st of July; but the Senate immediately took up the
separate parts, embodied them in separate bills, passed
them, and sent them down to the House in like manner,
where they took their regular place on the Speaker's
table. In that body on the 28th of August, the Senate
Utah Bill was reached. It was referred to the Committee
of the Whole without debate. The next one of the Senate
Bills reached, the same day, was the one for the settlement
of the boundary between Texas and New Mexico.
When this came up Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, offered an
amendment providing for a Territorial Government for
New Mexico with the Soul6 amendment in it. This
amendment so offered by Mr. Boyd, in other respects, was
substantially the same bill prepared for New Mexico by
Mr. Douglas and Mr. McClernand, as before stated. On
this the great Sectional Contest was now fought in the
House as it had been in the Senate. It may not be uninteresting to notice in detail the various phases of the
conflict as it progressed. We will, therefore, rapidly re
COL. XVI.]
221
4 
CONSTITUTrIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VLN,. lI-.
view some of the scenes.   Civic conflicts have their
interest as well as conflicts of arms. Though bloodless
and less exciting, yet the lessons they teach, in a historic
view, are quite as instructive.
On the 4th of September,* then, when this Senate bill
with Mr. Boyd's proposed amendment to it, and also an
amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Clingman,
of North Carolina, providing another Territorial Government for a portion of the country which hlie designated as
"Colorado," came up for consideration under a special
order, a motion was made to refer the bill with the pending
amendments to the Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union. The previous question was seconded, and
the main question on this reference was ordered by a vote
of yeas one hundred and thirty-three to nays sixty-eight.
On the question of reference, the vote was one hundred
and one to ninety-nine. So the motion to refer was
carried.
Mr. Walden, of New York, moved to reconsider the
vote by which thle bill and amendments had been referred.
Mr. Root, of Ohio, moved to lay that motion on the
table.
The vote to lay the motion to reconsider on the table
was one hundred and three to one hundred and two.
The Speaker, Mr. Cobb, voted in the negative. So the
vote stood one hundred and three to one hundred and
three, and the motion to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider was not carried.
The question to reconsider then recurred. Upon it
the yeas were one hundred and four, the nays ninetyeight, so the vote by which the bill had been referred
was reconsidered.
* For the scenes here described see Congressional Globe. 31st Congress,
1st Session, p. 1746 et sequentes.
222 
COL. XVI.] FIRST DAY'S ACTION IN THE HOUSE.
The question, then, again recurred upon the reference
of the bill with amendments. The vote now stood one
hundred and one to one hundred and three. So the
House refused to refer the bill with amendments to the
Committee of the Whole.
The first question, then, was on Mr. Clingman's amendment to Boyd's amendment. The vote on this was
sixty-nine to one hundred and thirty. So his amendment was lost.
Mr. Thompson, of Mississippi, said that as no amendment under the previous question was now in order, he
moved as a test vote to lay tlhe whole thing on the table.
Mr. Bayly, of Virginia, protested against its being considered a test vote.
Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, wished to know if the motion to
lay on the table was in order after the previous question
was ordered.
The Speaker said that it was.
Mr. Wentworth, of Illinois, wished to know if there was
any amendment pending.
The Speaker said there was.
Mr. Wentworth wanted to know if the "Wilmot
Proviso" was in it.  He was informed that it was notthe amendment pending was Mr. Boyd's, which did not
contain it.
Mr. Thompson, of Mississippi, withdrew his motion
to lay on the table.
Mr. Ashe, of North Carolina, renewed it.
Mr. McClernand, of Illinois, asked the yeas and nays:
when four or five members had answered to their names
on the call of the roll, the confusion in the Hall became
so great, the Clerk could not proceed. The call was
suspended.
Mr. Disney, of Ohio, rose to a question of order.
e.
223 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
The Speaker decided it was too late, as several members had answered to their names on the call. The call
of the roll was then resumed and completed, when the
vote stood sixty-one for laying on the table, to one
hundred and forty-one against it-so the bill was not laid
on the table.
The question then came on Boyd's amendment.
Mr. Gott, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays.
The vote stood nlinety-eight to one hundred and six; so
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote,
by which Boyd's amendment had been rejected, and to
lay that motion on the table.
Mr. McLean, of Kentucky, called for the yeas and nays.
Mr. Bokee, of New York, called for a division of the
question. It then came up, first, to lay on the table the
motion to reconsider.
Mr. Schenck withdrew his motion to reconsider.
Mr. Cartter, of Ohio, renewed it.
Mr. Root moved to lay Mr. Cartter's motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. Boyd moved that the House adjourn. On this
question the vote stood seventy-one to one hundred and
twenty-eight.
Mr. Cartter then withdrew his motion to reconsider.
The question came then on ordering the bill to be engrossed without the Boyd amendment. On this the vote
stood yeas eighty, nays one hundred and twenty-six.  So
the bill was not ordered to be engrossed, and passed to a
third reading, which was in effect its defeat. Great confusion prevailed in the Hall. Many members addressed
the Speaker at the same time. Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky,
was recognized.  He moved to reconsider the vote, by
which the. engrossment of the bill had been rejected.
224 
COL. XVI.]    SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, moved to lay Mr. Boyd's
motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. Harris, of Illinois, moved that the House adjourn,
which motion prevailed.
In this position of affairs night closed upon the parties.
So ended the first day's action.
The next day, September the 5th, the motion to lay
Mr. Boyd's motion to reconsider on the table, was the
first question in order. On this the vote stood seventyone to one hundred and thirty-five. So the motion to
reconsider was not laid on the table.   The previous
question was seconded on Mr. Boyd's motion to reconsider-the main question was ordered.
Mr. Halloway, of New York, inquired of the Speaker
if the vote should be reconsidered, whether the bill would
then be open for amendment.
The Speaker said it would.
The vote on Mr. Boyd's motion to reconsider the vote,
by which the engrossment of the bill had been rejected,
was then taken, and stood one hundred and thirty-one in
favor, and seventy-five against it. So the motion prevailed.
Mr. Grinnell, of Masachusetts, then moved to reconsider the vote, by which Mr. Boyd's amendment had been
rejected the day before, and called the previous question,
which was seconded.
Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, moved to lay the motion to
reconsider on the table. The vote stood ninety-six to
one hundred and eight. The question then came up on
Mr. Grinnell's motion to reconsider. The vote stood,
yeas one hundred and six, nays ninety-nine. So the
rejection of Mr. Boyd's amendment was reconsidered.
Many members now again addressed the Chair at the
same time. Mr. Boyd was recognized. He called the
225
15 
CONSTITrUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
previous question. Strong appeals were made to him to
withdraw it. Cries came from all sides of the House,
" question!" "question!"
Mr. Meade, of Virginia, inquired if it was then in order
to move to refer the whole matter to the Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union.
The Speaker said it was not, pending the demand for
the previous question.
Mr. Preston King, of New York, asked if it was in
order to move an amendment to the bill?
The Speaker said not pending the motion for the
previous question.
IMr. King asked if the Chair had not decided
that it would be open for amendment, if it was reconsidered?
The Speaker said he had, and it would be now, but for
the demand for the previous question; if the demand for
the previous question was voted down, the subject matter
would be open for amendment.
On the demand for the previous question, the vote was
in favor of sustaining it, eighty-eight, and against it,
ninety-nine. So the previous question was not ordered.
Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, obtained the floor, and moved
an additional section, in these words:
"And be it further enacted, That  no citizen of the
United States shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property in said Territory, except by the judgment of
his peers and the laws of the land; and that the Constitution of the United States, and such Statutes thereof as
may not be locally inapplicable, and the common law as
it existed in the British Colonies of America, until the
4th day of July, 1776, shall be the exclusive laws of
said Territory, upon the subject of African Slavery, until
altered by the proper authority."
226'
I 
SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. Toombs said he had no desire to debate the ques tion or to close debate on it, and would not move the
previous question. Several members addressed the Chair.
Mr. Wentworth was recognized.  He inquired whether
it would be in order to move a substitute for Mr. Toombs'
amendment.
The Speaker said it would not be, as that was an
amendment to an amendment already pending.
Mr. Wentworth inquired if it was in order to move to
commit.
The Speaker said it was.
Mr. Wentworth. Is it in order to move to commit with
instructions?
The Speaker said that it was.
Mr. Wentworth then moved to commit the bill with
the following instructions:
"So to amend the amendment as to exclude Slavery
from all the territory acquired from Mexico by the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo eastward of California."
Several members addressed the Chair. Mr. Wentworth,
holding the floor, inquired of the Speaker whether he
could adopt other instructions that might be suggested
to him, and after his demand for the previous question
whether separate votes could be taken on the different
sets of instructions?
The Speaker said the motion to commit with instructions, was indivisible; but upon the instructions a separate vote could be called, so as to leave with the motion to
commit a separate and distinct proposition. Mr. Wentworth then accepted from Mr. Howard, of Texas, certain
instructions relating to boundary and the settlement
proposed to be made between the United States and
Texas, and moved the previous question; but yielded the
floor to Mr. Featherstone, who wished an additional in
227
COL. XVI.] 
CONSTITUTIONALI VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
struction, to wit, "strike out all of the original bill after
the enacting clause, and insert as follows:
"That the boundaries of the State of Texas, as defined
and established by the act of the Texas Congress, passed
December 19, 1836, for that purpose; are hereby recognized by the Government of the United States."
He renewed Mr. Wentworth's call for the previous
question.   Great confusion prevailed.   Many inquiries
were addressed to the Chair, as to what would be the
effect of ordering the previous question, and what would
be the order of voting, if the previous question should be
sustained. In answer the Speaker said:
"The Chair will state the question.  If the previous
question should be sustained, and the main question
ordered, the question will be first on the amendment to
the instructions offered by the gentleman from Mississippi,
[Mr. Featherstone]. Secondly, on the motion to commit
with instructions, (amended or not, as the case may be.)
If the House should refuse to commit with instructions,
the question then recurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] and then on the
amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr.
Boyd,] amended or-not, as the House may determine,
and then on ordering the bill to a third reading. After
the vote shall have been taken on the last-mentioned
proposition, and not before, the previous question will be
exhausted."
The call for the previous question was sustained by a
vote of one hundred and two to forty.
The question on Mr. Featherstone's instruction was
then decided by a vote of seventy-one yeas to one hundred
and twenty-eight nays.
The question then to commit with Mr. Wentworth's
instructions coupled with Mr. Howard's, was decided by
228
I 
COL. XVI.]    SECOND DAY'S PROC(EEDINGS.
a vote of eighty yeas to one hundred and twenty-one
hays. So the motion to commit with instructions failed.
The question then recurred upon Mr. Toombs' amend ment. On this a division was called. The first branch
of his amendment was agreed to without a count. The
second branch was rejected by a vote of sixty-four yeas
to one hundred and twenty-one nays.
The question then camne up for a second time upon
agreeing to the amendment of Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, moved a division of the
question.
The Speaker held it to be indivisible. The question
on Mr. Boyd's amendment was- then decided by one
hundred and six yeas to ninety-nine nays.   So  Mr.
Boyd's amendment, as amended, was agreed to; and the
question recurred on ordering the bill, as it stood amended,
to be engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. Gott called for the yeas and nays.
Mr. Inge moved that the House adjourn.  The House
refused to adjourn.
Mr. Inge moved to lay the whole subject on the
table. The House decided against the motion without
division.
The question then recurred on ordering the bill as
amended to be engrossed for a third reading. The roll
was called. Intense excitement prevailed. The Speaker
arose and very slowly was about to announce the result.
Cries of'" report! report! report!" came up from all sides
of the Hall.
/Mr. McDowell, of Virginia, rose and said he desired
to know of the Speaker, in the event of the bill being lost
by the present vote, if it would be open to reconsidersation.  Cries of " order! order!"
The Speaker made no reply.
229 
CONSTITU'TIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Mr. McDowell still remained on the floor.
The Speaker inquired if the gentleman of Virginia
desired to vote. Mr. McDowell said he had voted.
Cries from all sides, "report, report," etc.
The Speaker commenced his announcement by saying,
upon ordering the bill to be engrossed, the vote is
ninety-seven-"
Mr. Cabell, of Florida, rose and said he desired to have
his name called. The Speaker inquired if he was within
the bar of the House when his name was called on the
roll.  He said he was.  His name was then atgain called,
and he responded "aye."  Demands were again made
upon the Speaker to report.
Mr. Potter, of Ohio, rose and asked that his name
be called. The inquiry was made if he was within the
bar of the House when his name had been called.  He
answered he was.  His name was again called, and he
also voted aye.
Mr. McLean insisted that order should be restored in
the Hall before the result was announced. The area
was then cleared and order restored.
The Speaker arose and announced the vote.   Yeas
ninety-nine, nays one hundred and seven.  So the engrossment of the bill was again lost!
Mr. Howard, of Texas, moved a reconsideration of the
vote.
Mr. Inge moved to lay that motion on the table.
The Speaker decided that the motion to reconsider
was not in order-as a motion to reconsider the vote on
the third reading of the bill, had been once reconsidered.
Mr. Howard appealed from the decision. The question was, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the House? Pending this question, on
motion of Mr. McClernand, an adjournment took place.
230 
COL. XVI.]    RESTRICTIONISTS DEFEATED.
So closed the second day upon the scenes of strife.
On the 6th of September, the question recurring upon
the appeal from the decision of the Chair, Mr. Duer
moved to lay the appeal on the table. On this question
the yeas were seventy-seven, and the nays one hundred
and twenty-three. So the appeal was not laid on the
table.
The question then was, "Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" On this the
yeas were eighty-three, and the nays one hundred and
twenty-three. So Mr. Speaker Cobb's decision was overruled.
The question now was, Shall the vote by which the
House refused to order the bill as amended to be engrossed for a third reading, be reconsidered? The vote
was yeas one hundred and twenty-two, nays eighty-four.
So the rejection of the engrossment of the bill, was again
reconsidered. The question then recurred, Shall the bill
as amended be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading?   Mr. Howard demanded  the previous question.
On ordering it, there were yeas one hundred and fifteen,
nays ninety-one-and upon the engrossment of the bill
for a third reading, the yeas now were one hundred and
eight, nays ninety-eight.   So Boyd's amendment was
thus finally adopted! The Anti-Restrictionists had won
the day at last!  The Hall was in a general uproar!
Mr. Burt moved to lay the bill on the table. The
vote was, yeas ninety-seven, nays one hundred and
eight. The bill as it then stood amended, was put upon
its passage, and was carried by a vote of one hundred
and eight yeas to nays ninety-seven.
Such are some of the scenes and struggles through
which this new principle, established in the Senate on the
17th of June, passed before its final consummation in
231 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  LVOL. II.
the House on the 6th of September, 1850. This was the
Compromise of that year. The other associated measures all depended upon it. The Senate concurred in the
House amendments thus made to their bill. The other
measures were all soon afterwards taken up and passedthe Utah bill; the bill for the admission of California;
the fugitive slave bill; and the bill forbidding slaves to
be introduced into the District of Columbia, for the purpose of offering them in public market for sale.
It is proper here to state that the Utah Bill thus
passed, embraced within the boundaries of that Territory
a portion of the Louisiana cession to which the old Missouri Restriction applied. It embraced that portion of
this cession lying on the head-waters of the Colorado
River, known as the Middle Park, "so glowingly described
by Colonel Fremont;" while the New Mexico Bill embraced a degree and ahalf of latitude, and nearly four
degrees of longitude, of that portion of Territory north
of 360 30', which was covered by the Congressional exclusion of Slavery, as provided by the Resolutions under
which Texas became incorporated as a State into the
Union. This is seen by a perusal of these acts.* The
new principle now established, removed these old Restrictions so far as they came within the range of its
action, at the time, and the establishment of this new
Territorial principle, was the real and only Compromise
of 1850. The other measures, except the District Slavetrade Bill, were but cognate accompaniments.
In procuring the establishment of this new principle
there was no other threat, menace, or bluster, on the
part of Southern Senators and Members, except the firm
and determined declaration that their States would not
remain in the Union, when it became a fixed fact that
* United States Statutes at Large, vol. ix, pages 447 and 453.
232 
COL. XVI.] ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE.  233
the principle of a division of the public domain between
the opposing Sections had been forever repudiated, unless Territorial Restriction by Congress should be totally
abandoned, and unless the principles of the Federal Constitution should be adhered to in good faith on this question on the part of their Northern Confederates.<  The
Compromise was an agreement on the part of the slaveholdirng States to continue in the Union, in consideration
of these renewed pledges on the part of the non-slaveholding States, through their Members and Senators, to
abide by the Constitution. It is true, Southern Members
and Senators were far from being unanimous in favor of
this Compromise. A protest against the admission of
California was presented to the Senate, the 14th of
August, signed by Messrs. Hunter and Mason, Senators
of Virginia; Messrs. Butler and Barnwell, of South Carolina; and Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, and some others:
while thirty Members in the House, from the South,
voted against the bill, which we have just traced through
its perils to its final passage, and which embraced the
principle of the Compromise, as we have seen.
An analysis of this vote in the House, close as it was,
presents some interesting facts, when made either by
States or per capita. Analyzed by States, it shows that,
in that body, the votes stood fifteen States for it, thirteen
States against it, with two divided. The States voting
for it were New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, Indiana
-five Northern and ten Southern.  The States voting
against it were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont,
New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin,
South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and
Louisiana-eight Northern and five Southern.   The two 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
States divided, were Maine and Rhode Island, both
Northern.
The per capita view of the vote is interesting only as
it exhibits the position of the two great nominal Parties
upon the then living issues of the day-North as well as
South. The one hundred and eight votes by which the
Compromise was carried, were composed of fifty-nine
Democrats and forty-nine Whigs. Of these Democrats,
thirty-two were from non-slaveholding States, and twentyseven from slaveholding States. Of the forty-nine Whigs,
twenty-four were from the non-slaveholding States, and
twenty-five from slaveholding States.   Of the ninetyseven votes against the Compromise, forty-six were Demos
crats, and fifty-one Whigs. Of the forty-six Democrats,
seventeen were from non-slaveholding States, and twentynine from slaveholding States.  Of the fifty-one Whigs,
fifty were from non-slaveholding States, and one from a
slaveholding State.
This exhibition of itself is quite enough to show that
those Southern Whigs to whom  I have alluded, were
right in their opinion at the beginning of the Session,
that the time had come for a reorganization of Parties.
This was the conclusion to which Mr. Clay and Mr.
Cobb, and many other distinguished opposing Party
leaders, came when the struggle was over. This appears
from a paper drawn up and signed by them with over
forty others and published as a manifesto to the country,
that they would in the future support no man for office
either State or Federal, who would not agree to stand by
and support the principles established by these measures.
The effect of this paper, together with the action of the
Georgia State Convention in December, 1850, and the
elections in this State and Mississippi, in 1851, which
were carried by overwhelming majorities under a new
234 
COL. XVI.] ACTION OF DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION.
Party organization styled the Constitutional Union Party,
showed clearly to the two old Parties that their days
were numbered, unless they in their Conventions should
proclaim their determination to abide by the settlement
so made. The Sovereign Convention of this State had, in
December, 1850, as stated, set forth her position on all
these questions in a series of Resolutions which became
famous as the Georgia Platform, and gave to her the
appellation of the Union State as well as the Empire
State of the South.* Upon the principles announced in
this Platform, Mr. Howell Cobb was triumphantly
elected Governor, in 1851, over Mr. Charles J. McDonald,
who had been twice Governor before, and who was thought
to be, personally, the most popular man at that time in the
State. On the same principles, Mr. Henry S. Foote was
elected Governor of Mississippi the same year, over Mr.
Jefferson Davis. McDonald and Davis were run by
those of all Parties who were opposed to the Compromise
Measures. The truth is an overwhelming majority of
the people, North as well as South, were in favor of
maintaining the principles affirmed by the Measures of
1850. This is apparent from the action of both the two
great nominal Parties, Whig and Democratic, when they
met in their respective Conventions to nominate candidates for President in 1852. The Democratic Convention assembled in Baltimore, on the 1st of June of that
year, and endorsed these measures by Resolutions in the
following words:
"Resolved, That Congress  has no power under the
Constitution, to interfere with, or control the domestic
Institutions of the several States, and that such States
are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining
to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution;
* See Appendix, B.
235 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
that all efforts of the Abolitionists, or others, made to
induce Congress to interfere with questions of Slavery,
or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable
tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and
endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and
ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our
political institutions.
"Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers, and
was intended to embrace, the whole subject of Slavery
agitation in Congress; and, therefore, the Democratic
Party of the Union, standing on this National Platform,
will abide by, and adhere to a faithful execution of the
Acts known as the Compromise Measures, settled by the
last Congress-' the Act for reclaiming fugitives from
service or labor,' included; which Act being designed to
carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity, thereto, be repealed, nor so changed as
to destroy or impair its efficiency."
The Whig Convention, which met at the same place,
on the 16th of June, gave them an endorsement, in
words, even more pointed and explicit. The language
used by that body, is as follows:
"1. That the Government of the United States is of a
limited character, and it is confined to the exercise of
powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such
as may be necessary and proper for carrying the granted
powers into full execution; and that all powers not thus
granted, or necessarily implied, are expressly reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
"7. That the Federal and State Governments are
parts of one system, alike, necessarv for the common
236 
COL. XVI.] RESOLUTIONS OF THE WHIG PARTY.
prosperity, peace, and security, and ought to be regarded
alike, with a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment. Respect for the authority of each, and the acquiescence in just Constitutional measures of each, are duties
required by the plainest considerations of National, of
State, and of individual welfare.
"8. That the series of acts of the 31st Congress,
known as the Compromise Measures of 1850-the act
known as the Fugitive Slave Law included-are received
and acquiesced in by the Whig Party of the United
States as a settlement, in principle and substance, of the
dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace;
and, so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them,
and insist on their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation, to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one
hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other-not
impairing their present efficiency; and we deprecate all
further agitation of the questions thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to
continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever,
or however the attempt may be made; and we will maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the
Whig Party and the integrity of the Union."
These Resolutions, Mr. Greeley styles the "Southern
Platform," and speaks of it as having been "imposed"
upon the Convention by the "Southern Delegates."  According to his idea, it was but another dictation of the
" Slave Power."* This is certainly a very great mistake. My opinion is, that it was drawn up by Northern
delegates, or Northern men, at least. All that I know
about it is, that Mr. Choate, of Massachusetts, a delegate
to the Convention, was with Mr. Webster a few days be
* American Conflict, vol. i, p. 223.
237
I 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
fore its meeting. Mr. Webster called over to my quarters, while Mr. Choate was still with him [we lived in
adjacent houses], and submitted to me a series of Resolutions prepared to be offered to the Convention. They
were substantially the Resolutions which were adopted.
The eighth one in particular, I think, is just as it then
was, with one exception.  The words "in principle and
substance" were not then in it. Having been struck
with the point and force of these words, which he had
used in a letter published some time before, and the great
appropriateness of the same words in Mr. Fillmore's message, in December 1851, I suggested to him to put them
in this Resolution after the word  "settlement."   He
instantly assented, and interlined them himself on my
table. I saw them afterwards in the report of the Committee of the Convention on Resolutions as they now
stold.   Mr. George  Ashmun, of Massachusetts, was
Chairman of that Committee. My opinion then was, and
now is, that these Resolutions were prepared by the
Northern friends of Mr. Webster, at his house, and met
with his full concurrence. Southern friends were doubtless consulted, but they did nothing in relation to them
which could be justly styled as imposing them upon the
Convention. Mr. Ashmun, Chairman of the Committee on
Resolutions, in his speech on reporting the whole series,
stated that they had been agreed to by the Committee by
an almost unanimous vote. Mr. Dayton, of New Jersey,
who in his place in the Senate, had been a most decided
and earnest advocate of Territorial Restriction, while that
question was open, now as member of this Convention,
gave this Resolution his emphatic endorsement.   The
published proceedings show these striking facts. On the
adoption of the whole platform, with this Resolution in it,
the per capita vote stood two hundred and twenty-seven
238 
COL. XVI.] REFUTATION OF MR. GREELEY'S STATEMENT. 239
yeas to sixty-five nays.* By States the vote in Convention stood twenty-seven States for the platform, three
States only against it, and one State divided. The three
States against it, were New York, Ohio, and Michigan.
The State equally divided-four delegates for-and four
against it-was Maine. Every other State of the Union,
by their delegates in that Convention, affirmed and endorsed it.
How in the face of these facts Mr. Greeley could have
stated, as a historic truth, that the Platform was imposed
upon the Convention by Southern Delegates, I cannot
well perceive. Another equally singular error is made by
him in stating that General Scott, who was nominated,
"made haste to plant himself unequivocally and thoroughly
on the platform thus erected." The truth is, General
Scott refused to express any direct approval of the platform, when he knew that the support of a large class of
persons at the South, including Mr. Toombs and myself.
and other Members of Congress, who had before 1850,
acted with the Whlig Party, depended upon his giving
an unequivocal endorsement of that portion of it relating
to the Compromise.  He acted, as was supposed, under
the advisement of Mr. Seward, then in the Senate, from
New York, who was on intimate terms with him-was
one of his most active friends in procuring his nomination, and who was known to be very much opposed to
the platform.  To this refusal of General Scott "to plant
himself unequivocally and thoroughly on the platform thus
erected," in my judgment, his great defeat was mainly
owing. Mr. Pierce, who received the Democratic nomination, gave these measures his cordial approval, as well
as another Resolution of the Democratic Convention, reaffirming the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of
* National ltelligencer, June 19th, 1852. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
1798-99. He it is known carried every State in the
Union except four.
Was there ever a more general and decided popular
approval of any measure, than that given by the people
and States of this Union, in that election, to the establishment of this new principle on the Territorial question? So much, then, for the Compromise of 1850, and
its bearing upon the question of Slavery in the public
domain.....
240 
COLLOQUY XVII.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED-COMPOSITION OF SENATE IN 185-LEGISLATION OF
THAT YEAR-NO REPEAL OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE-IT WAS CARRYING
OUT THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN 1850-CLAMOR OF RESTRICTIONISTS KANSAS WAR OF 1856-TRIUMPH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF 1850 BY THE
ELECTION OF MR. BUCHANAN-HIS DEPARTURE FROM THIS PRINCIPLE
THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT TROUBLES.
MR. STEPHENS. We now come to the last point under
consideration. That is, the legislation of 1854, in which
Mr. Buchanan says the South, for the first time, was the
aggressor. We will soon see how little weight this
assertion, however high the authority from which it
comes, has against the indisputable facts of history.
These facts will show that the legislation of this year,
was in strict conformity with the Territorial principle
established in 1850.
What  then  are  these  facts?   In  the  first place,
what was  the principle  settled, in  1850, upon  the
Territorial  question  which  had  for so  long  a time
caused so great and fearful agitation, both in and
out of Congress? This we have just seen. To repeat
for the purpose of keeping it distinctly in mind, it was
clearly this, that after the principle of division had been
abandoned and repudiated by the North, in the organization of all Territorial Governments, the principle of
Congressional Restriction should be totally abandoned
also, and that all new States, whether North or South of
36~ 30', should be admitted into the Union, "either with
or without Slavery, as their Constitutions might prescribe," at the time of their admission. This was, un      16                                         241 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II
questionably, the principle established in 1850. on this
subject.
Well, then, in 1854, certain portions of the public
domain embraced in the Louisiana cession, not included
in Utah, lying outside of Missouri, and north of 36~ 30',
known as Nebraska and Kansas, became sufficiently
populated to require local Governments. Two delegates
to Congress were chosen, and petitions presented for the
organization of Governments for them by Congress.
Early in this Session, on the 4th of December, 1853, Mr.
Dodge, of Iowa, introduced into the Senate a bill for the
organization of a Territorial Government for Nebraska.
This was referred to the Committee on Territories.
At this time the Senate was changed in its personal
composition very materially from what it was four years
before. Several of the great lights then in it had departed. Some had gone down never more to shed their
splendor upon subjects of earthly investigation. Mr.
Clay survived his last great efforts in restoring peace
and harmony between the Sections only two years. He
sank to rest from all mortal cares in Washington, on the
29th of June, 1852. Mr. Webster followed him within a
few months. He closed his earthly existence the 24th
of October, the same year. William R. King, of Alabama,
who had been elected Vice President on the Pierce ticket,
was also no more.
Others who added lustre to the Senatorial galaxy in
1850, were now filling other posts of honor and trust.
Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, was Secretary of War. Mr.
Benton who had been beaten for the Senate in Missouri,
mainly on account of his vote to recede on the disagreeing vote between the two Houses on the Oregon Bill, in
1848, was now a member of the House of Representatives. Mr. Berrien was in private life. General Cass.
242  
-— 7~~~~~~~ 
COL. XVII.] COMPOSITION OF THE SENATE IN 1854.
General Houston, of Texas, and Mr. Bell, of Tennessee,
of all the most distinguished characters of the former
generation of statesmen who were in the Senate in 1850,
were the only ones who at this time still continued to
occupy their seats in that body. Of the younger members, however, a goodly number were still there.
Amongst these may be mentioned Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, who had in the meantime added greatly to his
fame. For mental vigor and power of debate, he had
already received the general appellation of "The Little
Giant."  Messrs. Hunter and Mason, of Virginia,  Mr.
Seward, of New York, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, Mr. Pearce,
of Maryland, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, who were
all men of great ability, were also still there. Besides
these, and others who might be named, the vacated seats
had been filled by men of a very high order of genius
and eloquence. Amongst the latter class may be mentioned Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr. Clay, of
Alabama, and Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut. So the Senate
of the United States was still, notwithstanding the changes,
a most august body-not inferior to that of Rome in her
palmiest days. This is but a glance at the general character of that Assembly at the time we are now to enter
upon an examination of their proceedings. Nor is this
notice at all out of place considering the grave charge
which has been brought against their acts. To go on
then with the narrative.
Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was still Chairman of the
Committee on Territories. On the 4th of January, 1854,
he reported back Mr. Dodge's Bill with amendments so
changing its language as to make it accord with the
language of the Utah and New Mexico Bills of 1850, on
the question of Slavery, and accompanied his amend
243 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
ments with an elaborate report stating fully the reasons
which had induced the Committee to change its phraseology in these particulars. The sole object was to carry
out the principle established in 1850. In speaking of
this report he said in the Senate:*
"We were aware that from 1820 to 1850, the Abolition doctrine of Congressional interference with Slavery
in the Territories and new States had so far prevailed as
to keep up an incessant Slavery agitation in Congress,
and throughout the country, whenever any new territory
was to be acquired or organized. We were also aware
that, in 1850, the right of the people to decide this question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution, was
substituted for the doctrine of Congressional intervention.
The first question, therefore, which the Committee were
called upon to decide, and, indeed, the only question of
any material importance in framing this bill, was this:
Shall we adhere to and carry out the principle recognized
by the Compromise measures of 1850, or shall we go
back to the old exploded doctrine of Congressional interference, as established in 1820, in a large portion of the
country, and which it was the object of the Wilmot
Proviso, to give a universal application, not only, to all
the territory which we then possessed, but all which we
might hereafter acquire? There were no other alternatives. We were compelled to frame the bill upon the
one or the other of these two principles. The doctrine
of 1820, or the doctrine of 1850, must prevail. In the
discharge of the duty imposed upon us by the Senate,
the Committee could not hesitate upon this point, whether
we consulted our individual opinions and principles, or
those which were known to be entertained and boldly
avowed by a large majority of the Senate.   The two
* Appendix to Congressional GIobe, 33d, Congress, 1st Session, p. 326.
244 
Cor.. XVII.] DOUGLAS ON NON-INTERVENTION.
great political Parties of the country stood solemnly
pledged before the world, to adhere to the Compromise
Measures of 1850,'in principle and substance.' A large
majority of the Senate, indeed every member of the body,
I believe, except the two avowed Abolitionists, [Mr.
Chase and Mr. Summer] profess to belong to the one or
the other of these Parties, and hence was supposed to be
under a high moral obligation to carry out the I principle
and substance' of those measures in all new territorial
organizations. The report of the Committee was in accordance with this obligation."
He then read from that portion of the report in which
the Committee had laid down the principle by which they
proposed to be governed:
"In the judgment of your Committee, those measures
[Compromise of 1850] were intended to have a far more
comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustmnent of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory.   They were designed to
establish certain great principles, which would not only
furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all
time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by
withdrawing the question of Slavery from the Halls of
Congress and the political arena, and committing it to
the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested
in, and alone responsible for its consequences."
He also read the concluding words of the report, which
are as follows:
"The substitute for the bill which your Committee
have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable
action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions
and principles into practical operation, in the precise
language of the Compromise Measures of 1850."
Hie proceeded further to say:
245 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue,
and thereby divert public attention from the real one, by
the cry that the Missouri Compromise is to be repealed
or violated by the passage of this bill. Well, if the
eighth section of the Missouri Act, which attempted to
fix the destinies of future generations in those Territories,
for all time to come, in utter disregard of the rights and
wishes of the people when they should be received into
the Union as States, be inconsistent with the great
principle of self-government and the Constitution of the
United States, it ought to be abrogated. The legislation
of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise, so far as the
country embraced within the limits of Utah and New
Mexico was covered by the Slavery Restriction. It is
true, that those Acts did not in terms, and by name,
repeal the Act of 1820, as originally adopted, or as
extended by the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845,
any more than the report of the Committee on Territories
proposes to repeal the same Acts this Session. But the
Acts of 1850 did authorize the people of those Territories
to exercise'all rightful powers of legislation consistent with
the Constitution,' not excepting the question of Slavery;
and did provide that, when those Territories should be
admitted into the Union, they should be received with,
or without Slavery, as the people thereof might determine
at the date of their admission. These provisions were
in direct conflict with a clause in any former enactment,
declaring that Slavery should be forever prohibited in
any portion of said Territories, and hence rendered such
clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict.
This was an inevitable consequence, resulting from the
provisions in those Acts, which gave the people the right
to decide the Slavery question for themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not necessary to
246 
NEBRASKA BILL.
go further and declare that certain previous enactments,
which were incompatible with the exercise of the powers
conferred in the bills,'are hereby repealed.' The very
act of granting those powers and rights have the legal
effect of removing all obstructions to the exercise of them,
by the people, as prescribed in those Territorial bills.
Following that example, the Committee on Territories
did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section
of the Missouri Act repealed. We were content to
organize Nebraska in the precise language of the Utah
and New Mexican Bills. Our object was to leave the
people entirely free to form and regulate their domestic
Institutions and internal concerns in their own way,
under the Constitution; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the exact terms in which the same
thing had been done, in Utah and New Mexico, by the
Acts of 1850."
Thus stood the Nebraska Bill with these words in it,
"that the legislative power of the Territory shall extend
to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the
Constitution of the United States and the provisions of
this act-" and "the said Territory, or any portion of the
same, shall be received into the Union with or without
Slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time
of their admission," which were transcribed literally from
the Utah and New Mexican Bills of 1850; when on the
17th of January, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, introduced into the Senate a memorial against Slavery generally, and also gave notice, that when the bill to organize
Nebraska Territory should come up for consideration, he
should offer an amendment reaffirming the old Congressional Restriction of 1820.* His amendment was pre
* Mr. Sumner's amendment was in these words:
"Provided, That nothing herein contained, shall be construed to
CoL. XVII.
247 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [YOL. II.
sented informally  and  ordered  to be  printed.    This
opened the whole Territorial question settled in 1850 dce
Provo. If this was Pandora's box, as has been stated, who
opened it? If there was a renewal of the agitation of
the sectional controversy, settled as we have seen, who
made it? Was it made by the friends of the Compro mise. or by its open  and avowed enemies?
It was then that the Restrictionists again raised their
clamor. A manifesto was issued from Washington on the
19th of January, signed by Mr. Sumner and Mr. Chase, and
a few others, calling their clans and hosts to action everywhere. In this they spoke of the old Missouri line of division as a "sacred pledge" which was never to be violated.
This old line of division all at once came to be considered
by them and their allies as a "Solemn Compact."   Three
thousand New England clergymen, assuming to speak in
the name of Almighty God, joined in the chorus. But
when did these men, or any of their class, singly or collectively, ever before acknowledge any binding obligation of
this now  so-called "Solemn  Compact?"   Was  it, when
Missouri was denied admission by them under it? Was
it, when the admission of Arkansas was opposed by them?
Was it, when provision was made for the admission of
Texas? Was it, when a Government for Oregon was
organized? Was it, when this line was voted down for
abrogate or in any way contravene the act of March 6, 1820, entitled' An
act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution
and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the
Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit Slavery
in certain Territories;' wherein it is expressly enacted that' in all that
territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of
Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes
north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated
by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall be, and is hereby forever prohibited.' "-Congressionzal Globe, 33d
Congress, 1st Session, p.186.
248 
KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL.
the last time in the House on the 13th of June, 1850?
Was it, when the proposition was then distinctly made
to them that the South would still abide by this line of
division with the exclusion of Slavery north of it, and
leaving the people South of it to do as they pleased upon
the subject, accompanied with the declaration, that if this
was rejected, then there should be no exclusion anywhere,
but that the people everywhere, in all parts of the public
domain, should be permitted to do as they pleased on this
subject, and that all new States should come into the
Union either with or without Slavery, as their State Constitutions should determine?
We have seen from the facts in the history of this
controversy that, in all these stages of the conflict, the
leaders of this Party utterly repudiated the idea of its
being in any sense whatever "a Compact" binding upon
them. In this view of the case, the supporters of the
settlement of 1850 had but one course to pursue in 1854;
and that was to adhere strictly to their own principles,
leaving the consequences of all agitation which might be
gotten up by the enemies of these principles, to be properly charged to those who renewed the agitation. A few
days after Mr. Sumner's notice of his intended movement,
the Committee on Territories, looking to the extent of
the country, as well as the fact that two separate organizations had been formed in it, and that two delegates had
been sent to Congress asking two separate Territorial
Governments, thought it expedient to divide the country
into two Territories, and to provide Governments for
each separately-one for Nebraska, and the other for
Kansas. A substitute, therefore, for the first bill was reported to the Senate by Mr. Douglas, from the Commnittee
on Territories, on the 23d of January.* This bill provi      * Congressional Globe, 33d Congress, 1st Session, p. 221.
Cob,. XVIl.]
249 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ded for organizing two Territorial Governments instead
of one-one for Kansas, as well as Nebraska. The language in each upon the subject of Slavery, was identical
with that in the first Nebraska bill, with an addition of
some words which we will now notice. Here they are:
"C except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the
admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March
6th, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of
non-intervention by Congress, with Slavery in the States
and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850,
commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and
meaning of this act, not to legislate Slavery into any
Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic Institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
These words made no change in the legal effect of
those already in the bill, as we have seen. They were
deemed necessary, however, by quite a number of Senators to preserve a perfect symmetry in the bill. In
section thirty-two, in that portion of the bill providing a
Government for Kansas, these words had been copied
from section seventeen of the New Mexico Bill of 1850,
"that the Constitution and laws of the United States
which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same
force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as
elsewhere within the United States."
Now, as the eighth section of the act of the 6th of
March, 1820, did have a local application to this country
by its terms, it was thought that a general affirmance of
all laws locally applicable might be construed by some as
a re-enactment of this old exclusion of Slavery, especially
after the intimated movement of Mr. Sumner, notwith
250 
CoL. XVII.] RAGINGS OF THE RESTRICTIONISTS.
standing the entire inconsistency of such a construction
with the other explicit provisions of the bill upon the
subject of Slavery, copied from the measures of 1850, as
I have shown. Hence it was thought both expedient
and proper to add the excepting words stated, to put the
matter beyond all cavil or question as to the true meaning and intent of Congress in the premises. That was,
to adhere strictly to the principles established in 1850.
It was to prevent an erroneous construction by implication.
The same words, in the same connection, were added
to the Nebraska Bill. All the strife which ensued in
1854, upon this bill, as it thus stood, known as the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill, arose therefore, was gotten up and
waged by the enemies of the Compromise of 1850. It
was, indeed, a fierce and bitter contest. The most exciting appeals were made to the passions of the people,
and the heaviest denunciations were hurled against those
who stood by the Constitution and maintained, in this
instance, as they did in all others, their plighted faith to
support, stand to, and abide by the settlement of 1850, on
this subject, both "in principle and substance."  As  a
sample of the ragings of the Restrictionists at this period,
Mr. Greeley, of the Tribune, said, in one of his leaders,
while the measure was before Congress:
" We urge, therefore, unbending determination on the
part of the Northern members hostile to this intolerable
outrage, and demand of them, in behalf of freedom-in
behalf of justice and humanity-resistance to the last.
Better that confusion should ensue-better that discord
should reign in the National councils-better that Congress should break up in wild disorder-nay, better that
the Capitol itself should blaze by the torch of the incendiary, or fall and bury all its inmates beneath its crum
251 
CONSTITUT'IONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  rVoL. II.
bling ruins, than this perfidy and wrong should be finally
accomplished."
But this, and all others of like character, had no effect
upon those who had passed through the perilous struggle
of 1850, in procuring the establishment of the new principle on the Territorial question. They remained firm
almost to a man in both the Senate and the House.
This bill, so worded upon this subject, with one or two
other slight amendments, not varying the sense or effect
of the language given, passed the Senate on the 3d of
March, by a vote of thirty-seven yeas to fourteen nays.*
By a majority of more than two to one on the per capita
vote. By States, the vote stood twenty-one yeas, seven
nays, and three divided. Two-thirds of the States, therefore, gave this legislation in the Senate their emphatic
endorsement. The yeas were New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, and California. The
nays were Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The States divided
were Connecticut, Tennessee, and Texas.
The same bill passed the House with one or two other
slight amendments, not changing the substance on the
main points in the slightest particular, on the 20th of
May,t by a vote of one hundred and thirteen yeas to one
hundred nays. The majority in this branch of Congress,
on the per capita vote, was greater for this confirmation
of the Compromise of 1850, than it had been for the
establishment of the principle upon which it was based
in that year. By States, this vote in the House stood
* Congressional Globe, 33d Congress, 1st Session, p. 532.
t Cong,'essional Globe, 33d Cogrejss, 1st Session, p. 1254.
252 
COL. XVII.]  LEGISLATION OF 1854 DEFENDED.
eighteen yeas to thirteen nays. There were then thirty one States in the Union.
Thus we see that the legislation of 1854 did nothing
but carry out, in good faith, the Territorial principle
established in 1850. There was no aggression in it on
the part of the South. There was no "perfidy," or
"breach of Compact," or "wrong," perpetrated by anybody
in securing its accomplishment. Apart from its being
the fulfilment of a pledge to maintain the principle of
1850, was it not perfectly just and right in itself? What
wrong did the Act contain?  Wrong to whom?  Was it
wrong to the people of the South, one large section of
the Union, to permit them to enjoy an equal and fair
participation of the public domain, purchased by the
common blood and common treasure of all? Was it
wrong to the people of the North to permit those of them
who might emigrate to these Territories, to be as free
there, as they were in their native homes? Was it
wrong and unjust to allow all, from all the States, who
might be disposed to quit their father-land and to seek to
better their fortunes in these rich and fertile plains, to
enjoy the same rights which their fathers did in the
early formation of their State Constitutions and Governments? Whom did the bill wrong? To whom did it
deal any injustice? Was it the slave-the African-whom
a Southern master might take there? How could it be
unjust, even to him? Was not his condition as much
bettered by new lands and virgin soils, as that of his
master? Was not expansion of that portion of Southern
population quite as necessary for their comfort and wellbeing, as it was for the whites? Was it either just, right,
or humane to keep them hemmed in within their then
limits, until by failure of subsistence they should be
reduced to starvation, even in the Slavery view of the
253 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
subject?  Allow me to call your attention to what I said
in the House, when it was under consideration there.
Upon the subject of the Missouri Compromise, which had
then assumed, for the first time, such a sacred form in
the opinion of the opponents of the measure, I said:
"The principle upon which it was based has been
abandoned-totally abandoned-as I have  shown  by
those who now contend for it, and superseded by another,
a later, a better, and a much more national aad republican one. We do not propose to repeal any' Compact'
or to violate faith in any sense-we only invoke you to
stand upon the Territorial principle established by what
is known as the Compromise of 1850. That has already
received the sanction of an overwhelming majority of
the American people, as I doubt not it always will receive when fairly presented. It has been suggested that
if a proposition should be made to extend the provisions
of this bill to the guarantee to the South in the Texas
Annexation Resolutions for tile admission of Slave States
from Texas, south of 36~ 30', that such proposition would
certainly defeat it. By no means, sir; those who reason
thus show nothing so clearly as how little they understand the real merits of the question. That guarantee
secured in the Texas Resolutions, so far as the character
of the Institutions of such States hereafter to be formed,
is concerned-that is, whether they be slave or free-is,
itself, in perfect accordance with the present provisions
of this bill. That guarantee was not that those new
States should be Slave States, but the people there might
do as they pleased upon the subject. The reason that
the guarantee was important, at the time, was, because
the policy of Congressional Restriction had not then been
abandoned. The South never asked any discrimination
in her favor fromn your hands. All that the South se
254 
CoL,. XVII.]  LEGISLATION OF 1854 DEFENDED.
cured by those resolutions, so far as the character of the
States is concerned, was, simply, that they should be
admitted at a proper  time,'either with or without
Slavery,' as the people may determine. As to the number of States, that is a different question. So that if you
should repeal that so-called guarantee for Slave States,
by extending the provisions of this bill to that country,
you would only erase to fill again with the same words.
We ask no discrimination in our favor. All we ask of
you of the North, is that you make none in your own.
And why should you wish to?  Why should you even
have the desire to do it? Why should you not be willing to remove this question forever from Congress, and
leave it to the people of the Territories, according to the
Compromise of 1850? You have greatly the advantage
of us in population. The White population of the
United States is now over twenty millions. Of this
number the Northern States have more than two to one,
compared with the Southern States. There are only a
little over three.millions of Blacks. If immigration into
the Territories, then, should be assumed to go on in the
ratio of population, we must suppose that there would be
near seven White persons to one slave at least; and of
these seven, two from the free States to one from the
South. This is without taking into the estimation the
immense foreign immigration. With such an advantage
are you afraid to trust this question to your own people?
To those reared under the influence of your own boasted
superior Institutions? With all the prejudices of birth
and education against us, are you afraid to let them
judge for themselves?"
In another part of the speech I said:
"Do you consider it Democratic to exercise the high
prerogative of stifling the voice of the adventurous
255 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
pioneer, and restricting his suffrage in a matter concerning his own interest, happiness and government, which
he is much more capable of deciding than you are? As
for myself and the friends of the Nebraska Bill, we think
that our fellow citizens who go to the frontier, penetrate
the wilderness, cut down the forests, till the soil, erect
school-houses and churches, extend civilization, and lay
the foundation of future States, do not lose by their
change of place, in hope of bettering their condition,
either their capacity for self-government, or their just
rights to exercise it conformably to the Constitution of
the United States. We of the South are willing that
they should exercise it upon the subject of the condition
of the African race amongst them, as well as upon other
questions of domestic policy. If they see fit to let them
hold the same relation to the White race which they do in
the Southern States, from the conviction that it is better
for both races that they should, let them do it. If they
see fit to place them on the same footing they occupy in
the Northern States, that is, without the rights of a
citizen, or the protection of a master, outcasts from
society, in a worse condition than that of Cain, who,
though sent forth as a vagabond, yet had a mark upon
him that no man should hurt him-I say, if they choose
to put this unfortunate race on that footing, let them do
it. That is a matter that we believe the people there
can determine for themselves better than we can for
them. We do not ask you to force Southern Institutions,
or our form of civil polity upon them; but to let free
emigrants to our vast public domain, in every part and
parcel of it, settle this question for themselves, with all
the experience, intelligence, virtue and patriotism they
may carry with them. This, sir, is our position. It
is, as I have said, the original position of the South.
256 
COL. XVII.]  ENDORSED BY THE STATES IN 1856.
It is the position she was thrown back upon in June
1850."
Similar views were presented by the advocates of the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill from all sections of the Union. It
was with these views and upon these principles it
triumphantly passed both Houses of Congress, notwith standing the clamor and excitement raised by its op ponents.   It was  with these views  and  upon  these
principles that it received an emphatic endorsement by
tlie Democratic Convention in Cincinnati, in 1856, which
nominated Mr. Buchanan for the Presidency.
In accepting that nominiation so expressly endorsing
this legislation, and making the principle upon which it
was based a part of the Democratic creed, declaring it to
be in strict conformity with the Compromise Measures of
1850, Mr. Buchanan himself, as we have seen, in express
words announced that " this legislation is founded upon
principles as ancient as free government itself." Under
that announcement and by this emphatic endorsement of
this very legislation, he was triumphantly elected President of the United States, over the most powerful efforts
ever before made by the agitators and Restrictionists to
defeat him. He carried the Electoral Colleges in nineteen
States of the Union, while the Restrictionists who voted
for Col. Fremont carried eleven only-one State, Maryland, voted for Mr. Fillmore. The entire popular vote
which the Restrictionists could command for their candidatq, with all their "bluster" about "breach of compact,"
" perfidy," etc., was 1,341,264; while the entire popular
vote throughout the Union against them, given partly
for Mr. Buchanan, and partly for Mr. Fillmore, was
2,802,703.  But Mr. Buchanan's majority over both his
competitors in the Electoral Colleges was sixty.
This election was another most signal condemnation
17
257 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of the principles as well as policy of the Restrictionists
by the people and States of the Union. It was the more
so from the fact that after their utter defeat in the Halls
of Congress, on the principles of the legislation of 1854,
they had openly resorted to the policy of stirring up
bloody strife in the Territories. Large amounts of money
were raised for what were called "Emigrant Aid Societies." The object of these was to send to these Territories as many as possible of the most daring characters to
drive Southern settlers from the Territories by force.
Arms were bought and put in the hands of these despera,
does, thus sent out as warriors and not as peaceful colonists. This was done, too, by many who styled themselves
Ministers of the Gospel? The result, for a time, was what
during this Presidential campaign, was called the " Civil
War in Kansas," which was charged by them and their
allies upon the Legislation of 1854, while in truth the
whole strife was instigated and gotten up by the avowed
enemies of that legislation, enraged by their defeat,
and with the view to kindle a general war in the States,
for the total abolition of Slavery. It was in these Kansas scenes of blood in 1856, that the noted John Brown
first figured, who afterwards closed his career by his
most infatuated "raid" on the United States Armory at
Harper's Ferry, in 1859. All these wild, reckless and
revolutionary measures, so instigated and controlled by
these mischievous  malcontents, did  not prevent  the.
general condemnation stated, in 1856. There can be no
question that there was then a very large majority of the
people of the United States, South as well as North,
devotedly attached to the Union under the Constitution
and who were resolved to maintain, if possible, the Federal
system against all attempts, whether covert or open, at
Centralism or Consolidation.
258 
COL. XVII.]  MR. BUCHANAN-NON-INTERVENTION.   259
Allow me to say, further, that my opinion then was,
and now is, if Mr. Buchanan had adhered to the princi ples on which he was so triumphantly elected, in 1856,
he, or whoever else might have been nominated on the
same platform at Charleston, on which he had been
nominated at Cincinnati, would have been even more
triumphantly elected in 1860.   For, by  the Kansas
policy of the Restrictionists, and from their avowed
sympathy for John Brown in his desperate undertaking
in getting up civil war in Virginia, the supporters of the
Constitution and Union, everywhere, saw that revolution
was their real object, and were ready to give them a
sterner rebuke than ever before. But Mr. Buchanan
did not adhere to the principles on which he had been
elected.   He insisted upon another plank being introduced into the Party Platform, which, however right it
might have been on principle, as an original question,
was, nevertheless, a distinct departure from the doctrine
of strict Non-intervention on the part of Congress, with
Slavery in the Territories in any way, either for or
against which had been agreed upon as the basis of the
final settlement in 1850. This we shall have occasion,
perhaps, to look into hereafter. The result of his policy,
which may be here stated, was the rupture of the Party
by which he had been elected, and the success of Mr.
Lincoln, the candidate of the Restrictionists, by a popular
vote of only 1,857,610, against the combined vote of
2,787,780, cast for the other three candidates voted for,
even with the distractions and bitter feelings growing
out of the rupture. This shows how easily the Restrictionists and Centralists could have been again defeated, if,
by wiser statesmanship, the supporters of the Union, under
the Constitution, on the basis of the Compromise of 1850,
and as carried out by the legislation of 1854, had been 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL. II.
brought, as they might have been, to act in concert in
that election.
I have now gone through with what Mr. Buchanan
was pleased to say in his book on the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the legislation of 1854.
I cannot quit the subject, however, without one other remark, upon another statement by him, in the extract which
I read; and to express my very great surprise, that it
should have been made by him. I allude to what he says
about the Constitutionality of the old Missouri Restriction,
and his assertion that, if "this question had been decided by
the Supreme Court of the United States, to be in violation
of the Constitution, in a case arising before them, in the
regular course of judicial proceedings, the decision would
have passed off in comparative silence, and produced
no dangerous excitement among the people."
Now, it is well known that the Supreme Court did decide this question in the very way and manner spoken
of by him, and that they did decide it to be in violation
of the Constitution, and, therefore, void from the beginning; yet, nothing that Congress had ever done so much
excited the Restrictionists, as this regular and solemn
adjudication did.* By resolves and denunciations in
every form and shape, this entire class of agitators expressed their fixed determination never to be bound by it,
and resorted to all the epithets of abuse they could command to cast odium upon the learned Judges who made
it; especially did they exhaust their vocabulary of
defamation in their attempts to blacken the name of
Chief Justice Taney, who delivered the judgment of the
Court. This eminent jurist, who thus became the marked
object of their vituperations, was no less distinguished for
his public than his private virtues. In all the qualities
*19 Howard's.Rei)orts, p. 393.
260 
COL. XVII.]  THE CRY OF SAVING THE UNION.
which characterize a good citizen, as well as an able
statesman, he had no superior in the country. By his
legal and judicial acquirements, ]le had added new lustre
to that Bench to which Marshall, whom he succeeded,
had already given so much distinction and renown, not
only in this, but in foreign countries.
Enough, however, on this subject.
The facts adduced show that there was no "breach of
Compact" or of "faith," and that there was no "aggression" on the part of the South in the legislation of 1854.
Whatever excitement followed that legislation was gotten
up by the Restrictionists, who would be bound by no
Compact in the premises, not even by the Constitution
itself, which they were sworn to support. These are the
enduring facts of history.
So after all these three last long talks, in which we
have gone over extensive new grounds, we come back to
the point at which we had arrived before, in relation to
the open, palpable, and avowed violation of the Constitution by the Centralists and Restrictionists in the matter
of the rendition of fugitives from service. We have seen,
conclusively, that in that matter the wrong, the aggression, the acknowledged "breach of faith," was on the side
of the non-slaveholding States alluded to, and that in no
instance pointed out by Judge Bynum, as an excuse or
palliation, was there any aggression or breach of faith by
the Southern States. They were ever true to their Constitutional obligations, and resorted to a withdrawal from
the Union only when it became the thorough conviction
of their leading men, that it was the object of the Centralists, by using this question, to accomplish their purpose
of effecting a Consolidated Empire instead of continuing
the Federal Republic. We have seen that by public law*
* Ante, vol. i, pp. 495 to 522.
261 
CONSTII'UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
they had a perfect right to withdraw. In denial of this
right to withdraw, the war was inaugurated, as we have
seen.   The cry, on  the part of those controlling the
Federal Government at the time, of saving the Union,
was but a pretext to cover their design of overthrowing
the Principles of the Constitution. It remains, then, for
us now to proceed, if you have nothing further to say
against these facts, to consider the conduct of the war
thus inaugurated; and, after that, to take some notice of
the results of this conflict of principles, so brought into
physical play on both sides. We will, however, if agreeable to you, take another rest before entering upon these
subjects.
MAJOR HEISTER. I have no objection to the rest, but I
have a question to put to you before you enter upon these
other subjects to which you allude.
2{(2 
COLLOQUY XVIII.
THE DISCUSSION TAKES ANOTHER NEW TURN-MAJOR HEISTER ASKS A QUES TION WHICH PUTS MR. STEPHENS IN A NEW ATTITUDE OF DEFENCE REASONS GIVEN WIIY HE DID NOT FAVOR SECESSION AS A REDRESS OF
WRONGS-CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN CALLED FOR AND PRO DUCED- CHARLESTON AND BALTIMORE CONVENTIONS-THE NEW PLANK IN
THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM-MILLEDGEVILLE UNION SPEECH-THE UNION
PLATFORM IN SECESSION CONVENTION-SPEECH IN THAT CONVENTION IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT DOCTRINE CONSIDERED.
MR. STEPHENS.  Well,  Major Heister, what is your
question?  Are you inclined to join issue with me on
any of the points discussed in our last three Colloquies?
MAJOR HEISTER. No.  My question does not relate to
any of these points. I must admit, as I do, that I was
entirely mistaken in relation to the principle established
by the Compromise of 1850, as well as the nature and
character of the legislation of 1854. I think that you
have shown, that Mr. Buchanan's statement in regard to
the latter was erroneous. But the question I wish to
put to you is this: why you opposed Secession, with the
sentiments you have expressed, and in the face of the
facts you have adduced? It seems to me, if I had been
in Georgia, entertaining the sentiments you did, and in
view of the facts as you have related them, I should
have gone with the Secessionists.
MR. STEPHENS. Ah! that is your line is it? In military
language, you are about to make a flank movement, are
you? You are about to bring some of the experience of
your army training to fields of controversy of a different
263 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
character? Your question entirely reverses the order of
our proceedings, and will require for the present, at least,
a change of front.
Judge Bynum put me on my defence for yielding
obedience to the Ordinance of Secession of my State
after it was passed, and you now put me on a like
defence for not supporting and advocating it in the first
instance. My answer to him has been fully given;
and the reasons which induced me to oppose its passage,
I intended to give when I came to speak of that Ordinance itself: but as you have propounded the question
you have, I may as well give them now as hereafter.
They were perfectly satisfactory to me  at the time, and
are still so; though I very much question if they will, in
the judgment of mankind, be considered as complete a
vindication and justification of my opposition to that
measure, as those given in answer to Judge Bynum will
be deemed a justification of my course after its adoption.
Especially in view of subsequent events. It must, however, be recollected that when one line of policy is adopted instead of another, either in civil or military affairs,
or even in the ordinary business of life, it is impossible
ever afterwards to form any very satisfactory conclusion
as to what would or might have been the results of that
other line which was rejected.
In illustration of what I mean, let me say that if
the views of Nicias instead of those of Alcibiades
had prevailed at Athens, when war against Syracuse
was resolved upon, no one can now, with any assurance, venture to assert what would have been the
difference in the results upon the well-being of that
Commonwealth. So in this instance. What would or
inight have been the result of the line of policy I advocated, can never be positively known. It can only be
264 
COL. XVIII.] CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN.   26 5
considered or appreciated upon the principle of probabili ties. Its merits must ever remain a matter of specula tion only. The reasons, however, by which I was influ enced in the premises, whatever weight they were enti tled to then, at present, or hereafter, I will now proceed
to state.
My opposition to the measure, it must be borne in mind,
was not to the right or power of the -State to secede, or
to any want of conviction that she had ample cause to
justify her in doing it, but solely to the expediency of
the policy of resorting to that measure at the time, and
under all the circumstances, then attending the questions
involved.
PROF. NORTON. Did not a correspondence take place
between you and Mr. Lincoln, after his election, upon
this subject? It seems to me that I have heard that
such a correspondence did take place, and that he had
tendered you a place in his Cabinet.
MR. STEPHIENS. There was a correspondence between
us after his election, but not directly upon this subject,
nor in any manner, whatever, connected with the subject of his Cabinet. That rumor, to whatever extent it
prevailed, was utterly groundless; or if he ever addressed any communication to me on that subject, it
never reached me. His correspondence with me was in
reference to my Union speech on the 14th of November,
1860, to which Judge Bynum alluded at first: and as the
reasons for my course upon this subject, which I was
about to state, appear to a considerable extent in that
speech, perhaps the better way would be to answer both
your questions together, first, by exhibiting that correspondence, and then the speech to which it refers.
Here, then, is the correspondence about which the Professor inquired.  It was given to the public for the first 
CONSTrITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
time in Mr. Cleveland's book, to which I have alluded
before.
Mr. Lincoln's injunction in his second letter (which I
considered as applicable to the whole correspondence,)
was strictly observed until the close of the war. No
"eye" had ever seen his letters except my  Private
Secretaries' into whose hands they fell. Nor did I ever
allude to the subject of any such correspondence between
us, except to Messrs. Hunter and Campbell, as we were
on our way to. the famous Hampton Roads Conference.
I mentioned it to them at that time, that they Tilight be
fully apprized of the personal relations existing between
Mr. Lincoln and myself. He and I had been in Congress together. We had both opposed the policy of the
Mexican war, and had both cordially co-operated together
in the nomination and election of General Taylor to the
Presidency in 1848, as the surest means of arresting a
consummation of that policy. We succeeded in the election, but not in the object. Neither Mr. Hunter nor Mr.
Campbell knew much of Mr. Lincoln, except from his
public acts, after his elevation to the Presidency. Personally, I knew him well, and esteemed him highly; and
to them mentioned this correspondence as evidence of
otr kind relations, individually, anterior to the war.
With this explanation, I show you the letters.  First,
his autograph letter to me, and the copy I kept of my
reply to him; then his second letter to me, and my reply to that: 
266 
I.:
- -I.. e, 
\\
___                     44
I 
s 
t 
i~~~~~
144
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IZ 
I~4
I 
<~>
xj
%'.>* 
4.
< (       j            r              ~        %        ~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~~ 
COL. XVIII.] CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN.
The copy retained of my second letter to him. of the
30th, after the usual heading and address, is in these words:
"Yours of the 22d instant was received two days ago.
I hold it and appreciate it as you intended. Personally
I am not your enemy-far from it-and however widely
we may differ politically, yet I trust we both have an
earnest desire to preserve and maintain the Union of the
States, if it can be done upon the principles and in furtherance of the objects for which it was formed. It was
with such feelings on my part, that I suggested to you
in my former note the heavy responsibility now resting
on you, and with the same feelings I will now take the
liberty of saying in all frankness and earnestness, that
this great object can never be attained by force. This
is my settled conviction.  Consider the opinion, weigh it,
and pass upon it for yourself. An error on this point
may lead to the most disastrous consequences. I will
also add, that in my judgment the people of the South
do not entertain any fears that a Republican Administration, or at least the one about to be inaugurated, would
attempt to interfere directly and immediately with Slavery
in the States. Their apprehension and disquietude do
not spring from that source. They do not arise from the
fact of the known Anti-Slavery opinions of the President
elect.  Washington, Jefferson; and  other presidents are
generally admitted to have been Anti-Slavery in sentiment. But in those days Anti-Slavery did not enter as
an element into Party organizations.
"Questions of other kinds, relating to the foreign and
domestic policy-commerce, finance, and other legitimate
objects of the General Government-were the basis of
such associations in their day.  The private opinions of
individuals upon the subject of African Slavery, or the
status of the Negro with us, were not looked to in the
267 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
choice of Federal officers, any more than their views
upon matters of religion, or any other subject over which
the Government under the Constitution had no control.
But now this subject, which is confessedly on all sides
outside of the Constitutional action of the Government
so far as the States are concerned, is made the'central
idea' in the Platform of principles announced by the
triumphant Party. The leading object seems to be
simply, and wantonly, if you please, to put tile Institutions of nearly half the States under the ban of public
opinion and national condemnation. This, upon general
principles, is quite enough of itself to arouse a spirit not
only of general indignation, but of revolt on the part of
the proscribed. Let me illustrate. It is generally conceded, by the Republicans even, that Congress cannot
interfere with Slavery in the States. It is equally conceded that Congress cannot establish any form of religious worship. Now, suppose that any one of the
present Christian Churches or Sects prevailed in all the
Southern States, but had no existence in any one of the
Northern States-under such circumstances suppose the
people of the Northern States should organize a political
Party —not upon a foreign or domestic policy, but with
one leading idea of condemnation of the doctrines and
tenets of that particular Church, and with the avowed
object of preventing its extension into the common
Territories, even after the highest judicial tribunal of the
land had decided they had no such Constitutional
power! And suppose that a Party so organized should
carry a Presidential election! Is it not apparent that a
general feeling of resistance to the success, aims, and
objects of such a Party would necessarily and rightfully
ensue? Would it not be the inevitable consequence?
And the more so, if possible, from the admitted fact that
268 
COL. XVIII.] CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN.  269
it was a matter beyond their control, and one that they
ought not in the spirit of comity between co-States to
attempt to meddle with. I submit these thoughts to you
for your calm reflection. We at the South do think
African Slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and
politically right.  This opinion is founded ~lpon the iu f riQrity of the Bla    ace.  You, however, and perhaps
a majority of the North, think it wrong. Admit the
difference of opinion. The same difference of opinion existed to a more general extent amongst those who formed
the Constitution, when it was made and adopted. The
changes have been mainly to our side. As Parties were
not formed on this difference of opinion then, why should
they be now? The same difference would of course exist
in the supposed case of religion. When Parties or combinations of men, therefore, so form themselves, must it
not be assumed to arise not from reason or any sense of
justice, but from Fanaticism? The motive can spring
from no other source, and when men come under the influence of fanaticism, there is no telling where their impulses or passions may drive them. This is what creates
our discontent and apprehension.  You will also allow
me to say, that it is neither unnatural nor unreasonable,
especially when we see the extent to which this reckless
spirit has already gone. Such, for instance, as the
avowed disregard and breach of the Constitution, in the
passage of the statutes in a number of the Northern
States against the rendition of fugitives from service, and
such exhibitions of madness as the John Brown raid'
into Virginia, which has received so much sympathy
from many, and no open condemnation from any of the
leading men of the present dominant Party. For a very
clear statement of the prevailing sentiment of the most
moderate men of the South upon them, I refer you to 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
the speech of Senator Nicholson, of Tennessee, which I
inclose to you. Upon a review of the whole, who can
say that the general discontent and apprehension prevailing is not well founded?
"In addressing you thus, I would have you understand
me as being not a personal enemy, but as one who would
have you to do what you can to save our common country.
A word'fitly spoken' by you now, would indeed be
'like apples of gold, in pictures of silver.' I entreat you
be not deceived as to the nature and extent of the danger,
or as to the remedy. Conciliation and harmony, in my
judgment, can never be established by force.  Nor can
the Union, under the Constitution, be maintained by
force. The Union was formed by the consent of Independent Sovereign States.   Ultimate Sovereignty still
resides with them separately, which can be resumed, and
will be, if their safety, tranquillity and security in their
judgment require it. Under our system, as I view it,
there is no rightful power in the General Government to
coerce a State, in case any one of them should throw
herself upon her reserved rights, and resume the full
exercise of her Sovereign Powers. Force may perpetuate
a Union. That depends upon the contingencies of war.
But such a Union would not be the Union of the Constitution. It would be nothing short of a Consolidated
Despotism. Excuse me for giving you these views.
Excuse the strong language used. Nothing but the deep
interest I feel in prospect of the most alarming dangers
now threatening our common country, could induce me
to do it. Consider well what I write, and let it have
such weight with you, as in your judgment, under all the
responsibility resting upon you, it merits."
This is the whole of the correspondence the Professor
inquired about. It had no influence whatever with me,
270 
COL. XVIII.] NENW ARTICLE IN DEMOCRATIC CREED.  271
in the course I took upon the Ordinance of Secession.
The general views I entertained upon that subject, at
the time, are to be found in the speech referred to by
Mr. Lincoln, as well as in a substitute that was offered
for the Secession Ordinance, ill the State Convention, on
the 19th of January, 1861, and in the speech I made in
this Convention on the Ordinance and the substitute.
To each of these I will presently call your attention in
their order. But, before doing so, it is proper here to
state, that these views were all based upon a firm conviction, on my part, that Mr. Lincoln's election was not,
in any proper sense, an endorsement of the principles of
his Party by a majority of the people of the non-slavehlolding States. I did not think it was to be considered
as anything like a fair exponent of the fixed sentiments
of a majority of even all those States which had cast
their Electoral votes, as they had, for Mr. Lincoln. I
considered it as nothing but the result of the unfortunate
rupture of the Democratic Party, at Charleston, in 1860.
This rupture I also attributed directly to the very injudicious and unwise policy of Mr. Buchanan, before referred to, in insisting upon a new article in the creed of
the Democratic Party, or a new plank in the Platform, as
it was called. A few additional facts must be borne in
mind for a right understanding of the due import of the
Presidential election, in 1860, as I viewed it, and upon
which my convictions were founded.
Be it borne in mind, then, that the new article, so
insisted to be inserted in the Democratic  creed, was
substantially embraced in a resolution proposed to the
regular Convention of that Party, assembled at Charleston,
on the 23d of April, 1860, for the purpose of nominating
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President.
The Resolution was in the following words: 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
"That the Government of a Territory, organized by an
act of Congress, is provisional and temporary; and during
its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal
right to settle with their property in the Territory, without
their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed
or impaired by Congressional or Territorial Legislation."
This Resolution it will be seen contains, in substance,
the fourth and fifth of the series offered by Mr. Davis
in the Senate, on the 29th of February before, and about
which I gave my opinion, when we had them under consideration.* For my views, more at large, however, on
this subject, and the merits of this particular Resolution,
as well as upon its effects on the Presidential election of
that year, I must refer you to two letters, and a speech
made by me, as the events transpired.  Here they are.t
You can examine them, but I must waive their reading
at present, and go on with the brief rehearsal of facts.
The only new principle proposed to be incorporated by
this Resolution into the Cincinnati Platform as it stood,
and which, in other respects, met the general approbation
of the Convention at Charleston, was covered by the two
words, "Territorial Legislation," as they appear in their
connection. The object of it evidently was, to make an
issue with a large class of Democrats, who had ever been
firm against Congress8ional Restriction, on the subject of
Slavery in the Territories, but who, nevertheless, entertained the opinion that the Territorial Legislatures could
Constitutionally regulate the subject of Slavery, or property in slaves in the Territories, as well as property of
any other kind or character.  It was, without doubt,
aimed chiefly at the doctrine of Mr. Douglas, who, it
was well known, held that the people of an organized
*Ante, vol. i, pages 410, 414 and 415.
t See Appendix, C, D, E.
272 
COL. XVIII.] DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS OF 1860.
Territory, through their Legislature, could Constitution ally regulate this subject, as rightfully as the people of a
State. In other words, that this was as rightful a subject
of local legislation, as any other committed to the Terri torial Legislatures, upon the principle established in 1850.
This doctrine of his, upon the rights and powers of the
Territorial Legislatures, in this respect, was what was at
that time called "Squatter Sovereignty." He also, it was
known, was the favorite candidate of a large majority of the
Convention, for the office of President, while a minority
were unwilling to support him under any circumstances.
When this Resolution, therefore, was rejected, quite
a number of the delegates, as is well known, withdrew from the Convention, and after organizing themselves into a separate body, called another Convention, to meet on the second Monday in June, at Richmond, Virginia, for the purpose of nominating candidates on a Platform more to their liking, than that
adopted in 1856, at Cincinnati. The remaining delegates,
constituting a large majority of the Convention as organized, then resolved without doing any further business, to
adjourn, to meet again on the 18th of June, in the city
of Baltimore, with a request to the Democratic Party
of the several States, to supply the vacancies in their
respective delegations, occasioned by the withdrawal of
their delegates. The Convention did so reassemble at
the time stated. After the adjournment from Charleston, Conventions were held in several of the States to
fill the vacancies as requested. But, in the meantime,
the Convention which had been called at Richmond,
was postponed and adjourned to the same time and
place, as that of the regular organization.   Upon  the
reassembling of the regular Convention at Baltimore, on
the 18th of June, another withdrawal took place, headed
18
273 
27.       CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
by Mr. Caleb Cushing, the President, and Mr. Benjamin
F. Butler, of Massachusetts.  A majority of the original
body, however, still remained.   Those who then withdrew, immediately joined the new organization, which
had assembled in another part of the city.
The rupture of the Democratic Party was, therefore,
now complete. Both wings of it put forth their candidates
upon their respective Platforms.   The regular organization, after adopting the Cincinnati Platform, and giving
a pledge to maintain the principles of the decision of the
Supreme Court of thlie United States, in the Dred Scott
case, put in nomination Mr. Douglas, for the Presidency,
and Mr. Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, for the Vice
Presidency.   The other organization, calling itself the
Democratic Party of the United States, after adopting
the same Cincinnati Platform, with the additional plank
respecting the powers of a Territorial Legislature, with
some other less material matters, put in nomination Mr.
John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, for the office of
President, and Mr. Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for that
of Vice President. Mr. Breckinridge was, at that time,
Vice President of the United States, having been elected
to that office, on the ticket with Mr. Buchanan, in 1856.
He was a man of a high order of talents, of most fascinating manners, and of great popularity.   Very  few
contributed more than he did in the House, to the
Kansas-Nebraska legislation of 1854.   Mr. Lane was,
at the time, Senator from Oregon.   Ile had been a
Brigadier General in the Mexican war, where he acquired distinction, and was justly regarded in civil
affairs as a statesman of high order, having ever been
an able defender of the Constitution, according to the
principles of the Jeffersonian school.
In the meanitime, then, while these distractions were
CO-NST1,rUTIO.NALVIEWOFTIIEWAR.- [VoL.11. 
CoL. XVIII.] PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1860.
going on in the Democratic Party, another portion of the
people strongly opposed to the principles and objects of
the Party which supported Messrs. Lincoln and Hamlin,
had met at Baltimore, some time in May, and had pre sented tile names of Mr. John Bell, of Tennessee, and
Mr. Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for the same
offices. Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Hamlin were nominated
by a Convention of their Party, on the 18th of the same
month, at Chicago. Mr. Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, having
declined to accept tile nomination tendered him, the same
position was assigned Mr. Herschel V. Johnson, of
Georgia, who did accept it. Thus the campaign of 1860
was opened, and continued during the canvass with four
full tickets in the field.  That headed by Mr. Breckinridge claimed to be the regular Democratic ticket, and
was understood to be the favorite of.every member of the
Administration; while the ticket headed by Mr. Douglas
claimed, also, and with more right, as it seemed to me, to
be the regular Democratic ticket. The result was not
different from what might reasonably have been expected.
The Restrictionists carried the election, as we have seen,
by a minority vote, owing to this division of their opponents.
It has been supposed by some that this state of things
was brought about intentionally by those who favored
the policy which led to the rupture of the Democratic
organization, with a view to effect the very result which
ensued, in order to avail themselves of it in their ulterior
purpose of dis-union. This, in my judgement, is a great
mistake, at least so far as relates to the action of Mr.
Buchanan, the members of his Cabinet, Mr. Brecklinridge,
Mr. Lane, Mr. Davis, tand an overwhelming majority of
those who advocated that policy. They anticipated no
such results, and were in the main as much disappointed,
275 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
I think, at what occurred, as men ever were at the conse
quences of their own acts. They really hoped and ex
pected the final result to be the election of Mr. Breckin
ridge. They thought he would carry the entire South
and might get enough Electoral votes at the North t(
secure this end, through the Electoral Colleges. But fail
ing in that, they felt quite assured that he would receive
enough Electoral votes at the North and South together
to carry his name in the House of Representatives, where
in case no one of the four candidates should receive 
majority of the votes cast by the Electoral Colleges, the
election, under the Constitution, was to be determined by
the States. And as the majority of the Representatives
in the House, from a majority of the States, was Demo
cratic, but opposed to Mr. Douglas, they considered Mr
Breckinridge's election as certain, if it should in the end
have to be determined by that body.
But again, even failing in the election of Mr. Breckin
ridge in this way, by any factious movement on the par
of the Ilouse of Representatives in staving off the elec
tion, (as the per capita majority in that body was agains
him,) then they looked with confidence to the election of
Mr. Lane as Vice President, either by the Electoral Col
leges, or by the Senate, (which was Democratic,) in case
of the Colleges failing to make a choice of Vice President
upon whom, after being so elected Vice President by the
Senate, would devolve the office of President, under the
Constitution, if no choice for President should be mnad
by the Electoral Colleges, nor by the House of Repre
sentatives, before the 4th of March, 1861. They, there
fore, felt quite assured that the final result would be
the election to the Presidency, of one or the other of
the nominees on their ticket if not Mr. Breckinridge
then Mr. Lane.
276 
ITS EFFEC'I' AT THE SOUTH.
These were their views and expectations, as I under stood them. They were founded in too little regard, if
not too much contempt of the forces of the Restrictionists,
as well as upon too little regard for the effects upon the
Northern mind, of the party warfare that had been made
upon Mr. Douglas. When the candidates entered the
field in June, not a man of this class, perhaps, thought
it to be within the range of probability even, that Mr.
Lincoln and Mr. Hamlin would receive a majority of the
Electoral votes, as they did.   This policy, therefore,
which brought about this state of things, with its results,
viewed in the light of true statesmanship, appeared to
me then, neither prudent nor sagacious. It so appears
still. It risked and perilled, by too many chances, mnatters involving too great and even momentous consequences, upon differences on points comparatively of
entirely too little importance.
The final result was not generally looked for at all in
the beginning of the canvass. When I stated in the
speech, (I referred you to, in Augusta, on the 1st of
September,) that the people need not be surprised to
see the States involved in war, in less than six months,
it was said by many, that "the weakness of my body
was extending to my head;" or in other words, it was
said, I was becoming "crazy."  As the day of election
approached, however, especially after the State elections
at the North, in October, apprehensions as to the result
became serious, and many of the leading men and presses
supporting the ticket headed by Mr. Breckinridge, not
only in Georgia, but in thle States of the South generally,
declared openly for Secession, in case this result should
occur. When it did come, it struck the masses of the
people with general consternation.
These facts have required more time in giving them in
COL. XVIII.]
277 
CONSTITRUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
detail, than I expected; but they are important outside
of this connection, and must be borne specially in mind,
in considering the grounds upon which my convictions
were founded, and on which my action was based.
Hence, while I regarded the success of the Centralists
and Restrictionists in the election of Mr. Lincoln, as a
great public calamity; yet I did not think that all
further maintenance of Constitutional principles was
hopelessly lost by it. The Centralists had, by a minority of the people only, gotten possession of one branch
of the Government only. A majority of the Senate was
still true to the Constitution. The House of Representatives elected to go into office, on the same day with Mr.
Lincoln, had also a large majority in it still true to the
Constitution, and the principles established in 1850.
The changes in this House, at the very same election in
the Northern States, were upon the whole against the
Restrictionists. The Supreme Court was still, also, unfaltering in their firm maintenance of the Constitution
on all these subjects. Hence, I saw no immediate serious
danger from the triumph of the Centralists in the election of Mr. Lincoln, under the circumstances.   He  was
powerless to effect much mischief before the people of the
several States could, under wiser counsels, and better
statesmanship, be brought to act more harmoniously
upon sound principles, on which, in the main, an overwhelming majority of them in the aggregate were agreed.
Having stated so much by way of premise, I now present the views on this subject as expressed in the speech
to which Mr. Lincoln referred in his first letter to me.
This speech, as appears from the correspondence, was delivered before the Georgia Legislature, on the 14th of
November, 1860.  It was entirely extemporaneous, and
was not thoroughly revised by me before publication. In
278 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
reading such parts as are pertinent to the matters we
now have under consideration, you will, therefore, bear
in mind that I read from the newspaper report with the
correction of a few verbal mistakes only, omitting some
parts not pertinent to our present purpose, and which in
the report break the close connection of those parts
which are thus pertinent. It was addressed to that body
on the subject of Secession, in view of the then condition
of public affairs; and in reply, in part, to the idea entertained bv some, at the time, that the Legislature could
resume the delegated Sovereign powers of the State.
Here is what I then said upon these subjects, with the
interruptions and responses of the audience as given by
the reporter. These phonographed "foot-prints," small
matters as they are, possess within themselves  a special
interest, in throwing light upon the temper and spirit of
the times:
"Fellow Citizens: I appear before you to-night at the
request of Members of the Legislature and others, to
speak of matters of the deepest interest that can possibly
concern us all, of an earthly character. There is nothing, no question or subject connected with this life, that
concerns a fiee people so intimately as that of the Government under which they live. We are now, indeed,
surrounded by evils. Never since I entered upon the
public stage, has the country been so environed with
difficulties and dangers that threatened the public peace
and the very existence of our Institutions as now. I do
not appear before you at my own instance. It is not to
gratify any desire of my own that I am here. Had I
consulted my personal ease and pleasure, I should not be
before you; but believing that it is the duty of every
good citizen, when called on, to give his counsels and
views whenever the country is in danger, as to the best
COL. XVIII.]
279 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
policy to be pursued, I am here. For these reasons, and
these only, do I bespeak a calm, patient, and attentive
hearing.
"My object is not to stir up strife, but to allay it; not
to appeal to your passions, but to your reason. Let us,
therefore, reason together. It is not my purpose to say
aught to wound the feelings of any individual who may
be present; and if ill the ardency with which I shall express my opinions, I shall say anything which  may  be
deemed too strong, let it be set down to the zeal with
which I advocate my own convictions.  There is with
me no intention to irritate or offend.
"I do not, on this occasion, intend to enter into the
history of the reasons or causes of the embarrassments
which press so heavily upon us all at this time.  In justice to myself, however, I must barely state upon this
point that I do think much of it depended upon ourselves. The consternation that has come upon the
people is the result of a sectional election of a President
of the United States, one whose opinions and avowed
principles are in antagonism to our interests and rights,
and we believe, if carried out, would subvert the Constitution under which we now live.  But are we entirely
blameless in this matter, my countrymen? I give it to
you as my opinion, that but for the policy the Southern
people pursued, this fearful result would not have occurred.
"The first question that presents itself is, shall the
people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence
of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the
United States?  My  countrymen,  I tell you frankly,
candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they
ought.  In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause
to justify any State to separate from the Union. It
280
I 
UNION SPEECHI OF 1860.
ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Con stitution of the country. To make a point of resistance
to the Government, to withdraw from it because any
man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We
are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of us
have sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the
mere election of any man to the Presidency, and that,
too, in accordance with the prescribed forms of the Constitution, make a point of resistance to the Government,
without becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument
ourselves, by withdrawing ourselves from it? Would
we not be in the wrong? Whatever fate is to befall this
country, let it never be laid to the charge of the people
of the South, and especially to the people of Georgia,
that we were untrue to our national engagements. Let
the fault and the wrong rest upon others. If all our
hopes are to be blasted, if the Republic is to go down,
let us be found to the last moment standing on the deck
with the Constitution of the United States waving over
our heads. [Applause.] Let the fanatics of the North
break the Constitution, if such is their fell purpose. Let
the responsibility be upon them. I shall speak presently
more of their acts; but let not the South, let us not be
the ones to commit the aggression. We went into the
election with this people. The result was different from
what we wished; but the election has been constitutionally held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the
Government and go out of the Union merely on that account, the record would be made up hereafter against
us.
"But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are
against the Constitution, and that, if he carries them out,
it will be destructive of our rights. Let us not anticipate
a threatened evil. If he violates the Constitution, then
COL. XVIII.]
281 
(CONSTITUTILONAL VIEW OF'THE WAR. [VOL. II.
will come our time to act. Do not let us break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, that is the time for
us to act.' [Applause.] I think it would be injudicious
and unwise to do this sooner. I do not anticipate that
Mr. Lincoln will do anything, to jeopard our safety or
security, whatever may be his spirit to do it; for he is
bound by the Constitutional checks which are thrown
around him, which at this time render him powerless to
do any great mischief. This shows the wisdom of our
system. The President of the United States is no Emperor, no Dictator-he is clothed with no absolute power.
He can do nothing, unless he is backed by power in
Congress.   The House of Representatives is largely in
a majority against him. In the very face and teeth of
the majority of the Electoral votes, which he has obtained
in the Northern States, there have been large gains in
the House of Representatives, to the Conservative Constitutional Party of the country, which I here will call
the National Democratic Party, because that is the cognomen it has at the North. There are twelve of this
Party elected from New York, to the next Congress, I
believe.   In the present House, there are but four, I
think. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, there have been gains. In the present Congress,
there were one hundred and thirteen Republicans, when
it takes one hundred and seventeen to make a majority.
The gains in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, and other States,
notwithstanding its distractions, have been enough to
make a majority of near thirty, in the next House, against
Mr. Lincoln. Even in Boston, Mr. Burlingame, one of
the noted leaders of the fanatics of that section, has been
defeated, and a Conservative man returned in his stead.
Is this the time, then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln,
282 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
with this large majority in the House of Representatives
against him, can carry out any of his unconstitutional
principles in that body?
"In the Senate he will also be powerless.  There will be
a majority of four against him. This, after the loss of
Bigler, Fitch, and others, by the unfortunate dissensions
of the National Democratic Party in their States. Mr.
Lincoln cannot appoint an officer without the consent
of the Senate-he cannot form a Cabinet without the
same consent.   Hle will be in the condition of George
the Third (the embodiment of Toryism), who had to
ask the Whigs to appoint his ministers, and was conmpelled to receive a Cabinet utterly opposed to his views;
and so Mr. Lincoln will be compelled to ask of the
Senate to choose for him a Cabinet, if the Democracy
or that Party choose to put him on such terms.  lHe
will be compelled to do this, or let the Government
stop, if the National Democratic Senators (for that is
their name at the North), the Conservative men in the
Senate, should so determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a Cabinet which would aid him, or allow
him to violate the Constitution? Why then, I say,
should we disrupt the ties of this Union, when his
hands are tied-when he can do nothing against us?
"I have heard it mooted, that no man in the State
of Georgia, who is true to her interests, could hold office
under Mr. Lincoln. But I ask, who appoints to office?
Not the President alone; the Senate has to concur. No
man can be appointed without the consent of the Senate.
Should any man, then, refuse to hold office that was
given him by a Democratic Senate?
"Mr. Toombs interrupted, and said, if the Senate was
Democratic, it was for Breckinridge.
"Well, then, continued Mr. Stephens, I apprehend that
COL. XVIII.]
283 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF ITHE WAR.  [VOL. II.
no man could be justly considered untrue to the interests
of Georgia, or incur any disgrace, if the interests of
Georgia required it, to hold an office which a Breckinridge Senate had given him, even though Mr. Lincoln should be President. [Prolonged applause, mingled
with interruptions.]
"I trust, my countrymen, you will be still and silent.
I am addressing your good sense. I am giving you my
views, in a calm and dispassionate manner, and if any
of you differ with me, you can on some other occasion
give your views, as I am doing now, and let reason and
true patriotism decide between us. In my judgment, I
say, under such circumstances, there would be no possible
disgrace for a Southern man to hold office. No man will
be suffered to be appointed, I have no doubt, who is not
true to the Constitution, if Southern Senators are true to
their trusts, as I cannot permit myself to doubt that they
will be.
"My honorable friend who addressed you last nig,ht
(Mr. Toormbs), and to whom I listened with the profoundest attention, asks if we would submit to Black Republican rule? I say to you and to him, as a Georgian, I
never would submit to any Black Republican aggression
upon our Constitutional rights.
"I will never consent myself, as much  as I admire
this Union, for the glories of the past or the blessings of
the present; as much as it has done for civilization; as
much as the hopes of the world hang upon it; I would
never submit to aggression upon my rights to maintain
it longer; and if they cannot be maintained in the Union
standing on the Georgia Platform, where I have stood
from the time of its adoption, I would be in favor of disrupting every tie which binds the States together. I
will have equality for Georgia, and for the citizens of
284 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
Georgia, in this Union, or I will look for new safeguards
elsewhere. This is my position. The only question
now is, can this be secured in the Union? That is what
I am counselling with you to-night about. Can it be
secured? In my judgment it may be, yet it may not
be; but let us do all we can, so that in the future, if the
worst comes, it may never be said we were negligent in
doing our duty to the last.
"My countrymen, I am not of those who believe this
Union has been a curse  up to this time.  True men,
men of integrity, entertain different views from me on
this subject. I do not question their right to do so; I
would not impugn their motives in so doing. Nor will
I undertake to say that this Government of our Fathers
is perfect. There is nothing perfect in this world of
human origin; nothing connected with human nature,
from man himself to any of his works. You may select
the wisest and best men for your Judges, and yet how
many defects are there in the administration of justice?
You may select the wisest and best men for your Legis.
lators, and yet how many defects are apparent in your
laws? And it is so in our Government. But that this
Government of our Fathers, with all its defects, comes
nearer the objects of all good Governments than any
other on the face of the earth, is my settled conviction.
Contrast it now with any on the face of the earth?
"England, said Mr. Toombs.
"Mr. Stephens. England, my friend says. Well, that is
the next best, I grant; but I think we have improved
upon England. Statesmen tried their apprentice hand
on the Government of England, and then ours was made.
Ours sprung from that, avoiding many  of its defects,
taking most of the good, and leaving out many of its
errors, and from the whole our Fathers constructed and
COL. XVIII.]
285 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR  [VOL. I1.
built up this model Republic-the best which the history
of the world gives any account of. Compare, my friends,
this Government withl that of France, Spain, Mexico, the
South American Republics, Germany, Ireland-(are there
any sons of that down-trodden nation here to-night?)
Prussia; or if you travel further east, to Turkey, or
China? Where will you go, following the sun in its
circuit round our globe, to find a Government that better
protects the liberties of its people, and secures to them
the blessings we enjoy? [Applause.] I think that one
of the evils that beset us is a surfeit of liberty, and exuberance of the priceless blessings for which we are ungrateful.  We  listened to my honorable friend who  addressed you last night [Mr. Toombs] as he recounted the
evils of this Government.  The first was the Fishing
Bounties paid mostly to the sailors of New England.
OuLr friend stated that forty-eight years of our Government was under the administration of Southern Presidents. Well, these fishing bounties began under the
rule of a Southern President, I believe. No one of them
during the whole forty-eight years ever set his administration against the principle or policy of them.  It is not
for nme to say whether it was a wise policy in the beginning; it problably was not, and I have nothing to say in
its defence. But the reason given for it was to encourage
our young men to go to sea, and learn to manage ships.
We had at the time but a small navy.  It was thought
best to encourage a class of our people to become acquainted with seafaring life; to become sailors, to man our
naval ships. It requires practice to walk the deck of a
ship, to pull the ropes, to furl the sails, to go aloft, to
climb the mast;  and it was thought by offering this
bounty, a nursery might be formed, in which young men
would become perfected in these arts, and it applied to
286 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
one section of the country as well as to anyr other. The
result of this was, that in the war of 1812, our sailors
many of whom came from this nursery, were equal to
any that England brought against us.  At any rate, no
small part of the glories of that war were gained by the
veteran tars of America, and the object of these bounties
was to foster that branch of the national defence.  My
opinion is, that Mwhiatever may have been the reason at
first, this bounty ought to be discontinued-the reason
for it at first no longer exists.  A bill for this object did
pass the Senate the last Congress I was in, to which my
honorable friend contributed  greatly, but it was  not
reached in the House of Rlepresentatives. I trust that
he will y,et see that he may with honor  continue his
connection with the Governmient, and that his eloquence
unrivalled in the Senate, may hereafter, as heretofore, be
displayed ill having this bounty, so obnoxious to him,
repealed and wiped off from the statute book.
The next evil that my friend complained of, was the
Tariff.  AVell, let us look at that for a moment.  About
the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the
Slave question now is.  In 1532, when I was in college,
South Caroinia wvas ready to nullify or secede from the
Union on this account.  And what have we seen?  The
tariff no longer distracts the public councils.  Reason has
triumphed!  The present tariff was voted for by Mlassachusetts and South Carolina.  The lion and the lamb
lay down together-every man in the Senate and'louse
from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted
for it, as did miy honorable friend himself.  And if it be
true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend,
that every man in the North, that works in iron and
brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the pro
COL. XVIII.]
287 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tection of the government, that stimulant was given by
his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So
we ought not to complain of that.
"Mr. Toombs. That tariff lessened the duties.
"Mr. Stephens. Yes, and Massachusetts, with una,
nimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they
were made just as low as Southern men asked them to
be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reasonand argument, with experience, produced such changes in
the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on
the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected
there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question! and
who can Aay that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may
not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those
questions that now distract the country and threaten its
peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its
ultimate triumph when properly wielded.  [Applause.]
" Another  matter of grievance alluded  to by my
honorable friend, was the Navigation Laws. This policy
was also commenced under the administration of one of
these Southern Presidents, who ruled so well, and has
been continued through all of them since.  The gentleman's views of the policy of these laws and my own do
not disagree. We occupied the same ground in relation
to them in Congress. It is not my purpose to defend
them now. But it is proper to state some matters connected with their origin.
"One of the objects was to build up a commercial
American marine by giving American bottomns the exclusive carrying trade between our own ports. This is a
great arm of national power.  This object wa* accomplished.  We have now an amount of shipping not only
288 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
coast-wise but to foreign countries which puts us in the
front rank of the nations of the world. England can no
longer be styled the mistress of the seas. What American is not proud of the result? Whether those laws
should be continued is another question. But one thing is
certain, no President, Northern or Southern, has ever yet
recommended their repeal.   And my  friend's effort to
get them repealed has met with but little favor North or
South.
"These were three of the grievances or grounds of
complaint against the general system of our Government
and its workings; I mean the administration of the
Federal Government. As to the acts of several of the
States, I shall speak presently, but these three were the
main ones urged against the common Head. Now suppose it be admitted that all of these are evils in the sys.
tem; do they overbalance and outweigh the advantages
and great good which this same Government affords in a
thousand innumerable ways that cannot be estimated?
Have we not at the South, as well as the North, grown
great, prosperous and happy under its operation? Has
any part of the world ever shown such rapid progress in
the development of wealth, and all the material resources
of national power and greatness, as the Southern States
have under the General Government, notwithstanding
all its defects?
"Mr. Toombs.  In spite of it!
"Mr. Stephens. My honorable friend says we have,
in spite of the General Government; that without it I
suppose he thinks we might have done as well, or perhaps
better than we have done. This grand result is in spite
of the Government!  That may be, and it may not be;
but the great fact that we have grown great and power.
ful under the Government, as it exists, is admitted
19
CoL. XVIII.]
289 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
There is no conjecture or speculation about that; it
stands out bold, high, and prominent, like your Stone
Mountain, to which the gentleman alluded, in illustrating home facts, in his record-this great fact of our
unrivalled prosperity in the Union as it is, is admittedwhether all this is in spite of the Government-whether
we of the South would have been better off without the
Government, is, to say the least, problematical. On the
one side we can only put the fact against speculation
and conjecture on the other. But even as a question
of speculation, I differ from my distinguished friend.
What we would have lost in border wars without the
Union, or what we have gained, simply by the peace it
has secured, is not within our power to estimate. Our
foreign trade, which is the foundation of all our prosperity, has the protection of the navy which drove the
pirates from the waters near our coast, where they had
been buccaneering for centuries before, and might have
been still, had it not been for the American navy, under
the command of such a spirit as Commodore  Porter.
Now, that the coast is clear, that our commerce flows
freely, outwardly and inwardly, we cannot well estimate how it would have been, under other circumstances.
The influence of the Government on us, is like that of
the atmosphere around us. Its benefits are so silent and
unseen, that they are seldom thought of or appreciated.
"We seldom think of the single element of oxygen, in
the air we breathe, and yet, let this simple, unseen, and
unfelt agent be withdrawn, this life-giving element be
taken away from this all-pervading fluid around us, and
what instant and appalling changes would take place, in
all organic creation!
"It may be, that we are all that we are, in'spite of
the General Government,' but it mWay be that without it,
290 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
we should have been far different from what we are now.
It is true, there is no equal part of the earth with natural
resources superior, perhaps, to ours. That portion of this
country known as the Southern States, stretching from
the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande, is fully equal to the
picture drawn by the honorable and eloquent Senator, last
night, in all natural capacities. But how many ages,
centuries, passed before these capacities were developed
to reach this advanced stage of civilization?  There,
these same hills, rich in ore, same rivers, same valleys
and plains, are, as they have been since they came from
the hand of the Creator. Uneducated and uncivilized,
man roamed over them, for how long no history informs us.
"It was only under our Institutions as they are, that they
were developed. Their development is the result of the
enterprise of our people under operations of the Government and Institutions under which we have lived. Even
our people, without these, never would have done it.
The organization of society has much to do with the
development of the natural resources of any country ol
any land. The Institutions of a people, political and
moral, are the matrix in which the germ of their organic structure quickens into life, takes root, and develops in form, nature, and character. Our Institutions
constitute the basis, the matrix from which spring all our
characteristics of development and greatness'   Look at
Greece!   There is the same fertile soil, the same blue
sky, the same inlets and harbors, the same Nigean, the
same Olympus-there is the same land where Homer
sung, where Pericles spoke-it is, in nature, the same
old Greece; but it is'living Greece no more!' [Applause.]
:' Descendanits of the same people inhabit the country;
yet what is the reason of this mighty difference? In the
midst of present degradation we see the glorious fragy
COL. XVIII.]
291 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ments of ancient works of art- temples with ornaments
and inscriptions that excite wonder and admiration, the
remains of a once high order of civilization, which have
outlived the language they spoke.  Upon them all, Icha
bod is written-their glory has departed. Why is this
so? I answer this, their Institutions have been destroyed. These were but the fruits of their forms of
Government, the matrix from which their grand development sprung; and when once the Institutions of
our people shall have been destroyed, there is no earthly
power that can bring back the Promethean spark to
kindle them here again, any more than in that ancient
land of eloquence, poetry, and song! [Applause.] The
same may be said of Italy. Where is Rome, once the
mistress of the world? There are the same seven hills
now, the same soil, the same natural resources; nature
is the same; but what a ruin of human greatness meets
the eye of the traveller throughout the length and
breadth of that most down-trodden land!  Why have
not the people of that heaven-favored clime, the spirit
that animated their fathers?  Why this sad difference?
It is the destruction of her Institutions that has caused
it.  And, my countrymen, if we shall, in an evil hour,
rashly pull down and destroy those Institutions, which
the patriotic hand of our Fathers labored so long and so
hard to build up, and which have done so much for us,
and for the world; who can venture the prediction that
similar results will not ensue? Let us avoid them if we
can.  I trust the spirit is amongst us that will enable us
to do it.  Let us not rashly try the experiment of change,
of pulling down and destroying; for, as in Greece and
Italy, and the South American Republics, and in every
other place, whenever our liberty is once lost, it may
never be restored to us again. [Applause.]
292 
CoL. XVIII.]     UNION SPEECHI OF 1860.               293
" There are defects in our Government, errors in our
administration, and shortcomings of many kinds, but in
spite of these defects and errors, Georgia has grown to be
a great State. Let us pause here a moment. In 1850
there was a great crisis, but not so fearful as this, for of
all I have ever passed through, this is the most perilous,
and requires to be met with the greatest calmness and
deliberation.
"There were many amongst us in 1850 zealous.to go
at once out of the Union-to disrupt every tie that binds
us together. Now do you believe, had that policy been
carried out at that time, we would have been the same
great people that we are to-day? It may be that we
would, but have you any assurance of that fact? Would
we have made the same advancement, improvement, and
progress, in all that constitutes material wealth and
prosperity, that we have?
"I notice in the Comptroller-General's report, that the
taxable property of Georgia is six hundred and seventy
million dollars, and upwards-an amount not far froin
double what it was in 1850. I think I may venture to
say that for the last ten years the material wealth of the
people of Georgia has been nearly if not quite doubled.
The same may be said of our advance in education, and
everything that marks our civilization. Have we any
assurance that had we regarded the earnest but misguided
patriotic advice, as I think, of some of that day, and disrupted the ties which bind us to the Union, we would
have advanced as we have?  I think not.  Well, thlen,
let us be careful now, before we attempt any rash experiment of this sort. I know that there are friends whose
patriotism I do not intend to question, who think this
Union a curse, and that we would be better off without
it. I do not so think; if we can bring about a correction 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
of these evils which threaten-and I am not without
hope that this may yet be done. This appeal to go out
with all the promises for good that accompany it, I look
upon as a great, and I fear, a fatal temptation.
" When I look around and see our prosperity in everything-agriculture, commerce, art, science, and every
department of progress, physical, mental, and moralcertainly, in the face of such an exhibition, if we can,
without the loss of power, or any essential right or interest, remain in the Union, it is our duty to ourselves and
to posterity to do so. Let us not unwisely yield to this
temptation. Our first parents, the great progenitors of
the human race, were not without a like temptation when
in the garden of Eden. They were led to believe that
their condition would be bettered-that their eyes would
be opened-and that they would beoome as Gods. They,
in an evil hour, yielded-instead of becoming Gods, they
only saw their own nakedness!
"I look upon this country, with our Institutions as the
Eden of the world, the Paradise of the Universe. It may
be that out of it we may become greater and more
prosperous, but I am candid and sincere in telling you
that I fear if we yield to passion, and without sufficient
cause shall take that step, that instead of becoming
greater or more peaceful, prosperous, and happy-instead
of becoming Gods, we will become demons, and at no distant day commence cutting one another's throats. This
is my apprehension. Let us, therefore, whatever we do,
meet these difficulties, great as they are, like wise and
sensible men, and consider them in the light of all the
consequences which may attend our action. Let us see
first, clearly, where the path of duty leads, and then we
may not fear to tread therein.
"Now, upon another point, and that the most difficult,
294 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
and deserving your most serious consideration, I will
speak. That is, the course which this State should pursue toward those Northern States which, by their legislative acts, have attempted to nullify the Fugitive Slave
Law.
"Northern States, on entering into the Federal Compact, pledged themselves to surrender such fugitives; and
it is in disregard of their Constitutional obligations that
they have passed laws which even tend to hinder or inhibit the fulfilment of that obligation. They have violated their plighted faith. What ought we to do in view
of this?  That is the question.  What is to be done?
By the law of nations, you would have a right to demand
the carrying out of this article of agreement, and I do not
see that it should be otherwise with respect to the States
of this Union; and in case it be not done, we would, by
these principles, have the right to commit acts of reprisal
on these faithless Governments, and seize upon their
property, or that of their citizens, wherever found. The
States of this Union stand upon the same footing with
foreign Nations in this respect.
"Suppose it were Great Britain that had violated some
Compact of agreement with the General Governmentwhat would be first done?  In that case our Ministers
would be directed, in the first instance, to bring the matter to the attention of that Government, or a commissioner be sent to that country to open negotiations with
her, ask'for redress, and it would only be after argument
and reason had been exhausted in vain that we would
take the last resort of nations. That would be the course
toward a foreign Government, and toward a member of
this Confederacy, I would recommend the same course.
Let us not, therefore, act hastily, or ill-temperedly in this
matter.  Let your Committee on the state of the Repub
Coi.. XVIII-I
295
41' 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
lic make out a bill of grievances; let it be sent by the
Governor to those faithless States; and if reason and
argument shall be tried in vain-if all shall fail to induce
them to return to their Constitutional obligations, I
would be for retaliatory measures, such as the Governor
has suggested to you. This mode of resistance in the
Union is in our power.
"Now, then, my recommendation to you would be
this: In view of all these questions of difficulty, let a
Convention of the people of Georgia be called, to which
they may be all referred. Let the Sovereignty of the
people speak. Some think that the election of Mr. Lincoln is cause sufficient to dissolve the Union. Some
think those other grievances are sufficient to justify the
same; and that the Legislature has the power thus to act,
and ought thus to act.  I have no hesitancy in saying
that the Legislature is not the proper body to sever our
Federal relations, if that necessity should arise.
"I say to you, you have no power so to act.  You
,nust refer this question to the people, and you must wait
, hear from the men at the cross-roads, and even the
0roceries; for the people of this country, whether at the
cross-roads or groceries, whether in cottages or palaces,
are all equal, and they are the Sovereigns in this country. Sovereignty is not in the Legislature. We, the
People, are Sovereign! I am one of them, and have a
right to be heard; and so has every other citizen of the
State.  You Legislators-I speak it respectfully- are but
our servants. You are the servants of the people, and
not their masters. Power resides with the people in this
country. The great difference between our country and
most others, is, that here there is popular Sovereignty,
while there Sovereignty is exercised by kings or favored
classes. This principle of popular Sovereignty, however
296 
UNION SPEECH OF ]860.
much derided lately, is the foundation of our Institutions.
Constitutions are but the channels through which the
popular will may be expressed. Our Constitutions, State
and Federal, came from the people. They made both,
and they alone can rightfully unmake either.
"Should Georgia determine to go out of the Union, I
speak for one, though my views might not agree with
them, whatever the result may be, I shall bow to the
will of her people. Their cause is my cause, and their
destiny is my destiny; and I trust this will be the ultimate
course of all. The greatest curse that can befall a free
people, is civil war.
"As to the other matter, I think we have a right to
pass retaliatory measures, provided they be in accordance with the Constitution of the United States; and I
think they can be made so. But whether it would be
wise for this Legislature to do this now, is a question.
To the Convention, in my judgment, this matter ought
to be referred.  Before making reprisals, we should exhaust every means of bringing about a peaceful settlement of the controversy. Thus did General Jackson in
the case of the French. He did not recommend reprisals until he had treated with France and got her
to promise to make indemnifications, and it was only on
her refusal to pay the money which she had promised,
that he recommended reprisals. It was after negotiation
had failed. I do think, therefore, that it would be best
before going to extreme measures with our Confederate
States, to make the presentation of our demands, to appeal to their reason and judgment to give us our ri,ghts.
Then if reason should not triumph, it will be time
enough to make reprisals, and we should be justified in
the eyes of a civilized world.  At least, let these offending and derelict States know what your grievances are,
COL. XVIII.]
297 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
and if they refuse, as I said, to give us our rights under
the Constitution, I should be willing, as a last resort, to
sever the ties of our Union with them. [Applause.]
"My own  opinion is, that if this course be pursued,
and they are informed of the consequences of refusal,
these States will recede, will repeal their nullifying acts;
but if they should not, then let the consequences be with
them, and the responsibility of the consequences rest upon
them. Another thing I would have that Convention to
do. Re-affirm the Georgia Platform with an additional
plank in it. Let that plank be the fulfilment of these
Constitutional obligations on the part of those Statestheir repeal of these obnoxious laws as the condition of
our remaining in the Union. Give them time to consider
it, and I would ask all States South to do the same thing.
"I am for exhausting all that patriotism demands, before taking the last step.   I would invite, therefore,
South Carolina to a conference. I would ask the same of
all the other Southern States, so that if the evil has got
beyond our control, which God in his mercy grant may
not be the case, we may not be divided among ourselves;
[cheers,] but if possible, secure the united co-operation of
all the Southern States, and then, in the face of the civilized world, we may justify our action, and, with the
wrong all on the other side, we can appeal to the God
of Battles, if it comes to that, to aid us in our cause.
[Loud applause.] But do nothing, in which any portion
of our people, may charge you with rash or hasty action.
It is certainly a matter of great importance, to tear this
Government asunder. You were not sent here for that
purpose. I would wish the whole South to be united, if
this is to be done; and I believe if we pursue the policy
which I have indicated, this can be effected.
"In this way, our sister Southern States can be in
298 
UNION SPEECH OF 1860.
duced to act with us; and I have but little doubt, that
the States of New York, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio,
and the other Western States, will compel their Legis latures to recede from their hostile attitude, if the others
do not. Then, with these we would go on without New
England, if she chose to stay out.
"A voice in the assembly-' We will kick them out.'
"Mr. Stephens.  No:  I would  not kick  them out.
But if they chose to stay out, they might.   I think,
moreover, that these Northern States, being principally
engaged in manufactures, would find that they had as
much interest in the Union, under the Constitution, as
we, and that they would return to their Constitutional
duty-this would be my hope. If they should not, and
if the Middle States and Western States do not join us,
we should, at least, have an undivided South. I am, as
you clearly perceive, for maintaining the Union as it is,
if possible. I will exhaust every means, thus, to maintain it with an equality in it. My position, then, in
conclusion, is for the maintenance of the honor, the
rights, the equality, the security, and the glory of my
native State in the Union, if possible; but if these cannot
be maintained in the Union, then I am for their maintenance, at all hazards, out of it.  Next to the honor and
glory of Georgia, the land of my birth, I hold the honor
and glory of our common country. In Savannah, I was
made to say by the reporters, who very often make me
say things which I never did, that I was first for the
glory of the whole country, and next for that of Georgia.
I said the exact reverse of this. I am proud of Georgia,
of her history, of her present standing. I am proud even
of her motto, which I would have duly respected, at the
present time, by all her sons-' Wisdom, Justice, and
Moderation.' I would have her rights, and those of the
COL. XVIII.]
299 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. I1
Southern States maintained now upon these principles.
I1er position now is just what it was in 1850, with
respect to the Southern States.   Her Platform, then
established, was subsequently adopted by most, if not
all the other Southern States. Now I would add but
one additional plank to that Platform, which I have
stated, and one which time has shown to be necessary,
and if that shall likewise be adopted in substance by all
the Southern States, all may yet be well.  But, if all this
fails, we shall at least have the satisfaction of knowing
that we have done our duty, and all that patriotism could
require.
"Mr. Stephens then took his seat, amidst great applause."
This speech shows how earnestly devoted I was to the
Sovereignty of the several States, as well as to the Union
of the States, based upon that Sovereignty. It shows
how profoundly I was impressed with the belief, that the
happiness and prosperity of all the States depended
greatly upon the continued maintenance of the Federal
Union, upon the principles upon which it was founded;
and that I did not then despair of so maintaining it, if
the real and true friends of the Union, on these principles, everywhere, could but be brought to unite their
energies and patriotic efforts to that object. It shows
also that I then did not despair of the prospect of bringing about such united effort.
So much, therefore, for the views presented in the
speech of the 14th of November, 1860.
I come now to the substitute offered for the Secession
Ordinance in the Georgia Convention, to which I referred,
as a further presentation of the reasons of my course. I
shall read only such parts of it in this connection. as
clearly set forth that line of policy which I thlought the
300 
COL. XVIII.] POSITION OF UNION MEN IN GEORGIA.   301
best for the State to pursue. This paper was drawn up
by Mr. Herschel V. Johnson. Of him I may here be per nitted to say a few words.   His eminent ability is well
known. As an orator, he is logical and brilliant. As a
jurist, he stands high in the estimation of the legal profession. He was in the Senate of the United States a
short time, where he acquired considerable reputation
amongst the distinguished men of that body in 1848,
and was afterwards Governor of the State twice, in which
office he added to that reputation, and gained the distinction in the public mind of a statesman of high order.
In the Presidential election, just over, he had been supported for the office of Vice President of the United
States, on the same ticket which bore the name of
Stephen A. Douglas for President.   He was a delegate
from his county in the Secession Conventiofi, and after
consultation with myself, and other delegates entertaining
similar general opinions, he prepared this paper as an
embodiment of our joint views on the subjects, as the
right policy for the State to adopt under the circumstances. So much in advance by way of explanation.
Now, let us look into those parts of this paper to which I
have referred:
"The State of Georgia is attached to the Union, and
desires to preserve it, if it can be done consistently with
her rights and safety; but existing circumstances admonish her of danger: that danger arises from the assaults
that are made upon the Institution of domestic Slavery,
and is common to all the Southern States. From time
to time, within the last forty years, Congress has attempted to pass laws in violation of our rights, and
dangerous to our welfare and safety; but they have been
restrained by the united opposition of the South and the
true men of the North, and thus far the country has 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
prospered, and the South has felt comparatively secure.
Recently, however, events have assumed a more threatening aspect, several of the non-slaveholding States refuse
to surrender fugitive slaves, and have passed laws, the
most oppressive, to hinder, obstruct, and prevent it, in
palpable violation of their Constitutional obligations.
The Executive Department of the Government is about
to pass into the hands of a sectional, political Party,
pledged to principles and a policy which we regard as repugnant to the Constitution.  These considerations, of
themselves, beget a feeling of insecurity which could not
fail to alarm a people jealous of their rights. By the
regular course of events, the South is in a minority in
the Federal Congress, and the future presents no hope of
a restoration of the equilibrium between the sections, in
either House thereof. Hlence the Southern States are
in imminent peril. This peril is greatly augmented by
the recent secession of South Carolina, Florida, Alabama,
and Missisippi, from the Union, by which the Southern
States are deprived of the benefit of their co-operation,
and left in a still more hopeless minority in the Federal
Congress. Therefore, whilst the State of Georgia will
not and cannot, compatibly with her safety, abide permanently in the Union, without new and ample security,
for future safety, still she is not disposed to sever her
connection with it precipitately, nor without respectful
coistilltation with her Southern Confederates.   She invokes the aid of their counsel and co-operation, to secure
our rights, in the Union, if possible, or to protect them
out of the Union, if necessary.  Therefore,
"First.  Be it ordained by the State of Georgia in Sovereign Convention assembled, That Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas,
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri be, and they are
302 
COL. XVIII.] SUBSTITUTE FOR SECESSION ORDiNANCE. 303
hereby respectfully invited to meet with this State, by
delegates, in a Congress, at Atlanta, Georgia, on the 16th
of February, 1861, to take into consideration the whole
subject of their relations to the Federal Government,
and to devise such a course of action as their interest,
equality, and safety may require.
"Be it further ordained, &c., That the Independent
Republics of South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, be, and they are hereby cordially invited to send
Commissioners to said Congress.
"Be it further ordained, &c., That refraining from any
formal demand upon those non-slaveholding States which
have passed them, of the repeal of the Personal Liberty,
and other Acts, in any wise militating against the rendition of fugitive slaves, or fugitives from justice, yet the
State of Georgia, hereby announces her unalterable determination not to remain permanently in confederation
with those States, unless they shall purge their statute
books of all such Acts.
"Be it further ordained, &c., That if, between now
and the time of final action upon the question of her
continuance in the Union, the General Government
should attempt to coerce any one of the States that
have recently withdrawn, or shall hereafter withdraw
therefrom, the State of Georgia will make common cause
with such States, and hereby pledges all her resources for
their protection and defence.
"Be it further ordained, &c., That a Commissioner be
appointed by this Convention to each of the slaveholding States, now members of the Federal Union, to inform
them of the action of Georgia, and to urge their conformity to the policy herein indicated, and that in
response to the request of Alabama, this Convention
will also appoint a Commissioner  to the  Convention, 
CONSTITUTrIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
which she has invited at Montgomery, on the 4th of
February next, who is hereby instructed to urge upon
that Convention so to shape their action, as to conform
to, and co-operate with, that of the proposed Congress at
Atlanta, on the 16th day of the same month.
"Be it further ordained, &c., That, if all effort fail to
secure the rights of the State of Georgia, in the Union,
and she is reluctantly compelled to resume her separate
Independence, she will promptly and cordially unite with
the other Southern States, similarly situated, in the formation of a Southern Confederacy, upon the basis of the
present Constitution of the United States.
"Be it further ordained, That this Convention will
adjourn, to meet again on the twenty-fifth day of February next, to take such action in the premises as may
be required by the proceedings of the Congress, at
Atlanta, and the development of intervening events,
keeping steadfastly in view the rights, equality, and
safety of Georgia, and her unalterable determination to
maintain them at all hazards, and to the last extremity."
This paper was drawn up as stated, and moved by Mr.
Johnson, at first, on the 18th of January, as a substitute
for two Resolutions, on that day submitted by Mr.
Eugenius A. Nisbet, as we shall hereafter see. The
first of Mr. Nisbet's Resolutions declared, that the
State had a right to secede, and ought to secede. The
second proposed the appointment of a Committee for
the purpose of reporting an Ordinance to that effect. It
was in lieu of these Resolutions, Mr. Johnson offered his
as a substitute, and moved to refer both sets of Resolutions to a Committee of twenty-one. It was afterwards
moved as a substitute for the Secession Ordinance, as we
shall see, but it was when it was first offered, at this
stage of the proceedings, that I said what I now submit
304 
COL. XVIII.] SPEECH IN SECESSION CONVENTION.
to your consideration, as a further and last presentation
of the reasons and views, as given to the public, while
these events were transpiring, by which my action in
opposing and voting against Secession was governed.
"Mr. President: It is well known that my judgment
is against Secession for existing causes. I have not lost
hope of securing our rights in the Union and under the
Constitution. My judgment on this point is as unshaken
as it was when the Convention was called. I do not
now intend to go into any arguments on the subject.
No good could be effected by it. That was fully considered in the late canvass, and I doubt not every delegate's
mind is made up on the question. I have thought, and
still think, that we should not take this extreme step
before some positive aggression upon our grights by the
General Government, which may never occur; or until
we fail, after effort made, to get a faithful performance
of their Constitutional obligations, on the part of those
Confederate States which now stand so derelict in their
plighted faith.   I have been, and am  still opposed to
Secession as a remedy against anticipated aggressions on
the part of the Federal Executive, or Congress. I have
held, and do now hold, that the point of resistance should
be the point of aggression.
"Pardon me, Mr. President, for trespassing on your
time but for a moment longer. I have ever believed,
and do now believe, that it is to the interest of all the
States to be and remain united under the Constitution of
the United States, with a faithful performance by each
of all its Constitutional obligations. If the Union could
be maintained on this basis, and on these principles, I
think it would be the best for the security, the liberty,
happiness, and common prosperity of all. I do further
feel confident, if Georgia would now stand firm, and unite
20
305 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL.II.
with the Border States, as they are called, in an effort to
obtain a redress of these grievances on the part of some
of their Northern Confederates, whereof they have such
just cause to complain, that complete success would attend their efforts; our just and reasonable demands
would be granted. In this opinion I may be mistaken,
but I feel almost as confident of it as I do of my existence.
Hence, if upon this test vote, which I trust will be made
upon the motion now pending, to refer both the propositions before us to a committee of twenty-one, a majority
shall vote to commit them, then I shall do all I can to
perfect the plan of united Southern co-operation, submitted by the honorable delegate from Jefferson, and put it
in such a shape as will, in the opinion of the Convention,
best secure its object. That object, as I understand it,
does not look to Secession by the 16th of February, or
the 4th of March, if redress should not be obtained by
that time. In my opinion, it cannot be obtained by the
16th of February, or even the 4th of March. But by
the 16th of February we can see whether the Border
States  and  other non-seceding  Southern  States  will
respond to our call for the proposed Congress or Convention at Atlanta.  If they do, as I trust they may, then
that body, so composed of representatives, or delegates,
or commissioners as contemplated, from the whole of the
slaveholding States, could, and would I doubt not, adopt
either our plan or some other, which would fully secure
our rights with ample guarantees, and thus preserve and
maintain the ultimate peace and Union of the States.
Whatever plan of peaceful adjustment might be adopted
by such a Congress, I feel confident would be acceded to
by the people of every Northern State. This would not
be done in a month, or two months, or perhaps short of
twelve months, or even longer.  Timne would necessarily
306 
COL. XVIII.]  THE ONLY TRUE EQUILIBRIUM.
have to be allowed for a consideration of the question
submitted to the people of the Northern States, and for
their deliberate action on them in view of all their inter ests, present and future. How long a time should be
allowed, would be a proper question for that Congress to
determine. Meanwhile, this Convention could continue
its existence, by adjourning over to hear and decide upon
the ultimate result of this patriotic effort.
" My judgment, as is well known, is against the policy
of immediate Secession for any existing causes. It cannot receive the sanction of my vote; but if the judgment
of a majority of this Convention, embodying as it does
the Sovereignty of Georgia, be against mine; if a majority of the delegates in this Convention shall, by their
votes, dissolve the Compact of Union which has connected
her so long with her Confederate States, and to which I
have been so ardently attached, and have made such
efforts to continue and perpetuate upon the principles on
which it was founded, I shall bow in submission to that
decision."
You thus, Major, have a very full exposition of the
views, motives, and reasons by which I was governed in
my opposition to Secession at the time, and under the
circumstances then existing. I will add that I did not
attach any serious importance to the fact that the equality
which had so long been maintained in the number of the
non-slaveholding and slaveholding States no longer existed. It is true the loss of that equilibrium, or balance
of power, as it was called, caused many at the time to
come to the conclusion that the slaveholding States
could not, with safety to themselves, remain longer in the
Union without some additional guarantee. This we have
seen was the belief of Mr. Calhoun. In this view I did
not concur. The only true equilibrium, or balance of
307 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoLJ. II.
power, in my opinion, under our system, which it was
essential to maintain, was the recognized Sovereignty of
the several States. This was the all powerful check
against aggression upon the rights of any State. This
was the complete Regulator of the entire system This
was my view on the admission of California as it was on
the admission of Oregon. The result showed, that so far
from the admission of those States working injuriously
to the interests of the slaveholding States, by the loss of
this balance of power, so-called, California and Oregon became their allies on all these great Constitutional questions.  California and Oregon were as strongl,y opposed
to the doctrines of the Centralists as the Southern States
were. The Party which supported Mr. Breckinridge in
the election of 1860, looked chiefly to Oregon in the last
resort for the success of their candidate. The Southern
States had been in a minority in the House of Representatives, under the thlree-fifths clause of the Constitution, from
the beginning, yet they, by uniting with the Anti-Centralists of the Northern States, had controlled the actioni
of the General Government, in the main, for sixty years
out of the seventy two of its existence; not by bluster, but
by prudent and wise statesmanship.
In this way they had united in the election, and sustained most of the leading measures of the administration
of Washington for eight years, that of Jefferson for eight,
Madison for eight, Monroe for eight Jackson for eight,
Van Buren for four, Tyler for four, Polk for four, Fillmore for four, Pierce for four, and Buchanan for four;
and with the same wise statesmanship, I saw no reason
why they might not thus preserve the Federal system for
as many more years to come, or for all time to come, by
this continued concert of action between the true friends
of this system, in opposition to the Consolidationists. The
308 
COL. XVIII.] DOCTRINE OF IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT. 309
doctrine of the "Irrepressible Conflict" between  the
Institutions of the several States, was, in my view, itself
the embodiment of Centralism. The Federal Government, in my judgment, so far from being weakened, was
strengthened by the heterogeneous interests of the several
States. Nothing tends more to Centralization of power,
even in a separate State or Nation, than homnogeneousness of interests on the part of its constituent elements.
All progress in Governments, as well as progressive developments in everything else, is marked by successive
steps from the "i simplex to the complex," from the homnogeneous to the heterogeneous. This is tile true law of
progress in all things. In nature, in art, and in science
in all their departments. The chief safe-guards of liberty,
in every political organization, owe their origin to a
diversity of pursuits and a conflict of interests between
its various members.
But I forbear on the present occasion to enlarge upon
this idea.  What I have said is all that I have to give
you in answer to your inquiry. With this I submit the
question: Whether I was right, or whether my reasons
were sufficient to justify my course, at the time, in the
judgment of mankind, I will leave without any reflections upon the course of those who differed from me on
these subjects, for you and others to determine. 
COLLOQUY XIX.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MAIN SUBJECT RESUMED-ACTION OF THE OTHER
SECEDING STATES BEFORE THE FALL OF SUMTER REVIEWED-THE CON VENTION OF GEORGIA-HER ORDINANCE OF SECESSION-COURSE OF THE
UNION MEN OF THE STATE-OTHER ORDINANCES OF THIS CONVENTION ACTION OF OTHER SECEDING STATES SIMiLAR-THE CONGRESS OF MONT GOMERY-PROVISIONAL AND PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONS-ELECTION OF
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY-MR. DAVIS'S
INAUGURAL-COMMISSIONERS SENT TO WASHINGTON-CORRESPONDENCE
WITH MR. SEWARD-EFFECT OF THE " BREACH OF FAITH " AS TO SUMTER
AND THE INAUGURATION OF THE WAR UPON THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE.
MR. STEPHENS. Well, gentlemen, if none of you have
anything further to say upon these matters which have
occupied our attention so long, since our first digression
in considering the defence, made by Judge Bynum, for
the acknowledged dereliction and breach of faith of
several of the non-slaveholding States, we will now again
return to the point at which we had then arrived, and
proceed in our consideration of the grand drama of the
war-that " physical conflict" inaugurated, as we have
seen; and which grew out of that "conflict of principles," which we have so fully discussed and are now
through with.
This war or terrible " conflict" of physical forces is the
greatest of the kind, in many respects, which has disturbed the peace of the world since the Christian era.
Its general conduct, in a political and Constitutional view,
is the next object of our inquiry. The exciting scenes
and stirring events of the battle-fields which marked its
progress do not come within the limits of the special
310 
COL. XlX.]    GRAND DRAMA OF THE WAR.
objects of our investigation. These have been quite
graphically described by many writers, but by none, so
far as I have seen, with greater ability or more impartiality than by Mr. William Swinton in his two works:
the one entitled " The Army of the Potomac;" and the
other, "The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War."  It is
true, he was attached to the Federal side, and therefore
not without bias, but in his general account he has not
shown himself to be incapable, as several others have, of
doing justice to the merits of an opposing and gallant
foe-" to that body of incomparable infantry"-" that
array of'tattered uniforms and bright muskets,"' which
for four years, under Lee, carried the "revolt," as he terms
it, "on its bayonets, opposing a stout front to the mighty
concentration of power brought against it; which receiving terrible blows did not fail to give the like; and
which, vital in all its parts, died only with its annihilation!"
I do not intend, by any means, to say that either of
his works alluded to, are faultless, or even without some
grave errors, which, perhaps, were owing to a want of
access to correct information on matters which belonged
to the Confederate side; but, I mean simply to state, that
upon the whole, I regard these two works from his peil,
as the best and most accurate chronicie of the military
operations, which he undertook to describe, that I have
met with from any quarter.
With these ever so interesting and thrilling scenes,
however, it is not our purpose to deal so directly, as with
the principles, aims, and motives, which gave impulse to
these most wonderful and heroic exploits on both sides
while it raged; and then to take a survey of the ultimate
results, of the intermediate vicissitudes of victory and defeat, and the final fortunes of this uncertain arbitrament
I- -
311 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of arms. In pursuit of these, our main objects, a slight
retrospect is necessary to understand clearly the position
of both Parties politically as well as physically, or in
other words, the principles in the maintenance of which
each was enlisted-the organizations under them, and tlhe
material resources of each for maintaining their principles at the fall of Fort Sumter. This, I was about to
enter upon at our last conversation, when interrupted by
the question of Major Hleister.
To this point in our investigation of these subjects, we
will now return.
After the secession of South Carolina, then, as we have
seen, let it be borne in mind, that the other six States,
before named, followed, by passing similar Ordinances of
Secession.   Mississippi, on the 9th of January, 1861;
Alabama on the 11th; Florida on the 10th; Georgia on
the 19th; Louisiana on the 26th; and Texas on the 1st
of February.  It is unnecessary to examine  all these.
One other only, that of Georgia, I call your attention to.
An examination of the action of this State on this subject must suffice with the general remark, that the action
of the other six States in the premises was of like import
in principle and in substance.
The Convention of Georgia had been called by an Act
of the Legislature, in the month of November, 1860, soon
after the speech made by me before that body, which I
have read. The election of delegates took place, on the
first Monday in January, 1861. The representation of
the counties in this Convention was, by the Act referred
to, equal to their Senators and Members of the House, in
the Legislature. The election was held in conformity to
the laws regulating all public elections in the State as far
as applicable.   I was chosen as one of the delegates to
which this county was entitled. The Convention met at
31.2 
COL. XIX.]  GEORGIA SECESSION CONVENTION.
Milledgeville, the Seat of Government, on the 16th day
of January, 1861. The whole number of delegates was
three hundred and one.
George W. Crawford, Ex-Governor of the State, and
Ex-Secretary of War under General Taylor's Administration, was chosen President of the Convention by acclamation, and Albert R. Lamar, a journalist of considerable
repute, was chosen Secretary.
On the 18th of January, Mr. Nisbet, as stated in our
last conversation, offered his two resolutions; the firstdeclaring that the State had a right to secede and ought to
secede, and the second authorizing the appointment of a
committee to report an ordinance to that effect. It was
as a substitute for these resolutions that the paper prepared by Mr. Johnson, before alluded to, was offered.  A
vote on this paper, at that stage of the proceedings, was
cut off under the operation of the previous question, and
Mr. Nislbet's resolutions were adopted. This Committee,
of which he was Chairman, consisted of seventeen.
Mr. Nisbet was himself a gentleman of great distinction in the State. He had been brought up in the Jeffersonian States' Rights' school of politics.  He had, however,
opposed the doctrine of Mr. Calhoun upon Nullification.
He was a member of the Congress of the United States,
from 1839 to 1843. He supported the election of Mr.
Clay for the Presidency in 1844, with great zeal and ability; and was among the most prominent actors in procuring his nomination to that office by the Whig Party, as
then constituted in this State. He had occupied for a
number of years a seat upon the Bench of our Supreme
Court, where lie had acquired the well-earned reputation
of an eminent jurist. He was a warm supporter of the
position assumed by Georgia upon the Compromise Measures of 1850.  He was afterward a prominent leader in
313 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
what was known as the American Party, and gave his
support to Mr. Fillmore in 1856. In religion and politics, from the time he entered public life, he had been regarded as the embodiment of Conservatism.   For all
those virtues and excellencies which constitute what is
recognized as real worth in private character, no man was
esteemed higher. Such is but a glimpse at the antecedents distinguishing the head and heart of thle mover of
the Ordinance of Secession in Georgia. On the 19th of
January, he, as Chairman of the Committee of Seventeen,
reported that measure in these words:
"An Ordinance to dissolve the Union between the
State of Georgia and other States united with her under
a Compact of Government, entitled'the Constitution gf
the United States of America.'
"We, the people of the State of Georgia, in Conrvention
assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared
and ordained:
"That the Ordinance adopted by the people of the
State of Georgia, in Convention, on the second day of
January, in the year of our Lord, seventeen hundred and
eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United
States of America was assented to, ratified and adopted;
and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments of
the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and
abrogated.
" We do further declare and ordain, That the Union
now subsisting between the State of Georgia and other
States, under the name of the  United States of America,'
is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Georgia is in the
frill possession and exercise of all those rights of Sovereignty which belong and appertain to a Free and Independent State."
'314 
COL. XIX.]  GEORGIA SECESSION CONVENTION.
It was, now, when this Ordinance of Secession was be fore the Convention, that Mr. Benjamin II. Hill renewed
the motion that the paper offered the day before by ExGovernor Johnson be adopted in lieu of the proposed
measure. The object was to get a test vote between the
advocates of the two respective lines of policy. It was
still a matter of doubt or uncertainty how the majority
really stood.  On agreeing to Mr. Hill's motion the vote
was one hundred and thirty-three yeas to one hundred
and sixty-four nays. This showed a decided majority of
thirty-one in favor of the Ordinance for immediate Secession; and upon the direct vote on the passage of the
Ordinance, taken immediately afterwards, there were two
hundred and eight yeas for its adoption, to eighty-nine
nays against it. Whereupon the President said it was
his privilege and pleasure to declare that the State of
Georgia was Free, Sovereign and Independent. My name
was amongst the nays, as well as that of Ex-Governor
Johnson and a large majority of those who agreed with
us, in the main, on the line of policy indicated in those
parts of his paper which I have read. After this a motion was made for all the delegates to sign the Ordinance.
Before the question was put on this motion, Mr. Linton
Stephens, my brother and junior by eleven years, who
was a delegate from the county of Hancock, and a
prominent actor in all these events, and who had voted
against the Ordinance of Secession, drew up and submitted to me a preamble and resolution which he deemed
proper to be passed before the question should be taken
on the motion for the signatures of the delegates to the
Ordinance, or rather as a substitute for it. It met my
full concurrence, and upon my suggestion that it had
better come from Mr. Nisbet, if it met his like approval,
it was so submitted to him, and being highly approved, was
315 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
presented by him to the Convention, in lieu of that other
motion. This Preamble and Resolution were in these
words:
"Whereas, The lack of unanimity in the action of this
Convention, in the passage of the Ordinance of Secession,
indicates a difference of opinion amongst the members of
the Convention, not so much as to the rights which
Georgia claims, or the wrongs of which she complains, as
to the remedy and its application before a resort to other
means of redress:
"And wthereeas, It is desirable to give expression to that
intention which really exists among all the members of
this Convention, to sustain the State in the course of action which she has pronounced to be proper for the
occasion, therefore:
"Resolved, That all members of this Convention, including those who voted against the said Ordinance, as
well as those who voted for it, will sign the same as a pledge
of the unanimous determination of this Convention to sustain and defend the State, in this her chosen remedy, with
all its responsibilities and consequences, without regard
to individual approval or disapproval of its adoption."
This Preamble and Resolution met with general favor,
and was carried without a count. The Ordinance was
accordingly signed by every delegate present except six.
These six entered upon the journal a statement wherein
they declared their purpose to "yield to the will of the
majority of the people of the State as expressed by their
Representatives" and " pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor to the defence of Georgia," etc.
The names of these six are James P. Simmons, of Gwinnett,
James Simmons, of Pickens, Thomas M. McRae, F. H.
Latimer, Davis Whelchel, and P. M. Byrd.
Thus the Convention became unanimously committed
316 
COTL. XIX.] LETTER OF MR. LINTON STEPHENS.
to the maintenance of the Sovereignty of Georgia, however much they had disagreed upon the policy or expediency of her thus resuing the full exercise of her
Sovereign powers under the circumstances.
As a portion of the history of the times, and for the
purpose of throwing additional light upon the general
objects of Mr. Linton Stephens, as well as my own, aimed
at by the Preamble and Resolution drawn up by him,
and which the Convention adopted with so much unanimity, and for the purpose also of throwing additional
light upon what were the prevailing sentiments  and
views of the Union Party of the State, who were then
styled Co-operationists, in contradistinction to Secessionists, it may not be out of place here to present a
letter which he wrote during the canvass for delegates to
this Convention.  It was addressed to Hon. Eli H. Baxter, a distinguished citizen of his county, who belonged
to what was then called the American Party, and who
had supported the Bell and Everett ticket in the Presidential election then just over. The letter was written
on the 29th of November, 1860, and after usual caption
and address, is in these words:
"With a view to the nomination of a ticket, on next
Tuesday, to be run in this county for the approaching
State Convention, allow me to interchange views with
you in relation to the proper policy to be pursued by
that Convention. The greatness of the occasion, and
the incalculable mischief of divided counsels, call, in an
eminent degree, for unanimity among the people of
Georgia, and among the people of the South, in whatever
policy may be adopted. Distraction among ourselves is
the worst possible calamity that can befall us.  Perfect
unanimity I know to be unattainable, but the concllrrence of our people can be attained with the exception
317 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
of a few extreme Union men on the one hand, and a few
extreme Disunion men on the other. I have an abiding
faith that the great bulk of Georgia and of the South,
can be united upon a policy which lies between the two
extremes, and which for that very reason commends
itself to men  of "Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation."
Neither a majority of the Southern States nor a majority
of the people of Georgia, can unite upon any line of
policy, unless there shall prevail a spirit of concession-a
willingness on the part of each man to sacrifice somewhat of his own chosen policy in order that a common
policy may be adopted on which all can stand. The
true wisdom in all emergencies, whether in private life
or in statesmanship, is to strive for that which is the
best attainable; and not for that which, while it appears
absolutely the best, if it could be achieved, yet is plainly
unattainable. And especially should an effort for the
unattainable be avoided, when that effort must result,
as in this case, in the defeat of the good that is attainable.
"A very few men, perhaps, may be found who think it best
to do nothing. That policy is out of the question, and those
who hold to it ought to abandon it for something that can be
accomplished. Another large class think that retaliatory
laws would be the best remedy.   It is possible that
Georgia would be content to try this remedy, and my
own opinion is, that she would be so, if herself alone
wereconcerned. The tendency of a large majority of
Georgia is to Conservatism. But then she has got to act,
not only so as to satisfy herself, but also, (if possible,) to
reconcile her sister Southern States to the policy she may
adopt. She must either tender them such a lead as her
more fiery sisters will accept, or she must accept an extreine lead from them-or there must inevitably be
318 
COL. XIX.]  LETTER OF MR. LINTON STEPHENS.
division and confusion and discord in the Southern
Sisterhood. I think the only remedy which will be
acceptable to some two or three of our Sisters is
Secession; and for the very reason that none other will
suffice them, I believe that Georgia will and ought to
tender that remedy for their acceptance. They desire
to apply it immediately. Georgia will not consent, I
think; and surely Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland,
Kentucky, and Tennessee will not consent to apply it,
except as an ultimatum. If Georgia should declare Secession to be her remedy, but that she will not apply
it, until a fair opportunity shall, have first been given to
the Northern States to recede from the obnoxious laws
which now blacken the faith of some of them, and should
pledge herself to apply it, after such an opportunity
given and rejected, and should earnestly urge all of her
Southern Sisters to co-operate with her on that line of
policy, I have strong faith that the more extreme
States would fall one step back, and  the more Conservative States would come one step forward, and thus
all would stand united upon ground which would preserve our honor and preserve our rights, and which
would  certainly be inainta,ined, because it would  be
defended by a United South.   If this policy should
result in our continuance in the Union, we would remain
under a fila,g which would then be purified from stain,
and would afford protection alike to all over whom it
might wave. If it should result in our going out of the
Union, we would go in solid column, go peacfttully and
without let or hindrance, to make for ourselves the best
new destiny of which we are capable. I will frankly
say, that I do not consider the policy thus indicated to
be the best for the emergency, but I do firmly believe it
to be the best that is attainable. Therefore, I go for it,
319 
CONSTIT'UTIONALI VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
heart and soul. I think it will be about the policy adopted
by the Convention, and that it is acceptable to a very
large majority of the people of Hancock, without regard
to any former Party divisions. Those of us who concur
in it have called a meeting for next Tuesday, to nominate a ticket which will represent a policy that will be
substantially such as I have sketched.
" Now, the question is, who shall compose that ticket?
To avoid all occasion for exciting any Party jealousy, it
is deemed best to have one Bell man, one Douglas man,
and one Breclinridge man, if a man of each class can be
had, who will be a fit representative of the county on so
great an occasion, and who will be a faithful adherent to
the general line of policy indicated in our call, and more
fully explained in this letter.
"Your name has been suggested as one of the ticket. I
need not assure you, that your personal qualifications are
entirely acceptable to me, and to all those who know you,
and it will give me great pleasure to learn that your
views are such as to justify me in using my efforts to
have you put on the ticket. This letter is written without consultation with anybody except Mr. Lane. [Col.
Andrew J. Lane.]  He was absent when the call for a
meeting was signed, but he heartily approves of it. It
was he who suggested your name. I enclose you a copy
of the call as it has appeared in the newspapers. Please
let me hear from you by Saturday's mail."
I read this letter, though hastily written by him at the
time, and not at all intended for the public in any way,
as one of the best and most reliable indclicia of the general
views and sentiments of the Union or Co-operation Party
of this State, during the very heated canvass for delegates
to the Convention, and the views and sentiments by which
they were governed in that body, after the Ordinance of
320 
COL. XIX.]  GEORGIA SECESSION CONVENTION.
Secession was adopted. They were earnest, zealous, and
unremitting in their efforts in support of what they
deemed the best course of policy for the State and the
Southern States to pursue, so long as that was an open
question. But a great object with them, throughout, was
harmony after that question was settled, and a perfect
concert of action by a thoroughly united people, in the
vindication and maintenance of the chosen remedy of
the State, when that was determined upon by her Rep resentatives in Sovereign Convention assembled.
The truth is, in my judgment, the wavering scale in
Georgia was turned by a sentiment, the key-note to which
was given in the words-" We can make better terms out
of the Union than in it." It was Mr. Thomas R. R.
Cobb who gave utterance to this key-note, in his speech
before the Legislature, two days anterior to my address
before the same body. This one idea did more, in my
opinion, in carrying the State out, than all the arguments
and eloquence of all others combined. Two-thirds, at
least, of those who voted for the Ordinance of Secession,
did so, I have but little doubt, with a view to a more cer,
tain Re-formation of the Union, on the general principles
of its Rectification, as set forth in the paper of Mr.
Johnson. In other words, they acted under the impression and belief that the whole object, on that line
of policy, could better be accomplished by the States
being out of the Union, than in it. So much upon that
point.
We  will now  proceed with some further action of
the Convention. Another Ordinance, to which there
was very little, if any opposition, was passed in these
words:
"An Ordinance to resume jurisdiction over those places
within the limits of Georgia, over which jurisdiction has
21
321 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11.
been heretofore ceded to the late United States of America, and to provide for compensation to the said United
States for the improvements erected thereon.
"The people of  Georgia in Convention assembled  do
hereby declare anid ordain,
"That the cessions heretofore made by the General
Assembly of this State, granting jurisdiction to the United States of America, over specified portions of the territory within the present limits of the State of Georgia,
be, and the same are hereby revoked and withdrawn, and
the full jurisdiction and sovereignty over the same, are
hereby resumed by said State.
' Be it further or'dained, That the buildings, machinery, fortifications, or other improvements erected on the
land so heretofore ceded to the said United States, or other
property found therein belonging to the United States,
shall be held by this State, subject to be accounted for ill
any future adjustment of the clainms between this State
and the said United States."
On the 23d of January, a Resolution was passed for the
election, by the Convention, of ten delegates to represent
the State of Georgia in the proposed Congress of such
States as might secede from the Union, to be held at
Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, on the 4thofFebruary ensuing. The number of delegates, so determined
to be sent, was equal to the number of the Senators and
Members of the House to which the State was then entitled in the old Congress. It was under this Resolution,
very much to my surprise I may state, that I was unanimously elected a delegate to the Montgomery Congress.
It was a matter of several days' serious reflection with
me, whether I would accept the trust or not. My final
determination was not made until after the Convention on
the 28th of January, with great unanimity, adopted the
322 
CoL. XIX.]  GEORGIA SECESSION CONVENTION.
following Resolutions which I had drawn up and offered
for their consideration on that day.
" Res8olved, That the delegates sent from this State, by
this Convention, to the proposed Congress to assemble at
Montgomery, Alabama, on the 4th day of February next,
be fully authorized and empowered, upon free conference
and consultation with delegates that may be sent from
other Seceding States, to said Congress, to unite with
them in forming and putting into immediate operation,
a temporary or Provisional Government, for the common
safety and defence of all the States represented in said
Congress. Such temporary or Provisional Government
not to extend beyond the period of twelve months. from
the time it goes into operation, and to be modelled as
nearly as practicable on the basis and principles of the
Government of the United States of America. The
powers of the delegates so appointed by this Convention,
in this particular, being hereby declared to be full and
plenary.
"Be it further Resolved, That said delegates be likewise authorized, upon like conference and consultation
with the delegates from the other States in said Congress,
to agree upon a plan of permanent Government for said
States, upon the principles and basis of the Constitution
of the United States of America, which said plan or Constitution of permanent Government shall not be binding
or obligatory upon the people of Georgia, unless submitted to, approved, and ratified by this Convention."
The conclusion I finally came to was, that it was my
duty to do all I could to preserve and perpetuate the
principles of our model Federal system.
The Convention also sent Commissioners to Virginia,
North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Tennesese, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas to make
323 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
known to the Governors and Legislatures of these States
the position of Georgia, and to invoke their cooperation
with her. The Commissioners so sent to these States, respectively, and in the order in which they are named, were
Henry L. Benning, Samuel Hall, Ambrose R. Wright, D.
C. Campbell, H. P. Bell, William C. Daniel, Luthler J.
Glenn, D. P. Hill, W. J. Vason, and John W. A. Sanford. Mr. Henry R. Jackson was first appointed to Kentucky; but upon his resignation, W. C. Daniel was appointed in his place.  So much  for the action of the
Georgia Secession Convention at present.
The Senators from this State, and Members of the
House, immediately severed their connection with the
Congress of the United States upon being informed of the
passage of her Ordinance of Secession. The same is true
of the Senators and Members of all the other States
named, respectively, with a single exception. Mr. John
E. Bouligney, of Louisiana, continued to hold his seat in
the House of Representatives, notwithstanding the Ordinance of Secession of his State. His case is the only exception. We will now turn our attention to events
elsewhere.
The Congress of Seceded States, called at the instance
of South Carolina, as we have seen, met accordingly, at the
time and place stated. The first day of its session, six
of the States only were present. The delegates from
Texas had not arrived, and did not arrive until after the
organization of a Provisional Government. They came
in soon afterwards, however, and here is a list of the
seven States which, in compliance with the call so made,
did so meet in Congress, with the names of the delegates
by whomn they were represented:
Alabama:-Richard  W.  Walker, Robert H. Smith,
Colin J. McRae, Jno. Gill Shorter, William Parish Chil
324 
COL. XIX.]  CONGRESS OF SECEDED STATES.
ton, Stephen F. Hale, David P. Lewis, Thomas Fearn,
and Jabez L. M. Curry.
Florida:-Jackson Morton, James B. Owens, and J.
Patton Anderson.
Georgia:-Robert Toombs, Francis S. Bartow, Martin J. Crawford, Eugenius A. Nisbet, Benjamin H. Hill,
Howell Cobb, Augustus R. Wright, Thomas R. R. Cobb,
Augustus H. Kenan, and Alexander H. Stephens.
Louisiana:-John Perkins, Jr., Alexander de Cloue't,
Charles M. Conrad, Duncan F. Kenner, Edward Sparrow,
and Henry Marshall.
Mississippi:-W. P. Harris, Alexander M. Clayton,
W. S. Wilson, James T. Harrison, Walker Brooke,
William S. Barry, and J. A. P. Campbell.
South Carolina:-R. Barnwell Rhett, R. W. Barnwell, Lawrence M. Keitt, James Chesnut, Jr., Charles G.
Memminger, W. Porcher Miles, Thomas J. Withers, and
William W. Boyce.
Texas:-Thomas M. Waul, Williamson S. Oldham,
John Gregg, John H. Reagan, W. B. Ochiltree, John
Hemphill, and Louis T. Wigfall.
Of the personnel of this body of men, I may be excused
for saying, in passing, that, taken collectively, I never
was associated with an abler one. There was in it no one
who, in ability, was not above the average of the members of the House of Representatives of any one of the
sixteen Congresses I had been in at Washington; while
there were several who may be justly ranked, for
intellectual vigor, as well as acumen of thought and
oratorical powers, amongst the first men of the Continent
at that time.
They were not such men as revolutions or civil commotions usually bring to the surface. They were men
of substance, as well as of solid character-men of
325 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
education, of readin,g, of refinement, and well versed in
the principles of Government. They came emphatically
within  the class styled  by  Carlyle, "earnest men."
Their object was not to tear down, so much as it was to
build up with the greater security and permanency. The
debates were usually characterized by brevity, point,
clearness, and force.
On assembling, Howell Cobb, of Georgia, who had
filled the Speaker's chair in the Thirty-first Congress
with such rare ability, was chosen the presiding officer
of the body, and J. J. Hooper, of Alabama, who had
acquired an extensive reputation from his connection
with the press and literary publications, was elected
Secretary.
The first subject which engaged attention, after organization, was the rules by which the body should be
governed, and, especially, the manner of voting on all
questions which should come before it.  The number of
delegates which each State had sent was, as in the case
of Georgia, a number equal to the Senators and Members
to which each State had been entitled in the Congress of
the United States, according to the then Federal ratio of
representation. The question was, how should the votes
be taken?  Per capita, or by States?  A Committee was
appointed to report upon this point, as well as upon the
subject of the general rules for the government of the
body in its deliberations. The Chairmanship of this
Committee was assigned to me. The report was that,
as it was a Congress or Convention of States, the vote
should, upon all questions, be taken and decided by
States, without regard to the number of delegates from
the States respectively. The Rules for the government
of the body also introduced a new feature in Parliamentary law, which deserves special attention. It is
326 
COL. XIX.]   CONGRESS OF SECEDED STATES.
that one which does away with the Previous Question;
but substitutes another one for it, which effects all the
good of the Previous Question, and obviates numerous
objections to it. This new Rule established what was
styled "The Question," in lieu of the Previous Question.
Under general Parliamentary law, the Previous Question,
when called and sustained, not only stops debate, but
cuts off all amendments, and brings the House to a direct
vote on the main or first proposition. By the modification of this principle of the general Parliamentary law, as
made by the Rules of the House of Representatives of
the United States, when the call for the Previous Question
is sustained by a majority of the HIouse,,the effect is to
stop all debate and bring the House to a vote, first, upon
the pending amendments, and, then, upon the main or
first proposition, as it may, or may not be amended by
the votes thus taken.  In this way, its operation is to cut
off all amendments, except those pending at the time the
call is sustained. Great inconvenience often results from
this. But by the new Rule referred to, no such effect
follows.  Under its operation, when the House is not
inclined to hear further debate on any pending motion,
any member may call for "The Question," on which the
sense of the House must be immediately taken without
debate, and if the call is sustained by a majority of the
House, the vote is then taken without further debate on
the pending question, whatever it may be. In this way,
the majority of the House can secure a vote upon any
matter they please, in the speediest manner.  This Rule
worked well in all the deliberations of this Montgomery
Convention, and aided greatly in the expedition with
which its business was transacted. The Rules thus reported were unanimously adopted.*
* See Appendix F.
327 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIHE WAR.  [VOL. II.
The next subject which engaged the attention of the
body was the formation of a Temporary or Provisional
Government for the States thus assembled. This matter
was referred to a Committee of which Mr. Charles G.
Memminger, of South Carolina, was constituted Chair man.  I was a member of this Committee.   The result
of their labors was the draft of a Constitution for the
Provisional Government of these States, to be known as
The Confederate States of America. The original draft
of this Constitution, so reported, is substantially the
same as that which was finally adopted. A few changes
only in the report was made by the House.  As it now
stands it received the unanimous sanction of the States
on the 8th of February.*
The next step was the election of officers under that
Provisional Goyernment.  The Provisional Constitution
was adopted at a late hour on Friday night the 8th.  A
motion was then made  to go immediately into the elec tion of officers, but upon suggestion that it would be
better to allow each of the State delegations time to
confer among themselves, it was resolved to defer the
election until next day, Saturday the 9th. On that day,
as is known, Mr. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, received
the unanimous vote of the six States then present, for
the office of President; and in like manner I was elected
to the office of Vice President. Mr. Davis was not at
Montgomery. He was in Mississippi. It was generally
understood from statements made by the Mississippi
,delegation, as well as from others who knew his personal
views upon the subject, that he did not desire the office
of President.  He preferred a military position, and the
one he desired above all others was the chief command
* See Appendix G.
328 
Col,. XIX.] ELECTION OF OFFICERS By TIlE CONGRESS. 329
of the Army, which the States might deem it necessary
to organize.
MAJOR HEISTER. Pray tell us, Mr. Stephens, if you
have no objection, how this came about-how Mr. Davis
came to be chosen President, and you Vice President,
under these circumstances?
MR. STEPHENS. I have no objection to giving' you my
opinion on the subject, as to how Mr. Davis came to be
chosen under the circumstances. It is, however, only an
opinion. I was somewhat surprised myself at both
results as they occurred, but as I took only a very small
part in the elections any way, I cannot speak of my
own knowledge as to but few facts connected with either.
The conclusion I came to, from all the facts I learned
from others before and afterwards, was that the selection
of Mr. Davis grew out of a misapprehension on the part
of some of the delegates of one, or, perhaps, two or three
of the States, in their consultations of the night before, as
to the man that the Georgia delegation had determined
to present. A majority of the States, as I understood,
and afterwards learned, were looking to Georgia for the
President.
MAJOR HEISTER. Who was the man Georgia had determined to present?
MR. STEPHENS. Georgia, at the time, had not acted'in
the matter. Her delegation did not hold their consultation until next morning. Mr. Toombs was the man
whom they then unanimously agreed to present; at least
there was perfect unanimity on the subject, with all the
delegates in attendance. Two, Mr. Hill and Mr. Wright,
were absent. I now speak of my own knowledge. I
was at this meeting of the Georgia delegation, and therein was acted the only part I took in the matter. That
was by making the motion for Mr. Toombs's nomination 
CONSTITUTJIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11
to the Convention, supposing that it would be unanimously
acceptable to that body; but in this meeting, it was
stated after my motion was made, that two or three of the
States in their consultations, which had been held the
night before, had determined to present the name of Mr.
Davis. The fact only, without any reason for it, was
stated.'It was stated also, only as somnething which had
been heard, but not positively known. On this announcement, a committee of our delegation, of which Mr. Crawford was chairman, or perhaps he alone, (I am not certain whether any or how many more were united with
him), was appointed, to ascertain if what had been heard
in relation to the action of the delegations of the other
States referred to, was true; and if it was, it was understood, at the instance of Mr. Toombs, that his name was
not to be presented by Georgia, and that our delegation
would vote for Mr. Davis, and have no contest on the subject.
In this meeting of our delegation, after the announcement alluded to had been made, and the course in reference to it had been resolved upon, Mr. Kenan moved,
that in case what had been stated as rumor should be
found to be true, and the name of Mr. Toombs should not
be presented for the first office, then mine should be for
the second. This motion was cordially seconded by Mr.
Nisbet, and was unanimously agreed to, after a distinct
understanding arrived at, by what I said in reference to
it, which was, that in no event was my name to be presented, unless it was first ascertained positively, that Mr.
Davis's name was to go before the Convention, and not
that of Mr. Toombs, and further, that my name would
be unanimously acceptable to the States and their respective delegations. These points the committee of our delegation was instructed speedily to in1quire into and report
330 
COL. XIX.] ELECTION OF OFFICERS BY CONGRESS.
upon, to the delegation at the Capitol, before the hour of
the meeting of the Convention. Soon after the adjournment of our delegation, Mr. Crawford reported to me, that
upon inquiry, what had been stated in our meeting was
found to be true, and that Mr. Toombs had forbidden the
presentation of his name, and further that my name was
acceptable to all the States, and to every member of the
Convention, as far as he could ascertain, and he believed
it to be acceptable to every one. Being thus informed of
these facts, I did not that day go to the Convention. The
election, however, as is known, was made by ballot. On
the call of each State, the chairman of the delegation
presented the vote of the State for each officer to be chlosen, and upon counting out the votes, the result was as
before stated.
What I learned afterwards from others, upon which I
have expressed the opinion I have, was that some members of the delegations from South Carolina and Florida,
and I believe Alabama too, had heard that Georgia intended to present the name of Mr. Howell Cobb, whom
these members, from old feelings of some sort, produced
in some way in past Party conflicts, were unwilling to
support. The same objections did not apply to Mr.
Toombs. They were perfectly willing to vote for him.
As all these members were willing, however, to harmonize upon Mr. Davis, it was thought best and determined by these delegations, therefore, to present his name,
notwithstanding his known preference for another position.
I will here state that Mr. Cobb is a man of very
marked and positive character. There is nothing negative about him. His convictions are always strong, and
his action is governed by them   When he determines
upon any line of policy, he pursues it with all his ener
331
A 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Voli II.
gies, openly and boldly, without regard to opposition, and
with very little inclination to win by conciliation those
who differ from him, whether in or out of his own Party.
His joining the Constitutional Union organization in
1850-51, and other like acts, had caused strong personal
opposition to him in the Democratic Party, even when
there was no disagreement upon a common line of policy.
This kind of opposition existed not only in this State, but
in the adjoining States. From his general course and characteristics stated, there was generally more opposition to
him, on bare personal considerations, in the ranks of
his own Party than out of it. But for him and his
influence, I think the Georgia Platform would not have
been adopted in 1850; and, but for him and his influence,
I also think that Secession would not have been carried
in Georgia, in 1861. Apart from his own active agency
in this latter matter, his influence I have no doubt controlled the action of his brother Thomas R. R. Cobb,
and brought to bear upon this question his tremendous
agency, to which I have alluded. He and I have been
on the kindest personal relations all our lives, ever
since our college days at least. We have often been
thrown in concert of action politically, and often in
opposition.   We have often discussed questions during
the most exciting times before the people, occupying
opposite sides, but never did a word pass from the lips
of either, on such occasions, to interrupt even for a mnoment our personal kind feelings. In all our differences,
I considered him a truly honorable and magnanimous
opponent, and not only esteemed him personally very
highly, but regarded him as one of the ablest men in
the United States.   His election as President of the
Confederate States would have received my cordial
approval, as did that of Mr. Davis. But of all the
332 
MR. THOMAS R. R. COBB.
men in the Confederate States, I thought Mr. Toombs
was by far the best fitted for that position, looking to
all the qualifications necessary to meet its full requirements.
Whether what I learned about the matter in reference
to this indisposition on the part of some of the delegates
to support Mr. Cobb, which thus induced the presentation of the name of Mr. Davis, was really true or not, I
do not know. I did not inquire specially into it, but
from what I heard and the sources from which I heard
it, I believed it to be true, at the time, and hence the
opinion I have given you. There was, however, no canvassing or electioneering in the usual sense of these
words, I think, by any one. Of this, indeed, I feel quite
confident. General harmony next to the obtainment of a
competent man was the object of all. By all Mr. Davis
was regarded as eminently a Conservative man.
This embraces substantially all the facts I know
about the election of both President and Vice President,
and how in each case it came to be made as it was.
Returning from this digression, therefore, we will proceed. Mr. Davis was immediately sent for by a special
messenger, Mr. William M. Browne, former editor of the
Constitution newspaper in Washington. Meanwhile the
Convention went to work on the second great object before them-the formation of a Constitution for a Permanent Government. Mr. R. Barnwell Rhett, of South
Carolina, was constituted Chairman of the Committee
appointed for this purpose. This Committee consisted
of two from each State. The members from Georgia, on
this Committee, were- Mr. Toombs and Mr. Thomas R. R.
Cobb. This remarkable man deserves special notice. He
was a brother of Howell Cobb, and his junior by several
years, but in natural ability and intellectual culture was
COL. XIX.]
333 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
his inferior in no respect. He had never taken any
active part in politics until after Mr. Lincoln's election.
Before that he had confined himself exclusively to business connected with his profession-that of the lawwith the exception of such portions of his time as he
devoted to ecclesiastical matters and to the duties of a
Professorship in the Lumpkin Law School, which he held
at the time. He was by nature profoundly religious.
He was an elder in the Presbyterian Church, and was a
most devout worshipper, according to the creed of the
Old School General Assembly. At the law, he had acquired a considerable estate, and was in the full tide of
successful practice. Very few men -were capable of performing the amount of physical labor he did. He had
done more in the way of book-making than any man of
his age in the Southern States.  This is seen in the
Reports of our Supreme Court, in his Digest of the laws
of Georgia, and in his part of the'Georgia Code, besides a
very learned work he had published on the Law of
Slavery. So much as a brief outline of his general
character.
Politics, as I have said, he eschewed until Mr. Lincoln's
election, but hardly had the news of this result reached
the State, before he became thoroughly changed in this
respect. A new spirit and life seemed to enter into him.
He then, all at once, became enlisted, soul and body, in
the cause of Secession.  He was seized with a sort of
religious enthusiasm upon the subject, as much so,
almost, as Peter the Hermit was for the rescue of the
Holy Sepulchre. Through the press and on the hustings,
he was unremitting in his efforts.  He canvassed various
parts of the State, and aroused the people by the most
stirring appeals. It was he who gave the key-note to
the sentiment that really carried immediate Secession
334 
COL. XIX.] THE CONFEDERATE STATES CONSTITUTION. 335
in Georgia, as I have stated. He was a prominent actor
in the Convention at Milledgeville, and also in the Convention at Montgomery. In the formation of the Permanent Government, its Constitution and laws, however,
four leading ideas seemed to be his favorites. One was
the name of the new Confederacy, another was the recognition of the Providence of God in the fundamental
law, another was the suppression of the foreign African
Slave Trade, and the other was the prohibition of carrying
the mails on Sunday. He failed in his first object, after
many earnest and eloquent appeals. His wish was that
the Confederate States should be known as "The Republic of Washington."  In his second and third objects,
he was entirely successful, greatly to his gratification;
and he came exceedingly near the accomplishment of his
fourth intensely cherished wish. His motion to prohibit
Sunday mails was at one time lost by a tie vote only.
But let us proceed to examine this instrument.
Here is the Constitution for the Permanent Government as finally unanimously adopted by the seven
States.* It is, as will be seen, based on the general
principles of the Federal Constitution, framed by the
Philadelphia Convention, in 1787, with the amendments
thereafter adopted. Several changes in the details appear. Some of the'more prominent of these may very
properly be specially noted.
The first is in the Pmearible.  In this, the words "each
State acting in its Sovereign and Independent character"
were introduced to put at rest forever the argument of
the Centralists, drawn from the Preamble of the old Constitution, that it had been made by the people of all the
States collectively, or in mass, and not by the States in
their several Sovereign character.
* See Appendix H. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
The official term of the President was extended, in the
new Constitution, to six years instead of four, with a
disqualification for re-election.
The question of the "Protective Policy," as it was
called, under the old Constitution, was put to rest under
the new, by the express declaration that no duties or
taxes on importations from foreign nations should be laid
to promote or foster any branch of industry. Under the
new Constitution, Export duties were allowed to be levied
with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of
Congress.
In passing acts of Bankruptcy, it was expressly declared that no law of Congress should discharge any debt
contracted before the passage of the same. Considerable
controversy had existed on this point under the old
Constitution.
The President, under the new Constitution, was empowered to approve any appropriation, and disapprove
any other appropriation in the same bill, returning to the
House those portions disapproved as in other like cases
of veto.
The impeachment of any judicial, or other Federal
officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any
State, was allowed by a vote of two-thirds of both
branches of the Legislature thereof, as well as by the
House of Representatives of Congress.   The Senate of
the Confederate States, however, still having the sole
power to try all such impeachments.
No general appropriation of money was allowed, unless
asked and estimated for by some one of the Heads of Departments, except by a two-thirds vote in both branches
of Congress. The object of this was to make, as far as
possible, each Administration responsible for the public
expenditures.
336 
COL. X1X.]''THE CONFEDERATE STATES CONSTITUT'ION. 337
All extra pay or extra allowance to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, was positively prohibited as well as all bounties. Great abuses had grown up
under the old system in this particular.
Internal improvements by Congress, another subject
which had given rise to great controversy under the old,
were prohibited by the new Constitution, but Congress
was empowered to lay local duties, to support lights,
beacons, buoys, and for the improvement of harbors, the
expenses to be borne by the navigation facilitated thereby.
The general power of the President to remove from
office was restricted to the extent that he could remove
for special cause only, and in all cases of removal, he was
required to report the same to the Senate, with his
reasons, except in the case of the principal officer in each
of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected
with the Diplomatic service. These, and these only, he
could remove at pleasure, and without assigning any
reasons therefor.
Citizens of the several States, under the new Constitution, were not permitted to sue each other in the Federal
Courts, as they are under the old Constitution. They
were left to their actions in the State Courts.
The right of any citizen Of one State to pass through
or sojourn in another with his slaves or other property,
without molestation, was expressly guaranteed.
The admission of other States into the Confederacy
required a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of
Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate
voting by States, instead of a bare majority in each.
A Convention of the States to consider proposed
amendments of the Constitution was to be assembled for
that purpose upon the call of,any three States legally
assembled in their several Conventions; and if a Conven
22 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tion so called should agree to the proposed amendments,
the vote on them being taken by States, and the same
should afterwards be ratified by the Legislatures of
two-thirds of the several States, or by Conventions in
them, then the proposed amendments were to form a
part of the Constitution.
Congress was authorized by law to grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat
upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of
discussing any measures appertaining to his Department.
And, lastly, the power of Congress over the Territories
was settled, in express language, in opposition both to the
doctrine of the Centralists and the doctrine of'"Squatter
Sovereignty," so called.
These are the more prominent of the changes made.
Several others will be seen upon a close examination.
Some of them, however, verbal merely. Most of the
prominent ones noticed emanated from Mr. Rhett, the
Chairman. A few of them from Mr. Toombs. Those
proposed by Mr. Toombs were the ones prohibiting
bounties, extra allowances, and internal improvements,
with  some others of less importance.   The leading
changes proposed by Mr. Rhett, were the ones in relation
to the Protective policy, the Presidential term, the
modification upon the subject of removal from office, and
the mode provided for future amendments. The clause
in relation to the admission of new States occupied the
special attention of Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana. The
change in the old Constitution, which authorized Congress
to pass a law to allow Cabinet Ministers to occupy seats
in either House of Congress, and to participate in debates
on subjects relating to their respective Departments, was
the one in which I took most interest. The clause, as it
stands, did not go so far as I wished. I wanted the
338 
COL. XIX.]  CONFEDERATE STATES CONSTITUTION.
President to be required to appoint his Cabinet Ministers
from Members of one or the other Houses of Congress.
This feature in the British Constitution, I always regarded as one of the most salutary principles in it. But
enough on this subject.
All of these amendments were decidedly of a conservative character. It is true, I did not approve of all of
them. They were all, however, such as in the judgment
of a majority of these States, the experience of seventy
years had shown were proper and necessary for the harmonious working of the system. The whole document
utterly negatives the idea which so many have been active
in endeavoring to put in the enduring form of history,
that the Convention at Montgomery was nothing but a
set of " Conspirators," whose object was the overthrow of
the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
and the erection of a great " Slavery Oligarchy," instead
of the free Institutions thereby secured and guaranteed.
This work of the Montgomery Convention, with that of
the Constitution for a Provisional Government, will ever
remain not only as a monument of the wisdom, forecast
and statesmanship of the men who constituted it, but an
everlasting refutation of the charges which have been
brought against them. These works together show clearly
that their only leading object was to sustain, uphold, and
perpetuate the fundamental principles of the Constitution
of the United States.
The Constitution for the Permanent Government was
adopted unanimously by the seven States represented, on
the 11th of March, 1861. In the meantime, however,
and while the Convention was going on with their work,
Mr. Davis, the President elect under the Provisional Government, had arrived. He reached Montgomery on Saturday evening, the 16th of February, and was regularly inau
339 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
gurated on Monday, the 18th. In his inaugural, he used
this language, which shows the feelings and sentiments
with which he assumed the high trust confided to him:
"Gentlemen of the Congress of the Confederate States
of America; Friend8 and Fellow-Citizens:
"Called to the difficult and responsible station of Chief
Executive of the Provisional Government which you have
instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned
to me, with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with
a sustaining confidence in the wisdom of those who are
to guide and aid me in the administration of public affairs,
and an abiding faith in the virtue and patriotism of the
people.
"Looking forward to the speedy establishment of a Permanent Government to take the place of this, and which,
by its greater moral and physical power, will be better
able to combat with the many difficulties which arise from
the conflicting interests of separate Nations, I enter upon
the duties of the office, to which I have been chosen, with
the hope that the beginning of our career, as a Confederacy, may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our
enjoyment of the separate existence and independence
which we have asserted, and, with the blessing of Providence, intend to maintain. Our present condition, achieved
in a manner unprecedented in the history of Nations, illustrates the American idea that Governments rest upon the
consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the
people to alter or abolish Governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.
"The  declared purpose of the  Compact of Union
from which we have withdrawn, was to' establish justice,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common de
340 
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'ii
.: i..
I  
INAUGURAL OF MR. DAVIS.
fence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity;' and when, in
the judgment of the Sovereign States now composing this
Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purpose for
which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the
ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the
ballot-box declared that, so far as they were concerned,
the Government created by that Compact should cease to
exist. In this, they merely asserted a right which the
Declaration of Independence of 1776, had defined to be
inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise,
they, as Sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself.
The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will
vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who
knows the hearts of men, will judge of the sincerity with
which we labored to preserve the Government of our
Fathers in its spirit. The right, solemnly proclaimed at
the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and
re-affirmed in the Bills of Rights of States subsequently
admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes
in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of Government. Thus the Sovereign States, here represented, proceeded to form this
Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their
act has been denominated a Revolution. They formed
a new alliance, but within each State its Government
has remained, and the rights of persons and property
have not been disturbed. The agent, through whom
they communicated with foreign nations, is changed;
but this does not necessarily interrupt their international
relations.
" Sustained by the consciousness that the transition
from the former Union to the present Confederacy, has
not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obli
COL. XIX.]
3.41 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. 1.
gations, or any failure to perform any Constitutional
duty; moved by no interest or passion to invade the
rights of others; anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid
war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit
us of having needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified
by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton
aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to
doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people
of the Confederate States, will be found equal to any
measures of defence which honor and security may require.
"An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the
export of a commodity required in every manufacturing
country, our true policy is peace and the freest trade which
our necessities will permit.  It is alike our interest, and
that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom
we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable
restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There
can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow,
therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will
and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of
dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the
emergency, and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of
the sword, the position which we have assumed among
the Nations of the earth. We have entered upon the
career of Independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued.
Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored
to secure tranquillity, and to obtain respect for the rights
to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice,
342 
INAUGURAL OF MR. DAVIS.
we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our
own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which
we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest
shlall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political
career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled;
but if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for
us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms, and invoke the
blessings of Providence on a just cause.
"With a Constitution differing only from that of our
Fathers, in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known
intent, freed from the sectional conflicts which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare, it is not
unreasonable to expect, that States from which we have
recently parted may seek to unite their fortunes with
ours, under the Government which we have instituted.
For this, your Constitution makes adequate provision;
but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will
of the people, a re-union with the States from which we
have separated is neither practicable nor desirable.
"Should reason guide the action of the Government
from which we have separated, a policy so detrimental
to the civilized world, the Northern States included,
could not be dictated by even the strongest desire to
inflict injury upon us; but if otherwise, a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions
will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our
aggressors.
"We have changed the constituent parts, but not the
system of our Government. The Constitution formed by
our Fathers is that of these Confederate States, in their
exposition of it; and, in the judicial construction it has
received, we have a light which reveals its true meaning.
COL. XIX.]
343
to 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"Thus instructed as to the just interpretation of the
instrument, and ever remembering that all offices are but
trusts hei for the people, and that delegated powers are
to be strictly construed, I will hope, by due diligence in
the performance of my duties, though I may disappoint
your expectations, yet to retain, when retiring, something
of the good-will and confidence which welcomed my entrance into office."
This address affords additional evidence, if any were
wanting, to show the objects aimed at by the Confederate
States in their separation from their former associates.
It clearly shows, as the Acts of the Convention show,
that these States had quit the Union only to preserve
for themselves, at least, the principles of the Constitution. It shows, also, that there was no purpose, wish,
design, or intention, on the part of Mr. Davis, to make
war, commit aggression, or do any wrong to those States,
or the people of those States which remained in the old
Union, or to interfere improperly in any way, with the
Government of their choice.
At an early day Mr. Davis organized his Cabinet.
The Department of State was filled by Mr. Toombs,
of Georgia.
The Department of War by Mr. Leroy P. Walker, of
Alabama.
The Treasury Department by Mr. Charles G. Mem.
minger, of South Carolina.
The Post-Office Department by Mr. John H. Reagan,
of Texas.
The Navy Department by Mr. Stephen R. Mallory, of
Florida.
The Department of Justice [a new Department which
Congress had created, and which was quite an improve~nent on the Washington organization,] was filled by
344
1i 
COL. XIX.] COMMISSION SENT TO WASHINGTON.
Mr. Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, under the title of
Attorney-General.
On the 15th of February, before the arrival of Mr.
Davis, Congress had passed a Resolution declaring its
sense, "that a Commission of three persons be appointed
by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after
his inauguration, and sent to the Government of the
United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating
friendly relations between that Government and the
Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of
all questions of disagreement between the two Governments, upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good
faith."
In pursuance of this Resolution, three Commissioners
were appointed and sent to Washington very soon after
the inauguration of Mr. Davis. This Commission was
constituted of the very best material to accomplish the
object, if it could be done. It consisted of Mr. John
Forsyth, of Alabama, Mr. Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia,
and                                  Mr. A. B. Roman, of Louisiana. Mr. Forsyth was
the son of the renowned Georgian of the same name, who
had at one time been Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary to Spain, and had afterwards won such distinction
as the leader of General Jackson's Administration in the
Senate of the United States, in 1834 and 1835, against
the combined assaults of the great trio, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Calhoun, and Mr. Webster. This Commissioner had also,
himself, been in the Diplomatic service of the United
States, as Minister to Mexico. Mr. Crawford was a
m     e      m     b     e      r       of the Provisional Congress from this State.
He had served several years in the old Congress with
marked ability and distinction. Mr. Roman was ExGovernor of Louisiana, and was a gentleman of fortune,
of education, and most agreeable manners. These Com
4
345 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II
missioners were clothed with plenary powers to open
negotiations for the settlement of all matters of joint
property, Forts, Arsenals, arms, or property of any other
kind within the limits of the Confederate States, and all
joint liabilities with their former associates, upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith. Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Crawford reached Washington just upon
the eve of Mr. Buchanan's retirement from office. As
soon after the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln, and the
organization of his Cabinet, as convenient, they addressed
a communication to Mr. William H. Seward, the newly
appointed Secretary of State, upon the subject of their
mission. Here is that communication and the whole
correspondence connected with their mission.* It deserves special notice, as it must ever be regarded as one
of the most interesting portions of the history of the
times. The whole conduct of the Commissioners was
marked with perfect frankness and integrity of purpose,
while they were met with an equivocation, a duplicity, a
craft, and deceit, which, taken altogether, is without a
parallel in modern times!  It was to this correspondence
I alluded before, and to see that the remarks then and
now made about it are justified by the facts, we have
only to examine the papers themselves. In their first
note the Commissioners amongst other things say:
"Seven States of the late Federal Union, having, in
the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to
change or reform their political Institutions, and through
Conventions of their people, withdrawn from the United
States, and resumed the attributes of Sovereign Power
delegated to it, have formed a Government of their own.
"With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions
growing out of this political separation, upon such terms
* See A.p.pendix I.
346 
CoL. XIX.] JUDGE CAMPBELL AND MR. SEWARD.
of amity and good-will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations
may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to
make to the Government of the United States overtures
for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government
of the United States that the President, Congress, and
people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither
their interest nor their wish to make any demand which
is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late Confederates."
No direct answer was received to this communication
by the Commissioners, until the 8th of April, twentythree days after it was delivered to the Secretary of State.
But an indirect and informal answer was given in this
way. Two days after Secretary Seward had received the
note from the Commissioners, and while he was being
pressed for a reply by Mr. John T. Pickett, their Secretary, Mr. Justice Nelson, of the Supreme Court of the
United States, a personal friend of the Secretary of State,
called upon Mr. Justice John A. Campbell, of the same
Court, and informed him of Mr. Seward's " strong disposition in favor of peace, and that he was greatly oppressed
with a demand of the Commissioners of the Confederate
States for a reply to their letter, and that he desired to
avoid making any at that time, if possible."  Upon this
intimation, Judge Campbell immediately had a personal
interview with Mr. Seward, hoping he might be useful as
an intermediate, in bringing about a peaceful adjustment
of the questions at issue, as he was a citizen of Alabama
and on terms of personal friendship with the Commissioners. This interview with Mr. Seward, which was
evidently sought by him, in the way stated, was had
without any conference on the part of Judge Campbell
347 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL.'Il.
with the Commissioners. On the evening of the same
day, after the interview was had, Judge Campbell gave to
the Commissioners in writing, the following statement:
"I feel entire confidence that Fort Sumter will be
evacuated in the next ten days.  And this measure is
felt as imposing great responsibility on the Administration. I feel entire confidence that no measure changing
the existing status, prejudiciously to the Southern Confederate States, is at present contemplated. I feel an entire confidence that an immediate demand for an answer
to the communication of the Commissioners will be productive of evil, and not of good. I do not believe that it
ought at this time to be pressed."
Mr. Seward was immediately informed by Judge
Campbell of what he had communicated to the Commissioners. On this assurance the Commissioners relied,
and ceased to urge a formal reply to their communication.
Mr. Seward in his interview with Judge Campbell used
stronger language than that employed by him in his
written statement to the Commissioners. The assurance
given to Judge Campbell, supposing it would be given by
him to the Commissioners, was, that there was no design
to re-enforce Fort Sumter, and that it would be evacuated
in le8ss than ten days, even before a letter could go from
Washington to Montgomery. It was in this way, the
Commissioners were given to understand that the
United States forces at Fort Sumter would be peacefully
withdrawn in a few days; and hence they (lid not press
their demand for an immediate answer to their note, but
communicated the information they had received to
President Davis, and the substance of it was communicated by him to General Beauregard.
After a sufficient time had elapsed, General Beauregard telegraphed to the Commissioners at Washington,
348 
COL. XIX.] MR. SEWARD'S DUPLICITY EXHIBITED.         349
that Fort Sumter was not evacuated, but that Major
Anderson was at work making repairs. On receipt of
this, Judge Campbell had another interview with Mr.
Seward, and was assured by him "that the failure to
evacuate Sumter was not the result of bad faith, but was
attributable to causes consistent with the intention to
fulfil the engagement, and that as regarded Fort Pickens,
in Florida, notice would be given of any design to alter
the existing status there." This renewed assurance was
immediately communicated to the Commissioners, and by
them communicated to President Davis, and by him to
General Beauregard.
On the 7th of April, after the movement of the Relief
Squadron from New York had caused a general alarm,
Judge Campbell addressed a letter to Mr. Seward, and
"asked if the assurances he had given, were well or ill
founded?" The reply he received was, "Faith as to
Sumter fully kept-wait and see."  This was after the
Fleet had put to sea, and when it was near the harbor of
Charleston, for the purpose of provisioning and reinforcing
Fort Sumter "peaceably," if permitted; "otherwise by
force." The way faith was kept as to Sumter, was by
notifying the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W.
Pickens, of the intention to reinforce the Fort, after the
Fleet had set out for Charleston!
The actual state of things was not known to the Commissioners, until the 8th of April. They had been most
"atrociously" imposed upon and deceived!  On the 9th
of April they addressed to Mr. Seward another communication in which, besides giving a recapitulation of the
facts at which I have glanced, they used the following
language:
"Your Government has not chosen to meet the undersigned, in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIHE WAR.  [VOL. II.
they are commissioned. Persistently wedded to those
fatal theories of construction of the Federal Constitution,
always rejected by the Statesmen of the South, and adhered to by those of the Administration School, until
they have produced their natural and often predicted
result of the destruction of the Union, under which we
might have continued to live happily and gloriously
together, had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the
common Constitution animated the hearts of all their
sons. * * * Had you met these issues with the frankness
and manliness with which the undersigned were instructed to present them to you and treat them, the
undersigned had not now the melancholy duty to return
home and tell their Government and their countrymen,
that their earnest and ceaseless efforts in behalf of peace
had been futile, and that the Government of the United
States meant to subjugate them by force of arms.  Whatever may be the result, impartial history will record the
innocence of the Government of the Confederate States,
and place the responsibility of the blood and mourning
that may ensue, upon those who have denied the great
fundamental doctrine of American Liberty, that' Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed,' and who have set naval and land armaments
in motion, to subject the people of one portion of the land
to the will of another portion.
" Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active Naval and Military preparations
of this Government, and( a formal notice to the Commanding General of the Confederate forces in the harbor of
Charleston, that the President intends to provision Fort
Sumter by forcible means, if necessary, are viewed by the
undersigned, and can only be received by the world, as a
declaration of war against the Confederate States," etc.
350 
COL. XIX.] DOUGLAS ON SURRENDER OF FORTS.
It was indeed more than a mere declaration of war.
It was an act of war itself!
Whatever change of views may have taken place in
the mind of Mr. Lincoln, as to the line of policy he intended to pursue in relation to Fort Sumter  and the
other United States Forts within the Confederate States,
after the assurance given, can in no way excuse or palliate the duplicity and fraud practiced afterwards on the
Confederate Commissioners. My own opinion from all
the facts, as they have been subsequently disclosed, is,
that Mr. Lincoln did change his policy on this subject,
and that at the time the assurance was given to the Commissioners, he did intend in good faith to withdraw the
troops firom Fort Sumter at an early day. How far he
may have been aware of the extent of the assurance
given to the Commissioners, I have no means of knowing;
but it is known that this policy of withdrawing the
troops was recommended by General Winfield Scott, then
in chief cbmmnand of the Army of the United States.
He thought it the best under the circumstances. In his
opinion the proper course for the Federal Government to
take, that indicated by true wisdom and statesmanship,
was, in his own language, to "let the wayward sisters
[the Confederate States] depart in peace."
Moreover, the Senate, which was convened in extra
session on Executive business, had taken up the subject
and given it serious discussion. In this body every
Democrat or Anti-Centralist was understood to be in
favor of the withdrawal of the United States troops from
all these Forts, except those at Key West and Tortugas.
Mr. Douglas himself offered a Resolution to that effect,
on the 15thl of March. In support of it, he said:
"We certainly cannot justify the holding of Forts
there, much less the re-capturing of those which have
351 
352' CONSTIRUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
been taken, unless we intend to reduce those States,
themselves, into subjection. I take it for granted no man
will deny the proposition that whoever permanently
holds Charleston and South Carolina, is entitled to the
possession of Fort Sumter. Whoever permanently holds
Pensacola and Florida, is entitled to the possession of
Fort Pickens. Whoever holds the States in whose limits
those Forts are placed, are entitled to the Forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location
of some particular Fort that makes it important for us to
hold it for the general defence of the whole country, its
commerce and interests, instead of being useful only for
the defence of a particular city or locality. It is true
that Forts Taylor and Jefferson, at Key West and
Tortugas, are so situated as to be essentially national,
and therefore important to us without reference to our
relations with the seceded States. Not so with Moultrie,
Johnson, Castle Pinckney, and Sumter, in Charleston
Harbor; not so with Pulaski, on the Savannah River;
not so with Morgan, and other Forts in Alabama; not so
with those other Forts that were intended to guard the
entrance of a particular harbor for local defence.
"Mr. Doolittle.  Will the Senator allow me to ask a
question? How is it with the Forts at the mouth of the
Mississippi River?
"Mr. Douglas. Well, sir, I will say that those do
not form an exception to my remark, for this reason; we
have no use for the Forts at the mouth of the Mississippi
River, if we allow the Southern Confederacy to hold the
State of Louisiana and command both sides of the River.
* * * We cannot deny that there is a Southern Confederacy, de facto, in existence, with its Capital at
Montgomery. We may regret it. I regret it most profoundly; but I cannot deny the truth of the fact, painful 
COL. XIX.] DOUGLAS ON SURRENDER OF FORTS.
and mortifying as it is. * * * I proclaim boldly the
policy of those with whom I act. We are for peace.
There is no concealment on this side.  *  *  *  I repeat, it is time that the line of policy was adopted and
that the country knew it. In my opinion, we must
choose, and that promptly, between one of three lines of
policy:
"1. The restoration and preservation of the Union, by
such amendments to the Constitution as will insure the
domestic tranquillity, safety, and equality of all the States,
and thus restore peace, unity, and fraternity to the whole
country.
"2. A peaceful dissolution of the Union, by recognizing
the Independence of such States as refuse to remain
in the Union without such Constitutional amendments,
and the establishment of a liberal system of commercial
and social intercourse with them, by treaties of commerce
and amity.
"3. War, with a view to the subjugation and military
occupation of those States which have seceded, or may
secede from the Union.
' I repeat that, in my opinion, you must adopt and
pursue one of these three lines of policy. The sooner
you choose between them and proclaim your choice to the
country, the better for you, the better for us, the better
for every friend of Liberty and Constitutional Government throughout the world. In my opinion, the first
proposition is the best, and the last the worst Why cannot
we arrive at some amicable adjustment of the questions
in dispute?" *
His Resolution was laid upon the table by a vote of
twenty-three to eleven, as the Senate was left in possession of the Centralists, on the retirement therefrom of the
* Congressional Globe, Part 2, 36th Congress, 2cd Session, p. 1459-60.
23
353 
354      CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VOL. II.
fourteen Senators from the Confederate States. Besides this
Resolution of Mr. Douglas, other resolutions were offered,
one by Mr. Thomas L. Clingman, then a Senator from
North Carolina, and another by Mr. John C. Breckinridge,
who took his seat as Senator-elect from Kentucky, on the
expiration of his term of office as Vice President, on the
4th of March, recommending and advising the withdrawal
of the United States troops, from the limits of the Confederate States. Neither of these Resolutions was acted
upon before the adjournment of this special Executive
Session of the Senate, which took place on the 28th of
March. But the understanding in the city, at the time
of Mr. Douglas's speech, and the time the assurance was
given, was that Fort Sumter was to be immediately evacuated. This intelligence was telegraphed throughout the
country on the 14th of March, the second day after
the date of the Commissioners' letter to Mr. Secretary
Seward, and the day before the first interview he had
with Judge Campbell. I have but little doubt, therefore,
that, at that time, Mr. Lincoln had determined to withdraw all United States forces from the limits of the
Confederate States.
It was at this juncture, however, when this news
reached the North, that the seven Governors from the
seven Northern States referred to, hastened to Washington, and then and there organized their "Conspiracy,"
and by appeals to Mr. Lincoln, and tendering to him
their organized military forces, caused him to change his
policy, and to adopt theirs, which aimed at an, entire
overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, and
the Federative principles of Government on which it was
b)ased. This conspiracy is the Seven Headed Monster,
or "Apocalyptic Beast," to which I have alluded before.
It was by and through its active agency Mr. Lincoln's 
COL. XIX.] CONSTITUTION RATIFIED BY THE STATES. 350
policy was changed. This change, however, was not
communicated to the Commissioners. They were still
kept uninformed and left to rest upon the assurances
given, while the most energetic measures and active
preparations for war and subjugation were being concocted
and executed. The sequel, so far as relates to the
striking of the first blow and the fall of Fort Sumter, we
have seen.*
It is, perhaps, needless to speak of the effect of this
great event, either at the North or South. I will here
only say that, within my observation, the first general
feeling produced by it, was one of surprise, accompanied
with deep regret.   The duplicity of the Washington
authorities was, it is true, the cause of general indignation; for the informal assurance on the subject of the
early evacuation of that Fort, was extensively known to
the intelligent in all parts of the country. President
Davis immediately summoned an extra session of Congress, at Montgomery. This body, after having gotten
through with their labors on the Constitution for the
Permanent Government, on the 11th of March. and having adopted such general measures as they thought proper
and sufficient, in view of the peaceful prospect before
them, had, on the 16th, adjourned, subject to the call of
the President, in case of need, to report their action to
their. respective State Conventions. The Sovereign State
Conventions all promptly, and with great unanimity,
ratified the Constitution proposed for their Permanent
Government. Alabama ratified it, on the 13th of March,
by a vote of eighty-seven yeas to five nays; Georgia, on
the 16th of March, without a dissentient voice-two hundred and seventy-six voted for the ratification, and'not
one against it; Louisiana, on the 21st of March, by one
* Ante, page 39. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW Oi THE WAR.  [Vol.. II.
hundred and one,yeas to seven nays; Texas, on the 25th
of March, by sixty-eight yeas to two nays; Mississippi,
on the 30th of March, by a vote of seventy-eight yeas to
seven nays. The exact vote in South Carolina and
Florida I do not know, but the action of both these States
on the' ratification, was not less decisive. The call for
the extra session was made on the fall of Fort Sumter;
but hardly had that summons reached the country by
the telegraphic wires, before these mystic messengers,
with the wings of lightning, brought Mr. Lincoln's celebrated Proclamation of the 15th of April.
The effect of this upon the public mind of the Southern
States cannot be described or even estimated. The shock
was not unlike that produced by great convulsions of
n'lture-the upheavings and rocking of the earth itself!
It was not that of fright.  Far from it!  But a profound
feeling of wonder and astonishment! Up to this time,
a majority, I think, of even those who had favored the
policy of Secession, had done so under the belief and conviction that it was the surest way of securing a redress
of grievances, and of bringing the Federal Government
back to Constitutional principles. Many of them indulged hopes that a Re-formation, or a Re-construction of
the Union would soon take place on the basis of the new
Montgomery Constitution, and that the Union, under this,
would be continued and strengthened, or made more
perfect, as it had been in 1789, after the withdrawal of
nine States from the first Union, and the adoption of the
Constitution of 1787. This proclamation dispelled all
such hopes. It showed that the Party in power intended
nothing short of complete Centralization. There was no
longer any divisions amongst the people of the Confederate States. This proclamation, with its doctrines and
principles, we will examine hereafter. What I have said
3,36 
COL. XIX.] OBJECTS OF THE PARTIES TO THE WAR.   357
clearly shows the political position of both Parties to the
war, at the time of its inauguration and the fall of Fort
Sumter, so far as concerns the principles on which they
acted. The principles actuating the Washington authorities were those aiming at Consolidated Power; while the
principles controlling the action of the Montgomery
authorities were those which enlisted devotion and attachment to the Federative system as established by the
Fathers in 1778 and in 1787. The object on the one
side-the aggressive side-the Federal side, so riscalledwas to overthrow the very principles upon which every
Federal system is based; while, on the other, it was to
defend and maintain those principles.   In short, the
cause of the Confederates was State Sovereignty, or the
Sovereign Right of local Self-Government on the part of
the States severally. It was the same cause, to maintain which all the Colonies at first, and all the States
afterwards, united, in the ever memorable conflict with
the Mother Country, in 1776; and on the success of
which, in that contest, depended the whole fabric of
American Free Institutions. The cause of their assailants involved the overthrow of this entire fabric, and the
erection of a Centralized Empire in its stead! This is
the issue, in a Constitutional point of view, fairly presented.
JUDGE BYNUM. Do you maintain that the United States
by putting down Secession became a Centralized Empire?
MR. STEPHENS. No. I do not maintain that they have
as yet reached that point; but I do mean to maintain that
the principles upon which they waged the war, involved
that final result, and will, unless abandoned, necessarily
and inevitably lead to that ultimate result.
JUDGE BYNUM. I should like to know the grounds upon
which you found such an opinion? 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
MR. STEPHENS. These we will come to hereafter, in our
consideration of the results of the war. The present object was to present these organic principles clearly, and
the position of the Parties towards them in the beginning, as well as the comparative physical ability, or
material resources of each to sustain and maintain its
side. What has been said is sufficient on the first of
these points; before proceeding further on the main
line, however, it is not only proper, but necessary, to
examine somewhat in detail Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation
referred to, of the 15th of April, and the effect it produced upon the public mind throughout all the Southern States.  This, if again agreeable, we will postpone
to another occasion.
But before suspending just now, it may be proper to
add, that amongst the general measures adopted by the
Confederate Congress before its adjournment, was the full
assumption of jurisdiction over and control of the Forts,
Arsenals, and all other joint property of the United
States, in each of the Confederate States, which had by
them, severally, been transferred to the Confederate States.
All the existing Federal laws, so far as applicable, were
adopted, and everything was done that was necessary
for the complete organization of the Confederate States
Government, under the Provisional Constitution, in its
Judicial and Military Departments, as well as in its
Legislative and Executive. The whole machinery of a
regularly organized Government was put into complete
and practical operation in all its functions. Ways and
means for raising funds for present and prospective needs
were provided.
The navigation of the Mississippi River had also been
declared to be open and free. Besides the Commission
sent to Washington, another very able one had been
358 
CoL. XIX.]    COMMISSION SENT TO EUROPE.
sent to Europe to present the Confederate cause and
position to England and France, with the view of opening negotiations with those Powers. At the head of this
latter Commission was placed, Mr. William L. Yancey,
of Alabama, a man of brilliant genius, with many eminent qualities of natural as well as acquired ability.  He
it was, who took the lead on the policy of Mr. Buchanan,
in the Charleston Convention, which, in 1860, led to the
rupture of that body. He was amongst the ablest men
of the South who zealously espoused the cause of,Secession at an early day, and no one felt a deeper interest in
its success. With him were associated in this Commission, Mr. A. Dudley Mann, of Virginia, and Mr. A. P.
Rost, of Louisiana. Mr. Mann had already become distinguished in the Diplomatic service of the United States.
But enough for the present.
359 
COLLOQUY XX.
CHARACTER OF THE WAR DISCUSSED BY JUDGE BYNUM AND MR. STEPHENS CONSIDERATION OF MAIN SUBJECT RESUMED-CONDITION OF PUBLIC SEN TIMENT THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHERN STATES ON THE ELECTION OF MR.
LINCOLN BEFORE THE FALL OF SUMTER-EFFECT OF THE PROCLAMATION
OF 15TH APRIL-ITHIS PROCLAMATION AND SUBSEQUENT ONES REVIEWED THEIR USURPATIONS EXHIBITED-SECESSION OF VIRGINIA-CONVENTION
WITH CONFEDERATE STATES-GENERAL LEE-SECESSION OF ARKANSAS,
TENNESSEE, AND NORTH CAROLINA-USURPATIONS OF MR. LINCOLN DIS CUSSED-JUDGE BYNUM'S DEFENCE AND MR. STEPHENS'S REPLY.
MR. STEPHENS. Well, gentlemen, we will now proceed
from the point where we left off.
JUDGE BYNUM. I do not wish to interrupt you in the
line of remarks you propose to pursue, but, as you seem
to be ignoring the idea that there was, in the action of
the people of the Seceding States, anything like a rebellion or a resistance to lawful authority, I wish barely to
enter my protest, before you go any further, against being
considered as yielding my assent to any such view of
that matter. For whether the war was actually inaugurated when the Relief Squadron was sent to provision
and reinforce Fort Sumter, or when the first blow was
struck, as you say, to prevent the execution of that purpose, it was, nevertheless, so far as the Government at
Washington was concerned, a resort to force, on their
part, to maintain lawful authority. It was, even considered in the light in which you present it, a war to
maintain lawful authority on one side, and to resist it on
the other. This is what, by common consent, is meant
)b Rebellion.  The war, therefore, on the part of the
360 
RIGHTS NEVER CONFLICT.
Confederates, under all the circumstances, looked at in
any light, must be considered a Rebellion. This is the
Constitutional view of the subject, fairly presented, as I
understand it. I wish now, however, only to enter my
dissent from the position which you seem to consider as
established.
MR. STEPHENS. Well, we can only agree to disagree on
this point, as was our understanding in the beginning.
We are, I believe, fully agreed upon all the essential
facts. The point of disagreement is only one of conclusion, or the logical sequence which properly follows from
undisputed facts. If all the great facts of our history be
as I have set them forth, and which you have not
been able successfully to assail, then the conclusion which
Idraw from these facts, it seems to me, according to all
correct principles of reasoning, is not only legitimate, but
irresistible! This conclusion, on my part, on the point
of our disagreement, is, that the Sovereign Right of each
State, within the limitations mentioned, to withdraw from
a Union formed as ours is admitted to have been, was
perfect, considered either morally or politically. On the
same principles, too, the Sovereign Right of all the States
so withdrawing, to enter into a new Confederation, as
they had done, was equally perfect. Where any party
has a perfect right to perform an act, no other party can
have a right, either legal or moral, to prevent the doing
of it. This seems to me to be a perfectly rational conclusion. In the domain of reason, moreover, the conclusions of logic are inexorable!
The whole question, whether the acts of the people
of the Seceding States are to be considered a Rebellion,
depends upon the fact of whether the United States
was a Federal Republic or not.   In other words, it
depends upon the true answer to the question, where
COL. XX.]
361 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. II.
under the system does ultimate Sovereignty reside? Is
it lodged in the General Government, or has it passed to
the whole people of the United States as one aggregate
mass, or does it still remain unimpaired with the people
of the several States as distinct political organizations,
just where and as it did when the Constitution was
formed? This question, I think, has been clearly and
fully answered and settled by the facts established, and,
according to these principles, I do maintain there was no
rebellion, no resistance to lawful authority in the action
of the Confederates in what occurred at Fo t Sumter, but,
on the contrary, I maintain that their resistance there
was a resistance to open and palpable usurpations of
power by the authorities at Washington, and in the
maintenance of that rightful authority to which both
their obedience and allegiance were due.
This point, however, as the one relating to the justifiableness of my course in the premises, we, not being able
to agree upon it, will leave to the impartial judgment of
mankind. With the understanding that we do thus
agree to disagree on this point, I will proceed now to the
consideration of the subject postponed to this occasion.
That was the Proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, of the 15th
of April, and the effect it produced on the other Southern
States not then embraced in the new Confederacy, with
the events which immediately followed.
Let it be borne in mind then, that in all these States,
movements of some sort had been made after the election
of Mr. Lincoln, to take the sense of the people in Sovereign Conventions, respectively, upon the question of
Secession, as had been taken in the States which did
secede, and at about the same time. These movements it
is proper to notice, and to these we will now direct our
attention in a brief review.
362 
Cot,. XX.1  ARKANSAS-MISSOURI-KENTUCKY.
On the 16th of January, 1861, the Legislature of
Arkansas passed an Act submitting to the people of
that State the question whether there should be a Sovereign Convention assembled or not. The vote on this
question was ordered to be taken on the 18th of February.   The vote for the  Convention on that day was
27,412 in favor, and 15,826 against it.  The majority
for the Convention was 11,586. A Convention, regularly
elected, accordingly assembled on the 4th of March. In
this, an Ordinance for Secession was defeated by a vote
of thirty-five yeas in favor of it, and thirty-nine nays
against it. On the 17th of March, the question was disposed of by the unanimous adoption, by the Convention, of
a measure providing that the question of " Secession" or
"Co-operation" with the Border States should be subnitted to the people, to be decided by a vote to be taken
on the first Monday in August thereafter, and providing
for the appointment of delegates to a Convention of the
Border States, which was to be held in the meantime,
and also that the Convention when it adjourned, should
re-assemble on the 17th of August thereafter. This was
the state of things in Arkansas.
The Legislature of Missouri met 31st December, 1860.
Early in January 1861, both Houses were addressed in the
Hall of the Representatives by Mr. D. R. Russell, a Commissioner from the State of Mississippi. On the 16thl of
January, an Act was passed calling a Convention of the
people to be assembled the 28th of February, with a provision that the action of this Convention was to be submitted to a popular vote, for its ratification or rejection.
The Convention met. A large majority was against
Secession. Mr. Luther J. Glenn, who had been sent as
a Commissioner from Georgia to that State, was respectfully heard by the Convention, and a respectful answer
'363 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
given to the views presented by him, stating the reasons
why the Convention did not concur with him in the policy
of immediate Secession. Mr. Hamilton R. Gamble was
Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, in this
Convention. The final action of this body, on the general subject, was the adoption of Resolutions expressing
an earnest desire for the perpetuation of the Union, and
the peaceful adjustment of all the difficulties of the crisis
-approving the Crittenden proposition in the Senateadvocating the call of a National Convention of the
States; and expressing the opinion that civil war might
be avoided, by withdrawing Federal troops from Forts in
the Seceded States, and recommending this policy. The
last Resolution, recommending this policy, passed by a,
vote of eighty-nine yeas to six nays. This was on the
19th of March. This Convention also sent delegates to
the proposed Convention of the Border States, as well
as to the Peace Congress.   So matters stood in this
State.
In Kentucky, the Governor, Beriah Moffin, recommended to the Legislature then in session, the calling of
a Convention of the people of the State, to whom their
Federal relations should be submitted. He advised the
policy of uniting with the Border States, in a Covention
to be held by them early in February, at Baltimore.
The action of the Seceded States was disapproved by
him, in very decided language, but in language equally
decided, he protested against the Constitutional power or
policy of coercing them. The Legislature did not agree
to the proposition for the call of a State Convention, but
on the 22d of January, passed Resolutions asking the
other States to unite in calling for a Convention of all
the States to amend the Constitution, and afterwards
passed another Resolution pledging the people of Ken
364
I
.  
COL. XX.] TENNESSEE-NORTH CAROLINA-VIRGINIA. 365
tucky "to unite with their brethren of the South, in
resisting an invasion of their soil at all hazards, and
to the last extremity."   They also sent delegates to
the Peace Congress at Washington, which had been
called by Virginia, as we shall see. So matters stood in
Kentucky.
In Tennessee, Governor Isham G. Harris called an
extra Session of the Legislature, which assembled the 7th
of January, 1861. This body passed an act submitting
to the people of the State the question whether there
should be a State Convention or not; the election to be
held on the 9th of February, and the Convention to be
assembled on the 25th of February, in case a majority
of the voters should be in favor of the call. The vote
was 24,749 in favor of calling the Convention, and 91,
803  against it.  The  popular majority  against  the
Convention  was  67,054.   So matters stood in Tennessee.
In North Carolina, the Legislature being in regular
Session passed an Act on the 24th of January, providing
for an election of delegates to a State Convention. This
act directed that voters at the same election should express their wish for or against the meeting of the Convention. If a majority should be in favor of the Convention, then the Governor was by proclamation to assemble the delegates on a day to be designated; and if
a majority should be against it, then the Convention was
not to be assembled. The vote in favor of the Convention was 46,672, and against it 47,323.   The majority
against the Convention was 651, and it therefore was
not convened. So matters stood in North Carolina.
In Virginia an extra Session of the Legislature was
convened on the 7th of January. This body, deeply impressed with the perils of the crisis, went earnestly tc 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL. II.
work to preserve, if possible, the Union of the States
and the Sovereignty of the States upon the principles on
which the Constitution was based. On the 19th, Resolutions were passed asking all the States to send delegates
to meet in Washington, on the 4th of February, to devise,
if possible, some plan for general harmony and pacification. This was the Peace Congress to which twenty
States sent delegates in response to this call of Virginia,
and which did so assemble. The States which were represented in this Congress, or Conference, as it has been
called, were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa,
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri. It was in this Congress
that Mr. Chase, as a delegate from the State of Ohio,
made the speech to which I have referred.  To  this
Peace Congress Virginia sent as Delegates, or Commissioners, Ex-President John Tyler, William C. Rives,
John  W.  Brockenbrough, George  W.  Summers,  and
James A. Seddon. John Tyler was chosen President of
this body.
The Legislature of Virginia also passed an Act calling
a State Convention to express the Sovereign will of the
people of the State upon. their Federal relations. By the
Act, the election of delegates was to be on the 4th of
February, and the Convention to meet on the 13th.
The  Convention met at the time appointed.   The
whole number of delegates was one hundred and fiftytwo. John Janney, of Loudon, a man of renown in the
Old Dominion," and distinguished as much for his devotion to the Union as for anything else, was chosen President. In his address he said, that "' Virginia would
insist on her own construction of her rights as a condition
366
I 
COL. XX.]  VIRGINIA CONVENTION —MARYLAND.
of her remaining in the present Union." This Convention watched with the deepest interest the proceedings
of the Peace Cdngress, which had assembled at the instance of the State.  After that body adjourned, and its
action was known, Mr. Jeremiah Morton, on the 28th of
February, made a speech in favor of immediate Secession,
viewing, as he dil, the result of the Peace Congress as a
failure. On the 1st of March, Mr. Goode, of Bedford,
offered a Resolution on the line of policy indicated by
Mr. Morton, which was referred for consideration. After
the inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, on the 4th of
March, reached Richmond, the excitement in the Convention became more intense. A delegation was sent
from that body to Washington, to confer with Mr. Lincoln, and to ascertain from him what line of policy he
intended to pursue, and to urge upon him the importance of not attempting to coerce the Seceding States.
This delegation consisted of William Ballard Preston,
Alexander H. H. Stuart, and George W. Randolph. In
the Senate of the Legislature, a Resolution had, in the
meantime, unanimously passed, declaring "that if all
efforts to reconcile the unhappy differences between sections of our country shall prove abortive, then every
consideration of honor and interest demands that Virginia
shall unite her destinies with her Sister Slave-holding
States." To the delegation sent by the Convention to
confer with Mr. Lincoln, no satisfactory reply was given
by him. So stood matters in Virginia when news reached
the Convention of the occurrences at Fort Sumter.
In Maryland, the general popular excitement of the
times was not much less intense than in the more Southern
States. In the late Presidential election, the vote of this
State had been cast for the Breckinridge ticket. Mr.
Lincoln, however, received of the popular vote 2,294,
367 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
which really tended to increase the excitement in that
State. The aggregate vote for the three other candidates
was upwards of 90,000. The Legislature not being in
session,  urgent appeals were made to Thomas H. Hicks,
the Governor, to convene an extra session, to consider
the questions involved in the crisis. This he persistently
refused to do, from apprehensions that measures would
be immediately adopted looking to a withdrawal of this
State    from the Union.  Mr.  A. H. Handy had been appointed a Commissioner by the Le,gislature of Mississippi,
to present the views of that State to the Legislature of
Maryland. He addressed Governor Hicks upon the subject of his mission. To this communication the Governor made a reply on the 19th of December. In this
reply                  he declared his purpose t o be "to act in full concert
w    i    t     h the other Border States," a(nd said he did "not
doubt that the people of Maryland were ready to go with
the people of those State* for weal or woe." He fully
agreed   in "the opinion a      s      to the necessity for protection
to the rights of the Southern States, and while his sympathies were with the gallant people of Mississippi, he
hoped they would act with prudence as well as with
courage." In February, he received Mr. Wright, the
Commissioner from Georgia, and expressed to him similar
sentiments, while he still refused to convene the Legislature. Governor Hicks had also responded to the call of
Virginia for the Peace Congress, and gave that movement
his cordial approval.
An irregular State Convention was held at Baltimore
during the latter part of February, in which most of the
counties were represented, and by several of the ablest
men in the State. Among these were Ezekiel F. Chambers, the President; Thomas G. Pratt, E. Louis Lowe,
Robert M. McLane, T. Parker Scott, William P. Whyte,
368 
COL. XX.] MARYLAND CONVENTION-DELAWARE.
S. Teackle Wallis, R. B. Carmichael, I. D. Jones, and
John R. Franklin. The object of this Convention was
-to take into consideration the position of Maryland in
her Federal relations. Its final action was the adoption
of an address and a series of resolutions strongly Southern in their character. They justified the secession of
the seven States of the Confederacy, and maintained that
it was caused by aggressions upon their rights.  They
looked hopefully to the result of the Peace Congress then
in session, and declared that if no satisfactory settlement
was made by it, then, in the opinion of the Convention,
the Governor should call a regular Sovereign Convention
of the State to determine on the state of public affairs,
as it was understood the Governor intended to do. It
was further resolved that in case the State of Virginia
should determine to secede, the Convention was to be
immediately re-assembled at the call of its President;
and if the Governor should decline to call a Sovereign
Conventions on the contingency stated, previous to the
12th of March, then this body declared its intention to
recommend to the people to proceed of their own accord
to the election of delegates to a Sovereign Coilivention of
the State. This irregular Convention then adjourned to
the 12th of March, on which day they re-assembled.
The Governor had not acted-Virginia had not seceded.
They thereupon did nothing further than to adopt Resolutions favoring a Convention of the Border States, and
sent a deputation to visit the Virginia Convention upon
the subject. Resolutions were also submitted, but not
acted upon, declaring that "all attempts upon the part
of the Federal Government to re-occupy, repossess, or
retake any Forts, or other property, within the limits of
the Seceded States, would be acts of war, and that such
acts would absolve Maryland and the Border States from
24
369 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Voi I11.
all connection with the United States." So matters stood
in the State of Maryland.
In Delaware, the Legislature assembled on the second.
of January. The next day, Mr. Henry Dickinson, Commissioner from the State of Mississippi, was permitted to
address both Houses, in the Representative Chamber,
upon the general state of public affairs, with an earnest
desire that the State of Delaware would join her Southern Sister States in withdrawing from the Union.  After
the address, the House passed a Resolution, in which the
Senate concurred, stating that, "having  extended the
Hon. H. Dickinson, the Commissioner of Mississippi, the
courtesy due him, as the Representative of a Sovereign
State of the Confederacy, as well as to the State he represents, we deem it proper, and due to ourselves and the
people of Delaware, to express our unqualified disapproval of the remedy for existing difficulties suggested
by the Resolutions of the Legislature of Mississippi."
Mr. Campbell, the Commissioner from Georgia, was received by Governor Burton, who gave him a respectful
audience, and expressed the opinion that no action would
be taken by that State until Virginia moved; that his
State would go with Maryland and Virginia. So matters
stood in Delaware.
This brief sketch presents very clear indications of
the prevailing sentiments on the exciting subject in all
the slaveholding States which had not seceded on the
15th of April, when Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation of that
date made  its appearance.   And after this brief but
necessary survey, we will now look into that paper itself.
Here it is:
" W7ereas, The laws of the United States have been
for some time past and are now opposed, and the execution
thereofobstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia,
370 
COL. XX.]   LINCOLN'S FIRST PROCLAMATION.
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by
combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in
the Marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by
the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call
forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several
States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations,
and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details for this object will be immediately com municated to the State authorities through the War
Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid
this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the
existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of
popular Government, and to redress wrongs already long
enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned
to the forces called forth will probably be to re-possess
the forts, places, and property which have been seized
from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will
be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to
avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference
with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in
any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the
combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to
their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs
presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue
of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene
both Houses of Congress.
371 
CONSTrITUTIONALI VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoOL. II.
" Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned
to assemble at their respective Chambers, at 12 o'clock,
noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then
and there to consider and determine such measures as,
in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem
to demand.
"In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and
caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.  Done
at the city of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States
the eighty-fifth.                  ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
" BY THE PRESIDENT:
"WILLIAM H. SEWARD, S,eceta)y of State."
The effect of this extraordinary paper upon the people
of the Seceded States, I have already mentioned. It
united them almost to a man, while the effect upon the
people of the other Southern States which had not seceded, was not much less significant. This is what we
are now to look to.  First, as a sample of the general
feeling produced by it, we need but take a glance at the
responses of the Governors of these States to the call
made on them for their respective quotas of military
force.  These quotas were as follows: Delaware was to
furnish 780 men; Maryland, 3123; Virginia, 2340;
North Carolina, 1560; Kentucky, 3123; Missouri, 3123;
and Arkansas, 780.
In reply to the requisition for the quota of Delaware,
Governor William Burton responded in substance, that
he had no lawful authority for raising the troops.
Governor Hicks, of Maryland, made no direct response
for some days, but indirectly urged upon Mr. Lincoln
not to have troops sent through the city of Baltimore,
as the excitement there produced by the call was so great
I
372 
CoT,. XX.]  ITS EFFECT UPON THE BORDER ST'ATES.
that violence would be almost inevitable. On the 18th
of April, hlie issued a Proclamation to the people of Maryland, in which he said, he would not "send any troops
in obedience to the call, except to defend the National
Capital." On the fourth day after the Proclamation was
issued, the 6th Massachusetts Regiment, in its passage
through the city of Baltimore, was stopped by barricades
in the streets, and was attacked with stones and other
missiles by an infuriated mob. This gave rise to a great
riot, in which several lives were lost on the part of the
troops as well as the citizens. Every effort was made by
George W. Brown, Mayor of the city, and George P.
Kane, Marshal of Police, to prevent the outbreak, and to
restore quiet to the excited multitude. After the Mayor
had succeeded in suppressing actual violence, and had got
the troops through the city, by going himself in front at
the head of the column, he addressed the people publicly
in Monument Square, where they had assembled. He
there assured them, that he had conferred with Governor
Hicks, who had united with him in telegraphing to Washington, that no more Northern troops should be sent
through Maryland, and that Governor Hicks concurred
with him in opinion against the policy of coercing the
Seceded States. Governor Hicks was sent for, and made
his appearance in this meeting, and is reported to have
said: "I coincide in the sentiment of your worthy Mayor.
After three conferences we have agreed, and I bow in
submission to the people. I am a Marylander; I love my
State, and I love the Union; but I will suffer my right
arm to be'torn from my body, before I Will raise it to
strike a sister State."
This gave great satisfaction to the excited crowd, which
thereupon dispersed.  Mayor Brown also sent three persons of high charactet -Ilid the greatest respectability, to
373 
9
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
wit, H. L. Bond, J. C. Brune, and George W. Dobbin, as
special messengers to Mr. Lincoln, with a dispatch in
these words: "The people are exasperated to the highest
degree by the passage of troops, and the citizens are un usually decided in the opinion that no more troops should
be ordered to come. The authorities of the city did their
best today to protect both strangers and citizens, and to
prevent a collision, but in vain; and but for their great
efforts, a fearful slaughter would have occurred. Under
these circumstances, it is my solemn duty to inform you,
that it is not possible for more soldiers to pass through
Baltimore, unless they fight their way at every step.  I,
therefore, hope and trust, and most earnestly request,
that no more troops be permitted or ordered by the
Government to pass through the city. If they should
attempt it, the responsibility for the bloodshed will not
rest upon me."
The very able and distinguished President of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, J. W. Garrett, fully concurred
in this policy. He declined to transport any more troops
ever his road, in the then state of excitement.
Tile Messengers of the Mayor sent to Washington,
telegraphed back the next day that Mr. Lincoln had
given themn a letter to the Mayor of the city and the
Governor of the State, that no more troops would be
brought through Baltimore, if, in a military point of
view, they could be marched around the city without
opposition. So much for the effect of the proclamation
upon Maryland.
In reply to'the call for the quota of Virginia, Governor
Letcher stated that it  "would not be furnished for any
such purpose"-" an object" which, in his judgment, "was
not within the purview of the Constitution or the laws."
"You have," said he, "chosen to inaugurate civil war."
374 
CoL. XX.] RESPONSES OF SOUTHERN GOVERNORS.
Governor Ellis, of North Carolina, replied that he "re garded the levy of troops made for the purpose of
subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the
Constitution, and a usurpation of power;  and that he
could be no party to the wicked violation of the laws of
the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free
people."
Governor Magoffin, of Kentucky, replied: "Kentucky
will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing
her sister Southern States."
Governor Harris, of Tennessee, replied: "Tennessee
will not furnish a man for purposes of coercion, but 50,
000, if necessary, for the defence of our rights, and those
of our Southern brothers."
Governor Henry M. Rector, of Arkansas, replied:" No
troops from Arkansas will be furnished to subjugate the
Southern States. The demand is only adding insult to
injury."
Governor Claiborne F. Jackson, the recently inaugurated Governor of Missouri, replied: "The requisition
is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with."
I give but the substance of these replies. They clearly
indicate the tone and temper of the times, and the im pression the proclamation made upon the public mind in
what were then styled the Border States. The effect
upon the North was far different. The "seven Governors" seem to have been ready with troops already
organized to send forward in obedience to the call
promptly, which they were perhaps daily expecting
Several companies from Pennsylvania reached Washington on the 16th, and reported for duty the day after the
call was made. The 6th Massachusetts Regiment left
Boston on the evening of the 17th, and left another all
375 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
but ready to follow. It was this regiment which reached
Baltimore about noon on the 19th, and which was the
occasion of the riot.
But to return to the effect upon the Border States.
Virginia now took the lead.  Her Convention, still in
session, two days after this proclamation, passed an
Ordinance of Secession. The vote in favor of it was
eighty-eight, and against it fifty-five. In it she set forth
the fact, that in her Ordinance ratifying the Constitution
of the United States, in 1788, she had reserved the right
to resume the powers therein delegated, whensoever the
same should be perverted to the injury of her people.
The Convention also submitted the Ordinance to a
popular vote of the State. If the people should reject it,
then it was to be of no force; but if they ratified it, then
it was to be considered as complete and binding upon all
parties. This action of the State was immediately communicated by Governor Letcher to Mr. Davis, at Montgomery, with a request at the instance of the Convention,
that a Commissioner should be sent by the Confederate
States Government to negotiate an alliance with that
Commonwealth.  This position was assigned to me by
Mr. Davis. I reached Richmond on the 22d of April.
In the meantime another most extraordinary proclamation by Mr. Lincoln made its appearance, which should
be noticed in this connection. It was in these words:
" Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the
United States has broken out in the States of Sbuth Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection
of the revenue cannot be efficiently executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:
"And whereas, a combination of persons engaged in such
376 
BLOCKADE PROCLAMATION.
insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended Letters
of Marque, to authorize the bearers thereof to commit
assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citi zens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the
high seas, and in waters of the United States:
"And whereas, an Executive Proclamation has been
already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these
disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a
militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and
convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate
and determine thereon:
"Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the
United States, with a view to the same purposes before
mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and
the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have
assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further
deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports
within the States aforesaid, in pursurance of the laws of
the United States and of the laws of nations in such
cases provided. For this purpose a competent force will
be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels
from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to
violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall
attempt to leave any of the said ports, she will be duly
warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of
such warning; and if the same vessel shall again attempt
to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured
and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed
advisable.
"And I hereby proclaim and declare, that if any person,
41
COL. XX.]
377 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
under the pretended authority of said States, or under
any other pretence, shall molest a vessel of the United
States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such
person will be held amenable to the laws of the United
States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.
" In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and
caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done
at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States
the eighty-fifth."
This was signed and countersigned as the other. These
two papers had rendered the Convention of Virginia, and
the people of all parts of the State, except the extreme northwestern counties, almost as thoroughly
united against the dangerous principles and doctrines
they enunciated, as the people in the more southern
States were. A Committee of the Convention, consisting of Ex-President John Tyler, William Ballard Preston, Samuel McD. Moore, James P. Holcombe, James C.
Bruce, and Lewis Harvie, was appointed to confer with
me on the subject of the proposed alliance. This Conference resulted in our agreeing, on the 24tllh to the following Articles, entitled:
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
AND THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
"The Commonwealth of Virginia, looking to a speedy
union of said Commonwealth, and the other slave States,
with the Confederate States of America, according to the
provisions of the Constitution for the Provisional Government of said States, enters into the following temporary Convention and Agreement with said States, for the
purpose of meeting pressing exigencies affecting the com
378 
CoL. XX.]  T''HiE CONVENTION WITI VIRGINIA.
mon rights, interests, and safety of said Commonwealth
and said Confederacy.
"1st. Until the union of said Commonwealth with
said Confederacy shall be perfected, and said Commonwealth shall become a member of said Confederacy, according to the Constitutions of both Powers, the whole
military force, and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said Commonwealth, in the impending conflict
with the United States, shall be under the chief control
and direction of the President of said Confederate States,
upon the same principles, basis, and footing, as if said
Commonwealth were now, and during the interval, a
member of said Confederacy.
"2d. The Commonwealth of Virginia will, after the
consummation of the union contemplated in this Convention, and her adoption of the Constitution for a Permanent Government of the said Confederate States, and she
shall become a member of said Confederacy under said
permanent Constitution, if the same occur, turn over to
the said Confederate States all the public property, naval
stores, and munitions of war, etc., she may then be in
possession of, acquired from the United States, on the
same terms and in like manner as the other States of
said Confederacy have done in like cases.
"3d. Whatever expenditures of money, if any, said
Commonwealth of Virginia shall make before the union,
under the Provisional Gpvernment, as above contemplated, shall be consummated, shall be met and provided
for by said Confederate States.
"This Convention entered into and agreed to in the
City of Richmond, Virginia, on the 24th day of April,
1861, by Alexander H. Stephens, the duly authorized Commissioner to act in the matter for the said Confederate
States, and John Tyler, William Ballard Preston, Samuel
379 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
MIcD. Moore, James P. Holcombe, James C. Bruce, and
Lewis E. Harvie, parties duly authorized to act in like
manner for the said Commonwealth of Virginia-the
whole subject to the approval and ratification of the
proper authorities of both Governments respectively.
" In testimony whereof, the parties aforesaid have
hereto set their hands and seals, the day and year aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, in duplicate originals."
These Articles were ratified by the Convention the
next day.
While speaking of this mission and its results, I may
here, by way of a short digression, state that it was in
connection with it, I for the first time became personally
acquainted with Robert E. Lee. The incidents attending
this first acquaintance with this distinguished personage,
are not without historic interest in themselves, but it is
not so much with that view, as for the purpose of illustrating the character of the man, I give them. They very
fully exhibited to me, at the time, the distinguishing
qualities of the heart as well as of the head of the man
who had already won a very honorable distinction in this
country, and whose justly merited fame now extends to
the limits of the civilized world. As an officer in the
United States Army, he had gained a high reputation in
the Mexican War.  At the time of the secession of Virginia, his native State, and of which he was a citizen, he
was in command of the 2d United States Cavalry Regiinent, stationed in Texas. He was, however, then temporarily in Washington City, and considering his ultimate
allegiance due to his State, after she had resumed the full
exercise of her Sovereign Powers, he had promptly, though
not without deep regret at the causes which impelled
him to do it, resigned his commission, and cast his fortunes with those of the people of his own State. He
380 
GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE.
accompanied his resignation with a letter to General
Scott,* which is a model of its kind, and fully characteristic of the man. He was specially devoted to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, and I
believe it is generally conceded, that the feelings of personal attachment were reciprocal between the chief and
his subaltern.
My becoming acquainted with him occured in this
way: The Legislature of Virginia, in view of the great
dangers threatening from'the position of Mr. Lincoln, had
provided by law for raising ten or twenty thousand men
to defend the State, and had authorized the Governor to
appoint a Commander-in-Chief of all the military forces
of the State, with the rank of Major-General. The Governor had appointed him to this position, and the Convention had, with great unanimity, ratified the appointment
the day on which I had reached Richmond. The cereilony of General Lee's installation to this high and re
* " ARLINGTON, VA., April 20, 1861.
"General:-Since my interview with you on the 18th instant, I have
felt that I ought not longer to retain my commission in the army.  I
therefore tender my resignation, which I request you will recommend for
acceptance.  It would have been presented at once but for the struggle
it has caused me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted the best years of my life, and all the ability I possessed.
"During the whole of that time-more than a quarter of a centuryI have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors, and the
most cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one, General, have I
been as much indebted as to yourself, for uniform kindness and consideration, and it has alwvays been my ardent desire to merit your approbation.  I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your
kind consideration, and your name and fame will always be dear to me.
"Save in defence of my native State, I never desire again to draw my
Aword.  Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continu,nace of your happiness and prosperity, and believe me, most truly yours,
"R.E.  LEE.
' Lieutenant General Winfield Scott,
"Commntanding United States Am my."
Ct)l,. XX.]
381 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIHE WAR.  [VOL. II.
sponsible office, was to take place in the Convention the
day after. This came off according to the programme, in
a very imposing form.
General Lee was escorted into the Hall of the House
of Representatives, in which the members of the Convention were assembled, where I was also by invitation,
and, upon being presented to that body, Mr. John Janney, the President, rose and addressed him in a speech of
some length, which produced a profound sensation. I
will read such parts of it as are pertinent to present
purposes. These are as follows:
"Major-General Lee, in the name of the people of
your native State here represented, I bid you a cordial and
heartfelt welcome to this hall, in which we may almost
yet hear the echo of the voices of the statesmen, the
soldiers, and sag,es of by-gone days, who have borne your
name, and whose blood now flows in your veins.
"We met in the month of February last, charged with
the solemn duty of protecting the rights, the honor, and
the interests of the people of this Commonwealth. We
differed for a time as to the best means for accomplishing
that object; but there never was, at any moment, a shade
of difference among us as to the great object itself.
"When the necessity became apparent of having a
leader for our forces, all hearts and eyes, by the impulse
of an instinct which is a surer guide than reason itself,
turned to the old county of Westmoreland. We knew
how prolific she had been in other days, of heroes and
statesmen. We knew she had given birth to the Father
of his Country, to Richard Henry Lee, to Monroe, and
last, though not least, to your own gallant father; and
we knew well by your deeds, that her productive power
was not yet exhausted.
"Sir, we watched with the most profound and intense
382 
-
;~>~
I...
* ee^e~ 
.... 11 
COL. XX.]   ADDRESS OF MR. JOHN JANNEY.
interest the triumphal march of the army led by General
Scott, to which you were attached, from Vera Cruz to the
Capital of Mexico. We read of the sanguinary conflicts,
and the blood-stained fields, in all of which victory
perched upon our own banners.  We knew of the unfading lustre that was shed upon the American name by
that campaign, and we knew, also, what your modesty
has always disclaimed, that no small share of the glory
of those achievements was due to your valor and your
military genius.
"Sir, one of the proudest recollections of my life will
be to the honor that I yesterday had of submitting to
this body, confirmation of the nomination made by the
Governor of this State, of you as Commander-in-chief of
the mnilitary and naval forces of this Commonwealth.   I
rose to put the question, and when I asked if this body
should advise and consent to that appointment, there
rushed from the hearts to the tongues of all the Members,
an affirmative response, told with an emphasis that could
leave no doubt of the feeling whence it emanated. I put
the negative of the question for form's sake, but there was
an unbroken silence.
"Sir, we have by this unanimous vote, expressed our
convictions that you are at this day among the living
citizens of Virginia,'first in war.' We pray to God
most fervently that you may so conduct the operations
committed to your charge, that it will soon be said of
you, that you are'first in peace;' and when that time
comes, you will have earned the still prouder distinction
of being' first in the hearts of your countrymen."'
At the close of this address, General Lee in a clear,
distinct, full volumed, as well as melodious voice, replied as follows:
"Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Conventioi:
383 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II
Profoundly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion,
for which, I must say, I was not prepared, I accept the
position assigned me by your partiality. I would have
much preferred your choice had fallen upon an abler man.
Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience, and
the aid of my fellow-citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native State, in whose behalf alone will I
ever again draw my sword."
All the force which personal appearance could add to
the power and impressiveness of the words, as well as
sentiments uttered by him, was imparted by his manly
form, and the great dignity as well as grace in his every
action and movement. All these, combined, sent honme
to the breast of every one the full conviction that he was
thoroughly impressed himself with the full consciousness
of the immense responsibility he had assumed. A more
deeply interesting or solemn scene of the character I
never witnessed.
So much for this ceremony by way of premise, and
what occurred at my first sight of General Lee. This is
not that first acquaintance with the man of which I
spoke. That occurred on the evening of this memorable
day, and at my quarters in the Ballard House, and reqtiires something further still by way of premise.
On my arrival at Richmond, and hearing what had
-)een done by the Governor and the Convention, in relation to the rank of General Lee, I knew full well that
every thing pertaining to the success of the mission depended mainly upon this man. For no practical alliance, as matters then stood, could be formed between the
Confederate States and the Commonwealth of Virginia,
which would not in effect, or might not in effect, razee
to some extent the high official position and rank just
conferred upon him. This I felt quite certain the Con
384 
GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE.
vention would be exceedingly reluctant to agree to, and
would not agree to unless the members became perfectly
satisfied that the measure, having even by possibility this
effect, met with his full and cordial approval. If Virginia came into an alliance with the Confederate States,
her Commander-in-Chief, by virtue of the State commission, would necessarily have to be subordinate to
officers of lower grade or rank in the Confederate Army
in  certain contingencies.   The  highest grade in  the
Confederate Army, at that time, was that of BrigadierGeneral.
Of the man personally I knew nothing, but feeling
assured that all depended in a great degree upon him,
my first object was to see how the land lay in that
quarter. Upon invitation, he met me at my quarters in a
private conference that evening. It was at this conference I first became acquainted with the man. I unfolded
to him, with perfect candor, the object of my mission,
the nature of the alliance I should propose, and particularly the effect it might have upon his official rank and
position. There was on his part equal candor and frankness-no reserve whatever. He understood the situation
fully. With a clear understanding of its bearing upon
himself individually, he expressed himself as perfectly
satisfied, and as being very desirous to have the alliance
formed. lIe stated, in words which produced thorough
conviction in my mind of their perfect sincerity, that he
did not wish anything connected with himself individually, or his official rank or Seasonal position, to
interfere in the slightest degree with the immediate coiisummation of that measure, which he regarded as one
of the  utmost importance in every possible view  of
puIblic considerations. From what occurred, I felt quite
,ssured that there was no danger in the quarter from
COL. XX.]
38b
25 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
which I had apprehended that there might probably be
the most.
The omission in the Articles to make special provision
for General Lee's official rank, was soon discovered in
the Convention. The Commissioners on the part of the
State were urged to get a change made in this particular.
I was appealed to by a number of the members on the
subject. Knowing that no such change could be made,
and feeling the deepest solicitude in the result, I barely
referred all parties approaching me in relation to it,
to General Lee himself. I advised them to consult him,
and to submit the whole matter to him, as he was the
party immediately interested, and assured them that I
believed he would cordially approve what had been done;
and if he did, I thought the Convention ought to be satisfied. Hle was thoroughly sounded by several of his
most devoted friends in the Convention, who left him
feeling as fully assured as I did that he was perfectly
satisfied with the Articles as they stood, and that there
was no bare affectation on his part in this matter. The
truth is, a look, or an intonation of voice even, at this
time, which would have indicated that his professed satisfaction was not the real and unaffected feeling of his
heart, would have defeated that measure. This I knew;
but the result was as I believed it would be from the time
of out first interview.
General Lee on this occasion, as well as on the occasion
of the resignation of his commission in the United States
Army, after Mr. Lincoln had made the most tempting
offers to him, as has been stated by high authority,*
*" The President of the United States, through one of the Cabinet,
offered him the immediate command of the army, and General Scott implored him to remain. Statement of HIon. Montgomery Blair, in the
National Intelligencer, August 9, 1866."  McCabe's Life of General Lee,
page 29.
386 
COL. XX.] EFFECT' OF PROCLAMATrIONS IN VIRGINIA.  387
showed a personal disinterestedness, and an unselfish devotion to principles and country, rarely to be met with
in this world. These are the facts in relation to him,
which I have thought not inappropriate to state in this
connection. It was on this occasion and in this way,
when put to the test in this severe crucible, he exhibited
those sterling inner qualities of the man which greatly
exalted himn in my estimation on our first acquaintance,
and which have contributed in no small degree, to the
brilliant lustre that crowns his public character throughout his great career, even under the most adverse fortunes
of war. But to return from this digression.
The Convention being fully assured, that General Lee
was perfectly satisfied with the Articles as they stood,
immediately ratified them with an additional Ordinance
in these words:
"An Ordinance for the adoption of the Constitution of the
Provisional Government of the Confederate States of
Amnerica.
" We, the Delegates of the people of Virginia, in Convention assembled, solemnly impressed by the perils
which surround the Commonwealth, and appealing to
the Searcher of hearts for the rectitude of our intentions
in assuming the grave responsibility of this act, do by
this Ordinance adopt and ratify the Constitution of the
Provisional Government of the Confederate States of
America, ordained and established at Montgomery, Alabama, on the 8th day of February, eighteen hundred and
sixty-one: Provided, that this Ordinance shall cease to
have any legal operation or effect, if the people of this
Commonwealth, upon the vote directed to be taken on
the Ordinance of Secession passed by this Convention, on
the 17th day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-one,
shall reject the same." 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THlE WAR. [Vol,. II.
They also elected a delegation to represent the State in
the Provisional Congress at Montgomery. This delegation
consisted of William C. Rives, Robert M. T. Hunter, John
W. Brockenbrough, and Waller R. Staples.
In this connection it is also proper to state, before leaving Virginia, that the popular vote on the ratification
of the Ordinance of Secession, which was taken on the
fourth Thursday in May, as provided for in the Ordinance itself, resulted in 125,950 being cast in favor of
the ratification, and 20,373 against it. This opposition
minority was mostly in the Northwestern counties. The
Eastern and Southwestern portions of Virginia were
alnost unanimous in favor of it.  In the central portion of the State, there were very few against it, and
even in Alexandria, one of the strongest Union populations in the State before this, there were only 106
votes against the Ordinance, while there were 900 in
favor of it. The impression attempted to be made, that
this election was carried by the soldiery, or by threats or
intimidation, is utterly without foundation in fact. The
true solution of it is to be found in such appeals as that
put forth by Alexander H. H. Stuart, a Union Delegate
to the State Convention, who had opposed Secession to
the last. In an address made to the people through the
press, amongst other things, he said:
c In my judgment it is the duty of all good citizens to
stand by the action of the State.  It is no time for
crimination or recrimination. We cannot stop now to
inquire who brought the troubles upon us, or why. It
is enough to know that they are upon us; and we must
meet them like men. We must stand shoulder to
shoulder.  Our State is threatened with invasion, and
we must-, repel it as best we can."
Jo11' B. BatldAwiin, an(otl1er  man of einiel tI ability who
388 
COL. XX.]   SECESSION OF NORTH CAROLINA.
occupied a similar position to that of Mr. Stuart, came
out with equal decision and earnestness. William C.
Rives, formerly United States Senator, twice Minister to
France, who stood by the Union as long as there was
hope, now went with the State heart and soul. Many
more of this class might be named. The feelings and
views of the most devoted friends of the Union in Virginia,
were in the main not unlike those of the same class in
Georgia.   But the masses of the people were really
ahead of their leaders on this subject in both these States.
So much for the general state of things in Virginia for
the present.
We will now turn our attention to the progress of
events in the other Border States. In North Carolina,
Governor John W. Ellis, two days after his reply to the
call for troops under Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation, as we
have seen, convened the Legislature to meet the 1st of
May. I-e also issued an order for the enlistment of
30,000 men to march at a day's notice. The Legislature,
immediately on assembling, passed an Act providing for
the election of delegates to another Sovereign Convention
of the State. At this election the Delegates were to be
clothed with plenary powers.  The election was directed
to take place on the 13th of May, and the Convention to
meet on the 20th of May. This Convention on the day
of its meeting, which was the eighty-sixth anniversary of
the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, passed an
Ordinance of Secession with great unanimity. They
sent Thomas L. Clingman as special Commissioner to
Montgomery, and afterwards elected a full delegation to
the Confederate Provisional Congress.
"In Tennessee, Governor Harris, also, immediately
after his reply to the call for troops under Mr. Lincoln's
proclamation, summoned an extra session of the Legisla
389 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ture to meet on the 25th of April. In no State perhaps
did this Proclamation of the 15th of April, by Mr. Lincoln,
produce a greater effect than it did in Tennessee. Many
of the strongest Union men in the State, up to this
time, then declared themselves thoroughly for Secession.
Amongst these was Felix K. Zollicoffer. When the
Legislature assembled on the 25th of April, a large majority were found to be in favor of immediate Secession.
About this time Neil S. Brown, formerly Governor of the
State, who had theretofore strenuously opposed Secession,
appeared before the public in a letter, in which he said:
"I have hoped obstinately against such an alternative;
but the conviction is forced upon my mind, that it is the
settled poiicy of the Administration, and, so far as I can
see, of the whole North, to wage a war of extermination
against the South."
Mr. Zollicoffer also appeared in a letter, in which he
said:
"We are involved in war, and no mistake, waged for
the purpose of humbling the Southern States. It cannot
be done. But we must have unity, energy, and action,
to save ourselves.  Let us drop Party, and Party names.
Let us emulate the glorious example of our fathers in
arms. We must not, can not, stand neutral, and see our
Southern brothers butchered."
On the 30th of April, Henry W..Hilliard, of Alabama,
a man of high character, who had been connected with
the Diplomatic service of the United States, as Charge
d'Affaires at Belgium, under President Tyler's Administration, appeared before the Legislature as a Commissioner
from the Confederate States, and addressed that body
upon the subject of forming an alliance with the State of
Tennessee.
On the 1st of May, the Legislature, by Joint Resolu
390 
CoL. XX.] SECESSION OF TENNESSEE AND ARKANSAS. 391
tion, directed the Governor to enter into such an alliance.
The Governor immediately appointed Gustavus A. Hienry,
Archibald O. W. Totten, and Washington Barrow, as
Commissioners, on the part of the State, for that purpose.
On the 7th of May, an alliance, or convention, was entered into between the respective parties in the same language, names and dates being changed, as that which
had been entered into by Virginia, which was immediately communicated to the Legislature by the Governor.
It was ratified in both Houses. In the Senate, on its
adoption, the vote was fourteen in favor to six against it.
In the House the vote was forty-two in favor to fifteen
against it.
On the day previous, the 6th of May, the Legislature
had passed an Ordinance entitled: "An Act to submit to
the vote of the people a Declaration of Independence, and
for other purposes." This Ordinance, or Act, provided
that the Governor should order the respective officers in
each county to hold the polls open in their several precincts on the 8th day of June ensuing, and that a certain
Declaration therein specifically set forth should be submitted to a vote of the qualified voters of the State for
their ratification or rejection. This was an Ordinance of
Secession. The Act further provided that the vote should
be by ballot, and that those voting for the Declaration,
or Ordinance, should have on their ballots the word,
"Separation," and those voting against it should have on
their ballots the words, "No Separation."  The returns
were to be made to the Secretary of State by the 24th of
June, and if a majority of the votes were given for Sepa,
ration, the Governor was required immediately to. issue
his Proclamation, declaring all connection by the State of
Tennessee with the Federal Union dissolved, and that
Tennessee is a Free, Independent Government, free from 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
all obligations to, or connection with, the Federal Government.
The Act further set forth specifically, an Ordinance for
the adoption of the Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States, and directed that all
voters in favor of that measure, looking to a representation in the Confederate Congress, should have written
on their ballots the word "Representation," and those
opposed to it should have written on their ballots " No
Representation."  The Act also provided for an election
of delegates to the Confederate Congress, in case the Provisional Constitution should be adopted by the popular
vote, so directed to be taken.
This Act, so submitting the question of Secession, and
the adoption of the Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States, passed the Senate by a vote of twenty
yeas to four nays; and passed the Hlouse by a vote of
forty-six yeas to twenty-one nays. On the questions so
submitted to the people for their decision on the 8th of
June, the majority in favor of the adoption of both the
Ordinances, so set forth in this Act of the Legislature, was
over 57,000.* A full delegation was also chosen at this
election, to represent the State inll the Confederate Congress.
In Arkansas, the President of the State Convention,
upon the publication of Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation of
* The vote in the several divisions of the State was as follows, on the
Ordinance of Separation:
For Separation.  N  eaain
East Tennessee,.
Middle Tennesse,                                     
West Tennessee,. 
Military Camps,
For Separation.
.  14,780
58,265
~ 29,127
2,741
104,913
47,238
. 57,675
Majority,.
392
No Separation.
32,923
8,198
6,117
47,238 
COL. XX.] AFFAIRS IN MISSOURI AND KENTUCKY.
the 15th of April, immediately issued a call for the reassembling of that Convention on the 6th of May. On
that day the Convention met agreeably to the call, and
immediately passed an Ordinance of Secession, with only
one dissenting vote. On the adoption of the Ordinance,
there were sixty-nine votes in the affirmative, and one in
the negative. Immediate steps were also taken by the
Convention to unite with the Confederate States. They
elected a delegation to represent Arkansas in the Confederate Congress. This delegation consisted of Robert W.
Johnson, Albert Rust, Augustus H. Garland, W. H. Watkins, and W. F. Thomason.
In Missouri, Governor Jackson, after his reply to the
call for troops under the Proclamation, convened the
State Legislature, but "declared his policy to be in favor
of peace, saying that he convened the Legislature only
for the purpose of more perfectly organizing the militia,
and putting the State in a proper attitude of defence.
He urged the President of the State Convention not to call
that body together for the passage of a Secession Ordinance; he was in favor of retaining the present status of
the State, leaving it to time and circumstances, as they
might arise, to determine the best course for Missouri to
pursue. He thought the President, in calling out troops
to subdue the Seceded States, threatened civil war, and
he pronounced the act unconstitutional, and as tending towards the establishment of a consolidated Despotism.   He recommended  ample preparations against
aggressions by all assailants. Hle appealed to the Legislature to do nothing imprudently or precipitately, but
endeavor to unite all for the preservation of the honor of
the State, the security of property, and the performance
of the high duties imposed by their obligations to their
country and to their God." *
*Appleton's Annual Cyclopcedia, 1861, i). 479.
393 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
No further immediate steps were taken for a union of
the fortunes of Missouri with those of the Confederate
States. The object of Governor Jackson seems to have
been to hold Missouri in a position of neutrality. In this,
however, his efforts failed. The State was soon plunged
into all the horrors of civil war.
In Kentucky, Governor MagofiSn, after his reply to
the Federal call for troops, convened an extra session of
the Legislature, which met on the 6th of May. In the
House of Representatives, a series of Resolutions was
passed approving the refusal of the Governor to furnish
troops to the Federal Government, and s declaring that
Kentucky should maintain a strict neutrality during the
present contest." Their object in reference to Kentucky
was similar to that of Governor Jackson in reference to
Missouri. In this policy some of the strongest Union
men of the State concurred. An address to the people
of Kentucky, on the condition of the country, was made
by a Committee of what was called the Union Party of
the State, declaring it to be the duty of the State to
maintain neutrality, and to take no part either witht the
Government or the Confederates. "Kentucky," they
said, "could not comply with the appeal of the Government without outraging her solemn convietions of duty,
and without trampling upon that natural sympathy with
the Seceding States, which neither their contempt for her
interests, nor their disloyalty to the Union, had sufficed
to extinguish. The present duty of Kentucky was to
maintain her present independent position, taking sides
not with the Government, and not with the Seceding
States, but with the Union, against them both; declaring
her soil to be sacred from the hostile tread of either, and,
if necessary, making the declaration good with her strong
right arm. And to the end that she might be fully pre
394 
CoL. XX.] THE ACCESSION OF THE BORDER STATES.  395
pared for this last contingency, and all other possible contingencies, they would have her arm herself thoroughly,
at the earliest practicable moment." *
On the 19thl of April, Mr. James Guthrie, one of the
most distinguished men of the State, who had been Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. Pierce, and who had
taken the most prominent lead in the Peace Congress,
addressed a Union meeting at Louisville. Hle opposed
the call of the President for troops, and asserted that
Kentucky would not take part with either the Federal or
Confederate side in the pending contest. He declared
her soil sacred against the hostile foot of either. So matters continued to stand in Kentucky for some time.
From this rapid glance at these almost simultaneous
as well as most eventful movements, it appears that the
effect of these Proclamations of Mr. Lincoln was, in less
than thirty days, to drive the inner tier of the four
Border States, so-called, from the old into the new Confederacy. Before the 15th of May, Virginia, Tennessee,
North Carolina, and Arkansas, were fully united, not
only in heart, but in energy and fortunes, politically,
with the Confederate States. This accession, besides its
moral effect, was of great importance to them in view
of the material advantages attending it. These States
brought an aggregate increase, in area of territory, of
204,150 square miles; a like aggregate increase of population of 4,134,191; and a like aggregate increase of
real and personal taxable property, of the value of
$1,260,770,445. Swelling the grand aggregate, in these
particulars, of the eleven Confederate States as now
organized, to 727,448 square miles of territory-and
9,103,333 of population, White and Black-and $3,441,
596,607 of taxable property.
* Appleton's Annual Cyclopcedia for 1861, p. 396. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
The territory within the actual limits of the other
twenty-two States, in January, 1861, covered an area,
in the aggregate, of 941,149 square miles. There was, at
the same time, outside of the limits of the organized
States, 1,294,949 square miles of public domain, to which
the Seceded States were jointly entitled with the other
States. These other twenty-two States, after the eleven
had withdrawn, had an aggregate population, White and
Black, of 22,030,159. Their taxable property, real and
personal, according to assessment, was of the value of
$6,822,493,901.
PROF. NORTON. In your estimate of the taxable property of the Seceded States, you have, I suppose, included
the assessed value of the slaves? A large portion of the
wealth of the Southern States at that time, consisted in
slaves. If that element be taken out, it will greatly
lessen ybur grand aggregate in this particular.
MR. STEPHENS. No; that element is not in this grand
aggregate at all. The $3,441,596,607 representing the
assessed value of real and personal property in the eleven
Confederate States, is over and above the estimated value
of their slaves. That amounted nearly to two thousand
million of dollars itself! This, however, is digressing
from the point in hand. My object was simply to show,
at this stage of our investigation, the effect of these two
proclamations of Mr. Lincoln upon the public mind, in
the then Border States, and the accessions it secured from
them to the Confederate States.
JUDGE BYNUM. A most unaccountable effect it was too,
as it seems to me, to have been produced by such a cause;
for I can see nothing in either of these Proclamations
which was not required of him in the faithful discharge
of his duties, under his oath of office.
MR. STEPHENS. There again is where we shall, perhaps,
396 
COL. XX.] LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATIONS REVIEWED.
have to agree to disagree, I suppose; for this not being a
matter involving a question of fact, so much as the proper
conclusion which should be drawn from admitted facts,
will, as other like points, have to be left to the judgment
of mankind. For myself, I can only say that, so far
from his oath of office requiring him to do anything of
the sort, its requirements were just the other way. He
was sworn to v; preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," and cc faithfully to execute the office of President
of the United States."  This oath imposed  a solemn
obligation on him not to violate the Constitution, or to
exercise, under color of his office, any power not conferred
upon him by that instrument. He was required to see
to the faithful execution of the laws of the United States,
as passed by the Congress of States, and as construed by
the Judiciary. Hle said in the first of these Proclamations
that he made the call for the militia " in virtue of the
power vested in him by the Constitution and the laws."
But no such power was vested in him by the Constitution,
nor was there any law of the United States authorizing
him to call out the militia for any such purposes as those
for which he made this call, nor was there any law
authorizing him " to set onl foot" the Blockade he did in
the second of these Proclamations. It is true, he said he
did it in pursuance of law, but there was no such law.
As these two papers did produce such an effect, they
deserve special notice.  We will, therefore, take them up
in order. In reference to the first, I have this to say,
that Congress alone has power, under the Constitution,
to declare war and to raise armies. Congress alone has
power to provide by law for calling out the militia of the
several States. This Congress had done, but had not
proyided for calling them out under any such state of
things as existed when this Proclamation was issued by
Mr. Lincoln.
397 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  LVOL. II.
JUDGE BYNUM. Hle certainly had power to call out the
militia to suppress an insurrection in a State?
MR. STEPHENS. Not at all! The President under the
Constitution has no power to call out the militia to suppress an insurrection in a State, except " on application
of the Legislature" of a State, "or of the Executive, when
the Legislature cannot be convened." This is one of the
provisions of the Constitution, which Mr. Lincoln swore
to "preserve, protect and defend."  That clause of the
Constitution is amongst the mutual covenants* between
the States guaranteeing to each a "Republican Form of
Government" and "protection against invasion and domestic violence."   It contemplated  and authorized no
interference whatever, on the part of the Federal authorities, with the internal affairs of the several States, unless
called upon for that purpose, either by the Legislature of
a State, or by the Governor, when the Legislature could
not be assembled. Congress had by law, passed in 1795,
provided how this guarantee should be made good, and
had directed how the President should act in making it
good, when so called upon by the State authorities. He
had no authority to take any action in the suppression of
an insurrection in a State, except in conformity to this
provision of the Constitution and the laws which had
been passed by Congress for carrying it out. But no application had been made to him by the Legislature of
South Carolina, nor any other State. Neither had the
Governor of South Carolina, nor any other of the Seceded
States, applied to him for aid in this respect, under that
clause of the Constitution.
If by insurrection you mean an armed resistance to
the execution of the Federal laws, or against the Federal
authorities in any particular State, then it is equally
* Ante, vol. i, pp. 1834.
398 
COL. XX.] DOUGLAS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 399
clear that he was not authorized either by the Constitution or laws of the United States, to use military force
of any kind, except as "a posse comitatus " in aid of the
civil authorities. This was provided for by the Act of
1807. In this way, and in this way only, could the
President, under his oath, use the military forces at his
command in the execution of Federal laws.
On this point, Mr. Douglas, in his speech on the 15th
of March, in the Senate, from which I have read before,*
in relation to the policy of withdrawing the Federal
troops from the Forts in the Seceded States, was so clear,
conclusive, and unanswerable, that I will here read a
portion of it in further reply to your view. In this
speech, on this point, Mr. Douglas said:
"But we are told that the President is going to enforce the laws in the Seceded States.  How?  By calling
out the militia and using the Army and Navy! These
terms are used as freely and as flippantly as if we were
in a Military Government where martial law was the
only rule of action, and the will of the Monarch was the
only law to the subject. Sir, the President cannot use
the Army, or the Navy, or the militia, for any purpose
not authorized by law; and then he must do it in the
manner, and only in the manner, prescribed by law.
What is that? If there be an insurrection in any State
against the laws and authorities thereof, the President
can use the military to put it down only when called upon
by the State Legislature, if it be in session, or, if it cannot
be convened, by the Governor. He cannot interfere except when requested. If, on the contrary, the insurrection be against the laws of the United States instead of a
State, then the President can use the military only as a
vosse comnitatus in aid of the marshal in such cases as are
* Ante, p. 351. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VO,. II.
so extreme that judicial authority and the powers of the
Marshal cannot put down the obstruction.  The military
cannot be used in any case whatever, except in aid of
civil process to assist the marshal to execute a writ. I
shall not quote the laws upon this subject; but if gentle men will refer to the Acts of 1795, and 1807, they will
find that under the Act of 1795, the militia only could be
called out to aid in the enforcement of the laws when
resisted to such an extent that the marshal could not
overcome the obstruction. By the Act of 1807, the
President is authorized to use the Army and Navy to aid
in enforcing the laws in all cases where it was before
lawful to use the militia. Hence the military power, no
matter whether Navy, regulars, volunteers, or militia, can
be used only in aid of the civil authorities.
"Now, Sir, how are you going to create a case in one
of these Seceded States, where the President would be
authorized to call out the military?  You must first procure a writ from the Judge describing the crime; you
must place that in the hands of a Marshal, and he must
meet such obstructions as render it impossible for hiim to
execute it; and then, and not till then, can you call upon
the military. Where is your Judge in the Seceded States?
Where is your Marshal? You have no civil authorities
there, and the President, in his inaugural, tells you lie
does not intend to appoint any.  He said he intended
to use the power confided to him, to hold, occupy, and
possess the Forts, and collect the revenue; but beyond
this he did not intend to go. You are told, therefore, in
the inaugural that he is going to appoint no Judges, no
Marshals no civil officers, in the Seceded States, that can
execute the law; and hence, we are told that he does not
intend to use the Army, the Navy, or the Militia, for any
such  lurpose.  Then, Sir, what cause is there for appre
400 
COL. XX.] LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATIONS REVIEWED.
hension, that the President of the United States is going
to pursue a war policy, unless he shall call Congress bor
the purpose of conferring the power and providing the
means?   I presume no Senator will pretend  that lihe
has any authority, under the existing law, to do anything
in the premises except what I have stated, and in the
manner I have stated. If I am mistaken in regard to
these laws, I shall be obliged to any Senator who will
correct me.   I have examined  them carefully, and I
think I have stated them accurately; but if not, I should
like to be corrected.
"But it may be said that the President of the United
States ought to have the power to collect the revenue on
ship-board, to blockade the ports, to use the military to
enforce the law. I say, it may be said he ought to have
that power. Be that as it may, the President of the
United States has not asked for that power. He knew
that he did not possess it under the existing laws-for we
are bound to presume that he is familiar with the laws
which he took an oath to execute. We are bound to
presume that he knew, when he spoke of collecting
revenue, that he had no power to collect it on shipboard, or elsewhere than at the ports. We are bound to
presume that, when he said he would use the power confided to him to hold, occupy, and possess the Forts and
other property of the United States, he knew he could
not call out the militia for any such purpose, under the
existing law. We are bound to presume that he knew
of this total absence of power on all these questions." *
In this speech Mr. Doug,las was no less accurate in his
facts, than he was correct in his position upon the laws
and the Constitution. There was not, at the time, a civil
officer of the Federal Government of any kind, in any of
* Congressional Globe, Part 2, 36th Cojngress, 2cl Session, p. 1458.
2(;
401 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VoL. I11.
the Seceded States. There was no Federal Collector, or
Federal Judge, or Federal Solicitor, or Federal Marshal
throughout the limits of the Confederate States, to be resisted or interfered with in any way, by combinations
of any sort, either "powerful"  or weak!   Those in
office had all resigned, and no new ones had been appointed. There was, of course, no judicial process to be
resisted or obstructed in any way. There were no civil
authorities to be aided in the execution of Federal laws.
This call for troops, therefore, was neither in aid of the
execution of any law, nor in pursuance of the provisions
of any law. It was nothing short of a clear and palpable
usurpation of power, under color of office! This is enough
for the present, in reference to the first of these Proclamations.
We will now briefly examine the second of these extraordinary edicts the one " setting on foot" a Blockade of
the Ports of the Confederate States. This is extraordinary, not only for its clear usurpations of power, but for
the strange inconsistencies with itself, which so glaringly
appear upon its very face.
First. If tlle Ordinances of Secession were void, upon
which assumption the Proclamation was based, then the
Seceded States were still in the Union with all their Ports,
and under the Constitution no discrimination could be
made between them and other ports of the United States,
either by Congress or the President, without a violation
of this solemn Compact of Union. This provision of the
Constitution, Mr. Lincoln's oath of office required him to
"preserve, protect, and defend;" and yet, in this Proclamation, without any regard to the requirement of his
oath in this particular, he openly, and avowedly, put
under blockade the ports of seven States, which he
claimed as still members of the Union! This too, he
402 
COL. XX.] LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATIONS REVIEWED.
said he did in pursuance of law!  What law?  Did Con gress ever pass any law for the blockading of our o.wn
Ports? Never!
But, on the other hand, secondly: If the Secession Ordi nances were valid, and the Confederate States were, as they
claimed to be, a foreign power, so far as concerned their
relations to the United States, then this Proclamation was
equally a palpable violation of the Constitution, because it
was an act of war, which the President had no right to re sort to, unless first authorized and empowered by Congress.
Viewed in either light, therefore, it was unquestiona bly a most flagrant usurpation of power! The Blockade
was in no sense a measure to aid the civil authorities in
the collection of revenues at Charleston, or elsewhere.
It was in effect, as well as design, a war measure! Its
purpose was to weaken an acknowledged Belligerent. If
a blockade had been necessary or proper, either to suppress a rebellion or to weaken a neighboring foreign
inimical Power, Congress alone had authority, under the
Constitution, to "set it on foot."
Then, again, the Proclamation was itself most strangely
utterly inconsistent with the assumption on which it was
based. The act of blockading the ports of the Confederate States, by the very laws of nations to which he
refers, was an acknowledgment of Public War-n?ot an
Ins,u)rection or Rebellion; which acknowledgment carried upon its very face a concession to the Confederate
States of all the rights of Belligerents, in a Public War,
under the laws of nations.   This was the necessary
effect and legitimate consequence of the measure itself.
But this most extraordinary paper, after thus conceding,
as it did, by its very terss, all the rights of Belligerents,
under the laws of nations, went on to declare a purpose to
consider and punish as pirates any persons who might
403 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
engage, under "letters of marque," on the high seas, on
the opposite side, in this Public War, so recognized by
him! By tile laws of nations, Privateers are not pirates,
as Mr. Lincoln himself afterwards admitted, at least by
his acts. As very pertinent to this subject, so far as
relates to Mr. Lincoln's authority to issue this Proclamation, I will read another portion of the same speech of
Mr. Douglas. Here is what he said in reference to a
Blockade of Southern Ports under the circumstances:
"But we are told the country is to be precipitated into
war by blockading all the Southern ports; blockading
ports within the United States; blockading our own ports,
with our own Army and Navy!  Where is the authority
for that? What law authorizes the President of the
United States to blockade Federal ports at discretion?
Hle has no more authority to blockade New Orleans or
Charleston than he has to blockade NewYork or Boston;
and no more legal right to blockade Mobile than Chicago.
Sir, I cannot consent that the President of the United
States may, at his discretion, blockade the ports of the
United States or of any other country. He can do only
what the Constitution and Laws authorize him to do.
lIe dare not attempt to obstruct commerce at the mouth
of the Mississippi river, or at Mobile, or at any other
port in the Seceded States, or even those that have remained loyal to the Constitution and to the Union. The
intimation that he is to do this, implies a want of respect
for the integrity of the President, or an ignorance of the
laws of the land on the part of those who are disturbing
the harmony and quiet of the country by threats of
illegal violence."
In this connection, I will also call your attention to
what even Mr. Webster said on the same subject, in
1832, in the days of Nullification. He was addressing
404 
COL. XX.] WEBSTER ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT. 405
a Massachusetts audience-a Convention of his Party at
Worcester. What I propose to read is as follows:
"Now, sir, I think it exceedingly probable that the
President may come to an open rupture with that portion
of his original Party which now'constitutes what is called
the Nullification Party. I think it likely he will oppose
the proceedings of that Party, if they shall adopt measures coming directly in conflict with the laws of the
United States. But how will he oppose? What will
be his course of remedy? Sir, I wish to call the attention
of the Convention, and of the people, earnestly to this
question-iHow will the President attempt to put down
Nullification, if he shall attempt it at all?
"Sir, for one, I protest in advance against such remedies as I have heard hinted. The Administration itself
keeps a profound silence, but its friends have spoken for
it. We are told, sir, that the President will immediately
employ the military force, and at once blockade Charleston! A military remedy, a remedy by direct belligerent
operation, has been thus suggested, and nothing else has
been suggested, as the intended means of preserving the
Union. Sir, there is no little reason to think, that this
suggestion is true. We cannot be altogether unmindful
of the past, and, therefore, we cannot be altogether
unapprehensive for the fiuture. For one, Sir, I raise my
voice beforehand against the unauthorized employment of
military power, and against superseding the authority of
the laws, by an armed force, under pretence of Iputting
down Nullification. The President has no authority to
blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to
employ military force, till he shall be duly required so to
do by law, and by the civil authorities. His duty is to
cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support
the civil authority. His duty is, if the laws be resisted, 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
to employ the military force of the country, if necessary,
for their support and execution; but to do all this in
compliance only with law, and with decisions of the
tribunals." *
It is useless to multiply arguments or authorities on
this point. It seems to me there ought to be, and can be
no rational controversy upon the subject. In the forum
of reason, these Proclamations of Mr. Lincoln must be
considered as gross violations of the Constitution, and
most unscrupulous usurpations of power.  The people of
the Southern States were too well versed in Constitutional
doctrines, and too thoroughly wedded to the principles
of Liberty derived from their ancestors, not to be
thoroughly aroused by the dangers thus portentously
threatened against the very foundations of Free Institutions. They looked upon these Proclamations, and rightly
too, as I think, as their English ancestors looked upon
the royal edicts of Charles I, for ship money, and other
equal outrages upon their well established Rights. Even
the strongest Union men, as Mr. Zollicoffer, Neil S.
Brown, and John Bell, of Tennessee, John Janney,
Robert Scott, and William C. Rives, of Virginia, to say
nothing of others of the same class in that State, and
thousands of others of the same class in other States, who
resisted Secession to the last, now saw that this claim of
Executive power unless checked, sooner or later, would
lead inevitably to a centralized Despotism. These are
the considerations which produced the wonderful effect
of these most extraordinary papers. And to show that
these apprehensions were right, that they  were well
founded, and that the Administration at Washington
was aiming at a complete overthrow of the Institutions
of the country, I may, as well here as elsewhere, call
* Works of Daniel Webster, vol. i, p. 273.
406 
COL. XIX.] PROCLAMATION INCREASING THE ARMY.  407
attention to three other Presidential Proclamations, which
followed each other in quick succession, and all on the
same line of progress towards Despotic Power. First,
the one of the 27th of April extending the Blockade to
Virginia and North Carolina, after they had taken steps
to ally themselves with the Confederate States. Then
the one of the 3d of May, which is in these words:
"Whereas, existing exigencies demand immediate and
adequate measures for the protection of the national Constitution and the preservation of the national Union, by
the suppression of the insurrectionary combinations now
existing in several States for opposing the laws of the
Unions and obstructing the execution thereof, to which
end a military force in addition to that called forth by
my Proclamation of the fifteenth day of April, in the
present year, appears to be indispensably necessary, now,
therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy
thereof, and of the militia of the several States, when
called into actual service, do hereby call into the service
of the United States forty4-two thousand and thirty-four
volunteers, to serve for a period of thlree years, unless sooner
discharged, and to be mustered into service as infantry and
cavalry. The proportions of each arm, and the details of
enrolment and organization, will be made known through
the Department of War; and I also direct that the regular
army of the United States be increased by the addition
of eight regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry,
and one regiment of artillery, making altogether a maximum aggregate increase of 22,714 officers and enlisted
men, the details of which increase will also be made
known through the Department of War; and I further
direct the enlistment, for not less than one nor more
than three years, of 18,000 seamen, in addition to the 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
present force, for the naval service of the United States.
The details of the enlistment and organization will be
made known through the Department of the Navy.
The call for volunteers, hereby made, and the direction
of the increase of the regular army, and for the enlist ment of seamen hereby given, together with the plan of
organization adopted for the volunteers and for the
regular forces hereby authorized, will be submitted to
Congress as soon as assembled.
" In the meantime, I earnestly invoke the co-operation
of all good citizens in the measures hereby adopted for
the effectual suppression of unlawful violence, for the
impartial enforcement of constitutional laws, and for the
speediest possible restoration of peace and order, and with
those of happiness and prosperity throughout our country.
"In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and
caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done
at the City of Washington, this third day of May, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty
one, and of the Independence of the United States the
eighty fifth."
He still speaks of "insurrectionary combinations" in
the Seceded States to "oppose" and "obstruct" the Federal officers in the execution of the laws, as if there was
a single Federal civil officer to execute any law within
their entire limits, for whose aid the force was to be used.
It was under the pretence that there were such officers
that the force was called out, but really for very different
purposes. In this Proclamation, moreover, Mr. Lincoln
actually increased the Army 64,748 men, and the Navy
18,000 men, by his own act, without the shadow of lawful
or Constitutional authority. No uk-se of the Autocrat
of Russia was ever more imperial or absolute in its
character!
408 
CoL. XX.] PROCLIAMATION OF TENTH OF MAY 1861. * 409
Even before this, as early as the 27th of April, he had,
by an order to the Commanding General of the Army,
authorized him to suspend the Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus in certain localities, but it was not until
the 10th of May that the initiative -roclamation for the
general suspension of the privilege of this Writ made its
appearance. This seems to have been a feeler to test
public sentiment in the "loyal States," so-called.  It was
evidently experimental in its character; and as an experiment, it was tried first on the Islands, on the coast
of Florida. Seeing by this experiment thus made, that
he might, with impunity, proceed further in the same
direction, this initiative step was not long afterwards followed by the bolder one of a virtual general suspension of
the privilege of this Writ throughout the United States,
by like orders to commanding Generals. By these acts
successively, the most direct blows were struck at the
very vitals of civil liberty as secured by England's Great
Charter, and which was the priceless heritage of the
people of all these States!
It was in the full exercise of this despotic power that
Mr. Seward boasted, in conversation with Lord Lyons,
that he could do what her Majesty, Queen Victoria, could
not do. In this conversation with the British Minister,
Mr. Lincoln's Secretary of State is reported to have said:
"I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the
arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch the bell again
and order the arrest of a citizen of New York. Can
Queen Victoria do as much?"* He well knew that she
could not, and that no Crowned Head in Europe, not even
the Czar of Russia, could do more!
This Proclamation of the 10th of May, being, as it was,
the initiative public step to the more general assumptions
* Fowler's Sectional Controversy, page 350. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THEi WAR.  [VOL. II.
of power which followed subsequenitly on the same line,
deserves special notice at this time. Here it is:
" Wtlereas, An insurrection exists in the State of Florida,
by which the lives, liberty, and property of loyal citizens
of the United States are endangered:
"And whereas, It is deemed proper that all needful
measures should be taken for the protection of such citizens, and all officers of the United States in the discharge
of their public duties in the State aforesaid:
"Now, therefore, be it known, that I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, do hereby direct
the Commander of the forces of the United States on the
Florida coast, to permit no person to exercise any office
or authority upon the Islands of Key West, the Tortugas,
and Santa Rosa, which may be inconsistent with the
laws and Constitution of the United States, authorizing
him at the same time, if he shall find it necessary, to
suspend there the writ of Habea.s Corpites, and to remove
from the vicinity of the United States fortresses all dangerous or suspected persons.
"In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand,
and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this tenth day of May,
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States
the eig,hty-fifth."
In this, as in his previous orders referred to, he not
only assumed publicly the power to suspend the privilege
of the writ of Ilabea8s Coo)ts, but assumed to confer that
power upon a commanding General of the Army!
JUDGE BYNUMf. If it was an extraordinary exercise of
power, it was completely justified by the necessity of the
occasion.  1"Nece-ssitas noo habet legen"- " Necessity has
no law," is an old and time-honored maxim.  "Sales pop
410 
THE LIFE OF THE NATION.
uli suprema est lex"-" To consult the safety of the people, is the first great law," is also a maxim with all statesmen. It is much older than the Constitution. In all
such cases, the public safety is the supreme law, and all
Constitutions, as well as all laws, must yield to it.
Upon these principles, it was necessary for Mr. Lincoln
to exercise the powers he did, to save the life of the Nation; and it was upon these principles, he was both justified and sustained in what he did.
MR. STEPHENS. Necessity is always the usurper's, as
well as the tyrant's plea. It is never tolerated for an instant, by those who are jealous and watchful of their
rights and liberties.  The " salus _opuli," or "safety of
the people," in all free governments, is to be "consulted"
by those entrusted with delegated powers, by a strict observance of those barriers and safeguards which the people have themselves erected for their own protection and
safety. The well-being of every Body-Politic, like the
well-being of every physical organism, is to be consulted
by a rigid conformity with the laws of its existence.
These laws in the Body-Politic are to be found in its
Constitution. The object of all written Constitutions established for the security of the ultimate safety of the
people is, as Mr. Jefferson says, "to bind down their rulers"' "with the chains" of the fundamental law, "to prevent them from doing mischief" in the exercise of their
individual judgment, upon what concerns the safety of
the people. Of this, the people themselves are the only
proper judges in the last resort.
The maxims you quote, I admit, are older than the
Constitution. So is Tyranny! The latter sprung from
the former. The object of written Constitutions is to put
an end to both. No Statesman should ever be trusted in
this country in the exercise of any power under the
CoL. XX.]
411 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"plea of necessity," or who "consults" the " safety of the
people," or attempts " to preserve the life of the Nation"
upon any maxims outside of the Constitution. The life
of the Nation is the Constitution! From this springs all
the life our wonderful Nation, constituted as it is, ever had.
In it alone this Conventional Nation, as we have seen
it is, lives, and moves, and has its being!   It is this
alone which gave it existence, and it is this alone which
can give it immortality!  Of all the absurdities, (you
will please excuse the expression,) I ever heard uttered,
the strangest to me is that set forth in the proposition,
that the preservation of the life of anything can be
effected by its destrutction or extinguishment!  I know
nothing approximating it, unless it be that other most
preposterous notion from which all these proceedings
sprung, that a voluntary Union of separate Independent
States could be preserved and maintained by coercion!
The life of the Nation can only be preserved, as the life
of anything else, by maintaining the principles of its
organic law!
Let us examine the practical workings of the maxims
you quote in their preservation of the "life of the
Nation." Under these acts, suspending the privilege of
the writ of Habeas Corpus, Northern prisons were soon
filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of the best and
truest citizens of the country, for no reason except that
of raising their voice against these utterly indefensible
assumptions of Executive power which Mr. Douglas, and
even Mr. Webster, had clearly stated would be crimes
for which  an  impeachment  should  be made.   Fort
McHenry, Fort La Fayette, and Fort Warren were turned
into Bastiles!  Strange means  these to preserve the
liberties of the people, except upon the mnaxim, that the
best way to preserve Liberty, as well as life, is to
destroy it!
412 
Coi. XX.] UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARBITRARY ACTS. 413
The Members of the Legislature of Maryland were
prevented from assembling for the performance of their
public duties by arrests and imprisonments under military
orders issued in pursuance of these Executive edicts.*
The Mayor and Marshal, and most, if not all the civil
officers of Baltimore, besides many other of the most
respectable and worthy citizens of that State and other
States, were seized and immured in prison without any
charge of crime or violation of law against them. Not
only was the freedom of speech denied, but the liberty of
the press was openly assailed and effectually suspended
throughout all the Northern States. Here is a list of a
hundred and seventy-five of some of the best citizens in
this country, who were thus seized and imprisoned in
Fort La Fayette alone,t in less than one hundred days,.
without any charge of crime against them, and in open
violation of an express clause of the Constitution! Maryland, of all the States, however, suffered most from these
arbitrary  and  tyrannical  proceedings.   The  general
sympathy and feeling of the people of the Southern
States for this 1" down-trodden" sister, at the time, found
expression in the stirring poetic utterances of James R.
Randall, one of her "exiled" sons, in the ever memorable stanzas beginning:' The despot's heel is on thy
* The order for these arrests was in these words to General Banks
"WAR DEPARTMIENT, Sep)t. 11, 1861.
" GENERAL:-The passage of an Act of Secession by the Legislature
of Maryland must be prevented. If necessary, all or any part of the
members must be arrested. Exercise your own judgment as to the time
and mannler, but do the work effectually.
"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
" SIMION CAMERON, Secretary of War."
t Ap1)leton's Ai,ntal Cyclopedia, 1861, p. 361.
1 The express terms of the cession or grant of the State of New York
by which the United States held this Fort, were openly violated by
refusing to those persons thus imprisoned the privilege of the writ of
Babea.s Corputs issued from the State Courts. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  ['VOL. II.
shore, Maryland.!"* These stanzas were set to music,
and became one of the most popular songs of the period
in all classes of society. The tender voices of young
maidens were often united with the full tones of hardy
warriors in giving increased effect to the soul-inspiring
chorus.  "The despot's heel," however, pressed none the
lighter!
It was in vain, that the venerable Taney at the head
of the Judiciary was appealed to. All that he could do,
during this reign of terror, was to proclaim to the world,
and enter on the Records of his Court, his judicial condemnationl of these monstrous outrages upon the liberties
of his country. In this he evinced a firmness and integrity, in resisting the encroachments of Executive
power at this crisis in our history, not surpassed by Sir
Edward Coke, in the days of the Stuarts in England! I
wish I had time to read this decision in the case of John
Merryman.t  I can now barely refer to it, with a special
commendation of it to your careful perusal hereafter. In
it you will find what should put to blush every one in
authority in this country, whether in high or low position,
who assumes, either under the plea of necessity, or what
he may consider the "maxims of statesmen," "to consult"
the safety of the people, by tearing down those barriers,
and removing those guards which the people themselves
have established in their organic laws, for their own protection and safety. In it, also, will be found those vital
principles of our Federal Compact-made for War as well
as for Peace-which should ever be the guide of all in
authority, whether in the civil or military service; and
which will remain forever to be studied and cherished
by every true friend of Constitutional Liberty in this
country,-in whatever position, or so long, at least, as an
* Appendix J.                t See Apjpendix K.
414 
Cot,. XX.]   WHAT WAS MR. LINCOLN TO D)O?
enlightened votary shall live to do homage at its hallowed
shrine!
JUDGE BYNUM. Well, pray tell us what Mr. Lincoln
was to do under the circumstances? Was he to do nothing but to remain still and let the Government go to
pieces, and even to permit himself to be driven from
Washington, when the purpose of the Confederate Government was officially announced, on the day Fort Sumter was fired upon, by Mr. Leroy P. Walker, the Secretary
of War, to be to overthrow the United States Government, and to plant the Confederate States flag "over the
dome of the old Capitol at Washington before the first
of May," and "eventually over Faneuil Hall itself?"
Was Mr. Lincoln to sit still and take no action to prevent the consummation of this openly declared purpose?
What you have read from Mr. Douglas's speech, and
from Mr. Webster's, all sounds well enough in peaceful
times; but you should recollect that Mr. Douglas virtually took back all that he said in this speech, when the
hour of real danger came-when the National Capital
and the very existence of the Government was thus
boastingly  threatened.   Notwithstanding his political
differences, he then cordially united with Mr. Lincoln,
in support of these measures which you have commented
on with so much severity, and have even quoted him as
authority to sustain you in the comments you have made.
MR. STEPHENS. HOW this is, we shall see. Your remarks open a wide field, and require several distinct
replies. These I will make in as regular order, and as
briefly, as the subject admits. First, in reply to your
inquiry as to what Mr. Lincoln ought to have done, I
have a two-fold answer. I will, in the first place, state
what, in my opinion, he ought not to have done; and in
the second place, what he ought to have done. He ought
415
-1 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
not, then, to have ordered the forcible supply of the
troops at Fort Sumter. Ile ought to have withdrawn
those troops, as advised by Mr. Douglas, General Scott,
and all the leading real friends of the Union, under the
Constitution, in all parts of the country. In other words,
he ought not to have inaugurated the war as he did. If
he really believed that the Union of the States under the
Constitution was such as could and ought to be main tained by force, then he ought to have convened the Con gress of the Non-Seceding States, and asked that body
by law to put at his command the military force neces sary to meet the exigencies of the crisis. He ought not
to have assumed the exercise of this power himself, for
it is clear the Constitution vested no such power in him.
This is what he ought not to have done, as well as what
he ought to have done, in that view of the powers of the
Federal Government.
But, in my view of the powers of the Federal Government, I will say that, on the withdrawal of the Seceding
States, when there was not a Federal officer left in any
of them to be aided by the military in the execution of
the laws, hlie ought to have convened the Congress and
taken their judgment upon the proper course to be pursued, in a case which was clearly not within any of the
provisions of the Compact of Union. This was clearly a
"casu8s non feederis;" and he should have left it to the
Congress to determine the proper action to be taken in
relation to it.  So much for what he ought not to have
done, as well as what hlie ought to have done under the
circumstances, in both views of the question, in my
opinion.
I will now go further, and tell you what I think the
Congress of States ought to have done under the circumstances, if they had been so convened by him.  They
416 
COL. XX.] A CONVENTION OF ALL THE STATES.
should have called a Convention of all the States, with a
view to a readjustment of their relations. If the Seceded
States had responded to that call, well and good. in that
event, 1 have but little doubt that the result would have
been a peaceful adjustment of all matters in controversy,
by the derelict States heretofore referred to-those which
had openly and avowedly refused to perform  leir obliga tions under the Constitution-receding from their position, (Judge Chase's opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding,*) and that upon this redress of grievances and
righting of the wrong complained of, the Seceded States
would have returned to their positions; and the whole
Federal machinery, at no distant day, would have been
restored to its normal and harmonious action in all its
parts, as peacefully and joyously as when it first went
into operation.
But in the event that the Seceded States had not responded to the call, or in the event that the derelict
States had  refused to renew  their pledges of fidelity in
the matter  complained of, from conscientious? scruples or
* As evidence that Judge Chase's opinion was not well founded, see
Resolutions of the House of Representatives, passed 27th of February,
1861, declaring the Acts of the derelict States, in regard to the return
of fugitives from service, to be in "derogation of the Constitution, and
inconsistent with the comity and good neighborhood that should prevail among the several States," and recommending the States to cause
their Statutes in this particular, to be revised, etc. Every Republican
in the House, except thirty-one, voted for these Resolutions. Mr.
Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, headed the list of those who
voted for them.  This is a clear indication that these States would have
receded on that question. If this indication had been given the first
week of the Session, before the Southern States had withdrawn, Secession might not have taken place. As it was, it came too late to prevent
that, but not too late to have led to a restoration of the Union, through
a Convention of the States. Perhaps it was to prevent this apprehended
ultimate result of their thus receding on this question, that the war was
inaugurated as it was.
See Resolutions, lIcP1herso's'"History of the Rebellion,' page 58
2)
417 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
other considerations, then in either of these alternatives
the fact would have been demonstrated, that we had
arrived at that period in our history spoken of by Mr.
John Quincy Adams.* In either of these contingencies
it would have appeared that the different States of
the Union  were "no  longer attached  by  the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies."
With this fact demonstrated, this Convention of States
should have come to the same conclusion in reference to
it that Mr. Adams did. He said that if that day in our
history should ever arrive, it would be far better for the
people of the several States "to part in friendship from
each other, than to be held together by constraint," and
"to leave the separated parts to be re-united by the law
of political gravitation" to their respective centres.
This is the wise and patriotic conclusion to which that
Convention should have come, if it had been called under
the circumstances, and the fact of irreconcilable difference
between the States had been thus demonstrated. The
result whichever way it might have been, whether a
restoration of the Union of all the States as before, each
State faithfully performing all its obligations under the
Constitution, or a peaceful separation, would have been
in strict conformity with the great principles upon which
our entire system of Free Institutions is based. There
would have been no war, nor any of those outrages upon
public liberty to which I have alluded, and which have
brought so much reproach upon our Institutions of Selfgovernment throughout the world, and which have but
one inevitable end, if not abandoned, and that is absolute
Despotism!
My own opinion, as I have said, is, that if Mr. Lincoln
had pursued the course which I think he ought to have
* Ante, vol. i, p. 527.
418 
MR. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
done, there would have been a speedy restoration of the
Union, by all the States returning to their duties and
obligations under the Constitution, and the Federal Gov ernment would have entered upon a new and a grander
career of greatness.
So much by way of answer to your inquiry. Now, a
few words in reply to what you say of Mr. Douglas, and
what you style the official announcement of the purpose
of the authorities at Montgomery. Either you are greatly
mistaken, or I am, if you suppose Mr. Douglas ever took
back or modified, in the slightest degree, a single phrase
or word in the speech from which I have quoted. It is
true, as I understand, that, under the influence or impression produced by the telegram to which you refer,
purporting to give the substance of what Mr. Walker
said, on the occasion alluded to, Mr. Douglas did advise
Mr. Lincoln to convene Congress, and did approve of all
proper steps being taken for the defence of the Capital
against, what he considered, a threatened attack upon
the Government of the United States, and a war of invasion. He did not, however, as far as I have ever seen,
utter a word in modification of what he had said, as to
the powers or duties of the President, under the circumstances.
He certainly did not give these measures I have been
commenting upon, or the general policy of Mr. Lincoln,
either before or after the events at Fort Sumter, his
cordial endorsement or support; for, on his return to Illinois, a few days afterward, he assured his political friends
that he did not know what Mr. Lincoln's policy was.
He was soon stricken with disease, attended with delirium, and died on the 3d of June. The last intelligent
words uttered by him, as reported, conveyed a message
to his sons, Robert and Stephen, then at college, "to
COL. XX.]
419 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. II.
obey the laws and support the Constitution of the United
States." In this dying declaration there was no taking
back, but a reaffirmance of the sentiments and principles
of the speech which I have quoted.
He never could have held that Mr. Lincoln was obey  ing either the laws or the Constitution, in these usurpa  tions of power to which I have referred. lIe may have
held, for aught I know, with you and many eminent
men in the country, what seems to me to be so irrational
a position, that the Federal Government did possess the
abstract rightful power to maintain the Union by force,
but I never saw anything from him which warrants the
belief that he endorsed or approved the policy of exercis
ing the power, even though, in his judgment, it existed,
in case any of the States should see fit peaceably to with  draw without any aggression upon the rights and inter  ests of the others.   In October,  1860, he did most
i emphatically endorse the Georgia Platform of 1850,
before at least twenty thousand freemen at Atlanta!
This Platform distinctly claimed the right, in the con  tingency of a breach of faith of the other Confederates, to
sever, in the last resort, every tie that bound her to the
Union. This right he fully recognized. Whether he
considered it a revolutionary right, as did Mr. Webster,
is immaterial for all practical purposes. If the right ex:
isted, it is immaterial therefore from what source it sprung.
There could be no opposing rigyAht to prevent its peaceful
exercise.  He certainly never did utter a sentiment, so
far as I have seen, advocating the power of the President
to do, without the authority of Congress, what Mr. Lin  coln did in the matters I have referred to. My opinion
is, that his position on this subject was very similar to
that of Mr. Adams.
Mr. Douglas was no changeling in principles or opinions.
420 
CoL. XX.] MR. WALKER'S SPEECH AT MONTGOMERY. 421
Of all the men I ever knew, he was about the last who
might have'been expected to take back anything he had
said. I knew him well for sixteen years. We went into
Congress together, in December, 1843, and a more unyielding and inflexible man in his positions and matured
opinions I never met with. His death, at the time, I regarded as one of the greatest calamities, under the dispenpensations of Providence, which befell this country in the
beginning of these troubles. So much for Mr. Douglas's
position.
Now a word or two in reply to that portion of your
remarks which relates to the telegram from Montgomery.
Whether MIr. Walker really did make such a speech, as
reported by that telegram, or not, I do not know; for I
was not there: but I do know that many things were reported by telegraph to have been said by parties, which
were never said by them, and I cannot believe it possible
that Mr. Walker could have made a speech justly admitting the construction which you and others put upon the
words of the telegram referred to. For, if there is anything I do know, it is that such were not the views of
the Cabinet, or of the people generally of the Confederate States, nor do the words of the telegram require
that construction which you and others put upon them.
Another and a very different construction is perfectly
consistent with them.
With this view I will add that it is not at all irnprobable that Mr. Walker, in speaking on that occasion of
the war, inaugurated as this was, and of the acts of Mr.
Lincoln in bringing it on in such open and palpable
violation of the fundamental principles of the Government, may have indulged in the expression of the hope
that the people of all the States would be so aroused by
its alarming tendency to Centralism and Despotic Power, 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  rVOL. I1.
'that the cry might go forth, the " cause of Charleston is
the cause of us all "-and that Maryland, as well as Virginia and the other Border States, would now certainly
join her sisters of the South, as Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and Arkansas actually did subsequently.
With these views, and animated with such sentiments
as these, it is not improbable that he may have indulged
in the belief, and expressed the opinion, that "before the
1st of May," the flag under which he then spoke might
wave "c over the dome of the old Capitol at Washington,"
planted there, not by a conquering army, but by the willling hands of a free people, holding the great truth that " all
Governments derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed," just as the same flag had been planted
where he was then speaking. In the same vein and in
the indulgence of the same sentiments, it is not improbable that he may have expressed the opinion and hope,
that "eventually" the final result of that conflict of principles which we have been tracing, and of that physical
conflict growing out of them, that day begun, would be
the planting of the same flag-the symbol of the Sovereign Right of local Self-government- the emblem of
Federation against Centralism-over Faneuil Hall itself
-the Cradle of American Liberty; but planted there in
the same way by the voluntary hands of a free people!
That a speech, embodying these sentiments, may have
been made by him, is not at all improbable, nor would it
have been inconsistent with the words of the telegram
itself. But I do not think that he could have made a
speech declaring a design or purpose, on the part of the
Authorities at Montgomery, to wage a war, as you suppose, with a view to overthrow the Government of the
United States, or by conquest to plant their flag anywhere; for war, if it could possibly be avoided, was not
422 
COL. XX.]  POSITION OF THE CONFEDERATES.
the object, wish, desire, or intention of the Confederate
States-much less conquest.   Peace was  their object.
This their every act shows. This, Mr. Walker's telegram
to General Beauregard, before the fire upon Fort Sumter
was opened, clearly shows.
These remarks bring me to the point I was coming to
in the course of what I proposed for this occasion. After
the very rapid glance which we have taken at the movements elsewhere, the very next subject, on the line I was
pursuing, was a notice of the progress of events in the
meantime at Montgomery. To this, therefore, we will now
turn our attention.
The Confederate Congress, as stated before, had been
summoned by Mr. Davis, immediately after the occurrences at Fort Sumter, to re-assemble on the 29th of
April. On their re-assembling, in giving them his views
upon the situation, after recounting all his efforts at
peace, and the duplicity which had been practised upon
the Commissioners sent to Washington, and urging upon
them the most energetic measures to repel the invasion,
and to defend themselves and their Institutions against
the most formidable array of military power which was
threatened to be brought against them, Mr. Davis used
the following language in conclusion-to which I wish to
call your special attention.  It is doubly apropos from
the matters introduced by your interruption.  Here is
what he said:
"We feel that our cause is just and holy, and protest
solemnly, in the face of mankind, that we desire peace
at any sacrifice save that of Honor and Independence.
We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concessions
from the Free States. All we ask is to be let alone-that
none shall attempt our subjugation by arms. This we
will, and must resist, to the direst extremity. The mo
423 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIHE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ment this pretension is abandoned, the sword will drop
from our hands, and we shall be ready to enter into
treaties of amity and commerce mutually beneficial. So
long as this pretension is maintained, with firm reliance
on that Divine Power which covers with its protection
the'just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inherent right to freedom, independence, and self-government."
This is the official announcement of the purpose and
policy of the Authorities at Montgomery in regard to the
war. In it Mr. Davis expressed the unanimous views
and sentiments of his Cabinet, Mr. Walker included;
and in it he announced the feelings, views, and sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the people of the
Confederate States. It was, on their part, a war entirely
in defence of what they considered the inherent, sovereign, and inalienable Right of Self-government.
iHaving thus presented, by the survey we have taken
of the effect of the Proclamation of Mr. Lincoln of the
15th of April, and of his other acts, the position of the
Parties, politically, towards the war, up to the close of
April, 1861, and the principles on which they were
arrayed in arms against each other, we will now postpone,
for another occasion, a further view of its general conduct
in reference to these principles on both sides.
424 
COLLOQUY XXI.
CHARACTER OF THE WAR-NEITHER REBELLION NOR CIVIL WAR, BUT WAR
BETWEEN STATES-CONDUCT OF THE WAR ON BOTH SIDES AS IT PRO GRESSED-ACTION OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS-ACTION OF FEDERAL CON GRESS-SUBJECT OF PRISONERS-PRIVATEERS —MR. STEPHENS'S OPINION
OF MR. LINCOLN DRAWN OUT BY PROF. NORTON —DISCUSSION BETWEEN
JUDGE BYNUM AND MR. STEPHENS IN RELATION TO MR. LINCOLN AND HIS
ACTS-DANTON-ROBESPIERRE-C~ESAR-HAZAEL-MR. ANDREW  JOHN SON'S RESOLUTION AND SPEECH IN U. S. SENATE-MEETING OF CONFED ERATE CONGRESS AT RICHMfOND-MR. DAVIS'S MESSAGE-GENERAL JOSEPH
E. JOHNSTON-EVENTS TO THE CLOSE OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND
ORGANIZATION UNDER PERMANENT CONSTITUTION-COMMISSION TO EUROPE
-TRENT AFFAIR-EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS-CONVENTIONS WITH MIS SOURI AND KENTUCKY.
MR. STEPHENS. The war now, on both sides, began to
assume gigantic proportions.  It was no Insurrection or
Rebellion, or even Civil War in any proper sense of these
terms. A Rebellion or Insurrection is resistance to the
Sovereign Power of any Society, Commonwealth, or
State by those owing it allegiance, and may be justified
or not, according to the facts of the case. A Civil War is
but another name for the same sort of resistance, where
it assumes so formidable a magnitude as to divide the
members of the same Society or Commonwealth into two
great Parties, between which ultimate supremacy becomes a matter of uncertainty and doubt. Vattel has
well and truly said, that "custom appropriates the term
of' civil war' to every war between the members of one
and the same Political Society." * Further on he says,
where such a "war breaks the bands of society and
* Vattel's Law of Nations, B. 3, C. xviii, Sec. 292.
425 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Government, or, at least, suspends their force and effect,"
it produces "two independent parties, who consider each
other as enemies, and acknowledge no common judge.
These two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as thenceforward constituting, at least for a time,
two separate Bodies, two distinct Societies."
But this war, properly and truly considered, was not
of this character at all. For, if the facts of our history
be, as they appear incontestably to be from the review
which we have made of them, the people of the United
States never did form or constitute one Political Society,
or Body-Pdlitic. The Union of the States was a Union
of distinct and separate Political Societies or BodiesPolitic. The States held no such relation to the Union
as Departments or Provinces do to an Empire, or as
Counties and Districts do to a State, as maintained by
Mr. Lincoln.* The citizens of each State owed allegiance,
as we have seen, to their own separate States.t
The war, therefore, was a war between States regularly organized into two separate Federal Republics.
Eleven States on the one side, under the name and style
of "The Confederate States of America," and twenty-two
States on the other side, under the like name and style
of "The United States of America."  In our further
notice of the conduct of this war, we may properly
enough, therefore, designate the Parties to it by the
terms "Confederates" and "Federals," though the latter
term will by no means correctly represent the principles
of those thus designated. In the beginning, and throughout the contest, the object of the "Confederates" was to
maintain the separate Sovereignty of each State, and the
right of Self-government, which that necessarily carries
* Speech at Indianapolis, Indiana, 11th Feb., 1861.
t Ante, vol. i, pp. 70, 76, 492.
426 
COL. XXI.] CONFEDERATE FINANCE MEASURES.
with it.  The object of the "Federals," on the contrary,
was to maintain a Centralized Sovereignty over all the
States, on both sides. This was the fundamental principle involved in the Conflict, which must be kept constantly in mind.
The Congress of the Confederate States, we have seen,
was in session.  The Federal Congress was summoned
to meet on the 4th of July. But in advance of this, Mr.
Lincoln, by his Proclamation, as we have seen, had
ordered an increase to the Regular Federal Army of
64,748 men, and an increase to the Navy of 18,000
men. The Regular Federal Army, besides the volunteer
forces called out, before this increase, consisted of about
16,000 men. The new force added by Presidential edict
swelled the number of the Regular Army to about
80,748 men. The Federal Navy, before the increase so
ordered, consisted of about 10,000 men, exclusive of
officers and marines. The total number of vessels of all
classes belonging to this Navy was ninety, carrying or
designed to carry, about 2,415 guns. The increase of
men under the Presidential edict run the aggregate of
seamen in service up to nearly 30,000.
The Confederates, on their assembling in Congress, on
the 29th of April, as stated, went to work the best way
they could to meet this formidable array of power against
them. By Act of Congress they simply recognized the
existence of the war so inaugurated against them,,excluding from their Act the States of Missouri, Kentucky,
Maryland, and Delaware. These they did not recognize
as Parties to the war. With this recognition of the war
so forced upon them, they resorted to all the means at
their command to repel it. At their first organization,
less than three months before, they were without an
Exchequer, an Army, or a Navy of any sort, and without
427 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
any munitions of war, except those which had fallen into
the hands of the several States in the Federal Forts, and
which had been turned over to them, to be used in the
common cause. The State of Alabama, on the first as sembling of the Convention, at Montgomery, had tendered
them, for temporary use, a half million of dollars, and,
before the affair at Sumter, the Congress had provided,
by law, for making a loan of $15,000,000, to repay Ala bama's advance, and to meet other necessary eminergen cies. But now further means became necessary. To
meet the forces arrayed against them a large army was
necessary. To raise and equip this required much larger
expenditures of money than the amounts at their com mand. Another loan was authorized to the amount of
$50,000,000. This was to be effected by the sale of
Confederate States Bonds, redeemable at the expiration
of twenty years from their date, bearing an interest of
eight per cent. per annum.  The same act authorized the
issuance of twenty millions of Treasury notes, in lieu of a
like amount of bonds to answer the same purposes, if the
Secretary of the Treasury and the President should deem
it better to issue the Treasury notes instead of making a
sale of the bonds. Besides this, another measure was
adopted, known as the Produce Loan. By this, invita-'
tions were given for contributions of cotton, tobacco,
corn, wheat, flour, meat, and army subsistence generally,
in the way of a loan. By the terms of the act, the arti cles so contributed were to be sold, and the proceeds to
be turned over to the Secretary of the Treasury, who was
to issue eight per cent. bonds for the same. These were
the extraordinary methods adopted for raising means,
besides the other regular modes of providing revenue
without resorting to direct taxation. So much for the
financial measures of the Confederates, at present.
428 
COL. XXI.]  CONFEDERATE ARMY AND NAVY.
In view of the exigency for an immediate military
force in the field, the Congress looked almost exclusively
to the volunteer spirit of the people. By Act, they authorized the President to accept the services of one hundred thousand volunteers, either as cavalry, mounted
riflemen, artillery, or infantry, in such proportions of
these several arms as he might deem expedient, to serve
for and during the war, unless sooner discharged. The
Congress also provided for the appointment of five General officers, to have the rank of " General," instead of
"Brigadier-General" as previously provided.  This was
to be the highest military grade known in the Confederate States service.
In lieu of a Regular Navy, their only resort was the
enlistment of armed ships  under Letters of Marque.
Very soon quite a number of small vessels were thus put
in commission, and reached the high seas by running the
Blockade. Amongst these may be named the Calhoun,
the Petrel, the Spray, the Ivy, the Webb, the Dixey, the
Jeff. Davis, the Bonita, the Gordon, the Coffee, the York,
the McRae, the Savannah, the Nina, the Jackson, the
Tuscarora-besides others. In less than a month, more
than twenty prizes were taken and run into Southern
Ports. The steamers Sumter and Nashville, fitted out
by the Government, and under the command of Naval
officers, went to sea at a later date. The Sumter ran thq
Blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi, on the 30th
of June, in charge of Commander Raphael Semmes, a
gallant officer who had resigned his position in the Navy
of the United States, and who thus entered upon that
brilliant career in the Confederate Service which has
secured to him a lasting fame and renown. The Nashville was put in command of Captain Robert B. Pegram,
another resigned officer of the U. S. Navy, of experience,
429 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
skill, and distinction. It was several months later, before
Captain Pegram got his vessel out of the Port of Charleston.
This "militia upon the high seas" captured many
millions of the enemy's property, and produced a great
sensation throughout the Northern States. As many as
twenty prizes, and several prisoners, were taken by those
which first got to sea, before the end of May. The Congress at Montgomery, by law, immediately provided for
their proper treatment, which was in strict accordance
with the usage and humanity of the most civilized nations. The Act directed that they should be treated
"as prisoners of war," and "furnished with rations in
quantity and quality as those furnished to enlisted men
in the Army of the Confederacy."
After these measures on the Finances, the Army, and
the Navy, the Congress adjourned on the 21st of May,
to meet again on the 20th of July, in the City of Richmond, Virginia, which was settled upon as the future
Seat of Government.
In the meantime, the call which had been made for
volunteers had been most enthusiastically responded to.
Before the re-assembling of the Congress in Richmond,
more than a hundred thousand men had pressed the
tender of their services in the cause, and more than fifty
thousand were under arms organized into battalions and
regiments, and ready for duty in one part of the country or
another. The largest number were collected in different
places in Virginia, where the first blow from the enemy
was expected. Meantime the Privateer Savannah, under
command of T. Harrison Baker, with a crew of twenty
men had been captured, on the 3d of June, off Charleston,
by the U.S. Brig Perry.  Her crew had been placed in
irons and sent to New York, where they were to be tried
for piracy, under Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation. It was now
430 
COL. XXI.]   THE SUBJECT OF PRISONERS.
that the question about prisoners arose, for the first time,
between the Parties Belligerent, which, from the importance this question assumed in the subsequont conduct
of the war, deserves special notice here. News of the
treatment of these prisoners taken on the Privateer Sa,
vannah, having reached Richmond through the public
press, Mr. Davis immediately addressed a communication
to Mr. Lincoln, and committed it to the hands of a special
messenger, Col. Taylor, an officer of the Confederate
Army, with directions to obtain, if possible, a passage by
flag of truce through the Federal lines, and to deliver it
in person.   In this communication, dated  Richmond,
July 6th, 1861, he said to Mr. Lincoln:
" laving learned that the Schooner Savannah, a private armed vessel in the service, and sailing under a
commission issued by authority of the Confederate States
of America, had been captured by one of the vessels
forming the blockading squadron off Charleston harbor,
I directed a proposition to be made to the officer commanding that squadron, for an exchange of the officers
and crew of the Savannah, for prisoners of war held by
this Government,'according to number and rank.'  To
this proposition, made on the 19th ultimo, Captain
Mercer, the officer in command of the blockading squadron, made answer, on the same day, that' the prisoners
(referred to) are not on board of any of the vessels under
my command.'
"It now appears, by statements made, without contradiction, in newspapers published in New York, that the
prisoners above mentioned were conveyed to that city,
and have been treated, not as prisoners of war, but as
criminals; that they have been put in irons, confined in
jail, brought before the Courts of Justice on charges of
piracy and treason; and it is even rumored that they
431 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
have been actually convicted of the offences charged, for
no other reason than that they bore arms in defence of
the rights of this Government, and under the authority
of its commission.
" I could not, without grave discourtesy, have made the
newspaper statements above referred to the subject of this
communication, if the threat of treating as pirates the
citizens of this Confederacy, armed for its service on the
high seas, had not been contained in your proclarmiation
of the 19th of April last; that proclamation, however,
seems to afford a sufficient justification for considering
these published statements as not devoid of probability.
"It is the desire of this Government so to conduct the
war now existing as to mitigate its horrors, as far as may
be possible; and, with this intent, its treatment of the
prisoners captured by its forces has been marked by the
greatest humanity and leniency consistent with public
obligation. Some have been permitted to return home
on parole, others to remain at large, under similar conditions, within this Confederacy, and all have been furnished
with rations for their subsistence, such as are allowed to
our own troops. It is only since the news has been received of the treatment of the prisoners taken on the
Savannah, that I have been compelled to withdraw these
indulgences, and to hold the prisoners taken by us in
strict confinement.
"A just regard to humanity and to the honor of this
Government, now requires me to state explicitly, that
painful as will be the necessity, this Government will deal
out to the prisoners held by it, the same treatment and
the same fate as shall be experienced by those captured
on the Savannah; and if driven to the terrible necessity
of retaliation, by your execution of any of the officers or
crew of the Savannah, that retaliation will be extended,
432 
COL. XXI.] OVERTURE OF MR. DAVIS-HOW TREATED.  433
so far as shall be requisite to secure the abandonment of
a practice unknown to the warfare of civilized man, and
so barbarous, as to disgrace the nation which shall be
guilty of inaugurating it.
"With this view, and because it may not have reached
you, I now renew the proposition made to the Commander
of the Blockading Squadron, to exchange for the prisoners taken on the Savannah, an equal number of those
now held by us, according to rank."
This overture of Mr. Davis was so far respected as to
let Col. Taylor, the bearer of it, pass the enemy's lines,
and to go to Washington, but a personal interview with
Mr. Lincoln was denied. He was permitted to return
the next day, with a verbal reply from General Scott,
that the communication had been delivered to Mr. Lincoln, and that he would answer it in writing as soon as
possible. No answer in writing, or in any other way,
however, was ever made by Mr. Lincoln to the communication. The only resort left to Mr. Davis, therefore, was
the extreme one of retaliation, recognized by the most
civilized nations. A number of Northern prisoners was
selected by lot, to meet whatever fate should be measured
out to these, and other privateers taken on the high seas.
Amongst the Federal prisoners thus selected for retaliation, were Colonels Corcoran, Lee, Cogswell, Wilcox,
Woodruff, and Wood; Majors Potter, Revere, and Vogdes;
Captains Rockwood, Bowman, and Keffer. Bowman and
Keffer were substituted in like manner, by lot, in lieu of
Captains Rickett and McQuade who were wounded, and
who, in consequence, were exempted from the lot which
fell on them in the first instance.
The end of this whole matter, so revolting to the common sentiment of the age, in all enlightened countries,
was a desistance by Mr. Lincoln, from the position and
28 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vow.. II.
doctrines assumed in his Proclamation. These prisoners
on both sides, were all subsequently duly exchanged.
Whether the authorities at Washington were induced to
change their policy and purpose in this particular, by a
recognition of the laws of war, or from a sense of humnanity, or from fears excited in another quarter, will,
perhaps, be left forever to conjecture; for no explanation
of it has ever been given to the public, as far as I am
aware.
No further reply was ever made to Mr. Davis's communication referred to. Judging, therefore, from the subsequent course of the Federal authorities upon the subject
of prisoners generally, about which so much has been said
and written, especially about the thousands of Federal
prisoners, who were permitted by these authorities to
suffer and die in Southern stockades, from wounds and
diseases incident to the climate, (to which the men were
not accustomed,) rather than to agree upon just terms of
exchange, as we shall see, it is not outside of a legitimate
presumption to come to the conclusion that the desistance
in this case was induced from no considerations of the
sufferings or impending fate of the gallant officers of their
army thus held as hostages. The change of policy evidently came more from fear than from any sense of
humanity, or the acknowledgment of the universally
recognized principles of civilized warfare.  That fear was
excited by the position of England on the subject. This
was made known by what occurred in the House of Lords
of the British Parliament, on the 16th of May, soon after
Mr. Lincoln's m6st extraordinary Proclamation of the
19th of April reached that country. On this day, in
that body, the Earl of Derby said:
"He apprehended that if one thing was clearer than
another, it was that privateering was not piracy, and that
434 
COL. XXI.] FEDERAL CONGRESS-JOINT RESOLUTION.  435
no law could make that piracy, as regarded the subjects
of one Nation, which was not piracy by the law of
Nations.  Consequently the United States must not be
allowed to entertain this doctrine, and to call upon her
Majesty's Government not to interfere. He knew it was
said that the United States treated the Confederate
States of the South as mere Rebels, and that as Rebels
these expeditions were liable to all the penalties of high
treason. That was not the doctrine of this country,
because we have declared that they are entitled to all
the rights of Belligerents.  The Northern AStates could not
claim thle rights of Belligerents for themselves, and, on the
other hand, deal with other parties not as Belligerents, but
as Rebels."
Lord Brougham said that "it was clear that privateering was not piracy by the law of Nations."
Lord Kingsdown took the same view.  "What was to
be the operation of the Presidential Proclamation upon
this subject was a matter for the consideration of the
United States." But he expressed the opinion that the
enforcement of the doctrine of that Proclamation "would
be an act of barbarity, which would produce an outcry
throughout the civilized world."
It is no strain of presumption to assign this change of
policy in reference to the privateersmen on the part of
the Federal Authorities to apprehensions and fears
awakened by this voice from England, especially in view
of their subsequent conduct in relation to the exchange
of prisoners.
But to go on with a rapid glance at the progress of
events.
The Federal Congress convened on the 4th of July,
according to the Presidential Proclamation. In the Senate, at an early day, on the 10th, a Joint Resolution was 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  LVOL. II.
offered to legalize these extraordinary acts of Mr. Lincoln,
to which I have referred. This deserves special notice,
and is in these words:
"Whereas, since the adjournment of Congress, on the
fourth day of March last, a formidable insurrection in
certain States of this Union has arrayed itself in armed
hostility to the Government of the United States, constitutionally administered; and, whereas, the President of
the United States did, under the extraordinary exigencies
thus presented, exercise certain powers and adopt certain
measures for the preservation of this Government-that
is to say: First. He did, on the fifteenth day of April
last, issue his Proclamation calling upon the several
States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such
insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be
faithfully executed. Secondly. He did, on the nineteenth
day of April last, issue a Proclamation setting on foot a
blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas. Thirdly. He did, on the twenty-seventh day of
April last, issue a Proclamation establishing a blockade
of the ports within the States of Virginia and North
Carolina. Fourthly. He did, by order of the twentyseventh day of April last, addressed to the Commanding
General of the Army of the United States, authorize that
officer to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus at any point
on or in the vicinity of any military line between the
city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington. Fifthly.
He did, on the third day of May last, issue a Proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two
thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the regular
Army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven
hundred and fourteen men, and the Navy by an addition
of eighteen thousand seamen. Sixthly. He did, on the
436 
MR. LINCOLN'S MESSAGE.
tenth day of May last, issue a Proclamation authorizing
the Commander of the forces of the United States on the
coast of Florida to suspend tile Writ of Habeas Corpus,
if necessary. All of which Proclamations and orders
have been submitted to this Congress. Now, therefore,
"Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Uidtted States of America in Congress assembled,
That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and
orders, hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are
hereby, approved and declared to be in all respects legal
and valid, to the same intent, and with the same effect,
as if they had been issued and done under the previous
express authority and direction of the Congress of the
United States."
This Resolution deserves to be thus noted, not only
from its own extraordinary character in thus attempting
to legalize unconstitutional acts and gross usurpations of
power by the President, through the means of a joint
resolution of both Houses of Congress, but from the fact,
also, that up to this time, even a majority of that body
was not prepared to sanction or maintain either the
monstrous doctrines upon which Mr. Lincoln's acts were
based, or this equally monstrous manner of granting him
indemnification for them. The resolution was never even
acted upon, though parts of the indemnification contained
in it, were subsequently inserted in other joint measures,
without which even those Senators, who balked at first,
saw that the war could not be maintained.
On the assembling of this Congress, Mr. Lincoln in his
message did not claim that his previous acts, which we
have noticed, were all in pursuance of the Constitution or
laws, but said, "whether  strictly legal or not," they
"were ventured upon under what appeared  to be a
popular demand and a public necessity, and trusted that
COL. XXI.]
437 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
Congress would readily ratify them." In it, however, he
called for more men and money.
"It is now," said he, "recommended that you give the
legal means for making this contest a short and decisive
one; that you place at the control of the Government, for
the work, at least four hundred thousand men, and four
hundred million dollars!"
In this message he attempted an argument to show
that "the Southern movement," as he called it, was a
"Rebellion," and that the war  to suppress it, and to
preserve "the Union," was perfectly justifiable.  This
was perhaps more for effect abroad than at home. He
stated that "the whole movement" was based "upon an
ingenious sophism which if conceded was followed by
perfectly logical steps through all the incidents to the
complete disruption of the Union."
That was an important admission. It was virtually
giving up the argument in the outset. For the " sophism" on which it was based in his view, was the incontestable fact, as we have seen, of the Sovereignty of the
several States. If this be a fact and not a "sophism.,
then according to his own admission, Secession was
necessarily a logical sequence and perfectly justifiable.
This fact, however, or sophism as it appeared to him, he
attempted to refute after this fashion:
"This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its
currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State-to
each State of our Federal Union. Our States have
neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in
the Union by the Constitution-no one of them ever
having been a State out of the Union. The original ones
passed into the Union even before they cast off their
British colonial dependence; and the new ones each
438 
COL. XXI.]  COMMENTS ON LINCOLIN'S MESSAGE.
came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its
temnporary independence tvas Tever designated a State.
The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted by
the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence.
Therein the' United Colonies' were declared to be' free
and independent States;' but, even then, the object
plainly was not to declare their indepeudeitce of one
another, or of the Union, but directly the contrary; as
their mutual pledge, and their mutual action, before, at
the time, and afterwards, abundantly show. The express pligh^ting of faith by each and all of the original
thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later,
that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
Hlaving never been States, either in substance or in
name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of' State rights,' asserting a claim of power to
lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about
the'Sovereignty' of the States; but the word,' even, is
not ini the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in
any of the State Constitutions. What is' Sovereignty,'
in the political sense of the term? Would it be far
wrong to define it'a political community, without a
political superior?' Tested by this, no one of our States,
except Texas, ever was a Sovereignty."
This argument, if it may be so considered, needs
but little comment in the face of the facts apparent in
our review of the history of the States, and the formation
of the Constitution. By these it has been clearly and
filly demonstrated, that what he styles a c sophism," is
an impregnable truth! What is said about Texas never
having been designated during her Independence as a
State, is altogether puerile.  It is wholly immaterial,
439 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
whether she was designated as " the Republic of Texas,"
or " the State of Texas." Every independent, separate,
self-existing Body-Politic, by whatever designation known,
whether that of Nation, Empire, Kingdom, or Republic,
is a State.   Texas, therefore, was certainly a separate,
Sovereign and Independent State, when she entered into
the Compact of Union with the other United States
of America. So of what is said of the other new States
only t,ckiiy the designation of States on entering the
Union! They were all admitted on an equal footing
with the original Thirteen, and these we have seen were
Sovereign!
The idea that the Articles of Confederation of 1778,
by declaring and expressing the plighted faith of each,
that the Union thereby entered into was to be perpetual,'
furnishes " a most conclusive" argument'" that the States
were never severally Sovereign," is, to say the least, a
most singular one; especially in view of the fact that by
the very second one of these Articles, it was expressly
declared that each State retained its Sovereignty! Such
an argument does not rise to the dignity of " an ingenious
sophism." It is really unworthy of notice. Not even so
much as one which should maintain for a similar reason,
that none of the great Powers of Europe which entered
into Articles of Perpetual Alliance-" cfrom this day
henceforth "-at Paris, in 1815, for the purpose of quieting the Continent, were ever severally Sovereign, because
in the latter case, there was no express declaration that
the Parties so entering into the perpetual alliance, did so,
as separate Sovereign Powers. But the strangest position
in this most sophistical attempt to refute an imaginary
sophism, is that, wherein it is asserted, tha,t " the States of
the Federal Union have neither smore nor less power than
that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution,"
440 
COL. XXI.] COMMMENTS ON LINCOLN'S MESSAGE.
as proof that the States are not Sovereign. For even
according to this statement, every power was reserved
which was not delegated by the States, nor prohibited to
them in the Constitution.
The States, as we have seen, made the Constitution.
They formed it by virtue of their several Sovereignties.
It was by virtue of the "omnipotence" of this majestical,
if not "magical" Sovereign power, on their part, severally, that the Constitution and the Union under it was
formed. The Federal Government has no inherent power
whatever. It has no power except what is delegated to
it by the Sovereign States. All the inherent powers of
Sovereignty itself not delegated in trust to the General
Government, nor prohibited to the States, are, it is true,
expressly declared in the Constitution to be reserved to
the States. This shows that as Sovereignty was not
parted with, it remained with the States by this express
reservation! The States derive no power from the Constitution as his form of expression was intended, perhaps,
to imply, while the Federal Government possesses none
whatever which is not conferred upon it by the States in
the Constitution.
It is true, the word Sovereignty is not in the " national
Constitution," nor had it any business there. But the
words State and States abound in it. From its Preamble
to its close it shows that it was made "by States" and "for
States," and to be binding "between States" only; and
binding between them only as all Compacts are between
States! The word State of itself imports Sovereignty as
fully as the word Nation, Kingdom, or Empire. When
the Constitution upon its face showed that it was made
" by States" and "for States," it was needless to speak
of them as Sovereign States; for there cannot be any
such thing as a State, known and recognized by public
law, without Sovereignty.
441 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
But the capping climax of this argument requires
more special attention.  In this we have an attempted
definition of Sovereignty, and a most singular definition
it is! As if almost satisfied himself of its inaccuracy,
Mr. Lincoln asks "what is Sovereignty in the political
sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it'a
political community, without a political superior?'" It
would certainly be very far from right thus to define it.
It would, indeed, be no definition at all. Sovereignty is
not " a political community," but in whatever terms it
may be defined, it is the controlling attribute of the
political community in which it exists. This is ground
we have gone over.*  With a correct understanding as
to what Sovereignty is "in the political sense of the
term," according to the highest authorities upon the
subject, and the true history of these States, his own
imaginary sophism vanishes as a fog before the rays of
the sun, and leaves in its place, clearly apparent, a great
truth which can never be successfully assailed by the
most skilfully applied subtleties of logic.
Further on, in the same argument, he says:
"The principle itself [the Right of Secession] is one of
disintegration, and upon which no Government can possibly endure. If all the States, save one, should assert
the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed, the whole class of Seceder Politicians would at
once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest
outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely
the same act, instead of being called,'driving the one
out,' should be called the' seceding of the others from
that one,' it would be exactly what the Seceders claim to
do," etc.
In this he was slightly mistaken. It was not exactly
* Ante, p. 22, et sequentes.
442 
COL,. XXI.]  COMMENTS ON LINCOLN'S MESSAGE.
what the Seceders claimed to do. The difference between
the cases is the difference between any given number of
men getting rid of another one, by driving that one out
of a house while they retain it; and the same men,
instead of driving the one out, quitting it themselves,
and leaving it to him alone. There is a very marked
difference in principle between the two cases.
But, however logical Mr. Lincoln may have deemed
this view of the question, as showing the absurdity of
the position of the' Seceder Politicians," in rightfully
breaking up the Union, under the Constitution, is it not
strange that it did not occur to him that this was exactly
in principle, what eleven of the original thirteen States
did towards two, in breaking up that Union to which all
stood pledged in plighted faith, that it should be perpetual? If eleven States, in 1788, rightfully seceded or
withdrew from the Confederation of 1778, which was so
declared, "to be perpetual," and entered into the new
Union, under the present Constitution, leaving North
Carolina and Rhode Island out, as they did, why could
not the same eleven, or any other eleven, in 1861, just
as rightfully withdraw from the Union of 1788, which
was not declared to be perpetual? If there was no
treason or rebellion in the first "Secession movement,"
it seems to me, that he ought to have seen there could
not be in the second, which was based on the same identical principle.
Nor is this principle of a Union of States, formed and
held together by a voluntary assent, one of "disintegration uponi which no Government can endure." Upon it
many Governments, as we have seen, have been formed,
which did endure, and continued to grow and prosper
until this principle was departed from by them. It is
the principle of real strength as well as aggregation upon
443 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
which our Government endured and increased in the
number of States, from eleven to thirty-three, and prospered as no other Government ever did, for sixty years,
under the teachings of Mr. Jefferson! All such Governments will endure and increase by aggregation and accession, and not go to pieces by disintegration or Secession,
so long as the cohesive principle of mutual interests and
reciprocal advantages binds the States together. No
Federal Government ought to endure or last any longer
than this principle is recognized. Mutual interests and
reciprocal advantages are the main objects aimed at in
the formation of all such Governments. These are the
ends for which they are created.   It was for these
reasons, and to secure these objects, that the original
joint Declaration of Independence  was made  by the
several States of our Union. It is true, their joint Declaration was not made with a view of the States being
severally independent of each other, but with the view
that, by joint and Federal action, all would be better
enabled to achieve, establish, and secure, permanently,
the Sovereignty of each severally. Continued union on
the same principles was doubtlessly expected and desired.
But the right of each to its own Sovereignty and Independence was what was achieved. This is the whole of
that matter, and with this notice we will leave Mr. Lincoln's refutation of his fancied sophism on which the
Right of Secession is based.
In the same message he was as pointed against the
"armed neutrality" doctrine of the Union men of Kentucky and other Border States, as he was against the
doctrine of the Seceders.  "That," said he, " carried out
would be disunion completed." Indeed, the whole message was based upon principles and doctrines which tend
inevitably to Centralized Despotism!
44 
COL. XXI.]      MR. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.                 445
PROF. NORTON. Will you pardon me, Mr. Stephens, for
saying that I am very much surprised at hearing you
speak as you do of Mr. Lincoln.  I always understood
that you entertained for him not only a good opinion, but
even high personal regard. Besides the rumor to which
I referred of his having offered you a place in his Cabinet, I know in a way that gives me full assurance of the
fact, that he frequently expressed himself as entertaining
for you sentiments not only of kindness, but of the highest esteem. The correspondence between you and him,
which you have read, is certainly marked on both sides
with terms of respect and esteem. You will, therefore,
excuse me for saying that I was not at all prepared to
hear you speak of him as you have. I do not see how
you could entertain sentiments of esteem towards one,
whom you look upon as a public usurper-disregarding
his oath, and even wanting in humanity. From what
you say, it would seem that you regard him as a man not
only of insincerity but of cruelty, and one whose main
object was the overthrow of our Free Institutions, and
the establishment of a Despotism in their stead. How is
this? I always considered Mr. Lincoln, whatever may
have been the defects of his character, and no one is exempt from defects of some sort or other, as eminently
distinguished for his frankness, good nature and general
kindness of heart.
MR. STEPHENS. So were many men who have figured
in history, and who have brought the greatest sufferings
and miseries upon mankind. Danton and Robespierre,
the bloodiest monsters in the form of men we read of ill
history, were distinguished for the same qualities. They
both had the personal esteem as well as the strong attachment of some of the best men in France, who were utterly
opposed to their public acts and policy.
11 0 
CONSTIT'UTIONAL VIEW OF TEIE WAR.   [VoL. II.
MAJOR HEISTER. What! do you say that Danton and
Robespierre were distinguished for good nature and kindness of heart?
MR. STEPHENS. Yes; this is the character we have of
them.  Even Danton was distinguished for "his frankness" and "his good nature."  It is said of him, that in
private life he was capable "of melting into tenderness,"
and "of spreading the kindly virtues around him as soft,
as lucent, and as penetrating as the light of morning."
"Nature seemed to prevade him in all her forms, from
the woman's heart sleeping in his bosom, to the electric
fire of genius which played like a glory around his head,"
etc.  Such were some of the private virtues of the man,
who, in his official character at the head of the Departmeqlt of Justice, thanked the assassins who committed the
liorrib,le massacres of September, 1792, when the streets
of Paris are said to have run with blood! It is true, he
quieted his conscience by a species of "casuistry" which
has been styled "atrocious."  Hle did not have the face
to pretend that these inhuman deeds were either right or
just, and hence, in thanking the infamous perpetrators of
them, he said he did it " not as Minister of Justice, but
as Minister of the Revolution!"
Of Robespierre it is said that he was devotedly attached to the principles of liberty. " He was deeply
read in the history of the Grecian and Roman Republics,"
and had a high " admiration for the examples set by the
free States and heroes of antiquity." " These were the
models according to which he had formed the ideal of a
State." " Trial by jury, the enfranchisement of the
slaves, the liberty of the press, the abolition of capital
punishment were among the special subjects advocated
by him." These were certainly high and admirable
qualities, to say nothing of his many other private
446
6 I 
MR. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
virtues. This, however, is the man who in power made
such bloody use of the guillotine, without allowing his
victims any hearing whatever, not even by a military
commission, much less a jury; and for which his name
has been associated with everything cruel, inhuman, and
execrable! But, in these acts, it is said, lie was influenced by "a sense of justice" which was "incorruptible
in its nature, but statue-like in its frigid insensibility."
A man may possess many amiable qualities in private
life-many estimable virtues and excellencies of character, and yet in official position commit errors involving
not only most unjustifiable usurpations of power, but
such as rise to high crimes against society and against
humanity. This, too, may be done most conscientiously
and with the best intentions. This, at least, is my
opinion on that subject. The history of the world
abounds with apt instances for illustration. Mr. Lincoln,
you say, was kind-hearted. In this, I fully agree. No
man I ever knew was more so, but the same was true of
Julius Cesar.  All you have said of Mr. Lincoln's good
qualities, and a great deal more on the same line, may be
truly said of Casar. He was certainly esteemed by many
of the best men of his day for some of the highest qualities which dignify and ennoble human nature. He was
a thorough scholar, a profound philosopher, an accomplished orator, and one of the most gifted, as well as
polished writers of the age, in which he lived. No man
ever had more devoted personal friends, and justly so,
too, than he had. And yet, notwithstanding all these
distinguishing, amiable and high qualities of his private
character, he is by the general consent of mankind looked
upon as the destroyer of the liberties of Rome!
The case of Caesar illustrates to some extent my view
both of the private character of Mr. Lincoln, and of his
COL. XXI.]
447 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
public acts. In what I have said of him, I have been
speaking only of his official acts-of their immediate
effiects and ultimate tendencies. I do not think that he
intended to overthrow the Institutions of the country.
I do not think he understood them or the tendencies of
his acts upon them. The Union with him, in sentiment,
rose to the sublimity of a religious mysticism, while his
ideas of its structure and formation, in logic, rested upon
nothing but the subtleties of a sophism!  His many
private virtues and excellencies of head and heart, I did
esteem. Many of them had my admiration. In nothing
I have said, or may say, was it, or will it be my intention
to detract from these. In all such cases in estimating
character, we must discriminate between the man in
private life, and the man in public office. The two
spheres somehow, and strangely enough too, appear to
be totally different, and men in them, respectively, usually seem to be prompted and governed by motives
totally different. Power generally seems to change and
transform the characters of those invested with it.
Hence, the great necessity for "those chains" in the
Constitution, to bind all Rulers and men in authority,
spoken of by Mr. Jefferson.
Hazael, for all we know, may have been highly distinguished, and perhaps beloved, by the virtuous and
good of his acquaintance for many excellent traits of
character in private life. He was, unquestionably, an
eminently representative man. From his knowledge of
himself in the lower, he seemed to have not the slightest
conception of what he would or could be induced to do
when raised to the higher official sphere! No more than
a man in this life can conceive of the impulses by which
he will be governed in the life hereafter! When he was
told by Elisha, the Prophet, that Benhadad, the King of
448 
MR. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Syria, would surely die, and that he would be elevated
to the throne in his stead; and when he was further told
of "the evil" he would do, and the barbarous iniquities
he would commit, in this, to him, new sphere, he was so
shocked at the announcement that he exclaimed, "But
what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great
thing?"
So, perhaps it would have been with Mr. Lincoln, if a
like prophetic disclosure had been made to him. If, for
instance, on the evening of his nomination at Chicago,
when the two images* of himself were presented in his
mirror at Springfield, which ever afterwards so haunted
him, it had been told to him, that the "bright" one of
these images was but the true likeness of himself in the
sphere of private life, and the other-pale, and " statuelike in its frigid insensibility" to all the gentle prompt,
ings of his generous heart-was the future image of himself in that official sphere to which he was soon to be
elevated: if the curtain of the future had been further
raised, and "Death upon his pale horse" had been seen
doing his tragical work on the rugged grounds of Manas
sas, at Oak Hill, at Corinth, on the battle fields around
Richmnond-at Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Murfreesboro,
* This incident in the life of Mr. Lincoln, as related by himself, is thus
alluded to by Doctor Draper:
"As is not unfrequently observed of Western men, there were mnysterious traits of superstition in his character. A friend once inquiring
the cause of a deep depression under which he seemed to be suffering,
'I have seen this evening again,' he replied,'what I once saw before,
on the evening of my nomination at Chicago. As I stood before a
mirror, there were two images of myself-a bright one in front, and one
that was very pallid standing behind. It completely unnerved me. The
bright one, I know, is my past, the pale one my coming life.'  And
feeling that there is no armor against Destiny, he added,' I do not think
I shall live to see the end of my term. I try to shake off the vision, but
it still keeps haunting me.' "- The Civil War in America, by John W.
Draper, M.D., LL.D., vol. ii, page 38.
29
COL. XXI.]
449 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Chickamauga: if the scenes of slaughter and carnage in the
Wilderness, at Cold IHarbor and Atlanta had been exhibited: if the wails of horror that went up from the crater
of the volcanic nline at Petersburg had been heard, even
at a distance, cornmingling with like cries from the dying
in the Prisons of Camp Douglas, Rock Island, and
Elmira as well as Salisbury and Andersonville, and
others of less note; if the devastations in the valley of
Virginia by Sheridan, and the conflagrations and desoIations by Sherman, through Georgia and the two Carolinas,
especially at Columbia, had passed in grand panorama
before his vision, reflected from that mirror, and he had
been then and there told by some inspired prophet, that
all these terrible scenes-these sufferings and woes of
millions-these convulsive throes of this our "Nation of
Nations" in the days of their agony-would soon be
the results of his own acts in his official character, in
that higher sphere to which he was to be elevated-represented by the second image thus reflected-he would
doubtless have heard the announcement with no little
horror-he would indeed have been "unnerved," and
would have exclaimed, in language of equal surprise and
indignation, with that of Hazael to Elisha! He would
have believed, and would have said, with all the emphasis he could have commanded, that it was impossible
for him to do such things!
We are informed, that notwithstanding all Hazael's
indignation, yet he did everything which was told to him
that he would do; and it is now our sad task to review
all those things in the picture just sketched, with many
more of a like character, which did result from the public
acts of Mr. Lincoln, who, in private life, was truly distinguished for so many estimable virtues.
450 
COL. XXI.]    MR. LINCOLN AND HAZAEL.
JUDGE BYNUM. How can you say that these horrible
scenes of blood and death are chargeable to the acts of
Mr. Lincoln? They were the necessary consequences
of the acts of those who resisted the execution of the
laws. The responsibility of them, in no way or view,
rests upon him. Mr. Lincoln's earnest desire was for
peace. His whole soul was filled with all overflowing
benevolence. All he did was to maintain the Government.
MR. STEPHENS. That is precisely what Hazael did!
All he did was to maintain Government over an unwilling people, thlough in doing it he put hundreds of
thousands to slaughter, because they would not submit to
be so governed. Not only this, but in the execution of
his high purpose thus to maintain Government over that
people, he found it necessary to burn their cities, to destroy their defences, to lay waste their lands, and to show
no mercy either to children or "women in travail." Just
so with Mr. Lincoln. Hazael, I doubt not, was perfectly
conscientious in all that he did. I grant the same to
Mr. Lincoln.
But, I ask, what is there about the maintenance of
Government, of any sort, which justifies such conduct?
Are not Governments made for the security and peace of
the people, and not the people for the maintenance of
Governments which gives them neither? What other
end or object has any just Government, or one that deserves to be maintained, but to afford protection and
security to all those for whom it is instituted? The
resistance you speak of, was to his acts, and the measures
adopted to maintain Government. But for his acts, and
these measures thus to maintain Government, this resistance, and the consequences, would not have taken place.
These occurrences, therefore, are not to be attributed to
451 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
the resistance, but to his acts. The resistance itself was
but a consequence of his acts. Had he not acted as he
did, there would have been no resistance, and none of
these scenes and consequences would have followed.
,This you must admit.
JUDGE BYNUM. Yes, if Mr. Lincoln had sat still, as I
have said before-had done nothing, and let the Government go to pieces-I admit there would have been
none of these things, and there would have been no Government left either! General anarchy would have ensued,
with burnings, slaughters, and butcheries, ad libitumm.
The worst fate that can befall any society, is that of anarchy. This would have been our fate if Mr. Lincoln had
done nothing, as you think he ought to have done.
MR. STEPHENS. Not quite so fast. Let us see. You say
general anarchy would have ensued. How so? Where
would it have commenced and how? Was not everything moving on peacefully and quietly throughout the
Confederate States? Were there any indications of anarchy there? Were not the changes in their new Constitution all of a conservative character? Did this furnish
any evidence of a tendency to anarchy on their part?
How was it in the Northern States? What was there to
introduce anarchy there? You say no Government would
have been left. How so, I again inquire? Would not
the Federal Government of all the States that saw fit to
remain in the Union as it then stood, have been left?
Was there any hostile resistance or opposition to that?
There certainly was not, nor was any designed.
But let us see further: suppose the entire Government
-the entire Conventional Federal Government, I meanhad gone to pieces, gone into dissolution temporarily or
permanently, who would have been injured even by that?
Would anybody have lost anything by it except the office
452 
COL. XXI.] ANARCHY WOULD NOT HAVE ENSUED.
holders under it? and would any injury have occurred to
them in such a catastrophe, further than the loss of their
honors and salaries? Would not all the State Governments at the North have remained intact, clothed with
all the powers of inherent Sovereignty, to maintain order
and law throughout their respective limits, just as they
did before the Union was formed? Is it not to the State
Governments, under our system, we look for all necessary
protection and security against the approaches of anarchy?
Had the General Government any right to interfere in
any way to prevent anarchy, or even an insurrecttion in a
State, except at the request of the regularly constituted
authorities of that State? Was not this Government
made by the States, and for their own several well-being?
In the event, therefore, of a total dissolution of the Federal
Government-in the event that all the Northern States
had quit it as well as the Southern, who would have been
hurt by it? Whence would have come the anarchy you
speak of, with its burnings, slaughters, and butcheries?
Would not the Southern States have had what the Federal
Government was instituted to secure-peace and prosperity, with domestic tranquillity? If not, whose business
was it but their own? Would not the Northern States
have had the same? If not, whose fault would it have
been but their own? What was the Government or the
Union made for, but the good, the peace, the prosperity,
and the happiness of all the States? And who were the
proper judges of the best interests of the people of all the
States? Were they the officers of the Federal Government, or the States who made it? If the Northern
manufacturing and commercial States had been indirectly
injured by the withdrawal of the Southern States, to the
extent of the benefits of the Union to them secured by
their association under it, who could be justly subject to
453 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
blame for this loss but themselves, in their breach of the
Compact which was the bond of that Union, which had
secured these advantages to them?
JUDGE BYNUM. All this sounds very well in talk. But
what was to become of the public debt? Would not the
Government creditors have sustained loss by such a felo
de se?  Who would have paid that?  What would have
become of all the public property?
MR. STEPHENS. There would have been no felo de se
in the case. All the States would have continued to live
either separately or in a new Confederation or Confederations, as the case might have been.   The public debt would have been paid by these living and responsible States.   The  States were  the real debtors.
The public debt was not the debt of the officers of the
Federal Government, or of that Government apart from the
States. It was the debt of the States. It w(as the debt
of the United States contracted by them in Congress
assembled through  their official agents.   The  public
securities showed upon their face that the obligation to
meet them rested upon the States jointly, not upon the
Government or its official agents. All the States who
were joined or united at the time of the contract of any
debt, so made by them jointly, would have been bound
to pay their pro rata amount of it. All the States would
likewise have been entitled to their pro rata share of the
public property. If any of them had refused, or failed to
pay their just part of the public debt or liabilities, then
would have arisen a just catuse on the part of the others to
make them do it by force, if necessary! But they had no
right to resort to such measures, for such an object, in
anticipation of such a result, much less had the official
agent of these States this right.  This is the solution to
that problem. But the Confederate States had, in advance
454 
CoL. XXI.] THE FEDERAL DEBT AND PROPERTY.
offered to make provision for their portion of the public
debt and  all joint liabilities.  No  one doubted  their
ability and perfect willingness promptly to comply with
their offer.
There was, therefore, no necessity for Mr. Lincoln to assume unconstitutional power to maintain the Government for the purpose of paying the public debt. No such
act is specified amongst the duties of the President as set
forth in the Constitution. If he assumed the power he
did, for such purposes, it was clearly an usurpation.
In what I say of Mr. Lincoln, I repeat, I speak only
of his public acts.  With his private character I have
nothing to do, nor with those personal qualities of which
Prof. Norton spoke. I do not doubt, as I have said, his
thorough conscientiousness in all he did.   It is quite
probable when he surveyed the whole ground, and beheld
the scenes to which I have alluded, that he took none of
the responsibility of them upon himself. He may have
indulged in "a casuistry" after the sort of that indulged
by Danton. It may be that he thought that he was not
the "Minister of Justice" in these things, but the "Preserver of the Union." He may even have come to the
conclusion, as I think not improbable, that he was an instrument specially raised up by Providence to enfranchise
the Black race in the Southern States-an object so dear
to the hearts of so many of his Party, as it was so dear
to the heart of Robespierre, towards a like population in
other parts of the world. All this may be possible, but
his acts like Robespierre's, and the acts of all men of like
character, belong to history, and with them as such only
I now deal. They must, like the acts of all public men,
be held up as beacons to warn the present and future
generations.
But let us return to the Federal Congress. Neither
455 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vol.. II.
House of this assemblage of the States which remained
in the Union, under the Constitution of 1787, granted Mr.
Lincoln the indemnity that he supposed would be so
readily accorded, but both, without any positive censure,
responded with alacrity to his call for men and means.
Instead of 400,000 men, they provided for raising and
putting in the field 525,000, and appropriated all necessary amounts of money for equipping this immense force,
as well as for fitting out a most formidable Navy. One
hundred and thirty-seven additional vessels, suitable for
war purposes, were immediately purchased, and fifty-two
iron clad steamers, after the most improved models, were
ordered to be constructed, besides a number of " steam
floating batteries," which was an entirely new system of
naval warfare. This branch of their service was put
upon a footing to compete with any in the world. This
Congress, also, by a strange stretch of power, recognized
the disaffected counties of Northwestern Virginia as the
State of Virginia, and admitted Senators and Members
under a Government set up there, claiming to be the
legitimate Government of the State of Virginia.
The most important measure, however, adopted at this
session of that Congress, in many respects, in that view
of the war which we are taking, was a joint resolution
which passed both Houses with great unanimity, setting
forth the nature and character of the war as they held it
to be, and the declaration of the objects for which it was
waged. This Resolution was the declaration, not only
of the causes of the war in their view, but also the ends
for which it was to be prosecuted on their part. It is
upon the principles of this Resolution, the whole war
must be considered on their side. Hence its great importance in our present view of the conduct of the war
and its ultimate results. For this reason, it now requires
special notice, and is in these words:
456 
COL. XXI.]   ACTION OF FEDERAL CONGRESS.
"11 Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has
been forced upon the country by the Dis-Unionists of the
Southern States now in revolt against the Constitutional
Government and in arms around the Capital; that in this
National emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of
mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty
to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted
upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any
purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose
of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established Institutions of those States, but to defend and
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws
made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union,
with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several
States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease."
This Resolution was introduced into the Senate, by
Mr. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. He was the only
Southern Senator who retained his seat in that Body
after the Secession of his State. The Resolution, therefore, was the more remarkable in view of the source from
which it came. It was clearly based upon the principle,
that a Federal Union of Sovereign States may be maintained and preserved by force. For, whatever may have
been the opinion of others, Mr. Johnson certainly held
the United States to be a Union of Sovereign States.  He
had voted on the 24th of May, 1860, for the first of the
Resolutions then offered by Mr. Davis, as we have seen,
affirming this fact.*
About the same time that this Resolution was introduced, he also made a speech upon the general subject of
the war, as well as upon Mr. Lincoln's Proclamations
referred to, which should be considered in connection
* Ante, vol. i, p. 409.
457 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
with this Resolution. This speech was one of the most
notable, as it certainly was one of the most effective, ever
delivered by any man on any occasion. I know of no
instance in history where one speech effected such results,
immediate and remote, as this one did. The Resolution
referred to, and this speech especially, gave the war a vigor
and real life it had not before, and never would have had
without them, on the Northern side. In the speech, Mr.
Johnson fully endorsed the doctrines, principles, and acts
of Mr. Lincoln, up to this time, not, however, upon Constitutional grounds, but upon the maxims of public
necessity. In it lie reviewed at length the denunciations
of the usurpations of Mr. Lincoln in the matters I have
referred to, which had been made by Senators some days
before, when the Indemnity Resolution was up for consideration. In the debate on that Resolution, Mr. Breckinridge, who had not yet resigned his seat in that Body,
insisted that "Congress by a joint resolution, had no
more right to make valid a violation of the-Constitution
and the laws by the President, than the President would
have by an entry upon the Executive Journal to make
valid a usurpation of the Executive power by the Legislative Department. Congress had no more right to make
valid an unconstitutional act of the President, than the
President would have to make valid an act of the Supreme Court of the United States encroaching upon
Executive power; or, than the Supreme Court would
have the right to make valid an act of the Executive
encroaching upon the Judicial power."
He further said: " Here in Washington, in Kentucky,
in Missouri, everywhere where the authority of the President extends, in his discretion he will feel himself warranted, by the action of Congress upon this Resolution, to
subordinate the civil to the military power; to imprison
458 
COIL. XXI.] BRECKINRIDGE ON INDEMNITY RESOLUTION. 459
citizens without warrant of law; to suspend the writ of
Habeas Corpus; to establish martial law; to make seizures
and searches without warrant; to suppress the press; to do
all those acts which rest in the will and in the authority of
a military commander. In my judgment, Sir, if we pass
it, we are upon the eve of putting, so far as we can, in the
hands of the President of the United States the power of
a Dictator.
"The pregnant question, Mr. President, for us to decide
is, whether the Constitution is to be respected in this
struggle; whether we are to be called upon to follow the
flag over the ruins of the Constitution? Without questioning the motives of any, I believe that the whole
tendency of the present proceedings is to establish a
Government without limitation of powers, and to change
radically our frame and character of Government."
"I deny," said he, "this doctrine of necessity.  I deny
that the President of the United States may violate the
Constitution upon the ground of necessity. The doctrine
is utterly subversive of the Constitution; it is utterly subversive of all written limitations of Government; and it
substitutes, especially where you make him the ultimate
judge of that necessity, and his decision not to be appealed
from, the will of one man for a written Constitution. Mr.
President, the Government of the United States which
draws its life from the Constitution, and which was made by
that Instrument, does not rest, as does the Constitution of
many other countries, upon usage or upon implied consent.
It rests upon express written consent. The Government
of the United States may exercise such powers, and such
only, as are given in this written form of Government
and bond which unites the States; none others. The
people of the States conferred upon this agent of 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
theirs, just such powers as they deemed necessary, and
no more; all others they retained.   That Constitution
was made for all contingencies; for peace and for war.
They conferred all the powers they deemed necessary,
and more cannot be assumed, to carry on the Government. They intended to provide for all contingencies
that they thought ought to be provided for, and they retained to the States all the powers not granted by the Instrument. If in any instance it may be supposed that the
powers conferred are not sufficient, still none others were
granted, and none others can. be exercised. Will this be
denied, Sir?"
It was not denied by Mr. Johnson, in his review of this
speech, nor by any other Senator, that any power, not
delegated in the Constitution, could be rightfully exerercised, except upon the  plea of necessity.   It was,
strangely enough, claimed that power not delegated, might
be rightfully exercised under this plea. This was the
only answer attempted to be made by him, or any one,
to Mr. Breckinridge's position on the Constitutional question. But, in his reply to the argument that the usurpation of undelegated power, under the plea of necessity,
would, upon principle, lead ultimately and inevitably to the
overthrow of State Institutions, and the establishment of
a consolidated Despotism, Mr. Johnson insisted, with great
earnestness and zeal, that such would not be the consequences. The ultimate result, he maintained, would be
nothing but the overthrow of the Rebellion, and the suppression of the insurrection, leaving all the States with all
their rights dignity, and equality, as set forth in his Resolution. Amongst otherthingsofsimilar import he asserted:
"I know it has been said that the object of this war
is to make war on Southern Institutions. I have been
in free States and I have been in slave States; and I
460 
Cot. XXI.]  SPEECH OF MR. ANDREW JOHNSON.
thank God that, so far as I have seen, there has been one
universal disclaimer of any such purpose. It is a war
upon no section; it is a war upon no peculiar Institution;
but it is a war for the integrity of the Government, for
the Constitution and the supremacy of the laws. That
is what the Nation understands by it."
As to the effect of principles, and the ultimate results
of temporary usurpations, as he viewed them-justifiable,
as a means to accomplish the great object with him, as it
was with Mr. Lincoln, the preservation of an ideal
Union-he seems to have been governed far more by
impulse than by reason. That the ultimate result would
be as he desired it, and not as apprehended by those who
took the contrary view, he would not permit himself to
doubt, though he confessed that he did not see his way
very clearly. This is apparent from the following extract from the same speech:
"Yes, we must triumph. Though sometimes I cannot see my way clear in matters of this kind, as in
matters of religion, when my facts give out, when my
reason fails me, I draw largely upon my faith. My faith
is strong based on the eternal principles of right, that a
thing so monstrously wrong as this rebellion cannot
triumph. Can we submit to it? Is the Senate, are the
American people, prepared to give up the graves of
Washington and Jackson, to be encircled and governed
and controlled by a combination of traitors and rebels?
I say, let the battle go on-it is freedom's cause-until
the Stars and Stripes (God bless them!) shall again be
unfurled upon every cross-road, and from every housetop, throughout the Confederacy, North and South. Let
the Union be re-instated; let the law be enforced; let
the Constitution be supreme."
This speech, throughout, was characterized by extra
461 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ordinary fervor and eloquence, and, in my judgment, did
more to strengthen and arouse the war passions of the
people at the North than everything else combined. As
I have said, the speech had a special power and influence
springing from the very source from which it emanated.
The author stood solitary and alone-isolated from every
public man throughout the Southern States, and from
nearly every public man throughout the Northern States
attached to the same political Party to which he belonged, upon the questions involved. He had been
brought up in the State Rights Jeffersonian School. In
this very speech, he styled the Union a "Confederacy."
In the late Presidential election, he had supported the
ticket headed by Breckinridge and Lane, upon the new
Territorial plank incorporated into the Platform. This
gave potency to his words and position, not only in
Tennessee, but throughout the Northern States.
I do not doubt his' perfect honesty and sincerity in
everything that he said, but sentiment and declamation,
however sincere, high and lofty, form a very small part
of true statesmanship. The errors in principle, as well
as policy, both in the speech and in the resolution referred
to, he may, perhaps, live to see himself, if he has not
already lived to see and fully realize them. He now
feels constrained to denounce those who acted with him
in departing from the Constitution at that time, on his
maxims of public necessity, (and whose avowed disloyalty to the Constitution was the cause of Secession,)
in terms quite as broad and as harsh as those which lihe
then used against the Secessionists. Hle now applies to
his allies in the beginning of the war, the epithet of
"traitors" with as much zeal, sincerity, and earnestness,
as he then applied it to the disunionists; while in his
present efforts to maintain his ideal State Rights, after
462 
CONFEDERATE CONGRESS.
ignoring the Sovereignty of the States, upon which
alone all their Rights depend, he in turn is denounced
back by them as a traitor of even blacker dye than any
of the then Rebels, so-called! The war is over, but the
Union is not re-instated; the several members of it are
not restored to their proper places with all their dignity,
equality,  and rights unimpaired!  The  "Stars  and
Stripes" float as he hoped to see them, but the Constitution is not supreme! It is not now regarded by the others
any more than it was then regarded by them as well as
himself. The same public necessity which in his opinion
justified usurpation in the first instance, in their opinion
continues still to justify it, and to require them to continue to act "outside of the Constitution;" and with
them, this public necessity will continue to exist, until
all ends in Despotism, or until they are removed from
power by the people, and others are put in their places,
who will administer the Government not upon maxims,
but strictly in accordance with the Constitution upon its
true Federal principles. It is not improbable if Mr.
Lincoln had lived, he would have found himself in the
same situation. Danton became a victim of the Monster
Revolution, of which he conceived himself to be the
special Minister. Robespierre also fell by the same
bloody instrument which he had so conscientiously, and
with such "incorruptible justice," according to his mode
of thinking, so frequently and remorselessly applied to
others. But enough upon this subject for the present.
We will now turn our attention to events transpiring
elsewhere. The Confederate Congress, we have seen, had
adjourned to meet in Richmond, the 20th of July. Full
Delegations were sent up to this Session of this Congress,
from Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.   The
Delegation of Virginia consisted of the following mem
CoL. XXI.]
463 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
bers: Ex-President John Tyler, William Ballard Preston,
Robert M. T. Hunter,. James A. Seddon, William H.
Macfarland, Roger A. Pryor, Thomas S. Bocock, William
C. Rives, Robert E. Scott, James M. Mason, J. W. Brockenbrough, Charles W. Russell, Robert Johnson, Waller
R. Staples and Walter Preston. The Delegation from
North Carolina consisted of George Davis, William W.
Avery, William N. H. Smith, Thomas Ruffin, Thomas
D. McDowell, Abram W. Venable, John M. Morehead,
Robert C. Puryear, Burton Craige and Andrew J. Davidson. The Delegation of Tennessee consisted of W. H.
De Witt, Robert L. Caruthers, James H. Thomas, George
W. Jones, John F. House, John D. C. Atkins and David
M. Currin.
There was in these new delegations, as appears from
their names, (several of whom stood amongst the most
distinguished men in the whole country at the time,) a
considerable accession of talent to that body; but there
was, at the same time, a considerable loss in this particular. Quite a number of the ablest of the members
composing this Congress at Montgomery, had entered the
military service. It is true that only a very few of them
resigned their seats; but the counsels of those who did
not, were lost to a considerable extent, by their absence on
their duties in the field. Georgia alone had lost largely
in this respect. Howell Cobb, the President, was commanding a Regiment. He afterwards became a MajorGeneral. Francis S. Bartow was also in command of a
Regiment. While Thomas R. R. Cobb was at the head
of his Legion. Toombs had quit the Department of State,
and had taken the commission of Brigadier-General in
the Provisional Army. Wigfall, of Texas, was also at
the head of a Brigade. Anderson, of Florida, had resigned his seat and gone into the Army soon after the
464 
COL. XXI.] MILITARY OPERtATIONS IN VIRGINIA.
organization of the Government.   G. T. Ward,  who
filled his place, soon after raised a Regiment himself. A
great deal of the talent of other States had likewise
sought Military instead of Civic service at this time.
Clingman, of North Carolina, for instance, took a command in the Army. So did James L. Orr, Wade Hampton, James Chesnut, Jr., and Milledge L. Bonham, of
South Carolina; Felix K. Zollicoffer, of Tennessee; and
John B. Floyd and Henry A. Wise, of Virginia-to say
nothing of others.
In the meantime, however, before this meeting of the
Confederate Congress, extensive military movements had
commenced.   So soon as it was apparent to the authorities at Washington, from the expression of public sentiment in its most authoritative channels, that the people
of Virginia would at the polls, to be opened on the
23d of May, ratify the Ordinance of Secession by an
overwhelming majority, arrangements were made, by a
skilful disposition of forces, to crush her immediately,
by assaults from several points at once. General Cox
was to move from Guyandotte, General McClellan from
Wheeling, General McDowell from  Washington, and
General Butler from Fortress Monroe.   These movements were all made at nearly the same time, in the
latter part of May. When the Confederate Congress
assemnbled on the 20th of July, therefore, the affairs at
Barboursville, Scarrytown, Grafton, Philippi, Laurel Hill,
Cheat River, Alexandria, and Big Bethel, had all transpired. In all these operations the result had been favorable to the Confederates, except those under the direction
of General McClellan. The signal victory of D. H. Hill
at Big Bethel, however, on the 9th of June, he having
then only the commission of Colonel, more than compensated for these in its moral effect. But there were, on the
30
465 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vol. II.
20th of July, at least forty thousand Federal soldiers in
various parts of Northwestern Virginia, to overawe the
majority of the people, and sustain the minority, who
were attempting to overthrow the rightful Government
of the State. The manner in which these troops executed the purposes for which they were designed, as well
as the general conduct of the war by the Federals, up to
this period, may be judged of from what Mr. Davis said
upon the subject in his Message to the Confederate Congress, upon their assembling at Richmond. Here is an
extract from that Message:
"In this war, rapine is the rule; private houses, in
beautiful rural retreats, are bombarded and burnt; graia
crops in the field are consumed by the torch, and, when
the torch is not convenient, careful labor is bestowed to
render complete the destruction of every article of use or
ornament remaining in private dwellings, after their inhabitants have fled from the outrages of brute soldiery.
In 1781 Great Britain when invading the revolted Colonies, took possession of every district and county near
Fortress Monroe, now occupied by the troops of the
United States. The houses then inhabited by the people,
after being respected and protected by avowed invaders,
are now pillaged and destroyed by men who pretend that
Virginians are their fellow-citizens. Mankind will shudder at the tales of the outrages committed on defenceless
families by soldiers of the United States, now invading
our homes; yet these outrages are prompted by inflamed
passions and  the madness of intoxication.   But who
shall depict the horror they entertain for the cool and
deliberate malignancy which, under the pretext of suppressing insurrection, (said by themselves to be upheld
by a minority only of our people,) makes special war on
the sick, including children and women, by carefully de
466 
COL. XXI.]  MR. DAVIS'S MESSAGE OF JULY, 1861.
vised measures to prevent them from obtaining the medi cines necessary for their cure. The sacred claims of
humanity, respected even during the fury of actual battle,
by careful diversion of attack from hospitals containing
wounded enemies, are outraged in cold blood by a Gov ernment and people that pretend to desire a continuance
of fraternal connections. All these outrages must remain
unavenged [except] by the universal reprehension of
mankind. In all cases where the actual perpetrators of
the wrongs escape capture, they admit of no retaliation.
The humanity of our people would shrink instinctively
from the bare idea of urging a like war upon the sick,
the women, and the children of an enemy. But there
are other savage practices which have been resorted to
by the Government of the United States, which do admit
of repression by retaliation, and I have been driven to
the necessity of enforcing the repression. The prisoners
of war taken by the enemy on board the armed schooner
Savannah, sailing under our commission, were, as I was
credibly advised, treated like common felons, put in irons,
confined in a jail usually appropriated to criminals of the
worst dye, and threatened with punishment as such.' I
had made application for the exchange of these prisoners
to the commanding officer of the enemy's squadron off
Charleston, but that officer had already sent the prisoners to New York when application was made. I therefore deemed it my duty to renew the proposal for the
exchange to the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, the only officer
having control of the prisoners.   To  this end, I dispatched an officer to him under a flag of truce, and, in
making the proposal, I informed President Lincoln of my
resolute purpose to check all barbarities on prisoners of
war, by such severity of retaliation on prisoners held by
467 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. IT.
us as should secure the abandonment of the practice. This
communication was received and read by an officer in
command of the United States forces, and a message was
brought from him by the bearer of my communication,
that a reply would be returned by President Lincoln as
soon as possible. I earnestly hope this promised reply
(which has not yet been received,) will convey the assurance that Prisoners of War will be treated, in this unhappy contest, with that regard for humanity, which has
made such conspicuous progress in the conduct of modern
warfare. As measures of precaution, however, and until
this promised reply is received, I still retain in close custody some officers captured from the enemy, whom it had
been my pleasure previously to set at large on Parole,
and whose fate must necessarily depend on that of prisoners held by the enemy.   I append a copy of my communication to the President and Commander-in-Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
report of the officer charged to deliver my communication.
"There are some other passages in the remarkable paper
to which I have directed your attention, having reference
to the peculiar relations which exist between this Government and the States usually termed Border Slave States,
which cannot properly be withheld from notice. The
hearts of our people are animated by sentiments towards
the inhabitants of these States, which found expression in
your enactment refusing to consider them enemies, or
authorize hostilities against them. That a very large
portion of the people of these States regard us as brethren; that, if unrestrained by the actual presence of large
armies, subversion of civil authority, and declaration of
martial law, some of them, at least, would joyfully unite
with us; that they are, with almost entire unanimity, op
468 
COL. XXI.] A GLANCE AT MILITARY OPERATIONS.
posed to the prosecution of the war waged against us, are
facts of which daily recurring events fuilly warrant the atssertion that the President of the United States refuses to
recognize in these our late sister States, the right of refraining from attack upon us, and justifies his refusal by the
assertion that the States have no other power than that
reserved to them in the Union by the Cohstitution. Now,
this view of the Constitutional relations between the States
and the General Government is a fitting introduction to
another assertion of the Message, that the Executive possesses power of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus,
and of delegating that power to military Commanders at
their discretion. And both these propositions claim a respect equal to that which is felt for the additional statement of opinion in the same paper, that it is proper, in
order to execute the laws, that some single law, made in
such extreme tenderness of citizens' liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than the innocent,
should to a very limited extent be violated. We may well
rejoice that we have forever severed our connection with
a Government that thus tramples on all principles of
constitutional liberty, and with a people in whose
presence such avowals could be hazarded."
But we must now take a brief notice of more exciting
scenes, with their results.   The  military movements
before referred to, were only preliminary to one on a
much grander scale. The rapine, pillage, and outrages in
Northwestern Virginia, the massacres at Fort Jackson,
in Missouri, and the thunders at Big Bethel, Laurel Hill,
and Philippi, were only the storm-notes of the coming
tempest. By the 1st of July, the Federals had an available force in the field, at various points, ready for duty,
of upwards of 300,000 men.*
*Appletott's Annteal Cyclolce(lia, 1861, p. 26.
469 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF T1'HE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Over 60,000 of these were concentrated at or near
Washington, constituting a column which was expected
to make "short and decisive work" of the Confederates,
by an immediate onward march to Richmond, then the
"  eadquarters of the Rebellion."  This "Grand Army"
was organized under the direction and inspection of General Scott himself, the Commander-in-Chief. It consisted
of nearly sixty regiments, besides several battalions and
other organizations, arranged into numerous brigades,
and five great divisions. The command of the whole,
in the field, however, was assigned to Major-General
Irwin McDowell, an officer of great skill and ability. All
being ready, this huge command the largest and best
equipped ever before seen in America, perhaps-was put
in motion for its intended destination and purpose, on
the 16th of July; four days before the time fixed for the
meeting of the Confederate Congress in Richmond.  The
progress of its march, with its immense and unwieldy
trains, was slow. On the 18th, the outposts of the Confederate forces, under the command of General Beauregard, were encountered at Bull Run, a small stream a
few miles from Manassas. Here a considerable engagement ensued, which stopped McDowell for two days.
The forces under General Beauregard amounted in all to
little, if any, over 20,000 men. Affairs were now exceedingly critical.
General Joseph E. Johnston, who had an army of
about eight thousand men, in the valley of the Shenandoah, beyond the mountains of the Blue Ridge-was
immediately informed, by telegraph from the War Department at Richmond, of the situation; and directed to
pursue such course as he might think best under the
circumstances.   He, by  a movement  with hardly a
parallel in the annals of war, joined General Beauregard
470  
;;~<~%~~~;~i~;
V 
COL. XXI.]  GENERAL JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON.
with his command, in time to meet and drive back the
advancing, threatening and formidable hosts! It was on
this occasion that he displayed those qualities which so
distinguished him throughout the war, and which so
endeared him to the soldiers and people of the Confederate States. Of this first great battle, between the
opposing sides, which may very properly be noticed here
somewhat in detail, I will let him give the account himself. He being the senior in command, the control of all
subsequent operations devolved on him, so soon as he
reached the field. This was on the evening of Saturday the
twentieth. The bloody conflict came off on Sunday the
twenty-first. In his rapid movement to Manassas, he had
pushed forward at the head of only a part of his forces,
leaving the others to follow as quickly as possible. Here
is his Report of what ensued. I will read such parts as
will give a clear and accurate account of the whole:
"In the exercise of the discretion conferred by the
terms of the order, I at once determined to march to join
General Beauregard. The best service which the Army of
the Shenandoah could render, was to prevent the defeat
of that of the Potomac. -To be able to do this, it was
necessary, in the first instance, to defeat General Patterson, or to elude him. The latter course was the most
speedy and certain, and was therefore adopted.
"I found General Beauregard's position too extensive,
and the ground too densely wooded and intricate, to be
learned in the brief time at my disposal, and therefore
determined to rely upon his knowledge of it, and of the
enemy's positions.  This I did readily, from full confidence
in his capacity.
* General Patterson was very much blamed by the Federals, at the times
for not uniting his forces with McDowell's, as Johnston had his witl
Beauregard; but his vindication completely exonerates him from all just
censure in that matter.
471 
CONSTI'rUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL II.
"His troops were divided into eight brigades, occupy ing the defensive line of Bull Run. Brigadier-General
Ewell's was posted at the Union Mills Ford; Brigadier General D. R. Jones's at McLean's Ford; Brigadier-Gen eral Longstreet's at Blackburn's Ford; Brigadier-General
Bonham's at Mitchell's Ford; Colonel Cocke's at Ball's
Ford, some three miles above, and Colonel Evans, with
a regiment and battalion, formed the extreme left at the
Stone Bridge. The brigades of Brigadier-General Holmes,
and Colonel Early, were in reserve, in rear of the right.
I regarded the arrival of the remainder of the Army of
the Shenandoah, during the night, as certain.
" Soon after sunrise, on the morning of the 21st, a light
cannonade was opened upon Colonel Evans's position; a
similar demonstration was made against the centre soon
after, and strong forces were observed in front of it and
of the right. About eight o'clock, General Beauregard
and I placed ourselves on a commanding hill in the rear
of General Bonham's left. Near nine o'clock the signal
officer, Captain Alexander, reported that a large body of
troops was crossing the valley of Bull Run, some two
miles above the bridge. General Bee, who had been
placed near Colonel Cocke's position, Colonel Hampton,
with his Legion, and Colonel Jackson, from apoint near General Bonham's left were ordered to hasten to the left flank.
"The enemy, under cover of a strong demonstration on
our right, made a long detour through the woods on his
right, crossed Bull Run two miles above our left, and threw
himself upon the flank and rear of our position. This
movement was fortunately discovered in time for us to
check its progress, and ultimately to form a new line of
battle nearly at right angles with the defensive line of
Bull Run.
"On discovering that the enemy had crossed the stream
472 
J.'11/~ V/.tL SSl!;~'2~7,;s~<~'2~
I
— SIVSSIVNVN -4  -
-3HIJO HO.L3)IS
~
~~ ~
~;~~/ 
x \\\ /~~.'<$}~$~~jj
0 . - -,
1
s  
COL. XXI.]    FIRST BATI'TLE OF MANASSAS.
above him, Colonel Evans moved to his left with eleven
companies and two field pieces, to oppose his advance, and
disposed his little force under cover of the wood, near the
intersection of the Warrenton Turnpike and the Sudley
Road. Here he was attacked by the enemy in immensely
superior numbers, against which he maintained himself
with skill and unshrinking courage. General Bee, mov —
ing towards the enemy, guided by the firing, had, with a
soldier's eye, selected the position near the Henry House,
and formed his troops upon it. They were the 7th and
8th Georgia, 4th Alabama, 2d Mississippi, and two companies of the 11th Mississippi Regiments, with Imboden's.
battery. Being compelled, however, to sustain Colonel
Evans, he crossed the valley and formed on the right and
somewhat in advance of his position. Here the joint
force, little exceeding five regiments, with six field
pieces, held the ground against about fifteen thousand
United States troops for an hour, until, finding themselves
outflanked by the continually arriving troops of theenemy, they fell back to General Bee's first position, upon
the line of which, Jackson, just arriving, formed his
brigade and Stanard's battery. Colonel Hampton, who
had by this time advanced with his Legion as far as the
Turnpike, rendered efficient service in maintaining the
orderly character of the retreat from that point; and
here fell the gallant Lieutenant Colonel Johnson, hiss
second in command.
"In the meantime, I awaited with General Beauregard,
near the centre, the full development of the enemy's designs.  About eleven o'clock, the violence of the firing on
the left indicated a battle, and the march of a large body
of troops from the enemy's centre towards the conflict, was
shown by clouds of dust.  I was thus convinced, that his
great effort was to be made with his right. I stated thak.
473: 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I11.
conviction to General Beauregard, and the absolute necessity of immediately strengthening our left as much as
possible. Orders were, accordingly, at once sent to General Holmes and Colonel Early, to move with all speed to
the sound of the firing, and to General Bonham to send
up two of his regiments and a battery. General Beauregard and I then hurried at a rapid gallop to the scene of
action, about four miles off. On the way, I directed my
Chief of Artillery, Colonel Pendleton, to follow with his
own and Alburtis's batteries. We came not. a moment
too soon. The long contest, against five-fold odds and
heavy losses, especially of field officers, had greatly discouraged the troops of General Bee and Colonel Evans.
Our presence with them under fire, and some example,
had the happiest effect on the spirit of the troops. Order
was soon restored, and the battle re-established, to which
the firmness of Jackson's brigade greatly contributed.
Then, in a brief and rapid conference, General Beauregard was assigned to the command of the left, which, as
the younger officer, he claimed, while I returned to that
of the whole field. The aspect of affairs was critical, but
I had full confidence in the skill and indomitable courage
of General Beauregard, the high soldierly qualities of
Generals Bee and Jackson, and Colonel Evans, and the
devoted patriotism of their troops. Orders were first
despatched to hasten the march of General Holmes's,
Colonel Early's and General Bonham's regiments. General Ewell was also directed to follow with all speed.
Many of the broken troops, fragments of companies, and
individual stragglers, were re-formed and brought into
action, with the aid of my staff, and a portion of General
Beauregard's. Colonel (Governor) Smith, with his battalion, and Colonel Hunton, with his regiment, were ordered up to reinforce the right. I have since learned that
474 
COL,. XXI.]   FIRST BATTLE OF MANASSAS.
General Beauregerd had previously ordered them into the
battle. They belonged to his corps. Colonel Smith's
cheerful courage had a fine influence, not only upon
the spirit of his own men, but upon the stragglers
from the troops engaged.   The largest body of these,
equal to about four companies, having no competent field
officer, I placed under command of one of my staff,
Colonel F. J. Thomas, who fell, while gallantly leading
it against the enemy.   These reinforcements were all
sent to the right, to re-establish, more perfectly, that part
of our line. Having attended to these pressing duties, at
the immediate scene of conflict, my eye was next directed
to Colonel Cocke's brigade, the nearest at hand. Hastening to his position, I desired him to lead his troops into
action. He informed me, however, that a large body of
the enemy's troops, beyond the stream and below the
bridge, threatened us from that quarter. He was, therefore, left in his position.
"My Headquarters were now established near the
Lewis House. From this commanding elevation, my
view embraced the position of the enemy beyond the
stream, and the approaches to the Stone Bridge, a point
of especial importance. I could also see the advances of
our troops, far down the Valley, in the direction of Manassas, and observe the progress of the action and the
manceuvres of the enemy.
"We  had now sixteen guns, and two hundred  and
sixty cavalry, and a little above nine regiments of the
army of the Shenandoah, and six guns, and less than
the strength of three regiments, of that of the Potomac,
engaged with about thirty-five thousand United States
troops, amongst whom, were full three thousand men of
the old Regular Army. Yet, this admirable artillery,
and brave infantry and cavalry, lost no foot of ground.
475
0 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  LVOL. IL
For nearly three hours they maintained their position,
repelling five successive assaults, by the heavy masses of
the enemy, whose numbers enabled him continually to
bring up fresh troops, as their preceding columns were
driven back. Colonel Stuart contributed to one of these
repulses, by a well-timed and vigorous charge on the
enemy's right flank, with two companies of his cavalry.
The efficiency of our infantry and cavalry, might have
been expected from a patriotic people, accustomed, like
ours, to the management of arms and horses, but that of
the artillery, was little less than wonderful. They were
opposed to batteries far superior, in the number, range
and equipment of their guns, with educated officers, and
thoroughly instructed soldiers.  We  had but one educated Artillerist, Colonel Pendleton-that model of a
Christian soldier-yet they exhibited as much superiority
to the enemy in skill as in courage. Their fire was superior, both in rapidity and precision.
"Thle expected reinforcements appeared soon after.
Colonel Cocke was then desired to lead his brigade into
action, to support the right of the troops engaged, which
he did, with alacrity and effect. Within a half hour, the
two regiments of General Bonham's Brigade, (Cash's and
Kershaw's) came up, and were directed against the enemy's  right, which  he  seemed  to  be  strengthening.
Fisher's North Carolina regiment was, soon after, sent in
the same direction. About 3 o'clock, while the enemy
seemed to be striving to outflank and drive back our left,
and thus separate us from Manassas, General E. K. Smith
arrived, with three regiments of Elzey's Brigade. He
was instructed to attack the right flank of the enemy,
now exposed to us. Before the movement was completed,
he fell, severely wounded. Colonel Elzey at once taking
commanid, executed it with great promptitude and vigor.
4,6 
Cor,. XXI.]   FIRST BATTLE OF MANASSAS.
General Beauregard rapidly seized the opportunity thus
afforded him, and threw forward his whole line. The
enemy was driven back from the long-contested hill, and
victory was no longer doubtful. He made yet another
attempt to retrieve the day. He again extended his
right, with a still wider sweep, to turn our left. Just as
he re-formed, to renew the battle, Colonel Early's three
regiments came upon the field. The enemy's new formation exposed his right flank more even than the previous
one. Colonel Early was, therefore, ordered to throw
himself directly upon it, supported by Colonel Stuart's
Cavalry and Beckham's Battery. He executed this attack bravely and well, while a simultaneous charge was
made by General Beauregard in front. The enemy was
broken by this combined attack. He lost all the artillery
which he had advanced to the scene of the conflict. He
had no more fresh troops to rally on, and a general rout
ensued.
"Our victory was as complete as one gained by infantry
and artillery can be. An adequate force of cavalry would
have made it decisive.
"It is due, under Almighty God, to the skill and
resolution of General Beauregard, the admirable conduct
of Generals Bee, E. K. Smith and Jackson, and of
Colonels (commanding brigades) Evans, Cocke, Early,
and Elzey and the courage and unyielding firmness of
our patriotic volunteers. The admirable character of our
troops is incontestably proved by the result of this battle;
especially when it is remembered that little more than
six thousand men of the army of the Shenandoah, with
sixteen guns, and less than two thousand of that of the
Potomac, with six guns, for full five hours successfully
resisted thirty-five thousand United States troops, with a
powerful artillery, and a superior force of Regular cavalry.
477 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II
The brunt of this hard-fought engagement fell upon the
troops who held their ground so long, with such heroic
resolution. The unfading honor which they won, was
dearly bought with the blood of many of our best and
bravest. Their loss was far heavier, in proportion, than
that of the troops coming later into action.
"Every regiment and battery engaged performed its
part well. The commanders of brigades have been
already mentioned. I refer you to General Beauregard's
report, for the names of the officers of the army of the
Potomac, who distinguished themselves most. I cannot
enumerate all of the army of the Shenandoah, who
deserve distinction, and will confine myself to those of
high rank. Colonels Bartow and Fisher, (killed,) Jones,
(mortally wounded,) Harper, J. F. Preston, Cummings,
Falkner, Gartrell and Vaughan; J. E. B. Stuart, of the
cavalry, and Pendleton of the artillery, LieutenantColonel Echols, Lightfoot, Lackland, G. H. Stewart and
Gardner. The last named gallant officer was severely
wounded.
"The loss of the army of the Potomac was 108 killed,
510 wounded, 12 missing. That of the army of the
Shenandoah was, 270 killed, 979 wounded, 18 missing
Total killed, 378; total wounded, 1,489; total miss
ing, 30.
"That of the enemy could not be ascertained.  It must
have been between four and five thousand. Twentyeight pieces of artillery, about five thousand muskets, and
nearly five hundred thousand cartridges; a garrison flag
and ten colors were captured on the field or in the pursuit. Besides these, we captured sixty-four artillery
horses, with their harness, twenty-six wagons, and much
camp equipage, clothing, and other property, abandoned
in their flight."
478 
CoL. XXI.] COMMENTS ON BATTLE OF MANASSAS.
The result of this battle between forces so unequal in
numbers as well as so unequal in arms, and equipments,
is to be attributed mainly to the relative spirit by which
the officers and men on the opposing sides were moved
and animated in the terrible conflict. Great as was the
skill of Generals Johnston and Beauregard, in the disposition and movements of their squadrons, that of General
McDowell was also very great. His whole plan of operations, from the beginning to the end, showed military
genius of the highest order. The result, therefore, did
not depend so much upon the superior skill of the commanders on the Confederate side, as upon the high objects and motives with which they, as well as those
under them, were inspired. Johnston and Beauregard
were both often in the thickest of the fight, leading in
person, with colors in hand, on to the charge, regiments
whose officers had fallen! They, and those who followed
them, were moved by a profound sense of the glaring
usurpations of Mr. Lincoln, to which I have referred
They were animated by the sentiments uttered by Mr.
Davis in his tmessage at Montgomery, and repeated the
day before at Richmond.. The struggle with them was
not for power, dominion, or dynasty-nor for Fame; but
to resist palpable and dangerous assumptions of power,
and to repel wanton aggressions upon long established
rights. They fought for those Principles and Institutions of Self-government w]lich were the priceless heritage of their ancestors!
On the Federal side, thousands of those who were sent
on this expedition, set out, not only with reluctance, but
with a consciousness that  the whole movement was
wrong.  They had volunteered for no such purpose%
They had tendered their services with the sole view of
defending the Capital.  It was under the impression.q
0
47R 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vo6L. II.
belief so extensively created at the North, that the Confederates intended to take Washington, that much the
greater portion of this immense army had, with very
patriotic motives, rushed to the rescue.  Their object was
to defend their own rights against an expected assault,
and not to make aggression upon the rights of others.
This entrapping them into this movement, when once
mustered. into service, and under military control, was
but a part of the sinister purposes of the Federal authorities, which marked their policy throughout the war.
The first false cry was to save the Capital, and after
that came a second equally false one to save the Union;
while their real object all the time was to use these
popular catch words to mislead a confiding people, and
under these specious pretexts to cover their ulterior designs of subverting and overturning the whole structure
of the Government.  A similar solution is to be given to
the subsequent battles, some months afterwards, at Lexington and Oak Hill, near Springfield, in Missouri, under
Generals Price and McCulloch; at Belmont in the same
State, under Generals Polk and Pillow; and at Leesburg,
in Virginia, under General Evans, in all of which great
victories were achieved by the Confederates. To this
s.,ime spirit, indeed, is mainly to be attributed the fact
that in no field engagement during the war did the Confederates fail of success, where they were not overwhelmed, if not "annihilated" by numbers.  The most
signal successes the Federals met with during the first
year of the war were at Fort Hatteras, Port Royal, Fort
Henry, and Fort Donelson, where, in addition to a vast
superiority of numbers, they had also the advantage of
bringing their naval forces most efficiently to their aid.
MAJOR HEISTER. You must except from your remarks
about the battles of the first year of the war, General
Thomas's great victory in Kentucky, at Mill Springs?
480 
COL. XXI.] THE FEDERALS ORGANIZE NEW ARMIES.  481
MR. STEPHENS. NO: that is no exception. You refei
to the Battle of Fishing Creek, as the Confederates call
it. This, it is true, was a very important victory to the
Federals, especially as it opened up to them an ingress
into East Tennessee; but they had not only a great su periority in numbers, but also in the character of their
arms.   Besides this, the victory there achieved was
owing, in no small degree, to the fall, in the early part of
the engagement, of General Felix K. Zollicoffer, who lost
his life by incautiously approaching a Federal Regiment,
supposing it to be one of his own. This, therefore, is no
exception to my general remark.
But to return to the progress of events at the two
Seats of Government, which must necessarily be borne in
mind for the purposes of our investigation. After the
great defeat of the first "Onward" to Richmond, it must
be recollected, then, that the Authorities at Washington
set about the organization of another, and a still greater,
army at the same place, and for the same purpose. Hundreds of millions of dollars were appropriated.
General Winfield Scott, the Commander-in-Chief of the
Army of the United States, at his own request, on account
of age and its infirmities, was relieved from all further
active duty. The organization of the new army, under
the new levies, therefore, was assigned to another. General George B. McClellan was the officer selected. This
high distinction was conferred upon him in consideration
of his successes in Northwestern Virginia, in the month
of July. He was at this time regarded as the " coming
man." To him was given the appellation of the "Young
Napoleon."  He was, indeed, an officer of great ability.
Very few ever surpassed him in what may be termed the
organizing powers of the mind. He went to work slowly,
and, notwithstanding the pressure upon him for another
31 
CONSTrITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
attack upon Richmond, contented himself with having
all things ready for such a movement early in the ensuing spring.  The whole fall and winter were spent in
preparation.
While this was going on at Washington, the Authorities at Richmond were doing all in their power to bring
into the field a force sufficient to repel the second blow,
as they had the first. The Congress provided, by law,
for calling out four hundred thousand volunteers. To
meet the expenses, they directed the issuing of one hundred and fifty millions of Treasury Notes, in addition to
those previously ordered, with a war tax of fifty cents
upon the  hundred dollars' worth of certain taxable
property.
They also adopted what was known  as the "Paris
Agreement of 1856," touching the International Law of
Blockade, and sent two other Commissioners to Europe
to present this subject, especially to the Courts of England and France; and to place the Confederates in a
favorable position in relation to the rights of Neutrals
and Belligerents. These Commissioners, Mr. James M
Mason, of Virginia, and Mr. John Slidell, of Louisiana,
with their Secretaries, Mr. George Eustis and Mr. James
E. Macfarland, were seized on board the British Mail
Steamer Trent, between Havana and St. Thomas, by
Captain Wilkes, of the United States Navy, commanding
the San Jacinto, on the 8th of November, and were carried to Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, where they were
confined as prisoners. The report of this indignity to
the British Flag, by Captain Moir, of the Trent, and
Commander Williams, of the Royal Navy, in charge of
Her Majesty's mails, created the most intense excitement
in England. A war feeling instantly flamed up there.
Troops were sent to Canada. A formal demand was im
482 
THE TRENT AFFAIR.
mediately made of the Authorities at Washington, by
the British Government, for the surrender of the prison ers, and an apology for the outrage upon Neutral Rights
in their capture. Both demands were promptly complied
with by Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, in a very voluminous parade of not very impertinent learning, notwithstanding the House of Representatives had passed a vote of
thanks to Captain Wilkes for his conduct in the matter.
This affair, therefore, so threatening for a short time,
soon passed off quietly, without any serious results. The
Commissioners reached their respective destinations, but
met with no success in the accomplishment of their objects. All their labors were as fruitless, as had been
those of the Commissioners first sent, upon the subjects
specially committed to their charge.
Mr. John T. Pickett, who was the Secretary of the
Commissioners at Washington, was sent, ill the month of
May, to Mexico, to act as Diplomatic Agent of the Confederate States, with that Government. His mission resulted in nothing effectual.*
Mr. Yancey, early in the winter, when he saw that
nothing could be accomplished on the business upon
which he was sent, returned to his home, and was elected
by the Legislature of Alabama to the first Confederate
States Senate under the Constitution, which had been
adopted for their Permanent Government;  and which
was to go into operation on the 22d day of February,
1862. The regular election for President and Vice President, under the Constitution for a Permanent Government,
was held on the 6th of November, 1861, when the same
* Mr. Pickett's Correspondence with the Mexican Authorities, which
has been preserved, presents much interesting matter, in throwing light
up)on the condition of political affairs in that country, at this important period in her history.
COL. XXI.]
483 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL II.
persons holding these offices under the Provisional Organization, were unanimously re-elected to the same positions,
for a term of six years, under the otlher.
A few other matters only, during the existence of the
Provisional Organization, remain to be noted for our
purposes. Among these it is proper to state, that before
the expiration of this period, events took a turn which
led to the admission of the States of Missouri and
Kentucky  into the  Confederacy.   Neither  Governor
Jackson nor Governor Magoffin was permitted by the
Federal Authorities to hold the position of neutrality;
nor were these States permitted to hold that position.
In Missouri a Revolutionary State Government was
organized, backed by the Federals. Hamilton R. Gamble was declared Provisional Governor;' Willard P. Hall,
Lieutenant Governor; and Mordecai Oliver, Secretary of
State. This Government, and the Party which sustained
it, sided with the Federals. The regular Legislature of
Missouri, convened at the call of Governor Jackson, appointed Edward C. Cabell and Thomas LI,. Snead as Commlissioners fully empowered to form an alliance with the
Confederate States. This resulted in a Convention not
dissimilar in its features to those previously entered into
by Virginia and Tennessee. The Convention was signed
at Richmond, on the 31st of October, 1861, by-the Commissioners on the part of the State, and by Robert M. T.
Hunter, Secretary of State, on the part of the Confederate
States. This Convention was subsequently ratified unanimously by the Legislature. In this way Missouri was
recognized as a member of the Confederacy.
Kentucky became the theatre of similar scenes with
similar results, in a reversed order. In this State, as in
all where neutrality was attempted, "a reign of terror"
was instituted. During the latter part of September,
48a 
COL. XXI.] KENT'UCKY JOINS THE CONFEDERACY.
Ex-Governor Charles S. Morehead, the life-long personal
and political friend of Henry Clay, as well as one of the
most devoted adherents to the Union under the Constitution who ever lived, was arrested at his residence near
Louisville, for nothing but his denunciations of the
flagrant usurpations of the Washington Authorities. He
was hurried off by the military to Fort La Fayette, where
he was immured for months in one of the dungeons of
that Bastile, without a hearing and without a charge! 
Thomas B. Monroe, who was District Judge of the United
States Court, John C. Breckinridge, Senator and Ex-VicePresident of the United States, Humphrey Marshall,
Ex-Congressman and Ex-Minister to China, William
Preston, Ex-Congressman and Ex-Minister to Spain.
Thomas B. Monroe, Jr., Secretary of State at the time,
and several other of the most prominent citizens of
Kentucky, who occupied positions similar to that of Mr.
Morehead, avoided a similar doom, through the good
fortune of receiving information, that orders for their
arrest had been issued, in time for them to make their
escape.
Mr. Breckinridge issued an address to the people of
the State. A Convention was called, which met at
Russellville on the 18th of November. This point had
not yet been reached by the Federal forces. Sixty-eight
counties of the State were represented in the Convention
there assembled.   The number  of delegates was one
hundred and twenty. They proclaimed a Declaration of
Independence in behalf of the people of Kentucky, and
organized a Government upon Revolutionary principles.*
* The grounds upon which these proceedings were justified in the
opinion of those who instituted them, were thus set forth by Governor
Johnson, on the 21st of November, 1862:
"The action of the people of this State, in thus organizing a Provisional Government for the protection of their rights of person and
485 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
George W. Johnson was chosen Governor. William
Preston, Henry C. Burnett, and William E. Simms were
appointed Commissioners to negotiate an alliance with
the Confederate States. The result was the recognition
by the Confederate States of this Organization as the
rightful Government of the State of Kentucky; and of
her admission under it, as a member of the Confederacy,
in the early part of December.
Another matter of this period to be specially noted is,
that during this winter, while the Confederates had a
very large excess of Federal prisoners, the Authorities at
Washington under very great pressure of public sentiment in the Northern States, were induced to enter into
property, was  based, as  a necessity, upon  the ultimate  right of
Revolution possessed by all mankind against perfidious and despotic
Governments. A faction, which may be called the'War Party of
Kentucky,' composed of most of the members of the last Congress, and
a minority of the Legislature, after surrounding themselves with an
army of 8,000 Lincoln troops, forced a majority of their own body into
caucus, and there concocted, and afterwards enacted in the Legislature
(against the vetoes of the Governor and the remonstrances of the minority of the Senate and House of Representatives,) a series of oppressive
and despotic acts, which have left us no alternatives except abject
submission or manly resistance. Tihe constitutional right of Secession
by the State, with organized Government, from the ruins of the old
Union, was not possible; because the power of adopting such manly
and philosophic action was denied us by the enslaved members of the
Legislature, who not only submitted, themselves, to the despotism of
the army, but betrayed their political opponents who relied upon their
honor, and their own constituents and the great body of the people of
Kentucky, who relied upon their pledges of neutrality. Secession being
thus impossible, we were compelled to plant ourselves on a doctrine
universally recognized by all Nations-that allegiance is due alone to
such Governments as protect Society, and upon that right which God
himself has given to mankind and which is inalienable-the right to
(lestroy any Government whose existence is incompatible with the
interests and liberties of Society. The foundation, therefore, upon
which the Provisional Government rests, is a right of Revolution
instituted by the people, for the preservation of the liberty, the interests. and the honor of a vast majority of the citizens of Kentucky."
486 
COL. XXI.] CARTEL FOR EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.   487
a Cartel for an exchange, upon the basis that the Confederates had offered at the beginning. This arrange
ment was entered into on the 14th of February, by
General Howell Cobb on the part of the Confederate
States, and General John E. Wool on the part of the
United States. According to the agreement then made,
the Privateersmen were put upon the footing of other
prisoners of war. But no sooner had the Federals an
excess of prisoners by the capture of the garrison of
about 10,000 officers and men at Fort Donelson, than the
terms of this agreement were violated, by their again refusing to send forward the Privateersmen in exchange, as
well as by their failing to comply with the Cartel in other
respects. But enough of this now. One or two other
matters of smaller import may be here stated.
On Mr. Toombs's taking a commission in the army, Mr.
Hunter succeeded him in the State Department. He
continued to fill this office until the close of the
Provisional Congress.   Having  been  elected  to  the
Confederate Senate, he took his seat in that body on its
first organization. The health of Mr. Walker failing during the fall, Mr. Benjamin filled his place as Secretary
of War, and Ex-Governor Thomas Bragg, of North Carolina, acted as Attorney-General during the remaining
months of the Provisional Government. Mr. Walker
afterwards became a Brigadier-General in the Army.
At this time the Confederates had in the field, distributed
at various points, including all branches of service, in
round numbers about three hundred thousand men; while
the Federals in like manner, and in like round numbers
had not less than eight hundred thousand!
So matters generally stood, in a political as well as
military view, on both sides, when the new Organization
under the Constitution for a Permanent Government for 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vor. II.
the Confederate States went into operation, on the 22d
of February, 1862;* which period may be regarded as the
close of the first year of the war; and with this review
of its events, I propose, if agreeable to you all, to close
what I have to say at this time.
MAJOR HEISTER. One thing, Mr. Stephens, I should like
to know just at thispoint; and that is, why Generals
Johnston and Beauregard remained entirely inactive at
Manassas, during the whole fall, after the rout of General
McDowell's army on the 21st of July? Why did they
not push on to Washington?  They must have had a very
large force early in the fall, and flushed with victory as
they were, it has always been a mystery to me, why
they stood so perfectly quiet until McClellan's new
army was organized almost within their sight? Can you
explain this?
MR. STEPHENS. I do not know that I can. With the
military operations, as I have said before, it is not my
purpose to deal, except in so far as they bear upon the
questions which we have directly in hand. A great deal
has been said and written upon the subject of your inquiry.
It has been said that Thomas J. Jackson, who after
terwards became so famous under the appellation of
" Stonewall," t and who was the Colonel of that name so
favorably mentioned in General Johnston's report of the
battle of the 21st of July, was urgent for an immediate
pressing forward to Washington.  Some think his views
were right.1 My own opinion, from the reports of both
* For List of Officers of the Government, Civil and Military, see Appendix L.
t This most remarkable man who afterwards figured so conspicuously
in the war, and who established a name that will live forever, received
this appellation from the following incident.  General Bee, just before
he fell in the battle of the 21st of July, while rallying his men, said:
"There is Jackson standing like a stone wall I "
I See Life of Jackson, by Prof. R. L. Dabney, D. D., p. 233, et sequentes.
488 
COL. XXI.]    COUNCIL OF WAR AT MANASSAS.
General Johnston and General Beauregard, as well as
from other sources, is, that such a movement at that time,
was altogether impracticable. As to the state of things
afterwards, that is a different question. All I know upon
that point, and all I can say in answer to your question
upon it, is, that General Johnston did wish to make some
movement of the sort in the early part of the fall, when he
was better prepared. Not, however, with the forces he then
had, for they did not exceed forty thousand effective men;
while McClellan had over fifty thousand when he took comnmand at Washington on the 27th of July. Johnston's
plan was to concentrate, as quickly as possible, at that
place, a force sufficient for his purpose, which could be
done only by leaving bare remote points then defended.
For this object a Council of War was held at Manassas.
Mr. Davis went up from Richmond. He met Generals
Johnston and Beauregard, and General Gustavus W.
Smith in this Council. General Beauregard had been
promoted to the rank of full General, for his gallantry
and great services on the 21st of July. General Smith,
at the time, commanded a division of this army, with the
rank of Major-General.   He was a graduate of West
Point, and recognized as an officer of great merit.
The result of the Council of War so held, was the disapproval by Mr. Davis of the policy suggested. Upon
the merits of the views presented, for and against its
adoption, I have no speculative opinions to express. Of
course, all that could now be said on the subject would
amount to nothing but speculations. General Beauregard was, not very long afterwards, transferred to a command in the West. This is all the explanation I can
give of the matter you inquire about.
JUDGE BYNUM. The state of things at the close of the
first year of the war, as you term it, must have presented
489 
CONS'rITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
a gloomy prospect to the Richmond authorities just en tering on their new Organization! There must have
been very little left of their high elation at their first
wonderful success at Bull Run? With the capture of
Forts Henry and Donelson, and the opening into East
Tennessee, which Thomas's victory achieved, and the
abandonment of Kentucky, as well as Tennessee, by
General Albert Sidney Johnston with all his forces, which
these victories rendered necessary, to say nothing of the
Coast operations in North and South Carolina; and with
the utter failure of both the Embassies to effect anything
in Europe, or even in Mexico, it seems to me, that the
more intelligent men at the South must, at that time,
have seen that further resistance was useless and hopeless. I should like to know, before you leave this point,
what yjo,tr views of the prospect then were?
MR. STEPHENS. The prospect to me was not at all so
gloomy as you seem to imagine. The Confederate reverses, you refer to, were certainly very great. But the
immediate results of all the regular field engagements, as
before said, had much in them to inspire not only hope,
but confidence as to the final results of the Conflict.
What I then thought of the prospect, however, can be
better understood, from what I said a few months afterwards, in a speech at this place, which was very well reported, and very clearly sets forth my views and feelings
on the subject, at the time you inquire of, as well as at
the time when it was delivered.  Here is the speech.
From it as reported and published at the time, I read:
"On the general subject of our present conflict, involving as it does our individual as well as State existence,
he said all wars were calamities-the greatest that can
befall a people, except, perhaps, direct visitations from
Providence, such as famnines, plagues, and pestilences.
490 
(oLo. XXI.] SPEECII AT CRAWFORI)VIILE ON THE WAR. 491
The greater the war, the greater the calamity. This
war is a great calamity to us. We all feel it. It is the
greatest war, and waged on the largest scale of any since
the birth of Christ. The history of the world-not excepting the Crusades-furnishes no parallel to it in the
present era.
"The responsibility and guilt of it must  be fearful
somewhere. As great calamities as wars are, they are,
however, sometimes necessary. Often forced by the
highest dictates of patriotism. Like'offences' we are
told of, it must needs be, that they sometimes come.
They are, however, never right or justifiable on both sides.
They may be wrong on both sides, but can never be
right on both. Unjust wars, by the unanimous consent
of civilized men, are held, as they should be, in condemnation and reprobation.  People, therefore, as well as
their rulers, to whom such high trusts are confided,
should look well to it, and see that they are right before
appealing to this last and most terrible arbitrament of
arms.
"Some thoughts on this subject, Mr. Stephens said,
might not be out of place, even there. These he dwelt
upon at some length, showing the justice of our cause
and the wanton aggression of the enemy.  He traced the
history of the controversy between the Southern and
Northern States, the principles and nature of our Government, the Independence and Sovereignty of the States,
and the right of each to control its own destinies and act
for itself in the last resort, as each State might think
best for itself.  It was wholly immaterial, he said, in
considering the question of rilght and justice, now to
look any further than the solemn act of the States of the
South, after mature deliberation, each acting for itself ill
its Sovereign capacity. Each State had the right thus 
4CONSTrITUT''IONALI VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
to act, and when each for itself had thus acted, no power
on earth had the right justly to gainsay it.
"The old Union was formed by the States, each acting
for itself in its Sovereign character and capacity, with the
object and purpose of advancing their interests respectively thereby. Each State was the sole judge in the
lLst resort, whether the future interest, safety and wellbeing of her people, required her to resume those Sovereign powers, the exercise of which had been delegated to
other hands under the old Compact of Union. These
principles have ever been held not only true, but sacred,
with the friends of Constitutional Liberty in all the States
since the old Union was formed. They rest upon that
fundamental principle set forth in the Declaration of
Independence, that all Governments'derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.' The States
South, therefore, had done nothing but what was their
right-their inalienable right to do, the same as their
ancestors did, in common with the North, when they
severed their connection with the British Government.
"This war was waged by the North in denial of this
Right, and for the purpose of conquest and subjugation!
It was, therefore, aggressive, wanton and unjust!  Such
must be the judgment of mankind, let its results be what
they may. Thle responsibility, therefore, for all its sacrifices of treasure and blood, heretofore, or hereafter to be
made in its prosecution, rests not upon us.
"Mr. Stephens said that soon after the first great battle
of Manassas, duty called him to our camps near that
point.  He went over the ground on which that conflict
had taken place. The evidences of the late terrible
strife were still fresh and visible all around. The wide.
spread desolation, the new-made graves, and the putrid
animal remains not yet removed by the vultures, fully
492 
COL. XXI.]'MY GOD! WHAT IS ALL THIS FOR?'
attested what a scene of blood it had been. While surveying the hills and defiles over which the various
columns of our men and the enemy passed and were engaged on that memorable day, amongst many other things
that crowded themselves upon his mind, were two dying
expressions reported to have been uttered in the midst of
the battle. One was by a soldier on the side of the
enemy, who, fallen and weltering in his blood, exclaimed,
' My God! what is all this for?'  The other was by the
lamented Bartow, who said,'Boys, they have killed me,
but never give it up!' These two exclamations were
made at no great distance apart, and perhaps near the
same time.
"' What is all this for?'  Mr. Stephens said he could
but think the question was pertinent to both sides, and
most pertinent from him who uttered it, addressed to all
his invading comrades and those who sent them. Well
might he there, in the agonies of death, in the din and
dust of strife, in the clangor of arms and the thunder of
artillery, ask,'What is all this for?'  Why this array
of armies?  Why this fierce meeting in mortal combat?
What is all this carnage and slaughter for? The same
question is still as pertinent to those who are waging this
war against us, as it was then. Why the prolongation
of this conflict? Why this immense sacrifice of life in
camp, and the numerous battles that have been fought
since? Why this lamentation and mourning going up
from almost every house and family from Maine to the
Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic and Gulf to the Lakes,
for friends and dear ones who have fallen by disease and
violence in this unparalleled struggle? The question, if
replied to by the North, can have but one true answer.
What is all this for on their part, but to overturn the
principle upon which their own Government, as well as
493 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOl,. II.
ours, is based-to reverse the doctrine that Governments
derive'their just powers from the consent of the governed?'     hat is it for but to overturn the principles
and practice of their own Government from the beginning? That Government was founded and based upon
the political axiom that all States and Peoples have the
inalienable right to change their forms of Governmnent at
will!
"This principle was acted on in the recognition by the
United States of the South American Republics.  It was
the principle acted on in the recognition of Mexico. It
was acted on in the struggle of Greece, to overthrow the
Ottoman rule.  On that question, the great Constitutional
Expounder of the North, Mr. Webster, gained his first
laurels as an American Statesman. This principle was
acted on in the recognition of the Government of Louis
Phillippe, on the overthrow of Charles X. of France; and
again in the recognition of the Lamartime Government,
on the overthrow  of Louis Phillippe in 1848.  At that
time every man at the North in Congress, save one, Mr.
Stephens believed, voted for the principle. The same
principle was again acted upon without dissent in 1852,
in the recognition of the Government of Louis Napoleon.
The same principle was acted upon in the recognition of
Texas, when she seceded or withdrew from the Government of Mexico.
"Many at the North opposed the admission of Texas, as
a State in our then Union. But there was little, if any, opposition to her recognition as an independent outside Republic. Strange to say, many of those who were then
fiercest in their opposition to Texas coming into the
Union, are now the fiercest in their denial of the unquestioned right acknowledged to her before. Well may any
and every one, North or South, exclaim, What is all this
494 
CoL. XXI.] CONFEDERATE EUROPEAN EMBASSIES.
for?  What have we done to the North?   When have
we ever wronged them? We quit them, it is true, as our ancestors and their ancestors quit the British Government.
We quit as they quit, upon a question of Constitutional
Right. That question they determined for themselves,
and we have but done the same. What, therefore, is all
this for? Why this war on their part against the uniform principles and practice of their own Government?
It is a war, in short, on their part, against right, against
reason, against justice, against nature!
"If asked, on our side, what is all this for?  The reply
from every breast is, that it is for home, for firesides, for
our altars, for our birthrights, for property, for honor, for
life-in a word, for everything for which freemen should
live, and for which all deserving to be freemen should be
willing, if need be, to die!"
Upon the subject of the failure of ouir European Enmbassies, I then expressed myself as follows:
"On the subject of foreign recognition, Mr. Stephens
said he saw no change in the prospect. Foreigni Governments, he thought were very much disposed to stand
aloof from this contest. He did not believe they really
sympathized with either side-he meant the ruling classes.
The masses of the people, and the commercial interests
generally, he thought did sympathize with us. Not so
with their rulers. They care but little for the success of
either the North or the South. Some of our people were
disposed to think that their sympathies were with the
North, while the Northern papers were charging them
with sympathy for us. He thought they had no kind
feelings for either, but rather rejoiced to see )rofessed R]e
putblicans cutting each other's throats!  He thought the
remark reported to have lately been uttered by Carlyle
inl his quaint style, embodied in a nutshell the diplomatic
495 
CONST'ITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
feelings of Europe toward the cause on both sides. The
remark was that,' It was the foulest chimney that had
been on fire for a century, and the best way is to let it
burn itself out.'
"They were against Republicanism!  They are hostile
to the opinion that man is capable of Self-government!
They are doubtless in hope that this principle will be ex tinguished on both sides of the line before the contest
ends!  They were wise enough to see that the North (from
the course commenced there) would soon run into anarchy
or despotism, and they are perhaps looking for the same fate
to befall us. This has usually been the fate of Republics;
and one of the highest duties we have to perform to ourselves and posterity, was to see that their expectations
shall fail so far as we are concerned. We have a high
mission to perform; and Mr. Stephens trusted the people
of the South would prove themselves equal to the task
of its performance. We have our Independence to maintain, and Constitutional Liberty to preserve! With us
now rest' the hopes of the world! The North has already
become a Despotism! The people, there, while nominally
free, are in no better condition, practically, than serfs.
The only plausibility they have for the war is to make
freemen of slaves, and those of an Inferior race, while
their efforts in this unnatural crusade thus far have
resulted in nothing but making slaves of themselves.
Presidential Proclamations supersede and set aside both
laws and the Constitution. Liberty with them is but a
name and a mockery. In separating from them, we quit
the Union, but we rescued the Constitution. This was
the Ark of the Covenant of our Fathers!  It is our high
duty to keep it, and hold it, and preserve it forever!"
JUDGE BYNUM. A very rebellious speech it was, I
should say!
496 
A QUESTION TO ASK.
MR. STEPHENS. Yes, and traitorous too, if treason consists in true loyalty to the fundamental principles upon
which the Union was based, and upon which alone it can
be perpetuated, with the maintenance of Constitutional
Liberty on this Continent! But on these points we have,
I believe, agreed to disagree.
PROF. NORTON. I have a question to ask you, Mr.
Stephens, but will not put it now, as you propose to
suspend for the present.
MR. STEPHENS. Very well, we can hear it in the morning. I shall be at your service, and will cheerfully
respond, as before stated, to all questions, as far as I am
able, which relate to the general subject of our investigation.
32
COL. XXI.]
497 
COLLOQUY XXII.
DISCUSSION TAKES NEW AND VARIOUS TURNS-DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MR.
DAVIS AND MR STEPHENS INQUIRED INTO BY PROF. NORTON-FULL EX POSITION GIVEN-DIFFERED ON INTERNAL AS WELL AS EXTERNAL POLICY
-BUT NEVER WAS ANY PERSONAL BREACH OR FEUD BETWEEN THEM TREATMENT OF PRISONERS DISCUSSED-THE CONFEDERATES NOT RESPON SIBLE FOR THE SUFFERINGS AT ANDERSONVILLE OR ELSEWHERE-POSI TION OF MR. STEPHENS UPON THIS SUBJECT, AS WELL AS THE POLICY OF
THE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHERN STATES PROGRESS OF EVENTS IN BOTH A MILITARY AND A POLITICAL POINT OF
VIEW DURING THE SECOND AND EARLY PART OF THE THIRD YEAR OF
THE WAR-GLANCE AT THE BATTLES OF ELKHORN, SHILOH, " STONE WALL" JACKSON'S VALLEY CAMPAIGN-THE SIX DAYS' FIGHTING AROUND
RICHMOND, CEDAR RUN, SECOND MANASSAS, HARPER'S FERRY, FRED ERICKSBURG, PERRYVILLE, MURFREESBORO, CHANCELLORSVILLE, AND
THE SIEGE OF VICKSBURG-GLANCE AT POLITICAL EVENTS DURING THE
SAME TIME-THE CONDITION OF NORTHERN SENTIMENT PRODUCED BY
MR. LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATIONS OF EMANCIPATION AND MARTIAL LAW THE PROPOSED PEACE MISSION OF MR. STEPHENS IN 1863-FULL HIS TORY OF IT-BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG- SURRENDER OF VICKSBURG THE GEORGIA PEACE RESOLUTIONS, SO-CALLED, IN 1864-POSITION OF
MR. STEPHENS ON FINANCIAL QUESTIONS -COTTON AS A FINANCIAL
POWERItHIS POSITION ALSO UPON SUSPENSION OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, CONSCRIPTION, AND IMPRESSMENT.
MR. STEPHENS. We have a cool, bright morning, gentlemen. The thunder-shower of last night has produced a
pleasant change in the atmosphere, and I trust you
are quite refreshed by it, and that we all are in better
condition for the continuation of the subjects we were
discussing yesterday evening. I am now ready, Professor Norton, for the question which you expressed a wish
to propound. In Parliamentary language, that is the first
thing in order. Let us, if you please, hear what it is?
PROF. NORTON. The question which I wish to ask does
498
0 
COL. XXII.]  MR. DAVIS AND MR. STEPHENS.
not relate so much to the general subjects which you are
discussing as to a particular matter, which your manner
of treating them, and some views presented by you upon
them, have suggested to my mind. What I wish to inquire about has more of a personal than general bearing.
It is not my desire or intention to divert you from the
course you are pursuing, but just at this point, as Major
Heister said, I wish a little information for my own satisfaction, and the gratificatiop of my individual curiosity,
if you have no objection to/giving it.
This curiosity was particularly excited by the extract
which you read from a speech made by you in 1862, and
which our friend the Judge here considered so "rebellious." That speech I never heard of before. It presented your position during the war in a new light to
me. I never so understood it before. I had always
understood you to have been opposed to the war-to
have been in favor of peace, upon the basis of a Reconstruction of the Union. On these points, as well as on
the subject of the treatment of prisoners, my understanding, and I believe the understanding generally at
the North, which was received through the medium of
the Southern press, was, that there existed a direct and
decided opposition between you and Mr. Davis; and that
on account of these and other matters of disagreement
between you and him, you not only withdrew from Richmonrd, but withdrew your support from the Administration, and headed a Peace Party movement in Georgia,
Alabama, and North Carolina, with a view to the abandonment of the war, and a restoration of the Union.
This speech you read, whether "rebellious" or not, certainly had nothing indicating any such line of policy as
that which I supposed you favored.
Now, what I want to know is: what was the difference
499 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. IT.
between you and Mr. Davis? What was the cause or
nature of the feud between you and him, about which so
much was said in the papers? As far as you have gone,
I see no difference between you and him. The sentiments uttered by you, and those uttered by him, do not
seem to me to be dissimilar at all, in respect to the prosecution of the war. This is a matter upon which I wish
light, at this point, if you do not consider my question
as obtrusive or impertinent.
MR. STEPHENS. Not in the least. I have no objection
to give you as full an exposition of the matter you inquire about, as it is in my power to do. This, I the more
readily do, because of the general misapprehension growing out of misrepresentations upon the subject.
In the first place, then, I must state most explicitly,
that there never was any feud, properly speaking, between Mr. Davis and myself.  We  differed, it is true,
very widely upon several matters of policy, as well as
upon some principles of Constitutional law.  We  had
differed, as before stated, upon the policy of introducing
the new feature into the Democratic Platform in 1860,
which caused a disruption of tlhat Party, and lead to the
election of Mr. Lincoln. Hle was, as we have seen, the
distinguished leader on that line of policy in the Senate.*
We differed also upon the policy of Secession, when that
course was adopted. After the rejection of the Crittenden
proposition, he advised Secession, as we have seen. I did
not concur with him in the expediency of that course.
But on these and other points of difference there was
nothing like a feud between us, nor were our personal
relations, or free interchange of views upon public questions, interrupted at all by them. On the same points I
differed as widely with Mr. Toombs, and two-thirds, perhaps, of the Montgomery Congress.
* A?lte, vol. i, p. 408.
500 
CoL. XXII.]  SUBJECT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
So, likewise, I differed with Mr. Davis after the organization of the new Confederacy, and the war was
waged to overthrow it, upon several matters connected
with the proper administration of our affairs. These related to the internal as well as the external policy of the
Government-to wielding most efficiently our internal
resources, of men and money, as well as proper external
agencies, for the success of the great cause involved in the
Conflict-the Sovereignty of the several States  to which
no one could be more devoted than I was. These differences, however wide and thorough as they were, as we
shall see, caused no personal breach between us. None
of them, moreover, related to the general treatment of
prisoners. On that point there was no disagreement
between us.
This whole subject of the treatment of prisoners which
has become so prominent a feature in considering the conduct of the war on both sides, from the turn which has
been given to it, I may as well dispose of here, at once
and finally. This I do by stating broadly that the charge
of cruelty and inhumanity towards prisoners, which has
been so extensively made at the North, against Mr. Davis
and the Confederate authorities, is utterly without foundation in fact. From the commencement and throughout
the war, the whole course of Mr. Davis towards prisoners
shows conclusively the perfect recklessness of the charge.
His position on this subject, in the beginning, clearly appears from what we have seen, and that fully sustains
this statement. The efforts which have been so industriously made to fix the odium of cruelty and barbarity
upon him, and other high officials under the Confederate
Government, in the matter of prisoners, in the face of all
the facts, constitute one of the boldest and baldest attempted
outrages upon the truth of history, which has ever been
501 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vol. II.
essayed: not less so than the infamous attempt to fix
upon him and other high officials on the Confederate side,
the guilt of Mr. Lincoln's assassination! Whatever un necessary privations and sufferings prisoners on both sides
were subjected to, the responsibility of the whole rested
not upon Mr. Davis or the Confederate authorities. It is
not my purpose to go into a full history of the subject.
This would take more time than is at all necessary. A
few leading facts will settle the matter.
Let it be borne in mind, then, that the Confederates
were ever anxious for a speedy exchange, and that after
the interruption of the exchange under the Cartel first
agreed upon, as before stated, another arrangement was
entered into by the Federals, under pressure of public
sentiment at the North, when the excess was against
them. This was, afterwards, likewise broken. It was
broken, not by the Confederates, but by the Federals upon
some pretext or other. Throughout the struggle, Mr.
Davis's conduct and bearing upon this point, not only
challenges the severest scrutiny of the fair minded of this
day, but will command the admiration of the just and
generous for all time to come. In addition to what has
been shown heretofore, what higher evidence on this
point could be desired than that furnished by his Congratulatory Address to the Army of General Lee, for the
successes achieved in the battles around Richmond, when
McClellan, with his newly organized hosts of at least one
hundred and twenty thousand men, made the second unsuccessful attempt to take the Confederate Capital in
1862, and when over ten thousand Federal prisoners had
fallen into their hands? In this hour of triumph, mark
the significant, as well as magnanimous, and even chivalrous language, which came spontaneously from his heart
on that occasion:
502 
COL. XXII.] TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
" You are fighting for all that is dearest to men; and
though opposed to a foe who disregards many of the usages
of civilized war, your humanity to the wounded and to
the prisoners was the fit and crowning glory to your valor."
PROF. NORTON. Yes, but how did he act towards these
same prisoners aftewards? What did he do to relieve
the horrors they suffered in Libby and on Belle Island
almost in the range of his sight, to say nothing of the
sufferings of those at Salisbury and Andersonville, of
which he must have been apprised? Why was his humanity and magnanimity so deaf to the appeals - and
dying wails of these men, which went up from those places,
so near his own doors, and almost within his hearing?
MR. STEPHENS. The horrors of Libby and Belle Island,
as well as of Salisbury and Andersonville, so pathetically
set forth by many, and great as they really were, were
not his fault, or in any way justly chargeable upon him.
PROF. NORTON. Whose fault wa4#it? Was he not at
the head of the Government? Did he not know of these
sufferings, and who but himself could be justly responsible
for them?
MR. STEPHENS. It was the fault of the Federal authorities in not agreeing to, and carrying out an immediate
exchange, which Mr. Davis was, at all times, anxious to
do. The men at the head of affairs at Washington were
solely responsible for all these sufferings. Upon these
officials, and upon them only, can these sufferings be justly
charged! Neither Libby, nor Belle Island, nor Salisbury,
nor Andersonville would have had a groaning prisoner of
war, but for the refusal of the Federal authorities to comply with the earnest desire of the Richmond Government,
for an immediate exchange, upon the most liberal and
humane principles. Had Mr. Davis's repeated offers been
accepted, no prisoner on either side would have been re
503 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tained in confinement a day. This all the facts clearly
show. All the sufferings and loss of life, therefore, during
the entire war, growing out of these imprisonments on
both sides, and they were great on both sides, (it is not
my wish to understate or underrate them on either,) are
justly chargeable to but one side, and that is the Federal
side.
PROF. NORTON. But if the Federal authorities did refulise to carry out an exchange of prisoners, for any cause
whatever, this certainly did not justify the Confederates
in adopting a regular systematic policy of starving the
unfortunate men taken by them in arms, and of withholding proper medical remedies and attention from the
wounded and sick, nor mitigate, in the least, the savage
cruelties which were perpetrated upon them by such men
as Wirtz?
MR. STEPHENS. It certainly did not, or would not have
justified such policy or acts. But it is not true that
there was any such thing as the systematic policy you
speak of, either in starving the well, or withholding
medical remedies and attention from the sick and
wounded.  The policy of the Confederates in these p,articulars was established by law. By an act of Congress,
passed soon after the war was inaugurated, as I have
shown, it was provided that prisoners of war should have
the same rations in quantity and quality as Confederate
soldiers in the field. By an act afterwards passed all
hospitals for sick and wounded prisoners, were put upon
the same footing with hospitals for sick and wounded
Confederates. This policy was never changed. There
was no discrimination in either particular between
Federal prisoners and Confederate soldiers. Whatever
food or fare the Confederate soldiers had, whether good
or bad, full or short, the Federal prisoners shared equally
504 
COL. XXII.] TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
with them. Whatever medical attention the sick and
wounded Confederate soldiers had, the Federal prisoners
in like condition also received. When the supply of the
usual standard medicines was exhausted, and could not
be replenished in consequence of the action of the Federal
Government in holding them to be contraband of war,
and in preventing their introduction by blockade and
severe penalties  when resort was had to the virtue of
the healing herbs of the country as substitutes for more
efficient remedial agents, the suffering Federals shared
these equally with like suffering Confederates! Did the
requirements of perfect justice and right go beyond this?
Could humanity ask more?
As for particular instances of cruelty on the part of
subordinates who may have been untrue to their trusts,
that is a very different matter. There were unquestionably very great wrongs of this sort on both sides. Wirtz,
to whom you have alluded, may have committed some of
these. How this was I really do not know. Hle, by-theby, was not one of our people. He was a European by
birth, who obtained position in our service through letters
of recommendation, which warranted confidence in his
intelligence and good character. I know nothing to his
discredit in either of these respects, except the allegations
you refer to. Whether they were true or false, as I have
said, I do not know. It is due to his memory, however,
to recollect that his own dying declarations were against
the truth of these accusations. This, moreover, I can,
and do venture to say, that acts of much greater cruelty
and barbarity than any which were proven against him.
could have been easily established, and would have been
established on his trial, against numerous subordinates on
the Federal side, if the tendered proof had not been rejected. I have been informed by returned Confederate
505 
0 CONSTITUTILONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
prisoners, of unquestionable truth and veracity, from
Camp Douglas, Rock Island, Elmira, and Point Lookout,
of numerous instances which came under their immediate
observation of much  greater atrocity than  anything
alleged against Wirtz. These acts, many of which were
of the most inhumane and barbarous character, were
perpetrated by Federal subordinates, having control of
Confederate prisoners at these points. There may have
been, therefore, and I do not question but that there
were, great wrongs of this sort on the part of Confederate
subordinates, as there certainly were on the part of the
Federals. But what I maintain is, that such conduct
never met the approval of the Confederate authorities.
They never in a single instance sanctioned, much less
ordered well demeaning and unoffending prisoners of war
to be confined in unwholesome dungeons, and to be
manacled with cuffs and irons as was repeatedly done by
orders from the authorities at Washington, in utter
violation  of the  well  established usages of modern
civilized warfare! But apart from this marked difference between the two Governments, in their highest
official character, in sanctioning and ordering acts of
wanton cruelty, I insist upon the irrefutable fact that
but for the refusal of the Federals to carry out an exchange, none of the wrongs or outrages you speak of, and
none of the sufferings incident to prison life on either
side, could have occurred.
PROF. NORTON. If there was no such systematic purpose to torture and literally to kill Federal prisoners,
why were thirty thousand of them huddled together at
Andersonville, in the  sickly region of Southwestern
Georgia, where, from the malarious influences prevailing under a burning sun, so many of them died, as must
have been necessarily expected?
506 
Cor. XXII.] TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
MR. STEPHENS. Large numbers of them were taken to
Southwestern Georgia in 1864, because it was a section
most remote and secure from the invading Federal
Armies, and because, too, it was a country of all others,
then within the Confederate limits, not thus threatened
with an invasion, most abundant with food, and all resources at command for the health and comfort of prisoners. They were put in one stockade for the want of
men to guard more than one. The section of country,
moreover, was not regarded as more unhealthy, or more
subject to malarious influences, than any in the central
part of the State. The Official order for the erection of
the stockade enjoined that it should be in "a healthy
locality, plenty of pure water, a running stream, and, if
possible, shade trees, and in the immediate neighborhood
of grist and saw mills."   The  very selection of the
locality, so far from being, as you suppose, made with
cruel designs against the prisoners, was governed by the
most humane considerations.
Your question might, with much more point, be retorted by asking, why were Southern prisoners taken in
the dead of winter with their thin clothing to Camp
Douglas, Rock Island, and Johnson's Island-icy regions
of the North-where it is a notorious fact that many of
them actually froze to death?
As far as Mortuary returns afford evidence of the general treatment of prisoners on both sides, the figures
show nothing to the disadvantage of the Confederates,
notwithstanding their limited supplies of all kinds, and
notwithstanding all that has been said of the horrible
sacrifice of life at Andersonville.
It now appears that a larger number of Confederates
died in Northern, than of Federals in Southern prisons,
or stockades. The Report of Mr. Stanton, as Secretary
507 
CONSTrITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of War, on the 19th of July, 1866, exhibits the fact
that, of the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands during the war, only 22,576 died; while of the Confederate
prisoners in Federal hands 26,436 died. This Report
does not set forth the exact number of prisoners held by
each side respectively. These facts were given more in
detail in a subsequent Report by Surgeon-General Barnes,
of the United States Army.  His Report I have not seen,
but according to a statement, editorially, in the "National
Intelligencer"-very high authority-it appears from the
Surgeon-General's Report, that the whole number of
Federal prisoners captured by the Confederates and held
in Southern prisons, from first to last during the war,
was, in round numbers, 270,000; while the whole number of Confederates captured and held in prisons by the
Federals was, in like round numbers, only 220,000.
From these two Reports it appears that, with 50,000
more prisoners in Southern stockades, or other mnodes
of confinement, the deaths were nearly 4,000 less! According to these figures, the per centurn of Federal deaths
in Southern prisons was under nine! while the per centurn of Confederate deaths in Northern prisons was over
twelve! These Mortality statistics are of no small weight
in determining on which side there was the most neglect,
cruelty, and inhumanity!
But the great question in this matter is, upon whom
rests the tremendous responsibility of all this sacrifice of
human life, with all its indescribable miseries and sufferings? The facts, beyond question or doubt, show that it
rests entirely upon the Authorities at Washington! It is
now well understood to have been a part of their settled
policy in conducting the war, not to exchange prisoners.
The grounds upon which this extraordinary course was
adopted were, that it was humanity to the men in the
608 
COL. XXII.] VIOLATIONS OF THE USAGES OF WAR.
field, on their side, to let their captured comrades perish
in prison, rather than to let an equal number of Confederate soldiers be released on exchange to meet them in
battle! Upon the Federal Authorities, and upon them
only, with this policy as their excuse, rests the whole of
this responsibility.   To  avert the indignation which
the open avowal of this policy by them, at the time,
would have excited throughout the North, and throughout the civilized world, the false cry of cruelty towards
prisoners was raised against the Confederates. This was
but a pretext to cover their own violation of the usages
of war in this respect among civilized nations.
Other monstrous violations of like usages were not attempted to be palliated by them, or even covered by a
pretext. These were, as you must admit, open, avowed
and notorious! I refer not only to the general sacking of
private houses-the pillaging of money, plate, jewels and
other light articles of value, with the destruction of books,
works of art, paintings, pictures, private manuscripts and
family relics; but I allude, besides these things, especially
to the hostile acts directly against property of all kinds,
as well as outrages upon non-combatanlts-to the laying
waste of whole sections of country; the attempted annihilation of all the necessaries of life; to the wanton killing,
in many instances, of farm stock and domestic animals;
the burning of mills, factories and barns, with their contents of grain and forage, not sparing orchards or growing
crops, or the implements of husbandry; the mutilation
of County and Municipal records of great value; the extraordinary efforts made to stir up servile insurrections,
involving the wide-spread slaughter of women and children; the impious profanation of temples of worship,
and even the brutish desecration of the sanctuaries of
the dead!
509 
CONSTiTrUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
All these enormities of a savage character against the
very existence of civilized society, and so revolting to the
natural sentiments of mankind, when not thoroughly infuriated by the worst of passions, and in open violation
of modern usages in war-were perpetrated by the Federal
armies in many places throughout the conflict, as legitimate means in putting down the Rebellion so-called!
MAJOR HIEISTER. You are severe against the general
conduct of the war on our side.
MR. STEPHENS. Yes; these are severe comments, and
I must ask you for a little indulgence to me in expressing
myself as I do. It is a sad thing to me to think of these
subjects, and a still sadder thing to speak of them as I am
compelled to do on this occasion. Severe as these comments are, there is, however, nothing extravagant in anything which I have said. It is all most lamentably true!
All that I have stated, and much more, too, of a like
character, were woefully realized by those who suffered
from the deeds of Sheridan's men in the valley of Virginia,
and by those who came within the range of the atrocities
attending Sherman's conflagrations* and devastations in his
"grand march" through Georgia and the Carolinas, as well
as by those who were subjected to the merciless ravages
of Wilson's and Palmer's Marauders afterwards! Facts
which have come to my own knowledge, established by
indisputable proof, verify the statement in full, both to
the letter and spirit. Private houses were sacked, pillaged, and then burnt; and after all family supplies were
destroyed, or rendered unfit for use, helpless women and
hungry children were left destitute alike of shelter and
food.  I know men-old men, non-combatants, men who
had nothing to do with the war, further than to indulge in
that sympathy which nature prompted-who were seized
* See Appendix M.
510 
COL. XXII.] CONDUCT OF THE WAR ON BOTH SIDES.
by a licensed soldiery and put to brutal torture, to compel
them to disclose and to deliver up treasure that it was
supposed they possessed. They were in many instances
hung by the neck until life was nearly extinguished,
and then cut down with the promise to desist if their
demands were complied with, and threats of repeating
the operation to death if they were not! Judge Hiram
Warner, one of the most upright and unoffending, as well
as one of the most distinguished citizens of this State,
was the victim of an outrage of this sort. He had had
nothing to do with the war; but it was supposed he had
money, and that was what these "truly loyal" "Union
Restorers," so-called, were most eager to secure. Specifications, however, are unnecessary. Instances of a similar
character are numerous and notorious. In some cases,
where parties resisted, their lives, as well as their purses,
watches and other articles of value, were taken!
MAJOR HEISTER. As to the burnings and conflagrations,
and the destruction of private property, if they are to be
set down as evidences of savage warfare, these outrages
were certainly not perpetrated exclusively by the
Federals, or confined to their side. The Confederates
did a good deal of this kind of work themselves in Maryland and Pennsylvania, to say nothing of other places.
MR. STEPHENS. That, to a limited extent, is also most
lamentably true!  But these acts of the Confederates
were, as is well known, committed upon the avowed
principle of retaliation. To this savage practice, if you
please, and upon this principle only, they were most
reluctantly compelled ultimately to resort. The " lex
talioni8s" is recognized in such cases by the most civilized
Nations, though it be savage in its character.
The truth is, gentlemen, wars in their most mitigated
form-viewed in any light whatever, have a great deal
bil 
CONSTITUTIONAL'VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
of the savage character about them. They are most
horrible scourges. They always spring from huge crimes
against humanity, on one side or the other. They often,
I admit, call forth the exercise of the highest faculties of
the human intellect, and sometimes exhibit the noblest
qualities of the human heart in the displays of fortitude,
endurance, heroism, and the divine virtue of self-sacrifice
for the good of others; but they are ever, upon the
whole, even when most justifiably waged and humanely
conducted, exceedingly demoralizing in their general
tendencies and effects. They arouse and put into action
the most fiendish elements of man's compound nature.
Their almost universal tendency is to make demons of
men. They are, certainly, the last instrumentalities that
any people devoted to Constitutional Liberty, or the
principles of Representative Government, should ever
resort to for the purpose of maintaining and securing
their objects. They are sometimes, as I said in the
speech from which I read, necessary evils, looking to
these ends. This was the character of this war on the
Confederate side. No resistance by arms, in my opinion,
could be more just than this was on their part. But the
great objects aimed at in all such cases, are much oftener
lost than attained by such resorts, even under such circumstances. This is my deliberate judgment. It was
my judgment before the States were involved in this
war, about which we can now neither speak nor think
without the most melancholy reflections. Everything
attending it, the long series of antecedents leading to it,
as well as its general conduct on both sides, with its
results up to this time, without considering the prospect
of the future, all tend greatly to confirm me in that
judgment.   I do most earnestly hope, you may  be
assured, that the country may never be cursed with
512 
COL. XXII.] CONDUCT OF THE WAR ON BOTH SIDES.
another. If the present and future generations in all the
States will but profit, as they should by the experience
of the last eight years, they certainly never will be again
so cursed.* The only way, however, in which this
experience can be rendered profitable to those who now
live, as well as those who shall come after us, is by fully
and clearly understanding and studying the facts and
truths which marked and characterized these most pregnant events from the beginning to the end, and by
rigidly practising the lessons which they inculcate.
Many questions ignored and principles rejected by the
leading public men in the Federal Councils of this day,
must be considered and reconsidered. The Governmnent,
under different counsels, must be brought back to the
Principles upon which it was established, if a repetition
of this great scourge is to be hereafter averted. This is
also my deliberate judgment. The only way in which
wars are to be avoided in this country, is for Rulers to
abstain from usurpations of power.  Mayna ClIarter was
trampled under foot for centuries in England; but its
principles died not-they lived on, and, though at the
cost of the terrible scourge of many sanguinary conflicts,
ultimately triumphed. So it may be expected to be
with the ever-living, imperishable Principles of American
Free Institutions!
But what I had in mind to say a moment ago in this
connection, and in conclusion on the point now under
our immediate consideration, is that, however horrible
* Mr. S. Teackle Wallis, of Baltimore, one of the Members of the
Legislature of Maryland, who was arrested and imprisoned during "the
reign of terror" in that State, and who is distinguished alike for his
patriotism, piety, learning and scholarly attainments, composed a Poem,
while in one of the Bastiles, on the curse of war, and embodying an
earnest Prayer for Peace, which should be preserved and treasured by
all, Rulers and ruled, who would avoid a repetition of similar horrors.
See Appendix N.
33
513 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOYL. II.
wars naturally and necessarily are in themselves; yet,
in modern times, under the tempering and redeeming
influences of the Christian Religion, civilized Nations
have, by common consent, agreed upon certain customs
and usages to which they conform in this resort, savage
as it is, at best.  These are the usages of civilized
Nations to which I alluded, and which were so wantonly
violated by the Federals, not only in their course upon
the subject of prisoners, but in the other acts I mentioned.
Now, what I affirm is, that in no instance that I am
aware of throughout the late war did the Confederate
Authorities countenance, much less sanction or order a
violation of a sinyle one of these recognized Christian and
humane usages, not even in the retaliatory burnings in
Maryland and Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. A comparison between the acts of the two Governments in these
particulars during the whole conduct of the war, will
forever clearly exhibit on which side in the contest was
the higher standard of "moral ideas," and with it the
higher type of civilization, if you will excuse me for
saying it, at this period in the common history of the
Peoples of the United States, so far as these were
indicated by those who controlled the conduct of public
affairs on the respective sides.
However disastrous the results were to the Confederates;
however extensive the misfortunes, losses, sufferings and
sacrifices which attended and befell them in this second
bloody conflict for the sovereign Right of local Self-government, on the part of the Peoples of the several States of
this Federal Republic, whether composed of thirteen,
thirty-three, or any other number; however utterly they
ffiled to maintain this important principle, to which all
that is truly great in the former history of the States is
mainly attributable, and on which alone all sure hopes
514 
Cfo. XXII.] CONDUCT OF THE WAR ON BOTH SIDES. 515
for general peace, prosperity and happiness, with good
government for the whole in future, must be placed;
however fruitless their efforts and blasted were their
fondest anticipations in their highest objects of patriotic
aim; however deplorable their present condition is, bereft
of their estates and outlawed by the Government; and
however worse the condition still to come may be for
them; yet, notwithstanding all this, they have left to
them that which is inestimable in value, far above riches,
wealth or power, and of which no oppression or tyranny
can deprive them, and that is a Public Character, which
after having passed the severest ordeal that can' try
men's souls," stands forth with that moral grandeur which
is ever imparted to the reputation of States as of individuals, by uprightness in conduct, integrity of purpose,
truthfulness in words, and the "crowning glory" of unsullied honor!
Whatever other errors, faults, failings or shortcomings
they may have had, no act of treachery, of perfidy, of
hypocrisy or deceit, of breach of faith, or of turpitudenothing of a low, mean, sordid or unmanly nature, can
ever be justly laid to their charge in their State or Confederate organizations, either before or during the war;
neither in the antecedents which led to it, nor in all the
fury which marked its progress. Their whole public
course shows them to have been a People as true, as
brave, as generous, as frank, as refined, as magnanimous,
as moral, as religious, and with all as honorable and
patriotic, in the highest and noblest sense of these words,
as ever struggled against odds, and thus struggling, fell
in battling for the Right. So the truth of history stands,
and will continue to stand forever! These are facts which
time will never obliterate or destroy. This record of their
past is no small heritage, if they have nothing else left for 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. iI.
them to transmit to their children, and to their children's
children, for generations to come!
I must again ask your pardon, gentlemen, not only for
this digression, but for the strong language I have used.
What I felt constrained to say, however, is not altogether
out of place, while it is certainly true.
PROF. NORTON. We make due allowances for your pre judices and sympathies.
MR. STEPHENS. Very well; so much then for these collateral matters. Now a word or two more, Professor, in
response to your question upon the subject of prisoners,
and my connection with it, before taking final leave of
that matter. I did, indeed, as you understood me to do,
feel a profound sympathy for the sufferings of prisoners
on both sides, throughout the war, and I made repeated
efforts for their alleviation and relief; these I may speak
of hereafter. There was also a difference between myself
and some of the Confederate authorities, as to the best
course to be pursued towards the Andersonville prisoners,
to whom you have especially referred in the year 1864,
as well as prisoners of war generally, then held by the
Confederates, after the Federals had refused all proffered
terms for their relief by exchange. This difference, however, did not relate to their treatment, but to the most
politic manner of disposing of them. On this point I
thought policy and humanity were united. I did not
confer directly with Mr. Davis upon it, but I did with
several officers high in authority. To General Howell
Cobb, who, then, as Major General of the Reserves in the
Military District of Georgia, had the general control of the
custody and safe-keeping of the prisoners at Andersonville,
I specially presented my views upon the whole subject.
The condition of those at Andersonville, at the time,
was, indeed, mnost pitiable and deplorable. A very cor
516 
Cor,. XXII.] ANDERSONVILLE PRISONERS OF WAR.
rect idea of it is given in the Report of Dr. Joseph
Jones, the very learned and eminent, as well as Philanthropic Surgeon, who voluntarily devoted months of his
time to the alleviation of their maladies and miseries. In
speaking of their general condition he says:
" Surrounded by these depressing agencies, the postponement of the general exchange of prisoners and the
constantly receding hopes of deliverance through the
action of their own Government depressed the already
desponding spirits, and destroyed those mental and
moral energies so necessary for a successful struggle
against  disease and  its agents.   Hlome sickness  and
disappointment, mental depression and distress, attending
the daily longings for an apparently hopeless release, appeared to be as potent agencies in the destruction of
these prisoners as the physical causes of actual disease."
Now, to General Cobb I suggested the propriety and
expediency in a political point of view, as well as from
the promnptings of humanity, of sending these prisoners,
as well as those confined at other places, home without
any equivalent in return. My views presented to him,
and to be presented by him, if he concurred, to Mr.
Davis, were that Mr. Davis himself should visit and
address the prisoners in person in a way and manner
which I knew he was well fitted to do, if he approved
the object; and after recapitulating all the facts in relation to exchange-after setting forth the nature of the
war and the objects for which we were struggling-after
stating distinctly we were not fighting against the Union,
but for the Principles upon which the Union was basedfor the rights of our common ancestors which were as
dear to them as to us-in short, after a full review of all
the questions in issue by him thus to be presented, for
him to extend to the prisoners an unconditional discharge!
517 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Such an unexampled act of generosity on his part, with
copies of his address given to them by thousands, not
only to be read and pondered by them, but to be dis tributed through the Northern States in the Presidential
election pending that fall, I thought would effect a vast deal in determining the doubtful issue between the then
opposing Parties there, and upon which the most momentous results, in my judgment, depended; results of no
less importance to us than to the friends of Constitutional
Liberty there! My sympathies throughout that contest
were of course thoroughly with those who were attempting at the ballot box to put out of power the Centralists,
whose Executive and Congressional usurpations had already awakened an extensive alarm in most, if not all the
Northern States. The object of the Centralists throughout the war had been, as the object of most of the writers
since has been, to impress upon the minds of the people
in the Northern States, that the Confederates were but
a set of Conspirators, whose chief design was to subvert
the Constitution and overthrow the Government. It was
my object in this way, and in quarters which could not
so well otherwise be reached, to disabuse the public mind
there of this very erroneous sentiment; and that, too, by
evidences almost as strong as.those which the doubting
Thomas  required.   These  very unfortunate  suffering
prisoners-suffering from the inhumanity of their own
high officials, who had beguiled them by false pretexts
into this Crusade against unoffending neighbors-so relieved and sent home to the bosom of their families and
friends by such an act of mercy on our part, I thought
would be the most effective instruments at our command
for accomplishing this great end. The humblest one of
them might, in my view, be a diplomat with more power
for good in the Cause for which we were contending, than
518 
CoL. XXII.] THEIR RELEASE UPON PAROLE URGED.
either of our able and accomplished Commissioners
abroad, seeking sympathy or favor at foreign Courts.
The reply of General Cobb, as well as that of others to
whom I presented these views, for the purpose of bringing them to the consideration of the Administration at
Richmond, was in substance, that if the Federal prisoners
should be thus discharged, there would be no security for
the safety of the gallant and equally suffering Confederates in Northern prisons. They mig,ht, he said, be tried
and executed for treason, as the privateersmen had been
tried and condemned to death for piracy. These had
been saved only by the retaliatory course, to which the
Confederates had been compelled to resort; and that the
only security the Confederates had against so monstrous
an outrage upon their soldiers, was the Federal prisoners
of war ill hand to be kept until regularly exchanged,
as hostages against such threatened barbarity.   General
Cobb, as well as all others with whom I conferred on the
subject, fully concurred with me in general sympathy for
the condition of prisoners on both sides, and expressed an
earnest desire to do all in their power for their relief consistent with public security, and with what was considered by them to be due to Confederates then in the
hands and power of the Federals, who openly proclaimed
their purpose to treat them and deal with them as
traitors!
This was one of the differences between myself and
some of the Confederate authorities. It was a difference
upon policy only. Whether -I was right in the views I
took upon this question, must, of course, be but a matter
of speculation. In the opinion of a large majority of mankind, it would, doubtless, be considered a very small matter
to differ upon, either in Councils of War or of State.  I was,
however, thoroughly impressed, not only with the expedi
519 
CONSI'I'I'UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ency of the policy suggested at the time, but with the great
importance of its adoption. The results of wars often
depend as much upon very small matters as upon great
ones. The wavering scales of battle itself frequently
turn upon the merest incidents scarcely noticed at the
time. Every one at all conversant with the fluctuating
tides of public sentiment and opinion, during an exciting
and heated political canvass, knows full well how whole
multitudes are frequently moved by matters of appar ently very little import-by something, ever so small in
itself, which strikes the heart and accords with the popular
pulse. This, in my judgment, however, was no small
matter, looking either to the humanity of the deed, or to
its most probable consequences.
It is proper also to state, that I did not concur, to the
full extent, in the apprehensions entertained by General
Cobb and others as to the fate of Confederate prisoners,
which might result from the course advised. The retention of a few thousand of the officers of the highest grade
among the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands, would
be ample security, I thought, against the judicial execution of any Confederate prisoner under the charge of
piracy or treason; while the unconditional release of so
many prisoners of war on our part under all the circumstances of the case, would, in my judgment, then and
now, have produced a profound sensation with the masses
of the people throughout the entire North, overwhelming
in its effects upon the men in authority at Washington!
It might have produced a general release of prisoners as
well as the removal of these Officials from Place and
Power.
On this particular point, as I have said, I did not confer directly with  Mr. Davis.  I was  not in Richmond
that summer. Not that I had withdrawn from the Seat
520 
COL. XXII.] POLICY TOWARDS NORTHERN STATES.
of Government with any intention of heading an opposition to the Administration, with the object of ab,I)idoning
the war. Far, indeed, was I from being actuatedt dur4ing
that absence by any such motives as these. I was confined at home the greater part of that summer by a
protracted attack of severe disease. Apart from this,
it is proper also to state, that I did not think it worth
while for me to submit my views on this subject to Mr.
Davis, unless some other more efficient influences could be
brought to bear upon him, in securing his sanction of the
policy recommended. This brings up the consideration
of some of the real differences, as I understood them, between myself and him, as well as others connected with
the administration of our affairs, as to the true external
policy, especially towards the Northern States, to be pursued by the Confederate States, from the time of their
separation throughout the war.
To present these clearly it is necessary, first, to make
you fully understand my own position after the new Confederation was formed as to the course which should be
pursued toward their former associates, and the general
ends and objects to be aimed at through the successful
operation of the policy of Secession which had been rightfully, though not judiciously, resorted to, in my judgment,
as we have seen. This position was very clearly indicated and set forth at an early day in that "CornerStone Speech" from which I have already read in part.
It was made, you recollect, on the 21st of March, 1861,
and in response to inquiries for my views of the then
future. It was an off-hand speech, without any preparation or notes, and not reported with entire accuracy;
yet in the report which went to the country, my general
views upon all the topics discussed were substantially
correct. After stating the political position of the seven
521 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOLi. II
Seceded States at that time, and sketching their action
at Montgomery; the extent of country occupied by them;
their material resources and productions which controlled the commerce of the world; and after showing
their full capacity, in my opinion, to maintain a Separate
Government, if that were desirable, the following is
the language setting forth my views of the ends and
objects which ought, however, to be aimed at by our exterlill policy in this particular, as they were then given
to the public in that report:
"Will everything, commenced so well, continue as it
has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only
say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and
ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be
the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in
his own hands. He may make for himself a name of
honor or dishonor, according to his own acts.  If he
plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor, and uprightness, with industry, patience, and energy, he cannot fail
of success. So it is with us. We are a young Republic
just entering upon the arena of Nations; we will be the
architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and
statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue, and patriotism on the part of the people,
success, to the full measure of our most sanguine hopes,
may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail-if
we become divided-if schisms arise-if dissensions spring
up-if factions are engendered-if Party spirit, nourished
by unholy personal ambition, shall rear its hideous form,
I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of
the people, and statesmanship on the part of their Rulers,
522 
CORNER-STONE SPEECH.
no Republic or Representative Government can bi)e durable or stable!
"We  have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism on
the part of the people. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These
philosophers became Jacobins. They lacked that virtue,
that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism
which is essential to good government. Organized upon
principles of perfect Justice and Right-seeking amity
and friendship with all other Powers-I see no obstacle
in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our
growth, by accessions from other States, will depend
greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust
we shall, a better Government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither
can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law.  We  made
ample provision in our Constitution for the admission of
other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, perhaps,
than the old Constitution on the same subject, but not
too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper.
Looking to the dlistant future, and, perhaps, not very far
distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility,
and even probability, that all the great States of the
Northwest will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee,
Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas.
"The process of disintegration in the old Union may
be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty, if we
pursue the right course.  We  are now the nucleus of a
growing Power which, if we are true to ourselves, our
destiny, and high mnission, will become the controlling
Power on this Continent. To what extent accessions
COL. XXII. ]
523 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [Vo,OL. II.
will go on in the process of time, or where it will end,
the future will determine. So far as it concerns States
of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of Recotstruction as now spoken of, but upon Reorganization and new  Assimilation!  (Loud applause.)
Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch
them."
The views here expressed showed unmistakably that
the leadin object with me was not only to secure the accession of the Border States, so-called, but the accession,
at no distant day, of all the great Northwestern States so
initimnately connected with us geographically and politically; and moreover, if possible, by inducing our late
derelict Confederates to reconsider their course, also, in
the end, to secure the accession of all these States of the
old Union into our new Confederacy! To use a common
phrase for illustrating the idea, my object was to Nationalize our new Articles of Union, and to cause them to become the common Bond of a new and still more perfect
Union of the whole, by bringing all the States to their
voluntary adoption through a process not exactly of a
Reconstruction of the old Union, but of a Reorganization
of its constituent elements, and a new Assimilation upon
the basis of our new Constitution, just as the original
thirteen States had passed from the first Articles of Confederation of seventeen hundred and seventy-eight to the
second of seventeen hundred and eighty-seven!
This great result I considered of the utmost importance for the welfare of all the States and the permanent
peace and prosperity of the whole country. I was also
thoroughly impressed with the conviction that it could
be attained by proper, prudent, and wise statesmanship
But these views, as well received as they were at th(
time and place they were given, met with no genera
524 
COL. XXII.] REORGANIZATION OF THE OLD UNION.
favor in the Confederacy. They were commented on
and condemned by the press in many places, and by \
several leading public men.   The  prevailing doctrine
then given forth was, "no more Union with the Northern States"-"the Separation is perfect, complete, and
perpetual!" In this doctrine so given forth, I understood
Mr. Davis to concur.
PROF. NORTON. You then during the war would have
been willing to make Peace on the basis of a "Reorganization of the Union," as you call it, under your Montgomery
Constitution?
MR. STEPHENS. Most assuredly I should, or upon renewed and reliable guarantees on the part of the derelict
Northern States to return to the discharge of their
obligations, and to maintain the Federal system according to the true spirit and intent of the Constitution of
1787; or I would have been willing to make Peace
simply upon the recognition of the principle that lies at
the foundation of that System-the absolute Sovereignty
of the several States-leaving any Re-union or Unions
;n the future to their own voluntary choice, according
o their own views of their own interests, safety, security,
und happiness, as time with the lights of experience,
Patriotism, and wisdom might determine.
MAJOR HEISTER. You were not then in favor of erecting
permanent separate Slave States' Confederacy?
MR. STEPHENS. By no means. I did not consider such
Confederacy as either desirable in itself, or permanently
,racticable under the circumstances. The heterogeneous,ess of the interests of the different States under the
:ederal system, when administered according to its true
principles, in my opinion, gave it real stability.  This
.-as the tightening principle which when left to its own
i,ee action gave steadiness to all its parts, and that
525 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THIE WAR.  [VOL. II.
beauty and grandeur exhibited in all its complicated
motions.
But to proceed. This general policy stated in the
speech from which I have quoted, was what subjected
me to the charge of "Unionism" by some of the presses
in the South throughout the war, and by some of them
the charge may have gone to the extent of impressing
the public mind with the idea that I was opposed to the
further prosecution of the war on our side. A greater
mistake, however, was never made. The only difference
between me and any other of the most ardent devotees in
the cause, was as to the best objects to be aimed at in its
prosecution, and the best means to be used for accomplishing whatever object should be resolved upon, as the best,
if nothing else but the averting of ultimate subjugation.
When the higher and grander objects to which I
looked, and which I also thought not only attainable but
also the surest means of preventing ultimate subjugationthe most disastrous result according to my opinion that
could befall us as well as the people of all the States-became, therefore, altogether impracticable, the whole of my
energies, heart and soul, were then directed to the next
best alternative which was practicable, and that was the
establishment of the separate Independence of the Conr.
federacy. This I considered as not only essential to the
maintenance of our own liberties; but the surest mean:
of preserving Constitutional Liberty on the Continents
All this, in my judgment, was involved in the issue
The whole depended upon the successful maintenance oi
the Principle of the Sovereignty of the States.  Witi
this principle once recognized in the result of the wai
the future, in my opinion, might well be left to itself, 
far as related to any further adjustment of the States btween themselves, according to the general laws c
526~ 
CoL. XXII.] WAR A NECESSITY WITH THE CENTRALIISTS. 527
political affinity founded upon "reciprocal advantages and
mutual convenience." Looking to the free operation of
these laws in the future, under this firmly established
principle, my own convictions were strong that our
separate Independence would be of but short duration,
however strongly so many of our public men at that
time might desire that it should be perpetual, and even
believe that it would be. My own views, however, I
could not publicly repeat and continue to urge, even in
vindication and enforcement of their merits without producing schisms and dissensions, which, as I had said in
the speech, would be attended with the most disastrous
consequences. The great object then was; the success of
the Cause in achieving the recognition of our separate Independence based upon the Sovereignty of the several States.
JUDGE BYNUM. Did you have any idea that the Northern
States could ever be induced to adopt the Confederate
States Constitution?
MR. STEPHENS. I entertained scarcely a doubt upon the
subject, with prudent and wise statesmanship on the part
of our Rulers, looking to that end; indeed, but for the
war, this result, with a proper policy for its attainment,
would have been almost inevitable. An overwhelming
majority of the people of the Northern States was thoroughly opposed to the principles of the Centralists. The
repeated popular condemnations of their principles referred to show this conclusively. But for the war the Centralists, then controlling the Federal Government by
accident and not popular confidence, would, as a Party,
have gone to pieces in ninety days. They would hardly
have been sustained in New England at the next elections;
the re-action there was already ominously felt by them.
The war was a necessity for their continued hold on
Power, even in those States. Hence, the conspiracy of the 
CONSrITUTIONAL VIEW OF'I'HE WAR.  [VOL. II.
' seven Governors" who  demanded of Mr. Lincoln  a
change of his policy, as to the withdrawal of the Federal
forces from the Southern Forts. War, with bold usurpations which it was to cover and excuse, was their only
hope.
But even after the war was thus begun, if the Confederate Authorities had desired it, and had directed their
energies to the attainment of that object, it could, in my
opinion, have still been accomplished-not so speedily or
easily, but almost as surely in the end. The real warspirit at the North, at first, was confined exclusively to the
Abolitionists proper, and other Centralists, who, from
political affinity, cordially co-operated with them. But
these two elements combined did not constitute, in thile
aggregate, much, if any, over one-third of the people of
the Northern States. The great majority of the people
of these States, however strongly they were opposed to
Slavery, were nevertheless more strongly attached to the
Federal System, and utterly opposed to the consolidating
principles of the Party then in power. Thousands, and
hundreds of thousands of those who rushed to the rescue
of the Capital in the manner we have seen, no more
approved the usurpations of Power on the part of the
Washington Authorities, nor the policy which inaugurated
the war, than did the people of the Confederate States.
They, it is true, were all opposed to Secession.  They belonged to the mercantile and shipping classes, who were
opposed to interrupting the old-established channels of
trade, and to that very large class throughout the North,
of all interests and occupations, who were thoroughly
devoted to what they called "the Union," without any
very well defined ideas of its nature or character. These
different elements, actuated by such sentiments, constituted the masses on whom the "old flag" produced such
528 
CoL,. XXI.] "THE INTEGRITY OF THE COUNTRY."'
magical effect in those eventful days; and these were the
masses on whom the Party now in power so adroitly used
this " old flag" for their ulterior purposes, though for it
they themselves had neither reverence nor respect. It
was now held up by them as a sacred emblem of patriotic
devotion, though by many of their leaders it had been for
years before denounced as " a flaunting lie" and  "hate's
polluted rag." It now, however, served their purpose, and
they understood well how to use it, in misguiding the
patriotic impulses of a confiding people. A very large
majority, not only of the entire people of the North, but
even of those who voluntarily entered the war, were
thoroughly wedded to the Institutions of the Country, as
established by the Fathers. The main object with them
was to maintain what they called "the integrity of the
Country." " The Union" under the Montgomery Constitution of 1861, would have been just as acceptable to them, as
the "Union" under the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787.
Arch-Bishop IHughes was an eminent representative man
of this large portion of the Northern population. In this
condition of things it seemed to me that the prospect of
effecting an adjustment of the differences between the
,-ttes upon the basis of the Montgomery Constitution
was by no means hopeless, notwithstanding the formidable
obstacles produced by the war, if the Confederate Authorities could but be induced to approve it, and direct all
their civil and military operations with a view to its
accomplishment. If our policy and course had been to
-nake common cause with all true friends of the Federal
System throughout the United States, upon this basis,
;gainst the usurpations and Centralizing principles of the
Washington Government, the war, in my opinion, then
-nd now, would have been a short one. This, it is true, is
peculation.
34
529 
CONSTIT'UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
But even after this line of policy was not adopted,
when the sole object of the recognition of our separate
Independence was resolved upon, even then, with the
view to this end, I still thought the widest field for efficient operations in the external policy of the Government was at the North, amongst our enemies themselves,
so-called! There, after all, were to be found the only
real sympathizers with the great Cause for which we were
contending. These sympathizers were in no way friends
or advocates of Disunion. This I well knew. They were,
however, true friends to those principles of Constitutional
Liberty for which we were battling. They were utterly
opposed to the principles and policy of the men controlling the Government at Washington, which had prompted
the course the Seceded States had taken. While they
condemned the act of Secession as a proper mode of redress for acknowledged wrongs, they nevertheless could
but sympathize with the sufferers of these acknowledged
wrongs. Hundred of thousands, if not millions, in the
Northern States were thoroughly devoted to those principles on which the Union of the States was founded, and
on which alone they believed it ought to be maintained
and preserved. The war which had been brought on by
the real enemies of the Constitution, and the Union
under it, necessarily threw this large class into political
antagonism to us. It rendered them technically enemiesto us; yet they had as much interest as we had in resist
ing the principles and usurpations of those who  has
brought these troubles upon them as well as upon us
The preservation of their liberties required action as wel
as ours, though upon a different theatre and in a differ
ent sphere. One of the greatest errors in the policy oi
Secession, as I viewed it, was the separation which i
necessarily produced between the real friends of the prir.
530 
COL. XXII.] GEORGIA PEACE RESOLUTIONS OF 1864.
ciples of the Constitution, North and South, in a common
contest between them and the Centralists. It was in
truth a great battle-the Political Armageddon of America-in which there should have been a concentration of
forces instead of that dispersion which of necessity resulted from Secession. But, still, true friends of Constitutional Liberty, as true Christians, are animated by the
same essential principles everywhere. They can but be
allies in the great cause in whatever different organizations they may be placed. It was our true policy, therefore, as it seemed to me, while struggling for our own
Independence, to use every possible means of impressing
upon the minds of the real friends of liberty at the
North, the truth that if we should be overpowered and
put under the heel of Centralism, that the same fate
would await them sooner or later. That it would be
better for them to permit us to enjoy our separate Independence, and for them to do the same, than for both to
be subjected to a Consolidated Despotism.
In illustration of my idea in this connection, though it
be in anticipation of a great deal I intended to say upon
intervening events during the second and third years of
the war-mlarking its progress on both sides-it may be
as well for me here to explain what gave rise to the idea
or charge that I had not only grown lukewarm in the
Cause, but was heading "a Peace Party movement," to
which you have referred. This was a series of Resolutions unanimously adopted by the Legislature of Georgia,
in March of this same year, 1864, and my thorough
endorsement of them in a public speech before both
Houses of the General Assembly.
These Resolutions were drawn up by Linton Stephens,
who was a member of the House that session. I had
nothing to do with their preparation, but heartily ap
.
531 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I11.
proved both the sentiments announced, and the policy
upon which the announcement was made. How far they
merited the character attributed to them by the Southern
press, to which you refer, others must judge for themselves. I certainly viewed them in no such light. If
there was anything in them looking to an abandonment
of the war, or of the Confederate Government by
separate State action in negotiating Peace, I failed to
perceive it; but I did see in them strong marks of that
line of policy which I have just indicated. Here are
the Resolutions, upon which you can form your own
judgment:
"The  General Assembly of the State of Georgia  do
resolve, 1st. That to secure the rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness,  Governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed; that whenever any form becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles,
and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem to
them most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'
"2d. That the best possible commentary upon this
grand text of our fathers of 1776, is their accompanying
action, which it was put forth to justify; and that action
was the immortal declaration that the former political
connection between the Colonies and the State of Great
Britain was dissolved, and the thirteen Colonies were,
and of right ought to be, not one independent State, but
thirteen independent States, each of them being such a
'People' as had the right, whenever they chose to
exercise it, to separate themselves from a political association and Government of their former choice, and
institute a new Government to suit themselves.
532 
COL. XXII.] GEORGIA PEACE RESOLU'I'IONS OF 1864.
"3d. That if Rhode Island, with her meagre elements
of Nationality, was such a'People' in 1776, when her
separation from the Government and people of Great
Britain took place, much more was Georgia, and each of
the other Seceding States, with their large territories,
populations, and resources, such a' People,' and entitled
to exercise the same right in 1861, when they declared
their separation from the Government and the people of
the United States; and if the separation was rightful in
the first case, it was more clearly so in the last, the right
depending, as it does in the case of every'People' for
whom it is claimed, simply upon their fitness and their
will to constitute an independent State.
"4th. That this right was perfect in each of the States,
to be exercised by her at her own pleasure, without
challenge or resistance from any other power whatsoever;
and while these Southern States had long had reason
enough to justify its assertion against some of their faith-.
less associates, yet, remembering the dictate of'prudence,'
that,' Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes,' they forbore a resort to its
exercise, until numbers of the Northern States, State'
after State, through a series of years, and by studied
legislation, had arrayed themselves in open hostility
against an acknowledged provision of the Constitution,
and at last succeeded in the election of a President who
was the avowed exponent and executioner of their faithless designs against the Constitutional rights of their
Southern sisters; rights which had been often adjudicated
by the Courts, and which were never denied by the
Abolitionists themselves, but upon the ground that the
Constitution itself was void whenever it came in conflict
with a'higher law,' which they could not find among
the laws of God, and which depended for its exposition
.533 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
solely upon the elastic consciences of rancorous partisans.
The Constitution thus broken, and deliberately and
persistently repudiated by several of the States who were
Parties to it, ceased, according to universal law, to be
binding on any of the rest, and those States who had
been wronged by the breach were justified in using their
right to provide' new guards for their future security.'
"5th. That the reasons which justified the separation
when it took place, have been vindicated and enhanced
in force by tile subsequent course of the Government of
Mr. Lincoln-by his contemptuous rejection of the Confederate Commissioners who were sent to Washington
before the war, to settle all matters of difference without
a resort to arms; thus evincing his determination to have
war-by his armed occupation of the territory of the
Confederate States-and especially by his treacherous
attempt to reinforce his garrisons in their midst, after
,they had, in pursuance of their right, withdrawn their
people and territory from the jurisdiction of his Government;. thus rendering war a necessity, and actually
inaugurating the present lamentable war-by his official
denunciation of the Confederate States as'rebels' and
'disloyal' States, for their rightful withdrawal from their
faithless associate States, whilst no word of censure has
ever fallen from him against those faithless States who
were truly'disloyal' to the Union and the Constitution,
which was the only cement to the Union, and who were
the true authors of all the wrong and all the mischief of
the Separation, thus insulting the innocent by charging upon them the crimes of his own guiltv alliesand finally, by his monstrous usurpations of power and
undisguised repudiation of the Constitution, and his
mocking scheme of securing a Republican form of Government to Sovereign States by putting nine-tenths of the
534 
COL. XXII.] GEORGIA PEACE RESOLUTIONS OF 1864.
people under the dominion of one-tenth, who may be
abject enough to swear allegiance to his usurpation, thus
betraying his design to subvert true Constitutional Republicanismn in the North as well as the South.
"6th. That while we regard the present war between
these Confederate States and the United States as a
huge crime, whose beginning and continuance are justly
chargeable to the Government of our enemy, yet we do
not hesitate to affirm that, if our own Government, and
the people of both Governments, would avoid all participation in the guilt of its continuance, it becomes all of
them, on all proper occasions, and in all proper waysthe people acting through their State organizations and
popular assemblies, and our Government through its appropriate Departments-to use their earnest efforts to put
an end to this unnatural, unchristian, and savage work
of carnage and havoc. And to this end we earnestly
recommend that our Government immediately after
signal successes of our arms, and on other occasions,
when none can impute its action to alarm, instead of a
sincere desire for Peace, shall make to the Government
of our enemy an official offer of peace, on the basis of the
great principle declared by our common fathers in 1776,
accompanied by the distinct expression of a willingness
on our part to follow that principle to its true logical consequences, by agreeing that any Border State, whose
preference for our association may be doubted (doubts
having been expressed as to the wishes of the Border
States), shall settle the question for herself, by a Convention to be elected for that purpose, after the withdrawal
of all military forces, of both sides, from her limits.
"7th. That we believe this course, on the part of our
Government, would constantly weaken, and sooner or
later break down the war power of our enemy, by show
535 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ing to his people the justice of our cause, our willingness
to make peace on the principles of 1776, and the shoulders
on which rests the responsibility for the continuance of
the unnatural strife; that it would be hailed by our
people and citizen-soldiery, who are bearing the brunt of
the war, as an assurance that peace will not be unneces sarily delayed, nor their sufferings unnecessarily pro longed; and that it would be regretted by nobody, on
either side, except men whose importance or whose gains
would be diminished by peace, and men whose ambitious
designs would need cover under the ever-recurring plea
of the necessities of war.
" 8th. That while the foregoing is an expression of the
sentiments of this General Assembly respecting the man ner in which peace should be sought, we renew our
pledges of the resources and power of this State to the
prosecution of the war, defensive on our part, until peace
is obtained upon just and honorable terms, and until the
Independence and Nationality of the Confederate States
is established upon a permanent and enduring basis."
These Resolutions constituted what was called the
Peace Programme of Georgia, and which it was alleged
had the effect of dampening the ardor of our soldiery.
In my view the legitimate effect was directly to the contrary. Hence, in the speech endorsing these Resolutions
I used this language:
"You cannot, therefore, send these gallant defenders
of Constitutional Liberty, a more cheering message than
that, while they are battling for their rights, and the common rights of all in the field, you are keeping sacred
watch and guard over the same in the Public Councils.
They will enter the fight with renewed vigor, from the
assurance that their toil, and sacrifice, and blood, will not
be in vain, but that when the strife is over and Indepen
536 
COL. XXII.] OBJECT OF GEORGIA PEACE RESOLUTIONS. 537
dence is acknowledged  it will not be a bare name, a
shadow and a mockery, but that with it, they and their
children after them shall enjoy that liberty for which
they now peril all. Next to this, the most encouraging
message you could send them is, that while all feel that
the brunt of the fight must be borne by them, and the
only sure hope of success is in the prowess of their arms,
yet every possible and honorable effort will be made by
the Civil Departments of the Government to terminate
the struggle by negotiation and adjustment upon the
principles for which they entered the Contest."
A main feature in the external policy of these Resolutions, and the object aimed at in that view, was that they
should go forth to the North before the opening of the
Presidential canvass that year, with the firm belief that
the principles announced, and the spirit with which they
were announced, could not fail to make a deep impression
upon the minds of all true friends of Constitutional Liberty
in those States, and lead them to the basis of a just and
permanent peace. I then thought, and still think, that
if the Southern press had given these Resol-ltions a cordial indorsement, instead of censuring them as most of
them did-if all the Southern States had with equal
unanimity passed the same or similar Resolves, and if
the Confederate Administration, at Richmond, could have
been brought into cordial approval and cooperation with
the same principles and policy, and had directed all
their energies, civil and military, in the meantime, to
the attainment of the object aimed at, the result of the
Presidential election in the Northern States, that year,
would have been the displacement of the Centralists from
power, at Washington, and with that the final results of
the war would have been far different from what they
were, and, ill my judgment, infinitely better for the
Southern States as well as for the Northern States.
i 
CONSrI1'UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. I1.
All this again it is true is now speculation only. On
the question whether my views of policy were the best at
the time or not, it is not my purpose, on this occasion, to
pass judgment, one way or the other. What has been
said on the subject is only in answer to your question.
Much more could be added on the same line. Enough,
however, has been presented to show the general character
of the difference between Mr. Davis and myself as to this
branch of the external policy of the Confederate States.
PROF. NORTON. How about your Peace movement in
1863, when you attempted to go to Washington to propose terms, and Mr. Lincoln refused to receive you?
Did not Mr. Davis then consent for you to do what you
could on your line, even against his own opinion of your
being able to effect anything? This was the understanding at the North.
MR. STEPHENS. It was also, I believe, the general understanding at the South, but it was a very great mistakejust such a mistake, moreover, as could not be corrected
without doing harm, and with no prospect of effecting
any good. The same is true of the celebrated Hampton
Roads Conference, as we shall see.
Now to understand the nature and character of my
proposed mission to Washington in 1863, as well as the
objects aimed at by it, it is necessary to know the exact
military as well as political status at the time the mission
was suggested, and my offer to assume it was made.
This will require a resume and rapid glance at the progress of events during the second and the early part of
the third year of the war.  The offer was made on the
12th day of June, 1863, a year and nearly four months
after the Confederate Organization had gone into opera,
tion under the Constitution for a Permanent Government.
That is the period, as we have seen, which I mark as the
538 
COL. XXII.] GLANCE AT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN 1S62. 539
close of the first year of the war. Meanwhile, very great
events had transpired. Let us now, then, review a few of
the miore important of these, both of a military and
political character, as briefly as possible. This is essential
to the point in hand.
First. Beginning with the military, it must be recollected
that the campaign of the second year of the war opened
early in March, 1862.  McClellan's new grand "Army
of the Potomac," organized in Washington-thoroughly
drilled, disciplined and equipped-numbering, at least,
one hundred and twenty thousand, was put in motion on
the 8th day of that month. They were first directed
against General Joseph E. Johnston, still at Manassas,
with a force of not over thirty thousand, all told. Johnston by great adroitness withdrew his small army towards
Richmond and thus eluded the threatened crushing blow.
This caused McClellan to change the line of his operations. The plan then adopted by him, was to make his
approaches upon Richmond by the Chesapeake Bay up
the Peninsula, using the York River as a base for supplies. For this purpose his forces were conveyed by
transports to Fortress Monroe. The Peninsula, at that
time, was defended by General John B. Magruder, with a
small Confederate force, not exceeding eleven thousand.
To support these, and to check McClellan's movements,
when  they were known, Johnston  by rapid marches
concentrated as soon as possible all available forces he
could command at Yorktown or its vicinity. By these
manceuvres considerable delay was caused in McClellan's
advance. It was not until early in May that he reached
as far as Yorktown. Several encounters took place on
his advance before and after he reached that place, as
Johnston with consummate strategy retired before his
overwhelming numbers. The most important of these 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
engagements was the battle of Williamsburg on the 5th
of May, between detachments of the two armies. This
resulted very much to the advantage of the Confederates;
but while Johnston by his great skill and tactics was
thus holding McClellan in check or retarding his advance, very important military operations were going on
elsewhere.
The Missourians under Generals Sterling Price and
Benjamin McCulloch, with less than 20,000 men, had, on
the 7th day of March, fought the great battle of Elkhorn,
against General Samuel R. Curtis, with a Federal force
estimated at upwards of 25,000. The Confederates in
this action were commanded  by Major General Earl
Van Dorn, to whom the chief command over Price had
recently been assigned: and notwithstanding the result
was not decisive either way, yet it was a great deal for
the Confederates to hold the ground against such a disparity of numbers; as well as against the great superiority
in arms and equipments brought against them. Their
losses were also less than the losses on the side of the
Federals. The severest blow the Confederates received
in this conflict was that by which the gallant McCulloch
fell, at the very time when complete triumph seemed ~o
be in his grasp, and which most probably would have
been achieved but for his fall.
This heavy combat between the two sides west of the
Mississippi, was followed not long afterwards by the great
and ever memorable battles of the 6th and 7th of April,
at Shiloh, near the Tennessee River. These at this time
can only be alluded to. It must now suffice to say that
in the first, the Confederates sustained what was deemed
an irreparable loss in the fall of General Albert Sidney
Johnston; but a brilliant victory in arms was achieved
notwithstanding this loss by General Beauregard, who
540 
COL. XXII.] GLANCE AT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN ]862. 541
succeeded him in the chief command. The Federals,
under General Grant, were completely routed, notwithstanding their superiority in numbers, arms and equipments! Nothing saved them from entire capture or utter
destruction but the shelter they found on the banks of
the river under the protection of the heavy metal of their
Gun-boats. With large Federal reinforcements under
General Buell, the battle was renewed the next day, and
desperately fought on both sides, without any decisive
results either way. The Federals regained the ground
from which they were driven the day before, while the
Confederates continued to hold their original position.
These two battles were the bloodiest of the war up to
that time. The slaughter on both sides was appalling!
The losses of the Confederates in killed, wounded and
missing were 10,699, while the like losses of the Federals,
according to their own accounts, were not less than
15,000. General Beauregard in his Report estimated
them at near 20,000!
The disparity between the number of the forces on the
two sides in these sanguinary conflicts deserves special
notice. The whole number of the Confederates, according
to official returns, amounted to 40,355, while the number
of the Federals, under Grant and Buell united, was according to tile most reliable accounts not less than 78,000!
Nearly double! To hold their own under such circumstances, rendered their victory of the second day almost
as signal as that of the first.
But, in the meantime, important operations of a like
character were going on in another part of Virginia than
that which was the theatre of McClellan's and Johnston's
manoeuvres. These too must l ot be passed over, though
they be but glanced at. I allude to what was doing on
the Shenandoah. The wonderful Valley Campaig,n of 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"Stonewall" Jackson, of this year, in that part of the
"Old Dominion," was opened, on the 23d day of March,
by the bloody conflict between his forces and those of
General Shields at Kernstown. This was followed by
his notable victories over Milroy at McDowell, on the
8th of May; over Banks at Winchester, on the 25th of
May; over Fremont at Cross-Keys, on the 8th of June;
and over Shields at Port Republic, on the 9th of June.
This most extraordinary man appeared suddenly in
the military firmament as a dazzling Meteor, or rather
as a blazing and fiery Comet, exciting the highest
admiration on one side, and causing profound fear and
terror on the other! His biographer says of him, and
correctly, I suppose, in substance, that within forty days
he marched his little army, of not much above 15,000
men at any one time during this Campaign, over four
hundred miles-sent 3,500 prisoners to the rear-left as
many more of the enemy dead or disabled on the field,
and defeated four separate armies amounting, in the
aggregate, to at least three times his numbers! *
This is the man, the thunder of whose guns, seventeen
days after his victory at Port Republic, in the evening of
the 26th of June, caused such surprise and consternation
on the rear right flank of McClellan's army, which had
now reached the Chickahominy, within a few miles of
Richmond! These were the opening signals of the six
days continued fighting around the Confederate Capital,
which sent McClellan's besieging hosts reeling to a new
base under the shelter of their Gunboats on the James
River.  The whole of these grand military exploits were
now under the immediate and entire direction of General
Lee, to whom the chief command was assigned upon
General Joseph E. Johnston's being disabled by a severe
* Life of " Stonewall In Jackson, by Prof. R. L. Dabney, D. D., p. 429.
542 
COL. XXII.] GLANCE A' MILITARY OPERATIONS IN 1862. 543
wound, received during an engagement between portions
of the two armies on the 31st of May. The result of
these repeated conflicts was a series of successful victories,
which, when the numbers and the equipments on the
respective sides are considered, have few parallels in
history. Besides the ten thousand prisoners, fifty-two
pieces of artillery, with thirty-four thousand stand of
small arms, and immense army stores, were captured.
The second "Onward  to  Richmond" was, therefore,
quite as disastrous to the Federals as the first. Thus
ended the Peninsula Campaign.
Then came the third newly organized army for another
movement against the Confederate Seat of Government.
This was styled "The Army of Virginia."  Its chief
command was assigned to Major-General John Pope, with
his Headqaarters announced by himself to be "'in the
saddle," though his geographical location, at the time,
was somewhere between the Rappahannock and the
Potomac.   The remnant  of McClellan's  forces were
ordered to Acquia Creek, to form part of the new
organization under the direction of the new chieftain.
These movements not only relieved Richmond from
immediate danger, but Lee was also relieved by them
from his defensive attitude. Renewed aggressive movements, however, were commenced by Pope. The battle
of Cedar Run was fought on the 9th of August. Here
his advance under Banks was checked by Jackson.
When Pope's general plan was thus developed, Lee
speedily moved all his forces to meet him. On the 30th
of August, the two armies again met on the rolling
grounds of Manassas. Here another great victory was
achieved by Lee. Pope was completely routed, and
driven to the  Fortifications near Washington.   The
Federal loss was not less than thirty thousand. Eight 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
Generals were killed, nine thousand prisoners taken, with
thirty pieces of artillery and twenty thousand stand of
small arms. After this brief career and sudden exodus
of Pope, McClellan was again put in command of all the
scattered Federal forces in the vicinity, to save Washington. Then came General Lee's movement into Maryland.
Harper's Ferry was taken on the 15th of September.
Here 11,000 prisoners were captured, with seventy-three
pieces of artillery, and 13,000 stand of small arms. Two
days afterwards, on the 17th of September, was fought
the great drawn battle, between Lee and McClellan, at
Sharpsburg. On Lee's safe and unmolested return to
Virginia, McClellan fell out of favor again with the
Washington authorities. On the 5th of November, he
was removed from his command, and Major-General Ambrose E. Burnside appointed to take his place.'
This new chief immediately commenced active operations for a fourth "Onward to Richmond."  His chosen
line of attack was by the wav of Fredericksburg. Here
he found himself confronted by Lee; and here, on the
13th of December, the two armies again tried their
strength. The Federals still greatly exceeded the Confederates in numbers. The result was the achievement
by Lee of another most brilliant victory. The aggregate
loss of the Confederates was 4,201, while that of the
Federals was 12,321.   Burnside was so crippled and
damaged, and his forces became so demoralized by this
conflict, that he made no further attempt to advance.
He also soon lost favor at Washington, and was superseded by Major-General Joseph Hooker in command.
Both armies thus quietly remained confronting each
other on the opposite banks of the Rappahannock during
the remainder of the second year of the war.
While these events were transpiring in Virginia, some
544 
COL. XXII.] GLANCE AT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN 1862. 545
occurred in the West, which must also be noticed. After
the great battles of the 6th and 7th of April, referred to,
the armies on both sides were comparatively quiet until
mid-summer. Gen. Beauregard's health failed in the
meantime. Upon his application for temporary leave of
absence, for its restoration, being granted, Gen. Braxton
Bragg was appointed to take chief command of the Army
of Tennessee, in his stead. About the middle of August,
with forces then numbering near 50,000, he projected his
most notable campaign through Tennessee into Kentucky.
This resulted in the two battles of Richmond and Perryville, in the latter State. The one at Richmond was fought
on the 31st day of August, by Gen. E. Kirby Smith, on
the Confederate side, and secured all that the most
sanguine could have hoped for. His success there and
progress Northward excited alarm for the safety of Cincinnati. The battle at Perryville was fought on the 7th
of October, under the auspices of Gen. Bragg himself. The
result of this was the retirement of Bragg from Kentucky,
and his taking position at or near Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Gen. Buell, who commanded the Federal forces
against Bragg in this campaign, was superseded on the
30th of October, by Gen. William S. Rosecrans.
This new commander immediately commenced active
operations, with the view to drive Bragg from Murfreesboro. Meantime Bragg commenced active operations for
aggressive movements himself. These two armies met
on the 31st of December. The result was the bloody conflict known as the battle of Murfreesboro. It lasted two
days. The result on the first day was decidedly favorable
to the Confederates. At the close of the second both
parties seemed to be equally willing to retire from the
combat. During another day they continued to confront
each other without either manifesting any desire or in
35 
5~O\NSTITUTIONAL YIEW OF THFA~ WB~AR.  [V~O'L. II.
(,O'NTSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [V9 L. II.
clination to renew it, and both very probably were anxious
for the other to withdraw first. This Bragg finally did.
On the night of the 3d of January, he retired and fell
back towards Tullahoma. The town of Murfreesboro
was immediately occupied by Rosecrans, who claimed the
victory, which perhaps he never would have done but for
this movement of Bragg. These two armies on this occasion, from the most reliable accounts, were not far from
being equally matched as to numbers.  There were about
40,000 on each side. In arms and equipments, however,
the Federals had unquestionably the advantage. The
fighting on both sides was heroic and desperate. In
speaking of the sequel of it, Mr. Swinton, to whom I have
alluded before, with all his sympathies on the Federal
side, uses the following language:
"This was the issue of the famous battle in the cedar
brakes of Stone River, wherein were put hors de combat
near twenty-five thousand men, of which appalling aggregate the sum of above ten thousand was from the Confederate, and of about fourteen thousand from the Union
armv. *
This, coming as it does, from one on the opposite side,
is certainly eulogy enough on the spirit and valor with
which the Confederates battled on that sanguinary field
for the inestimable right of Self-government.
These constitute some of the military events of the
second year of the war, which it is important to keep in
mind while considering the matters we are upon. After
this battle of Murfreesboro everything remained comparatively quiet, both in the West and in Virginia, until
the spring of 1863, when the campaigns of the third year
of the conflict commenced. These were opened by the
Federals, and were mainly directed to two objects-the
* The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War, p. 213.
546 
COL. XXII.] GILANCE AT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN 1863. 547
capture of Richmond in the East, and the taking of
Vicksburg in the West.  The first and most desired of
these objects was, as we have seen, committed to the
military skill of Gen. Hooker. The other was committed
to Gen. Grant, who had won great distinction and eclat
for his capture of Forts Henry and Donelson in February,
1862. Hooker commenced his movements against Richmond, you will bear in mind, on the 27th day of April.
He had had four months for preparation, with unlimited
means to make his army everything he could wish it to
be. He had massed opposite Fredericksburg at least
132,000 men, thoroughly drilled and instructed in every
branch of the service. In artillery he had above 400
guns. Twelve thousand of his forces were well mounted
and perfectly equipped as cavalrymen. For efficiency in
every respect it was regarded superior, by far, to any
military organization which had ever before taken the
field in America.  Hle himself pronounced it "the finest
Army on the Planet!"
To meet this most formidable array, Gen. Lee had an
effective force of not exceeding 50,000 men. Hlooker
seemed to take it for granted that Lee would instantly
retire before these frightful odds, or that he was inevitably
doomed to speedy capture with his entire command. Lee,
however, did not retire. He gave battle for four days,
beginning on the 29th, meeting Hooker's Divisions at
every point of assault, and by skilful manoeuvres made
several most successful assaults himself. The result of
the four days terrible conflict was his driving back the
entire body of the invading host. HIooker's whole plan
was well conceived, and all his operations for an advance
were faultlessly arranged. They failed in execution from
nothing but the transcendent skill with which they were
met, checked and thwarted, at and around Chancellors 
CONSTITUTrIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
ville. The military genius displayed by General Lee in
his various movements in repelling this advance of General
Hooker, will ever place him high in the rank of the First
Class of Commanders who have figured in the world's
history! His aggregate losses were 10,281.  Of Hooker's
like aggregate losses no accurate official statement, as far
as I have been able to discover, has ever been given to
the public. Information upon the subject was expressly
prohibited by orders from the War Department at Waslhington.* From the most reliable estimates, however,
they could not have been much, if any, under twentyfive thousand!
But though the Confederates in all these engagements
together achieved a grand success, and their arms were
crowned with an exceedingly brilliant victory, yet they
here met with a loss that could never be repaired! This
was the fall of the great Chieftain, "Stonewall" Jackson,
as he was familiarly and endearingly styled by the
soldiery and the mass of the people of the Confederate
States. Just as he was in the successful accomplishment
of one of his masterly flank movements, and one which
turned the fortunes of this eventful four days contest, he
received a wound that terminated in his Adeath a few
days afterwards.   The saddest reflection attending so
great a loss, was that the shot, which proved so disastrous,
came by mistake from his own lines. Pushing ahead,
leading his columns on a night attack, with a view to
ascertain for himself the exact position of the Federals,
whom he knew to be near, he got somewhat in advance
of the main body of his troops. One of his staff and
several others were with him. On their return, being
mounted and riding briskly, they were supposed by those
in the Confederate ranks to be an approaching party of
* Ap.leton's Annual for 1863 page 86.
548 
COL. XXII.] DEATH OF "STONEWALL" JACKSON.
Federal cavalry, and under this misapprehension were
fired upon by them.   The lines of Byron on Kirke
White might well be applied to him:
"So the struck eagle, stretch'd upon the plain,
No more through rolling clouds to soar again,
View'd his own feather on the fatal dart,
And wing'd the shaft that quiver'd in his heart."
It is said that his own orders were that his troops were
not to fire " unless cavalry approached from the direction
of the elielmy." His death caused grief and mourning from
the Potomac to the Rio Grande, and from the Ohio and
Missouri to the Gulf and the Atlantic.*
But to go on with the matters more directly in hand.
Hlooker's grand Army was as completely demoralized in
the month of May, by what had befallen it, as Burnside's
had been from like causes in the month of December before. Lee, however, was in no condition to make an
aggressive movement  against it, even disordered  and
crippled as it was. His whole attention for some time
was occupied in closely watching every motion of the
adversary, and in strengthening his own forces from
every available source.   The two Divisions of General
Longstreet were recalled from the lower part of Virginia.
Othler re-inforcements were ordered up. So that by the
last of May his numbers were increased to about 68,000
* Lieut.-General Thomas J. Jackson was, indeed, in many respects
a most extraordinary man. Famous as he had so recently become
for his military exploits, he was not less distinguished even in Camp for
his piety and devotions.   In  religion he was of the same faith as
Thomas R. R. Cobb. Ante, p. 334. It would be difficult to say which
of the two was the more zealous and enthusiastic in worship, and in the
discharge of what they considered moral duty.   These two men, so
similar in character, were both cut down in the prime of life, at no great
distance apart, in time or place.   Cobb raised to the rank of Brigadier-General, had fallen on the 13th of December previous, in the first
great battle in the vicinity of Fredericksburg.
549 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
men. Hooker was still confronting him with between
70,000 and 80,000.
In the West, General Grant had been as unsuccessful
in all his "onwards" to Vicksburg, as McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker had all respectively
in turn, been in theirs to Richmond. His seven attempts
to take that strong-hold-first, by way of Holly Springsthen by Chickasaw Bayou-then by Williams' Canalthen by Lake Providence-then by Yazoo Pass-then by
Steele's Bayou-then by Milliken's Bend, and New Carthage Cut-Off, had all utterly failed. He was, at the time
I now speak of, making his eighth attempt, by the rear
land movement from below, but with no increased prospect
of success from the 1'6th day of April, when this enterprise
was entered upon, by his transports safely running the
gauntlet of the Confederate batteries on the River.
The prevailing opinion at the North as well as the
South, in the early part of June, was that Grant's campaign against Vicksburg, would end in as complete a failure as Hooker's had against Richmond., Federal presses
were severe in their censures against both. Grant especially had come short of public expectation, and his
removal was urged by several high in authority at
Washington. This was the general military aspect of
affairs when the mission referred to, was proposed by me
to Mr. Davis.
Secondly. A like rapid glance at the intervening polit
ical events during the same period, to show the status in
this respect, is also necessary, before taking up the subject of that mission. It must be borne in mind, then,
that there had been no "step backward" in Mr. Lincoln's
usurpations of power.  The only change in this view
was bolder and more glaring forward strides in the same
direction.   Proclamations of even more extraordinary
550 
COL. XXII.] LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. 551
character than these heretofore noticed, had been issued
by him during the second year of the war. Two of
these deserve special notice in this connection.* The
first was his celebrated Emancipation Proclamation, socalled. It was issued on the 22d of September, 1862, to
take effect on the 1st of January, 1863.  In this he
avowedly assumed to do what he had repeatedly declared in the most public and solemn manner he had no
rightful power to do. No usurpation could be more palpable or flagrant than this. By the other of these edicts,
issued two days afterwards, Martial Law throughout the
United States was virtually declared, and a new class of
officers under military commission for the execution of
this high-handed measure, unknown  to the laws and
Constitution, was created by Imperial orders through the
War Department.
These measures, to say nothing of others, had awakened a most serious alarm throughout the entire North,
for the stability and security of their own liberties, even
amongst those who favored the prosecution of the war
for the preservation of "the Union." Hon. Benjamin R.
Curtis,t of Boston, Ex-Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States, was a striking illustration of
that class. This eminent Jurist, of the Story and Webster school in Politics, even in his retirement, felt it to be
his duty to address his countrymen, in warning admonitions against these dangerous encroachments upon Constitutional Rights and open assaults upon the very Citadel
of Liberty itself. Samples of this address, as it appeared
in pamphet form at the time, may properly be noticed as
unmistakable indicia of the sentiments, at that period, of
that large class of people in the Northern States to whom
* See Appendix 0, 1, 2.
t The same who dissented in the Dred Scott Case. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VO6L. II.
I have alluded before. Here is the Address. The open  ing words show the character of the apprehensions en tertained by the writer, and the earnestness with which
he uttered his warnings:
"No citizen," said Judge Curtis, in the fall of 1862,
"can be insensible to the vast importance of the late
Proclamations and Orders of the President of the United
States. * * * These are subjects in which the people
have vast concern. It is their right, it is their duty, to
themselves and to their posterity, to examine and to con sider and to decide upon them; and no citizen is faithful
to his great trust if he fail to do so, according to the best
lights he has, or can obtain. * * * It has been at.
tempted by some partisan journals to raise the cry of
'disloyalty' against any one who should question these
Executive acts.
"But the people of the United States know  that
loyalty is not subserviency to a man, or to a Party, or to
the opinions of newspapers; but that it is an honest and
wise devotion to the safety and welfare of our country,
and to the great principles which our Constitution of
Government embodies, by which alone that safety and
welfare can be secured. And when those principles are
put in jeopardy, every true loyal man must interpose
according to his ability, or be an unfaithful citizen. This
is not a Government of men. It is a Government of
laws. And the laws are required by the people to be in
conformity to their will, declared by the Constitution.
Our loyalty is due to that will. Our obedience is due to
those laws, and he who would induce submission to other
laws, springing from sources of power not originating in the
people, but in casual events, and in the mere will of occupants of places of power, does not exhort us to loyalty,
but to a desertion of our trust."
552 
Cor,. XXII.] CURTIS ON EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. 553
These were noble words, aptly and timely uttered!
On the Emancipation Proclamation, this address held the
following language:
I do not propose to discuss the question whether the
first of these Proclamations of the President, if definitively
adopted, can have any practical effect on the unhappy
race of persons to whom it refers; nor what its practical
consequences would be, upon them and upon the white
population of the United States, if it should take effect,
nor through what scenes of bloodshed, and worse than
bloodshed, it may be, we should advance to those final
conditions; nor even the lawfulness, in any Christian or
civilized sense, of the use of such means to attain any
end.
"If the entire social condition of nine millions of people
has, in the providence of God, been allowed to depend
upon the Executive decree of one man, it will be the
most stupendous fact which the history of the race has
exhibited. But, for myself, I do not yet perceive that
this vast responsibility is placed upon the President of
the United States. I do not yet see that it depends upon
his Executive decree, whether a servile war shall be
invoked to help twenty millions of the white race to
assert the rightful authority of the Constitution and laws
of their country, over those who refuse to obey them. But
I do see that this Proclamation asserts the power of the
Executive to make such a decree!
"I do not yet perceive how it is that my neighbors and
myself, residing remote from armies and their operations,
and where all the laws of the land may be enforced by
Constitutional means, should be subjected to the possibility
of military arrest and imprisonment, and trial before a
Military Commission, and punishment at its discretion
for offences unknown to the law; a possibility to be con 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
verted into a fact at the mnere will of the President, or of
some subordinate officer, clothed by him with this power.
But I do perceive that this Executive power is asserted.
*   *       *           *           ~~~*         *
"And first, let us understand the nature and operation
of the Proclamation of Emancipation, as it is termed;
then, let us see the character and scope of the other
Proclamation, and the Orders of the Secretary of War,
designed to give it practical effect, and having done so,
let us ex'amine the asserted source of these powers.
*          *           *           *          *          *
"The persons who are the subjects of this Proclamation
are held to service by the laws of the respective States in
which they reside, enacted by State authority as clear
and unquestionable, under our system of Government, as
any law passed by any State on any subject.
"This  Proclamation, then, by an Executive decree,
proposes to repeal and annul valid State laws which
regulate the domestic relations of their people. Such is
the mode of operation of the decree."
After a good deal of like character upon the first of
these Proclamations, the address is exceedingly pointed
and powerful in its denunciations of the principles of the
other. Take the following as samples:
"The second Proclamation, and the Orders of the Secretary of War, which follow it, place every citizen of the
United States under the direct military command and
control of the President. They declare and define new
offences not known to any law of the United States.
They subject all citizens to be imprisoned upon a military
order, at the pleasure of the President, when, where, and
so long as he, or whoever is acting for him, may choose.
They hold the citizen to trial before a Military Commission appointed by the President, or his representative,
554 
COL. XXII.]  PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW.
for such acts or omissions as the President may think
proper to decree to be offences; and they subject him to
such punishment as such Military Commission may be
pleased to inflict. They create new offices, in such number, and whose occupants are to receive such compensation, as the President may direct; and the holders of
these offices, scattered through the States, but with one
chief inquisitor at Washington, are to inspect and report
upon the loyalty of the citizens, with a view to the above
described proceedings against them, when deemed suitable by the central authority.
"Such is a plain and accurate statement of the nature
and extent of the powers asserted in these Executive
Proclamations.
"What is the source of these vast powers? Have they
any limit? Are they derived from, or are they utterly inconsistent with, the Constitution of the United States?
" The only supposed source or measure of these vast
powers appears to have been designated by the President,
in his reply to the address of the Chicago clergymen, in
the following words:'Understand, I raise no objection
against it on legal or Constitutional grounds; for, as Conmander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, in time of war, I
suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best
subdue the enemy.'  This is a clear and frank declaration
of the opinion of the President respecting the origin and
extent of the power he supposes himself to possess; and, so
far as I know, no source of these powers other than the authority of Commander-in- Chief in time of war, has ever
been suggested. * * *
"It must be obvious to the meanest capacity, that if
the President of the United States has an implied Constitutional right, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and
Navy in time of war, to disregard any one positive pros
I
555 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vor;. II.
hibition of the Constitution, or to exercise any one power
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
because, in his judgment, he may thereby' best subdue
the enemy,' he has the same right, for the same reason, to
disregard each and every provision of the Constitution,
and to exercise all power, needful, in his opinion, to enable him'best to subdue the enemy.' * * *
"The necessary result of this interpretation of the Constitution is, that, in time of war, the President has any
and all power, which lie may deem it necessary to exercise, to subdue the enemy; and that every private and
personal right of individual security against mnere Executive control, and every right reserved to the States or the
people, rests merely upon Executive discretion. * * *
"Besides, all the powers of the President are executive
merely.  He cannot make a law.  He cannot repeal one.
He can only execute the laws.  He can neither make,
nor suspend, nor alter them. He cannot even make an
article of war. He may govern the army, either by
general or special orders, but only in subordination to the
Constitution and laws of the United States, and the
Articles of War enacted by the Legislative power.
"The time has certainly come when the people of the
United  States must understand, and must apply those
great rules of Civil Liberty, which have been arrived at
by the self-devoted efforts of thought and action of their
ancestors during seven hundred years of struggle against
arbitrary power. If they fail to understand and apply
them, if they fail to hold every branch of their Governmnent steadily to them, who can imagine what is to come
out of this great and desperate struggle.  The military
power of eleven of these States being destroyed-what
then?  What is to be their condition?  What is to be
our condition?"
556 
COL. XXII.] POLITICAL STATUS AT THE NORTH IN 1863.  557
These samples must suffice to show the general tenor
of this address. The whole presents in a clear and strong
view the nature of that civic and political contest which
had now begun in earnest in the Northern States between
the Centralists and the true friends of Constitutional
Liberty there, while the military contest on the same
essential principles was going on, as we have seen, between the States of the two great Sections of the country.
This civil and political conflict so commenced there resulted at the fall elections of 1862, generally to the disadvantage of the Centralists.  They lost the great State
of New York.  Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois gave strong indications that a majority of
their people were in full sympathy with the sentiments
of Judge Curtis.   The  "truly  loyal" masses of the
people-those loyal to the Constitution-everywhere at
the North were beginning seriously to inquire if the
Southern States should be overthrown by such usurpations, what then? What was to be the condition of
these Southern States? What, too, in that event, was to
be the condition of the Northern States?
The failures of Hooker and Grant in the spring campaigns of 1863, favored a freer discussion of these momentous questions.  Even  the "Seven Headed  Monster,"
the War Party proper at the North, with clotted gore on
its hideous front,* was grievously despondent in view of
the situation. More liberty of speech was allowed than
had been during "the reign  of terror."  "The  Old
Guard," a publication by C. Chauncey Burr, of the Jefferson school of Politics, was now permitted to make its
appearance in unqualified denunciations of the principles
and purposes of the Centralists. A public meeting in the
City of New York was tolerated, at which Resolutions,
* "One of its Heads as it were wounded to death." Rev. xiii. 3. 
CONST,rITUTIONAL VIEW OF THIE WAR.  [VOLT,. II.
favoring Peace, were adopted. In Philadelphia a Peace
Convention had been called. Vallandigham, the ablest
member of the Democratic Party at the North, after the
death of Douglas, had been nominated for the Governorship of Ohio, with every prospect of success. He was the
Leader in the lower House of Congress against the usurpations of the Administration, and bold denouncer of the
policy of maintaining "the Union" by a subjugation of
the Southern States. It is true the prospect of this Tribune of the people becoming Governor of the Giant State
of the West was more than the Powers at Washington,
dispirited as they were, could bear. He had been seized
and exiled by military orders, but that only tended to
increase the rising popular enthusiasm in his favor.
This, then, was the existing Military, as well as Political
status, on the 12th day of June, 1863, when I, then here
at home, Congress not being in session, addressed Mr.
Davis at Richmond the following letter:
" DEAR SIR:  I have just seen what purports to be a
letter addressed to you by Major General D. Hunter,
commanding the Federal Forces at Port Royal, S. C.,
bearing date the 23d of April last. Of the extraordinary
character of this paper, its tone, temper, and import,
whether genuine or not, it is not my purpose to speak. It
may be a forgery.* All I know of it is from its publication
as we have it in our newspapers. But it has occurred to
me if it be genuine, this, together with other matters of
controversy I see likewise in the papers, in relation to
the future exchange of certain classes of prisoners of war,
may necessarily lead to a further conference with the
authorities at Washington, upon the whole subject. In
that event I wish to say to you briefly, that if you think
my services in such a mission would be of any avail, in
* It was genuine, and of a character not much short of savage!
558 
CotL. XXII.] LETTER OF MR. STEPHENS TO MR. DAVIS.  559
effecting a correct understanding and agreement between
the two Governments, upon those questions involving
such serious consequences, they are at your command.
"You will remember while we were at Montgomery,
when the first Commissioners were sent to Washington
with a view to settle and adjust all matters of difference
between us and the United States, without a resort to
arms, you desired me to be one of those clothed with this
high and responsible trust. I then declined, because I
saw no prospect of success-did not think, upon a survey
of the whole field, that I could effect anything good or
useful in any effort I could then make on that line. You
will allow me now to say, that at this time, I think possibly I might be able to do some good-not only on the
immediate subject in hand; but were I in conference with
the authorities at Washington on any point in relation
to the conduct of the war, I am not without hopes, that
indirectly, I could now turn attention to a general adjustment, upon such basis as might ultimately be acceptable
to both parties, and stop the further effusion of blood in a
contest so irrational, unchristian, and so inconsistent with
all recognized American principles.
"The undertaking I know would be a great one.  Its
magnitude and responsibility I fully realize. I might
signally fail. This I also fully comprehend; but still, be
assured, I am not without some hopes of success; and
whenever or wherever I see any prospect of the possibility
of being useful or of doing good, I am prepared for any
risk, any hazards, and all responsibilities commensurate
with the object. Of course, I entertain but one idea of
the basis of final settlement or adjustment; that is, the
recognition of the Sovereignty of the States, and the right
of each in its Sovereign capacity to determine its own
destiny. This principle lies at the foundation of the 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
American system. It was what was achieved in the
first war of Independence, and must be vindicated in the
second. The full recognition of this principle covers all
that is really involved in the present issue. That the
Federal Government is yet ripe for such acknowledgment,
I, by no means, believe; but that the time has come for a
proper presentation of the question to the authorities at
Washington, I do believe. Such presentation as can only
be made in a Diplomatic way. While, therefore, a
mission might be despatched on a nminor point, the
greater one could possibly, with prudence, discretion, and
skill, be opened to view and brought in discussion, in a
way that would lead eventually to successful results.
This would depend upon many circumstances, but no
little upon the character and efficiency of the agent. It
so occurs to me, and so feeling, I have been prompted to
address you these lines. My object is, solely, to inform
you, that I am ready and willing to undertake such a
mission, with a view to such ulterior ends, if any fit
opportunity offers in the present state of our affairs in
relation to the exchange. of prisoners, or any other matter
of controversy growing out of the conduct of the war; and
if also, you should be of opinion that I could be useful in
such position. I am at your service, heart and soul, at
any post you may assign me, where I see any prospect of
aiding, assisting or advancing the great cause we are engaged in, and of securing with its success the blessings of
permanent peace, prosperity and Constitutional Liberty.
"Should the present position of affairs in your opinion,
be suitable, of which I am not so well informed as you
are, and this suggestion so far meet your approval as to
cause you to wish to advise further with me on the subject, you have but to let me know-otherwise no reply
is necessary, and none will be expected.
560 
COL. XXII.] OBJECTS OF THE PROPOSED MISSION IN 1863. 561
t
"With best wishes for you personally, and our com mon country in this day of her trial, I remain yours," &c.
From this letter you see the nature and objects of my
proposed mission. You see the line of policy therein
indicated. It was not intended as a Peace mission at all.
It did not contemplate any overture or direct offer of
terms of any sort on that subject. Hence, Mr. Davis at
that time, could not have given his consent to any proposition on my part, to make an attempt at negotiations
for Peace, as was generally supposed. Mr. Lincoln, as
was known, would receive no one commissioned on such
an errand. It was exceedingly doubtful whether he
would hold a renewed conference through a special Commissioner, even upon the matter of the exchange of
prisoners-a subject, at that time, of such pressing importance from considerations of humanity alone; especially in
view of thq extraordinary character of General Hlunter's
announcement in his letter referred to.  But if Mr.
Lincoln could be prevailed on to agree to such a conference, then the object proposed, besides effecting, if
possible, the general amelioration of prisoners, and the
mitigation of the horrors of war as conducted by the
Federals, was to use the occasion for effecting also, if
possible, other ulterior results which might openi the way
for future negotiations that might eventually lead to an
amicable adjustment. In the accomplishment of these
ulterior ends the idea was not so much to act upon Mr.
Lincoln and the then ruling authorities at Washington, as
through them, when the correspondence should be published, upon the great mass of the people in the Northern
States, who were becoming so sensitively alive, as we have
seen, to the great danger of their own liberties.
It was believed that in a conference of this character
that such a course could be pursued in the discussion of the
36 
CONSTrITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. IL
questions directly in hand, as to deeply impress the grow
ing Constitutional Party at the North with a full realization of the true nature and ultimate tendencies of the
war, and to lead all who were anxiously inquiring what
was to be their condition in case the Southern States
should be subjugated to see that the surest way to maintain their liberties, was to allow us the separate enjoyment of ours-that the surest way to preserve Selfgovernment at the North, was not to allow it to be
overthrown at the South.  In my view this result had to
be effected in some way, and the Centralists displaced
from power at Washington, before there could be any
hopeful prospect in offers to negotiate for peace upon a
proper basis. The line of policy indicated by me to this
end, depended greatly upon the then military condition
of affairs.
The result of wars generally depends quite as much
upon diplomacy as upon arms-upon the proper use of
the pen as of the sword. There is a time for each. It
is a matter of the utmost importance to know when and
how to use both. The Confederate armies, officers and
men, for two years and upwards, as we have seen, had
nobly and gloriously performed their part.   With less
than five-hundred thousand in all, from the beginning up
to this time, they had brought the enemy, numbering
more than a million, during the same period, almost to a
standstill.  Gen. Grant, it is true, was still "pegging
away," in his slow approaches upon Vicksburg, but on
no other line were any active movements being made.
I thought the time had now come, in view of the situation, both politically at the North and militarily at the
South, as matters stood in the early part of June, 1863,
for our Civil authorities to essay something in their department, and on the line indicated in this letter to the
562 
COL. XXII.] MILITARY STATUS, WHEN UNDERTAKEN. 563
President. The entire propriety and expediency, however, in making this essay, in my judgment, depended
upon the then military status.
In this view, Mr. Davis did not concur. He did not
believe that the road to Peace lay in that way. He did
not think that anything tqwards its ultimate obtainment
could be effected on this line of external policy, indicated
by me. He regarded Mr. Lincoln and his Cabinet as
thoroughly representing the fixed principles and sentiments of a majority of the people of the Northern States.
He thought, after Mr. Lincoln's conduct towards our first
Peace Commissioners, that the surest, if not only means,
of securing our rights was the power of our arms. The
efficiency of Diplomacy, at the proper time, and in the
proper manner, he fully recognized. On these points
there was no disagreement between us, except as to time
and manner. In this case his opinion was, that Diplomacy and Arms ought to act in conjunction, and that the
Commissioner I had suggested ought to go with a victorious and threatening army.  The result of my proposed
mission, therefore, was the yielding of my views in this
particular to his on this occasion, and not of his to mine,
as I will now state.
My letter was responded to by telegram on the 18th or
19th of June. This was received on the 19th. The response was for me to go on immediately to Richmond.
This I did. On reaching there on the 22d or 23d, I found
an entire change in the military aspect of affairs, from
my understanding of it on the 12th of June, when my
letter was penned, and with a special view to which the
line of policy therein set forth was suggested. Lee was
no longer resting quietly on the Rappahannock. I knew
nothing of the contemplated movement into Pennsylvania.
On the 23d, in an interview with Mr. Seddon, Secretary 
S
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of War, I was informed that a portion of the Confederate
army was already across the Potomac. I was, also, then
informed by him, greatly to my surprise, that Grant was
pressing Pemberton closely at Vicksburg, and that the
surrender of that place was inevitable. It was only a
question of time. There was no hope of raising the siege
or giving succor, and that the Post could not be held
longer than the supplies on hand would last. These
were thought to be sufficient for some weeks to come.
This was the first intimation I had of any serious apprehensions of any such final result as to Vicksburg.
I also had an interview with the President, (Mr.
Davis,) as soon as it could be obtained.  We talked freely
over the subject of my letter, as well as the then position
of affairs in the military view. I explained to him more
fully than I had done in the letter, the ulterior objects I
had hopes of effecting when it was written; but stated
that the change in the military aspect, since the letter
was written, had entirely changed my views as to the
propriety or policy, of then undertaking anything on that
line. The movement of our army into Pennsylvania would
greatly excite the war spirit and strengthen the War Party
effects directly opposite to those which I had hoped to
produce, while our armies were remaining quiet after their
recent victories, and with the then state of feeling at
the North. I stated that it was a question of great doubt
with me, when my offer was made, whether I would be
received by Mr. Lincoln in the character of such Coinmnissioner as was proposed, but I now considered it almost
certain that any application of the sort would be rejected,
under existing circumstances; and my judgment, in consequence of the changes referred to, was as decidedly
against the policy of making the proposal then, as it was
in favor of it when the letter was written.
564 
MISSION DISAPPROVED.
He agreed entirely in the doubts expressed by me as to
my reception by the Washington authorities to confer
or to enter into any ageement upon the subjects proposed;
but was very decided in the opinion that the probabilities
of the reception were rather increased than lessened by the
present position of General Lee's army. He thought Mr.
Lincoln would more likely receive such Commissioner if
General Lee's army was actually threatening Washington
City, than if he was lying quietly south of the Rappahannock. In this view I could not concur, and gave it as
my opinion that the proposed mission had better be postponed. He suggested a Cabinet Consultation upon the
subject, and requested me to attend it. Thlis consulta,
tion was held the same day. Every one of the Cabinet,
while expressing doubts as to the reception, were very
decided in the opinion expressed by the President, that
the prospect of success was increased by the position and
projected movements of General Lee's army. They all
thought the existing state of affairs, militarily, both in the
East and West, rendered the occasion most opportune for
making the effort for the conference suggested.
They were all indulging in the most hopefuil expectas
tions of the results of General Lee's campaign coming in
aid of their views. Indeed, their ideas in the matter evidently sprung from these sanguine expectations. Mr.
Seddon was particularly anxious that there should be no
postponement or delay in the business, but that whatever could be done, if anything, in the matter of prisoners,
should be done before the fall of Vicksburg with its garrison
of something over thirty thousand men. Urged in this
way, my views were yielded to theirs, and I assumed the
mission and undertook to do what I could in the matter
of prisoners, and the conduct of the war, when it was
thought there was a probability as well as a possibility of
COL. XXII.]
565 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [vOL. II.
my being able to effect something on these important subjects; though I stated to Mr. Davis and the Cabinet that
I never would have made the offer I did, under such circumstances as I found existing on my arrival at Richmond. The mission undertaken, therefore, was not the
one proposed by me, nor was it, as undertaken, in any
sense, an attempt to offer terms of negotiation for Peace.*
At first, the arrangement was for me to proceed by land
in the route taken by General Lee's army, and communicate with the Washington authorities from his Headquarters. Excessive rains, badness of roads, and tardiness of travelling in consequence, caused a change in this
arrangement. A small steamer was put in readiness by
orders of Mr. Mallory, of the Navy Department, and I,
with Mr. Robert Ould, the distinguished Agent for the
Exchange of Prisoners on our side, a gentleman of high
accomplishments and attainments, who had been appointed Secretary to the Commission, set out in this way
directly for Washington City, if we should be permitted
to pass the Federal lines at Fortress Monroe.
The sequel is known. The great battles of Gettysburg
were fought before we reached Newport News. There
our arrival and proposal were telegraphed to Washington
by Acting Rear Admiral S. P. Lee, of the U. S. Ntavy,
commanding the Blockade Squadron at that point. We
were detained two days while the proposition for tlhe
conference was held under consideration at Washington.
In the meantime Vicksburg was surrendered by General
Pemberton, on the 4th day of July-earlier than was expected. The reply from Washington then came, that no
Special Commissioner on the subjects embraced in the
proposed conference, would be received.
This is the full history of that whole affair. In it you
*The Comminission will be seen in Appendix P.
566 
Coin. XXII.] TURNING POINT IN FATE OF CONFEDERACY. 567
see something more of the differences between Mr. Davisand myself, as to our views of the policy to be pursued
towards the people of the Northern States, as well as the
manner of conducting it. Whether my views or his, on
the occasion just alluded to, were the better, it is not my
purpose to pass judgment. In the retrospect, it appears
to me that this was the turning point in the fate of the
Confederate Cause.
" There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries."
At the time these events were transpiring I thought,
if General Lee had remained quietly on the defensive
south of the Rappahannock; if all the forces he had
collected over and above what were necessary to hold his
position there, had been sent in aid of the dislodgement
of Grant, in his siege of Vicksburg, instead of joining in
the movement made into Pennsylvania; if the cavalry
incursion, by General John Morgan, into Ohio, about the
same time, had not taken place, which could have no
effect so sure as that of arousing the war spirit at the
North then drooping and pining, that it would have been
greatly better for us; and in that state of things, I thought
that the conference suggested would most probably have
been agreed to; and, also, that the results looked to in its
projection, would most probably have eventually ensued.
Still, I might have been entirely disappointed. The whole
might have utterly failed, even if the military operations
on our side had been according to my own programme.
While, on the other hand, if Mr. Davis's expectations of
General Lee's operations had been realized; if the Federal
armies under Major-General George G. Meade, who took
General Hooker's place on his being removed, had been
I 
CONSTITrUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vorl,. II
defeated at Gettysburg, and that had not been a drawn
battle as it was; if Washington City had actually been put
in imminent danger by the approach of the victorious Con federates, then, perhaps, Mr. Lincoln  might have been
most unwillingly brought to entertain a proposition to
treat not only on the exchange of prisoners, but upon
terms of Peace, as Mr. Davis hopefully expected, notwith standing the fall of Vicksburg.  Upon  these questions
others must form their own speculative judgments. In deed, all that could be said on the subject now, as stated
before, would be nothing but speculation.
In this connection, however, ii speaking of these differences between Mr. Davis and myself, on this branch
of our external policy, I will add that they became so
wide and decided in the following year, during the Presidential canvass at the North between Lincoln and McClellan, as to lead to a correspondence between us on the
subject, which excited, perhaps, a little temporary feeling
on both sides, but which in no way interfered with our
personal relations, or with our full, free, cordial and continued interchange of views upon all matters of public
interest. There was, as I have said before, at no time
upon these, or any other questions, a personal breach, or
anything like a feutd between us. So much, then, in
answer to your inquiry touching our differences, so far as
they related to matters of foreign policy.
I come now to the differences between us upon those
matters of internal policy, and questions of Constitutional
law referred to. These I will only state generally, without entering at all into an exposition of the subjects, or a
presentation of the opposing views in regard to them.
No good at this time could be effected by a discussion of
the points involved. These are certainly among the dead
issues of the present day; though the principles involved
0
568 
COL. XXII.]  DIFFERED ON INTERNAL POLICY.
in some of them, can never die. The leading subjects of
our differences, however, on the internal policy of the
Government, when the questions were living and vital,
related entirely to the best, surest and most efficient mode
of wielding the resources of the country for the success
of the Cause in conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution.
First, I thought our great staples, tobacco and cotton,
especially cotton, constituted the greatest elements of
financial power at our commnand-ample for all purposes,
and should be promptly and efficiently used in a practicable way in securing to this end the full development of its
tremendous agency. The Produce Loan scheme adopted
at the instance of the Administration at Montgomery, as
before mentioned, came far short of accomplishing what,
in my judgment, could be accomplished from this one of
our resources in supplying the sinews of war. Indeed, as
matters turned out, very little benefit, where a great deal
was expected, was ever derived from that measure.
Next: The support of the armies by a tax in kind on
breadstuffs, instead of the issue of Treasury notes for that
purpose, was a favorite idea with me from the beginning.
All the States were large producers of grain and animal
food, besides the great staples referred to produced in
some of them. A tithe on the annual product of provisions, as was shown by statistics, was amply sufficient
to support an army greater than the Confederates could
possibly raise. This system, it is true, was resorted to
after awhile, but not until after the currency, by redulndant issue, hl,ad become greatly depreciated.:  Of its inis  * Scale of Depreciation of Confederate Currency, the gold dollar being
the unit and measure of value from Xovember 1st, 1861, to May 1st, 1865.
MONTHS.          1861.  1862.  1863.  1864.  1865.
January.............  $1 20 $3 00 $21 00 $50 00
February.........-     1 30  3 00  21 00  50 00
569
t 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
..
7',      mnaeen, ~.rItwsaotdthogwhc,oto
ovroehnrdadtIryiinswotofpoiin
MR. STEPHENS. I know this is the view attempted to be
given to it, and that what you say is really believed by
MONTHS.                   1861.
March.............
April............. -
May..............
June..............
July...............
August............
September.......... --
October............ 
November........ $1 10
December......... 1 15
Dec. 1st to 10th inst.
Dec. 1st to 20th inst.
Dec. 21st to 31st inst.
570
;,A
1862.
1 50
1 50
1 50
1 50
1 50
1 50
2 00
2 00
2 50
2 50
1863.
4 00
5 00
5 50
6 50
9 00
14 00
14 00
14 00
15 00
20 00
1864.
23 00
20 O0
19 00
18 00
21 00
23 00
25 00
25 00
30 00
35 00
42 00
49 00
1865.
50 00
100 00 
.
COL. XXII.] CONFEDERATE CONSCRIPTION MEASURES. 571
many.  But it is a very great mistake.  Richmond was
not saved by Conscription in 1862, or at any time. The
great battles fought by the Army of Virginia, first under
Johnston, then under Lee, which achieved such brilliant
victories in saving Richmond at the period you speak of,
twere fought in May and June of that year. The first act
of Conscription was passed the 16th of April before.
That Army was composed chiefly, and almost entirely, of
volunteers already enlisted, and in the service for three
/years or the war.
It is true a few Regiments whose term of service was
for one year, and which had not expired when the act
passed, immediately organized under it for the future;
but the term of voluntary service, in which they were
enlisted, of most, if not all of these few, extended beyond
the time in which the fate of Richmond on that occasion
was determined. There may have been a very few Regi ments whose term would have expired before that time,
and composed of men who, without the passage of the act,
might have quit the service. But the number of such
Regiments as these must have been very small. Indeed,
if any such did exist, (composed of men, who would have
quit the field at such an hour, without the restraint of
that act,) they were certainly not made of that material
which caused the turn of the scales of battle in these
conflicts. The fact is, very few, if any, of that Army
were there under the operation of that act; not a man
had been brought there by it. Ninety per cent. at least
of the fighting men of that Army who achieved these
ictories, were enrolled in Regiments already voluntarily
enlisted for three years or the war, when the act of
onscription was passed.
The idea or belief that there was a necessity for that
mode of filling our armies at the time, is altogether 
.
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
erroneous and unsustained by the facts of the case. I do
not know the exact number, but I think I may ven ture to say that there were near four hundred thousand
men then voluntarily enlisted in the Confederate armies,
for three years or the war. Upon every call for troops
under the regular Constitutional militia system, the call
had been responded to by the tender of more volunteers
on these terms than the number asked for.  Georgia alone
had upwards of fifty Regiments, besides several Battalions,
then in the field at Richmond, or elsewhere, so enlisted.
In the last call before this act was passed, four more
Regiments tendered their services on these'terms, than
were called for from this State. They were not received
by the War Department upon the ground that their
services were not needed. This was not more than two
months before the passage of that act. The other States
were in no degree behind Georgia in readiness to respond
with a tender of troops under voluntary service, upon the
same terms in proportion to population.
Conscription, therefore, was resorted to from no necessity
whatever, as a means of raising troops. It was adopted
as a policy, inain,l  with a view to securing a d,ifferent
mode of qoicering those who were already voluntarily in
the service, as well as those who might be called upon to
,enter it afterwards. Of this military view of tile subject,
it is not my purpose now to speak. A vast deal might be
said upon it on both sides. All I mean now to say is,
that, in my judgment, it plainly violated not only the
spirit, but the letter of the Constitution; and, mnoreover,
had a most pernicious effect upon the public mind. The
great mass of our people were perfectly willing to fight
for their liberties, but they were utterly unwilling to be
placed in a position, where it seemed they were required
to do it by compulsion.
572 
COL. XXII.] CONFEDERATE CONSCRIP'IION MEASURES. 573
Moreover, if compulsion had been necessary at that
time, or at any time, to fill our armies, the war ought to
have been immediately abandoned upon the disclosure of
the fact; for no people are worthy of liberty, or capable
of preserving it, who have to be compelled to fight, either
for its establishment, or its defence. Conscripts or men
who are used by Rulers barely as machines in war, may
overthrow liberty, and prove efficient instruments in erecting Dynasties and Empires; but never have been, and
never will be, the means of establishing free Institutions
or maintaining them! This was my judgment then, and
will be ever! Fortunately for the Confederates, more
than half of their arms-bearing people were virtually in
for the war, before this very demoralizing act was passed.
The glory of their arms from the beginning to the end
was achieved by this class of Our soldiers. Very few of
those who  were brought in subsequently through the
instrumentality of the Conscription acts, effected anything creditable to themselves or the country.
The desertions so much complained of were almost
entirely from the latter class. I doubt if there were ten
thousand conscripts, properly speaking, in all the armies
together, at the time of final surrender. The Army of
Virginia, which fought until it was literally "annihilated,"
was composed almost exclusively of the surviving remnants of the original voluntary enlistments. The same is
true of the Army of Tennessee. But, as I have stated,
it is not my purpose now to discuss or to enlarge, beyond
a general statement of my own position on any of these
questions of difference, touching the internal policy of the
country between myself and the Administration of Mr.
Davis. He, of course, thought these measures, to which
I have alluded, were not only constitutional, but timely
and expedient.  His views upon them in detail, are to be 
CONSTITrUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VoL. II.
seen in his messages and speeches. Mine, in like manner,
as expressed at the time, are to be found in Cleveland's
collection of letters and speeches, written and made by
me during the war. To them I must refer you for the
points of difference on these measures in detail.
These differences, however, wide as they were, in no
degree caused me to withold my cordial support and cooperation, wherever I saw the possibility of effecting any
good on that line of policy, which the Administration
thought proper to adopt, even though it was against my
own judgment. I neither headed nor countenanced anything like factious opposition to the execution of those
measures which I thought would be attended with the
worst consequences. This would have produced dissensions and divisions, which in my judgment could lead to
nothing but the most disastrous results. My views upon
them were given to Mr. Davis, the Members of the Cabinet and Members of Congress, in the most earnest and
friendly manner. When they were so given, without
avail, I remained silent before the country, except in a few
instances in which self-vindication became a public duty.
Upon the Constitutionality of the Conscript Acts, my
views, Major Heister, were very similar to those expressed
by the Supreme Court of your own State, upon a similar
act, subsequently passed by the Federal Congress, in a
case which produced considerable excitement throughout
the North at the time, and with which you may be
familiar. The opinion of Mr. Justice George W. Woodward, in that case, deserves a place in the future history
of this Country, side by side with that of Chief Justice
Taney, of the Supreme Court of the United States, on
the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corputs.* But
enough on these subjects.
* For the author's views, more in detail, upon these matters, here
generally referred to, see Appendix Q, 1, 2, 3.
574 
COL. XXII.] NATURE OF DIFFERENCES WITH MR. DAVIS. 575
You have now, Professor Norton, I think, a very full,
if not satisfactory response to your inquiry for information
upon the points stated by you. On all these points, however, I wish you distinctly to understand, that the
differences between Mr. Davis and myself were in no
respect, as I understood them, unlike those differences
which often occur between the several Members of the
same Cabinet, where all are equally earnest and sincere
in their efforts to promote a common object; and not
unlike differences which probably existed on many other
questions, even between Mr. Davis and Members of his
own Cabinet.
We will now, if you please, after this long talk, take a
little rest, before proceeding with the consideration of
other subjects.
JUDGE BYNUM. Before suspending, I wish barely to say
that there are two other subjects, Mr. Stephens, upon
which I desire specially to hear from you. These are:
first, the celebrated Hampton Roads Conference, to which
you have referred; and, secondly, the general results of
the war, which you intimated an intention of saying
something about. I am anxious to know the secret history
of the origin, as well as the nature and objects of that conference; and as Secession, which you thought so justifiable
as a mode of redress for a breach of Compact between
States, has been abandoned, and is now among the dead
issues of the past you speak of, I wish, for the gratification
of a like personal curiosity, to know what you think of
the future, especially of the Reconstruction Measures of
Congress.
MR. STEPHENS. Very well, gentlemen, I am at your
serice.  In the morning, then, we will take up the
Hampton Roads Conference, which will bring us to the
close of the war; and in the evening, conclude with a brief
review of its general results, as they now stand. 
COLLOQUY XXIII.
HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE-BRIEF REVIEW OF PRECEDING MILITARY AND
POLITICAL EVENT-BATTLE OF CHICKAMAUGA-MEADE'S ATTACKS ON
LEERANT THE COMING- MAN-BATTLE OF MISSIONARY RIDGE-JOSEPH
E. JOHNSTON SUPERSEDES BRAGGGRANT MADE LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GLOOM AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 186-BRILLIANT CONFEDERATE VIC TORIES EARLY IN 1864, AT OCEAN POND AND MANSFIELD-SHERMAN'S
EXPEDITION TO MOBILE CHECKED BY FORREST-SHERMAN ASSIGNED TO
COMMAND THE "ONWARD" INTO GEORGIA-THE TWO GRAND CAMPAIGNS
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE NORTH-GRANT'S GREAT LOSSES OF MEN
IN THE SUMMER CAMPAIGN-JOHNSTON REMOVED AND HOOD APPOINTED BATTLES OF ATLANTA; ITS FALL —HOOD'S TENNESSEE CAMPAIGN: BATTLES
OF FRANKLIN AND NASHVILLE-SHERMAN'S MARCH TO THE SEA-SHERI DAN DEVASTATES THE VALLEY OF VIRGINIA-MR. STEPHENS'S VIEWS OF
THE SITUATION-BLAIR'S VISITS TO RICHMOND —FIRST INTERVIEW WITH
GRANT, AND IMPRESSIONS MADE BY HIM-THE CONFERENCE AND ITS
RESULTS-FALL OF FORT FISHER-MR. DAVIS'S SPEECH AT THE AFRICAN
CHURCH-LAST SCENES OF THE WAR-CHANGES IN THE CONFEDERATE
CABINET-GRANT'S OPERATIONS: LEE'S LINES BROKEN-RICHMOND GIVEN
UP-LEE'S SURRENDER-LINCOLN ASSASSINATEDSUB,ENDER OF JOHN STON, DICK TAYLOR, AND KIRBY SMITH-END OF THE WAR.
MR. STEPHENS. In the Congressional language, Judge
Bynum, with which we were so familiar when we were
memnbers of the House together, the "special order" for
this morning is the Hampton Roads Conference in February 1865, about which you desired information.
JUDGE BYNUM. Yes. that is a matter I feel more interest in than the consideration of Battles, Proclamations,
Conscript Laws, or anything else pertaining either to
the causes, character, or general conduct of the war. On
these topics I think I very clearly perceive your general
views. I am now more interested in getting some light
upon the efforts which were made for stopping it. How
did this celebrated Conference, having these objects,
576 
COL. XXIII.] THE HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
originate? Who projected it, and how did it happen to
fail? You must have known, at that time, that a further
prosecution of the war was utterly hopeless. I have seen
various reports about it. Amongst other things, I have
seen it stated that Mr. Davis again yielded to your wishes
to attempt negotiations for Peace, but so tied your hands
with instructions that nothing could be accomplished by
it, and that his object in the whole matter was to use the
failure as a means more effectually to arouse the people
of the Confederate States to renewed efforts and energy,
by showing them that there were no hopes left for them
of attaining Peace, except by the sword. Ilow is this?
If you have no objections to responding to my inquiries,
I should like to know what your instructions were, and
what did really occur at the interview between the Confederate Commissioners, and Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward,
in that Conference.
MR. STEPHENS. The reports to which you refer are
utterly unworthy of notice. These, as those in reference
to the proposed Conference in 1863, have tended only to
mislead the public mind, and to divert it from the truth
in the case. The real objects of the Hampton Roads
Conference have never been made fully known to the
country, so far as I am aware.  It was not intended in
its origin or objects to bring about direct negotiations for
Peace. On this point very erroneous ideas existed at the
time, and do yet, I believe. We had no written instructions upon that subject, or any other, except what were
contained in the letter of our appointment, which has
been published;* nor any verbal instructions on that
subject inconsistent with the terms of that letter.  The
Conference, moreover, did not originate in any way with
me, as you seem to suppose.
* See Correspondence, Appendix R, No. 2
37
577 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL,. II.'
But for a proper understanding of its origin, nature,
and objects, as well as my connection with it, it is
essentially necessary that we shall first take another
rapid glance at the intervening military as well as political events, which occurred between this and the other
proposed Conference referred to. I will not worry you
with unnecessary details of battles or other subjects, but
confine nmyself briefly as possible to such points, in both a
military and political view, as are essential to a proper
understanding of the matter in hand.
It must be borne in mind, then, that after the great
reverses met with by the Confederates at Gettysburg and
Vicksburg, and after the withdrawal of Lee's Army from
Pennsylvania-which, with his great skill, was safely
effected, though Meade then had quite two to one at his
command  against him-everything remained  comparatively quiet for some titne, in a military point of view.
The Political aspect of affairs at the North, however, was
greatly changed by what had occurred. The raid of
Morgan into Ohio, as well as the invasion of Pennsylvania
by General Lee, gave new life and vigor to the War
Party in all the Northern States, but especially in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York. Mr. Lincoln, by this,
was enabled, easily, to recruit his armies by volunteers
in defence of their own homes and firesides, even from
the ranks of those who were utterly opposed to the policy
of subjugating the Southern States. The result was, tl)hat
the Anti-War Party at the North-those who had favored
Peace movements-were again put to silence under the
denunciation of incivism, which was hurled against them.
The elation caused by these late greatest successes which
had attended their arms during the war, came, as might
have been expected, to their aid in the fall elections. jIn
the political contest in 1863, therefore, the War  Party
578 
COL. XXIII.] MILITARY SITUATION PRECEDING IT.
proper, recovering from it- wound, regained all that it
had lost the year before. Vallandigham was beaten in
Ohio, and in a large majority, if not all of the States, the
Centralists were again triumphant. So much for the
political aspect just now. Let us leave it a moment to
glance further at military operations.
While Lee was still holding Meade at bay in Virginia,
Rosecrans, at the head of the Army of the Cumberland,
greatly reinforced, was projecting an attack upon Chattanooga, and a campaign thence to Atlanta and through
Georgia. To defeat this most dangerous movement, Lee
sent about 5,000 of his army to the assistance of Bragg,
whlo, at the head of the Confederates, was now con- 
fronting Rosecrans. The result was the great battle of
Chickamnauga, fought on the 20th of September, 1863,
where the Confederate arms under Bragg, D. H. Hill,
Longstreet and Hood, again achieved a most brilliant
victory. Rosecrans was not only checked, but alnmost
routed.   His army was  saved  by seeking protection
behind the Fortifications in and around Chattanooga.
The united forces on the Confederate side, in the battle
of Chickamauga, was about 40,000, while the Federals
under Rosecrans, numbered, from the best accounts, fully
55,000. The Confederate loss was heavy-not less than
16,000; while the Federal loss was fully 20,000  men,
(8,000 of whom were prisoners,) besides 49 pieces of
artillery, and 15,000 small arms.
After this terrible conflict, Military affairs were again
comparatively quiet for a time, both in the East and the
West. Rosecrans remained behind his works at Chattanooga, and Bragg confronted him on Missionary Ridge.
In Virginia, however, matters were not quite so still.
Meade made several attempts to assail Lee's weakened
Army, reduced, as it was, by the absence of Longstreet's
579 
CONSTrITUTrIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
Corps. The most noted of these were at Centreville,
Bristoe Station, and Mine Run. These resulted in no
serious loss to Lee.
In the meantime, Grant, who, from his exploits at
Vicksburg, was now fully recognized as "the comning
man," had been put at the head of all the South-western
Federal forces, and given the control of the movement
into Georgia from Chattanooga. Rosecrans having fallen
out of favor at Washington, had been removed, and
Major-General G. H. Thomas put in his place at Chattanooga, he being himself, however, now under the chief
command of Grant. About this time, most unfortunately
for the Confederates, there was a separation of their forces
near Missionary Ridge, when there should have been
every possible concentration of them. Longstreet was
sent upon an expedition against Knoxville, where, on the
17th of November, he made an unsuccessful assault upon
the Federals there strongly fortified, sustaining considerable loss, and accomplishing nothing. While Bragg was
thus weakened by the absence of Longstreet's command,
Grant, very adroitly, and with consummate skill, by a
concentration of his forces, planned and executed those
movements which resulted in his most memorable victory,
known as the Battle of Missionary Ridge. This was
fought on the 25th day of November.   Bragg's Army
was completely routed. This was the greatest disaster
which attended the Confederate Arms in a pitched battle,
during the war: not so much in the loss of men, (for that
was only about 3000,) as in the loss of ground and the
demoralization of his broken columns.   Having lost
the confidence of his men, he was, upon his own
application, relieved from the command of the Army
of Tennessee. This position was now, upon the earnest
remonstrance and entreaty of many persons high in
580 
COL. XXIII.] MILITARY SITUATION PRECEDING IT.
authority, committed to the military genius of General
Joseph E. Johnston, who, for some cause not necessary
to mention, had theretofore been out of favor with Mr.
Davis. His presence at the head of the shattered forces
now composing this Army, gave new hopes and inspired
new zeal in the ranks. All his energies were devoted
for some months to recruiting and strengthening his
command. The winter thus passed off.
Meantime, the office of Lieutenant-General was created
by the Federal authorities, and General Grant was the
nian who, by almost universal acclaim, was designated to
fill it. His nomination to that post by Mr. Lincoln was,
of course, confirmed by the Senate. He was thus put at
the head of all the Armies of the United States, and had,
thereafter, the general control of all military operations on
land. His Head Quarters were immediately transferred
to the Army of the Potomac. Thus matters stood on both
sides, during the remainder of the third year of the war.
The prospect upon its close, in a military point of view,
was gloomier for the Confederates than it had been at
the close of any that had preceded it. This heavy
gloom, however, did not rest upon their horizon long.
The beginning of operations in the fourth year, soon
changed the aspect of affairs in this particular, and gave
great encouragement to the Confederates.   This year
was ushered in, even in its dawn, by the splendid victory
at Ocean Pond, Florida, on the 20th of February, achieved
under the lead of Brigadier-General Alfred H. Colquitt,
against General Truman Seymour, commanding the
Federals. With less than 6,000 men, Colquitt put Seymour to rout, with more than 6,000, killing, wounding
and capturing 2,500 men, and taking three Napoleon
guns, two ten-pounder Parrots, and 3,000 stand-of-arms.
This was followed immediately by the great victories
581 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vo'L. II.
achieved by General E. Kirby Smith and General "Dick"
Taylor, over General Banks in the West. In the early
part of March, Banks had set out from New Orleans on
an expedition to Texas, by way of Shreveport, with
forces at his command numbering in all, not less than
40,000. These were attacked in detail by Smith and
Taylor at Mansfield and Pleasant Hill, at which places
they utterly routed the Federal forces, and drove Banks
back as precipitately as he had been driven from.Winchester in 1862, by "Stonewall" Jackson.   In  this
expedition, Banks lost in prisoners, 6,000, in killed and
wounded  8,000, in all 14,000 men, besides thirty-five
pieces of artillery, 20,000 small arms, one hundred and
twenty wagons, one gunboat and three transports. The
Confederate forces operating against Banks, in all, did
not exceed 25,000 men.
A little before this, General William T. Sherman had
set out on his grand projected expedition to Mobile through
Mississippi and Alabama. This most formidable and
threatening movement was completely checked by several
brilliant cavalry exploits of Major-General N. B. Forrestparticularly the one at Okolona on the 22d of Februarythe opening day of the fourth year of the war. Shermnan's
army estimated at 50,000, was thus stopped at Meridian,
Mississippi.  From this point he retraced his steps to
Vicksburg, and by Grant was put at the head of a new
army to make  another "onwvard" upon Atlanta  and
through Georgia.
Two grand campaigns were now again clearly developed
by the Federals, for the summer of 1864, as in 1863one against Richmond under Grant himself-the other
against Atlanta under Sherman. To Grant's movement
Lee was opposed in Virginia; and to Sherman's, Johnston
in Georgia. To the movements of these two great armies,
582 
CoLr. XXIII.]  GLANCE AT POLITICAL EVENTS.
the chief attention and energies on both sides, were now
directed. This was the general military situation in the
early part of May, 1864.
The political aspect, at the same time, requires a brief
notice in the same connection. Tile Presidential Campaign in tle Northern States was opening.  The Constitutional Party there was  again  active.   They were
resolved to make another deperate struggle, and to displace the Centralists from power by.votes, if possible.
Several circumstances favored the prospect of their
success at first. There was considerable division in the
ranks of the Centralists, as to who should be their
standard-bearer in the contest. Mr. Lincoln had strong
and powerful opponents to his nomination in his own
Party. These, in Convention on the 31st of May, put
in nomination for the Presidency, General John C. Fremont, and for the Vice Presidency, John Cochrane, of
New York. Thle friends of Mr. Lincoln met in Convention at Baltimore, a week afterwards, on the 7th of
June, and put him in nomination for re-election, with
Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, for the Vice Presidency.
Fremont was subsequently withdrawn, and Lincoln left
without opposition from his own Party.
The Democratic or Constitutional Party postponed
their Convention from the 4th of July, when it was to
have been held, to the 29th of August, when, at Chicago,
as before stated, they put in nomination for the Presidency, General George B. McClellan, and for the Vice
Presidency, George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, upon a Plat
form boldly denouncing the usurpations of the Washington
authorities, opposing the policy of subjugating the Southern
States, declaring the war to be a failure in preserving the
Union of the States as it was established under the Constitution, and inviting a general Convention of all the States,
for a proper acldjustment of thile relations b(,tween thcm.
583 
CONS'TIi'UTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
It wau, you recollect, on the policy of our giving a
favorable response to these Resolutions of the Chicago
Convention, looking to a general convocation of all the
States, as an initiative step for a final adjustment of the
matters in conflict, that I so widely differed with Mr.
Davis during this year.   The contest, however, fierce
and bitter as it was, resulted, as is known, in the success
of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency, and Mr. Johnson to
the Vice Presidency, at the election which took place on
the 8th day of November. The various causes which
co-operated in producing this result, we will not now stop
to notice.
Let us return, therefore, to Military movements. Before
either of these nominations had taken place, the two
great campaigns of this year, before referred to, had comnmenced; both at or near the same time. This was in
the early part of May. The general results of these need
be but glanced at. Lee with his most masterly military
genius, with less than 60,000 men, not only held Grant
in check with an army Of over 100,000 present, and as
many more, perhaps, in his rear to draw upon for reinforcemnents, but entirely defeated all the plans and purposes of this favorite General of the Federals. In a
series of battles beginning on the 6th of May, and ending
the 12th of June-first in the Wilderness, then at Spottsylvania Court House, then at North Anna, and then at
Cold Harbor, which will ever stand amongst the most
memorable of history, he sent Grant and his hosts, as he
had McClellan and his before, swinging around upon the
same new base-James River-where the Federal Chief,
with his Head Quarters established at City Point, continued ineffectual efforts, first to take Petersburg as a step
towards Richmond, until winter closed upon the scenes.
In this campaign, according to Mr. Swinton, Grant lost
4
584 
COl,. XXIII.] OTHER MILITARY MOVEMENTS NOTICED.  585
from the 6th of May to the 12th of June, in his progress
from the Rapidan to Cold Harbor alone, 54,551 men.*
His losses by the time he reached Petersburg, were not
less than 60,000-a number equal to Lee's entire Army.
While these operations were going on in Virginia,
Johnston, with equal masterly skill, with about 45,000
men, was checking, delaying and defeating Sherman in
his "onward" to Atlanta, with an army equal in number
and strength to that of Grant's. For more than two
months he had been enabled to proceed but about one
hundred miles on his grand march, and at a loss not
much, if any, inferior to that of Grant; notwithstanding
the great disparity of forces on the respective sides,
Sherman had been checked, foiled, and balked at various
points by the manceuvres, strategy, and consummate
generalship of Johnston.   On the 17th day of July,
however, Johnston was  removed, and  Major-General
John B. Hood put in his place. Within a few days
afterwards-on the 20th and 22d of July-were fought
the great battles of Atlanta. Hood with unequal forces
attacked the Federals under great disadvantages, as it
turned out, and in two most gallant and bloody assaults
lost, in all, about 8,000 men, without carrying any point,
or inflicting any serious injury upon his adversary.
On the 31st of August, he gave up the city and retired
towards Newnan. Sherman took possession of his prize
on the 2d of September. Soon after, Hood, in a new
position, projected his famous Tennessee Campaign. This
was commenced on the 28th day of September. His
Army at this time, after all the recruits which could be
brought to its ranks, amounted to about 35,000. The
result of this Tennessee movement, as is known, was the
battles of Franklin and Nashville. The battle of Frank            * Swinton's Army of the Potomac, p. 491. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
lin was fought on the 30th of November. In this, Hood
gained a signal victory, though at considerable loss.
The battle of Nashville was fought on the 15th and 16th
of December. It lasted two days. The Confederates
here were, finally, utterly defeated and almost routed
by Thomas, whom Sherman had left in his rear, with
forces amply sufficient to meet this meditated blow of
Hood, of which he was fully apprised.
In the meantime, Sherman, after destroying and burning Atlanta, had set out anew from that point, (on the
15th of November,) on his grand march to the sea, with
an army of 65,000 men. As there was no sufficient Confederate force to oppose him, he passed through the State
almost unmolested,* laying waste the country in a belt
of nearly thirty miles in breadth, and reached Savannah
on the 22d of December, 1864. In the meantime, also,
Sheridan, the most dashing and fiery of the Federal Generals, had made his Valley Campaign in Virginia, defeating the Confederates under Early, and laying waste that
most beautiful country.
This rapid glance must suffice for the general aspect
of affairs, both Militarily and Politically, up to January,
1865.  Tie prospect at this time, it is true, was exceedingly gloomy for us; but I did not then consider our
Cause as utterly hopeless, notwithstanding. I thought
the great object might even yet be attained, but I was
* At Griswoldville, on the 22d of November, quite a bloody encounter
took place between the Federal Brigade of General Walcott, who was
demonstrating towards Macon, and a few Georgia Reserves at that
place under the command of General Cobb.  This conflict, consid(lering
the relative forces engaged, as well as the valor displayed in it, is justly
entitled to a place amongst the heroic fights of the war.  Several hind(red fell in it, and General Walcott himself was wounded.  But, however great was the honor reflected uponi the Confederate Arms by this
engagement, it had no effect whatever in checking or thwarting the
movement of the Grand Army of Sherman in its progress.
586 
SPEECH 1TO0 THE SENATE.
deeply impressed by the conviction, that it could be
done only by an immediate and thorough change in the
policy of the Administration, both internally and externally. Being requested by the Senate to give them my
views on the situation, in a close Session, I complied in a
speech of considerable length, which was never reported.
The sum and substance of it, however, was, that our
policy both internally and externally should be speedily
and thoroughly changed. Conscription, Impressments,
Suspension of the Writ of Hatbeas Corpus, and all those
measures which tended to dispirit our people in the great
cause for which they were struggling, should be immediately abandoned.  The resources of the country, both
of Men and Subsistence, should be better husbanded than
they had been. Proclamation should be made inviting
back to the army all who had left it without leave, and
all who were then subject to Conscription, to come under
chosen leaders of their own. In this way I believed Price
and Johnston, to say nothing of others, would in thirty
days, bring to their ranks more than the Conscript
Bureau had by compulsory process brought from the
beginning.  Men who should so come would never desert, and might be relied on to fight when they did
come.
I reminded them of what they knew had been my opinions upon these subjects from the beginning: that the
policy of holding posts or positions against besieging
armies, as well as of engaging in pitched-battles, should not
be pursued. We could not match our opponents in numbers, and should not attempt to cope with them in direct
physical power. War was a collision of forces, and in
this, as in Mechanics, the greater momentum must prevail.  Momentum, however, was resolvable into two elements-quantity of matter, and velocity.  The superior
Cor,. XXIII.]
587 
CONSTI'rUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [Vol.. ]I.
numbers-the quantity of matter in this instance-was
on the other side; and to succeed in the end, we must
make up the other requisite element of momentum, not
only by the spirit, animation, and morale of our unequal
numbers, but by their skilful movements, and by other
resorts which were at our command. These consisted in
the many advantages which an invaded people have over
invaders. The policy of Johnston from Dalton to the
Chattahoochee was the right one. To preserve the lives
of our arms-bearing men, was, itself, a matter of the utmost importance. Our supply of these was limited, while
that of our opponents was inexhaustible. They could
afford to lose any number of battles, with great losses of
men, if they could thereby materially thin our ranks.
In this way, by attrition alone, they would ultimately
wear us out. The leading object should be, to keep an
army in the field, and to keep the Standard utp somewhere,
wherever it could be done, without offering battle except
where the advantages were decidedly in our favor. If, in
pursuing this course now, of retiring when necessary, instead of offering or accepting battle, as stated, our whole
country should be penetrated, and should even be laid
waste, as the Valley of Virginia and the smoking belt in
Georgia had been by Sheridan and Sherman, these devastations would be borne by our people, so long as their
hearts were kept enlisted in the Cause. On this line of
internal policy, our standard might even yet be kept up,
for at least a year or two longer-perhaps for a period
far beyond that; and, in the meantime, by a change of
our external policy towards the masses of the people at
the North, a reaction might reasonably be expected to
take place there. A financial revulsion there might be
certainly expected in less than two years. The depreciation of their currency had already reached a point which
588
AP 
COL. XXIII.] VISITS OF F. P. BLAIR, SR., TO RICHMOND. 589
was quite alarming to capitalists. Greenbacks had already sold in New York at nearly three for one in gold.
When the crash did come, as soon it must, the effects
would be, politically, as well as in other respects, tremendous. At that time they could not be even properly
conjectured; but when it did come, then with a proper
policy towards the million eight hundred thousand and
more of the other side, who had so recently and decidedly demonstrated their opposition to the Centralists in
the late election, we might through them-thoroughly
aroused to a sense of their own danger-look for a peaceful Adjustment upon a basis, which would best secure
both their liberties and ours. My opinion was that, by
pursuing this course, we might, in the end, succeed in the
Cause for which we were struggling, without relying solely
upon the sword.
The policy thus stated necessarily involved the abandonment of a continued attempt to hold Richmond. This,
however, I did not state in express terms in my speech
to the Senate. I only left all to draw their own inferenlces. To Mr. Davis alone, I submitted the propriety
and necessity of this course; for I knew if he could not
first be brought to see it, it would be not only useless,
but most probably exceedingly injurious in the then
state of the public mind, to mention it to others. When
the subject was mentioned to him, his reply in substance
was, that the abandonment of Richmond would be a
virtual abandonment of the Cause.
Now, it was in this stage of our affairs, early in
January, 1865, in the midst of winter, when everything
was comparatively quiet on the lines of defence around
Richmond, and before Sherman had set out from Savannah, on his march through the Carolinas, that Mr.
Francis P. Blair, Sr., made his appearance in the Con 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
federate Capital. The arrival of this distinguished per sonage, who was, unquestionably, the master spirit-the
real Warwick —of the Party then in power at Washington,
caused no little sensation.   What could have brought
him there?  And what was his business?  These were
the inquiries of almost every one. He was immediately
in close and private consultation with Mr. Davis. After
remaining a few days, he returned. Nothing, however,
touching the object of his visit escaped from the Executive closet, or got to the public in any way.  The surprise occasioned by his first visit was even increased by
a second in a few days afterwards.   He was again in
consultation with Mr. Davis, and again returned. The
same mystery still continued to hang over the object of
his mission.
It was then, you must know, in these interviews
between Mr. Davis and Mr. Blair, which excited so much
curiosity and comment at the time, that this Hampton
Roads Conference originated; and as to its objects, how
I became connected with it, what occurred at it, and
its results, I will now proceed to inform you in regular
order:
1st. Its objects, and how I became connected with it.
On the day after Mr. Blair's final departure, I was
sent for by Mr. Davis, with a request to meet him
at a stated hour, on special and important business. IlHe
wished the interview to be entirely private, and therefore named the hour when he would be disengaged and
ready to receive me.  The message came through  Mr.
Hunter, who told me what the business was. I called
at the hour, and found Mr. Davis alone.  He said he
wished what he should submit to be strictly confideintial  Hle had mentioned it, as yet, to no one, except
Mr. Hunter-not even to any member of his Cabinet;
690 
Cot. XXIII.]  CONSULTATION WITH MR. DAVIS.
but had requested the Cabinet to meet him at four o'clock
that evening, in consultation upon it, and wished to be
in possession of my views beforehand.
The substance of what he then stated was, that Mr.
Blair, in a verbal and most confidential manner, had suggested to him a course by which a suspension of hostilities might be effected. This was to be done by a Secret
Military Convention between the Belligerents embracing
another object, which was the maintenance of the Monroe
Doctrine, in the prevention of the establishment of the
then projected Empire in Mexico by France. Mr. Davis
stated that Mr. Blair had given it as his opinion, that the
result of what he proposed would be the ultimate restoration of the UInion, which he greatly desired; and that it
was much more in accordance with his wishes that it
should be effected in this way, than by a continued prosecution of the war to its extreme results.  Mr. Davis gave
me clearly to understand that he understood Mr. Blair
to be acting under the firm belief, that the attempt of the
Confederate States to establish a separate Independence
would certainly fail in the end.   This hle did that  I
might be fully informed as to the candidly professed
objects of the proposition. He also submitted, somewhat
in detail, a programme suggested by Mr. Blair, for carrying the general outlines of his scheme into practical operation. Now, whether Mr. Blair's ideas as to the ultimate
result of such Military Convention, if it should be entered into-so far as they related to the restoration of
the Unlion-were correct or not, and whether his wishes~
in this particular would be finally attained by the line of
policy he proposed, wa(Is a grave question for mature consideration, as well as the general subject itself; and what
Mr. Davis wished to confer with me about was, whether
or not it was advisable to enter into the arrangement at all,
591 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF T''HE WAR.  [VOL. IL.
under the circumstances; and especially in view of the
contingency of such a result as that contemplated by Mr.
Blair: and if I were of opinion that it was proper to do
so, then who would be the most suitable persons to whom
the matter should be committed? He showed me the
two letters that had passed between Mr. Lincoln and
himself through the medium of Mr. Blair, which have
been published.* These, however, were only intended
to cover the other undisclosed object.
I inquired if he thought Mr. Blair was really in the
confidence of the Administration at Washington, and
fully represented their views on the subject. He said
that Mr. Blair had expressly disclaimed speaking by
authority, but assured Mr. Davis that he believed the
Administration would be willing to enter into such an
arrangement; and Mr. Davis, in reply to my inquiry, said
that he felt assured, notwithstanding what Mr. Blair had
said of his acting in the matter of his own accord, that
the Adnministration at Washington did, in fact, fully
understand the object of Mr. Blair's mission, and would
act in accordance with the views he had presented.
In that view of the subject, I promptly told him that
I thought the programme suggested by Mr. Blair should
be acceded to, at least so far as to obtain, if possible, a
Conference upon the subject as proposed. Perhaps such
a Convention might be obtained, securing a suspension
of hostilities, without committing us to an active participation in the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine.
~f so, it was an object of very great importance to us;
and the agitation of the Monroe Doctrine, and the
diversion of the popular mind at the North to the questions involved in it, might, itself, result in great benefit
* See the whole Correspondence, Appendix RB. Nos. 1 and 2.
592 
COL. XXIII.]  CONSULTATION WITH MR. DAVIS.
to our Cause. Whether Mr. Blair was right in his ideas
as to the ultimate result or not, was, of course, uncertain;
but this result, to which he was looking, was not necessarily involved in it. Moreover, if such result should ensue, it would be by the voluntary assent of the Confederate States, and this would secure the success of the Principles for which we were struggling. In every view,
this was a matter which could safely be left to the future.
Upon the whole, therefore, I was in favor of the Conference, if it could be obtained.
I went on further to say, that if there was really anything authoritative in the arrangement proposed; if in
truth and in fact, Mr. Lincoln were then, or should be
on its direct presentation, favorably inclined to the course
suggested, such a Convention, it seemed to me, could not
be effected without the utmost discretion and the most
perfect secrecy. Mr. Davis said in reply to this, that
Mr. Blair had been very particular in stating the same
thing.
Well then, said I, Mr. President, looking to the question in all its bearings, in my judgment, you and Mr.
Lincoln, yourselves, are the persons who should hold the
Conference. You and he can easily be brought together
near City Point, without anybody knowing it except
Gen. Lee and Gen. Grant. To this he decidedly objected,
and said that the matter, if it should be decided to hold
the Conference, ought to be put in the hands of at least
three Commissioners.
When he was so decided on that point, after some
moments' reflection, I said that the Commission should
be composed of men of ability and discretion, and also of
persons whose absence from the City would not attract
public attention. Looking to these three requisites, I then
suggested as the Commissioners, Judge John A. Campbell,
38
593 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIlE WAR.  [VOL. II.
of Alabama, then Assistant Secretary of War,* Gen.
Henry L. Benning, Ex-Justice of the Supreme Court of
Georgia, then commanding a Brigade within a few miles
of City Point; and Thomas S. Flournoy, of Virginia, a
gentleman of distinguished ability, and well known personally to Mr. Lincoln. This gentleman, to my knowledge,. I stated, had reached the City the night before,
expecting to remain only a day or two, and hence his
leaving would give rise to no inquiry or comment.
To all these suggestions, both as to qualifications and
the persons possessing them, he yielded his ready assent,
and I supposed the whole matter would be thus arranged,
for I did not think the Cabinet would object to what Mr.
Davis so cordially approved. Our conversation-begun
on this subject and continued on others-lasted until the
arrival of the Cabinet was announced.
I heard nothing more of the matter until next day,
when being sent for again by the President, I then,
for the first time, learned that the result of the Cabinet
consultation the evening before, was, that the Conference
should be proposed, and that Mr. Hunter, Judge Campbell,
and myself should be the Commissioners. It is, perhaps,
unnecessary to say that I was very much surprised at
this. I urged and insisted upon the impropriety of myself and Mr. Hunter being on the Commission-especially myself, for my absence, as the Presiding Officer of
the Senate, would, of course, be noticed, and inquiries
would almost certainly be made as to where I was. The
same reason applied to some extent, though not to its
full, to Mr. Hunter, who was one of the most prominent
as well active members of the Senate; but the objection
applied with more than double force to the appointment
* Ex-Justice U. S. Supreme Court-the same whose name appears in
connection with the first Peace Commission at Washington.
594 
Co:. XXIII.] NOTE OF COMMISSIONERS TO GEN. GRANT. 595
of us both. For, in case of my absence barely, he, of
course, would take the Chair, as he was the President
pro tempore, and this might, perhaps, pass off without!
special notice; but for both of us to be absent at the same
time-an event which had never occurred-would necessarily create inquiries as to the cause of our absence.
The Rules of the Senate would have to be changed to
meet the case-a contingency that had not even been
provided for, and some satisfactory reason would have to
be given for an occurrence so extraordinary.
I, therefore, with great earnestness, insisted that this
arrangement should be abandoned, if anything was expected to be accomplished by it. My efforts to have it
changed, however, were of no avail. The President and
Cabinet persisted in the selection of the Commissioners,
which they had agreed upon; so in this instance, as in
the other referred to, my judgment was yielded to theirs.
The arrangement was, for the Commissioners to set
out the next day, by way of Petersburg. I urged upon
the President the importance of having it seen to, that no
allusion to the Commission should be published in the
City papers.
According to the arrangement stated, the Commissioners next day, the 29th of January, proceeded as far as
Petersburg.   There we  addressed  Lieutenant-General
Grant the letter of the 30th, which has been published,*
asking permission to cross the Federal lines. In reply,
we received from him a communication, dated at Head
Quarters, Army of the United States, January 31st 1865,
signed by him as Lieutenant-General, and addressed to
us at Petersburg. This has never yet been published,
so far as I know; and as it was upon this we passed the
Federal lines at Petersburg, I will read it:
*See Appendix R, No. 2 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
"Gentlemen: Your communication of yesterday, re questing an interview with myself, and a safe conduct to
Washington and return, is received.
"I will instruct the commanding officers of the forces
near Petersburg, notifying you at what part of the lines,
and the time when and where, conveyances will be ready
for you.
"Your letter to me has been telegraphed to Washington for instructions. I have no doubt that before you
arrive at my Head Quarters, an answer will be received,
directing me to comply with your request. Should a
different reply be received, I promise you a safe and immediate return within your own lines.
"Yours very respectfully."
In pursuance of this letter we were met on the evening
of the same day, at that part of the lines at which we
had, in the meantime, been notified to appear at 4 o'clock,
by an escort under the conduct of Lieutenant-Colonel
Babcock of General Grant's staff, and were conveyed by
railroad to City Point. Upon reaching that place we
were immediately taken to the Head Quarters of the
Commander-in-Chief. Here, for the first time, I met
General Grant himself.
MAJOR HEISTER. What impression did he make upon
you on first acquaintance? How did he compare with
General Lee in your estimation?
MR. STEPHENS. Why, sir, the idea of drawing a comparison between them, did not occur to me. I should
just as soon have thought of drawing a comparison
between Louis Napoleon and Washington. But in
answer to your question, as to what impression he made
upon me, I will say, in the first place, that I was never
so much disappointed in my life, in my previously
formed opinions, of either the personal al pearance or
596 
___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.: 4
~ 
I~. 
Col. XXIII.] FIRST MEETING WITH GENERAL GRANT. 597
bearing of any one, about whom I had read and heard so
much. The disappointment, moreover, was in every
respect favorable and agreeable. I was instantly struck
with the great simplicity and perfect naturalness of his
manners, and the entire absence of everything like
affectation, show, or even the usual military air or mien
of men in his position. He was plainly attired, sitting in
a log-cabin, busily writing on a small table, by a Kerosene
lamp. It was night when we arrived. There was
nothing in his appearance or surroundings which indicated
his official rank. There were neither guards nor aids
about him. Upon Colonel Babcock's rapping at his door,
the response, "Come in," was given by himself, in a tone
of voice, and with a cadence, which I can never forget.
His conversation was easy and fluent, without the
least effort or restraint. In this, nothing was so closely
noticed by me as the point and terseness with which he
expressed whatever he said. He did not seem either to
court or avoid conversation, but whenever he did speak,
what he said was directly to the point, and covered the
whole matter in a few  words.   I saw  before being
with him long, that he was exceedingly quick in perception, and direct in purpose, with a vast deal more of
brains than tongue, as ready as that was at his command.
We were here with General Grant two days, as the
correspondence referred to shows. He furnished us with
comfortable quarters on board one of his despatch boats.
The more I became acquainted with him, the more I
became thoroughly impressed with the very extraordinary
combination of rare elements of character which he
exhibited. During the time he met us frequently, and
conversed freely upon various subjects, not much upon
our mission. I saw, however, very clearly, that he was
very anxious for the proposed Conference to take place, 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.    [VOL. II.
and from all that was said I inferred-whether correctly
or not, I do not know-that he was fully apprised of its
proposed object. He was, without doubt, exceedingly
anxious for a termination of our war, and the return of
peace and harmony throughout the country.   It was
through his instrumentality mainly, that Mr. Lincoln
finally consented to meet us at Fortress Monroe, as the
correspondence referred to shows.
But in further response to your inquiry, I will add:
that upon the whole the result of this first acquaintance
with General Grant, beginning with our going to, and
ending with our return from Hampton Roads, was, the
conviction on my mind, that, taken all in all, he was one
of the most remarkable men I had ever met with, and
that his career in life, if his days should be prolonged,
was hardly entered upon; that his character was not yet
fully developed; that he himself was not aware of his
own power, and that if he lived, he would, in the future,
exert a controlling influence in shaping the destinies of
this country, either for good or for evil. Which it would
be, time and circumstances alone could disclose. That
was the opinion of him then formed, and it is the same
which has been uniformly expressed by me ever since.
This. Major Heister, is all I can now say in answer to
your question.
After Mr. Lincoln's telegram to him that he would
meet us at Fortress Monroe, which General Grant brought
to us himself, with evident indications of high gratification, he immediately started us on one of his despatch
boats. We reached the Roads in the evening of the
same day. We remained on board the steamer which
anchored near the Fort. Mr. Lincoln arrived in another
steamer during the night, which anchored not far off.
Mr. Seward, as is known, had been sent on a day or two
598 
HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
in advance. So much then for the first point as to the
objects, and how I became connected with this Conference.
2d. We come now to the Conference itself, and what
occurred at it.
The interview took place in the Saloon of the steamer,
on board of which were Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward,
and which lay at anchor near Fortress Monroe. The
Commissioners were conducted into the Saloon first. Soon
after, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward entered. After usual
salutations on the part of those who were previously
acquainted, and introductions of the others who had
never met before, conversation was immediately opened
by the revival of reminiscences and associations of former
days.
This was commenced by myself addressing Mr. Lincoln,
and alluding to some of the incidents of our Congressional
acquaintance-especially, to the part we had acted together in effecting the election of General Taylor in 1848.
To my remarks he responded in a cheerful and cordial
manner, as if the remembrance of those times, and our
connection with the incidents referred to, had awakened in
him a train of agreeable reflections, extending to others.
Mutual inquiries were made after the fate and well-being
of several who had been our intimate friends and active
associates in a "Congressional Taylor Club," well-known
at the time. I inquired especially after Mr. Truman
Smith, of Connecticut, and he after Mr. Toombs, William
Ballard Preston, Thomas S. Flournoy, and others. With
this introduction I said in substance: Well, Mr. President,
is there no way of putting an end to the present trouble,
and bringing about a restoration of the general good feeling and harmony then existing between the different
States and Sections of the country?
COL. XXILI.]
599 
CONS[ITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Mr. Seward said: It is understood, gentlemen, that
this is to be an informal Conference. There is to be no
clerk or secretary-no writing or record of anything that
is said. All is to be verbal.
I, speaking for the Commissioners, said that was our
understanding of it. To this all assented, whereupon I
repeated the question.
Mr. Lincoln in reply said, in substance, that there
was but one way that he knew of, and that was, for
those who were resisting the laws of the Union to cease
that resistance. All the trouble came from an armed
resistance against the National Authority.
But, said I, is there no other question that might
divert the attention of both Parties, for a time, from the
questions involved in their present strife, until the passions on both sides might cool, when they would be in
better temper to come to an amicable and proper adjustment of those points of difference out of which the present
lamentable collision of arms has arisen? Is there no
Continental question, said I, which might thus temporarily
engage their attention? We have been induced to believe that there is.
Mr. Lincoln seemed to understand my allusion instantly, and said in substance: I suppose you refer to
something that Mr. Blair has said. Now it is proper to
state at the beginning, that whatever he said was of his
own accord, and without the least authority from me.
When he applied for a passport to go to Richmond, with
certain ideas which he wished to make known to me, I
told him flatly that I did not want to hear them. If he
desired to go to Richmond of his own accord, I would
give him a passport; but he had no authority to speak
for me in any way whatever. When he returned and
brought me Mr. Davis's letter, I gave him the one to
600 
Coi,. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
which you alluded in your application for leave to cross
the lines. I was always willing to hear propositions for
peace on the conditions of this letter and on no other.
The restoration of the Union is a s/ne qua non with me,
and hence my instructions that no conference was to be
held except upon that basis.
From this I inferred that he simply meant to be understood, in the first place, as disavowing whatever Mr.
Blair had said as coming authoritatively from him; and,
in the second place, that no arrangement could be made
on the line suggested by Mr. Blair, without a previous
pledge or assurance being given, that the Union was to
be ultimately restored.
After a short silence, I continued: But suppose, Mr.
President, a line of policy should be suggested, which, if
adopted, would most probably lead to a restoration of
the Union without further bloodshed, would it not be
highly advisable to act on it, even without the absolute
pledge of ultimate restoration being required to be first
given? May not such a policy be found to exist in the
line indicated by the interrogatory propounded? Is there
not now such a Continental question in which all the
parties engaged in our present war feel a deep and similar interest? I allude, of course, to Mexico, and what is
called the "Monroe Doctrine,"-the principles of which
are directly involved in the contest now waging there.
From the tone of leading Northern papers and from
public speeches of prominent men, as well as from other
sources, we are under the impression that the Administration at Washington is decidedly opposed to the establishment of an Empire in Mexico by France, and is desirous to prevent it. In other words, they wish to sustain
the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, and that, as I understand it, is, that the United States will maintain the
601 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
right of Self-government to all Peoples on this Continent,
against the dominion or control of any European power.
Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward both concurred in the
expression of opinion that such was the feeling of a mar
jority of the people of the North.
Could not both Parties then, said I, in our contest,
come to an understanding and agreement to postpone
their present strife, by a suspension of hostilities between
themselves, until this principle is maintained in behalf
of Mexico; and might it not, when successfully sustained
there, naturally, and would it not almost inevitably, lead
to a peaceful and harmonious solution of their own difficulties?  Could any pledge now given, make a permanent
restoration or re-organization of the Union more probable,
or even so probable, as such a result would?
Mr. Lincoln replied with considerable earnestness, that
he could entertain no proposition for ceasing active
military operations, which was not based upon a pledge
first given, for the ultimate restoration of the Union.
He had considered the question of an Armistice fully, and
he could not give his consent to any proposition of that
sort, on the basis suggested.   The  settlement of our
existing difficulties was a question now of supreme importance, and the only basis on which he would entertain
a proposition for a settlement was the recognition and
re-establishment of the National Authority throughout
the land.
These pointed and emphatic responses seemed to put
an end to the Conference on the subject comtemplated in
our Mission, as we had no authority to give any such
pledge, even if we had been inclined to do so, nor was it
expected that any such would really be required to be
given.
Judge Campbell then inquired in what way the settle
602 
HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
ment for a restoration of the Union was to be made?
Supposing the Confederate States should consent to the
general terms as stated by Mr. Lincoln, how would the
re-establishment of the National Authority take place?
He wished to know something as to the details.
These inquiries were made by him upon the line agreed
upon by the Commissioners before, that if we failed in
securing an Armistice, we would then endeavor to
ascertain on what terms the Administration at Washington would be willing to end the war.
Mr. Seward said, he desired that any answer to Judge
Campbell's inquiries might be postponed, until the general
ideas advanced by me might be more fully developed, as
they had, as he expressed it, "a philosophical basis."
All seemed to acquiesce in this suggestion.
I then went quite at large into the development of my
views, which briefly stated in substance amounted to this:
That the Monroe Doctrine, as it was called, so far as it
commended itself to my favor, assumed the position, that
no European Power should impose Governments upon
any Peoples on this Continent against their will. This
principle of the Sovereign right of local Self-government,
was peculiarly and specially sacred to the people of the
United States, as well as to the people of the Confederate
States. It was the one on which all our Institutions, State
and National, were based. At that time, the Emperor of
France was attempting to violate this great principle,
which was so sacred alike to the Belligerents on both
sides of our contest. Now, if we could in any way agree
to suspend our present strife, for the maintenance and
vindication of this principle as to Mexico, might, and
would not, the result most probably be, not only the
allowance of time for the blood of our people on both
sides to cool towards each other, but the leading of the
COL. XXIII.]
603 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
public mind, on both sides, to a clearer understanding of
those principles which ought to constitute the basis of
the settlement of our own difficulties, and on which the
Union should be ultimately restored?
A settlement of the Mexican question in this way, it
seemed to me, would necessarily lead to a peaceful settlement of our own. I went on to give it as my opinion
that, whenever it should be determined anrid firmly established that this right of local Self-government is the
Principle on which all American Institutions rest and
shall be maintained, all the States might reasonably be
expected, very soon, to return, of their own accord, to
their former relations to the Union, just as they came
together at first by their own consent, and for their
mutual interests. Others, too, would continue to join it
in the future, as they had in the past.  This great law
of the System would effect the same certain results in its
organization, as the law of gravitation in the material
world.
In a word, I presented briefly, but substantially in outline, the same view of our system of Government, which
I gave you in one of our former conversations, and
showed how we might become, in deed and in truth, an
Ocean-bound Federal Republic, under the operation of
this Continental Regulator-tthe ultimate absolute Sovereignty of each State. This inherent and natural right
of all States and Peoples, to govern themselves as they
please, in my judgment, was not only the foundation
upon which our Institutions were based in the beginning,
but constituted the only sure ground of permanent peace
and harmony in all parts of the country, consistent with
the preservation of the liberties of each, even under a
re-organized Union of the States. This Mexican question, therefore, might, it seemed to me, afford a very
604 
COL. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
opportune occasion for reaching a proper solution of our
own troubles without any further effusion of fraternal
blood.
Mr. Seward said, in substance, that the ideas as presented had something specious about them in theory;
but, practically, no system of Government founded upon
them could be successfully worked. The Union could
never be restored or maintained on that basis. Suppose,
said he, a State under such a system, having within her
limits and jurisdiction an important point, or port on the
sea coast, should be induced by some foreign Power to
abandon the Union so sovereignly entered into, and after
setting herself up as an Independent Nation, should enter
into a treaty with such foreign Power at enmity, or even
at war with the other members of the Union-thus
giving their enemies an assumed rightful foothold in
their vicinity, and by which great and irreparable injuries might be inflicted upon them. Could this be
tolerated by them, for a moment? Suppose, for instance,
Louisiana, holding the mouth of the Mississippi, and
controlling the commerce of its immense Valley, and for
which the United States paid so much, should, as she
might, under this theory and doctrine, withdraw at
pleasure, and form an alliance with a foreign enemy ill
time of war. Could the United States tolerate, for a
moment, the recognition of any such right on her part?
Self-defence, if nothing else, would compel them to interfere, and prevent such withdrawal, and the formation of
such an alliance. Self-preservation is the first law of
Nature, which applies to Nations as well as to individuals. No Government could have any stability or
usefulness founded upon any such principle.
To this I replied, that it was not my purpose to do
more than present briefly the outlines of the basis on
605 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. 11
which a settlement should be made, and how the Mexican question could be made subservient in bringing the
public mind to that result. It was not my intention to
argue the general principles as matters of fact or feasible
theory. I granted that what he said was the legitimate
effect of the System with some limitations. But, said I,
in the supposed case of the State at the mouth of the
Mississippi; if her Confederates would so act towards
her as to make it her interest to remain in the Confederation, as it was when she joined it, she would never
think of leaving it, or forming any alliance with a foreign
inimical Power. She would abhor and spurn such an
idea if presented. The object of all such Unions is the
best interests of all the States composing them. This
was the object of our Union. It was this that caused its
formation. So long as this end is attained, there need
be no apprehension of Separation, or foreign alliance by
any of them; but if the other States so act toward any
one of their Confederates as to render it more to her
interest to be out of the Union than in it, then she ought
to quit it. The same doctrine stated by him, in reference
to all the States jointly, applied with equal force to each
State separately. Self-preservation is as much the first
law of Nature to any one of the States of the Union as
another or all the others combined.   The principle of
self-preservation applied to every State, singly, in all
such associations. It is only with a view to the better
securing of the self-preservation of each State separately,
that all such associations are formed.   It was true, I
admitted, if a State should wantonly, and without just
cause, quit any association of this sort, and form an
alliance with a foreign inimical Nation, and with hostile
intent, then that would, of course, be a just cause of war
on the part of her former Confederates. All that I
606 
COL. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
granted; but urged that, if perfect justice should be done
to thie State in the supposed case, the great law of selfpreservation and interest would restrain her from any
such course. This might be regarded as one of the most
immutable of those laws which regulate human societies
in their voluntary relations towards each other.
Dropping further remarks on that point, Mr. Seward
proceeded to inquire of me, something of the details of the
plan I had in view for effecting the proposed purpose.
What would be the general situation of affairs in the
meantime, especially in States where there were two sets
of Authorities-one recognized by the Confederate States
and one adhering to the National Government? How
would the laws be administered in the meantime in those
States? and how was the object suggested to be practically accomplished?
What he meant by presenting this question, after Mr.
Lincoln had virtually closed all further conference on
that subject, I did not perceive, but proceeded to answer
him in a general way, by stating that I had no fixed
plan, but there were several which might be suggested,
and stated one, amongst other ways, by which it might
be effected, The suggestions I made on this point, as of
my own accord, were the same which had been communicated to me as coming from Mr. Blair. The whole, I
said, could be easily arranged by a Military Convention.
This could be made to embrace, not only a supension of
actual hostilities on all the frontier lines, but also other
matters involving the execution of the laws in the States
referred to. Whatever disposition of troops on both sides
might be necessary for the purpose, could be easily
arranged in the same way. This Convention being known,
however, only to the Authorities at Richmond and Washington. All these matters of detail. I said, could be
607 
CONSTITUTION LI, VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
easily adjusted, if we should first determine upon an
Armistice for that purpose. If there was a will to do it,
a proper way could easily be made clear.
Mr. Hunter said, that there was not unanimity in the
South upon the subject of undertaking the maintenance
of the Monroe Doctrine, and it was not probable that any
arrangement could be made by which the Confederates
would agree to join in sending any portion of their Army
into Mexico. In this view he expressed the joint opinion
of the Commissioners; indeed, we had determined not
to enter into any agreement that would require the Confederate arms to join in any invasion of Mexico.
Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward stated that the feeling in
the North was very strong for maintaining the Monroe
Doctrine.
The conversation was again diverted from that view
of the subject by Mr. Lincoln. He repeated that he
could not entertain a proposition for all Armistice on
any terms, while the great and vital question of re-union
was undisposed of. That was the first question to be
settled. He could enter into no treaty, convention or
stipulation, or agreement with the Confederate States,
jointly or separately, upon that or any other subject, but
upon the basis first settled, that the Union was to be
restored. Any such agreement, or stipulation, would be
a quasi recognition of the States then in arms against
the National Government as a separate Power. That
he never could do.
I stated that as President, being Commander-in-Chief
of the Armies of the United States, he might, without
doubt, enter into a Military Convention. The arrangement suggested contemplated nothing but a Military
Convention between the two Parties at war. All that
was suggested could be easily effected in that way, if
there was a willingness on both sides.
608 
COL. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
- Mr. Lincoln admitted that a Military Convention could
be properly entered into by him as President for some
of the purposes proposed, but repeated his determination
to do nothing which would suspend military operations,
unless it was first agreed that the National Authority
was to be re-established throughout the country.
Judge Campbell now renewed his inquiry how restoration was to take place, supposing that the Confederate
States were consenting to it?
Mr. Lincoln replied; By disbanding their armies and
permitting the National Authorities to resume their
functions.
Mr. Seward interposed and said, that Mr. Lincoln
could not express himself more clearly or forcibly in
reference to this question, than he had done in his message to Congress in December before, and referred specially to that portion in these words:
" In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance
to the National Authority, on the part of the insurgents,
as the only indispensable condition to ending the war on
the part of the Government, I retract nothing heretofore
said as to Slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year
ago, that,' while I remain in my present position, I shall
not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation
Proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person
who is free by the terms of that Proclamation, or by any
of the Acts of Congress.' If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to reenslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their
instrument to perform it.
"In stating a single condition of peace, I mean simply
to say that the war will cease on the part of the Government whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those
who began it."
39
609 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF T'HE WAR.  [VOL. II.
After referring to this and stating its substance from
memory, Mr. Seward went on to illustrate the meaning,
by saying that the war would cease whenever the civil
officers of the Federal Government should be permitted
to discharge their duties under the laws of the United
States-in other words whenever the due execution of
the laws of the United States should be submitted to in
the Confederate States.
Judge Campbell said that the war had necessarily
given rise to questions which must, it seemed to him,
require stipulation or agreement of some sort, or assurances of some sort, which ought to be adjusted understandingly, before a harmonious restoration of former
relations could properly be made.  He alluded to the
disbandment of the army, which would require time, and
the disposition of its supplies. Hle alluded to the Confiscation Acts on both sides, and stated that property had
been sold under them, and the title would be affected by
the facts existing when the war ended, unless provided
fbr by stipulations.
Mr. Seward replied, that as to all questions involving
rights of property, the courts would determine; and that
Congress would, no doubt, be liberal in making restitution
of confiscated property, Qr providing indemnity, after the
excitement of the times had passed off.
I asked Mr. Lincoln what would be the status of that
portion of the Slave population in the Confederate States,
which had not then become free under his Proclamation;
or in other words, what effect that Proclamation would
have upon the entire Black population?  Would it be
held to emancipate the whole, or only those who had, at
the time the war ended, become actually free under it?
Mr. Lincoln said, that was a judicial question. iHowv
the Courts would decide it, he did not know, and could
610 
COL. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
give no answer. ilis own opinion was, that as the
Proclamation was a war meu)-e, and would have effect
only from its being an exercise of the war power, as soon
as the war ceased, it would be inoperative for the future.
It would be held to apply only to such slaves as had come
under its operation while it was in active exercise. This
was his individual opinion, but the Courts might decide
the other way, and hold that it effectually emancipated
all the slaves in the States to which it applied at the
time. So far as he was concerned, he should leave it to
the Courts to decide. lie never would change or modify
the terms of the Proclamation in the slightest parcular.
Mr. Seward said there were only about two hundred
thousand slaves, who, up to that time, had come under the
actual operation of the Proclamation, and who were then
in the enjoyment of their freedom under it; so, if the war
should then cease, the 81u8 of much the larger portion
of the slaves would be subject to judicial construction.
Mr. Lincoln sustained Mr. Seward as to the number of
slaves who were then in the actual enjoyment of their
freedom under the Proclamation. Mr. Seward also said,
it might be proper to state to us, that Congress,adayor
two before, had proposed a Constitutional Amendment* for
the immediate abolition of slavery throughout the United
* Be it i?e8oltc by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Uit((/
Sties in Comgess assembled: That the folwing article be proposed to
the Legislatures of the several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said
ARTICLE XIII.
SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
611 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
States, which he produced and read to us from a newspaper. He said this was done as a war measure. If the
war were then to cease, it would probably not be adopted
by a number of States, sufficient to make it a part of the
Constitution; but presented the case in such light as
clearly showed his object to be, to impress upon the
minds of the Commissioners that, if the war should not
cease, this, as a war measure, would be adopted by a
sufficient number of States to become a part of the Constitution, and without saying it in direct words, left the
inference very clearly to be perceived by the Commissioners that his opinion was, if the Confederate
States would then abandon the war, they could of themselves defeat this amendment, by voting it down as
members of the Union. The whole number of States,
it was said, being thirty-six, any tenl of them could defeat
this proposed amendment.
I inquired how this matter could be adjusted, without
some understanding as to what position the Confederate
States would occupy towards the others, if they were
then to abandon the war.   Would they be admitted to
representation in Congress?
Mr. Lincoln very promptly replied, that his own
individual opinion was, they ought to be. He also
thought they would be; but he could not enter into any
stipulation upon the subject. His own opinion was, that
when the resistance ceased and the National Authority
was recognized,.the States would be immediately restored
to their practical relations to the Union. This was a
form of expression repeatedly used by him during the
conversation, in speaking of the restoration of the Union.
He spoke of it as a'restoration of the States to their
practical relations to the Union."
Upon my urg,ing, the importance of some understanding
612 
COL. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
on this point, even in case the Confederate States should
entertain the proposition of a return to the Union, he
persisted in asserting that he could not enter into any
agreement upon this subject, or upon any other matters
of that sort, with parties in arms against the Government.
Mr. HIunter interposed, and in illustration of the propriety of the Executive entering into agreements with
persons in arms against the acknowledged rightful public
authority, referred to repeated instances of this character
between Charles I, of England, and the people in arms
against him.
Mr. Lincoln in reply to this said: I do not profess to
be posted in history. On all such matters I will turn
you over to Seward. All I distinctly recollect about the
case of Charles I, is, that he lost his head in the end.
This was the familiar manner in which Mr. Lincoln,
throughout the conversation spoke of and to Mr. Seward.
In the same familiar manner he addressed me throughout,
as was his custom with all his intimate acquaintances
when in Congress.
I insisted that if he could, as a war measure, issue his
Proclamation for Emancipation, which he did not venture
to justify under the Constitution on any other grounds,
he could certainly, as a like war measure, or as a measure
for putting an end to the war rather, enter intb some
stipulation on this subject.
He then went into a prolonged course of remarks about
the Proclamation. He said it was not his intention in
the beginning to interfere with Slavery in the States;
that he never would have done it, if he had not been
compelled by necessity to do it, to maintain the Union;
that the subject presented many difficult and perplexing
questions to him; that he had hesitated for some time,
and had resorted to this measure, only when driven to it
613 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
by public necessity; that he had been in favor of the
General Government prohibiting the extension of Slavery
into the Territories, but did not think that that Government possessed power over the subject in the States,
except as a war measure; and that he had always
himself been in favor of emancipation, but not immediate emancipation, even  by  the  States.   Many  evils
attending this appeared to him.
After pausing for some time, his head rather bent
down, as if in deep reflection, while all were silent, he
rose up and used these words, almost, if not, quite
identical:
Stephens, if I were in Georgia, and entertained the
sentiment- I do-though, I suppose, I should not be permitted to stay there long with them; but if I resided in
Georgia, with my present sentiments, I'll tell you what
I would do, if I were in your place: I would go home
and get the Governor of the State to call the Legislature
together, and get them to recall all the State troops from
the war; elect Senators and Members to Congress, and
ratify this Constitutional Amendment prospectively, so as
to take effect-say in five years. Such a ratification
would be valid in my opinion. I have looked into the
subject, and think such a prospective ratification would
be valid. Whatever may have been the views of your
people before the war, they must be convinced now, that
Slavery is doomed. It cannot last long in any event,
and the best course, it seems to me, for your public men
to pursue, would be to adopt such a policy as will avoid,
as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation.
This would be my course, if I were in your place.
Mr. Seward also indulged in remarks at considerable
length on the progress of the Anti-Slavery sentiment of
the country, and stated that what he had thought would
614 
COL. XXIII.] HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
require forty or fifty years of agitation to accomplish,
would certainly be attained in a much shorter time.
Judge Campbell inquired of Mr. Seward if he thought,
that agitation upon the subject of the political relations
between the two races would cease upon the emancipation of the Blacks-the point to which heretofore it had
been entirely confined.
Mr. Seward replied, perhaps not, or possibly not.
Other matters were then talked over relating to the
evils of immediate emancipation, if that policy should be
pressed, especially the sufferings which would necessarily
attend the old and the infirm, as well as the women and
children, who were unable to support themselves. These
were filly admitted by Mr. Lincoln, but in reference to
them, in that event, he illustrated all he could say by
telling the anecdote, which has been published in the
papers, about the Illinois farmer and his hogs.* The
conversation then took another turn.
Mr. Hunter inquired of Mr. Lincoln, what would be
* Mr. Lincoln had a wonderful talent for illustrations of this sort.
His genius for Anecdotes was fully equal, if not superior, to that of ]Esop
for Apologues or Fables. They were his chief resort in conveying his
ideas upon almost every question. His resources for producing them,
seemed to be inexhaustible, and they were usually exceedingly pointed,
apt, and telling in their application. The one on this occasion was far
from being entitled to a place on a list of his best and most felicitous
hits of this character.  The substance of it was this
An Illinois farmer was congratulating himself with a neighbor upon
a great discovery he had made, by which he would economize much time
and labor in gathering and taking care of the food crop for his hogs, as
well as trouble in looking after and feeding them during the winter.
"What is it?" said the neighbor.
"Why, it is," said the farmer, "to plant plenty of potatoes, and
when they are mature, without either digging or housing them, turn the
hogs in the field and let them get their own food as they want it.)"
"But," said the neighbor, "how will they do when the winter comes
and the ground is bard frozen?"
"  Well," said the farmer, "let'em root!"
615 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
the result of a restoration of the Union, according to his
idea, as to Western Virginia. Would the " Old Dominion"
be restored to her ancient boundaries, or would Western
Virginia be recognized as a State in the restored Union?
Mr. Lincoln said he could only give an individual
opinion, which was, that Western Virginia would be continued to be recognized as a separate State in the Union.
Mr. Hunter after this went into a sort of recapitulation
of the subjects talked over in the interview, and the
conclusions which seemed to be logically deducible from
them; which amounted to nothing as a basis of peace, in
his judgment, but an unconditional surrender on the part
of the Confederate States and their people. There could
be no agreement, no treaty, nor even any stipulations as
to terms-nothing but unconditional submission. A good
deal of force was given to the points in this summation
by the tone in which the whole was expressed.
Mr. Seward promptly replied by insisting that no
words like unconditional submission had been used, or
any importing, or justly implying degradation, or humiliation even, to the people of the Confederate States. He
wished this to be borne in mind.
Mr. Hunter repeated his view of the subject.  What
else could be made of it? No treaty, no stipulation, no
agreement, either with the Confederate States jointly, or
with them separately, as to their future position or
security! What was this but unconditional submission
to the mercy of conquerors?
Mr. Seward said they were not conquerors further
than they required obedience to the laws. The force
used was simply to maintain National Authority in the
execution of laws.  Nor did he think that in yielding to
the execution of the laws under the Constitution of the
United States, with all its guarantees and securities for
616 
CoL. XXIII.]  HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.
personal and political rights, as they might be declared to
be by the Courts, could be properly considered as unconditional submission to conquerors, or as having anything
humiliating in it. The Southern people and the Southern
States would be under the Constitution of the United
States, with all their rights secured thereby, in the same
way, and through the same instrumentalities, as the
similar rights of the people of the other States were.
Mr. Hunter said: But you make no agreement that
these rights will be so held and secured!
Mr. Lincoln said that so far as the Confiscation Acts,
and other penal acts, were concerned, their enforcement
was left entirely with him, and on that point he was
perfectly willing to be full and explicit, and on his
assurance perfect reliance might be placed. He should
exercise the power of the Executive with the utmost
liberality. He went on to say that he would be willing
to be taxed to remunerate the Southern people for their
slaves.   He believed the people of the North were as
responsible for slavery as the people of the South, and if
the war should then cease, with the voluntary abolition
of slavery by the States, he should be in favor, individually,
of the Government paying a fair indemnity for the loss to
the owners. He said he believed this feeling had an
extensive existence at the North. He knew some who
were in favor of an appropriation as high as Four Hundred
Millions of Dollars for this purpose.  I could mention persons, said he, whose names would astonish you, who are
willing to do this, if the war shall now cease without
further expense, and with the abolition of slavery as
stated. But on this subject he said he could give no
assurance- enter into no stipulation.   He  barely expressed his own feelings and views, and what he believed
to be the views of others upon the subject.
6,17 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Mr. Seward said, that the Northern people were weary
of the war. They desired peace and a restoration of
harmony, and he believed would be willing to pay as an
indemnity for the slaves, what would be required to continue the war, but stated no amount.
After thus going through with all these matters, in a conversation of about four hours, of which I have given you
only the prominent leading points, and these in substance
only, there was a pause, as if all felt that the interview
should close. I arose and stated that it seemed our
mission would be entirely fruitless, unless we could do
something in the matter of the Exchange of Prisoners.
This brought up that subject.
Mr. Lincoln expressed himself in favor of doing something on it, and concluded by saying that he would put
the whole matter in the hands of General Grant, then at
City Point, with whom we could interchange views on
our return. Some propositions were then made for immnediate special exchanges, which were readily agreed to.
I then said: I wish, Mr. President, you would re-consider the subject of an Armistice on the basis which has
been suggested. Great questions, as well as vast interests,
are involved in it. If, upon so doing, you shall change
your mind, you can make it known through the Military.
Well, said he, as he was taking my hand for a farewell
leave, and with a peculiar manner very characteristic of
him: Well, Stephens, I will re-consider it, but I do not
think my mind will change, but I will re-consider.
The two parties then took formal and friendly leave
of each other, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward withdrawing
first from the saloon together. Col. Babcock, our escort,
soon came in to conduct us back to the steamer on which
we came.
During the interview, no person entered the saloon
618
I 
COL. XXIII.] UNSUCCESSFUL ISSUE OF THE MISSION.  619
besides the parties named, except a colored servwant or
steward, who came in occasionally to see if anything
was wanted, and to bring in water, cigars, and other
refreshments.
This is as full and accurate an account as I can now
give of the origin, the objects, and conduct of this Conference, from its beginning to its end. In giving it, as
stated before, I have not undertaken to do more than to
present substantially, what verbally passed between all
the parties therein mentioned.
At City Point we again had an interview with Gen.
Grant. He evidently regretted very much that nothing
had been accomplished by the Conference. The subject
of the Exchange of Prisoners was then mentioned to
him, and what Mr. Lincoln said about it, when he expressed a like willingness for an immediate and general
Exchange. That subject was then left with him and
our Commissioner of Exchange, Col. Ould. Thus ended
this Mission.
3d. It now remains according to the order prescribed, to
say something of its results. A consideration of these
will necessarily bring us to the close of the war, for the
end was now rapidly approaching.
On the return of the Commissioners to Richmond,
everybody was very much disappointed, and no one
seemed to be more so than Mr. Davis. He thought Mr.
Lincoln had acted in bad faith in the matter, and attributed this change in his policy to the fall of Fort Fisher, in
North Carolina, which occurred on the 15th of January,
after Mr. Blair's first visit to Richmond. The fall of this
Fort was one of the greatest disasters which had befallen
our Cause from the beginning of the war-not excepting
the loss of Vicksburg or Atlanta. Forts Fisher and
Caswell guarded the entrance to the Cape Fear River, 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
and prevented the complete blockade of the port of Wil mington, through which a limited Foreign Commerce had
been carried on during the whole time. It was by means
of what cotton could thus be carried out, that we had been
enabled to get along financially, as well as we had; and
at this point also, a considerable number of arms and
various munitions of war, as well as large supplies of
subsistence, had been introduced. All other ports, except
Wilmington, had long since been closed by Naval siege.
Forts Jackson and St. Philip, which guarded the mouth
of the Mississippi and the entrance to New Orleans, had
been captured in March, 1862. Fort Pulaski, at the
mouth of the Savannah, had fallen on the 12th of April,
in the same year; and Fort Macon in North Carolina, a
month or two earlier. Forts Gaines, Powell, and Morgan,
at Mobile, had also fallen in August, 1863. Fort Sumter
at Charleston, it is true, had still held out, and had never
been taken, but the harbor there had been virtually
closed by a strict blockade; so that the closing of the
port of Wilmington was the complete shutting out of the
Confederate States from all intercourse by sea with
Foreign Countries. The respiratory functions of External Trade, so essential to the vitality of all Communities,
had been performed for the whole Confederacy, mainly,
for nearly three years, through the small aperture of this
little Port, choked to wheezing as it was, by a cordon
of armed ships, drawn around its neck. The passing in
and out of necessary Commerce at this place, all the
time, was very much like breathing through a quill in
extreme cases of quinsy or croup; still, as such breathing
often saves life, so this channel of External Trade was
of the utmost importance to us at that time. The closing
of this Port, therefore, and the great advantage against
us secured by it, was what Mr. Davis supposed to be the
620 
ITS FAILURE CONSIDERED.
cause of a change of policy on the part of the Administration at Washington.
We reported to him, verbally, all that had occurred at
the Conference, and much more minutely in detail than
I have given it to you. In this report to him, I gave it
as my opinion, that if he were not himself mistaken as to
Mr. Blair's knowledge of the policy of the Administration
at Washington, and of his being in its confidence; in
other words, if there was really at that time, entertained
by Mr. Lincoln, any such views as those suggested by
Mr. Blair, I was not at all disappointed myself at the
result of the interview at Fortress Monroe. I thought
the publicity of the Mission was enough to account for
its failure, without attributing it to any bad faith, either
on the part of Mr. Blair or Mr. Lincoln; that I had
expressed the opinion to Judge Campbell and Mr. Hunter,
when we saw our departure announced in the papers as
it was, (the whole North being in a stir upon the subject
by the time we reached City Point,) that this would
most probably defeat our accomplishing anything, even
if Mr. Lincoln really intended to do anything on that
line; and that it was in this view of the subject solely, I
had made the request of him, at the close of the interview, to r econsider the matter of the Armistice.
I called Mr. Davis's attention specially to the fact, that
in reply to that request Mr. Lincoln declared he would
9-econsider it; and notwithstanding the qualification with
which he made the declaration, yet I thought if there
ever had beenil really anything in the projet, Mr. Davis
would still hear from it in a quiet way through the
Military, after all the then'" hubbub" about Peace Negotiations had subsided.* In this view of the subject, I
* Not long afterwards, Gen. Ord, of the Federal Army, in command
below Richmond, did approach Gen. Longstreet, commanding on the
COL. XXIII.]
C>2 1 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
gave it to him as my opinion, that there should be no
written report by the Commissioners touching the Conference, especially as a full disclosure of its real objects
could not, with propriety, then be made; and that any
report without this, however consistent with the facts, as
far as they should be set forth, would fail to give full
information upon the exact posture of the affairs to which
it related, by which the public mind in reference to it
would be more or less misled.
He insisted that a written report should be made, and
the other Commissioners concurring with him, I  again
yielded my views on that point, and joined them in the
Report * which you have seen, believing, as I did, that if
I declined, more harm would certainly result from a
misconstruction of my course and reasons in the matter,
than would by conforming to his views and those of my
Colleagues.
The question then was, what was next to be done?
Mr. Davis's position was, that inasmuch as it was now
settled beyond question, by the decided and pointed
declarations of Mr. Lincoln, that there could be no Peace
short of Uiiconditional Sub)inssion on the part of the
People of the Confederate States, with an entire change
of their Social Fabric throughout the South, the People
Confederate side, with a proposition for a Military Convention of some
sort, and stated that it could be entered into if Gen. Lee should be
clothed with proper authority, etc. Whether this came from the promised r'econsideration or not, the author does not know.
Of the nature of this proposition or its objects, he knows nlothing,
except what was published in the papers. It was responded to, as thus
appeared, by Gen. Lee being clothed with authority, under instructions,
to treat with Gen. Grant upon the subject of Peace!
Gen. Grant replied, that he had no authority to treat upon the question of Peace, or to enter into a Convention on any subject which was
not strictly of a Military character, and that Gen. Ord must have
referred to some subject on which he (Gen. Grant) was authorized to act.
* See Appendix R, No. 1.
622 
CoL. XXIII.] MR. DAVIS'S SPEECH AT AFRICAN CHURCHI. 623
ought to be, and could be, more thoroughly aroused by
Appeals through the Press and by Public Addresses, to
the full consciousness of the necessity of renewed and
more desperate efforts, for the preservation of themselves
and their Institutions. By these means they might yet
be saved from the most humiliating threatened degradation. In these lay the only hope left of escaping such a
Calamity. He himself seemed more determined than ever
to fight it out on this line, and to risk all upon the issue.
By the course he proposed, I understood him to hold
the opinion, that Richmond could still be defended, notwithstanding Sherman had already made considerable
progress on his march from Savannah; and that our
Cause could still be successfully maintained, without any
change in the internal policy upon the subjects referred
to before. His general views and purposes at the time,
were set forth with that firmness and decision so characteristic of him, in the Message* he sent to Congress on
the Report of the Commissioners, and in a speech he
made at the African Church, (a noted place for public
speaking in the City of Richmond,) on the night of the
second day after our return. The newspaper sketches
of that speech were meagre, as well as inaccurate, in
several particulars, and, upon the whole, came far short
of so presenting its substance even, as to give those who
did not hear it anything like an adequate conception of
its full force and power. It was not only bold, undaunted, and confident in its tone, but had that loftiness
of sentiment and rare form of expression, as well as
magnetic influence in its delivery, by which the passions
of the masses of the people are moved to their profoundest
depths, and roused to the highest pitch of excitement.
Many who had heard this Master of Oratory in his most
*See Appendix R, No. 1. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF TIlE WAR.  [VOL. II.
brilliant displays in the Senate and on the hustings, said
they never before saw Mr. Davis so really majestic!
The occasion, and the effects of the speech, as well as all
the circumstances under which it was made, caused the
minds of not a few to revert to like appeals by Rienzi and
Demosthenes.
While it was well calculated to awaken associations and
suggest comparisons of that sort, it, nevertheless by the
character of its policy, equally reminded me of the famous
charge of the "Six Hundred" at Balaklava, of which some
one-I forget who-in witnessing it, said, in substance:
"It is brilliant; it is grand; but it is not war!"
However much I admired the heroism of the sentiments
expressed, yet in his general views of policy to be pursued
in the then situation, I could not concur.  I saw nothing
to prevent Sherman himself from proceeding right on to
Richmond and attacking Lee in the rear, to say nothing
of any movements by Grant, who then had an Army in
front, of not much, if any, under 200,000 men. Lee's
forces were not over one fourth of that number. Sherman's army, when united with Schofield's and Terry's,
which were joining him from Wilmington, North Carolina,
would be swelled to near 100,000. To meet these, the
Confederates had in his front nothing but the fragments
of shattered armies, amounting in all to not one half the
number of the Federals.
When the progamme of action, thus indicated by Mr.
Davis in our interviews, as well as in his Message and the
speech referred to, was clearly resolved upon, I, then, for
the first time, in view of all the surroundings, considered
the Cause as utterly hopeless. It may be that it was
utterly hopeless any how; that nothing could have saved
it at that time, or at any time. It may be that if the
course which I thought would or could then save it, or
624 
COL. XXIII.] LAST INTERVIEW WITH MR. DAVIS.
would or could have saved it at any time, had been
adopted, it would have come as far short of success, as the
one which was pursued; and it may be, that the one
which was taken on this occasion, as well as on all the
other occasions, on which I did not agree, was the very
best that could have been taken.   These are now all
matters purely of speculation, as I said before; and it is
not my purpose at this time to discuss them, or to pass
any judgment in reference to them, one way or the other.
I doubt not that all-the President, the Cabinet, and
Congress-did the very best they could, from their own
convictions of what was best to be done at the time.
The ablest and truest men often differ upon vital ques tions; and all are liable to err in judgment. I wish,
therefore, in all I say on this occasion touching these and
kindred subjects, as well as what I say in relation to the
conduct of others in regard to them, to be understood as
only presenting the views from which my own convictionls sprung, and the motives by which I was actuated
throughout, especially in declining, as I did, to appear
and speak at the meeting which was addressed by Mr.
Davis as stated, and also at another Grand Meeting
arranged to take place a few days after, in Capitol Square,
for similiar purposes. I declined, because I could not
undertake to impress upon the minds of the people the
idea that they could do what I believed to be impossible,
or to inspire in them hopes which I did not believe could
ever be realized.
It was then that I withdrew from Richmond. My last
interview with Mr. Davis before leaving, was after my
thus declining to address the meetings proposed. He inquired what it was my purpose to do? I told him it was
to go hojne and remain there. I should neither make any
speech, nor even make known to the public in any way
40
625 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
my views of the general condition of affairs, but quietly
abide the issues of fortune, whatever they might be.
Differing as we did, at that time, upon these points, as we
had upon others, we parted in the same friendship which
had on all occasions marked our personal intercourse.
I left Richmond in no ill-humor with Mr. Davis, or
with any purpose of opposing or obstructing the execution of the designs of the Administration, in any way;
but because I could not sanction a Policy which I thought
would certainly end in disaster, and I did not wish to be
where my opinions might, by possibility, be the cause of
divisions and dissensions, which would just as certainly
lead to the same result.  General confidence in the
Administration was essential to success on any line, and
this I did not wish to weaken or impair in others at this
most critical juncture, though I could not, myself, approve the course which had been taken. I, therefore,
left on the 9th of February, and reached home the 20th,
where I remained in perfect retirement, until I was
arrested on the 11th of May.
In the meantime was enacted the last scenes in the
Grand Drama of this terrible conflict of arms, which we
have so rapidly glanced at, in considering the conflict of
the principles out of which it arose. Only a few matters
now, connected with its closing events, on the same line,
remain to be noticed.
Mr. George Davis, of North Carolina, had succeeded
Mr. Thomas H. Watts as Attorney-General. Mr. George
A. Trenholm, of South Carolina, had been put at the head
of the Treasury Department, upon the resignation of Mr.
Memminger, in June, 1864. Mr. Seddon, also, who had
succeeded Mr. Randolph, as Secretary of War, resigned
that position about the time I left Richmond. This position was immediately assigned to Mr. Breckinridge, then a
Major-General.
626 
COL. XXIII.] THE SHERMAN-JOHNSTON CONVENTION. 627
After Sherman had proceeded in his famous march
beyond Columbia, leaving a blackened waste in his track,
and when our affairs were "in extremis"-almost "in
articulo mnortis"-Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, upon the
earnest appeal of Members of Congress and the Virginia
Legislature, was again assigned to the command of the
remnants of the shattered Confederate Armies alluded to,
in the Carolinas, which did not exceed 35,000 effective
men in all. With these he was to oppose the advancing Federal forces in front of not much, if any, under a
hundred thousand.
Grant commenced operations as early as the season
would permit. On the 2d of April, he succeeded, by a
concentration of forces, in making breaches in Lee's lines
of' defence near Petersburg. The whole line for the
defence of the Capital then extended at least thirty-five
miles in length. By these breaches, made in this line on
the 2d of April, Lee was necessarily compelled to retire,
and thus give up Richmond  at last.  Several bloody
and heroic struggles ensued. The remaining thinned,
but resolute and undaunted columns of the noble Confederate Chief, like the Spartan band at Thermopyle, were
now pressed to a death-grapple by the surrounding legions
of the Monster Army of the Potomac under Grant. The
tragic finale was at hand! On the 9th of April, at Appomattox Court House, the sword of Lee was surrendered!
Not much else pertaining to the "annihilated" Army of
Northern Virginia, was left to be passed under the formula of that ceremony!*
Mr. Davis and his Cabinet had left Richmond on the
night of the 2d of April, after Lee's lines were thus
broken, as stated. They went as far as Danville, Virginia,
where they remained for several days, and where Mr.
* See Correspondence on Surrender, Appendix S, No. 1. 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Davis issued another most stirring and animating  address; but after being informed of what had occurred at
Appomattox Court House, he and the Cabinet proceeded
to Greensboro, North Carolina, where some days afterwards, in consultation with Generals Johnston and Beauregard and his Cabinet, Gen. Johnston was authorized
by him, to make such terms as he might be able with
Gen. Sherman, for a Termination of the war, and a general Pacification. The result of this was the celebrated
Sherman and Johnston Convention, wvhich was formally
agreed to and signed on the 18th of April, by these two
commanding Generals of the respective sides.*
But while these distinguished parties were thus negotiating, little did they know of what had occurred and
was going on elsewhere. Four days before, on the night
of the 14th of April, Mr. Lincoln had been assassinated,
which produced a state of feeling never before known in
the country. The Vice President, Mr. Andrew Johnson,
immediately succeeded to the Presidential office. From
the great excitement created by the horrible act, by
which Mr. Lincoln had been taken off, or from some
other most unfortunate cause, this Sherman-Johnston
Convention was disapproved by the newly installed President at Washington.
Upon being notified of this fact by Gen. Sherman, Gen.
Johnston then did the next best thing in his power.
He entered into a stipulation with Gen. Sherman, by
which he surrendered all the Confederate forces north of
the Chattahoochee River, upon similar terms to those
agreed to between Generals Lee and Grant, in reference
to the forces under Gen. Lee.t
The course of Gen. Johnston was promptly followed
* See this Paper in Appendix S, No. 2.
t See Terms of Surrender, Appendix S, No. 3.
628 
COL. XXIII.] MILITARY FORCE ON RESPECTIVE SIDES. 629
by Gen. "Dick" Taylor commanding in Alabama, who
surrendered his forces to General Edward R. S. Canby,
upon similar terms on the 4th of May. A like surrender
of all the Confederate forces west of the Mississippi, was
made by Gen. E. Kirby Smith, to the same Federal officer,
on the 26th of the same month. All other smaller detachments of Confederate forces scattered about in various
parts of the country, had, in the meantime, been surrendered by their officers in command, upon the same or
similar terms. Kirby Smith's surrender'was the last.
The whole number of Confederates thus surrendered,
from the 9th of April to the 25th of May, according to
the muster rolls, amounted to a little under 175,000 in
number.   This embraced  quite a number who, from
disease, were not actively in the field at the time.
Making due allowance for these, there was, therefore,
then, hardly more than 150,000 Confederates under
arms. The whole number of Federal forces then in the
field, and afterwards mustered out of service, as their
records show, amounted in round numbers to 1,050,000.
Thus ended this greatest of mnodern wars-if not the
greatest, in some respects, "known in the history of the
human race." It lasted four years, and a little over, as
we have seen, marked throughout by many sanguinary
conflicts, with heroic exploits on both sides, which it has
not been in the line of our investigation to notice, but all
of which deserve to be, if they have not been, duly
chronicled in proper place. Even in memory, many of
them will be perpetuated as legends, and thus treasured
as themes for story and song for ages to come.
One of the most striking features in it, was the great
disparity between the number of the forces on the opposite sides. From its beginning to its end, near, if not
quite, two millions more Federals were brought into the 
0 CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL.II.I
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
field than the entire force of the Confederates.   The
Federal records show that they had, from first to last,
over 2,600,000 men in the service; while the Confederates,
all told in like manner, could not have much, if any,
exceeded 600,000! No People on earth ever maintained
the great Right of Self-government, so long as the Confederates did in this contest, with such sacrifices of blood
and treasure, against such odds!
The entire loss on both sides, including those who
were permanently disabled, as well as those killed in
battle and who died from wounds received and diseases
contracted in the service, amounted, according to Mr.
Greeley's estimate, which is more likely to be under than
over the mark, to the "stupendous aggregate of One
Million of Men!"
The like aggregate of expenditure of money on both
sides, including the loss and sacrifice of property, could
not have been less than  Eight Thoutsand Millions of
Dollars!-a sum fully equal to three-fourths of the assessed value of the taxable property of the entire country,
when it commenced!
In concluding our Review, may we not well ask, as
the dying soldier did in the first great battle on the
Plains of Manassas: "What was all this for?"
It remains for us now to see what it has so far come
to. This subject has been set down for our next conver
sation.
630 
COLLOQUY XXIV.
RESULTS OF THE WAR-REFUSAL OF MR. JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE SHERE
MAN-JOHNSTON  CONYENTION-EFFECTS  OF  THIS-THE  PRESIDENT' S
POLICY-THE RECONSTRUCTION POLICY OF CONGRES-THE XIYTH AMEND MENT TO THE CONSTITUTION-GENERAL SITUATION OF THE SOUTH CONDITION OF THINGS IN GEORGIA-GOVERNOR BROWN'S POSITION-THE
ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE WAR THUS FAR-THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY THE ADOPTION OF THE XIIITH AMENDMENT, BUT NO ESSENTIAL FEATURE
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AS YET AFFECTED-TENDENCIES TO ULTIMATE
CENTRALISM AND EMPIRE.
MR. STEPHENS. We come now, gentlemen, to the consideration of the Results of this terrible Conflict of arms,
which grew out of the Conflict of Principles referred to
in the beginning, especially its effects upon the general
character of the Institutions of the States severally, as
well as upon the nature and character of their relations
to the Union, or upon the Federal System itself. This
double conflict, both in the council-chamber and on the
field, we have seen, was between the defenders of the
Principles of Federation on one side, and the advocates
of Consolidation on the other; or in other words, between
the defenders and opposers of the Sovereign Right of
local Self-governmhent on the part of the Peoples of the
several States engaged in it.
In considering these Results in this view, up to this
time, we can, of course, at present, only note existing
facts, and actual changes already effected, sQ far as they
bear upon State and Federal affairs; and in connection
with them, indulge such speculations as to the future, as
these facts seem most reasonably to warrant. The real
631
11 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
and permanent results of this War upon our Institutions,
and complex system of Governments, are not yet fully
developed.   Though  Peace has been proclaimed,  the
smoke from the battle fields still clouds the horizon.
President Johnson himself seems to be almost as much
in the dark, upon what will be the ultimate consequences
of the War, as he was when, as Senator, he offered the
celebrated Resolution which we have specially noticed,
declaring its objects and purposes. As he then did not
"see his way clearly," so, at the surrender of the Confederate Armies, he seemed to -be quite as incapable of
having a clear perception of the legitimate consequences
which necessarily and logically followed the doctrines
and principles of that Resolution. According to these
doctrines and principles, which expressly set forth the
objects of the War on the Federal side not to be a subjugation of the Peoples of the Confederate States, nor for the
purpose of overthrowing or interfering with their Rights
or established Institutions, but to preserve the Union of
the States with all their Dignity, Equality and Rights
unimpaired, as they then existed under the Constitution,*
he ought by all means, it seems to me, as President,
to have ratified and confirmed the "Sherman-Johnston
Convention," before alluded to. This, as its terms show,t
was a complete abandonment of the War, and a formal
engagement on the part of the Confederates, no longer
to resist the due execution of the laws of the United
States. This engagement, as we have seen, had been
entered into on the part of the Confederates, in pursuance
of authority from President Davis, Commander-in-Chief
of the Armies of the Confederate States.
In considering the results of the War, therefore, as far
as they have as yet developed themselves, and observing
* See this Reolution, Ante, p. 457  t See Appendix S, No. 2.
632
I 
COL. XXIV.] SHERMAN-JOHNSTON CONVENTION.
to what they have as yet led, in the view it is proposed
to take of them, it is not only important, but essential to
note specially the most prominent facts bearing upon the
subject in hand since the surrender up to this time.
These, according to their importance, in my judgment, I
will now proceed to state in regular order.
1. In the first place, then, the most important matter
bearing upon the points we have in hand and which
claims special attention, was this disapproval by Mr.
Johnson of the "Sherman-Johnston Convention" referred
to.  His action on this occasion, in my opinion, must
ever be considered as great an error in accomplishing his
object, as was his error in the beginning in holding that
the Union of the States under the Constitution could be
preserved and rightfully maintained by force. This most
extraordinary, if not fatal error of disapproving that Convention, is the more worthy of special notice here, from
the fact that this action was so inconsistent with his own
avowed principles, as well as with the avowed policy of
Mr. Lincoln throughout the war, even down to the
Fortress Monroe Conference, as we have seen. General
Sherman whether expressly clothed with authority by
Mr. Lincoln, to enter into that Convention, or not, in
doing it and agreeing to the terms which he did, certainly acted not only in strict conformity with the principles of Mr. Johnson's Resolution, which had been sanctioned by every member of the Senate and by every
member of the House with two exceptions, but with
the uniformly avowed policy of Mr. Lincoln throughout
the war. Indeed, the facts warrant the belief that General Sherman, in entering into that Convention, acted
under express authority, verbal if not written, from Mr.
Lincoln himself: for it is well known that, just before it
was entered into, he had gone round to City Point, where
e6
633 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [YOL. II.
he had met, and had a personal interview with Mr.
Lincoln; and had consulted him fully as to the course
he should take in winding up the war, which he saw was
now rapidly approaching its end. On these matters he
had consulted him, even down to the minute detail as to
what course he should take toward Mr. Davis-whether
he should make a point to capture him, or let him escape.
This clearly appears from the newspaper accounts of a
speech made by General Sherman in Ohio, not long afterwards. It was in this speech he related the very characteristic as well as felicitous anecdote, by which Mr.
Lincoln, in that interview, illustrated his position, views,
and wishes (exceedingly politic as they were) in regard
to the arrest of Mr. Davis, and to which you, Judge
Bynum, referred in illustration of your own position, a
few days ago.*
Now, if President Johnson had, on this occasion, approved that Convention, he would have carried out his
own principles as well as the policy of Mr. Lincoln, and
the States would have been immediately restored (whether
for better or worse,) to their "practical relations to the
* This is the newspaper account:
"PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND JEFF DAvIS.-General Sherman says
he asked President Lincoln explicitly when at City Point, whether he
wanted him to capture Jeff Davis or let him escape, but the President
gave him no reply except a story about a temperance lecturer, who, one
day, after a long ride in the hot sun, stopped at the house of a friend,
and was regaled with lemonade.  His host insintuatingly asked, if he
wouldn't like the least drop of something stronger to brace up his nerves
after the exhausting heat and exercise?
':No,' replied the lecturer.'I couldn't think of it; I'm opposed to
it on principle.  But,' he added, with a longing glance at the black
bottle that stood conveniently at hand,'if you could manage to put in a
drop unbeknownst to me, I guess it wouldn't hurt me much.'
"' Now, General,' said Mr. Lincoln, in conclusion,'I'm bound to
oppose the escape of Jeff Davis; but if you could manage to let him slip
out m~?beknownst like, I guess it wouldn't hurt me much.' "
634 
COL. XXIV.] JOHNSON'S AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.  635
Union," which was the whole professed object of the war;
and he would have saved himself from those inextricable
difficulties about "Reconstruction," in which he has since
been involved, by a departure from them. The National
Authority, as Mr. Lincoln styled it, would have been immediately restored, and this, according to his idea, was a
Restoration of the Union.
But instead of giving his approval to this Convention,
and thus, at once, effecting a complete Restoration of the
Union, or of the "States to their practical relations" to
it, Mr. Johnson most strangely directed the war to be
pushed to the overthrow of all the existing State Govments in all the Confederate States (except Tennessee,
Kentucky and Missouri), and the arrest and imprisonment
of all their chief Executive Officers, and the temporary
establishment of complete Military rule throughout the
entire limits of the Confederacy, with the exception mentioned. This, therefore, as just stated, must be looked
upon as an error of Mr. Johnson, differing in no respect
in principle from the error of Mr. Lincoln in the inauguration of the war at the beginning. It was, moreover, a
clear violation of the understanding of the Confederates,
of the terms upon which their arms had been surrendered.
The then existing State Governments and their laws,
were clearly recognized in these terms.
2. The next fact to be noticed in this connection, is
the Proclamation issued by Mr. Johnson as President, on
the 29th of May, which was a virtual announcement of
the close of the war, with an offer of Amnesty and Pardon
upon certain conditions, to all who had participated in it
on the Confederate side, except fourteen designated classes.
Now according to the principles as well as purposes set
forth in his own Resolution referred to before, when resistance had ceased, and the last Confederate arm had 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
been surrendered, and when the Federal Civil Officers had
been permitted to perform their functions in all the States,
without let or hindrance, then the Insurrection, or Rebellion, as he held the war to be on the part of the Confederates, was certainly put down, and the Union was, of
course, instantly restored; and all the States should have
been so recognized under their then existing State Constitutions; for the war had been professedly waged against
individuals and not against organized Communities or
States, or against any of their Institutions, much less
their Constitutions! The States could be recognized only
in their organized character, as they existed by the terms
of their fundamental law. But this he did not do. We
are therefore brought to another step in the progress of
events to be specially noted.
3. On the same day-29th of May-Mr. Johnson, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States,
issued another Proclamation, by which, as such Commander-in-Chief, he appointed Wm. W. Holden Military
or Provisional Governor of the State of North Carolina,
basing it upon a declaration that no Civil Government
then existed in that State. This fact being so announced,
the Proclamation went on to set forth the Terms and Con-.
ditions upon which certain classes of Electors under the
Constitution of North Carolina as it existed when the war
commenced to the exclusion of others, might form a new
Constitution and State Government, which would be recognized by him as the legitimate Government of that
State. Similar Proclamations were subsequently issued
by him, in relation to the other Confederate States which
were in the same condition.
Out of the Principles upon which these Proclamations
were based and issued, have arisen all those other agitating questions, to which I have just referred, about "Re
636 
COL. XXIV.] MR. JOHNSON'S "POLICY" NOTICED.
construction," in which he, the Congress, and the whole
Country are now embroiled.
But just at this point, let it be borne in mind that, in
pursuance of these Proclamations, the classes designated
by him in all the States respectively, did proceed to make
new Constitutions, to organize new State Governments,
and to elect members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. This
was all done as speedily as could be done, after the issuance of the Proclamations in reference to each of the
States respectively. In the formation of their new Constitutions, however, two other prominent conditions were
subsequently imposed by Executive requisitions not embraced in the Proclamations. One was the Abolition of
Slavery, and the other the Repudiation of what was
called the War Debt on the part of each State respectively. The power exercised in the issuance of these
Proclamations, and in the imposition of these Executive
requisitions upon the State Conventions, must again be
looked upon as differing in no respect whatever, so far as
principle is concerned, from the powers claimed by Mr.
Lincoln in his Proclamations heretofore reviewed. Mr.
Johnson, as yet, seems to have been, as Saul of Tarsus
on his way to Damascus, "breathing out threatenings and
slaughter!" Still, the great majority of the masses of
the Southern People, being exceedingly desirous for Peace
and Harmony, notwithstanding the deep wrongs thus
inflicted, were willing to accept the entire situation, and
to comply in good faith, with all the ternms thus imposed-especially as the whole was avowedly based on
the idea, that when those terms should be complied with
the States would then be restored "to their practical
relations to the Union." With these feelings and views,
they did thus in good faith comply. Moreover, their
637 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Legislatures elected under their new Constitutions, ratified
the proposed Thirteenth Amendment* to the Constitution
of the United States; and by these ratifications on their
part, that new provision in the organic law of the Union,
was carried and proclaimed to be a part of the Constitution. Without counting their votes, it was lost!
In their action, throughout, on these subjects, they
were influenced mainly by the strong hope that, notwithstanding the Union would be thus restored, somewhat
like the violent and unskilful resetting of dislocated joints
with some ruptured ligaments, yet, when all the members
of the Federal Body-Politic should be once more in
their proper places and their normal functions restored,
the whole, after awhile, would again assume healthful
and vigorous action, by which future tranquillity, happiness, and prosperity would be amply secured. These
were the feelings and views by which they were influenced in promptly complying with what is known as the
President's Policy.
But now a new obstacle arose in a different quarter,
which brings us to the consideration of another important
step in the progress of events. The Thirty-ninth Congress assembled  in December,  1865.   Soon after its
assemblage, all the States embraced in these Proclamations, except Texas, were thoroughly reorganized under
the Executive Policy, as just stated, with Senators and
Members of Congress ready to take their seats, which Mr.
Seward, who was Mr. Johnson's as well as Mr. Lincoln's
Secretary of State, had declared were still empty and
ready for them in the National Councils. This Congress,
both in the Senate and House of Representatives, it must
be recollected, refused to admit the Senators and Members
elected from the States thus reorganized under the Execu                   * See Ante, page 611.
638 
COL. XXIV.] THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
tive policy. They repudiated not only the Resolution of
the 26th of July, 1861, referred to, as Mr. Johnson had
done himself, but also repudiated the principles upon
which he had acted; not upon the grounds, however,which consistency required-that the Union was restored
when the Insurrection, or Rebellion, so-called, had been
put down; but upon the grounds, that Mr. Johnson had
not gone far enough in his action towards the great object
of Centralism aimed at from the beginning by the Partyleaders of this Congress. They turned over the whole
subject to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, known
as the celebrated " Reconstruction Committee."  To this
grand Joint Committee, organized upon the model of a
Jacobin Junto, was given the entire control of the whole
subject.  The Restoratioi of the Union as it was, (even
with the abolition of Slavery, so-called,) was not what
they wanted.  They demanded a thorough Reconstruction,
so far as the Confederate States were concerned. This
Committee now openly proclaimned that the War had been
waged, not for the preservation of the Union with the
Rights, Dignity and Equality of all the several States
unimpaired under the Constitution! The mask so long
worn by the leading spirits of the War Party at the North,
was now partly raised, and Mr. Johnson himself seems to
have discovered for the first time, from the disclosures
made, what were the real objects an(l purposes of the
controlling leaders of his late associates and allies, from
the beginning! The Monster Principle of ultimate complete Centralism, from clear indications, now stood before
him in new lights, and as he had never viewed it before!
This Committee assumed the position that not only the
States reorganized under Mr. Johnson's policy, but even
Tennessee, should never more take part in the Public
Councils, without being first required not only to change
639 
CONST'ITUT'IONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VoL,'. II.
their domestic Institutions so far as concerned the relations
of the two races (constituting parts of their popula tion), but without also being shorn of their Rights, Dignity,
and Equality as members of the Union under the Con stitution! They thus openly repudiated their many
most solemn declarations during the war, and in so doing
showed clearly that these declarations were nothing but
)~ecio8s pretexts resorted to at the time, by which thou.
sands and hundreds of thousands, and millions, perhaps,
at the North, had been designedly misled and deceived!
This position of the Reconstruction Committee upon
these subjects is what led to the open rupture between
Mr. Johnson and his late allies, and the mutual denunciations of treason and traitor, which are now passing between them, and to which I referred some days ago. But,
without commenting upon these, may it not most appropriately be here asked, if anything could more completely
show the great. wrong and injustice of the war on the
part of the Federals throughout, than the position assumed
by this Reconstruction Committee, and which was affirmed by Congress? During the whole period of four
years' bloody strife, their avowed object was nothing more
than to compel the Seceding States to return to a renewal
of their obligations under the Constitution; and when
this object was entirely effected, they stood before the
country with the public declaration that they could not
satfely perrmit that to take place for which so much blood
and treasure had been expended!
What a spectacle they thus exhibited! To fully appreciate its monstrous character, it should be considered
from two points of view:
The war, remember, was waged by them for this
avowed object of making other Parties perform their
duties under a Compact, while they, themselves, were, at
640
I 
CoL. XXIV.] PROPOSED XIVTH AMENDMENT, SO-CALLED. 641
the very time and before, as we have seen, openly and
confessedly faithless in the discharge of their own duties
under the same Compact! Nay, more, this faithlessness
on their part, remember also, was the cause of the. Secession on the part of the others. Now, the spectacle would
have been bad enough, if they had stopped with what they
had, by superior power, been enabled thus to accomplish,
and had been satisfied with results so most wrongfully
attained!  But how infinitely increased is the nonstrousness of their conduct, when, not content with the result
so wickedly and nefariously reached, they proceeded to
make further exactions for their own special advantage
and greater power! Is thlere to be found in the annals
of mankind a parallel of such unblushing, double-faced,
insolent and infamous iniquity?
One thing which induced this extraordinary course,
was doubtless the discovery of the fact that by the abolition of Slavery, so-called, the Confederate States would
be entitled to thirteen more members in the House under
the then Ratio of Representation, than they had theretofore been under the three-fifths  count of their Black
population, about which so much false clamor had been
raised before the war! It now became clearly apparent,
that the just and equal Rights of the South had been
curtailed by that clause of the Constitution; and that her
political power, in the Federal Government, would be
considerably augmented by the change in this respect,
which had been effected in the new order of things. The
terms at first exacted of the Confederate States by this
Reconstruction Committee, whose Report was agreed to in
both Houses, were, that these States should agree to and
ratify what they proposed to them as a further Amnendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as
the Fourteenth Amendment, as a condition precedent to
41
3 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
their being allowed Representation in either branch of
Congress.*' With these Congressional terms, Tennessee,
on the 12th of July, 1866, complied. The other States
all failed, or refused to do so. This brings us to that
scene in the drama now being enacted. How far it will
come short of being the last scene of a like character, the
great future alone can determine! To what is at present
passing, therefore, on the political boards, and exhibiting
the actual Results of the War up to this time, as well as
their general tendency to inevitable ultimate results of a
far more serious nature, if action upon the line on which
the whole has thus far been conducted be not arrested, we
must now look.
* Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Uiited
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses concurring): That the following Article be proposed to the Legislatures of
the several States as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall
be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:
ARTICLE XIV.
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the States wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed; but
when the right to vote at any election, for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in
Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State or the members
of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of
such State, (being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United
States), or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or
other crimie, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age, in said State.
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Cotigress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
642
It 
COL. XXIV.] RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES, SO-CALLED. 643
4. The next great fact, therefore, to be here specially
noticed, is the adoption by Congress of the "Reconstruction Measures," so-called, which are now pending before the people of those States which have been denied
Representation in Congress. The first Act of this character
passed Congress  in February of this year.   This Act
more clearly shows the tendency of what may be looked
to as the Ultimate Results of the War than any of the
previous matters noted. The reasons assigned for this
most extraordinary measure on the part of Congress, were
no less extraordinary  than the  measure  itself.   It is
amazing that men with intelligence and any regard for
their character, could have had the audaciousness in the
face of notorious truths to assign the reasons which they
did for their action in this matter! These were given in
the Preamble to the Act, and are as follows:
"Whereas, no legal State Governments, or adequate
protection for life or property, now exists in the Rebel
States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas,
and Arkansas; and, Whereas, it is necessary that Peace
civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; but Congress
may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions
and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
not be questioned; but neither the United States nor any State shall
assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be
held illegal and void.
SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate
legislation the provisions of this Article. 
CONSTITU%IONAL VIEW OF THE WAR  [Vo'L. II.
aicd Good Order should be enforced in said States, until
loyal and Republican State Governments can be legally
established!" etc.
Was ever a solemn public declaration made by any respectable Bodies of intelligent men, so utterly inconsistent with well known facts, and facts, too, which had
been previously recognized and acted upon by themselves?'
Were there not legal State Governments then existing in
every one of these "Rebel States," so-called?  Was not
every Department of Civil Government-Legislative, Executive, and Judicial-as regularly administered in them
as ever before, and as regularly as in any of the States
represented in the Congress which made this declaration?
If not, how was it that their acts in ratifying the Thirteetth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States had been regarded as legal and valid by this very
Congress which made this declaration? If these State
Governments were not legal, how could that Amendment
to the Constitution, carried by their action, be held and
declared to be valid?   Moreover, were not life and
property as thoroughly protected in them, as far as they
can be protected by efficient laws, as in any of their own
States? If there were violations of law, murders and other
outrages, committed in some of them, or all of them, was
not the same true of all the States? Where is the State
in which outrages of like character were not committed?
Had Gen. Grant, who had been sent specially to examine
into this matter, in his report, intimated that there was
any difference in these particulars between the general
state of things South and North?  HIe certainly had
not!
But, again, how, with any regard for truth, could these
States, in February, 1867, be said to be Rebel States?
Was there a single man in arms against the General
644 
CoL. XXIV.]   JOHNSON ON RECONSTRUCTION.
Government wrthin their entire limits? Was not the
whole mass of their entire people perfectly submissive,
even to the unjust and unconstitutional demands of the
Authorities at Washington? How, also, could they be
said to be disloyal, in any sense? HIad not every officer in
them, from their Chief Executives to their lowest Magistrates, in the most bona fide manner, resumed their obligations to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States? Is there any other test of loyalty but
this known to the Constitution, either for State or Federal
officers? This Preamble, thus fixed to this first Reconstruction Act, can be regarded in no other light, than as
one of the most reckless perversions of truth ever put
upon public record; while the Act itself must ever be regarded as one of the most palpable usurpations of Power
to be found in the history of the world!  Well did
President Johnson, in his Veto of such a monstrous outrage, say:
"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not, in
its whole character, scope, and object, without Precedent,
and without Authority-in palpable conflict with  the
plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of Liberty and Humanity for which our ancestors, on both sides of the
Atlantic, have shed so much blood, and expended so much
treasure?"
And most pertinently did he further add:
"Those who advocated the right of Secession alleged
in their own justification, that we had no regard for law,
and that their rights of Property, Life, and Liberty would
not be safe under the Constitution as administered by us.
If we now verify their assertion, we prove that they
were, in truth and in fact, fighting for their Liberty; and
instead of branding their leaders with the dishonoring
645 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THiE WAR.  [VOL. II.
name of Tr2aitors against a righteous and legal Government, we elevate them in history in the rank of selfsacrificing Patriots, consecrate them to the admiration of
the world, and place them by the side of Washington,
Hampden and  Sydney!"
Most truthful utterances these! And most remarkable,
too, coming as they did from him, who had, himself,
just before been so ftill of " breathing out threatenings
and slaughter" against the "self-sacrificing patriots!"
Delivered as they were, and under the circumstances they
were, they remind us forcibly of some which came from
the same Saul of Tarsus after the scales had fallen from
his eyes, and he had been brought to see his persecutions
of the disciples of the true faith, in their proper light.
Paul, after he' was brought to a full realization of his
great error in thus warring against them, most bitterly
repented of all that he had thus done, and especially that
he had consented to the death of the martyred Stephen,
and had even held the clothes of those who slew him,
even thoughi he had believed at the time that he was
doing right!
It is true, there is nothing in these expressions of Mr.
Johnson, which directly shows that he had then as fully
reached a perfect realization of error on his part, in any
matter connected with the war, as Paul had in the matter
of his persecutions, when the utterances referred to by
him were given; and yet there is a good deal in the tone
and manner in which Mr. Johnson's expressions were
given forth, which clearly indicates that he was very near
the same point, whether he had then, or has since, or
ever shall, actually reach it or not. The expressions as
they stand in the context, were presented only as a
strong argument to his late associates and allies, to induce
them, if possible, to reconsider and abandon the monstrous
646 
COL. XXIV.]   FIRST RECONSTRUCTION ACT.
provisions of their measure. Still, he must have felt, as
his language unmistatkably implies, that if they did not so
reconsider and abandon, a very great wrong had been done
to those who would suffer from them, by other measures
to which he had unwittingly given his consent-never
supposing that they would lead to such ruinous results
and most disastrous  consequences!   This, his words
clearly import.
But this and other arguments, strong and pointed
as they all were, and coming from the high source they
did, produced no effect whatever, but increased rage, upon
those to whom they were so conscientiously, earnestly,
and truthfiilly addressed. Deaf in their madness alike
to principles, consistency, and all considerations of their
own honor, as well as of humanity, they were resolved
upon the execution of their purpose, though in it they destroyed every vestige of Civil Liberty, swept away every
existing legal barrier for the protection of life and property
in ten States, and put nine millions of people in time of
profound peace, under absolute military sway! And this
too, was done by them under the atrocious pretext of providing for the establishment of peace and good order!
They promptly passed this Reconstruction Act, so-called,
over the President's veto, by a twothirds vote in both
Houses of Congress!
There is no necessity for looking into, or examining
the provisions of this Act in detail. It is enough to
know that under it, all the Civil Authorities of ten States
are completely subverted, and their entire population
subjected-temporarily, at least-to the despotism of
Martial Law! Not even a Federal Judge is permitted
to interfere, or redress any wrong, whether small or great,
inflicted by either of the five Satraps, among whom the
several Military Districts are divided. The ostensible
647 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
object of this unparalleled measure, with those which
have followed it, (as Amendments or Supplements,) was
to compel the Southern States to submit to degrading
conditions before being allowed future Representation in
either branch of Congress.
These conditions in short are:
First. That the States embraced in the Act shall,
before being allowed such Representation, agree to the
disfranchisement and virtual Attainder of all that class
of their White Citizens who had, before the war, received
the public confidence so far as to be entrusted with any
Civil Office, either Executive, Legislative or Judicial,
Federal or State, from the highest to the lowest; and
Second. To the enfranchisement in their stead, of the
entire male Black population who have attained the age
of twenty-one years.
To commend this monstrous outrage to the favor of
their constituents, it was pretended to be justified by
those who voted for it, as a proper measure of puni7tment for those who had engaged in the Rebellion, so-called,
and as a necessary security in the future, for the Loyal
States, so-called! But while this is the ostensible object,
the real one was doubtless of a very different character.
Viewed in its proper light-looking at its real design-it
must be considered, with all its wrongs, as but another
advanced step, stealthily taken, under false colors, towards
that complete ultimate Consolidation of Power at which
these leaders have been aiming all the time, but which
they are not yet quite prepared openly to declare!
But viewed in that, or any other light, these measures
of Congress again most incontestably prove, even in Mr.
Johnson's judgment, on which side the Right lay in that
Conflict of arms, which we have so fully reviewed:
In this connection, a negative error of Mr. Johnson
648
I 
COL. XXIV.] NEGATIVE ERROR OF MR. JOHNSON.
should receive, at least, a passing notice, and the more so
from the fact that I believe his sole object now is, to restore
the Union and maintain the Federal System established
by the Fathers. To this end his every energy seems, at
this time, to be most patriotically directed, and however
much I may have disagreed with him in the past, he is,
in my judgment, now, entitled to the confidence, support,
and cordial co-operation, of every friend of Constitutional
Liberty throughout the Country. The error, however, to
which I here allude was, that (with his views of the Constitution and the powers and duties of the President under
it and the nature of the Union) he did not refuse to recognize, as the Congress of the United States, any Bodies
in which any one of the States of the Union was denied
Representation in the House and an equal voice in the
Senate. Had he thus proclaimed and thus acted, when
the policy of the Reconstruction Committee was at first
openly declared, he might have sustained his own views
and prevented the consummation of that most iniquitous
policy. There were then in Congress enough Anti-Centralists in the Senate and House from the Northern States,
with the Senators and Representatives returned from the
South, to constitute a majority of a legitimate Congress.
By such union, a Constitutional Congress could have been
organized; and if Mr. Johnson had invited such union,
and recognized such an organization as the only true Congress of the United States, as it would have been, these
gross usurpations never would have been perpetrated.
But no more of that on this occasion. What has been
said very clearly exhibits the present situation, and leads
us one step further in the review proposed.
5. The next and last great fact to be borne in mind, in
considering the Results of the War, and to what it has
led thus far in the view we are taking, is that the Cen
649 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
tralists have not as yet openly proclaimed their ultimate
object, much less have they acted in anything done by
them up to this time, upon any claim of the actual consummation of that object, which we have seen, is Consolidation and Empire. They have not as yet openly denied the Federative character of the Government, however
in direct war upon its Principles their acts have been
covertly aimed. This is an exceedingly important fact to
be specially noted and kept in mind. These monstrous
Reconstruction Measures, with all their enormities and
fatal tendencies towards ultimate complete Centralism and
Empire, are still based upon the assumption  that the
States, as separate integral parts, constitute members of
what is still, in words, at least, acknowledged to be a
Federal Union! All these bold usurpations of power are,
upon their face, nothing but resorts to induce, or to compel,
under duress, the Peoples of the several Southern States
to go through the forms of adopting the Fourteenth
Amendment, as an additional Article to the Constitution.
This policy is avowedly based upon the principle of
voluntary consent on the part of these States. The programme of the Reconstructionists thus far, proceeds upon
the assumption that the voluntary ratification of all
Amendments to the Constitution by at least three-fourths
of the integral members of the Union is essential to their
validity. It is true, they did not pretend to have any
Constitutional power to pass these measures. On the
contrary, they openly and avowedly proclaim, that in
adopting them they are acting "outside of the Constitution!" This, too, they so proclaim to the world, immediately after taking solemn oaths to support that instrument! But not to stop here to comment upon such
gross inconsistency, as well as moral dereliction, the
point to be noted is, that nothing really affecting the vital
650 
C(.OL. XXIV.] THE CAUSE LOST AT APPOMATTOX C. H.  651
principles of the organic structure of our Federative
System of Government has yet been accomplished, or is
even claimed to have been accomplished. There is, therefore, still hope for the preservation of the essential features of the system, if there is remaining virtue, intelligence, and patriotism enough to save it, on the part of
the Peoples of the Northern States. No system of Representative Government can be long maintained by any
People who have not the Intelligence to understand it,
the Patriotism to approve it, and the Virtue to maintain
inviolate both its form and principles as established.
The future destiny, therefore, of the Free Institutions
of this Country, is now in the hands of the Peoples of
the Northern States.   We, at the South, are utterly
powerless to do anything in shaping or controlling, at
this time, the progress of coming political events. The
only hope left to us is, that a reaction on all these questions, in the public mind, in the Northern States, will
take place in time to save our Liberties as well as their
own. This, you may be assured, can be done only by
driving the usurpers from their places, and bringing back
the administration of the Federal Government to those
principles on which it was so harmoniously and prosperously conducted for the first sixty years of its existence.
This is to be done through the ballot-box alone. Should
this take place, and the Judicial Department maintain its
integrity, all may yet be well, even though this Fourteenth Amendment should go through the mockery of a
ratification under the present programme; for, no Amendment of the Constitution proposed as this has been, and
adopted as it must be, if at all, can ever be held to be
valid by a firm and upright Judiciary.
So, you see, my opinion is, that the Cause which was
lost at Appomattox Court House, was not the Federative
0 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
Principle upon which American Free Institutions was
based, as some have very erroneously supposed. This is far
from being one of the Results of the War. The Cause which
was lost by the surrender of the Confederates, was only
the maintenance of this Principle by arms. It was not the
Principle itself that they abandoned. They only aban doned their attempt to maintain it by physical force. This
Principle on which rest the hopes of the world for spread ing and perpetuating Free Institutions by neighboring
States, in my judgment, like the principles of Christianity,
ever advances more certainly and safely without resort
to arms, than with it. Its teachings are Peace, Harmony
and Good-will to all, and is much more sure of attaining
its end, when the actions of its advocates are in conform ity with its teachings. This Principle, therefore, though
abandoned in its maintenance on battle-fields, still continues to live in all its vigor, in the Forums of Reason,
Justice and Truth, and will, I trust, there continue to
live forever! Its continued existence in our system, with
vital power, is not yet denied, as we have seen, even by
its bitterest and most covert enemies, who have been so long
making such extraordinary efforts for its destruction and
extinction! Obeisance has been done to it by them, even
in these despotic Reconstruction Measures. Those who are
looking to and desiring ultimate Centralism and Empire,
have, as yet, in their progress that way, thus far, reached
only to the point of attempting to induce by dqtress,
certain States, as States, and as Sovereign States, to
conform to their action under the semblance, at least, of
voluntary consent! This is the present position of affairs
on that subject.
PROF. NORTON. Being a Conservative, as you know, I
agree with you, Mr. Stephens, in the main, in all you have
said on the present situation, gloomy as the prospect it
652 
COL. XXIV.] RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES IN GEORGIA. 653
presents certainly is; and I am inclined to think, too, that
our friend Judge Bynum, Radical as he is, is not very far
from concurring with us, in these general views. This I
infer frpm a remark he made to Major Hieister and myself in the walk we took, after the conversation of this
morning.
JUDGE BYNUM. Represent me fairly.
PROF. NORTON. It is not my wish or intention to do
otherwise. The remark I alluded to was, that you were
inclined to think Congress had gone too far, and that was
why you were so anxious to hear Mr. Stephens upon the
Results of the War.
JUDGE BYNUM. Well, that is about correct. While I
approved all that was done up to the passage of these Reconstruction Measures, yet, in them, I have thought that
they, perhaps, went too far; for, notwithstanding I am a
Radical, I am by no means in favor of a Centralization
of all power in Congress, or the establishment of an Empire, which, it seems to me, would amount to nearly the
same thing. I abhor the very idea of a result of that
kind.
PROF. NORTON. That is all I mean to state in reference
to your position, and I believe we have all come to one
point, on which we agree, however much we have or may
differ upon others. But what I was going on to say was,
that while I agree in the main with all that Mr. Stephens
has said about the Results of the War, yet I was not ex pecting to hear him express himself on the subject in the
terms and language which he has. Of course I could not
suppose that he approved them, but as Gov. Brown of
this State, with whom he had generally agreed and acted
on all public questions during the war, had come out in
favor of Georgia's acceptance of the terms proposed by
Congress, I thought Mr. Stephens was, most probably, 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. IL.
co-operating with him, especially as he has been so silent
upon the subject-before the public at least.
MR. STEPHENS. I have been thus silent, simply because
I have seen no prospect of being able to do any good by
anything that I could say to the public, on any of these
questions. I do not see that any Southern man can say
or do anything, which will have any effect in arresting
the tendency of affairs. I have taken no part in the discussions in this State, because I saw that such course
would but lead to divisions amongst our own people, and
I did not think there was enough that could' possibly be
accomplished, even in securing a temporary relief, to
cause old friends to grow angry with each other and
quarrel about. If Gov. Brown and others see fit "to
take to life-boats" in our stranded condition, I have no
quarrel to make with him or them, for pursuing that
course; though I believe that he, and all who make similar ventures, will be swamped in the surfs at last. I see
no hope in that course,-or any other which we can take.
My only hope for relief is in a reaction of public sentiment at the North, as stated. If that comes in time,
all may yet be well with us. If not, we must all go under any how; and I prefer, without ill-will towards any,
to remain in perfect quiet on the Old Craft as long as she
is afloat, and at last, if needs must be, go down with her.
As to the feelings of the people of this State generally
upon these measures, I think Mr. Benjamin H. Hill, in
one of his stirring "Notes," or, rather, Philippics "on the
Situation," gave a very correct statement, in a very few
words, when, in speaking of the position of our people in
reference to them, he said in substance: "The complying
accept, the resolute reject, none approve, while all despise!"
This, in my opinion, is as true of Governor Brown as
654 
JOSEPH E. BROWN.
of all the rest. While he accepts, I have no idea that he
approves. Few men hold the principles of Constitutional Liberty in higher esteem than he does.
In reference to my relations with Gov. Brown, while it
is true we did agree upon many leading public questions,
before as well as during the war, yet it is also true, we
differed very widely upon others; and upon no question
have we ever differed more widely than upon this one.
Personally, however, I have a very high regard for him,
and esteem him as a man of very great ability, as well as
integrity. He is, in every respect, entitled to high rank
among our public men and statesmen.
MAJOR HEISTER. You do not agree, then, with those
who think, as I see from your papers some do, that his
course has been influenced by motives of ambition, excited by temptations offered to him on the " High
Mountain," to which he was carried in Washington?
MR. STEPHENS. No, not at all. I have no idea of that
sort. If, when in Washington, he was taken to any of
the places mentioned in the good Book, I think it was
not to the "Mountain of Temptations," but rather to the
verge of that other place known as the Bottomless Pit, or
so near to it as for him to get a view of its horrors below,
where his fears instead of his hopes were operated upon.
In other words, in my opinion, his course has been taken
more from apprehensions awakened by threats of Attainder, of Confiscation, and the thousands of other ills
that might be expected to attend the rejection of the proposed measure, than from any promise of rewards or official.position to him, in consideration of his giving them
his support. It was to avoid what he considered impending individual as well as public evils, and not to secure special personal benefits or honors to himself that he
acted as he did. He came honestly and sincerely, I have
COL. XXIV.]
655
IF 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
no question, to the conclusion that we might all go further
and fare much worse; and hence his recommendation to
the people to accept the terms proposed by Congress, and
to comply with the conditions offered, however unjustly
and wrongfully exacted. With his views and feelings he
acted under the conviction that we were a conquered
people, and, as such, should accept these terms, as there
was, in his opinion, no probability of any better ever be
ing offered.
MAJ. HEISTER. You do not think, then, that he was
really untrue to the Southern Cause during the war, and
is now carrying out the previously cherished purposes of
his heart? I have seen this opinion of him expressed by
some.
MR. STEPHENS. Some people may think and write so,
but my opinion is, that no truer man to our Cause lived,
while its standard was up, than Gov. Brown.
MAJ. HEISTER. Why, did not he and Holden, of North
Carolina, in their quarrels with Mr. Davis, wish to withdraw from the Confederacy and to make terms with Mr.
Lincoln by separate State action?
MR. STEPHENS. No, sir, never! As to what Governor
Holden may have done, or been willing to do in North
Carolina, I cannot of course, speak. I do not even know
that gentleman personally, and hence I can say nothing
of him.  But Governor Brown I do know; and, further,
I know that all such statements in regard to him ara
utterly untrue. It is true, he differed widely with President Davis upon many matters connected with the administration of affairs. This led to what has been called
the "quarrel" between them, but while the published official correspondence shows a very decided disagreement
between them, yet it was only a disagreement on points
of policy-as to the best and surest way of securing ultimate
656 
JOSEPH E. BROWN.
success to our arms. Governor Brown was as true to the
Cause as any man in the country. He and Mr. Davis are
both men of very strong convictions and great earnestness
of purpose. Neither of them are very yielding in their
opinions; and while, in my judgment, he sincerely
believed that Mr. Davis's policy was not the best to secure
success, and endeavored to get him to change it, still, he
never for a moment cherished the dastardly idea attributed
to him. This clearly appears from his reply to the over ture of General Sherman to meet him in Atlanta, in Sep tember, 1864, after the fall of that place.
This overture on the part of General Sherman, was
doubtless with a view of such separate State action, and
sprung perhaps from impressions on his mind produced
by charges of this sort against Governor Brown in some
of the Confederate newspapers, about that time. In that
reply, while Governor Brown claimed, to the fullest
extent, the absolute ultimate Sovereignty of the State of
Georgia, yet he most emphatically declared that, being
then in Confederation with her Southern sisters for the
maintenance of the same Sovereignty on the part of
each severally, her public faith, thus pledged, should never
be vi;olated by him; and that, "Come weal or come
woe," the State of Georgia should never by his consent
withdraw from that Confederation in dishonor.  " She
will never make separate terms with the enemy," said he,
"which may free her territory from invasion, and leave
her Confederates in the lurch."
Further, upon the nature of the conflict and the principles involved, he said to General Sherman: The liberties
of the people in this country " rest upon the Sovereignty
of the States as their chief corner-stone. Destroy the
Sovereignty of the States, and the whole fabric falls to
the ground, and centralized power with Military Despotism
42
COL. XXIV.]
657 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VOL. II.
takes the place of Constitutional Liberty." Thus, said he,
"to destroy our Liberties must cost the Northern people
their own, and the Republicanism of America must, in future,
be regarded as a reproach and a by-word among allnations."
This language sufficiently fixes the character of Governor Brown, and shows the principles by which he was
governed throughout the War. If he had entertained
such sentiments as were attributed to him; or if he had
been a man likely to be influenced by temptations of ambition held out to him, that was certainly an occasion
when the weakness and baseness of such a nature
would have manifested itself.  In my judgment, he then
entertained no such views or ideas as were imagined by
some; nor is he now influenced by any such as are similarly imputed. This at least is my opinion of him.
When the principle involved in the conflict failed to be
maintained by arms, he, as I understand him, then gave
up, not only the cause, but the principle itself, as lost.
His public acts, since, have been governed by this conviction. Our present differences arise from the different
views we take of the Results of the War.
In my view, you perceive that while the maintenance
of the principle, or the maintenance of the Right of local
Self-government was lost on the battle field; yet on
other grounds, and in other Forums, it still lives in all its
vigor. The issue decided by the swords was the attempt
on the part of the Confederates to maintain this principle
and right, by physical force, in withdrawing from the
Union. To this extent alone was the great cause affected
by the arbitrament of arms; and to this extent alone was
it then settled, by their abandonment of its further maintenance in that way; but the principle itself was not
abandoned. It involves questions which cannot be settled
by arms-no more than questions relating to the diurnal
658 
COL. XXIV.1  MR. STEPHENS IN FORT WARREN.
rotation of the earth, or its annual circuit round the sun.
These are matters which belong exclusively to the domain
of Reason and Logic.  They belong to other arenas-to
those of Thought, of Public Discussions, Council Chambers,
and Courts of Justice. They can never be brought under
the subjection of physical power.   Force may control
human action, and effect settlements so far as that is concerned; but it can never enslave the human intellect, or
disarm truth of its inextinguishable power in its appropriate sphere, upon the human understanding. In this
way, by its peaceful, quiet, and effective workings, all
great advances and high achievements in civilization
have heretofore been made: and all true progress in the
science of Government-slow as that has been-as well
as in all other departments of human knowledge, have
been accomplished! Wars, upon the whole, have done
much more in retarding than in advancing either the
principles of Liberty, the cause of Civilization, or the
general amelioration of mankind.
In this connection it must be borne in mind, that notwithstanding all that was said about the treason of the
Confederates, about "traitors," about the "Insurrection,"
and the "Atrocious Rebellion," socalled, the Authorities
at Washington have not yet put that question in issue
before the Judicial Tribunals. Immediately after the surrender, as we have seen, numerous arrests were made of
high Confederate, as well as State Officials; but as
yet not a single one of these has been put upon trial.
PROF. NORTON. Pray tell us, Mr. Stephens, how long it
was before you were discharged, and how you were treated
during your imprisonment?
MR. STEPHENS. I was arrested on the 11th of May, was
taken to Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, as is known, and
was discharged on parole the 13th of October thereafter.
659
0 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR. [VOL. II.
It affords me pleasure to state that during the whole of
that period of five months and two days, I was treated
with the utmost respect and kindness by all, both officers
and men, who had charge of me; or at least with the
utmost respect and kindness consistent with their duties
in obedience to orders from superiors. While in Fort
Warren I was very much afflicted with neuralgia, and a
complication of diseases, greatly aggravated, if not produced, by my being first put upon soldiers' rations, and
closely confined in one of the lower rooms connecting with
a casemate, which was below the surface of the adjacent
grounds, and which was consequently very humid and
damp. Through the kind interposition of the officers, a
change was soon allowed as to the matter of diet; and I
was permitted by General Dix, who commanded the District, and whose head-quarters were at New York, to be
supplied with such articles in this respect as I might
desire from the sutler, at my own expense. All went
along very well in that particular after this change.
But the close confinement in the quarters-which had
been assigned me by special orders from superiors, operated
very injuriously upon the general enfeebled condition of
my health. Indeed I think if a change in this particular
also had not been allowed, I should have died. This did
not take place until late in August. It was at last effected
through the kind interposition of Mr. Senator Henry
Wilson of Massachusetts. He visited me, and seeing my
situation, went to Washington and interceded in my
behalf. The order for the change of quarters came under
the hands of President Johnson himself. From this it
seemed that the Secretary'of War, Mr. Stanton, would
not give his consent to it to the last. It had been in vain
that Dr. Seaverns, the Surgeon, had for some time recommended and urged the change.
e
660 
HOW TREATED.
During all this time Dr. Seaverns had been exceedingly
kind and attentive in administering to my relief and
comfort in every way in his power. So had been Major
Appleton, the officer in command of the Fort, and his
most estimable wife. All that they could do to alleviate
actual suffering and mitigate the necessary discomforts of
the situation was done. Their charming little daughter,
Mabel, (not four years old,) brought me flowers almost
daily. She would get the guard to raise her up, and
would put them herself, with her little tiny hand, between
the bars of the iron grate of the window, where was
placed a vase to receive them, when I was unable to take
them myself! Lieutenant Wm. H. Woodman, who had
special charge of all prisoners, was also exceedingly kind
and unremitting in his attention to my wants and comforts. So too was John Geary, the corporal, whose business
it was to attend particularly to my room.
After Major Appleton left the Post, Major Charles F.
Livermore, who succeeded him, was equally kind and
attentive, as was also his most excellent and amiable
wife.
The many, many acts of kindness I received from all
these parties, as well as from quite a number of the good
people of Boston, during my affliction and imprisonment
at Fort Warren, can never be forgotten by me, and can
never be thought of without the most grateful emotions!
But, as I said, it was to Senator Wilson, I think I was
chiefly indebted for the change of quarters.
JUDGE BYNUM. You discovered some good, then, even
in as extreme a Radical as Henry Wilson?
MR. STEPHENS. Oh, yes; and I doubt not he possesses
many more good qualities besides kindness of heart.
Human nature is a strange compound at best! No
person I have ever yet met with was so bad as not to
661
COL. XXIV.]
a 
CONSTrITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.   [VOL. JI.
have some good qualities; and no one I have ever seen
was so good as not to have some bad ones. Perfection is
not the lot of humanity. However much I have differed
with Mr. Wilson, and do now differ with him, upon many
public questions-however great, in my opinion, are his
errors, on many subjects; yet I believe he possesses many
excellencies of both head and heart. He was certainly
very kind to me in a time of great need, for which I felt,
at the time, and now and ever shall feel, most profoundly
thankful! Indeed I did not then, or now, cherish any
resentment ever towards Mr. Stanton, whose course and
conduct toward me seemed to be so strange as well as
cruel, and which I believed if not changed would soon
end in my death. The prevailing sentiment with me
towards him, and all who were co-operating with him,
then was, "Father, forgive them; for they know  not
what they do!"  I thought it not improbable that he
and they were acting conscientiously; while I thought
it not less probable that he and others thus acting
would live to repent most bitterly what they were then
doing.
This, Professor Norton, is all I can now say upon the
subject of my arrest and imprisonment. To return,
therefore, from this digression to the point I was upon.
As I was discharged, so were all the other Confederate
and State officials who had been arrested discharged,
after an imprisonment more or less prolonged without any criminal accusation being even lodged against
them for their participation in the war, except Mr.
Davis.
As to Mr. Davis, it is true, after the infamous charge upon which he was arrested-that is, of
complicity in the assassination of Mr. Lincoln-was
proven to have had no foundation whatever, except the
662 
COL. XXIV.]   THE QUESTION OF TREASON.
perjury of suborned witnesses, a formal Bill of Indictment
for Treason, in the matter of Secession and the War, was
brought in against him. This has not yet been tried,
though he has continuously demanded a trial and urged it
in the most earnest manner. His late enlargement on
bail, without a trial,* (through the unexampled generosity
and magnanimity of Mr. Horace Greeley, Gerrit Smith,
Augustus Schell, H. F. Clark, Aristides Welsch, of New
York, David J. Jackman, of Pennsylvania, and others, in
becoming sureties for his appearance to answer the charge
when the Government shall be ready to proceed with it,)
may be considered as settling the question, that the officials at Washington do not intend to allow that point on
* The following news items of the day possess historic interest:
"Fortress MIonroe,  fay 11, 1867:-A large crowd was at the steamboat landing at an early hour. Mr. Davis left Fortress Monroe after
two years' imprisonment.  The leave-taking was touchingly impressive.
Mr. Davis walked alongside of Gen. Burton, [the Federal Officer who
had him in charge] and Dr. Cooper on the other. Robert Ould and the
brother of Mr. Davis from Vicksburg accompanied Mrs. Davis and her
sister, followed by several friends.  The countenance of Mr. Davis was
cheerful. He received lmany friends with great cordiality on the boat;
was dressed in a plain black suit, bfelt hat, with cane. His face was
pale.  He is very thin and feeble, and hair quite gray."
After the execution of the bail-bond, a Richmond paper of the next
day contained, amongst many other exceedingly interesting incidents at
tending the whole scene, the following:
"The release of Mr. Davis was now ordered; Gen. Burton and Dr.
Cooper went forward and tendered him their warm congratulationls.
The example of these officers was followed by a host of personal friends,
and a scene of unbounded enthusiasm and excitement prevailed.
"A shout which could not be repressed, and which shook the granite
walls to their foundations, went up from the excited throng, and amidst
the exultant chorus Mr. Davis descended the stairs shaking hands right
and left as he passed, and, entering the carriage which was brought him
to the court room, returned to the hotel, where he spent some time in
receiving the congratulations of the hosts of friends who availed tlheniselves of the opportunity to express their joy and gratitude at his release. "
663 
4 "ONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
the principle involved in the issue, decided by the arbi trament of arms, to come before the Judicial Forum for
decision and adjudication there. An arbitrament on the
Arena of Reason, Logic, Truth, and Justice, they have,
thus far, eschewed and avoided; so that the great fact is
to be borne in mind, that up to this time, nothing really
affecting this "Corner-Stone" of our Federal Institutions,
as Governor Brown styled the principle in his reply to
General Sherman, has, as yet, been definitely settled,
except the abandonment of an attempt to maintain it by
a resort to arms.
This, then, is one of the main differences between
Governor Brown and myself. To his idea that we are a
conquered people, and as such should make the best
terms we can, my reply is, that this was not the understanding at the time of the surrender.  The States, as
States, were distinctly recognized in that surrender, as
we have seen; nor have, even, the Reconstructionists at
Washington, as yet, acted upon the avowed assumption
that we are thus conquered. These monstrous measures
so proposed by Congress, are acknowledged to be without
authority by those who have passed them, and can, therefore, be considered as nothing but gross usurpations.
The Courts have yet to pass upon them. These measures,
in my judgment, can never receive the sanction of that
Department of the Goverument-not even in the view
that we are a conquered people. Conquerors must govern
their subjects according to the provisions of their own
fundamental law. This is well established by the laws
of Nations.  The fundamental law of Congress, by which
the Courts must be governed, is the Constitution of the
United States. This gives Congress no power, in time
of Peace, to suspend the Writ of "Habeas Corptus," nor
to declare Martial Law, to say nothing of the other
664 
COL. XXIV.] CAUSE OF THE SOUTH THE CAUSE OF AILL. 665
enormities of these measures over any class of people,
whether citizens, aliens, denizens or subjects. We are
bound to believe, therefore, that the Supreme Court of
the United States will hold these measures, when they
come before that body, to be gross and palpable usurpations of power, and utterly null and void!
But if this Court should not so hold; if this Tribunal
should decide not only that we are a conquered people,
but further, that Congress, representing the Conquerors,
can properly govern us as they see fit, outside of the limitations of the Constitution of the United States; and can
properly deny us, if they choose, the great American Right
of Self-governmuent for the future, then, even in thatview,
my reply is, let our Conquerors govern us as they see fit!
We, it is true, cannot resist, or offer any violent opposition. We can only bear with patience and fortitude,
as best we may, what is imposed upon us; but in the
name of all that is sacred, do not let us attempt to govern
ou?rselves-not as we see fit, but as our Co)nquerors see fit!
That would be but their government at last, without any
of its responsibility. By every consideration, then, we
should not, by giving these measures a formal approval, put
ourselves in the position of being told, when the disastrous consequences follow, which will inevitably ensue,
that it was we, ourselves, and not they, who brought such
ruin upon the country!
By our thus acting, perhaps after awhile, sooner or
later, when the people of the Northern States become
thoroughly impressed, as Judge Bynum, Radical as he is,
seems now inclined to be, with the dangerous tendencies
of this whole Reconstructive policy to their own Institutions, a similar cry to that which went up from Virginia
in Colonial days in regard to the Boston Port Bill, will
again be raised and heard from one extent of the land to 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
the other!  The cry then was: "The cause of Boston is
the cause of us all!" These, we have seen, were the
stirring notes which led to the establishment of our entire
system of Constitutional Liberty. The only hope, in my
view, now left for its preservation and maintenance on
this Continent, is, that another like cry shall hereafter
be raised, and go forth from hill-top to valley, from the
Coast to the Lakes, from the Atlantic to the Pacific:
"The Cause of the South is the Cause of us all!"
If this comes in time, all may yet be well. In that
event, notwithstanding all that has occurred, I see no
reason why the States, once more restored, as they will
then be, should not enter upon a new career of greatness
exciting increased marvel, if not admiration, in the old
world, by higher achievements in progress hereafter to
be made than any heretofore attained, through the harmonious workings of the true American Principle of the
Sovereign Right of local Self-government on the part of
each member of our matchless Federal System,  when
rightly administered! On these principles, the Union, in
my judgment, can be maintained and perpetuated-not
by physical power, but by the much stronger attractive
principle of" mutual convenience and reciprocal advantage;" and this, too, without any apprehensions of centrifugal tendencies in any of its parts, either from the extent of it boundaries, or the number or diversified interests
of its members!
But if such reaction should not take place in the public
sentiment of the Northern people, then our present condition will soon be theirs. No fact in the future may be
relied upon with more certainty, than that their liberties
cannot long survive the loss of ours!
So much, gentlemen, for the present condition of affairs,
and the actual practical results thus far, of this gigantic
666 
COL. XXIV.]  CONSOLIDATION AND EMPIRE.
conflict of arms, upon our Institutions, State and Federal,
as well as the general prospect before us.
In the review we have taken, the origin of all these
late troubles as well as present ills, and the still greater
ones now threatening, have been traced to their proper
source-to their primal cause. That, we have seen, was
a violation of one of the essential principles of the organic
structure of our new and wonderful system of a Federative
Union of Sovereign States. From this violation of principle, all these direful consequences have come, as effects
follow causes.
Here our review properly closes.
It was undertaken, you recollect, not so much with the
intention of vindicating the rightfulness of my own
course in going with my State in the matter of Secession,
as in vindication of the Rightfulness of the great Cause of
those with whom my fortunes in the terrible and most
lamentable contest were cast.
Now that we have gone through with the whole, as
stated before, I will not ask your judgment upon the matter. That, I am content, notwithstanding all that is now
said about "traitors" and "rebels," to leave to the arbitrament of the intelligent, unbiased, and impartial of all
times and countries. This judgment, I feel assured, will
be just as Mr. Johnson so clearly foresaw it would be.
By it the Confederates, so far from being branded with
the epithets of "rebels" and " traitors," will be honored
as " self-sacrificing Patriots," fighting for their Liberties
throughout, and their Heroes and Martyrs in History will
take places "by the side of Washington, Hampden, and
Sydney!"
It affords me pleasure, however, to say, in winding up,
that, while in our long and social interchange of views,
and discussions of the various questions brought up in
667 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
review, in which we have occasionally so widely differed
upon some points, yet upon one we are at last all so
fully agreed; and that is, in our abhorrence of the very
idea of anything like Imperialism in this Country!
Perfect agreement on this point is the more agreeable to
me, because this presents the only real living issue of
paramount importance before the Peoples of the several
States. The great vital question now is: Shall the Federal Government be arrested in its progress, and be
brought back to original principles, or shall it be permitted to go on in its present tendencies and rapid strides,
until it reaches complete Consolidation!
Depend upon it, there is no difference between Consolidation and Empire; no difference between Centralism and
Imperialism.  The consummation of either must necessarily end in the overthrow of Liberty and the establishment of Despotism. To speak of any Rights as belonging to the States, without the innate and inalienable
Sovereign power to maintain them, is but to deal in the
shadow of language without the substance. Nominal
Rights without Securities are but Mockeries!
Nothing can be truer than that the States under our
system possess no Rights but Sovereign Rights. All their
reserved Rights are necessarily Sovereign Rights. They
hold nothing by grant or favor from the Federal Government. On the contrary, the Federal Government itself
possesses no Right, and is intrusted with the exercise of
no Power, except by delegation from the Sovereignty of
the several States. Sovereignty itself, as we have seen,
is, from its very nature, indivisible! There never was a
greater truth, more pointedly uttered than that by Mr.
Jefferson, that the States of this Union "are not united
upon the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government." The Administration of our Govern
668 
"THE LAND OF MEMORIES."
ment, therefore, must be brought back and made to con
formi ill its action, to these principles thus announced by
the Great Author of the System, and under which all the
great achievements of the past were made. If this is not
done, it is utterly vain to look for, or expect anything,
but ultimate Centralism and Despotism!
These are words of truth, expressed in an earnestness,
which I trust you will excuse; but they are words which,
however received or heeded by the people of this day,
will be rendered eternally true by the developments of
the future!
But without further speculation upon this subject or
any other, let me, in conclusion, barely add: If the
worst is to befall us; if our most serious apprehensions and
gloomiest forebodings as to the future, in this respect, are
to be realized; if Centralism is ultimately to prevail; if
our entire system of free Institutions as established by
our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire
is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last
scene in the great tragic drama now being enacted: then,
be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not
only in our own consciences, but by the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and
from all the guilt of so great a crime against humanity!
Amidst our own ruins, bereft of fortunes and estates, as well
as Liberty, with nothing remaining to us but a good name,
and a Public Character, unsullied and untarnished, we
will, in the common misfortunes, still cling in our affections to "the Land of Memories," and find expression for
our sentiments when surveying the past, as well as of our
distant hopes when looking to the future, in the grand
words of Father Ryan, one of our most eminent Divines,
and one of America's best poets:
"A land without ruins is a land without memories  a
COL. XXIV.]
669 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE WAR.  [VOL. II.
' land without memories is a land without liberty. A
"land that wears a laurel crown may be fair to see, but
twine a few sad cypress leaves around the brow of any
"land, and be that land beautiless and bleak, it becomes
"lovely in its consecrated coronet of sorrow, and it wins
"the sympathy of the heart and history. Crowns of roses
"fade-crowns of thorns endure.  Calvaries and crucifixes
"take deepest hold of humanity-the triumphs of Might
"are transient, they pass away and are forgotten-the
"sufferings of Right are graven deepest on the chronicles
"of nations.
"Yes! give me a land where the ruins are spread,
"And the living tread light on the hearts of the dead;
"Yes, give me a land that is blest by the dust,
"And bright with the deeds of the down-trodden just!
"Yes, give me the land that hath legend and lays
"Enshrining the memories of long-vanished days;
"Yes, give me a land that hath story and song,
"To tell of the strife of the Right with the Wrong;
"Yes, give me the land with a grave in each spot,
"And names in the graves that shall not be forgot!
"Yes, give me the land of the wreck and the tomb,
"There's a grandeur in graves-there's a glory in gloom!t
"For out of the gloom future brightness is born,
"As after the night looms the sunrise of morn;
"And the graves of the dead, with the grass overgrown,
"May yet form the footstool of Liberty's throne,
"And each single wreck in the war-path of Might,
"Shall yet be a rock in the Temple of Right!"
670 
APPENDIX.
A.
DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH IN DUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CARO LINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION
THE People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled,
on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States,
fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;
but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slave-holding
States, she forbore, at that time, to exercise this right. Since that time,
these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance
ceases to be a virtue.
And, now, the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate
and equal place among Nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining
United States of America, and to the Nations of the world, that she
should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great
Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion comnposed of the thirteen American Colonies.  A struggle for the right of
Self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a
Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be,
FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as Free and Intdependent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
Independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared, that "whenever any form of Govern,
671 
APPENDIX A.
ment becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is
the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become
destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved
from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved.'
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen
States proceeded to exercise its separate Sovereignty; adopted for itself
a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of Government in all its Departments-Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. For
purposes of defence, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in
1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation,
whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external
relations to a Common Agent, known as the Congress of the United
States, expressly declaring, in the first article, "that each State retains
its Sovereignty, Freedom, and Independence, and every power, Jurisdiction, and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."'
Under this Confederation, the war of the Revolution was carried on,
and on the 3d of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definitive
Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the
Independence of the Colonies in the following terms:
"ARTICLE 1.-His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United
States, viz.: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT
STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs
and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety
and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a
People to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends
for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of
these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the Mother Couutry as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles
of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as
the Constitution of the United States.
The Parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several
Sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of
them agreed, the Compact was to take effect among those concurring;
672 
DECLARATION OF CAUSES.
and the General Government, as the Common Agent, was then to be
invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would
have remained as they then were-Separate, Sovereign States, inde pendent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the
States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into
operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each
exercised the functions of an Independent Nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several
States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which
necessarily implied their continued existence as Sovereign States. But,
to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or
to the people. On 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of
her people, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and
afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the
obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by Compact between the States, a Government,
with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the
Grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject
to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered
unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two
great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we
hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third
fundamental principle, namely: the law of Compact. We maintain
that in every Compact between two or more Parties, the obligation is
mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting Parties to perform a
material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the
other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each Party is remitted
to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its
consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We
assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years
past to fulfil their Constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own
Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its Fourth Article, provides
as follows:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation thlerein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall
be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor
may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the Compact, that without it that
43
673 
APPENDIX A.
Compact would not have been made. The greater number of the
contracting Parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their
estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in
the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia,
which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same Article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition
by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the Common Agent, passed laws to
carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these
laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the nonslave-holding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard
of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased
te effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa,
have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render
useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the
fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of
them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in
the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a
law in conformity with her Constitutional obligation; but the current
of Anti-Slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which
render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the
laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit
for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and
Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder
and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus
the Constitutional Compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded
by these non-slave-holding States, and the consequence follows that
South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which this Constitution was framed, are declared by
itself to be "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.,
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in
which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control
over its own Institutions. The right of property in slaves was recog nized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them
the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty
years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted
have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destruc tive of them by the action of non-slave-holding States. Those States
674 
DECLARATION OF CAUSES.
have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic
Institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen
of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced
as sinful the Institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open
establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of citizens of other States.
They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave
their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries,
books, and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until
it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government.
Observing the forms of the Constitution, a Sectional Party has found
within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means
of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been
drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have
united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the
United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He
is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government,
because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the
belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This Sectional Combination for the subversion of the Constitution,
has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship persons,
who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile
to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.
On the 4th of March next, this Party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the
common territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional,
and that a war must be waged against Slavery until it shall cease
throughout the United States.
The Guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the
equal rights of the States will be lost. The slave-holding States will no
longer have the power of Self-government, or Self-protection, and the
Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all
hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the
North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more
erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our Delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America
is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the Nations of the world, as a Separate and Independent
675 
APPENDIX B.
State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.
B.
GEORGIA PLATFORM OF 1850.
To the end that the position of this State may be clearly apprehended
by her Confederates of the South and of the North, and that she may
be blameless of all future consequences  Be it resolved by the people of Georgia in Convention assembled, First.
That we hold the American Union secondary in importance only to the
rights and principles it was designed to perpetuate. That past associations, present fruition, and future prospects, will bind us to it so long
as it continues to be the safe-guard of those rights and principles.
Second. That if the thirteen original Parties to the Compact, bordering
the Atlantic in a narrow belt, while their separate interests were in
embryo, their peculiar tendencies scarcely developed, their revolutionary
trials and triumphs still green in memory, found Union impossible
without compromise, the thirty-one of this day may well yield somewhat in the conflict of opinion and policy, to preserve that Union which
has extended the sway of Republican Government over a vast wilderness
to another ocean, and proportionally advanced their civilization and
national greatness.
Third. That in this spirit the State of Georgia has maturely considered the action of Congress, embracing a series of measures for the
admission of California into the Union, the organization of Territorial
Governments for Utah and New Mexico, the establishment of a boundary between the latter and the State of Texas, the suppression of the
siave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the extradition of fugitive
slaves, and (connected with them) the rejection of propositions to
exclude slavery from the Mexican Territories, and to abolish it in the
District of Columbia; and, whilst she does not wholly approve, will
abide by it as a permanent adjustment of this sectional controversy.
Fourth. That the State of Georgia, in the judgment of this Convention,
will and ought to resist, even (as a last resort) to a disruption of every
tie which binds her to the Union, any future Act of Congress abolishing
Slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent and petition of
the slave-holders thereof, or any Act abolishing Slavery in places within
the slave-holding States, purchased by the United States for the erection
of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, navy-yards, and other like
purposes; or in any Act suppressing the slave-trade between slave
676
4  -n 
LETTER TO MACON GENTLEMEN.
holding States; or in any refusal to admit as a State any Territory
applying, because of the existence of Slavery therein; or in any Act
prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the Territories of Utah and
New Mexico; or in any Act repealing or materially modifying the laws
now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves.
Fifth. That it is the deliberate opinion of this Convention, that upon
the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Bill by the proper authorities,
depends the preservation of our much loved Union.
C.
LETTER OF THIRTEEN GENTLEMEN OF MACON, AND
MR. STEPHENS'S REPLY, ON THE RUPTURE IN THE
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, AT CHARLESTON, IN 1860.
MACON, Ga., MAY 5th, 1860.
SIR: We are alarmed by the state of things developed in the Demecratic Convention at Charleston. The discord and disorganizing spirit
which prevailed there threaten the integrity and overthrow of the
Democratic Party. We are filled with painful forebodings at the
prospect of the Democratic Party being slaughtered in the house of its
friends-a catastrophe which will put in equal peril the Union of the
States and the safety of the South. Clinging to the fate and fortunes
of both, we invoke your counsels in this crisis. We believe the Democracy of Georgia should be represented in the adjourned National
Convention at Baltimore. Will you please give us your views candidly
and promptly for publication?
Your firiends and fellow-citizens,
ROBERT COLLINS, JOHN J. GRESHAM, JAS. W.
ARMSTRONG, JAMES DEAN, JOHN B. ROSS,
PULASKI S. HOLT, A. E. COCHRAN, W. K.
DEGRAFFENRIED, SAMUEL  B.  HUNTER,
JOSEPII CLISBY, THOMAS L. ROSS, JAMES
A. NISBET, WM. LUNDY.
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., MAY 9, 1860.
GENTLEMEN: Your letter, of the 5th inst., was received last night,
and I promptly respond to your call as clearly and fully as a heavy
press of business engagements will permit. I shall endeavor to be no
mess pointed and explicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment,
over-estimate the importance of the questions now pressing upon the
public mind, growing out of the disruption of the Charleston Convention.
While I was not greatly surprised at that result, considering the
677
- b 
APPENDIX C.
elements of its composition, and the general distemper of the times, still
I deeply regret it, and, with you, look with intense interest to the
consequences. What is done cannot be undone or amended; that must
remain irrevocable. It would, therefore, be as useless, as ungracious,
to indulge in any reflections, as to whose fault the rupture was owing
to.  Perhaps, and most  probably, undue  excitement  and  heat of
passion, in pursuit of particular ends connected with the elevation or
overthrow of particular rivals for preferment, more than any strong
desire, guided by cool judgment, so necessary on such occasions, to
advance the public good, was the real cause of the rupture. Be that as
it may, however, what is now to be done, and what is the proper course
to be taken? To my mind the course seems to be clear.
A State Convention should be called at an early day-and that Convention should consider the whole subject calmly, and dispassionately,
with "the sober second thought," and determine whether to send a
representation to Richmond or to Baltimore. The correct determination
of this question, as I view it, will depend upon another; and that is,
whether the doctrine of Non-Intervention by Congress, with Slavery in
the Territories, ought to be adhered to, or abandoned by the South.
This is a very grave and serious question, and ought not to be decided
rashly or intemperately. No such small matters, as the promotion of
this or that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ought to enter
into its consideration.  It is a great subject of public policy, affecting
the vast interests of the present and the future. It may be unnecessary,
and entirely useless, for me to obtrude my views upon this question, in
advance of the meeting of such Convention, upon whom its decision
may primarily devolve. I cannot, however, comply with your request,
without doing so to a limited extent, at least. This, I shall do. In the
first place, then, I assume, as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact,
that Non-Intei-vention, as stated, has been for many years received,
recognized, and acted upon, as the settled doctrine of the South. By
NYoa-Intervention, I mean the principle, that Congress shall pass no law
upon the subject of Slavery in the Territories, either for, or against it,
in any way-that they shall not interfere or act upon it at all-or, in
the express words of Mr. Calhoun, the great Southern leader, that
Congress shall " leavethe whole subject where the Constitution and the
great principles of Self-government place it."  This has been eminently
a Southern doctrine. It was announced by Mr. Calhoun, in his speech,
in the Senate, on the 27th of June, 1848; and, after two years of discussion, was adopted as the basis of the adjustment finally made in 1850.
It was the demand of the South, put forth by the South, and since its
establishment has been again and again affirmed and re-affirmed as the
settled policy of the South, by Party Conventions and State Legislatures,
in every form that a people can give authoritative expression to their will
and wishes. This cannot now be matter of dispute. It is history, as
678 
LETTER TO MACON GENTLEMllN.
indelibly fixed upon the record as the fact that the Colony of Georgia
was settled under the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of the
American Revolution was fought in resistance to the unjust claim of
power on the part of the British Parliament.
I refer to this matter of history connected with the subject under consideration, barely as a starting point-to show how we stand in relation
to it. It is not a new question. It has been up before, and whether
rightly or wrongly, it has been decided-decided and settled just as the
South asked that it should be-not, however, without great effort and a
prolonged struggle. The question now is, shall the South abandon her
own position in that decision and settlement? This is the question
virtually presented by the action of the Seceders from the Charleston
Convention, and the grounds upon which they based their action; or
stated in other words, it amounts to this; whether the Southern States,
after all that has taken place on the subject, should now reverse their
previous course, and demand Congressional intervention for the protection of slavery in the Territories, as a condition of their remaining longer
in the Union? For I take it for granted that it would be considered by
all as the most mischievous folly to make the demand, unless we intend
to push the issue to its ultimate and legitimate results. Shall the South,
then, make this demand of Congress, and when made, in case of failure
to attain it, shall she secede from the Union as a portion of her delegates
(some under instructions, and some from their own free will,) seceded
from the Convention, on their failure to get it granted there?
Thus stands the naked question, as I understand it, presented by the
action of the Seceders, in its full dimensions-its length, breadth, and
depth, in all its magnitude.
It is presented not to the Democratic Party alone; it is true, a Convention of that Party may first act on it, but it is presented to the
country, to the whole people of the South, of all Parties. And men of
all Parties should duly and timely consider it, for they may all have to
take sides on it, sooner or later.
It rises in importance high above any Party organization of the
present day, and it may, and ought to, if need be, sweep them all from
the board.  My judgment is against the demand.  If it were a new
question, presented in its present light, for the first time, my views upon
it might be different from what they are. It is known to you and the
country, that the policy of N.on-Intervention, as established at the instance
of the South, was no favorite one of mine. As to my position upon it,
and the doctrine now revived, when they were original and open ques.
tions, as well as my present views, I will cite you to an extract from a
speech made by me in Augusta, in July last, on taking final leave of my
constituents.  I could not restate them more clearly or more briefly. In
speaking of, and reviewing this matter, I then said:
"And, as you all may know, it (Non-Intervention) came short of what
.4010
679 
APPENDIX C.
I wished. It was, in my view, not the full measure of our rights. That
required, in my judgment, the enactment by Congress, of all needful
laws for the protection of slave property in the Territories, so long as
the territorial condition lasted.
"But an overwhelming majority of the South was against that posi tion. It was said that we who maintained it, yielded the whole ques tion by yielding the jurisdiction-and that, if we conceded the power to
protect, we necessarily conceded with it the power to prohibit. This,
by no means, followed, in my judgment. But such was the prevailing
opinion. And it was not until it was well ascertained that a large
majority of the South would not ask for, or even vote for, Congressional
protection, that those of us who were for it yielded to non-intervention,
because, though it came short of our wishes, yet it contained no sacrifice
of principle-had nothing aggressive in it, and secured, for all practical
purposes, what was wanted; that is, the unrestricted right of expansion
over the common public domain, as inclination, convenience, or neces sity may require on the part of our people.     *    *    *
"Thus the settlement was made —thus the record stands, and by it I
am willing still to stand, as it was fully up to the demands of the South,
through her Representatives at the time, though not up to my own;
and as by it the right of expansion to the extent of population and
capacity is amply secured."
In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper course now to
be taken on the same subject. While, in the beginning of this controversy, I was not favorable to the policy adopted, yet I finally yielded my
assent. It was yielded to the South-to the prevailing sentiment of my
own section. But it never would have been yielded if I had seen that
any of our important rights, or any principle essential to our safety or
security, could, by possiblity, result from its operation. Nor would I
now be willing to abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any
serious injury to the South likely to arise from it. All Parties in the
South, after the settlement was made, gave it the sanction of their
acquiescence, if not cordial approval. What, then, has occurred since
to cause us to change our position in relation to it? Is it that those of
the North who stood by us in the struggle from 1848 to 1850, did afterward, stand nobly by uS in 1854, in taking off the old Congressional
Restriction, of 1820, so as to have complete Non-Intervention throughout
the length and breadth of the common public domain? Was this
heroism on their part, in adhering to principle, at the hazard and peril
of their political lives and fortunes, the cause of present complaint?
This cannot be; for never was an Act of Congress so generally and so
unanimously hailed with delight at the South, as this one was-I mean
the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854? It was not only indorsed by all
Parties in Georgia, but every one who did not agree to its just provisions, upon the subject of Slavery, was declared to be unfit to hold
680 
LETTER TO MACON GENTLEMEN.
Party associations with any Party not hostile to the interests of the
South. What, then, is the cause of complaint now? Wherein has this
policy worked any injury to the South, or wherein is it likely to work
any?
The only cause of complaint I have heard is, that Non-Intervention,
as established in 1850, and carried out in 1854, is not understood at the
North as it is at the South; that, while we hold that, in leaving "the
whole subject where the Constitution and the great principles of Selfgovernment place it," the common territories are to remain open for
settlement by Southern people with their slaves, until otherwise provided
by a State Constitution, the friends and supporters of the same doctrine
at the North maintain that, under it, the people of an organized Territory can protect or exclude slave property before the formation of a
State Constitution. This opinion, or construction of theirs, is what is
commonly dubbed "Squatter Sovereignty."  Upon this point of difference in construction of what are "the great principles of Self-government,'" under the Constitution of the United States, a great deal has
been said and written.
We have heard it in the social circle-in the forum-on the hustingsand in the halls of legislation. The newspapers have literally groaned
with         dissertations on it.  Pamphlets have been published for and
against the respective sides. Congress has spent months in its discussion, and may spend as many years as they have months, without
arriving at any more Definite or satisfactory conclusion in relation to
it, than Milton's perplexed spirits did upon the abstruse questions on
which they held such high and prolonged debate when they reasoned
"Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate;
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute,
And found no end in wandering mazes lost."
It is not my purpose now to enter the list of these disputants. My
own opinions upon the subject are known; and it is equally known that
this difference of opinion, or construction, is no new thing in the history
of this subject. Those who hold the doctrine that the people of the
Territories, according to the great principles of Self-government, under
the Constitution of the United States, can exclude Slavery by Territorial
Law, and regulate slave property as all other property, held the same
views they now do, when we agreed with them to stand on those terms.
This fact is also historical. The South held, that under the Constitution, the Territorial Legislatures could not exclude Slavery-that it
required an Act of Sovereignty to do this. Some gentlemen of the
North held, as they now do, that the Territorial Legislatures could
control slave property as absolutely as they could any other kind of
property, and by a system of laws could virtually exclude Slavery fron
amongst them, or prevent its introduction if they chose.
681 
That point of difbference it was agreed, by both sides, to leave to the
Courts to settle. There was no cheat, or swindle, or fraud, or double
dealing in it. It was a fair, honorable, and Constitutional adjustment
of the difference. No assertion or declaration by Congress, one way or
the other, could have affected the question in the least degree; for if the
people, according to "the great principles of Self-government," under
the Constitution, have the right contended for by those who espouse
that side of the argument, then Congress could not and cannot deprive
them of it. And if Congress did not have, or does not have, the power
to exclude Slavery from a Territory, as those on our side contefnded,
and still contend they have not, then they could not and did not confer
it upon the Territorial Legislatures. We of the South held that Congress had not the power to exclude, and could not delegate a power
they did not possess-also, that the people had not the power to exclude
under the Constitution, and therefore the mutual agreement was to take
the subject out of Congress, and leave the question of the power of the
people where the Constitution had placed it-with the Courts. This is
the whole of it. The question in dispute is a judicial one, and no Act
of Congress, nor any resolution of any Party Convention can in any
way affect it, unless we abandon the first position of Non-Intervention by Congress.
But it seems exceedingly strange to me, that the people of the South
should, at this late day, begin to find fault with this Northern construction, as it is termed-especially since the decision of the Supreme Court,
in the case of Dred Scott.  In this connection, I may be permitted to
say, that I have read with deep interest the debates of the Charleston
Convention, and particularly the able, logical, and eloquent speech of
the Hon. Wm. L. Yancey, of Alabama.  It was, decidedly, the strongest
argument I have seen on his side of the question. But its greatest
power was shown in its complete answer to itself. Never did a man,
with greater clearness, demonstrate that "Squatter Sovereignty," the
bug-bear of the day, is not in the Kansas Bill, all that has been said to
the contrary, notwithstanding. This, he put beyond the power of refutation. But he stopped not there-he went on, and by reference to the
decision of the Supreme Court alluded to, he showed, conclusively, in a
most pointed and thrilling climax, that this most frightful doctrine could
not, by possibility, be in it, or in any other Territorial Bill-that it is a
Constitutional impossibility. With the same master-hand he showed that
the doctrine of "' Squatter Sovereignty" is not in the Cincinnati Platform; then why should we of the South now complain of Non-Intervention,
or ask a change of Platform?
What else have we to do but to insist upon our allies standing to their
agreement? Would it not have been much more natural to look for
flinching on their side than on ours? Why should we desire or want
any other Platform of principles than that adopted at Cincinnati? If
682
APPENDIX C. 
LETTER TO MACON GENTI,EMEN.
those who stood with us on it, in the contest of 1856, are willing still to
stand on it, why should we not be equally willing? For my life I cannot
see, unless we are determined to have a quarrel with the North anyhow
on general account. If so, in behalf of common sense, let us put it upon
more tenable ground! These are abundant. For our own character's
sake, let us make it upon the aggressive acts of our enemies, rather than
any supposed short-comings of our friends, who have stood by us so
steadfastly in so many Constitutional struggles. In the name of patriotism and honor, let us not make it upon a point which may so directly
subject us to the charge of breach of plighted faith. Whatever may
befall us, let us ever be found, by friend or foe, as good as our word.
These are my views, frankly and earnestly given.
The great question, then, is, shall we stand by our principles, or shall
we cutting loose from our moorings, where we have been safely anchored
so many years, launch out again into unknown seas, upon new and
perilous adventures, under the guide and pilotage of those who prove
themselves to have no more fixedness of purpose or stability, as to objects
or policy, than the shifting winds by which we shall be driven? Let this
question be decided by the Convention, and decided with that wisdom,
coolness, and forecast which becomes statesmen and patriots. As for
myself, I can say, whatever may be the course of future events, my
judgment in this crisis is, that we should stand by our principles
" through woe" as well as " through weal," and maintain them in good
faith, now and always, if need be, until they, we, and the Republic,
perish together in a common ruin. I see no injury that can possibly
arise to us from them-not even if the Constitutional impossibility of
their containing " Squatter Sovereignty" did not exist, as has been conclusively demonstrated.  For, if it did exist in them, and were all that;
its most ardent advocates claim for it, no serious practical danger to us
could result from it.
Even according to that doctrine, we have the unrestricted right of expansion to the extent of population. It is admitted that slavery can,
and will go, under its operation, wherever the people want it. Squatters carried it to Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi,
and Arkansas, without any law to protect it, and to Texas against a law
prohibiting it, and they will carry it under this doctrine to all countries
where climate, soil, production, and population will allow. These are
the natural laws that will regulate it under Non-Intervention, according to
that construction; and no act of Congress can carry it into any Territory against these laws, any more than it could make the rivers run to
the mountains, instead of the sea. If we have not enough of the right
sort of population to compete longer with the North in the colonization
of new Territories and States, this deficiency can never be supplied by
any such act of Congress as that now asked for. The attempt would
683' 
be as vain as that of Xerxes to control the waters of the Hellespont
by whipping them in his rage.
The times, as you intimate, do, indeed, portend evil. But I have no
fears for the Institution of Slavery, either in the Unionor out of it, if
otur people are but true to themselves-true, stable and loyal to fixed principles and settled policy; and if they are not thus true, I have little
hope of anything good, whether the present Union last or a new one be
formed.  There is, in my judgment, nothing to fear from the "Irrepressible Conflict" of which we hear so much. Slavery rests upon great
truths, which can never be successfully assailed by reason or argument.
It has grown stronger in the minds of men the more it has been discussed, and it will still grow stronger as the discussion proceeds and
time rolls on. Truth is omnipotent, and must prevail! We have only
to maintain the truth with firmness, and wield it aright. Our system
rests upon an impregnable basis, that can and will defy all assaults
from without. My greatest apprehension is from causes within-there
lies the greatest danger. We have grown luxuriant in the exuberance
of our well being and unparalleled prosperity. There is a tendency
everywhere, not only at the North, but at the South, to strife, dissension, disorder, and anarchy. It is against this tendency that the soberminded and reflecting men everywhere should now be called upon to
guard.
My opinion, then, is, that delegates ought to be sent to the adjourned
Convention at Baltimore. The demand made at Charleston by the
Seceders ought not to be insisted upon. Harmony being restored on
this point, a nomination can doubtless be made of some man whom the
Party, everywhere, can support, with the same zeal, and the same ardor
with which they entered and waged the contest in 1856, when the same
principles were involved.
If, in this, there be a failure, let the responsibility not rest upon us.
Let our hands be clear of all blame. Let there be no cause for casting
censure at our door. If, in the end, the great National Democratic
Party-the strong ligament, which has so long bound and held the
Union together-shaped its policy and controlled its destinies-and to
which we have so often looked with a hope that seldom failed, as the
only Party North on which to rely, in the most trying hours when Constitutional rights were in peril, let it not be said to us, in the midst of
the disasters that may ensue, "you did it!"  In any and every event,
let not the reproach of Punic faith rest upon our name.  If everything
else has to go down, let our untarnished honor, at least, survive the
wreck.                                 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
APPENDIX C.
684 
LETTER TO DR. LANDRUM.
D.
LETTER OF MR. STEPHENS TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM, OF
LEXINGTON, GEORGIA, ON THE -RUPTURE IN THE
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, AT BALTIMORE, IN 1860.
CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., JULY 1, 1860.
MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 26th ultimo was duly received, and I
now return you an answer by the earliest mail that will bear it. But I
confess my utter inability to give you any definite or satisfactory
response to your several inquiries. The condition of public affairs, in
my judgment, is truly deplorable, and I see but little prospect of it
being bettered by any effort of patriotism on my part. Your professional
practice  has doubtless  presented you with  many  cases where the
symptoms indicated a malignity of disease beyond the power of
medical skill. Such, you will excuse me in saying, are the symptoms of
our public disorders, in my judgment, at this time. I see no remedy,
can make no prescription-and can suggest nothing.  The "vis medicatrix naturce," is the only hope, and when this is the only hope, the
best course is to leave the patient quietly to himself.
It is useless to discuss questions relating to the origin of this state of
things, or how the evils that are upon us, or the worse ones ahead now
threatening, could have been avoided. The times seem to be sadly out
of joint.
In reply to what you say of my power, and that patriotism and statesmanship must "save us, else we perish," I can only say, with an
oppressed heart, that there are periods in every Wation's history, when
passions get the better of reason, when no human power can avail anything, when patriotism and statesmanship are alike submerged under
the irresistible wave. At such times no power short of that which said
to the troubled waters of Galilee's Sea, "Peace, be still!" can allay the
storm. This is that unseen, but all-prevailing, and all-controlling power
of Providence, which shapes the fortunes of men, and guides the destiny
of States. What is to be the future of this country, I cannot say. I cannot even venture a conjecture. All I can do is to indulge a hope, strong
or weak, as it may be, that all may yet be well. How this is to be, I
do not see; it was the prospect of the events we now have upon us,
"the shadows" of which I saw in advance of their approach, with the
full conviction and consciousness that 1 could do nothing to avert them,
that caused me to retire from that position of responsibility I had so
long held, and in which I felt satisfied I could no longer be useful.
The real evils of the times the people do not understand. It springs
from no defect in their Government, from no "Irrepressible Conflict" of
interest between the two great sections of the Union, from no danger to
the rights, interest, honor, or safety of either, but from the want of true
685 
APPENDIX D.
patriotism on the part of our public men in all sections; from the want
of devotion to the country, for the country's sake; from a want of
loyalty to principle; nay, more, directly from the ambition of aspirants
for place and power. This begets personal strife, prompted by jealousy
and envy, and hate. These are amongst the strongest, as well as the
worst passions of human nature. They are not confined to humanity;
even in Heaven (it is said) they once exhibited their power and fury.
If there they made devils of angels, what may we not expect them to
make of men on earth? The good, the virtuous, and the wise, may
look on and lament. Sometimes wise counsels may arrest and prevent
most mischievous consequences, at others they are as impotent as
chaff to stay the force of a storm. What influence had La Fayette's
sage admonitions on the passions of the frenzied populace of France,
aroused and led on by demagogues? I need not indulge, however, any
longer in this strain.
To come to particulars. I assure you I am pained and grieved at
what was done at Baltimore. The Charleston Rupture was bad enough,
but that at Baltimore was much worse. What the friends of Mr.'
Douglas meant by pressing his nomination in the face of the secession
of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virgiiia. to say nothing of other States, I
cannot imagine. As I view the field, he has no probable chance of
election. Why they should put him up to be beaten is strange to me.
I cannot understand it. They certainly have not as much regard for
his noble spirit, great talents, and merits as I have. Madness and folly
seem to have ruled the hour. The only use or public benefit his
running can be, it seems to me, is for him to carry enough Northern
Electoral votes to defeat Mr. Lincoln before the people, and to throw
the election into the House, where his Party rival, Mr. Breckenridge,
may make him a stepping-stone in his elevation to power and place.
In this way he may possibly, by his back and shoulders, enable Mr.
Breckenridge to succeed in his election, and benefit the country by the
defeat of Mr. Lincoln. But what honor this will be to Mr. Douglas I
think it would be difficult for his friends to show. If this position had
been necessary for any one, I would have assigned it to some other-some
one who could, and would have rendered the country great public service,
and at the same time might have been gaining and not losing public
reputation himself. Again, his friends, it seems to me, must have
known that his nomination, made under the circumstances that it was,
could not have the power of keeping the National Organization together.
It was virtually a rupture of it.  The  usages of the Party and its
constitution, it will be said, (however the facts may be,) were violated
in putting him forth as its nominee, without the concurrence of twothirds of the Electoral votes. This will effectually produce general
demoralization.
The consequence is, we are and shall be, during the whole canvass,
686 
LETTER TO DR. LANDRUM.
entirely at sea. No one will be looked to as the regularly appointed
standard-bearer of the flag of the National Organization. The rupture is
complete, and may be final. How that will be, the future must determine.
This election, at best, can but be a scrub race between the Democratic
candidates. The National Democratic Party is in the position of the
old Republican Party in 1824. The same fate may be in reserve for it.
That never was again re-organized, though another National Organization did spring up out of the fragments and dissolving elements of old
organizations, which was sufficient, under Providence, to save our
Institutions; and so it may be again.
It is consoling to the patriot at least to indulge in the hope that such
may be the case. But that the South will ever get an Act of Congress
protecting slave property in the Territories, I have no idea. That
those who now insist upon such an article in a National Party creed
ever expect to see such an Act passed, I have no idea. For many of
them say that they would not vote for such a law.  And that such a
law would never be of the least advantage to the South, I am well
satisfied. Hence, I was, and am clear in my conviction that it was not
only not patriotic, but exceedingly unwise and mischievous to insist
upon such an interpolation on the old National Party Platform, and
particularly at this juncture. But I will not confine my remarks to this
juncture; for I verily believe that Non-Intervention by Congress with
Slavery in the Territories, is a proper and safe doctrine at all times.
For this reason I acquiesced in it, when and as I did. Had the Party
at this time continued to stand on it with Mr. Douglas, they would
have carried the country by an overwhelming majority, and would have
annihilated the "Black Republican Organization,"' as it is called, for all
time to come. This is my opinion. As matters now stand, this great
result is put almost upon the chances of the turning of a die. If Douglas
can carry enough Northern States to defeat Lincoln's election in the
Electoral Colleges, the contest will then come up in the House; when,
if the South unite with CALifornia and Oregon, Lin,icoln may be
defeated.
But the seat of the Democratic member from Oregon (MR. STOUT)
is now contested, and I have no doubt a majority in the present House
will vote him out, in case the election for President shall go before that
body. Then there is great danger that a strife will arise between the
friends of Bell and Breckenridge, in case they both be on the list of the
three highest voted for by the Colleges. In that event, there will be no
lhope but in staving off the election until the 4th of March, when the
Senate will have to make the choice under the Constitution. But in all
these chances, in view of the passions and prejudices of bad men, aiming
at rule and power, who does not see in advance the imminent danger at
every turn, of some outbreak that may lead to revolution?  Have we
not fallen upon evil times, when so much has been hazarded to accom
687 
APPENDIX D.
plish no object higher or worthier than the gratification of personal
envy, hate, revenge, and ambition? The prospect is gloomy enough,
but, my dear sir, I do not despair of the Republic; though I do not at
this time see in what way anything I can do or say would be of the
least benefit, yet I am not without hope that deliverance in some way is
in store for us.  As to whether a Douglas ticket should be run in
Georgia, I can give no advice either for or against it. What those
Southern States-Alabama and Louisana-which voted for Mr. Douglas
at Baltimore, as they did, meant by their course, or what they expected
to accomplish by it, I do not know. I have received no explanations.
What Governor Johnson expects to accomplish, I do not know. I have
heard nothing from any of them. I see the editor of the Constitutionalist
speaks as if he thinks the South will go for Douglas. To me, this seems
little short of utter dementation. Still I may be mistaken. I only
speak to you my individual opinions, formed from observations such as
I can make in my quiet retreat, without mingling at all with the outside
world, except through the medium of the public press. Had Douglas
been nominated at Charleston (even after the Secession took place), he
would have carried the South against a Richmond nomination. But at
present it is impossible. The Baltimore Convention, instead of stopping
the break in the levee, only made it deeper and wider. It is now, in
my judgment, entirely beyond control. Nothing but a subsidence of
the waters will ever arrest it. I think, moreover, that the declination
of Fitzpatrick, and the general enthusiasm for Breckinridge and Lane
in the South, will greatly damage Douglas in the North, if it does not
entirely break him down there. As the prospect of his election diminishes, as it will very soon, even with those who were foolish enough to
put him up as they did-thousands will abandon him to get on the
winning side. Some from spite, and some from personal motives, so
that in the end I should not be greatly surprised to see Lincoln elected
by the people. In this state of things, so far as I am concerned, I am
satisfied that the best course I can talg is, to leave the whole matter
with those who have undertaken the management of the crisis. Should
it turn out well, no one will be more rejoiced than myself. Should it
turn out badly, while I shall feel relieved of all personal responsibilityshould I be in life-I shall endeavor to do whatever the dictates of
patriotism may point out, whenever an occasion shall arise, when I see
any prospect for doing good. At this time, I repeat, I see none. I
expect, therefore, in this contest, to be perfectly silent. I see no good
to be accomplished by any word that I can say. The popular fever
must run its course. I do not wish any one to be influenced by my
views, one way or the other. Every one should act from the dictates
of his own judgment.  If the "worst comes," and we shall be precipitated into disunion, even by what I deem unwise counsels, which is not
at all improbable, I shall yield to that misfortune as to all others.  My
688 
LETTER TO DR. LANDRUM.
destiny is with Georgia; whatever awaits her people, awaits me, so long
as I live. Whatever errors her people or her rulers commit in controlling the common destiny of all of us, I shall endeavor to bear my share
of the consequences of them with that patriotism which prompts a loyal
heart to go for his country, right or wrong. At present, my patriotism
embraces the whole country, North and South, and I have spent the
best of my days in promoting the Union, harmony, peace, rights,
interests, and happiness of the whole. But if for any cause a division
takes place, then Georgia will be my country; her people will be my
people, and their cause will be my cause I I do trust that this division
will not take place. I see no necessity for it. Still it may come. And
if it does, my judgment as to the necessity of the thing, or the propriety
of the course of our public men, that may induce it and hasten it, will
not influence my action when the great fact is upon us.
Excuse this long letter. It is written, as you see from its date, on
Sunday. I give it to you as a sort of pious offering, not altogether unsuited to the sacredness of the day. There are occasions when attention
to bodily suffering of ourselves or our friends, as well as personal cares,
are not thought to be out of place on this day. Even Christ, after ministering in this way on that day, asked those about him, "Which of you
shall have an ass, or an ox fall into a pit, and will not straightway pull
him out on the Sabbath-day?" The illustration is good to the extent
that good may be performed on Sunday. And with a consciousness that
what I have said or written has been prompted by no motive, but the
public good, which concerns us all so deeply, I have no further apology
to offer you for this deed on the Sabbath, though I make no attempt to
get the country out of its difficulties, for I see no way to do it.
In reply to your inquiries after my health, I have to say that it is
very feeble indeed. I am barely able to be up. I have quit all professional labors. I suffer from extreme debility, accompanied with vertigo.
The cause or nature of the malady I do not understand. When I was
at Athens, attending the Supreme Court, I consulted Dr. Moore, who
thought it was brought on by exposure to the sun. I had been very
much thus exposed on my farm, during the hot days in May, just
before the first attack. I am on no treatment or r6gime, except rest
and quiet.
To your other inquiry about our National flag, all I can say is, that
the designer of the present flag was Captain Reid, of the privateer brig,
General Armstrong, in the war with England, in 1812. The dates and
particulars I cannot give, or wherein the device of the present flag
differs from the old one. The full history of the stars and stripes I expect
wv)oli he entertaining if not useful.  The Stars. as a. matter of course,
r"present States.  Tlhe origin of the Stripes, L thliik, if search(ed out
would be found to be a little curious  All I kliow ii,),ti that l)oint is,
that on the 4th day of July, 1776, after the I)eclaration of Indelpendenue
44
689 
was carried, a Committee was appointed by Congress, consisting of Mr.
Jefferson, Dr. Franklin, and John Adams to prepare a device for a Seal
of the United States. Each member of the Committee prepared a device,
and then they combined something of the ideas of each in one they reported. Mr. Jefferson was to combine their ideas. The seal he thus
reported had on one side of it the Goddess of Liberty and the Goddess
of Justice, supporting a shield with six quarterings, denoting the six
countries from which the Colonies had mainly been peopled, to wit:
England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, and htolland. The
motto on this seal was "Epluribus tunum."  This seal, as reported, or
the device in full as reported, was never adopted.  But in it we see the
emblems in part, which are still preserved in the flag.
The stripes or lines, which on Mr. Jefferson's original plan were to
designate the six quarterings of the shield, as signs of the six countries
from which our ancestors came, are now, I believe, considered as representations of the old thirteen States, and with most persons the idea of a
shield is lost sight of. You perceive, that by drawing six lines or stripes
on a shield figure it will leave seven spaces of the original color, and of
course give thirteen apparent stripes; hence the idea of their being all
intended to represent the old thirteen States. My opinion is, that this
was the origin of the stripes.  Mr. Jefferson's quartered shield for a seal
device was seized upon as a national emblem that was put upon the flag.
We now have the stars as well as the stripes.  When each of these were
adopted I cannot say; but the flag, as it now is, was designed by Captain
Reid, as I tell you, and adopted by Congress. The first one with his
device, which Congress adopted, was put over the Capitol. It was made
by the wife and daughters of Captain Reid.
Please remember me to Miss Grattan and to Mrs. Gilmer-to both
give my kind regards. And though this letter is written entirely and
exclusively for yourself, and not for the public, in any sense of the word,
yet I have no objection to your reading it to Mrs. Gilmer if you think
proper. In it she will but hear repeated several thoughts and opinions
she heard from me last fall, on a memorable occasion. It was the last
night Mr. Gilmer ever sat up and talked with his friends, a conversation
I shall never forget, for the strong faith and confidence he then expressed, in the ultimate virtue and intelligence of the people to arrest
the evil tendencies of the times, greatly strengthened my own hopes,
weaker then than now.  What has occurred since has not disappointed
me at all. It has not even surprised me. I was expecting it, and am
now expecting a much worse state of things before any wholesome reaction takes place, if it ever does.
I must repeat to you, that what I have said is not for public use in
any sense. I do not wish your own action to be governed in the least
by that line which I think proper to take myself. Do as you think best.
Present my kind regards to Mrs. Landrum and accept for both of you
690
APPENDIX D. 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH IN AUGUSTA.
my best wishes for all the happiness this world can bestow, as well as
that in a life to come, which is in reserve for the virtuous and the good.
Yours truly,
ALEXANDER  H. STEPHENS.
DR. Z. P. LANDRUM, LEXINGTON, GA.
E.
SPEECH OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, FAVORING THE
ELECTION OF MESSRS. DOUGLAS AND JOHNSON AS
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESiDENT, DELIVERED IN THE
CITY HALL PARK, AUGUSTA, GA., SEPTEMBER 1, 1860.
FELLOW- CITIZENS:-I appear before you in obedience to a call made
on me by those whose call could not be refused. The sacrifice of personal feelings or wishes, on such occasions, is not to be taken into the
account. If it were, I assure you I should not be here. I had hoped
never again to be drawn into the active struggles, the strifes, and excitements of politics. The address I made on the 2d of July, of last
year, near this spot, on taking leave of you, and this District, as Representative in Congress, I intended to be the last speech of the kind I
should ever make. I trusted that in no event, or under any circumstances, should I ever be called on again to mingle in public affairs.
All thd questions with which I had been connected in the public councils having been settled upon terms satisfactory to us-upon terms
thought to be just and honorable to all sections of the Union-it was
but natural to look upon that settlement as permanent, and to indulge
the hope of a happy and prosperous future for the country. But how
illusory are all our hopes I How changed the prospect before us now
from what it was twelve months ago I Then everything was encouraging to the heart of the patriot-would that I could say the same now.
Those agitating questions, then thought to be settled, have been opened
up afresh, and all that was done in their settlement is attempted to bc
undone. You ask me what I think of the present state of the country?
I told you, in the speech alluded to, that the peace and safety of the
country, in my judgment, depended upon an adherence to the principles
of the settlement of those questions then made.  I tell you the same
now. I tell you candidly and frankly that the signs of the times, as I
read them, portend evils of the gravest magnitude. There is an attempt
made to depart from the principles of that settlement.
At this time, and for some months past, the tendencies have been decidedly toward National disruption, and general anarchy. This conviction is beginning, to force itself upon the minds of all.  Can these ten
691 
APPENDIX E.
dencies be checked?  Can the threatened disasters be avoided or prevented?  If so, how, and in what way?  What course should the
patriot, looking only to the public good, public peace, welfare, and
safety, take in the complicated contest before us? These are questions
which now crowd upon our consideration. On them I propose to address
you to-night. They present a wide field for thought and reflectionabounding in subjects of deepest interest and gravest import. I can
only touch upon a few of them. My physical strength will not allow me
to attempt more, if, indeed, it will sustain me in the limited view I have
marked out for myself. I assume, in the outset, that the Government,
as it exists, is worth preserving; nay, more, with all its errors and
defects, with all its corruptions in administration, and short-comings of
its officers, it is the best Government on earth, and ought to be sustained,
if it can be, on the principles upon which it was founded.
First, then, as to the duty of Democrats in the approaching Presidential election; for to that Party I specially address myself. The choice
of Chief Magistrate is the now pressing and absorbing issue. Greater
and more momentous issues may be behind; but I wish not to lift the
curtain of the future, it is with the present we now deal. For whom
should Democrats vote? There are two tickets in the field claiming to
be Democratic; which one is entitled to and should receive the votes of
the Democrats? To this I answer, that, in my judgment, the National
ticket, bearing the names of Douglas and Johnson, is the one entitled to
Democratic support.
The nominees on this ticket are the representatives of the Party, put
forth according to the usages of the Party, and are the representatives
of the long-established principles of the Party.  Nay, more, they are
the representatives of the only principles upon which, in my judgment,
the Union of the States, and the rights of all sections, can be maintained.
For this reason I would urge this ticket, not only upon all Democrats,
but upon all well-wishers of their country, whether called Democrats,
Whigs, or Americans. Allow me briefly to notice some of the prominent objections urged against this ticket by the partisans and friends of
the other ticket claiming to be the true Democratic Party.
These relate to the manner of the nomination, the principles of the
Platform, and especially to certain opinions of Mr. Douglas, whose
name heads the ticket.
First, as to the manner of the nomination. It is said he failed to get
two-thirds of the votes in the Convention-that by Democratic usage
from 1832 down, no candidate could be nominated without a two-third
vote.
I would not notice this point, if so much stress had not been put upon
it by those who advocate the other ticket.  Not only in the press, but
in the speeches of leading men, and in the address to the public, put
forth by the Seceders Convention's Executive Committee, this point is
692 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH AT AUGUSTA.
made prominent, and urged as one of the main reasons why Democrats
should feel under no Party obligation to support the ticket of the regu larly constituted  Democratic  Convention.   In  my  judgment,  Mr.
Douglas did receive two-thirds of the votes of the Convention, according
to the usages of the Party, and according to the proper construction of
what is known as the two-third rule.
It is inmmaterial to me whether he received the nomination according
to the interpretation or construction of that rule at Charleston or not.
I mean the construction that the nominees should receive two-thirds of
all the Electoral votes. That construction was wrong. It was an
interpolation. It was inconsistent with the clear meaninog-the letter,
as well as the spirit-of the rule. The letter of the rule in most, if not
all the Conventions from 1832, running through 1836, 1840, 1844, 1848,
1852, and 1856, was that the nominees should receive two-thirds of all the
votes cast or given in the Convention. It is immaterial whether, in
point of fact, in all other Conventions, the nominees did actually receive
two-thirds of the entire Electoral vote or not-there never was before
such a secession as was at Charleston and Baltimore; the question is
what is the right construction of the rule requiring two-thirds of the
votes of the Convention to make a nomination, and when will its
requisition be complied with? This principle of a two-third vote is well
understood in the Parliamentary law of the country. It is fixed in the
Constitution of the United States, and in the Constitution of our own
State, perhaps of most of the States of the Union. It is a principle
often carried into Practical operation in Congress, and in our State
Legislatures. For instance, in the Constitution of the United States,
Article First, Section Seven, and clause two, we have this provision:
" Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the
President of the United States; If he approve, he shall sign it; but if
not, he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it
shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their
journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration,
two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it
shall become a law. "
Now, what has been the universal construction given to the words
"two-thirds of that House" in practical legislation?  Has it been that
it required two-thirds of all the members constituting the House and
Senate to pass a bill over the veto of the President? Never! I The
construction given, from the beginning down to the present time,
without an exception, was, and is, that two-thirds of those voting, inll
each House, may pass a bill over the Executive veto, though there be
barely a quorum present and voting. Such has been the uniform con
693, 
APPENDIX E.
struction, not of this, but another clause, which authorized the expul sion of a member of either House, by a two-third vote-two-thirds of
those voting, if there be a quorum, is all that is necessary for a compli ance with that clause of the Constitution.  So in our own State Con stitution it is provided:
" That the Governor shall have the revision of all bills passed by both
Houses, before they become laws, but two-thirds of both Houses may
pass a law notwithstanding his dissent."
Under this clause of our State Constitution, the construction has
been uniformly given.  Two-thirds of those voting in each House, if
a quorum be present, is all that is required. Again, in another article
of our Constitution, we have a provision for its amendment, in these
words:
"No part of this Constitution shall be altered, unless a bill for that
purpose, specifying the alteration intended to be made, shall have been
read three times in the House of Representatives and three times in the
Senate, on three several days in each House, and agreed to by twothirds of each House, respectively; and when any such bill shall be
passed, in manner aforesaid, the same shall be published at least six
months previous to the next ensuing election for members of the General
Assembly, and if such alterations, or any of them so proposed, should
be agreed to, in the first session thereafter. by two-thirds of each branch
of the General Assembly, after the same shall have been read three
times, on three separate days, in each respective House, then, and not
otherwise, the same shall become a part of this Constitution."
Under this clause, two-thirds of each branch of the General Assembly
has always been held to mean two-thirds of those toting on any proposed amendment-provided a quorum were present.   Some of the
most important amendments that have been made to the Constitution,
since its first adoption, were made by a much smaller number than twothirds of the entire House, in either branch. The one establishing the
Supreme Court was made by a vote not much over a majority ill each
House. If a Constitution can be thus amended-if this construction
holds and obtains in all such cases, both Federal and State, why should
it not be held in a similar rule, founded on similar principles in a Party
Convention, especially as that Convention had adopted the rules of the
House of Representatives of the United States, where always a twothird vote is held to be two-thirds of those voting on any question?
It is immaterial with me, then, whether Mr. Douglas got two hundred and twelve, or one hundred and ninety-six, or one hundred and
eig,hty-one and a half, or one hundred and fifty-four, as has been variously contended; in either case he got two-thirds of those voting in the
Convention, as it then stood-as it was then constituted.  If there were
but one hundred and ninety-six members present when he got one hundred and eighty-one and a half, he got two-thirds of the body, according
694 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH AT AUGUSTA.
to all our Parliamentary rules of construction. And if the Alabama
and Louisiana delegates, who voted for him, be counted out, and after
reducing his vote to one hundred and fifty-four, as is contended by some,
the Convention having but one hundred and ninety-six in it, still he
had two-thirds, according to the same rule or principle of construction
which would authorize a bill to be passed over an Executive veto, or
cause any change to be made in the fundamental law of our own State.
I therefore consider him the regularly nominated candidate of the Democratic Party, and as such entitled to the support of his Party.
No other rule of construction can be practically worked. How would
it be with Breckinridge and Lane, who are claimed to be the representatives of the National Democratic Party? In the Convention that
nominated them, the same two-thirds rule, if I am not mistaken, was
adopted-the old rule of the Party, I mean, and not the construction
put upon it at Charleston, for with that construction they never could
have made a nomination. Their Convention consisted of but one hundred and five Electoral votes-very little over one-third, all told, of the
Electoral vote of the Union-so that if the same construction had been
put upon it in that Convention, which is insisted should be in the other,
they never could have nominated anybody-if they had balloted until
doomsday.  Then let no man abandon his Party on the ground that
the candidate was not regularly nominated. So much for this point. I
pass to another objection.
This, in the order, relates to the Platform.  The Platform, it is said,
is not sound-it is not National-it does not sustain the rights of the
South.  And what is the Platform adopted?  I need not read it-it is
known to you all. It is the well-known Platform of the Party based
upon the doctrine of Non-Intervention by Congress with Slavery in the
States or Territories, as set forth at Cincinnati in 1856, with an additional resolution, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, in the
Dred Scott case.  Was not this all that our State Convention had asked?
Was not this Platform, even without the additional resolution, sound
enough in 1856?  Was it not broad enough, and strong enough, for the
Democracy of the whole Union then? And if so then, why not now?
Do principles change so soon? Has anything occurred since, requiring
any new tests?  If so, when, and where, and what?  Did not Northern
friends fail to adhere to it? Did they not rather ronew their pledge to
it, with the additional demand, as to the Dred Scott decision, mniade by
our State Convention last December?
If, then, this Platform of principles was sufficient to guard and protect our rights, and interest, and honor, in 1856, why is it not in 1860,
especially with the additional guarantee given? This question I propLound to all candid and reflecting minds. It is one that the country
expects an answer to, by those who left the Convention because of the
principles adopted, and whose secession has produced the strifes and
695 
APPENDIX E.
divisions that now pervade the land.  The only answer to it I have yet
seen. has been given by a Committee of the Seceting Delegation from
this State. It is in their address, assigning the reasons for their course.
It will be recollected that though they quit the Convention at Charles ton, yet by great efforts made, were by urgent solicitation re-appointed
to Baltimore, via. Richmond. But they did not enter the Convention
at Baltimore, after they got there, and for not doing so gave these
reasons:
"That we are blameless in this matter, seems too plain to admit of a
doubt. We could not enter a Convention, as a favor, at the sacrifice of
principle, and of the honor and Sovereignty of our State. Nor have
our demands been exorbitant or exacting. We have simply asked bfor
protection for our property from the Government which demands our
allegiance.  These seem to us to be co-relative duties-allegiance to
Government in return for protection to life, liberty, and property.  It
appears to us unnecessary to argue the question, for the absolute right
of protection to property by the Government, in all its branches, is
undenied by any man of any Party. But the application of this to our
slaves, in the Territories, is denied, and refused upon the untenable and
fanatical ground that property is not recognized in slaves."
This is signed by three gentlemen who stand high in the estimation of
the public.  The statement seems to imply, if it means anything, that
the Convention to which they had been sent had refused to recognize a
universally admitted  principle of right, "upon the untenable and
fanatical ground that property is not recognized in slaves."' I have
nothing to say against the character of these gentlemen. One of them
is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of your State Legislature
-another a gentleman of position in Savannah, and another an editor
with high personal standing in Albany. But I do say that I think it
would be a difficult task for them to sustain this statement by proof.
What action of the Convention justifies it? What part of the Platform
adopted declares that "property is denied in slaves?" Nay, more, what
member of the Convention, who refused their demand, holds any such
"untenable and fanatical" opinions?  Not one, I venture to affirm.
Then why was this statement made? They must answer who gave it
as the best reason they had why they should be held blameless for the
manner in which they performed the great public trust committed to
their charge.  Seeing no evidence of any such fanatical sentiment in
the action of the Convention, or on the part of any member of it;
having been satisfied with the Platform in 1856, and seeing no good
reason to change my opinion in relation to it, I am therefore satisfied
with it still. It was, in my judgment, good then, and good now, and
will be good for all time to come. In its own language, it contains the
only wise and safe solution of those sectional questions which have so
often fearfully threatened the peace of the Union, and which may yet
696 
MR. STEPHEN\S'S SPEECfl AT AUGUSTA.
be its destruction, if the principles therein set forth be departed from.
So much, therefore, for the objection to the Platform.
I come now to the man. Here, I doubt not, lies the chief one of all
the objections. We should have had no secession, no complaint about
the want of a two-third vote, no objection to the Platform, had any
other man been the decided choice of the Convention, but Mr. Douglas.
The secession was not from principle; not from the manner of voting;
but from the man whose strength, in the Convention, was far ahead of
any of his competitors for the nomination.
Let us, then, examine the objections to him. That he is a man of
great ability, all admit. His integrity and purity of character none
assail. That he was the favorite of the Convention, no one can deny.
Whether he really had a majority, or not, as a first choice, no one will
pretend but what he had at least three times as many, as a first choice,
as any other man before the Convention. Then, what are the objections
to him, which are sought to justify the rupture of the Party because of
his nomination?
The sum and substance of their objections, as I understand them,
amount to this, and this only, that he refuses to declare it to be the
duty of Congress to do what his assailants say they will not do themselves. They say it is the duty of Congress to protect Slavery in the
Territories, and yet say that they will never discharge this duty by
voting for any such law. He refuses to make any such declaration of
duty never to be performed. This is about the whole difference between
him and his assailants, for all practical purposes, so far as the question
of protection is concerned, about which we hear so much. He says, he
does not believe it to be his duty to do a certain thing, and therefore
will not do it. They say they believe it to be their duty to do the
same thing, but without a therefore or a wherefore say they will not
do it.
This seems to me, I repeat, to be the sum and substance of the
objections to Mr. Douglas's peculiar views upon the Territorial policy
of the country; for it is a matter of very little importance, none, practically, whatever, whether the people of a Territory have a right to
protect or exclude slave property, or whether it is the duty of Congress
to pass laws to protect it in the Territories, if their Legislatures refuse
to protect or adopt unfriendly legislation, if this duty on the part of
Congress is never to be performed-and that is my understanding of the
position of the Protectionists.
But it is said that Mr. Douglas entertains views and doctrines inconsistent with the equal rights of the South-that, according to his doctrine,
slave property in the Territories does not stand upon the same footing
with other property.  This is the substance of the objection, as I have
met with it; and, if it be well founded, it is a good one. I should never
advocate the election of any man to the Presidency, who denied the
697 
APPENDIX E.
equality of States, and the equality of rights of the citizens of all the
States, both as to person and property in the public Territories.
My position on this subject is so well and fully set forth, in what is
known as the Minority Report, at the last June Convention of the
Democratic Party at Milledgeville, I will read two of those resolutions.
"Resolved, That we reaffirm the Cincinnati Platform, with the following additional propositions
"1st. That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to
settle with their property, of any kind, in the organized Territories of
the United States, and that under the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States, in the case of Dred Scott, which we recognize as
the correct exposition of the Constitution in this particular, slave property stands upon the same footing as all other descriptions of property,
and that neither the General Government, nor any Territorial Government can destroy or impair the right to slave property in the common
Territories, any more than the right to any other description of property; that property of all kinds, slaves as well as any other species of
property, in the Territories, stands upon the same equal and broad Colnstitutional basis, and subject to like principles of recogniition and protection in the Le,gislative, Judicial, and Executive Departments of the
Government.
"2d. That we will support the man who may be nominated by the
Baltimore Convention for the Presidency who holds the principles set
forth in the foregoing proposition, and who will give them his indorsement; and that we will not hold ourselves bound to support any man
who may be the nominee who entertains principles inconsistent with
those set forth in the above propositions, or who denies that slave property in the Territories does stand on an equal footing and on the same
Constitutional basis of other descriptions of property."
Thcse resolutions were offered in that Convention by Hon. H.  V.
Johnson, our candidate for the Vice Presidency. They, in my judgment, set forth true, correct, and sound doctrines, and upon them I
stand to-night.
To my amazement, I see the Executive Committee of the Seceding,
Convention at Baltimore have published these resolutions, with a view
to show that Gov. Johnson, standing on them, could not support Mr.
Douglas.  They virtually admit that the principles set forth in them
are right, and say, that according to the second resolution offered by
Mr. Johnson, before the Georgia Convention, we stand pledged not to
support, or vote for Mr. Douglas.
Let us see whether they or I am mistaken. Let us see what Mr.
Douglas's viewvs'upon this subject are. Let him speak for himself. He
has spoken often, repeatedly. He is upon the record; and I shall now
read his position from the record.  Here is what he said in the Senate,
on the 23d February, 1859, in a discussion with Mr. Brown, of MIissis
6- 98 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH IN AUGUSTA.
sippi, on this very subject. I read from the Congressional Globe. Hear
what Mr. Douglas himself says, as to his position:
"WVe," that is, he and Senator Brown, who goes for Congressional
protection, "agree that, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, slaves are property, standing on an equal footing with
all other property; and that, consequently, the owner of a slave has the
same right to emigrate to a Territory and carry his slave property with
him, as the owner of any other species of property has to move there and
carry his property with him.
"MR. DOOLITTLE. Will the honorable Senat or allow me —
"MR. DOUGLAS. I am replying to the Senator from Mississippi now,
and would prefer, therefore, to go on.
"MR. DOOLITTLE. I wish to put a question to the honorable Senator
from Illinois on that point.
"MR. DOUGLAS. I desire to deal with this point now.   At another
time the Senator can present his point. The right of transit to and from
the Territories is the same for one species of property as it is for all
others. Thus far, the Senator from Mlississippi and myself agree that
slave property in the Territories stands on an equal footing with every
other species of property. Now, the question arises, to what extent is
property, slaves included, subject to the local law of the Territory?
Whatever power the Territorial Legislature has over other species of
property, extends, in my judgment, to the same extent, and in like
manner, to the slave property.  The Territorial Legislature has the
same power to legislate in respect to slaves that it has in regard to any
other property to the same extent, and no further. If the Senator
wishes to know what power it has over slaves in the Territories, I
answer, let him tell me what power it has to legislate over every other
species of property, either by encouragment or by taxation, or in any
other mode. and he has my answer in regard to slave property.
" But the Senator says that there is something peculiar in slave l)roperty, requiring further protection than other species of property. of so,
it is the misfortune of those who own that species of property. He tells
us that if the Territorial Legislature fails to pass a slave-code for the
Territories, fails to pass police regulations to protect slave property, the
absence of such legislation practically excludes slave property, as effectually as a Constitutional prohibition would exclude it.  I agree to that
proposition. He says, furthermore, that it is competent for the Territorial Legislature, by the exercise of the taxing power, and other functions within the limits of the Constitution, to adopt unfriendly legislation, which practically drives slavery out of the Territories. I agree to
that proposition. That is just what I said, and all I said, and just what
I meant, by my Freeport speech, in Illinois, upon which there has been
so much comment throughout the country.
"But, the Senator says that while non-action by the Territorial
699 
APPENDIX E.
Legislature excludes Slavery; and while the Territorial Legislature
may, within the limits of the Federal Constitution, adopt such a system
of unfriendly legislation, as, in effect to exclude Slavery from its limits,
yet it is wrong for the Legislature to pursue that policy; and, because
the Territorial Legislature ought not to adopt that line of policy, he
will not be content with such legislation, but will appeal to Congress
and demand a Congressional code of laws protecting Slavery in the
Territories, in opposition to the wishes of the people. Well, sir, his
conclusion is a logical one, unless my position is right. All men must
agree that non-action by the Territorial Legislature is practical exclusion. If the people of a Territory want Slavery, they will protect it
by a Slave-code.  If they do not want Slavery-if they believe it is not
necessary-if they are of opinion that their interests do not require it,
or will be prejudiced by it, they will not furnish the necessary remedies
and police regulations, usually called a Slave-code for its protection."
(Congressional Globe, p. 1,244, Part Second, Feb. 23, 1859.)
From  this, it clearly appears  that  Mr.  Douglas  does recognize
property in slaves, and that, in his opinion, this species of property in
the Territories stands upon the same broad Constitutional basis of right
and equality as all other kinds of property-and, because it is property,
he contends that it is, like all other kinds of property, a rightful subject
of legislation by the law-making power in the Territory-no more and
no less.
But hear him further, in the same speech:
"MR.  GREEN. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a single
question?
"MR. DOUGLAS. Certainly.
" MR. GREEN. If a law, merely providing protection, is to be called
a slave-code, then I ask, if larceny, in general terms, were punished by
the Territorial law, and the Legislature should except the larceny of
slaves, would he say he would submit to that, at the option of the
Legislature?
"MR  DOUGLAS. It is immaterial to me, whether you call this legislation a slave-code or by any other name. I will call it by any name the
Senate chooses. I wish it to be understood, however, and to use such
language as conveys the idea.  I take the language of the Senator from
Mississippi, if that is satisfactory.  All I have to say, on the point presented by the Senator fromn Missouri, is this: While our Constitution
does not provide remedies for stealing negroes, it does not provide remedies for stealing dry goods, or horses, or any other species of property.
You cannot protect any-property in the Territories, without laws furnishing remedies for its violation, and penalties for its abuse.  Nobody
pretends that you are going to pass laws of Congress making a criminal
code for the Territories with reference to other species of property.
"The Congress of the United States never yet passed an Act creating
700 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECHI IN AUGUSTA.
a crimnal code for any organized Territory. It simply organizes the
Territory, and leaves its Legislature to make its own criminal code.
CoIIng,ress never passed a law to protect any species of property in the
organized Territories; it leaves its protection in the Territorial Legis  latures. The question is whether we shall make an exception as to
Slavery. The Supreme Court makes no such distinction. It recognizes
slaves as property. When they are taken to a Territory, they are on
an equal footing with other property, and dependent upon the same
system of legislation for protection as other property. While all other
property is dependent on the Territorial legislation for protection,
I hold that slave-property must look to the same authority for its
protection."'
And further on, in the same speech, he uses this language-in reply
to another inquiry from Senator Brown:
"MR. DOUGLAS. I am ready to answer any inquiry of the Senator
from Mississippi, whether, if I believe the Maine Liquor Law to be
unconstitutional and wrong, and if a Territorial Legislature should pass
it, I would vote here to annul? I tell him no.
"If the people of Kansas want a Maine Liquor Law, let them have
it. If they do not want it, and any citizen thinks that law violates the
Constitution, let him make a case, and appeal to the Supreme Court.
If the Court sustains his objection, the law is void. If it overrules the
objection, the decision must stand until the people, who alone are to be
affected by it, may choose to repeal it. So I say with reference to
Slavery. Let the Territorial Legislature pass just such laws in regard
to Slavery as they think they have a right to enact under the Constitution of the United States. If I do not like those laws, I will not vote
to repeal them: but anybody aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme
Court, and if they are constitutional, they must stand; and if they are
unconstitutional, they are void. That was the doctrine of Non-Intervention, as it was understood at the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill was
passed. That is the way it was explained and argued in the Senate
and in the House of Representatives, and before the country.  It was
distinctly understood that Congress was never to intervene for or against
Slavery, or for or against any other Institution in the Territories, but
leave the Courts to decide all Constitutional questions as they might
arise, and the President to carry the decrees of the Court into effect;
and, in case of resistance to his authority in executing the judicial
process, let him use, if necessary, the whole military force of the country,
as provided by existing laws.'9
In these extracts is a full and clear exposition of those views of Mr.
Douglas, whlich lhave been scT fiercely denounced.   I have read them to
you at large, that you may jtudge for yourselves whether they put that
kind of property upon any other basis in the Territories than all other
kinds of property; whether all, in his view, does not stand on the same
701 
APPENDIX E.
equal Constitutional footing. In these views you also have a clear exposition of Non-lI'tervention or Noilt-Action, as Mr. Calhoun called it, on the
part of Congress. The whole subject of Slavery in the Territories was to
be left to the people, subject to no limitation or restriction but the Constitution of the United States. If the Territorial Legislature passed any
law infringing upon the rights of the slave-holder, or the rights of any
person holding other kinds of property, either by taxation or any other
kind of law, the subject was to be left to the Courts, with an appeal to
the Supreme Court, but not to Congress. Property of all kinds was put
upon the same footing.  And so far from Mr. Douglas warring against
the decision of the Supreme Court, as is alleged in the last extract read,
it appears that he stands pledged to the execution of the judicial process,
whatever it may be, in any case, with the whole military force of the
country.
The question I am now presenting is not what his opinions are as to
the extent of the power of the Territorial Legislatures over slaves or
other property, but that he puts all upon the same footing, and that
they have no more power over rights to slaves than over other kinds of
rights of person and property. Their powers over all rightful subjects
of legislation, under the Constitution, are the same, and to be left to the
Courts and not to Congress.  If he ever uttered a sentiment different
from those now presented on this subject, in the many speeches he has
made upon it in the Senate, or on the stump, I have never met with it.
The other day at Saratoga, in New York, he used this language:  "I believe in the equality of the States, and in the equal rights of the
citizens of all the States in the Territories of the United States. Whatever rights the citizens of any State may enjoy in the Territories pertain alike to the citizens of all the States, and on whatever terms the
citizen of any State may move into the Territories with his property,
the citizen of every other State may go and carry his property, and
enjoy the same under the protection of the law."
If the Territorial Legislatures pass unconstitutional laws in relation
to slave property, or any other kind of property, all alike are to be left
to the Courts and not to Congress.  In the Judicial, Executive, and
Legislative Departments of a Territorial Governmnent, slaves stand upoli
the same principles of recognition as other property under the Constitution of the United States, and entitled to protection on the same
principles as other property.
All rights of persons and property of every kind stand upon the same
footing. When we advance a step further, and inquire how far a Territorial Legislature may constitutionally impair the right or usefulness of
any kind of property, by any system of laws they may enact, a new
question arises. On this I differ with Mr. Douglas. It is not, however,
a point involving, in my judgment, either our equality in the Union,
our honor as a people, or any principle essential to our security or future
702 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH IN AUGUSTA.
safety. It is a matter affecting alone the private rights of those who go
into the Territories. This difference of opinion between him and those
who take the same view of it as I do, it is agreed on both sides, are to
be determined by the highest judicial tribunal in the land.
By some it is contended that this point has already been decided by
the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. If so, then there is an end
of the question.  For hle has again and again indorsed every principle
decided in that case; and all that is necessary is for the Executive to
see that the decision is carried into effect by the whole military force of
the country, if need be.
But fellow-citizens, there is nothing that men, and even lawyers, and
learned lawyers, differ more widely about than upon the principles embraced in a judicial question. So it is in this case. I am not going
into an argument upon its merits; suffice it to say that. in my judgment, principles were decided in that case that would control those involved in a case arising under such a Territorial law.  But until such a
case does arise, it cannot be definitely and judicially settled. He and
others who indorse every word of the Dred Scot decision believe, and
I have no doubt, honestly believe, that the principle decided in that
case would not control a case arising under a law that might be passed
by a Territorial Legislature.
I have been asked informally two questions, which I will here answer.
The first is: How, differing fromn Mr. Douglas on this point, as I do)
I can give him my support?
I answer, because I look upon the matter as involving no principle of
any vital importance.
Practically, it amounts to nothing. With Mr. Douglas's view, Slavery
will go wherever the people want it, and no law of Congress or a Territorial Legislature will every carry it where they do not want it. Under
the operation of his principles, whether right or wrong, our right of expansion to the utmost limit of capacity and population is complete; on
the question, therefore, of the right or power of the people of an organized Territory through their Territorial Legislature, either directly
or indirectly, to exclude Slavery while in a Territorial condition, and
before they come to form a State Constitution, I stand where Burke,
one of the greatest statesmen that England or any other country ever
produced, stood upon the same question of the right or power of the
British Parliament to tax the Colonies. That was a question upon
which great and learned men differed, and so is this; and on this, I say
to you to-night, what he said on the other in the House of Commons:
"Sir, I think you must perceive that I am resolved this day to have
nothing to do with the question of the right of taxation. Some gentlemen startle, but it is true. I put it totally out of the question. It is
less than nothing in my consideration.  I do not wonder, nor will you,
sir,,.in that gentleman of profound learning are fond of displaying it on
703 
APPENDIX E.
this profound subject.  But my consideration is narrow, confined, and
wholly limited to the policy of the question. I do not examine whether
the giving away a man's money be a power accepted and reserved out
of the general trust of Government, and how far all mankind, in all
forms of polity, are entitled to an exercise of that right by the charter
of nature; or whether, on the contrary, a right of taxation is necessarily
involved in the great principle of legislation, and inseparable from the
ordinary supreme power. These are deep questions, where great names
militate against each other, where reason is perplexed, and an appeal to
authorities only quicken confusion. For high and revered authorities
lift up their heads on both sides, and there is no sure footing in the
middle.  This point is the great "Serbonian bog betwixt Damatia and
Mount Cassius old, where armies whole have sunk."
Whether the people of a Territory have this right or not, under the
Constitution, and whatever may be the decision of the Supreme Court
on it, I am perfectly willing for them to exercise it.  If they have not
got it "ex debito jltstitia," I would, if I could, give it to them "ex
gratia."  If they have not got it as matter of right, being one of the
essential principles of Self-government under our system, as many high
authorities believe they have, I would, if I could, grant it to them as
matter of favor. This is no new position with me; it is but a repetition
of what I said in the House of Representatives on this subject on the
17th of January, 1856; that was before the decision of the Supreme
Court. But my opinion as to the policy of the question in unchanged.
Here is what I then said, audI feel no disposition to modify the sentiments now:  " Now, sir, as I have stated, I voted for this bill leaving the whole
matter to the people to settle for themselves, subject to no restriction or
limitation but the Constitution. With this distinct understanding of its
import and meaning, and with a determination that the existence of this
power being disputed and doubted, it would be better and much more
consistent with our old time Republican principles to let the people settle
it than for Congress to do it. And, although my own opinion is that
the people, under the limitations of the Constitution, have not the rightful power to exclude Slavery so long as they remain in a Territorial condition, yet I amn willing that they may determine it for themselves, and
when they please. I shall never negative any law they may pass, if it is
the result of a fair legislative expression of the popular will. Never! I
am willing that the Territorial Legislature may act upon the subject
when and how they may think proper. We got the Congressional re
striction taken off.
-'The Territories were made open and free for immigration and settleii eint by the people of all lhe States alike, with their l)irol)erty alike.
,0N o(lious ali([ unjust discrimination or exclusion against any class or
po()rtion; and I am content that those who thus go there from allsections,
704 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH IN AUGUSTA.
shall do in this matter as they please under their organic law. I wanted
the question taken out of the halls of Federal Legislation. It has done
nothing but disturb the public peace for thirty-five years or more. So
long, as Congress undertakes to manage it, it will continue to do nothing
but stir up agitation and sectional strife.  The people can dispose of it
better than we can. Why not then, by common consent, drop it at
once and forever? Why not you, gentlemen, around me, give up your
so-called and so-miscalled Republican ideas of restoring the Missouri
Restriction, and let the people in the far off Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska look after their own condition, present and future, in their
own way."
So much, then, for the first question aske4 me. I see nothing dangerous in these doctrines of Mr. Douglas to our Institutions-nothing at
war in the least with the great fundamental principles of popular rights
upon which the whole fabric of Self-government rests. I am perfectly
willing for the pioneers of civilization who quit the old States for new
homes in the west, to form and regulate their own domestic Institutions
in their own way, and make all other laws according to their liking. It
was in this way our fathers settled this goodly land, and made the wilderness to blossom as the rose.  They.were all "squatters," in the popular
slang of the day. When they wanted slaves of the Afirican race, they
had them, and I am perfectly willing that their descendants, with emigrants from all the other States who colonize and settle our broad Territories, shall exercise the same rights of Self-government that they did.
If these opinions make a man a "squatter sovereig,n," then I am one.
Nicknames will never drive me from the maintenance of sound prin
ciples.
Having noticed the most prominent objections urged against supporting the National ticket, as I have seen them in the press, I come now,
fellow-citizens, to some of the reasons why I give that ticket a warm and
cordial support. The points wherein I differ from Mr. Douglas are
small, compared with those wherein we agree. Upon all questions of
Constitutional law he is a strict constructionist-of the straightest sect
of the State Rights school. Upon our peculiar Institution, so far from
being unsound, unsafe, or dangerous on all the essential principles upon
which it rests, and its permanency depends, he is on the side of reason
and truth.  lie holds that the Negro is of an inferior race-that he is
not and cannot be a citizen of the United States-that he was not intended to be embraced in the Declaration of Inldependene-that subordination to the White race is his natural and normal condition-that his
status in society is a question, not of moral right, but one of political and
social economy; and that every State and organized Community have
the right to fix and settle this status for themselves.
These are the great principles and truths upon which our system rests,
and upon which it must depend on the fields of our battles with the
45
705 
APPENDIX E.
public opinion of the world.  On this arena we have got to meet our
opponents sooner or later. We live in an age of discussion-all questions of science and arts, morals and governments, must pass this ordeal.
The Institution of African slavery amongst us cannot escape it. If it
does not stand upon the immutable principles of nature, as I believe it
does, it must go down, and oughlt to go down. And in the vindication
of these great fundamental truths, relating to Negro inequality and his
natural subordinate position, which lie at the foundation of our social
fabric, no man, North or South, or in the world, has displayed more
boldness and power than this same much abused and grossly misrepresented Stephen A. Douglas.
No man has ever uttered these, or any other truths, in this country,
with more peril or hazard to himself. Whether in the Senate or on the
hustings, whether at the South or the North-whether before party
friends or Abolition mobs, he has never shrunk from their utterance
from fear, favor, or affection. When duty required him to speak, he
has never been silent. See him breasting the anathemas of the three
thousand New England clergymen, hurled against him for the defence
of your rights, under the Constitution. See him at Chicago, imperilling
even life itself in vindication of the same cause-your rights under the
Constitution-and say if it comes with a good grace, from a Southern
man, to denounce him as an enemy to us or ours.
Was there ever blacker ingratitude, since Adam's first great fall, than
such demonstrations against such a man? Were I to remain silent
while I hear them, and see him so unjustly slain, by those who know
not what they do, I should feel myself to be as guilty of innocent blood
as those who stood by and held Stephen's clothes while he was stoned
to death. Whatever may be his opinions of Popular Sovereignty, or
Squatter Sovereignty, or the right of Self-government, on the part of all
organized Communities-call it what you will-they are the same now
that they have always been-the same that they were in 1856, when he
was the favorite of the Georgia Democracy for the Presidency. I thought
of his doctrine then just as I do now. If others have changed their
opinions since, he has not. It is one of the qualities about him that
increases my admiration, that he is no time-server-he does not change
with the popular current-he bends to no storm-he maintains his
fidelity and integrity to principle through woe as well as through weal.
One of the most manly exhibitions of moral courage and nerve this
country ever witnessed, was seen in his contest in Illinois in 1858. With
the Abolition hosts in front, and all the forces of the Administration, so
unnaturally and unjustly brought in the rear, he fought the battle
sing,le-handed and alone, achieving a victory unparalleled in the history of
politics in this country. Why should not such a man receive our support?
Not only Democratic, but Whig and American-a united Southern, as
well as a national support? Are his principles not national, equal and
706 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH IN AUGUSTA.
just to all? Of his associate on the ticket, I need not speak here.
Herschel V. Johnson needs no indorsement from any man in Georgia.
No son of hers was ever more sensitively alive to all your great and most
vital interests. He has been tried in the Senate, and the Executive
Chair, in the highest and most responsible offices, proving himself to be
equal to any and every occasion.
Fellow-citizens, there is much more I wish to say-much upon the
protection Platform of those who call themselves the true Democracy;
but my strength has failed-I am completely exhausted. I can only add:
Look at the questions in all their bearings, to your past records, to your
present and future security, and as patriots, do your duty, trust the rest
with God.
[Here Mr. S., being unable longer to stand, took his seat. The audience remaining quiet, calls were made for Cumming, Wright, and others;
but no10 one of the gentlemen called for appearing, Mr. Geo. W. Lamar
arose on the steps, and announced that Mr. S. would be able to proceed
in a few minutes. After some enlivening airs from the brass band, Mr.
S. arose, with great physical weakness, and proceeded.]
I do not feel, fellow-citizens, as if, in justice to myself, I ought to
attempt to say more to-night; but there is no cause in which I would
more willingly die than in the cause of my country; and I would just as
soon fall here, at this time, in the advocacy of those principles upon
which its past glory has been achieved, its present prosperity, and its
future hopes depend, as anywhere else, or on any other occasion. I told
you, at the outset, that the signs of the times portend evil. I gave you
this as my deliberate judgment; the future must make its own disclosures. But you need not be surprised to see these States, now so peaceful, contented, prosperous, and happy, embroiled in war in less than
twelve months. There arc occasions too grave for excitement, or any
appeal to the passions. Believe me, I mean all I say; the most terrific
tornadoes, those which demolish cities, destroy whole fleets, and sweep
everything before them, come most unexpectedly. So do the most
violent revolutions amongst men. The human passions are the same
everywhere. They are dangerous elements for public men, politicians,
and Party leaders to deal with.
The condition of the country threatens the most violent conflict of
sectional feeling, antipathy, and animosity, at no distant day.  Should
an outbreak occur, where is the power that can control it? A ball may
be put in motion by one who cannot stop it; a fire may be kindled by
hands that cannot quench it. Those who begin revolutions seldom end
them. I do not mean to say that the secession movement at Charleston
and Baltimore was a Disunionist movement, or intended as such by all
those who joined in it. I do not mean to say that Messrs. Breckinridge
and Lane, who gave that movement their countenance, by accepting
nominations under it, are Disunionists. I know both these gentlemen
707' 
APPENDIX E.
well, and doubt not their patriotism. Had either of them, or both,
received the nominations from the regular Democratic Convention, I
should have given them as warm a support as I do Messrs. Douglas and
Johnson. Neither do I mean to say that the great mass of those who
support the Seceders' ticket are Disunionists-no, far from it. But I do
mean to say that the movement, whatever may have been the motives
in which it originated, and by which it is countenanced and supported,
whether by good men or bad, tends to disunion-to civil strife-may lead
to it-and most probably will, unless arrested by the virtue, intelligence,
and patriotism of the people. Is the cause assigned sufficient to put in
hazard such even probable results? If it is, let the hazard be made;
but if not, let us pause and consider. Much as I am attached to the
Union, and as clearly convinced as I am that it is best for the interests
and welfare of all sections, that it shall be preserved and maintained, if
it can be, consistently with the rights, honor and security of all parts,
yet I hold it subordinate to these great objects of its formation: life
itself, dear as it must be held by all subordinate to essential rights and
honor. This is true of individuals, and it is true of States and Nations.
It was with these views and feelings, the ulti?natulm of our State was set
forth in what is known as the Georgia Platform, in 1850. As I did then,
so do I now, hold the Union subordinate to the objects therein set forth.
On that Platform Georgia planted herself then, and on it I trust she will
continue to stand. On the principles of that Platform I believe the
Union ought to be maintained, and can be, if our Southern people are
but true to themselves.
Now, this Secession movement, if pushed to its legitimate consequences, is a departure from those principles. In politics, as in morals,
the first false step is the dangerous step. It matters but little what men
intend when they set out in error. One step leads the way to another.
"Facilis deceisis averno.'7 Feelings, views, and objects change as they
progress. Ideas that the mind would have revolted at, at first, are soon
cordially embraced.  The Scriptural character of Hazael is a striking
illustration of human weakness in this particular. This Charleston Secession movement, I say, is founded upon a departure from principle.
Not only a departure from the Georgia Platform, and from the long-established principles of the National Democratic Party, but upon an entire
change of position of the entire South, of all Parties, not of all individuals, in relation to the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government
over the subject of African Slavery.
I need not be reminded that this was not my position, and: that of a
few others.  This I know, and if I had that personal vanity that could
indulgre individual gratification at the remotest hazard of the public welfare, I might now be claiming great credit for myself. All this I am aware
of; but I have no such vanity. My position, however, was not that of
the South on this question.  It was overruled; I yielded to the demands
708 
MR. STEPHENS'S SPEECH IN AUGUSTA.
of the South. A settlement of this question was made according to their
demands; and with me, when a matter is settled, it is settled forever.
What I affirm is, that the position of the South, for seventy years,
has been a denial of the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject of
Slavery in the States and Territories. It was upon this denial of juris diction that the South resisted the reception of Abolition petitions.
This position is directly reversed at Charleston and Baltimore.
If we go to Congress with a request, a petition, or demand, to pass a
law to protect Slavery in the Territories, why may not, on the same
principle, so far as jurisdiction of the question is concerned, the Anti Slavery men of the North go before the same body with their request,
petition or demand, and ask that such law shall not be passed, or that one
of the contrary character shall be passed? The door of jurisdiction,
which has been closed so long, will be clearly and fully opened by this
Secession movement, if it is sustained by the people. And I fear it will
be like the opening of that great door on the confines of hell, "g ratingc
harsh thunder" on its turning hinges, which permitted the escape from
the bottomless pit of all the foul fiends with which this once heavenlike earth of ours has been cursed?
I say I fear the most mischievous consequences from this change
of position. What is to be gained by it? What is proposed to be
gained by it? Do those who favor it ever expect to get a law passed by
Congress carrying out the principles of their Platform? So far from it,
the most prominent of their leaders openly assert that they will never
vote for such a law themselves. Mr. Breckinridge, their candidate, has
declared in his letter of acceptance just as fully against such a law, as
Mr. Douglas ever did.  Then what possible good can ever come of the
movement, even if an election could be carried by it? But that, all
must see, is utterly impossible. Then what is to come of it? What is
to be the result? If no good can follow, may not great mischief? This,
to me, appears a most palpable and inevitable result.
It may secure the election of the Republican candidate. Whether it
it will succeed in this or not, time alone can disclose. But if it does,
what then?  Yes, what then?  Let those answer who started the movement.  To me, it seems clear, that the running of a Breckinridge and
Lane ticket, at the South, can have no possible effect but to increase the
chances of Mr. Lincoln, which were fearfully close before. With a
united Democracy, North and South, on the old Platform of principles,
I should not have permitted myself to doubt as to the result, under the
lead of Mr. Douglas, or Mr.  Breckinridge, Mr. Cobb, Mr. HIunter, or
any other of the distinguished competitors for the nomination.
But now the only hope is that Mr. Douglas may be able to carry
enough Northern Electoral votes, over Mr. Breckinridge and Lincoln
both, to save the country from the excitements and dangers of a Republican triumph.  This may be done.  The news from New York, Illinois,
709 
APPENDIX F.
Indiana, and several other Northern States is such as to filrnish
grounds of hope, if not to inspire confidence. But it cannot be done by
giving aid and comfort to this seceding movement. On the contrary, it
will be done by an effort of patriotism rising superior to, and stronger
than, the power of that movement.  This is my judgment; I give it
to you for what it is worth, consider of it as you think best. I do not
give it to you as a partisan; I have no personal or partisan feelings on
the subject. In all that I have said, I have been governed solely by
considerations of the public good.
[Here Mr. Stephens, after returning thanks to the ladies who had
honored the occasion with their presence, and addressing some remarks
to them pertinent to the subject, and the influence of women in public
affairs, though they took no active part in politics, and appealing to all
classes, young and old, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, boys, and all,
to exert whatever influence they possessed in the cause of their country
in this hour of her great need; and expressing hope that, under Providence, the late bright prospect of a great future and high career for our
young Republic, not yet having reached manhood, might not be cut off
and blasted, but that it should continue, for ages to come, to bless untold millions, again took his seat amidst loud and prolonged applause.]
F.
RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATE
CONGRESS. MONTGOMEIRY, ALABAMA, 1861.
MR. STEPHENS, from the Committee on Rules, made the following
report:
I. The vote upon all questions in this Congress, except as hereafter
otherwise provided, shall be taken by States; each State shall be entitled
to one vote. A majority of all the States represented shall be necessary
to carry any question. The delegates from each State may designate the
member to cast the vote for their State, and upon the motion of any
member seconded by one-fifth of the members present, or at the instance
of any one State, the Yeas and Nays of the entire body shall be spread
upon the journals upon any question.
II. Any number of members from a majority of the States now represented or hereafter to be represented by duly accredited delegates froml
States seceding from the United States of America, shall constitute a
quorum to transact business.
III. The President having taken the Chair, and a quorum being present, the journal of the preceding day shall be read, and any mistakes ia
the entries shall upon motion then be corrected.
IV. No member shall speak to another, or otherwise interrupt the
7 iO 
RULES OF THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS.
business of the Congress while the journals or public papers are being
read, or when any member is speaking in debate.
V. Every member when he speaks shall address the Chair standing in
his place, and when he has finished shall sit down,
VI. No member shall speak more than twice in any one debate on the
same question and on the same day, without leave of a majority of the
members present.
VII. When two or more members rise at the same time, the President
shall name the person to speak, but in all cases the member who shall
first rise and address the chair shall speak first.
VIII. The President shall preserve order and decorum; may speak to
points of order in preference to other members, rising from his seat for
that purpose; and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal
by any one State; and may call any member to the Chair to preside
temporarily not to extend beyond that day's session. He may participate in the debates.
IX. When any member is called to order by the President or any
member, he shall sit down, and every question of order shall be decided
by the President without debate, subject, to an appeal to the body.
X. If any member be called to order by another member for words
spoken, the exceptionable words spoken shall immediately be taken down
in writing, that the President may be better able to judge the matter.
XI. No member shall in debate use any language reflecting injuriously
upon the character, motives, honor or integrity of any other member.
XII. No motion shall be debated until the same shall receive a
second; and when a motion shall be made and seconded, it shall be
reduced to writing, if desired by the President or any member, delivered
in at the table and read, before the same shall be debated.
XIII. Any motion or proposition may be withdrawn by the mover at
any time before a decision, amendment, or other action of the body upon
it, except a motion to reconsider, which shall not be withdrawn without
leave of the body.
XIV. When a question has been once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, a motion to reconsider shall be entertained at the instance
of any State, if made on the same day on which the vote was taken, or
within the two next days of actual session. When a motion to reconsider
shall be made, its consideration shall take precedence of the regular order
of business, unless a majority of the members present shall fix some
other time.
XV. When a question is under debate, no motion (except one to reconsider some other question passed upon) shall be received but to adjourn,
to lie on the table, to postpone indefinitely, to postpone to a day certain,
to commit or amend, which several motions shall have precedence in the
order they stand arranged, and the motion to adjourn shall always be in
order, and decided without debate.
711 
APPENDIX F.
XVI. If the question for decision contain several parts, any member
may have the same divided, but on a motion to strike out and insert, it
shall not be in order to move for a division of the question; but the
rejection of a motion to strike out and insert one proposition shall not
prevent a motion to strike out and insert a different proposition, nor prevent a subsequent proposition simply to strike out, nor shall the rejection
of a motion simply to strike out, prevent a subsequent motion to strike
out and insert.
XVII. In filling up blanks the largest sum and longest time shall be
first put.
XVIII. The unfinished business in which the Congress may be engaged
on adjournment shall be the first business in order on the next day's
sitting.
XIX. After the Journal is read, and the unfinished business, if any,
of the previous day's sitting is disposed of, the regular order of business
shall be as follows:
1. The call of the States, alphabetically, for memorials, or any matter,
measure, resolution, or proposition which any member may desire to
bring before the Congress.
2. The call of Committees for reports-the call of the Commnlittees to be
made in the order of their appointment-such reports of Committees as
may not be otherwise disposed of when made, shall be numbered in the
order in which they are presented and be placed in that order on the
Calendar of the regular orders of the day.
3. The Calendar, or the regular orders of the day shall then be taken
up, and every resolution, proposition, or measure, shall be disposed of in
the order in which it there stands. No special order shall be made
against this rule, except by a vote of a majority of the States, and such
majority may, at any time, change the order of business.
XX. Every resolution or measure submitted for the action of the Congress shall receive three readings previous to its being passed; the President shall give notice at each reading whether it be the first, second, or
third reading. No resolution or measure shall be committed or amended
until it shall have been twice read, after which it may be subject to
motion to amend or to refer to a committee. And all such matters on
second reading shall first be considered by the Congress in the same manner as if the Congress were in Committee of the Whole; the final question
on the second reading of any matter not referred to a committee, shall
be "whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time," and no amendment shall be received after the engrossment for a third reading has been
ordered. But it shall at all times be in order before the final passage or
action on any matter, to move its commitment, and should such commitmient take place, and any amendment be reported by the committee, the
whole shall be again read a second time and considered as in Committee
of Bhe Whole, and then the aforesaid question shall be again put.
712 
RULES OF THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS.
XXI. After any matter is ordered to be engrossed and it has been read
a third time the question shall be, Shall the resolution (or the matter
whatever it may be) now pass?
XXII. All resolutions or other matter on the second and third reading
may be read by the title, unless the reading of the whole shall be desired
by a majority of those present.
XXIII. The titles of resolutions and other matters submitted, and
such parts thereof only as shall be affected by proposed amendments,
shall be inserted on the journals.
XXIV. No motion for the Previous Question shall be entertained:
but upon the call of any member for "The Question," if seconded by a
majority of the States present, the vote shall be immediately taken on
the pending question, whatever it may be, without further debate.
XXV. A motion to lay any amendment on the table prevailing shall
carry with it only the amendment, and not the original proposition or
matter.
XXVI. Stenographers and reporters for the press, wishing to take down
the proceedings of the Congress, may be admitted by the President, who
shall assign such places to them on the floor to effect their object, as shall
not interfere with the convenience of the members when in open session.
XXVII. On motion, made and seconded by another member, to close
the doors on the discussion of any business, which may in the opinion
of a member require secrecy, the President shall direct the doors to be
closed and the gallery to be cleared, and during the discussion of such
question, no one shall be permitted to remain upon the floor but the
members of the body and its officers.
XXVIII. Any officer or member of thie Congress, convicted of disclosing any matter directed by the body to be held in confidence, shall be
liable, if an officer, to dismissal from service, and in case of a member,
to suffer expulsion from the body.
XXIX. All motions to print extra copies of any bill, report, or other
document, shall be referred to the Committee on Printing.
XXX. All propositions affecting our foreign relations, or looking to
the defence, shall be submitted to tile Congress while in secret session.
XXXI. All cases that may arise in the proceedings of this Congress,
not provided for in the foregoing rules, shall be governed by the general
principles of Parliamentary law as laid down in Jefferson's Manual.
713 
APPENDIX G.
G.
CONSTITUTION FOR THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
We, the Deputies of the Sovereign and Independent States of South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, invoking the favor of Almighty God, do hereby, in behalf of these States,
ordain and establish this Constitution for the Provisional Government
of the same: to continue one year from the inauguration of the President,
or until a Permanent Constitution or Confederation between the said
States shall be put in operation, whichsoever shall first occur.
ARTICLE I.
SECTION 1.-All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in
this Congress now assembled until otherwise ordained.
SECTION 2.-When vacancies happen in the representation from any
State, the same shall be filled in such manner as the proper authorities
of the State shall direct.
SECTION 3.-1. The  Congress shall be the judge of the elections,
returns and qualifications of its members; any number of Deputies from
a majority of the States, being present, shall constitute a quorum to do
business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may
be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members; upon all
questions before the Congress, each State shall be entitled to one vote,
and shall be represented by any one or more of its Deputies who may be
present.
2. The Congress may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish
its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of twothirds, expel a member.
3. The Congress shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their
judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members on
any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, or at the
instance of any one State, be entered on the journal.
SECTION 4.-The members of Congress shall receive a compensation
for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury
of the Confederacy. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and
breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at
the session of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the
same; and for any speech or debate, they shall not be questioned in any
other place.
SECTION 5.-1. Every bill which shall have passed the Congress, shall,
before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the Confederacy; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with
714 
CONFEDERATE PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION.  715
his objections to the Congress, who shall enter the objections at large
on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such re-consid eration, two-thirds of the Congress shall agree to pass the bill, it shall
become a law. But in all such cases, the vote shall be determined by
yeas and nays; and the names of the persons voting for and against the
bill shall be entered on the journal.  If any bill shall not be returned by
the President within ten days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner, as if he had
signed'it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return,
in which case it shall not be a law.-The President may veto any
appropriation or appropriations and approve any other appropriation
or appropriations in the same bill.
2. Every order, resolution or vote, intended to have the force and
effect of a law, shall be presented to the President, and before the same
shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Congress, according to the
rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
3. Until the inauguration of the President, all bills, orders, resolutions
and votes adopted by the Congress shall be of full force without approval
by him.
SECTION 6.-1. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts and excises, for the revenue necessary to pay the
debts and carry on the Government of the Confederacy; and all duties,
imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the States of the Confederacy.
2. To borrow money on the credit of the Confederacy:
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes:
4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on
the subject of bankruptcies throughout the Confederacy:
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and
fix the standard of weights and measures:
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the Confederacy:
7. To establish post offices and post roads:
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing,
for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries:
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court:
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high
seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make
rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to
that use shall be for a longer term than two years: 
APPENDIX G.
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Confederacy, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion:
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service
of the Confederacy, reserving to the States respectively the appointment
of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress:
17. To make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers expressly
delegated by this Constitution to this Provisional Government:
18. The Congress shall have power to admit other States:
19. This Congress shall also exercise Executive powers, until the
President is inaugurated.
SECTION 7.-1. The importation of African negroes from ally foreign
country other than the slave-holding States of the United States, is
hereby forbidden; and Congress are required to pass such laws as shall
effectually prevent the same.
2. The Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy.
3. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may
require it.
4. No Bill of Attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed.
5. No preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or
revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels
bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties, in
another.
6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of
the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from
time to time.
7. Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury, unless it
be asked and estimated for by the President or some one of the Heads of
Departments, except for the purpose of paying its own expenses and
contingencies.
8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederacy; anid no
person holding any office of profit or trust under it, shall, without the
consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or
title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
9. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
716 
CONFEDERATE PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION.  717
and to petition the Government for a redress of such grievances as the
delegated powers of this Government may warrant it to consider and
redress.
10. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
11. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to
be prescribed by law.
12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
13. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness
against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
14. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
15. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and
no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the Confederacy, than according to the rules of the commnon law.
16. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
17. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
18. The powers not delegated to the Confederacy by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
19. The Judicial power of the Confederacy shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against
one of the States of the Confederacy, by citizens of another State, or by
citizens or subjects of anyforeign State. 
APPENDIX G.
SECTION 8.-i1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit
bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.
2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all
duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for
the use of the treasury of the Confederacy, and all such laws shall be
subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall,
without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, enter into
any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power,
or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger
as will not admit of delay.
ARTICLE II.
SECTION 1.-1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President
of the Confederate States of America. He, together with the Vice
President, shall hold his office for one year, or until this Provisional
Government shall be superseded by a Permanent Government, whichsoever shall first occur.
2. The President and Vice President shall be elected by ballot by the
States represented in this Congress, each State casting one vote and a
majority of the whole being requisite to elect.
3. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of one of the
States of this Confederacy at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person
be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirtyfive years and been fourteen years a resident of one of the States of this
Confederacy.
4. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death,
resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
office, (which inability shall be determined by a vote of two-thirds of
the Congress,) the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the
Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation,
or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what
officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.
5. The President shall at stated times receive for his services, during
the period of the Provisional Government, a compensation at the rate
of twenty-five thousand dollars per annum; and he shall not receive
during that period any other emolument from this Confederacy, or any
of the States thereof.
6. Before he enters on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following oath or affirmation:
718 
CONFEDERATE PROVISIONAL CONSTRITUTION.  719
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the Confederate States of America, and will, to the best
of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution thereof.
SECTION 2.-1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the
Army and Navy of the Confederacy, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual service of the Confederacy; he may
require the opinion, in writing, of the principle officer in each of the
Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their
respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
for offences against the Confederacy, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Cong,ress, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Congress concur:
and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
Congress shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
Judges of the Court, and all other officers of the Confederacy whose
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by law. But the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President
alone, in the Courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.
3. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may
ha.ppen during the recess of the Congress, by granting commissions
which shall expire at the end of their next session.
SECTION 3.-1. He shall from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Confederacy and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he
may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Congress at such times as
hlie shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public
ministers: he shall take care that the laws hlie faithfully executed; and
shall commission all the officers of the Confederacy.
2. The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the Confederacy shall be removed from office on conviction by the Congiress of treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors: a vote of two-thirds
shall be necessary for such conviction.
ARTICLE III.
SECTION 1.-1. The Judicial power of the Confederacy shall be vested
in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as are herein directed,
or as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
2. Each State shall constitute a District in which there shall be a
Court called a District Court, which, until otherwise provided by the
Congress, shall have the jurisdiction vested by the laws of the United
States, as far as applicable, in both the District and Circuit Courts of
the United States, for that State; the Judge whereof shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Congress,
and shall, until otherwise provided by the Congress, exercise the power 
APPENDIX G
and authority vested by the laws of the United States in the Judges of
the District and Circuit Courts of the United States, for that State, and
shall appoint the times and places at which the Courts shall be held.
Appeals may be taken directly from the District Courts to the Supreme
Court, under similar regulations to those which are provided in cases of
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, or under such regulations as may be provided by the Congress. The commissions of all the
Judg,es shall expire with this Provisional Government.
3. The Supreme Court shall be constituted of all the District Judges,
a majority of whom shall be a quorum, and shall sit at such times and
places as the Congress shall appoint.
4. The Congress shall have power to make laws for the transfer of any
causes which were pending in the Courts of the United States, to the
Courts of the Confederacy, and for the execution of the orders, decrees,
and judgments heretofore rendered by the said Courts of the United
States; and also all laws which may be requisite to protect the parties
to all such suits, orders, judgments, or decrees, their heirs, personal
representatives, or assignees.
SECTION 2.-1. The Judicial power shall extend to all cases of law
and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States and of this Confederacy, and treaties made, or which shall be
made, under its authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Confederacy shall be a party;
controversies between two or more States; between citizens of different
States; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants
of different States.
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned,
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and
fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress
shall make.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
Jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,
the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law
have directed.
SECTION 3.-1. Treason against this Confederacy shall consist only in
levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid
and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
open court.
2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.
720 
CONFEDERATE PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION. 721
ARTICLE IV.
SECTION 1.-1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to
the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.
And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which
such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect of such
proof.
SECTION 2.-1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
2. A person charged inf any State with treason, felony, or other
crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall,
on demand of the Executive authority of the State from which he fled,
be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the
crime.
3. A slave in one State, escaping to another, shall be delivered up on
claim of the party to whom said slave may belong by the Executive
authority of the State in which such slave shall be found, and in case of
any abduction or forcible rescue, full compensation, including the value
of the slave and all costs and expenses, shall be made to the party, by
the State in which such abduction or rescue shall take place.
SECTION 3.-i1. The Confederacy shall guaranty to every State in this
Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic
violence.
ARTICLE V.
1. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds, may, at any time, alter or
amend this Constitution.
ARTICLE VI.
1. This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederacy which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the Confederacy, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstandin,g.
2. The Government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for
the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their
other late Confederates of the United States in relation to the public
1)roperty and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them;
these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to
adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liability
and.( common obligations of that Union upon the principles of right,
justice, equity, andt good faith.
46 
APPENDIX H.
3. Until otherwise provided by the Congress, in the City of Montgomery,
in the State of Alabama, shall be the Seat of Government.
4. The members of the Congress and all Executive and Judicial officers of the Confederacy shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support
this Constitution; but no religious test shall be required as a qualification
to any office or public trust under this Confederacy.
H.
CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF
AMERICA.
We, the People of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
Sovereign and Independent character, in order to form a Permanent
Federal Government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity-invoking
the favor and guidance of Almighty God-do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
ARTICLE I.
SECTION 1.-All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in
a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives.
SECTIoN 2.-i1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of
members chosen every second year by the people of the several States;
and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States,
and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous
branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a
citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer,
civil or political, State or Federal.
2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained
the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States,
and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which
he shall be chosen.
3. Representatives and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according
to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves.
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first
meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every
subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law
direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every
722
-.-o 
CONFEDERATE PERMANENT CONSTITUTION.
fifty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative;
and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina
shall be entitled to choose six-the State of Georgia ten-the State of
Alabama nine-the State of Florida two-the State of Mississippi seven
-the State of Louisiana six, and the State of Texas six.
4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the
Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such
vacancies.
5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other
officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that
any Judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within
the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of
both branches of the Legislature thereof.
SECTION 3. -1. The Senate of the Confederate States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, chosen for six years by the Legislature
thereof, at the regular session next immediately preceding the commencement of the term of service; and each Senator shall have one
vote.
2. Immediately after they shall be assembled, in consequence of the
first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three
classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at
the expiration of the second year; of the second class at the expiration
of the fourth year; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth
year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill
such vacancies.
3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age
of thirty years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States; and who shall
not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be
chosen.
4. The Vice President of the Confederate States shall be President
of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
5. Thle Senate shall choose their other officers; and also a President
pro tearpore in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall
exercise the office of President of the Confederate States.
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
When sittitng for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.
When the President of the Confederate States is tried, the Chief Justice
shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the members present.
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, trust or profit, under the Confederate States; but thle party
723 
APPENDIX H.
convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial,
judgment and punishment according to law.
SECTION 4.-1. The times, place and manner of holding elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the
Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations,
except as to the times and places of choosing Senators.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year; and such
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall, by
law, appoint a different day.
SECTION 5.-1. Each House slill be the judge of the elections, returns
and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn
firom day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of
absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each
House may provide.
2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly behavior,'and with the concurrence of two-thirds
of the whole number expel a member.
3. Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time
to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment
require secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the members of either House,
on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be
entered on the Journal.
4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the
consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 6.-1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the
treasury of the Confederate States. They shall, in all cases, except
treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during
their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going
to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either
House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which lhe
was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of tl,eJ
Confederate States. which shall have been created, or the emolument,
whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no perso
holdilng any office under the Confederate States shall be a member (f
either House during his continuance in office.  But Congress may,
law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departm" s
a scat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discus,;,
any measures appertaining to his Department.
SECTION 7. —1. All bills for raising the revenue shall originate in the
'louse of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments, as on other b)ills.
724 
CONFEDERATE PERMANENT CONST'ITUTION.
2. Every bill which shall have passed both Houses, shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the President of the Confederate States;
if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his
objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall
enter the objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider
it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree
to pass the bill, it shall be sent, togethler with the objections, to the other
House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by
two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases,
the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the
names of the persor.t voting for and against the bill shall be entered on
the Journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned
by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have
been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he
had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its
return; in which case it shall not be a law. The President may approve
any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill.
In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations
disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his
objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the
same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved
by the President.
3. Every order, resolution or vote, to which the concurrence of both
Houses may be necessary, (except on a question of adjournment,) shall
be presented to the President of the Conlfederate States; and before the
same shall take effect, shall be approved by him; or being disapproved,
shall be re-passed by two-thirds of both Houses, according to thile rules
and limitations prescribed in case of a bill.
SECTION 8.-The Congress shall have power  1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue
necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defence, and carry
on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be
granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations
from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;
and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the
C'nfederate States:
e 2. To borrow money on the credit of the Confederate States:
(Ir To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
S[f,tes, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause
ct:qt.ained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the
p.-r to Cong,ress to appropriate money for any internal improvement
in,!iqded to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing
lig,its, beacons, and buoys, and other aid to navigation upon the coasts,
and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in
river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the
725 
navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and
expenses thereof:
4. To establish uniform laws of Naturalization, and uniform laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies, throughout the Confederate States; but no
law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage
of the same:
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and
fix the standard of weights and measures:
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the Confederate States:
7. To establish post-offices and post routes; but the expenses of the
Post-office Department, after the first day of March in the year of our
Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own
revenues:
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries:
9. To conud itute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court:
10. To deiice and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high
seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make
rules concerning captures on land and on water:
12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to
that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the
Confederate States, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions:
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
and for governing such p)art of them as may be employed in the service
of the Confederate States; reserving to the States, respectively, the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
17. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such
district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or
more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of tlhe
Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority
over places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards, and other needful buildings: and
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the Confederate States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
726
APPENDIX H. 
CONFEDERATE PERMANENT CONSTITUTION.
SECTION 9.-1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from
any foreign country other than the slave-holding States or Territories of
the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is
required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves
from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
3. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in case of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may
require it.
4. No Bill of Attainder, ex postfacto law, or law denying or impairing
the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
5. No Capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion
to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
6. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State,
except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
7. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or
revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.
8. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of
the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from
time to time.
9. Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a
vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by Yeas and Nays, unless it
be asked and estimated for by some one of the Heads of Departments, and
submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its
own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against
the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially
declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.
10. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the
exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is
made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public
contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been
made or such service rendered.
11. No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederate States;
and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall,
without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument,
office or title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign
State.
12. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
13. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the ri,ght of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
727, 
APPENDIX H.
14. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
15. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
16. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put ill jeopardy of life
or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against
himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
17. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been comnmitted, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have Compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
18. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by Jury shall be preserved; and
no fact so tried by a Jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the Confederacy, than according to the rules of the common law.
19. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
20. Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to
but one subject, and that shall be exlpressed in the title.
SECTION 10.-1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or
Confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money;
make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;
pass any bill of attainder, or ex postfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.
2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all
duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for
the use of the treasury of the Confederate States, and all such laws shall
be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on
tonnage, except on sea-going vessels. for the improvement of its rivers
728 
CONFEDERATE PERMANENT CONSTITUTION.
and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not
conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations;
and any surplus revenue thus derived, shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep
troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or
compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war,
unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit
of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more
States, they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the
navigation thereof.
ARTICLE II.
SECTION 1.-1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President
of the Confederate States of America. HIe and the Vice President shall
hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not
be re-eligible. The President and Vice President shall be elected as
follows:
2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators
and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;
but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or
profit under the Confederate States, shall be appointed an elector.
3. The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot
for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all
persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice
President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall
sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the Seat of the Government
of the Confederate States, directed to the President of the Senate; the
President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House
of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be
counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President
shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then,
from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on
the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives
shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing, the
President, the votes shall be taken by States-the representation from
each State having one vote.  A quorum for this purpose shall consist of
a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of
all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice
shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following,
729 
APPENDIX H.
then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death,
or other Constitutional disability of the President.
4. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President,
shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then,
from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the
Vice President. A quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds
of thie whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number
shall be necessary to a choice.
5. But no person Constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the Confederate States.
6. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and
the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the
same throughout the Confederate States.
7. No person except a natural born citizen of the Confederate States,
or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
or a citizen thereof, born in the United States prior to the 20th of
December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither
shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within
the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist, at the time of his
election.
8. In case of the removal of the Presdent from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the Congress
may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or
inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what
officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly,
until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.
9. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a
compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during
the period for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive
within that period any other emolument from the Confederate States,
or any of them.
10. Before he enters on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the Confederate States of America, and will, to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
thereof." 
SECTION 2.-1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the
Army and Navy of the Confederate States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual service of the Confederate
States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer
in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the
-730 
CONFEDERATE PERMANENT CONSTITUTION.
duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant
reprieves and pardons for offences against the Confederacy, except in
cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Senators present
concur: and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, Judges of the Suprenme Court, and all other officers of the Confederate States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided
for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may, by
law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper,
in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the Heads of Depart
ments.
3. The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all
persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from
office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the
Executive Departments ma.y be removed at any time by the President,
or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for
dishonesty, incapacity, inefficiency, misconduct or neglect of duty; and
when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together
with the reasons therefor.
4. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may
happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which
shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by
the Senate shall be re-appointed to the same office during their ensuing
recess.
SECTION 3.-1. The President shall, from time to time, give to the
Congress information of the state of the Confederacy, and recommend to
their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or
either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect
to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he
shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall
commission all the officers of the Confederate States.
SECTION 4.-1. The President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers
of the Confederate States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III.
SECTION 1.-1. The Judicial power of the Confederate States shall be
vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Inferior Courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The Judges, both
of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good
731 - 
APPENDIX II.
behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a com pensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office.
SECTION 2.-1. The Judicial power shall extend to all cases arising
under this Constitution, the laws of the Confederate States, and treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affect ing ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of
admiralty and maratime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Con federate States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more
States; between a State and citizen of another State, where the State is
plaintiff; between citizens claiming lands under grants of different
States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreignl States,
citizens or subjects; but no State shall be sued by a citizen or subject of
any foreign State.
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned,
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and
fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress
shall make.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be
by Jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,
the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law
have directed.
SECTION 3.-1. Treason against the Confederate States shall consist
only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on
confession in open court.
2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of
treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or
forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.
ARTICLE IV.
SECTION 1.-1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to
the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.
And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which
such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect
thereof.
SECTION 2.-1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall
have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy,
with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said
slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
732 
CONFEDERATE PERMANENT CONSTITUTION.
2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime
against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found
in another State, shall, on demand of the Executive authority of the
State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State
having jurisdiction of the crime.
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or
Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or
lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to
whom such service or labor may be due.
SECTIoN 3.-1. Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy
by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and twothlirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall
be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States,
without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well
as of the Congress.
2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States,
including the lands thereof.
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress
shall have power to legislate and provide Governments for the inhabitants
of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the
limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and
in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted
into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the Institution of Negro
slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized
and protected by Congress and by the Territorial Government: and the
inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have
the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in
any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
4. The Confederate States shall guaranty to every State that now is,
or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a Republican
form of Government; and shall protect each of them against invasion;
and on application of the Legislature, (or of the Executive, when the
Legislature is not in session,) against domestic violence.
ARTICLE V.
SECTION 1.-1. Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled
in their several Conventions, the Congress shall summon a Convention
of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when
the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments
to the Constitution be agreed on by the said Convention-voting by
733 
APPENDIX H.
States-and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
several States, or by Conventions in two-thirds thereof-as the one or the
other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general Conventionthey shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State
shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal Representation in the
Senate.
ARTICLE VI.
1. The Government established by this Constitution is the successor
of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America,
and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the
same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the
same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
2. All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the Confederate States
under this Constitution as under the Provisional Government.
3. This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under
the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the
land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything
in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
4. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all Executive and Judicial
officers, both of the Confederate States and of the several States, shall be
bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the Confederate States.
5. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people of the
several States.
6. The powers not delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States,
respectively, or to the people thereof.
ARTICLE VII.
1. The Ratification of the Conventions of five States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so
ratifying the same.
2. When five States shall have ratified this Constitution, in the
manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall prescribe the time for holding the election of President and
Vice President, and for the meeting of the Electoral College, and for
counting the votes, and inaugurating the President. They shall also
prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress
under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until
734 
CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS TO MR. SEWARD. 735
the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Provisional
Constitution shall continue to exercise the Legislative powers granted
them; not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the
Provisional Government.
EXTRACT FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE CONGRESS.
CONGRESS, March 11, 1861.
On the question of the adoption of the Constitution of the Confederate
States of America, the vote was taken by Yeas and Nays; and the Constitution was unanimously adopted, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative being Messrs. Walker, Smith,
Curry, Hale, McRae, Shorter, and Fearn, of Alabama, (Messrs. Chilton
and Lewis being absent;) MIessrs. Morton, Anderson, and Owens, of
Florida; Messrs. Toombs, Howell Cobb, Bartow, Nisbet, Hill, Wright,
Thomas R. RH Cobb, and Stephens, of Georgia, (Messrs. Crawford and
Kenan being absent;) Messrs. Perkins, de Clount, Conrad, Kenner,
Sparrow, and Marshall, of Louisiana; Messrs. Harris, Brooke, Wilson,
Clayton, Barry, and Harrison, of Mississippi, (Mr. Campbell being
absent;) Messrs. Rhett, Barnwell, Keitt, Chesnut, Memminger, Miles,
Withers, and Boyce, of South Carolina; Messrs. Reagan, Hemphill,
Waul, Gregg, Oldham, and Ochiltree, of Texas, (Mr. Wigfall being
absent.)
J. J. HOOPER,
Secretary of the Congress.
CONGRFESS, March 11, 1861.
I do hereby certify that the foregoing are, respectively, true and correct copies of " The Constitution of the Confederate States of America,"
unanimously adopted this day, and of the Yeas and Nays on the question of the adoption thereof.
HOWELL ConBB,
Preside~tt of the Congress.
I.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONFEDERATE COMMIS SIONERS AND MR. SECRETARY SEWARD, WITH JUDGE
CAMPBELL'S LETTERS UPON THE SUBJECT.
WASHINGTON CITY, March 12, 1861.
HONlq. WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States:
Sir:-The undersigned have been duly accredited by the Government
of the Confederate States of America, as Commissioners to the Government of the United States, and in pursuance of their instructions have
now the honor to acquaint you with that fact, and to make known, 
APPENDIX I.
through you, to the President of the United States, the objects of their
presence in this Capital.
Seven States of the late Federal Union, having in the exercise of the
inherent right of every free people to change or reform their Political
Institutions, iand through Conventions of their people, withdrawn from
the United States and re-assumed the attributes of Sovereign Power
delegated to it, have formed a Government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an Independent Nation, de facto and de jure,
and possess a Government perfect in all its parts and endowed with all
the means of self-support.
With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of
this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good-will as the
respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the
two Nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to
make to the G6vernment of the United States overtures for the opening
of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the
President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States, earnestly
desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither
their interest, nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded
in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late Confederates.
The undersigned have now the honor in obedience to the instructions
of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible,
in order that they may present to the President of the United States,
the Credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with
which they are charged.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants,
JOHN FORSYTH,
MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.
MEMORANDUM.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,    |
WASHINGTON, -March, 15, 1861. 
Mr. John Forsyth, of the State of Alabama, and  Mr. Martin  $.
Crawford, of the State of Georgia, on the 11th inst., through the kind
offices of a distinguished Senator, submitted to the Secretary of State,
their desire for an un-official interview. This request was, on the 12th
inst., upon exclusively public considerations, respectfully declined.
On the 13th inst., while the Secretary was pre-occupied, Mr. A. D.
Banks, of Virginia, called at this Department, and was received by the
Assistant-Secretary, to whom he delivered a sealed communication,
which he had been charged by MIessrs. Forsythl and Crawford, to
present to the Secretary in person.
In that communication Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford inform the
Secretary of State that they have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States of America as Commissioners to the
736 
"MEMORANDUM " OF SECRETARY SEWARD.
Government of the United States, and they set forth the objects of their
attendance at Washingtoll.  They observe that seven States of the
American Union, in the exercise of a right inherent in every free people,
have withdrawn, through Conventions of their people, from the United
States, re-assumed the attributes of Sovereign Power, and formed a Gov  ernment of their own, and that those Confederate States now constitute an
Independent Nation, defacto and de jure, and possess a Government per  fect in all its parts, and fully endowed with all the means of self-support.
Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford, in their aforesaid communication,
thereupon proceeded to inform the Secretary that, with a view to a
speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of the political separation
thus assumed, upon such terms of amity and good-will as the respective
interests, geographical contiguity, and the future welfare of the supposed
two Nations might render necessary, they are instructed to make to the
Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations,
assuring this Government that the President, Congress and the people
of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these
great questions, and that it is neither their interest nor their wish to
make any demand which is not founded in the strictest justice, nor do
any act to injure their late Confederates.
After making these statements, Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford close
their communication, as they say, in obedience to the instructions of
their Government, by requesting the Secretary of State to appoint as
early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President
of the Iunited States the credentials which they bear and the objects of
the mission with which they are charged.
The Secretary of State frankly confesses that he understands the
events which have recently occurred, and the condition of political
affairs which actually exists in the part of the Union to which his
attention has thus been directed, very differently from the aspect in
which they are presented by Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford. He sees
in them, not a rightful and accomplished revolution and an independent
Nation, with an established Government, but rather a perversion of a
temporary and partisan excitement to the inconsiderate purposes of an
unjustifiable and unconstitutional aggression upon the rights and the
authority vested in the Federal Government, and hitherto benignly
exercised, as from their very nature they always must so be exercised,
for the maintenance of the Union, the preservation of liberty, and
the security, peace, welfare, happiness, and aggrandizement of the
American people. The Secretary of State, therefore, avows to Messrs.
Forsyth and Crawford that he looks patiently but confidently for the
cuire of evils which have resulted from proceedings so unnecessary, so
unwise, so unusual, and so unnatural, not to irregular negotiations,
having in view new and untried relations with agencies unknown to and
acting in derogation of the Constitution and laws, but to regular and
47
737 
APPENDIX I.
considerate action of the people of those States, in co-operation with their
brethren in the other States, through the Congress of the United States,
and such extraordinary Conventions, if there shall be need thereof, as
the Federal Constitution contemplates and authorizes to be assembled.
It is, however, the purpose of the Secretary of State, on this occasion,
not to invite or engage in aliy discussion of these subjects, but simply to
set forth his reasons for declining to comply with the request of Messrs.
Forsyth and Crawford.
On the 4th of March inst., the then newly elected President of the United
States, in view of all the facts bearing on the present question, assumed
the Executive Administration of the Government, first delivering, in
accordance with an early, honored custom, an Inaugural Address to the
people of the United States. The Secretary of State respectfully submits
a copy of this address to Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford.
A simple reference to it will be sufficient to satisfy these gentlemen
that the Secretary of State, guided by the principles therein announced,
is prevented altogether from admitting or assuming that the States referred to by them have, in law or in fact, withdrawn from the Federal
Union, or that they could do so in the manner described by Messrs.
Forsyth and Crawford, or in any other manner than with the consent
and concert of the people of the United States, to be given through a
National Convention, to be assembled in conformity with the provisions
of the Constitution of the United States. Of course the Secretary of
State cannot act upon the assumption, or in any way admit that the socalled Confederate States constitute a foreign Power, with whom diplomatic relations ought to be established.
Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State, whose official duties are confined, subject to the direction of the President, to the conducting of the foreign relations of the country, and do not at all embrace
domestic questions, or questions arising between the several States and
the Federal Government, is unable to comply with the request of Messrs.
Forsyth and Crawford, to appoint a day on which they may present the
evidences of their authority and the objects of their visit to the President of the United States. On the contrary, he is obliged to state to
Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford, that he has no authority, nor is he at
liberty, to recognize them as diplomatic agents, or hold correspondence
or other communication with them.
Finally, the Secretary of State would observe that, although he has
supposed that he might safely and with propriety have adopted these
conclusions, without making any reference of the subject to the Execu tive, yet, so strong has been his desire to practise entire directness, and
to act in a spirit of perfect respect and candor towards Messrs. Forsyth
and Crawford, and that portion of the people of the Union, in whose
they present thmselves before him, that he has cheerfully sub          s piaecr to the President, who coincides generally in the views 
738
r,,, 
REPLY OF COMMISSIONERS TO MR. SEWARD.  739
it expresses, and sanctions the Secretary's decision, declining official intercourse with Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford.
April 8, 1861.
T'he foregoing Memorandum was filed in this Department on the 15th
of March last. A delivery of the same, however, to Messrs. Forsyth
and  Crawford was delayed, as was understood, with their consent.
They have now, through their Secretary, communicated their desire for
a definite disposition of the subject. The Secretary of State therefore
directs that a duly verified copy of the paper be now delivered.
A true copy of the original, delivered to me by Mr. F. W. Seward,
Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, on April 8, 1861, at
2.15 P.M., in blank envelope.
J. T. PIC KETT,
Secretary to the Commissioners.
THE COMMISSIONERS IN REPLY TO MR. SEWARD, ACCUS  ING THE GOVERNMENT OF DECEPTION, AND ACCEPT ING A SOLUTION BY THE SWORD.
WASHINGTON, April 9, 1861.
HON. WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the UtLited States, Washington:
The "Memorandum" dated Department of State, Washington, March
15, 1861, with postscript under date of 8th instant, has been received
through the hands of Mr. J. T. Pickett, Secretary to this Commission,
who, by the instructions of the undersigned, called for it on yesterday,
at the Department.
In that Memorandum you correctly state the purport of the official
note addressed to you by the undersigned on the 12th ultimo. Without
repeating the contents of that note in full, it is enough to say here th.at
its object was to invite the Government of the United States to a friendly
consideration of the relations between the United States and the seven
States lately of the Federal Union, but now separated from it by the
Sovereign Will of their People, growing out of the pregnant and undeniable fact that those people have rejected the authority of the United
States, and established a Governmnent of their own. Those relations had
to be friendly or U!tile.  The people of the old and new Governments,
occupying contigo'us  territories, had to stand to each other in the relation of good neighbors, each seeking their happiness and pursuing their
National destinies in their own way, without interference with the other,
or they had to be rival and hostile Nations. The Government of the
Confederate States had no hesitation in electing its choice in this alternative. Frankly and unreservedly, seeking the good of the people who
had entrusted them with power, in the spirit of humanity, of the Christian civilization of the age, and of that Americanism which regards the
true welfare and happiness of the people, the Government of the Confed 
erate States, among its first acts, commissioned the undersigned to approach the Government of the United States with the Olive Branch of
Peace, and to offer to adjust the great questions pending between them
in the only way to be justified by the consciences and common-sense of
good men who had nothing but the welfare of the people of the two
Confederacies at heart.
Your Government has not chosen to meet the undersigned in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which they are commissioned.  Persistently wedded to those fatal theories of construction of the Federal Constitution always rejected by the statesmen of the South, and adhered to
by those of the Administration school, until they have produced their
natural and often predicted result of the destruction of the Union, under
which we milght have continued to live happily and gloriously together,
had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the common Constitution
animated the hearts of all their sons, you now, with a persistence untaught and- uncured by the ruin which has been wrought, refuse to
recognize the great fact presented to you of a completed and successful
Revolution; you close your eyes to the existence of the Government
founded upon it, and ignore the high duties of moderation and humanity which attach to you in dealing with this great fact. Had you met
these issues with the frankness and manliness with which the under
signed were instructed to present them to you and treat them, the
undersigned had not now the melancholy duty to return home and tell
their Government and their countrymen that their earnest and ceaseless
efforts in behalf of peace had been futile, and that the Government of
the United States meant to subjugate them by force of arms. Whatever may be the result, impartial history will record the innocence of
the Government of the Confederate States, and place the responsibility
of the blood and mourning that may ensue upon those who have denied
the great fundamental doctrine of American Liberty, that "Governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and who
have set naval and land armaments in motion to subject the people of
one portion of this land to the will of another portion. That that can
never be done while a freeman survives in the Confederate States to
wield a weapon, the undersigned appeal to past history to prove. These
military demonstrations against the people of the Seceded States are
certainly far from being in keeping and consistency with the theory of
the Secretary of State, maintained in his Memorandum, that these States
are still component parts of the late American Union, as the undersigned are not aware of any constitutional power in the President of
the United States to levy war, without the consent of Congress, upon a
foreign People, much less upon any portion of the People of the United
States.
The undersigned, like the Secretary of State, have no purpose to
"invite or engage in discussion" of the subject on which their two
740
APPENDIX T. 
REPLY OF COMMISSIONERS TO MR. SEWARD.  741
Governments are so irreconcilably at variance. It is this variance that
has broken up the old Union, the disintegration of which has only begun.
It is proper, however, to advise you that it were well to dismiss the hopes
you seem to entertain that, by any of the modes indicated, the people of
the Confederate States will ever be brought to submit to the authority
of the Government of the United States. You are dealing with delusions,
too, when you seek to separate our people from our Government, and to
characterize the deliberate, Sovereign act of that People as a "perversion
of a temporary and partisan excitement." If you cherish these dreams
you will be awakened from them and find them as unreal and unsubstantial as others in which you have recently indulged. The undersigned
would omit the performance of an obvious duty were they to fail to make
known to the Government of the United States that the people of the
Confederate States have declared their Independence with a full knowledge of all the responsibilities of that act, and with as firm a determination to maintain it by all the means with which nature has endowed
them as that which sustained their Fathers when they threw off the
authority of the British Crown.
The undersigned clearly understand that you have declined to appoint
a day to enable them to lay the objects of the mission with which they
are charged before the President of the United States, because so to do
would be to recognize the Independence and separate Nationality of the
Confederate States. This is the vein of thought that pervades the
Memorandum before us. The truth of history requires that it should
distinctly appear upon the record that the undersigned did not ask the
Government of the United States to recognize the Independence of the
Confederate States. They only asked audience to adjust, in a spirit of
amity and peace, the new relations springing from a manifest and accomplished revolution in the Government of the late Federal Union. Your
refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active
naval and military preparations of this Government, and a formal notice
to the Commanding, General of the Confederate forces in the harbor of
Charleston that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means, if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned, and can only be
received by the world, as a declaration of war against the Confederate
States; for the President of the United States knows that Fort Sumter
cannot be provisioned without the effusion of blood. The undersigned,
in behalf of their Government and people, accept the gage of battle thus
thrown down to them; and, appealing to God and the judgment of mankind for the righteousness of their cause, the people of the Confederate
States will defend their liberties to the last against this flagrant and(
open attempt at their subjugation to sectional power.
This communication cannot be properly closed without adverting to
the date of your Memorandum. The official note of the undersigned,
of the 12th of March, was delivered to the Assistant Secretary of State 
APPENDIX I.
on the 13th of that month, the gentleman who delivered it informing
him that the Secretary of this Commission would call at twelve o'clock,
noon, on the next day, for an answer. At the appointed hour Mr.
Pickett did call, and was informed by the Assistant Secretary of State
that the engagements of the Secretary of State had prevented him from
giving the note his attention. The Assistant Secretary of State then
asked for the address of Messrs. Crawford and Forsyth, the members of
the Commission then present in this City, took note of the address on a
card, and engaged to send whatever reply might be made to their lodg ings.  Why this was not done it is proper should be here explained.
The Memorandum is dated March 15th, and was not delivered until
April 8th. Why was it withheld during the intervening twenty-three
days?  In the postscript to your Memorandum you say it " was delayed,
as was understood, with their (Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford's) con sent."I This is true; but it is also true that on the 15th of March,
Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford were assured by a person occupying a
high official position in the Government, and who, as they believed, was
speaking by authority, that Fort Sumter would be evacuated within a
very few days, and that no measure changing the existing status pre judicially to the Confederate States, as respects Fort Pickens, was then
contemplated, and these assurances were subsequently repeated, with
the addition that any contemplated change as respects Pickens would
be notified to us. On the 1st of April we were again informed that
there might be an attempt to supply Fort Sumter with provisions, but
that Governor Pickens should have previous notice of this attempt.
There was no suggestion of any reinforcement.  The undersigned did
not hesitate to believe that these assurances expressed the intentions of
the Administration at the time, or at all events of prominent members of
that Administration. This delay was assented to for the express purpose of attaining the great end of the mission of the undersigned, to
wit:-A pacific solution of existing complications. The inference deducible from the date of your Memorandum, that the undersigned had,
of their own volition and without cause, consented to this long hiatus in
the grave duties with which they were charged, is therefore not consistent with a just exposition of the facts of the case. The intervening
twenty-three days were employed in active unofficial efforts, the object
of which was to smooth the path to a pacific solution, the distinguished
personage alluded to co-operating with the undersigned, and every step
of that effort is recorded in writing, and now in possession of the undersigned and of their Government.  It was only when all these anxious
efforts for peace had been exhausted, and it became clear that Mr.
Lincoln had determined to appeal to the Sword to reduce the people of
the Confederate States to the will of the Section or Party whose President he is, that the undersigned resumed the official negotiation temporarily suspended, and sent their Secretary for a reply to their official
note of March twelfth.
742 
JUDGE CAMPBELL TO SECRETARY SEWARD.
It is proper to add that, during these twenty-three days, two gentlemen of official distinction as high as that of the personage hitherto alluded to, aided the undersigned as intermediaries in these unofficial negotiations for peace.
The undersigned, Commissioners of the Confederate States of America,
having thus made answer to all they deem material in the Memorandum
filed in the Department on the 15th of March last, have the honor to be,
JOHN FORSYTH,
MARTIN J. CRAWFORD,
A. B. ROMAN.
A true copy of the original, delivered to Mr. F. W. Seward, Assistant
Secretary of State of the United States, at eight o'clock in the evening
of April 9th, 1861.
Attest,                          J. T. PICKET, Secretary, etc., etc.
MR. SEWARD, IN REPLY TO THE COMMISSIONERS, AC KNOWLEDGES THE RECEIPT OF THEIR LETTER, BUT
DECLINES TO ANSWER IT.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
WASHINGTON, April 10th, 1861. 
Messrs. Forsyth, Crawford and Roman  having been apprised by
a memorandum, which has been delivered to them, that the Secretary of
State is not at liberty to hold official intercourse with them, will, it is
presumed, expect no notice from him of the new communication which
they have addressed to him under date of the 9th inst., beyond the
simple acknowledgment of the receipt thereof, which he hereby very
cheerfully gives.
A true copy of the original received by the Commissioners of the
Confederate States, this 10th day of April, 1861.
Attest,                          J. T.  PICKET, Secretary, etc., etc.
LETTERS OF JUDGE CAMPBELL TO MR. SEWARD.
WASHINGTON CITY, SATURDAY, April 13, 1861.
SIR:
On the 15th of March, ultimo, I left with Judge Crawford, one of the
Commissioners of the Confederate States, a note in writing to the effect
following:
"I feel entire confidence that Fort Sumter will be evacuated in the
next ten d(lays. And this measure is felt as imposing great responsibility
on the Administration.
"I feel entire confidence that no measure changing the existing
status prejudicially to the Southern Confederate States, is at present
contemplated.
"I feel an entire confidence that an immediate demand for an answer
to the communication of the Commissioners will be productive of evil
and not of good. I do not believe that it ought, at this time, to be pressed."
743' 
APPENDIX I.
The substance of this statement I communicated to you the same
evening by letter.  Five days elapsed and I called with a telegram froim
General Beauregard to the effect that Sumter was not evacuated, but
that Major Anderson was at work making repairs.
The next day, after conversing with you, I communicated to Judge
Crawford, in writing, that the failure to evacuate Sumter was not the
result of bad faith, but was attributable to causes consistent with the
intention to fulfil the engagement, and that, as regarded Pickens, I
should have notice of any design to alter the existing status there.
Mr. Justice Nelson was present at these conversations, three in number,
and I submitted to him each of my written communications to Judge
Crawford, and informed Judge Crawford  that they had his (Judge
Nelson's) sanction. I gave you, on the 22d of March, a substantial
copy of the statement I had made on the 15th.
The 30th of March arrived, and at that time a telegram came from
Governor Pickens inquiring concerning Colonel Lamon, whose visit to
Charleston he supposed had a connection with the proposed evacuation
of Fort Sumter. I left that with you, and was to have an answer the
following Monday, (1st of April.) On the 1st of April I received from
you the statement in writing: "I am satisfied the Government will not
undertake'to supply Fort Sumter without giving notice to Governor
P."  The words, "I am satisfied," were for me to use as expressive
of confidence in the remainder of the declaration.
The proposition as originally prepared was, "The President may
desire to supply Sumter, but will not do so," etc., and your verbal
explanation was that you did not believe any such attempt would be
made, and that there was no design to reinforce Sumter.
There was a departure here from the pledges of the previous month,
but, with the verbal explanation, I did not consider it a matter then
to complain of. I simply stated to you that I had that assurance
previously.
On the 7th of April I addressed you a letter on the subject of the
alarm that the preparations by the Government had created, and asked
you if the assurances I had given were well or ill-founded. In respect
to Sumter your reply was, "Faith as to Sumter fully kept-wait and
see." In the morning's paper I read, "An authorized messenger firom
President Lincoln informed Governor Pickens and General Beauregard
that provisions will be sent to Fort Sumter-peaceably, or otherwise by
force." This was the 8th of April, at Charleston, the day following
your last assurance, and is the last evidence of the full faith I was
invited to wait for and see. In the same paper I read that intercepted
dispatches disclosed the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to
visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific,
employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the Fort by
force, and that this plan had been adopted by the Washington Government, and was in process of execution. My recollection of the date of
744 
JUDGE CAMPBELL TO SECRETARY SEWARD.  745
Mr. Fox's visit carries it to a day in March. I learn hlie is a near
connection of a member of the Cabinet. My connection with the Commissioners and yourself was superinduced by a conversation with Justice
Nelson. He informed me of your strong disposition in favor of peace,
and that you were oppressed with a demand of the Commissioners of
the Confederate States for a reply to their first letter, and that you
desired to avoid it if possible at that time.
I told him I might, perhaps, be of some service in arranging the difficulty. I came to your office entirely at his request, and without the knowledge of either of the Commissioners. Your depression was obvious to
both Judge Nelson and myself. I was gratified at the character of the
counsels you were desirous of pursuing, and much impressed with your
observation that a civil war might be prevented by the success of my
mediation. You read a letter of Mr. Weed, to show how irksome and
responsible the withdrawal of troops from Sumter was. A portion of
my communication to Judge Crawford on the 15th March, was founded
upon these remarks, and the pledge to evacuate Sumter is less forcible
than the words you employed. Those words were: Before this letter
reaches you, (a proposed letter by me to President Davis,) Sumter will
have been evacuated.
The Commissioners who received those communications conclude they
have been abused and over-reached. The Montgomery Government
hold the same opinion. The Commissioners have supposed that my
communications were with you, and upon the hypothesis were prepared
to arraign you before the country in connection with the President. I
placed a peremptory prohibition upon this as being contrary to the terms
of my communications with them. I pledged myself to them to communicate information upon what I considered as the best authority, and
they were to confide in the ability of myself, aided by Judge Nelson, to
determine upon the credibility of my informant.
I think no candid man who will read over what I have written, and
considers for a moment what is going on at Sumter, but will agree that
the equivocating conduct of the Administration, as measured and inlterpreted in connection with these promises, is the proximate cause of the
great calamity.
I have a profound conviction that the telegrams of the 8th of April
of General Beauregard, and of the 10th of April of General Walker, the
Secretary of War, can be referred to nothing else than their belief that
there has been systematic duplicity praticed on them through me. It is
under an impressive sense of the weight of this responsibility that I submit to you these things for your explanation.
Very respectfully,
JOHn A. CAMPBELL,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, United States.
How. WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 
APPENDIX J.
I
ad
not
by
ny
LSis
fis
to
Very respectfully,
JOHN A. CAMPBELL,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, United States.
HoN. WM. H. SEWAID, Secretary of State.
No reply has been made to this letter. April 24, 1861.
J.
MY MARYLAND.
BY JAMES R. RANDALL.
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
Anld be the battle-queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland I
Hark to an exiled son's appeal,
Maryland!
Maryland!
My Mother-State, to thee I kneel,
For life and death, for woe and weal,
Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,
Maryland! My Maryland!
746 
MARYLAND! MY MARYLAND!
Thou wilt not cower in the dust,
Maryland!
Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
Maryland I
Rememnber Carroll's sacred trust,
Remember Howard's warlike thrust
And all thy slumberers with the just,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come,'tis the red dawn of the day,
Maryland I
Come, with thy panoplied array,
Maryland!
With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
With Watson's blood at Monterey,
With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
Maryland! My Maryland I
Come, for thy shield is bright and strong,
Maryland!
Come, for thy dalliance does the wrong,
Maryland!
Come, to thine own heroic throng,
Marching with Liberty along,
And ring thy dauntless slogan-song,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Dear Mother, burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland I
She meets her sisters on the plain"Sic semper,"'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Maryland I
Arise, in majesty again,
Maryland I My Maryland!
I see the blush upon thy cheek,
Maryland!
For thou wast ever bravely meek,
Maryland!
But lo! there surges forth a shriek
From hill to hill, from creek to creekPotomac calls to Chesapeake,
_-     ~     Maryland! My Maryland!
747 
APPENDIX K.
Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,
Maryland I
Thou wilt not crook to his control,
Maryland I
Better the fire upon thee roll,
Better the shot, the blade, the bowl,
Than crucifixion of the soul,
Maryland! My Maryland!
I hear the distant thunder hum,
Maryland I
The Old Line bugle, fife, and drum,
Maryland I
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes-she burns! she'll come! she'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!
K.
THE MERRYMAN CASE.
DECISION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY.
Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States, at Chambers.
The application in this case for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is made to
me under the 14th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which renders
effectual for the citizen the Constitutional Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus.  That Act gives to the Courts of the United States, as
well as to each Justice of the Supreme Court, and to every District
Judge, power to grant Writs of Habeas Corpus for the purpose of an
inquiry into the cause of commitment. The petition was presented to
me at Washington under the impression that I would order the prisoner
to be brought before me there; but as he was confined in Fort McHenry,
at the City of Baltimore, which is in my Circuit, I resolved to hear it in
the latter city, as obedience to the Writ, under such circumstances,
would not withdraw General Cadwalader, who had him in charge, from
the limits of his military command.
The petition presents the following case: The petitioner resides in
Maryland, in Baltimore County. While peaceably in his own house,
with his family, it was at two o'clock on the morning of the 25th of
May, 1861, entered by an armed force, professing to act under military
orders. He was then compelled to rise from his bed, taken into custody,
748
- b
-Ex parte
JOH11T MERP.YMAN. 
TANEY'S DECISION IN THE MERRYMAN CASE. 749
and conveyed to Fort McHenry, where he is imprisoned by the commanding officer, without warrant from any lawful authority.
The Commander of the Fort, General George Cadwalader, by whom
he is detained in confinement, in his return to the Writ, does not deny
any of the facts alleged in the petition. He states that the prisoner
was arrested by order of General Keim, of Pennsylvania, and conducted
as aforesaid to Fort McHenry by his order, and placed in his (General
Cadwalader's) custody, to be there detained by him as a prisoner.
A cqpy of the warrant or order, under which the prisoner was arrested,
was demanded by his counsel, and refused. And it is not alleged in the
return that any specific act, constituting any offence against the laws
of the United States, has been charged against him upon oath; but
he appears to have been arrested upon general charges of treason and
rebellion, without proof, and without giving the names of the witnesses,
or specifying, the acts which, in the judgment of the military officer,
constituted these crimes.  And having the prisoner thus in custody
upon these vague and unsupported accusations, he refuses to obey the
Writ of Habeas Corpus, upon the ground that he is duly authorized by
the President to suspend it.
The case, then, is simply this:-A military officer residing in Pennsylvania, issues an order to arrest a citizen of Maryland, upon vague
and indefinite charges, without any proof, so far as appears. Under
this order, his house is entered in the night; he is seized as a prisoner,
and conveyed to Fort McHenry, and there kept in close confinement.
And when a Habeas Corputs is served on the commanding officer requiring
him to produce the prisoner before a Justice of the Supreme Court, in
order that he may examine into the legality of the imprisonment, the
answer of the officer is that he is authorized by the President to suspend
the Writ of Habeas Corpus at his discretion, and, in the exercise of that
discretion, suspends it in this case, and on that ground refuses obedience
to the Writ.
As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the President not only claims the right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus
himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a
military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or
will not obey Judicial process that may be served upon him.
No official notice has been given to the Courts of Justice, or to the
public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the President claimed this
power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I
certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be
one of those points of Constitutional law upon which there was no
difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the
Privilege of the Writ could not be suspended, except by Act of Congress.
When the conspiracy of which Aaron Burr was the head became so 
'APPENDIX K.
formidable, and was so extensively ramified as to justify, in Mr. Jeffer son's opinion, the suspension of the Writ, he claimed, on his part, n power to suspend it, but communicated his opinion to Congress, with
all the proofs in his possession, in order that Congress might exercise
its discretion upon the subject, and determine whether the public safety
required it. And in the debate which took place upon the subject, no
one suggested that Mr. Jefferson might exercise the power himself, if,
in his opinion, the public safety demanded it.
Having, therefore, regarded the question as too plain and too well
settled to be open to dispute, if the commanding officer had stated that,
upon his own responsibility and in the exercise of his own discretion, he
refused obedience to the writ, I should have contented myself with re ferring to the clause in the Constitution and to the construction it received from every jurist and statesman of that day, when the case of
Burr was before them. But being thus officially notified that the Privilege of the Writ has been suspended under the orders, and by the authority, of the President, and believing, as I do, that the President has exercised a power which he does not possess under the Constitution, a
proper respect for the high office he fills requires me to state plainly
and fully the grounds of my opinion, in order to show that I have
not ventured to question the legality of his act without a careful and
deliberate examination of the whole subject.
The clause of the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the
Privilege of the Writ of Habes Corpus is in the 9th section of the first
article.
This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United
States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.
It begins by providing "that all Legislative powers therein granted,
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives.", And after prescribing the
manner in which these two branches of the Legislative Department
shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the Legislative
powers which it thereby grants; and, at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving Congress "the power to make all
laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution il
the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office
thereof."
The power of legislation granted by this latter clause is, by its words,
carefully confined to the specific objects before enumerated. But as
this limitation was unavoidably somewhat indefinite it was deemed
necessary to guard more effectually certain great cardinal principles
essential to the liberty of the citizen, and to the rights and equality of
the States, by denying to Congress, in express terms, any power of
legislation over them.  It was apprehended, it seems, that such legisla
750 
TANEY'S DECISION IN THE MERRYMAN CASE. 751
tion might be attempted under the pretext that it was necessary and
proper to carry into execution the powers granted; and it was determined that there should be no room to doubt, where rights of such vital
importance were concerned, and accordingly this clause is immediately
followed by an enumeration of certain subjects to which the powers of
legislation shall not extend;  and the great importance which  the
framers of the Constitution attached to the Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus to protect the liberty of the citizen is proved by the fact
that by its suspension, except in cases of invasion and rebellion, is first in
the list of prohibited powers-and even in these cases the power is
denied, and its exercise prohibited, unless the public safety shall require it.
It is true that in the cases mentioned, Congress is, of necessity, the
judge of whether the public safety does or does not require it; and their
judgment is conclusive.  But the introduction of these words is a standing admonition to the Legislative body of the danger of suspending it,
and of the extreme caution they should exercise before they give the
Government of the United States such power over the liberty of a
citizen.
It is the second article of the Constitution that provides for the organization of the Executive Department, and enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties.  And if the high power over the
liberty of the citizens now claimed was intended to be conferred on the
President, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article.
But there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to
justify the exercise of the power.
The article begins by declaring that the Executive power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America, to hold his office
during the term of four years-and then proceeds to prescribe the mode
of election, and to specify in precise and plain words the powers delegated to him and the duties imposed upon him. And the short term for
which he is elected, and the narrow limits to which his power is confined
show the jealousy and apprehensions of future danger which the framers
of the Constitution felt in relation to that Department of the Government-and how carefully they withheld from it many of the powers
belonging to the Executive branch of the English Government, which
were considered as dangerous to the liberty of the sublject, and conferred
(and that in clear and specific terms) those powers only which were
deemed essential to secure the successful operation of the Government.
He is elected, as I have already said, for the brief term of four years,
and is made personally responsible, by impeachment, for malfeasance in
office. He is from necessity and the nature of his duties the Commanderin-Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the Militia, when called into
actual service. But no appropriation for the support of the army can
be made by Congress for a longer term than two years, so that it is in 
APPENDIX K.
the power of the succeeding House of Representatives to withhold the
appropriation for its support, and thus disband it, if, in their judgment,
the President used, or designed to use, it for improper purposes. And
although the militia, when in actual service, are under his command,
yet the appointment of the officers is reserved to the States as a security
against the use of the military power for purposes dangerous to the liberties of the people, or the rights of the States.
So, too, his powers in relation to the civil duties and authority necessarily conferred on him are carefully restricted, as well as those belonging to his military character. He cannot appoint the ordinary officers
of Government, nor make a treaty with a foreign Nation or Indian tribe,
without the advice and consent of the Senate, and cannot appoint even
inferior officers, unless he is authorized by an act of Congress to do so.
He is not empowered to arrest any one charged with an offence against
the United States, and whom he may, from the evidence before him,
believe to be guilty; nor can he authorize any officer, civil or military,
to exercise this power, for the 5th Article of the Amendments to the
Constitution expressly provides that no person "shall be deprived of life,
liberty oiroperty, without due process of law "-that is, Judicial process.
And even if the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended
by Act of Congress, and a party not subject to the Rules and Articles of
war was afterwards arrested and imprisoned by regular Judicial process,
he could not be detained in prison or brought to trial before a military
tribunal, for the article in the Amendments to the Constitution immediately following the one above referred to-that is the 6th Article-provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
And the only power, therefore, which the President possesses, where
the "life, liberty or property" of a private citizen is concerned, is
the power and duty prescribed in the 3d Section of the 2d Article,
which requires "that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He is not authorized to execute them himself, orthrough agents
or officers, civil or military, appointed by himself, but he is to take care
that they be faithfully carried into execution, as they are expounded and
adjudged by the Co-ordinate Branch of the Government to which that
duty is assigned by the Constitution. It is thus made his duty to come
in aid of the Judicial authority, if it shall be resisted by a force too strong
to be overcome without the assistance of the Executive arm. But in
exercising this power, he acts in subordination to Judicial authority,
assisting it to execute its process and enforce its judgments.
752 
TANEY'S DECISION IN THE MERRYMAN CASE.   753
With such provisions in the Constitution, expressed in language too
clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for
supposing that the President, in any emergency, or in any state of
things, can authorize the suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the Judicial power.
He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon him self legislative power by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the
Judicial power, also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due
process of law. Nor can any argument be drawn from the nature of
Sovereignty, or the necessities of Government, for self-defence in times
of tumult and danger. The Government of the United States is one of
delegated and limited powers. It derives its existence and authority
altogether from the Constitution, and neither of its Branches, Executive, Legislative or Judicial, can exercise any of the powers of Government beyond those specified and granted. For the 10th Article of the
Amendments to the Constitution in express terms provides that "the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to
the people."
Indeed, the security against imprisonment by Executive authority,
provided for in the 5th Article of the Amendments to the Constitution,
which I have before quoted, is nothing more than a copy of a like provision in the English Constitution; which had been firmly established
before the Declaration of Independence.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries (first vol., 137), states it in the fol
lowing words:
"T6 make imprisonment lawful, it must be either by process of law
from the Courts of Judicature, or by warrant from some legal officer
having authority to commit to prison."  And the people of the United
Colonies, who had themselves lived under its protection while they were
British subjects, were well aware of the necessity of this safeguard for
their personal liberty. And no one can believe that in framing a Government intended to guard still more efficiently the rights and the liberties of the citizens against Executive encroachments and oppression,
they would have conferred on the President a power which the history
of England had proved to be dangerous and oppressive in the hands of
the Crown, and which the people of England had compelled it to surrender, after a long and obstinate struggle on the part of the English
Executive to usurp and retain it.
The right of the subject to the benefit of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it
must be recollected, was one of the great points in controversy during
the long struggle in England between arbitrary government and free institutions, and must, therefore, have strongly attracted the attention of
the statesmen engaged in framing a new and, as they supposed, a freer
Government than the one which they had thrown off by the Revolution.
48 
APPENDIX K.
For, from the earliest history of the Common Law, if a person were imprisoned-no matter by what authority-he had a right to the Writ of
Habeas Corpus, to bring his case before the King's Bench; and if no specific offence was charged against him in the warrant of commitment, he
was entitled to be forthwith discharged; and if an offence was charged
which was bailable in its character, the Court was bound to set him at
liberty on bail. And the most exciting contests between the Crown and
the people of England from the time of Magna Charta were in relation
to the Privilege of this Writ, and they continued until the passage of the
statute of 31st Charles II, commonly known as the great Habeas Coipus
Act.
This statute put an end to the struggle, and finally and firmly secured
the liberty of the subject against the usurpation and oppression of the
Executive branch of the Government. It nevertheless conferred no new
right upon the subject, but only secured a right already existing. For,
although the right could not be justly denied, there was often no efifectual remedy against its violation. Until the statute of the 13th of William III, the Judges held their offices at the pleasure of the King, and
the influence which he exercised over timid, time-serving and partisan
judges often induced them, upon some pretext or another, to refuse to
discharge the party, although entitled by law to his discharge, or delayed their decisions from time to time, so as to prolong the imprisonment of persons who were obnoxious to the King for their political
opinions, or had incurred his resentment in any other way.
The great and inestimable value of the Habeas Corpus Act of the
31st Charles II, is that it contains provisions which compel Courts and
Judges, and all parties concerned to perform their duties promptly, in
the manner specified in the statute.
A passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, showing the ancient state of
the law upon this subject, and the abuses which were practiced through
the power and influence of the Crown, and a short extract from Hallam's
Constitutional History, stating the circumstances which gave rise to the
passage of this statute, explain briefly but fully, all that is material to
this subject.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (3d vol.
133, 134), says:
"To assert an absolute exemption from imprisonment in all cases is
inconsistent with every idea of law and political society, and in the
end would destroy all civil liberty by rendering its protection im possible.
"But the glory of the English law consists in clearly defining the
times, the causes, and the extent, when, wherefore, and to what degree
ilhe imprisonment of the subject may be lawful. This it is which
induces the absolute necessity of expressing upon every commitment
the reason for which it is made, that the Court upon a Habeas Corpus
754 
TANEY'S DECISION IN THE MERRYMAN CASE.  755
may examine into its validity, and according to the circumstances of
the case may discharge, admit to bail or remand the prisoner.
"And yet, early in the reign of Charles I, the Court of King's Bench,
relying on some arbitrary precedents (and those perhaps misunderstood)
determined that they would not, upon a Habeas Corpus, either bail or
deliver a prisoner, though committed without any cause assigned, in
case he was committed by the special command of the King, or by the
Lords of the Privy Council. This drew on a Parliamentary inquiry and
produced the Petition of Right-3 Charles I-which recites this illegal
judgment, and enacts that no freeman hereafter shall be so imprisoned
or detained. But when, in the following year, Mr. Selden and others were
committed by the Lords of the Council in pursuance of his Majesty's
special command, under a general charge of notable contempts, and
stirring up sedition against the King and Government, the Judges
delayed for two Terms (including also the long vacation) to deliver an
opinion how far such a charge was bailable.  And when at length they
agreed that it was, they, however, annexed a condition of finding
sureties for their good behavior which still protracted their imprison inent, the Chief Justice, Sir Nicholas Hyde, at the same time declaring
that'if they were again remanded for that cause perhaps the Court
would not afterwards grant a Habeas Corpus, being already made
acquainted with the cause of the imprisonment.' But this was heard
with indignation and astonishment by every lawyer present, according
to Mr. Selden's own account of the matter, whose resentment was not
cooled at the distance of four and twenty years."
It is worthy of remark that the offences charged against the prisoner
in this case, and relied on as a justification for his arrest and imprisonment, in their nature and character, and in the loose and vague manner
in which they are stated, bear a striking resemblance to those assigned
in the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Selden. And yet, even at that day,
the warrant was regarded as such a flagrant violation of the rights of
the subject, that the delay of the time-serving Judges to set him at
liberty upon the Habeas Corpus issued in his behalf, excited the universal
indignation of the Bar.   The extract from Hallam's Constitutional
History is equally impressive and equally in point. (It is in vol. 4, p. 9,
and is also cited at length in the note to pp. 136, 137 of the 3d volume
of Wendell's edition of Blackstone.)
"It is a very common mistake, and not only among foreigners, but
many from whom some knowledge of our Constitutional laws might be
expected, to suppose that this statute of Charles II. enlarged in a great
degree our liberties, and forms a sort of epoch in their history. But
though a very beneficial enactment, and eminently remedial in many
cases of illegal imprisonment, it introduced no new principle, nor conferred any rights upon the subject. From the earliest records of the
English law, no freeman could be detained in prison, except upon a 
APPENDIX K.
criminal charge or conviction, or for a civil debt. In the former case, it
was always in his power to demand of the Court of King's Bench a
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum directed to the person detaining
him in custody, by which he was enjoined to bring up the body of the
prisoner with the warrant of commitment, that the Court might judge
of its sufficiency and remand the party, admit him to bail, or discharge
him, according to the nature of the charge. This Writ issued of right,
and could not be refused by the Court. It was not to bestow an immunity from arbitrary imprisonment, which is abundantly provided for
in Magna Charta (if, indeed, it is not more ancient) that the statute of
Charles II was enacted, but to cut off the abuses by which the Government's lust of power and the servile sublety of Crown lawyers had
impaired so fundamental a Privilege."
While the value set upon this Writ in England has been so great that
the removal of the abuses which embarrassed its enjoyment has been
looked upon as almost a new grant of liberty to the subject, it is not to
be wondered at that the continuance of the Writ thus made effective
should have been the object of the most jealous care. Accordingly, no
power in England short of that of Parliament can suspend or authorize the suspension of the Writ of IHabeas Corpus.  I quote again from
Blackstone, (1 Com. 136:)  "But the happiness of our Constitution is
that it is not left to the Executive power to determine when the danger
of the State is so great as to render this measure expedient. It is the
Parliament only or Legislative power that, whenever it sees proper,
can authorize the Crown, by suspending the Habeas Corpus for a short
and limited time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any
reason for so doing."  And if the President of the United States may
suspend the Writ, then the Constitution of the United States has conferred upon him more regal and absolute power over the liberty of the
citizen than the people of England have thought it safe to entrust to
the Crown-a power which the Queen of England cannot exercise at
this day, and which could not have been lawfully exercised by the
Sovereign even in the reign of Charles the First.
But, I am not left to form any judgment upon this great question
from analogies between the English Government and our own, or the
commentaries of English jurists, or the decisions of English Courts,
although upon this subject they are entitled to the highest respect, and
are justly regarded and received as authoritative by our Courts of
Justice. To guide me to a right conclusion, I have the Commentaries
on the Constitution of the United States of the late Mr. Justice Story,
not only one of the most eminent jurists of the age, but for a long time
one of the brightest ornaments of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and also the clear and authoritative decision of that Court itself,
given more than half a Century since and conclusively establishing the
principles I have above stated.
756 
TANEY'S DECISION IN THE MERRYMAN CASE.  757
Mr. Justice Story, speaking in his Commentaries of the Habeas Corpus
clause in the Constitution, says:
"It is obvious that cases of a peculiar emergency may arise, which
may justify, nay, even require, the temporary suspension of any right
to the Writ. But, as it has frequently happened in foreign countries,
and even in England, that the Writ has, upon various pretexts and
occasions, been suspended, whereby persons apprehended upon suspi cion have suffered a long imprisonment, sometimes from design, and
sometimes because they were forgotten, the right to suspend it is ex pressly confined to cases of rebellion or invasion, where the public
safety may require it. A very just and wholesome restraint, which
cuts down at a blow a fruitful means of oppression, capable of being
abused in bad times to the worst of purposes. Hitherto no suspension
of the Writ has ever been authorized by Congress since the establishment of the Constitution. It would seem, as the power is given to
Congress to suspend the Writ of Htbeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must
exclusively belong to that body."-3 Story's Corn. on the Constitution,
Section 1336.
And Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme
Court in the case of ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, uses this decisive language in 4 Cranch, 95:  "It may be worthy of remark, that this
act (speaking of the one under which I am proceeding) was passed by
the first Congress of the United States sitting under a Constitution
which had declared' that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
should not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion,
the public safety might require it., Acting under the immediate influence of this injunction, they must have felt with peculiar force the obligation of providing efficient means by which this great Constitutional
Privilege should receive life and activity; for if the means be not in existence, the Privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted. Under the impression of this obligation they
give to all the Courts the power of awarding Writs of Habeas Corpus."
And again, in page 101:
"If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the
powers vested by this act in the Courts of the United States, it is for the
Legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations,
on which the Legislature is to decide. Until the Legislative will be expressed, this Court can only see its duty, and must obey the law."
I can add nothing to these clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor.
But the documents before me show that the Military authority in this
case has gone far beyond the mere suspension of the Privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corp?us. It has by force of arms, thrust aside the Judicial
authorities and officers to whom the Constitution has confided the power 
APPENDIX K.
and duty of interpreting and administering the laws, and substituted a
Military Government in its place; to be administered and executed by
military officers.
For at the time these proceedings were had against John Merryman,
the District Judge of Maryland, the Commissioner appointed under the
Act of Congress, the District Attorney and the Marshal all resided in
the City of Baltimore, a few miles only from the home of the prisoner.
Up to that time there had never been the slightest resistance or obstruction to the process of any Court or Judicial officer of the United States
in Maryland, except by the Military authority. And if a military officer,
or any other person had reason to believe that the prisoner had committed any offence against the laws of the United States, it was his duty
to give information of the' fact, and the evidence to support it to the
District Attorney; and it would then have become the duty of that
officer to bring the matter before the District Judge or Commissioner,
and if there was sufficient legal evidence to justify his arrest, the Judge
or Commissioner would have issued his warrant to the Marshal to arrest
him, and upon the hearing of the case, would have held him to bail or
committed him for trial, according to the character of the offence as it
appeared in the testimony, or would have discharged him immmediately,
if there was not sufficient evidence to support the accusation. There
was no danger of any obstruction or resistance to the action of the Civil
authorities, and, therefore, no reason whatever for the interposition of
the military.
And yet, under these circumstances a military officer, stationed in
Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the District Attorney,
and without any application to the Judicial authorities, assumes to himself the Judicial power in the District of Maryland; undertakes to decide
what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if,
indeed, he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and
justify the commitment; and commits the party, without a hearing even
before himself, to close custody in a strongly garrisoned Fort, to be there
held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.
The Constitution provides, as I have before said, that "no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." It
declares that " the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a Court
of Justice.
And these great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could
not suspend, have been disregarded, and suspended, like the Writ of
Habeas Corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms.  Such
758 
CONFEI)ERATE STATES CIVIL OFFICERS.
is the case now before me, and I can only say, that if the authority
which the Constitution has confided to the Judiciary Department and
Judicial officers may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances,
be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the
United States are no longer living under a Government of Laws, but
every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of
the Army officer in whose Military District he may happen to be found.
In such a case my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised
all the power which the Constitution and Laws confer upon me, but
that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.
It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility
may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority
intended to be given him. I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings
in this case, with my opinion to be filed and recorded in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and direct the
Clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United
States. It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfilment of his Constitutional obligation, to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"
to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the
United States to be respected and enforced.
. R. B. TANEY,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, United States.
L.
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES GOV ERNMENT UNDER THE PERMANENT CONSTITUTION,
ON THE 22D OF FEBRUARY, 1862.
JEFFERSON DAVIS, of Mississippi, President.
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Georgia, Vice President.
COL. JOSEPH DAVIS, of Mississippi, Aid to the President.
BURTON N. HARRISON, of Mississippi, Private Secretary of the
President.
WILLIAMI H.  HIDELL, of Georgia, Private Secretary of the Vice
President.
JUDAH  P. BENJAMIN, of La., Secretary of State.  William  M.
Browne, Assistant Secretary of State. P. P. Dandrige, Chief Clerk.
CHARLES G. MEMMINGER, of S. C., Secretary of the Treasury.
Philip Clayton, of Ga., Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. H. D.
Capers, Chief Clerk of the Department. Lewis Crug(r, of S. C., Comptroller and Solicitor. Bolling Baker, of Ga., First Auditor. W. H. S.
759 
APPENDIX L.
Taylor, of La., Second Auditor. Robert Tyler, of Va., Register. E.
C. Elmore, of Ala., Treasurer.
GEORGE W. RANDOLPH, of Va., Secretary of War. Albert Taylor
Bledsoe, of Va., Assistant Secretary of War. Samuel Cooper, of Va.,
Adjutant and Inspector General of the Army. Lieutenant-Colonel B.
Chilton and Captain J. Withers, of S. C., Assistant Adjutant and Inspector Generals. Colonel A. C. Myers, Acting Quartermaster General.
Lieutenant-Colonel L. B. Northrop, of S. C., Commissary General.
Colonel J. Gorgas, of Va., Chief of Ordnance.  Colonel S. P. Moore,
(M. D.,) of S. C., Surgeon-General. Captain C. H. Smith, (M.D.,) of
Va., Assistant Surgeon-General.  Captain Leg. G. Capers, (M.D.,) of
S.C., Chief Clerk of the Medical Department. Major D. Hubbard, of
Ala., Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
STEPHEN R. MALLORY, of Fla., Secretary of the Navy. Corn. E.
M. Tidball, of Va., Chief Clerk of the Department. Com. D. N. Ingraham, of S. C., Chief of Ordnance, Construction and Repair. Captain George Minor, of Va., Inspector of Ordnance. Com. L. Rosseau,
of La., Chief of Equipment, Recruiting Orders, and Detail. Captain
W. A. Spottswood, (M. D.,) of Va., Chief of Medicine and Surgery.
Captain John Debree, Chief of Clothing and Provisions.
THOMAS H. WATTS, of Ala., Attorney-General.  Wade Keyes, of
Ala., Assistant Attorney-General. R. R. Rhodes, of Miss., Commissioner of Patents. G. E. W. Nelson, of Ga., Superintendent of Public
Printing. R. M. Smith, of Va., Public Printer.
JOHN H. REAGAN, of Texas, Postmaster-General. II. St. George
Offutt, of Va., Chief Contract Bureau. B. N. Clements, of Tenn.,
Chief Appointment Bureau. J. L. Harrell, of Ala., Chief Finance
Bureau. W. D. Miller, of Texas, Chief Clerk of Department.
FIRST CONGRESS.
From February 22, 1862, to February 22, 1864.
SENATE.
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Ga., Vice President.
R. M. T. HUNTER, of Va., President pro tern.
Alabama.*-Clement C. Clay, Jr., William L. Yancey.
Arkansas.-Robert W. Johnson, Charles B. Mitchell.
Florida.-James M. Baker, Augustus E. Maxwell.
Georgia.t-Benjamin H. Hill, John W. Lewis.
Kentucky.-Henry C. Burnett, William E. Simms.
Louisiana.-Thomas J. Semmes, Edward Sparrow.
Misssisippi.-Albert G. Brown, James Phelan.
Missouri.-John B. Clark, R. L. Y. Peyton.
* Mr. Yancey died in 1863, and was succeeded by Robert Jemison, Jr.
t Herschel V. Johnson was elected by the Legislature in 1862 to succeed Mr. Lewis, who had been
appointed by the Governor.
760 
CONFEDERATE STATES CIVIL OFFICERS.
North Carolina.-William T. Dortch, George Davis.
South Carolina.-Robert W. Barnwell, James L. Orr.
Tennessee.-Gustavus A. Henry, Landon C. Hlaynes.
Virginia.*-Robert M. T. Hunter, William Ballard Preston.
Texas.-Louis T. Wigfall, Williamson S. Oldham.
OFFICERS OF THE SENATE.-J. H. Nash, of S.C., Secretary; E. IIH.
Stevens, of S. C., Assistant Secretary; C. T. Bruen, of Va., Journal
Clerk; J. W. Anderson, Recording Clerk; Lafayette H. Fitzhugh, of
Ky., Sergeant-at-Arms; James Page of N. C., Doorkeeper.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THOMAS S. BOCOCK, of Va., Speaker.
Alabama.-Thomas J. Foster, William R. Smith, John P. Ralls,
Jabez L. M. Curry, Francis S. Lyon, William P. Chilton, David
Clopton, James L. Pugh, Edward S. Dargan.
Arkansas.-Felix I. Batson, Grandison D. Royston, Augustus H.
Garland, Thomas B. Hanly.
Florida.-James B. Hawkins, Robert B. Hilton.
Georgia.-Julian Hartridge, Charles  J. Munnerlyn, Ilines Holt,
Augustus H. Kenan, David W. Lewis, William W. Clark, Robert P.
Trippe, Lucius J. Gartrell, Hardy Strickland, Augustus R. Wright.
Kentucky.-Willie B. Machen, John W. Crockett, Henry E. Reed,
George W. Ewing, Jas. S. Chrisman, Theodore L. Burnett, H. W.
Bruce, G. B. Hodge, Ely M. Bruce, Jas. W. Moore, Robt. J. Breckinridge, Jr., John M. Elliott.
Louisiana.-Charles J. Viller6, Charles M. Conrad, Duncan F. Kenner, Lucien J. Dupre6, Henry Marshall, John Perkins, Jr.
Mississippi.-J. W. Clapp, Reuben Davis, Israel Welch, H. C. Chambers, O. R. Singleton, E. Barksdale, John J. McRae.
Missouri.-Wm. M. Cook, Thomas A. Harris, Caspar W. Bell, A. H.
Conrow, George G. Vest, Thomas W. Freeman.
North Carolina.-W. H. N. Smith, Robert R. Bridges, Owen R. Kenan, F. D. McDowell, Archibald H. Arrington, J. R. McLean, Thomas
S. Ashe, William Lander, B. S. Gaither, A. T. Davidson.
South Carolina.-John McQueen, W. Porcher Miles, L. M. Ayer,
(vice M. L. Bonham,) M. L. Bonham, (elected Governor and resigned,)
James Farrow, William W. Boyce, Wm. D. Simpson.
Tennessee.-Jos. B. Heiskell, Wm. G. Swan, Wm. H. Tibbs, E. L.
Gardenhier, Henry S. Foote, Meredith P. Gentry, George W. Jones,
Thomas Menees, J. D. C. Atkins, John V. Wright, David M. Currin.
Texas.-John A. Wilcox, C. C. Herbert, P. W. Gray, Frank B. Sexton, M. D. Graham, B. H. Epperson, William B. Wright.
Virginia.-M. R. H. Garnett, John R. Chambliss, John Tyler, Roger
A. Pryor, T'homas S. Bocock, John Goode, Jr., James P. Holcombe, D.
* Mr. Preston died, and was succeeded by Allen T. Caperton.
761 
APPENDIX L.
C. De Jarnette, William Smith, Alexander R. Boteler, John B. Baldwin,
Waller R. Staples, Walter Preston, Albert G. Jenkins, Robert Johnson,
Charles W. Russell.
OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.-Emmett Dixon, of Ga., Clerk; Albert R.
Lamar, of Ga., Assistant Clerk; R. H. Wynne, of Ala., Doorkeeper.
SECOND CONGRESS.
From February 22, 1864, to February 22, 1866.
SENATE.
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Ga., Vice President.
R. M T. HUNTER, of Va., President pro tern.
Alabama.-Robert Jemison, Jr., Richard Wilde Walker.
Arkansas.-Robert W. Johnson, Augustus H. Garland.
Florida.-James M. Baker, Augustus E. Maxwell.
Georgia.-Benjamin H. Hill, Herschel V. Johnson.
Kentucky. -Henry C. Burnett, William E. Simms.
Louisiana.-Edward Sparrow, Thomas J. Semmies.
Mississippi.-J. W. C. Watson, Albert G. Brown.
Missouri. —Waldo P. Johnson, L. M. Louis.
Noerth Carolina.-William T. Dortch, William A. Graham.
South Carolina.-Robert W. Barnwell, James L. Orr.
Tennessee.-Gustavus A. Henry, Landon C. Haynes.
Texas.-Louis T. Wigfall, Williamson S. Oldham.
Virginia.-Robert M. T. Hunter, Allen T. Caperton.
Officers of the Senate the same as before.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THOMAS S. BOCOCK, of Va., Speaker.
Alabama.-TThomas J. Foster, William R. Smith, Williamson R. W.
Cobb, M. H. Cruikshank, Francis S. Lyon, William P. Chilton, David
Clopton, James L. Pugh, J. S. Dickinson.
Arkansas. —Felix I. Batson, Rufus K. Garland, (vacancy,) Thomas B.
Hanly.
Florida.-St. George Rogers, Robert B. Hilton.
Georgia.-Julian Hartridge, William E. Smith, Mark H. Blanford,
Clifford Anderson, J. T. Shewmake. Joseph H. Echols, James M.
Smith, H. P. Bell, George N. Lester, Warren Akin.
Kentucky.-William B. Machen, George W. Triplett, Henry E. Reed,
George W. Ewing, James S. Chrisman, Theodore L. Burnett, H. W.
Bruce, Humphrey Marshall, Ely M. Bruce, James W. Moore, Benjamin
F. Bradley, John M. Elliott.
Louisiana.-Charles J. Villere6, Charles M. Conrad, Duncan F. Kenner,
Lucius J. Dupr6, John Perkins, Jr.
Mississippi.-John A. Orr, W. D. Holder, Israel Welch, Henry C.
Chambers, Otho R. Singleton, Ethel Barksdale, J. T. Lampkin.
762 
CONFEDERATE STATES MILITARY OFFICERS.  763
Missouri.-Thomas L. Snead, N. L. Norton, John B. Clarke, A. tI.
Conrow, George G. Vest, Peter S. Wilkes, R. A. Hatcher.
North Carolina.-W. N. H. Smith, Robert R. Bridgers, J. T. Leach,
Thomas C. Fuller, Josiah Turner, Jr., John A. Gilmer, James M.
Leach, James G. Ramsey, B. S. Gaither, George W. Logan.
South Carolina.-James M. Witherspoon, William Porcher Miles,
Lewis M. Ayer, William D. Simpson, James Farrow, William W. Boyce.
Tennessee.-Joseph B. Heiskell, William G. Swan, A. S. Colyar, John
P. Murray, Henry S. Foote, F. A. Keeble, James McCallum, Thomas
Menees, John D. C. Atkins, John V. Wright, Michael W. Cluskey.
Texas.-Stephen H. Darden, Claiborne C. -Herbert, A. M. Branch,
Frank B. Sexton, J. R. Baylor, S. H. Morgan.
Virginia.-Robert L. Montague, Robert H. Whitfield, William C.
Wickham, Thomas S. Gholson, Thomas S. Bocock, John Goode, Jr.,
William C. Rives, Daniel C. De Jarnette, David Funsten, F. W. M.
Holliday, John B. Baldwin, Waller R. Staples, Fayette McMullen,
Samuel A. Miller, Robert Johnson, Charles W. Russell.
TERRITORIAL DELEGATES.
Arizona.-M. H. McWillie.
Cherokee Nation.-E. C. Boudinot.
Choctaw Nation.- R. M. Jones.
Creek and Seminole Nations.-S. B. Callahan.
OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.-Albert R. Lamar, of Ga., Clerk; James
McDonald, De Louis Dalton, Henry G. Lowring, Assistant Clerks; R.
EI. Wynne, of Ala., Doorkeeper.
LIST OF GENERAL OFFICERS IN THE CONFEDERATE
STATES ARMY.
The following statistics of the Confederate Army organization at the
inauguration of the Permanent Government, from want of access to the
Confederate Archives, have been compiled in part from a list furnished
the Charleston Courier, about the time, by its Richmond correspondent,
and in part from a list in Appleton's Annual Cyclopoedia for 1862. In
the lists of Major-Generals and Brigadier-Generals, the regular order of
appointment is not observed, but it is believed that these lists are otherwise correct.
GENERALS IN THE REGULAR ARMY.
*Samuel Cooper............................. Virginia.
*Albert Sidney Johnston....................Texas.
*Robert Edward Lee........................ Virginia.
*Joseph Eggleston Johnston................. Virginia,
*Gustave Toutant Beauregard...............Louisiana.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 
APPENDIX L.
MAJOR-GENERALS IN THE PROVISIONAL ARMY.
David E. Twiggs.........   Georg      ia.
* Leonidas Polk........ Louisiana..
* Braxton Bragg,. North Carolina.
* Earl Van Dorn...... Mississippi...
* Gustavus W. Smith...Kentucky.
* Theoph. H. Holmes, N. Carolina.
*William J. Hardee.... Georgia.
* Benjamin Huger, South Carolina.
* James Longstreet... Alabama..
* John B. Magruder.....Virginia.
* Thomas J. Jackson.. Virginia.
* Mansfield Lovell.......Virginia.
* E. Kirby Smith......... Florida..
* Simon B. Buckner.... Kentucky.
BRIGADIER-GENERALS IN THE PROVISIONAL ARMY.
Maxcy Gregg..... South Carolina.
Milledge L. Bonham, S. Carolina.
John B. Floyd..........Virginia.
Henry A. Wise.........   Virginia.
Ben McCulloch............ Texas.
Henry R. Jackson........Georgia.n
*Robert S. Garnett.......Ts. Virginia.
*Wm. H. T. Walker..... Georgia.
*Barnard E. Bee. South Carolina.
*Alexander R. Lawton... Georgia.
Gideon J. Pillow.......  Tennessee.
Samuel R. Anderson... Tennessee.
*Daniel S. Donelson....Tennessee.
*David R. Jones.. South Carolina.
*John H. Winder...... Maryland.
Thomas R. Flournoy... Arkansas.
Felix K. Zollicoffer..... Tennessee.
*Gabriel J. Rains.... N. Carolina.
*Thomas F. Drayton.. S. Carolina.
*Lloyd Tilghman...... Kentucky.
*Cadmus M. Wilcox...Tennessee.
R. E. Rodes............  Alabama.
Louis T. Wigfall........... Texas.
*Samuel G. French........Mississippi.
William H Carroll...-.. Tennessee.
Richard Griffith....... Mississippi.
Robert Toomrbs........... Georgia.
*Samuel Jones.......... Virginia.
*Arn old Elzey......... e Maryland.
*Henry H.  Sibley...... Louisiana.
*Wm. * H. C. Whiting....Georgia.
Albert Pike............ Arkansas.
Thos. T. Fauntleroy...... VAirginia.
*Daniel  Ruggles.......... GVirginia.
Charles Clark.........  Mississippi.
*Ro swell S.  Ripley... S. Carolina.
*Isaac  R. Trimble v......   Maryland.
*John B.  Grayson......Kentucky.
*Paul  0.  Herbert......Louisiana.
*Richard C. Gatlin...N. Carolina.
*Joseph R. Anderson.... Virginia.
L. Pope Walker........ Alabama.
*Albert G. Blanchard.. Louisiana.
*Lafayette McLaws......Georgia
Adley H. Gladden.....  Louisiana.
*Nathan G.  Evans....S. Carolina.
*Philip St. G. Cocke..... Virginia,
Richard Taylor........ Louisiana.
*James H. Trapier... S. Carolina.
*Hugh W. Mercer........ Georgia
*Humphrey Marshall...Kenitucky.
*Alex. P. Stewart..... Tendessee.
764
* George B. Crittenden.. Kentucky.
William W. Lorin-. - N. Carolina.
Sterling Price........... Missouri.
*John P. McCown.....Tennessee.
* Daniel H. Hill.. North Carolina.
*Richard S. Ewell...... Virginia.
* John C. Pemberton Virginia.
* Ambrose P. Viroinia.
John C. Breekinridoe... - Virginia.
Benj. F. Cheatham....Tennessee.
Thomas C. Hindaian...Arkansas.
* Riehld H. Anderson, S. Carolina.
*James E. B. Stuart.... Virginia.
* Jubal A. Early........ Virginia. 
CONFEDERATE STATES MILITARY OFFICERS.  765
*W. Montgomery Gardner.... Ga.
William Mahone....... Virginia.
*George H. Stewart....Maryland.
Jo - K. Jackson......... Gebrgia.
*Jo0nson K. Duncan... Louisiana.
*Edward Johnson.......Virginia.
Howell Cobb.............Georgia.
*B. R. Johnson........Tennessee.
*John B. Villipigue......Georgia.
*J. M. Withers........ Alabama.
*John B. Hood............Texas.
*George B. Anderson, N. Carolina.
J. J. Pettigrew.. South Carolina.
Hamilton P. Bee..........Texas.
*Henry Little...........Missouri.
Robert Ransom... North Carolina.
Thomas R. R. Cobb......Georgia.
Francis C. Armstrong............
M. Jenkins...... South Carolina.
Robert E. Garland......Virginia.
A. W. Reynolds......... Virginia.
*M. L. Smith.........Mississippi.
*William B. Taliaferro..Virginia.
Ambrose P. Wright......Georgia.
George Maury......... Tennessee.
*Lewis A. Armistead.... Virginia.
*Dabney H. Maurey.... Alabama.
*Fitzhugh Lee..........Jn Virginia.
James E. Slaughter..............
*Abraham Buford......Kentucky.
Robert Hatton......... Tennessee.
J. T. Hughes...........Missouri.
Pat Cleburne...........  Arkansas.
Henry L. Benning........Georgia.
*W. H. F. Lee..........Virginia.
J. Patton Anderson......Florida.
Turner Ashby...........Virginia.
*Richard B. Garnet  t........Virginia
L. O'B. Branch....North Carolina.
*Wm. W. Mackall, Dist. Columbia.
*Henry Heth............  Virginia.
Joseph L. Hogg............ Texas
Wm. S. Featherstone..Mississippi.
*John H. Forney....... Alabama.
William Preston....... Kentucky.
*Thomas K. Jackson.............
*John S. Bowen......... Missouri.
*Thomas Jordan........ Virginia.
*Thomas M. Jones.......Virginia.
Albert Rust...........  Arkansas.
James J. Ramsey........  Georgia.
Henry McCulloch...,.......Texas.
Martin E. Greene.......  Missouri.
William Barksdale....Mississippi.
Wm. D. Pender...North Carolina.
John S. Williams.......  Kentucky.
N. B. Forrest........... Tennessee.
Eward W. Gannt....... Arkansas.
Solon Borland..........  Arkansas.
*George E. Pickett......  Virginia
Ben Hardin Helm......K entucky.
Blanton Duncan....... Kentucky.
Paul Semmes............ Georgia.
James McIntosh........  Missouri.
John M. Jones..........  Virginia.
Henry Hayes..........  Louisiana.
John S. Marmaduke........Missouri.
J. B. Kershaw....South Carolina.
*Charles S. Winder......-Maryland.
Humphrey Bate....... Tennessee.
A. H. Colquitt........... Georgia.
James G. Martin.....N. Carolina.
-; Ledbetter......... Tennessee.
J. L. Kemper............ Virginia.
The following were born in the North: General Samuel Cooper, New
York; Maj.-General John C. Pemberton, Pennsylvania; Brig.-Generals William H. C. Whiting, A. B. Blanchard, Massachusetts; Johnson
K. Duncan, Pennsylvania; Roswell S. Ripley, Ohio;  -   Ledbetter,
Connecticut; S. G. French, New Jersey; D. M. Frost.
* Graduates of West Point Military Academy. 
APPENDIX M.
M.
EXTRACTS FROM A PAMPHLET ON THE DESTRUCTION
OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, PUBLISHED IN 5.
[It was written by the gifted and accomplished William Gilmore Simms,
LL. D. Tte facts therein set forth by Dr. Simms are believed by the
author to be entirely true, andfully sustain what is said in the text, p. 510.]
The destruction of Atlanta, the pillaging and burning of other town
of Georgia, and the subsequent devastation along the march of th
Federal Army through Georgia, gave sufficient earnest of the treatmen
to be anticipated by South Carolina, should the same commander 1
permitted to make a like progress in our State. The Northern pres
furnished him the cri de guerre to be sounded when he should cross o
borders.  "Vee victis I"-woe to the conquered!-in the case of a peop
who had first raised the banner of Secession. "The howl of delight,
(such was the the language of the Northern press,) sent up by Sherman
legions, when they looked across the Savannah to the shores of Carolina
was the sure fore-runner of the terrible fate which threatened  o
people should the soldiers be once let loose upon our lands.  Our peop
felt all the danger.
*           *           *           *           *           **
The march of the Federals into our State was characterized by such
scenes of license, plunder and general conflagration, as very soon showed
that the threats of the Northern press, and of their soldiery, were not to
be regarded as mere brutum fulmen. Day by day brought to the people
of Columbia tidings of atrocities committed, and more extended progress. Daily did long trains of fugitives line the roads, with wives and
children, and horses and stock and cattle, seeking refuge from the
pursuers. Long lines of wagons covered the highways. Half-naked
people cowered from the winter under bush-tents in the thickets, under
the eaves of houses, under the railroad sheds, and in old cars left
them along the route. All these repeated the same story of suffering,
violence, poverty and nakedness. Habitation after habitation, village
after village-one sending up its signal flames to the other, presaging
for it the same fate-lighted the winter and midnight sky with crimson
horrors.
No language can describe nor can any catalogue furnish an adequate
detail of the wide-spread destruction of homes and property. Granaries
were emptied, and where the grain was not carried off, it was strewn
to waste under the feet of the cavalry, or consigned to the fire which
consumed the dwelling. The negroes were robbed equally with the
whites of food and clothing. The roads were covered with butchered
cattle, hogs, mules, and the costliest furniture.   Valuable cabinets,
766 
DESTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA.
rich pianos, were not only hewn to pieces, but bottles of ink, turpentine,
oil, whatever could efface or destroy, was employed to defile and ruin.
Horses were ridden into the houses. People were forced from their beds,
to permit the search after hidden treasures.
The beautiful homesteads of the Parish country, with their wonderful
tropical gardens, were ruined; ancient dwellings of black cypress, one
hundred years old, which had been reared by the fathers of the Republic
-men whose names were famous in Revolutionary history-were given
to the flames as recklessly as were the rude hovels; choice pictures and
works of art, from Europe, select and numerous libraries, objects of
peace wholly, were all destroyed. The inhabitants, black no less than
white, were left to starve, compelled to feed only upon the garbage to
be found in the abandoned camps of the soldiers. The corn scraped up
from the spots where the horses fed, has been the only means of life left
to thousands but lately in affluence.
And thus plundering, and burning, the troops made their way
through a portion of Beaufort into Barnwell District, where they
pursued the same game. The villages of Buford's Bridge, of Barnwell,
Blackville, Graham's, Bamberg, Midway, were more or less destroyed;
the inhabitants everywhere left homleleless and without food. The
horses and mules, all cattle and hogs, whenever fit for service or for
food, were carried off, and the rest shot. Every implement of the workman or the farmer, tools, plows, hoes, gins, looms, wagons, vehicles,
was made to feed the flames.
From Barnwell to Orangeburg and Lexington was the next progress,
marked everywhere by the same sweeping destruction. Both of these
Court towns were partially burned.
*      *       *       *      *       * *            *       *
Hardly had the troops reached the head of Main Street, when the
work of pillage was begun.  Stores were broken open within the first
hour after their arrival, and gold, silver, jewels and liquors, eagerly
sought. The authorities, officers, soldiers, all, seemed to consider it a
matter of course. And woe to him who carried a watch with gold chain
p)endant; or who wore a choice hat, or overcoat, or boots or shoes. Ile
was stripped in the twinkling of an eye. It is computed that, from first to
last, twelve hundred watches were transferred from the pockets of their
owners to those of the soldiers.  Purses shared the same fate; nor was
the Confederate currency repudiated. But of all these things hereafter,
ill more detail.
At about 12 o'clock, the jail was discovered to be on fire from within.
This building was immediately in rear of the Market, or City Hall, and in
a densely built portion of the city. The supposition is that it was fired by
so)me of the prisoners-all of whom were released and subsequently follo,wed the army.  The fire of the jail had been preceded by that of some
co(tton piled in the streets.  Both fires were soon subdued by the firemen.
767 - 
APPENDIX M.
At about half-past one P. M., that of the jail was rekindled, and was
again extinguished. Some of the prisoners, who had been confined at
the Asylum, had made their escape, in some instances, a few days before,
and were secreted and protected by citizens.
No one felt safe in his own dwelling; and, in the faith that General
Sherman would respect the Convent, and have it properly guarded,
numbers of young ladies were confided to the care of the Mother Superior, and even trunks of clothes and treasure were sent thither, in full
confidence that they would find safety. Vain illusions! The Irish
Catholic troops, it appears, were not brought into the city at all; were
kept on the other side of the river. But a few Catholics were collected
among the corps which occupied the city, and of the conduct of these, a
favorable account is given. One of them rescued a silver goblet of the
church, used as a drinking cup by a soldier, and restored it to the Rev.
Dr. O'Connell. This priest, by the way, was severely handled by the
soldiers. Such, also, was the fortune of the Rev. Mr. Shand, of Trinity
(the Episcopal) Church, who sought in vain to save a trunk containing
the sacred vessels of his church. It was violently wrested from his
keeping, and his struggle to save it only provoked the rougher usage.
We are since told that, on reaching Camden, General Sherman restored
what he believed were these vessels to Bishop Davis. It has since been
discovered that the plate belonged to St. Peter's Church, in Charleston.
And here it may be well to mention, as suggestive of many clues, an
incident which presented a sad commentary on that confidence in the
security of the Convent, which was entertained by the great portion of
the people. This establishment, under the charge of the sister of the
Right Rev. Bishop Lynch, was at once a Convent and an Academy of the
highest class. Hither were sent for education the daughters of Protestants, of the most wealthy classes throughout the State; and these, with
the nuns and those young ladies sent thither on the emergency, probably exceeded one hundred. The Lady Superior herself entertained the
fullest confidence in the immunities of the establishment. But her confidence was clouded, after she had enjoyed a conference with a certain
Major of the Yankee army, who described himself as an editor, from
Detroit. He visited her at an early hour in the day, and announced his
friendly sympathies with the Lady Superior and the sisterhood; professed his anxiety for their safety; his purpose to do all that he could to insure it-declared that he would instantly go to Sherman and secure a chosen
guard; and, altogether, made such professions of love and service, as to
disarm those suspicions, which his bad looks and bad manners, inflated
speech and pompous carriage, might otherwise have provoked. The
Lady Superior, with such a charge in her hands, was naturally glad to
welcome all shows and prospects of support, and expressed her gratitude.
He disappeared, and soon after re-appeared, bringing with him no less
than eight or ten men-none of them, as he admitted, being Catholics.
768 
DESTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA.
He had some specious argument to show that, perhaps, her guard had
better be one of Protestants. This suggestion staggered the lady a little,
but he seemed to convey a more potent reason, when he added, in a
whisper: " For Imust tell you, my sister, that Columbia is a doomed city!,
Terrible doom! This officer, leaving his men behind him, disappeared,
to show himself no more. The guards so left behind were finally among
the most busy as plunderers. The moment that the inmates, driven out
by the fire, were forced to abandon their house, they began to revel in
its contents.
" Quis custodiet ipsas cttstodes?"-who shall guard the guards?-asks
the proverb. In a number of cases, the guards provided for the citizens
were among the most active plunderers; were quick to betray their
trusts, abandon their posts, and bring their comrades in to join in the
general pillage. The most dexterous and adroit of these, it is the opinion
of most persons, were chiefly Eastern men, or men of immediate Eastern
origin. The Western men, including the Indiana, a portion of the Illinois and Iowa troops, were neither so dexterous nor unscrupulous —were
frequently faithful and respectful; and, perhaps, it would be safe to assert
that many of the houses which escaped the sack and fire, owed their
safety to the presence or the contiguity of some of these men.  But we
must retrace our steps.
9*     *       *      *       *      *       *      *       -
But the reign of terror did not fairly begin till night. In some instances, where parties complained of the misrule and robbery, their
guards said to them, with a chuckle:  "This is nothing.  Wait till tonight, and you'll see h-1."
Among the first fires at evening was one about dark, which broke out in
a filthy purlieu of low houses, of wood, on Gervais street, occupied mostly
as brothels. Almost at the same time, a body of the soldiers scattered
over the eastern out-skirts of the City, fired severally the dwellings of
Mr. Secretary Trenholm, General Wade Hampton, Dr. John Wallace.
J. U. Adamis, Mrs. Starke, Mr. Latta, Mrs. English, and many others.
There were then some twenty fires in full blast, in as many different
quarters, and while the alarm sounded from these quarters, a similar
alarm was sent up almost simultaneously from Cotton Town, the Northermost limit of the City, and from Main street in its very centre, at the
several stores or houses of O. Z. Bates, C. D. Eberhardt, and some
others, in the heart of the most densely settled portion of the town; thus
enveloping in flames almost every section of the devoted city.  At
this period, thus early in the evening, there were few shows of that
drunkenness which prevailed at a late hour in the nilght, and only after
all  the grocery shops on Main street had been rifled.  The men engaged
in this were well prepared with all the appliances essential to their work.
They did not need the torch.  They carried with them, from house to
house, pots and vessels containing combustible liquids, composed prob       49
769. 
APPENDIX M.
ably of phosphorus and other similar agents, turpentine, etc., and,
with balls of cotton saturated in this liquid, with which they also overspread floors and walls, they conveyed the flames with wonderful rapidity
from dwelling to dwelling.  Each had his ready box of Lucifer matches,
and, with a scrape upon the walls, the flames began to rage. Where
houses were closely contiguous, a brand from one was the means of conveying destruction to the other.
The winds favored. They had been high throughout the day, and
steadily prevailed from Southwest by West, and bore the flames Eastward. To this fact we owe the preservation of the portions of the City
lying West of Assembly street.
The work, begun thus vigorously, went on without impediment, and
with hourly increase throughout the night.  Engines and hose were
brought out by the firemen, but these were soon driven from their labors
-which were indeed idle against such a storm of fire-by the pertinacious
hostility of the soldiers; the hose was hewn to pieces, and the firemen,
dreading worse usage to themselves, left the field in despair. Meanwhile, the flames spread from side to side, from front to rear, from street
to street, and where their natural and inevitable progress was too slow
for those who had kindled them, they helped them on by the application
of fresh combustibles and more rapid agencies of conflagration. By midnight, Main street, from its Northern to its Southern extremity, was a
solid wall of fire. By 12 o'clock, the great blocks, which included the
banking houses and the Treasury buildings, were consumed; Janney's
(Congaree) and Nickerson's Hotels; the magnificent manufactories of
Evans &  Cogswell-indeed, every large block in the business portion of the City; the old Capitol and all the adjacent buildings were in
ruins.  The range called the "Granite" was beginning to flame at 12,
and might have been saved by ten vigorous men, resolutely working.
At 1 o'clock, the hour was struck by the clock of the Market Hall,
which was even then illuminated from within. It was its own last hour
which it sounded, and its tongue was silenced forevermore. In less than
five minutes after, its spire went down with a crash, and, by this time,
almost all the buildings within the precinct were a mass of ruins.
Very grand, and terrible, beyond description, was the awful spectacle.
It was a scene for the painter of the terrible. It was the blending of a
range of burning mountains stretched in a continuous series for more than
a mile.  Here was Aetna, sending up its spouts of flaming  lava; Vesuvius, emulous of like display, shooting up with loftier torrents, and
Stromboli, struggling, with awful throes, to shame both by its superior
volumes of fluid flame. The winds were tributary to these convulsive
efforts, and tossed the volcanic torrents hundred of feet in air. Great
spouts of flame spread aloft in canopies of sulphurous cloud-wreaths of
sable, edged with sheeted lightnings, wrapped the skies, and, at short
intervals, the falling tower and the tottering wall, Avalanche-like, went
770 
DESTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA.
down with thunderous sound, sending up at every crash great billowing
showers of glowing fiery embers.
Throughout the whole of this terrible scene, the soldiers continued
their search after spoil. The houses were severally and soon gutted of
their contents.  Hundreds of iron safes, warranted "impenetrable to
fire and the burglar," it was soon satisfactorily demonstrated, were not
"Yankee proof."  They were split open and robbed, yielding, in some
cases, very largely of Confederate money and bonds, if not of gold and
silver. Jewelry and plate in abundance was found. Men could be seen
staggering off with huge waiters, vases, candelabra, to say nothing of
cups, goblets and smaller vessels, all of solid silver. Clothes and shoes,
when new, were appropriated-the rest left to burn. Liquors were
drank with such avidity as to astonish the veteran Bacchanals of Columbia; nor did the parties thus distinguishing themselves hesitate about
the vintage. There was no idle discrimination in the matter of taste,
from that vulgar liquor, which Judge Burke used to say always provoked within him "an inordinate propensity to sthale," to the choicest
red wines of the ancient cellars.  In one vault on Main street, seventeen
casks of wine were stored away, which, an eye-witness tells us, barely
sufficed, once broken into, for the draughts of a single hour-such were
the appetites at work and the numbers in possession of them. Rye,
corn, claret and Madeira, all found their way into the same channels,
and we are not to wonder, when told that no less than one hundred and
fifty of the drunken creatures perished miserably among the flames
kindled by their own comrades, and from which they were unable to
escape. The estimate will not be thought extravagant by those who
saw the condition of hundreds after 1 o'clock A.m. By others, however, the estimate is reduced to thirty; but the number will never be
known. Sherman's officers themselves are reported to have said, that
they lost more men in the sack and burning of the City (including certain explosions) than in all their fights while approaching it.  It is also
suggested that the orders which Sherman issued at daylight, on Saturday morning, for the arrest of the fire, were issued in consequence of the
loss of men which he had thus sustained.
One or more of his men were shot, by parties unknown, in some dark
passages or alleys-it is supposed in consequence of some attempted outrages which humanity could not endure; the assassin taking advantage
of the obscurity of the situation, and adroitly mingling with the crowd
without. And while these scenes were at their worst-while the flames
were at their highest and most extensively raging-groups might be
seen at the several corners of the streets, drinking, roaring, revellingwhile the fiddle and accordeon were playing their popular airs among
them. There was no cessation of the work till 5 A. M. on Saturday.
*            *             *             *             *
Ladies were hustled from their chambers-their ornaments plucked
771 
APPENDIX M.
from their persons, their bundles from their hands. It was in vain that
the mother appealed for the garments of her children. They were torn
from her grasp and hurled into the flames. The young girl striving to
save a single frock, had it rent to fibres in her grasp. Men and women
bearing off their trunks were seized, despoiled, in a moment the trunk
burst asunder with the stroke of axe or gun butt, the contents laid
bare, rifled of all the objects of desire, and the residue sacrificed to the
fire.  You milght see the ruined owner, standing woe-begone, aghast,
gazing at his tumbling dwelling, his scattered property, with a dumb
agony in his face that was inexpressibly touching.
"Your watch!"  "Your money!" was the demand.  Frequently,
no demand was made. Rarely, indeed, was a word spoken, where the
watch or chain, or ring or bracelet, presented itself conspicuously to
the eye. It was incontinently plucked away from the neck, breast or
bosom. Hundreds of women, still greater numbers of old men, were
thus despoiled. The slightest show of resistance provoked violence to
the person.
The venerable Mr. Alfred Huger was thus robbed in the chamber
and presence of his family, and in the eye of an almost dying wife. He
offered resistance, and was collared and dispossessed by violence.
We are told that the venerable Ex-Senator Colonel Arthur P. Hayne
was treated even more roughly.
Within the dwellings, the scenes were of more harsh and tragical character, rarely softened by any ludicrous aspects, as they were screened by
the privacy of the apartment, with but few eyes to witness. The pistol
to the bosom or head of woman, the patient mother, the trembling
daughter, was the ordinary introduction to the demand:  "Your gold,
silver, watch, jewels!"  They gave no time, allowed no pause or hesitation. It was in vain that the woman offered her keys, or proceeded to
open drawer or wardrobe, or cabinet, or trunk. It was dashed to pieces
by axe or gun butt, with the cry, "' We have a shorter way than that!"
It was in vain that she pleaded to spare her furniture, and she would
give up all its contents.
All the precious things of a family, such as the heart loves to pore on
in quiet hours when alone with memory-the dear miniature, the photograph, the portrait-these were dashed to pieces, crushed under foot,
and the more the trembler pleaded for the object so precious, the more
violent the rage which destroyed it. Nothing was sacred in their eyes,
save the gold and silver which they bore away. Nor were these acts
those of common soldiers.  Commissioned officers, of rank so high as
that of Colonel, were frequently among the most active in spoliation,
and not always the most tender or considerate in the manner and acting
of their crimes. And, after glutting themselves with spoil, would often
772 
DESTRRUCTION OF COLUMBIA.
utter the foulest speeches, coupled with oaths as condiment, dealing in
what they assumed, besides, to be bitter sarcasms upon the cause and
coL,ntry.
"And what do you think of the Yankees now?" was a frequent
question. "Do you not fear us, now?" "What do you think of
Secession?"etc., etc. "We mean to wipe you out! We'll burn the
very stones of South Carolina."7 Even General Howard, who is said to
have been once a pious parson, is reported to have made this reply to a
citizen who had expostulated with him on the monstrous crime  of
which his army had been guilty: "It is only what the country deserves.
It is her fit punishment; and if this does not quiet Rebellion, and we
have to return, we will do this work thoroughly. We will not leave
woman or child."
Tilere are some horrors which the historian dare not pursue-which
the painter dare not delineate.  They both drop the curtain over crimes
which humanity bleeds to contemplate.
Some incidents of gross brutality, which show how well prepared
were these men for every crime, however monstrous, may be given.
A lady, undergoing the pains of labor, had to be borne out on a
mattress into the open air, to escape the fire.  It was in vain that her
situation was described as the soldiers applied the torch within and
without the house, after they had penetrated every chamber and robbed
them of all that was either valuable or portable. They beheld the
situation of the sufferer, and laughed to scorn the prayer for her safety.
Another lady, Mrs. J —,. was but recently confined. Her condition
was very helpless. Her life hung upon a hair. The men were apprised
of all the facts in the case. They burst into the chamber-took the
rings from the lady's fingers-plucked the watch from beneath her
pillow, and so overwhelmed her with terror, that she sunk under the
treatment-surviving their departure but a day or two.
In several instances, parlors, articles of crockery, and even beds, were
used by the soldiers as if they were water-closets. In one case, a party
used vessels in this way, then put them on the bed, fired at and smashed
them to pieces, emptying the filthy contents over the bedding.
In several cases, newly made graves were opened, the coffins taken
out, broken open, in search of buried treasure, and the corpses left exposed. Every spot in graveyard or garden, which seemed to have been
recently disturbed, was sounded with sword, or bayonet, or ramrod, in
their desperate search after spoil.
773 
APPENDIX N.
N.
A PRAYER FOR PEACE.
[Poem written by S. Teackle Wallis, of Baltimore, a Member of the
Maryland Legislature, whzile imprisoned during "the Reign of  Terror,"
in 1861.]
PEACE! Peace! God of our fathers, grant us Peace I
Unto our cry of anguish and despair
Give ear and pity!  From the lonely homes,
Where widowed beggary and orphaned woe
Fill their poor urns with tears; from trampled plains,
Where the bright harvest Thou hast sent us, rots,The blood of them who should have garnered it
Calling to Thee-from fields of carnage, where
The foul-beaked vultures, sated, flap their wings
O'er crowded corpses, that but yesterday
Bore hearts of brothers, beating high with love
And common hopes and pride, all blasted now;Father of Mercies I not alone from these
Our prayer and wail are lifted. Not alone
Upon the battle's seared and desolate track,
Nor with the sword and flame, is it, O God,
That Thou hast smitten us. Around our hearths,
And in the crowded streets and busy marts,
WVhere echo whispers not the far-off strife
That slays our loved ones;-in the solemn halls
Of safe and quiet counsel-nay, beneath
The temple-roofs that we have reared to Thee,
And mid their rising incense,-God of Peace!
The curse of war is on us. Greed and hate
Hungering for gold and blood: Ambition, bred
Of passionate vanity and sordid lusts,
Mad with the base desire of tyrannous sway
Over men's souls and thoughts; have set their price
On human hecatombs, and sell and buy
Their sons and brothers for the shambles. Priests,
With white, anointed, supplicating hands,
From Sabbath unto Sabbath clasped to Thee,
Burn, in their tingling pulses, to fling down
Thy censers and thy cross, to clutch the throats
Of kinsmen by whose cradles they were born,
Or grasp the brand of Herod, and go forth
Till Rachel hath no children left to slay.
774,
4 
A PRAYER FOR PEACE.
The very name of Jesus, writ upon
Thy shrines, beneath the spotless, outstretched wings
Of Thine Almighty Dove, is wrapt and hid
With bloody battle-flags, and from the spires
That rise above them, angry banners flout
The skies to which they point, amid the clang
Of rolling war-songs tuned to mock Thy praise.
All things once prized and honored are forgot.
The Freedom that we worshipped, next to Thee;
The manhood that was Freedom's spear and shield;
The proud, true heart; the brave, outspoken word,
Which might be stifled, but could never wear
The guise, whate'er the profit, of a lie;All these are gone, and in their stead, have come
The vices of the miser and the slave,Scorning no shame that bringeth gold or power,
Knowing no love, or faith, or reverence,
Or sympathy, or tie, or aim, or hope,
Save as begun in self, and endingthere.
With vipers like to these, 0 blessed God I
Scourge us no longer I Send us down, once more,
Some shining seraph in Thy glory clad,
To wake the midnight of our sorrowing
With tidings of Good Will and Peace to men;
And if the star that through the darkness led
Earth's wisdom then, guide not our folly now,
Oh, be the lightning Thine Evangelist,
With all its fiery, forked tongues, to speak
The unanswerable message of Thy will.
Peace I Peace I God of our fathers, grant us Peace I
Peace in our hearts and at Thine altars; Peace
On the red waters and their blighted shores;
Peace for the leaguered cities, and the hosts
That watch and bleed, around them and within;
Peace for the homeless and the fatherless;
Peace for the captive on his weary way,
And the mad crowds who jeer his helplessness.
For them that suffer, them that do the wrong;
Sinning and sinned against-O God! for allFor a distracted, torn, and bleeding landSpeed the glad tidings I Give us, give us Pease I
775. 
APPENDIX O.
0.
I.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION,
OF 1ST JANUARY, 1863, REFERRED TO ON PAGE 551.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a Proclamation was
issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other
things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall
then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thencefor ward, and forever, free; and the Executive Government of the United
States, including the Military and Naval authority thereof, will reco,g nize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may
make for their actual freedom.
4' That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
Proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which
the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against  the
United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall
on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United
States, by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the
qualified voters of such States shall have participated, shall, in the
absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive
evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in
rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LrINCOLN, President of the United
States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed
rebellion against the authority and Government of the United States,
and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion,
do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so
to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from
the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and
parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in
rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension,
Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and
Orleans, including the City of New Orleans,) Mississippi, Alabama,
776 
LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW. 777
Florida, Georgia, South  Carolina,  North  Carolina, and  Virginia,
(except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City,
York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and
Portsmouth,) and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely
as if this Proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order
and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States
and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the
Executive Government of the United States, including the Military and
Naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of
said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain
from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend
to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons, of suitable
condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States
to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man
vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice,
warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the
considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty
God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washingtoll,
this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States
the eighty seventh.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
WILLIAM IIH. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
II.
PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW, OF THE 24th OF SEP  TEMBER, 1862, WITH THE ORDERS REFERRED TO ON
PAGES 551 AND 554.
" Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to
suppress the Insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal
persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law
from hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in various
ways to the Insurrection:
Now, therefore, be it ordered, 
APPENDIX 0.
First.  That during the existing Insurrection, and as a necessary
measure for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders
and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging
volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drfts, or guilty of any disloyal
practice, affording aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority
of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial
and punishment by Courts-Martial or Military Commission.
Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to
all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the Rebellion
shall be, imprisoned in any Fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or
other place of confinement by any military authority, or by the sentence
of any Court-Martial or Military Commission.
In witness whereof; I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this
twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United
States the eighty-seventh.
BY THE PRESIDENT:                        ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR PROMULGATED
SEPTEMBER 26th, 1862.
First. There shall be a Provost Marshal General of the War Department, whose Headquarters will be at Washington, and who will
have the immediate supervision, control, and management of the corps.
Second. There will be appointed in each State one or more special
Provost Marshals, as necessity may require, who will report and receive
instructions and orders from the Provost Marshal General of the War
Department.
Third. It will be the duty of the special Provost Marshal to arrest
all deserters, whether regulars, volunteers, or militia, and send them
to the nearest military commander or military post, where they can be
cared for and sent to their respective regiments; to arrest, upon the
warrant of the Judge Advocate, all disloyal persons subject to arrest
under the orders of the War Department; to inquire into and report
treasonable practices, seize stolen or embezzled property of the Government, detect spies of the enemy, and perform such other duties as may
be enjoined upon them by the War Department, and report all their
proceedings promptly to the Provost Marshal General.
Fourth. To enable special Provost Marshals to discharge their
duties efficiently, they are authorized to call on any available military
force within their respective districts, or else to employ the assistance
of citizens, constables, sheriffs, or police-officers, so far as may hbe
necessary under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Provost
778 
COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A CAR'I'EL.
Marshal General of the War  Department, with the approval of the
Secretary of War.
Fifth. Necessary expenses incurred in this service will be paid on
duplicate bills certified by the special Provost Marshals, stating time
and nature of service, after examination and approval by the Provost
Marshal General.
Sixth. The compensation of special Provost Marshals will be
dollars per month, and actual travelling expenses, and postage will
be refunded on bills certified under oath and approved by the Provost
Marshal General.
Seventh. All appointments in this service will be subject to be revoked at the pleasure of the Secretary of War.
Eighth. All orders heretofore issued by the War Department, conferring authority upon other officers to act as Provost Marshals, except
those who received special commissions from the War Department, are
hereby revoked.
By order of the Secretary of War,
L. THOMAS, Adjutant-General.
P.
COMMISSION OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS TO ESTAB LISH CARTEL FOR EXCIIANGE OF PRISONERS, RE FERRED TO ON PAGE 566 OF THE TEXT.
RICIIMOND, 2d July, 1SG863.
HIoN. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, Richmond, Va.:
SIR:-Having accepted your patriotic offer to proceed as a Military
Commissioner, under flag of truce, to Washington, you will herewith receive your letter of authority to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States.
This letter is signed by me as Commander-in-Chief of the Confederate
Land and Naval forces.
You will perceive, from the terms of the letter, that it is so worded as
to avoid any political difficulties in its reception.  Intended exclusively
as one of those communications between Belligerents which public law
recognizes as necessary and proper between hostile forces, care has been
taken to give no pretext for refusing to receive it on the ground that it
would involve a tacit recognition of the independence of the Confederacy.
Your mission is simply one of humanity, and has no political aspect.
If objection is made to receive your letter on the ground that it is not
addressed to Abraham Lincoln as President instead of Commander-inChief, etc., then you will present the duplicate letter, which is addressed
779
-.- p 
APPENDIX P.
to him as President, and signed by me as President. To this letter objection may be made on the ground that I am not recognized to be
President of the Confederacy. In this event, you will decline any
further attempt to confer on the subject of your mission, as such conference is admissible only on a footing of perfect equality.
My recent interviews with you have put you so fully in possession of
my views, that it is scarcely necessary to give you any detailed instructions, even were I at this moment well enough to attempt it.
My whole purpose is, in one word, to place this war on the footing of
such as are waged by civilized people in modern times, and to divest it of
the savage character which has been impressed on it by our enemies, in
spite of all our efforts and protests. WVar is full enough of unavoidable
horrors, under all its aspects, to justify, and even to demand, of any
Christian ruler, who may be unhappily engaged in carrying it on, to
seek to restrict its calamities, and to divest it of all unnecessary severities. You will endeavor to establish the Cartel for the Exchange of
Prisoners on such a basis as to avoid the constant difficulties and coinplaints which arise, and to prevent for the future what we deem the
unfair conduct of our enemies, in evading the delivery of prisoners who
fall into their hands, in retarding it by sending them on circuitous
routes, and by detaining them sometimes for months in camps and
prisons, and in persisting in taking captive non-combatants.
Your attention is also called to the unheard-of conduct of Federal
officers, in driving from their homes entire communities of women and
children, as well as of men, whom  they find in districts occupied  by
their troops, for no other reason than because these unfortunates are
faithful to the allegiance due to their States, and refuse to take an oath
of fidelity to their enemies.
The putting to death of unarmed prisoners, has been a ground of just
complaint in more than one instance, and the recent execution of officers
of our army in Kentucky, for the sole cause that they were engaged in
recruiting service in a State which is claimed as still one of the United
States, but is also claimed by us as one of the Confederate States, must
be repressed by retaliation if not unconditionally abandoned, because it
would justify the like execution in every other State of the Confederacy,
and the practice is barbarous, uselessly cruel, and can only lead to the
slaughter of prisoners on both sides, a result too horrible to contemplate
without making every effort to avoid it.
On these and all kindred subjects you will consider your authority full
and ample to make such arrangements as will temper the present cruel
character of the contest, and full confidence is placed in your judgment,
patriotism, and discretion that, while carrying out the objects of your
mission, you will take care that the equal rights of the Confederacy be
always preserved. Very respectfully,
JEFFRSON DAVIS.
780
0 
ADDRESS ON PROPER USE OF COT'TON.
Q.
I.
SPEECH OF THE AUTHOR (REFERRED TO ON PAGE 574)
ON THE USE OF COTTON AND OTHER RESOURCES FOR
CARRYING ON THE WAR, ETC., DELIVERED IN CRAW FORDVILLE, GA., 1st NOVEMBER, 1862. REPORTED BY
J. HENLY SMITH.
ON the present condition and prospect of our affairs, Mr. Stephens
said he had nothing new to say, and nothing that was not known to all.
From the past we had nothing to be discouraged for the future. We
had met with some reverses, but of eighteen months' fighting, we had
lost no great battle. We had gained many brilliant victories. The
aggregate of advantage of the fight on land thus far had been decidedly
on our side. This was no small consideration for hope and encouragement, looking at the odds against us.  At the beginning, the enemy had
all the army, all the navy, all the revenue, all the credit, as well as the
prestige of the name of the old Government, on their side. We were
few in number compared with them; without a regiment or a ship,
without a dollar, and without credit, except such as the righteousness of
our Cause, inspired in the breasts of our own people, secured. Thus we
entered the contest, and thus we have maintained it. At first 75,000
men were thought sufficient to conquer us.  This failing, 600,000 were
called to the field. These, too, failing, 600,000 more have been added,
with a view to crush us out with numbers. Judging from indications,
the enemy seem determined to put forth all their power. This is the
present prospect. We should be prepared to meet it to the best of our
ability. No one should despair or even despond from this array of new
forces to be brought against us. We may not be able to match them in
numbers. We are not able to do it, and should not attempt it. It is
not necessary to do it, to secure ultimate success, if we avail ourselves
of our advantages, properly and wisely. Numbers is one advantage the
enemy has, and had from the beginning. We have advantages on our
side which we should avail ourselves of. Frederick of Prussia fought
all the great neighboring Powers of Europe for seven years, and was successful in the end. The greatest number he could bring into the field
was 200,000 against 600,000. With this disparity of three to one, they
thought they could crush him, but they did not.  It is true, his country
was overrun, and his Capital, (Berlin,) was twice taken and sacked during
the war. He, however, did not give it up. Richmond has not yet been
taken, though three powerful onward movements have been made against
it.  If Richmond should yet fall, and twice fall, we should be no worse
off than Prussia was in a like calamity; nor should we be less disposed
than the great Frederick to give it up for a like cause.
781 
APPENDIX Q.
The war of our first Independence lasted seven years. During that
stru,ggle, several of the States were overrun, occupied and held for long
periods by the enemy.  The men of that "day that tried men's souls"
felt no inclination, on that account, to "give it up."  Philadelphia,
their Capital, was taken, but they did not "give it up," or think of giving up the Cause.  They fought on, as we can, for the same principles
and rights, until final success.  Nor have our suffering or sacrifices, as
great as they are, been anything like as severe as theirs were. If they
suffered and bore with patience and fortitude all they did to acquire and
establish principles so dear to them and to us, well may we, with equal
patience and fortitude, bear all now upon us, and all that may hereafter
await us, to maintain them.
The ability of a people to support and wage war, depends partly upon
their resources, and partly upon the skill and economy with which they
are wielded. We have resources-elements of power to wage war successfully, unknown to Frederick or the men of'76. All necessaries of
life, food and clothing, with the materials and munitions of war, can,
with skill and forecast, be made and supplied within ourselves. This
goodly land of ours is unequalled, or at least unsurpassed by any other
part of the habitable globe, in the character and variety of its natural
products, suited to man's needs and wants in every emergency. Its
mineral resources are also inexhaustible. It is a land, besides its Institutions, well worth fighting for.  Our means ale sufficient; and they have
only to be properly and skilfully developed and applied.
But besides the products necessary to sustain ourselves, to support
our armies, and carry on war, we have another element of tremendous
power, if properly used and applied -a resource and power unknown in
European wars, and unknown to our ancestors in the war of their
Revolution. Mr. Stephens here said he alluded to our great staple,
cotton; and he should not have said more upon it at this time, than
barely to ask those present to call to their minds what he had said to
most of them last year upon that subject, when he addressed them upon
the Cotton Loan, but for some misconceptions that had got in the public
mind from a paragraphic report of some remarks'he made at a meeting
lately in Sparta. Some, from that report, said Mr. Stephens, have taken
the idea that I urged upon the planters there, to plant largely of cotton
next year. Allow me in this connection to say, that nothing could be
further from the fact.  I urged upon the planters there, first, and above
all, to grow grain and stock for home consumption, and to supply the
army. What I said at Sparta upon the subject of cotton, many of you
have often heard me say in private conversation, and most of you, in
the public speech last year, to which I alluded. Cotton, I have maintained, and do maintain, is one of the greatest elements of power, if not
the greatest at our command, if it were but properly and efficiently used,
as it might have been, and still might be.  Samson's strength was in
782 
PROPER USE OF COTTON AND OTHER RESOURCES. 783
his locks. Our strength is in our locks —not of hair or wool, but in our
locks of cotton. I believed from the beginning that the enemy would
indflict upon us more serious injury by the blockade than by all other
means combined. It was, in the judgment of all, a matter of the utmost, if not vital importance, to have it raised, removed or broken up.
hlow was it to be done?  That was, and is the question! It was
thought by many that such was the demand for cotton in England, that
she would disregard the blockade, as it was, and has been all along, not
within the terms of the Paris agreement-that is, has not been at any
time, entirely effectual, though close enough to do us great injury. I
d(id not concur in this opinion, as most of you well know. I thought it
would have to be done by ourselves, and could be done through the
agency of cotton-not as a political, but as a commercial and financial
power. I was in favor, as you know, of the Government's taking all the
cotton that would be subscribed for eight per cent. bonds at a rate or
price as high as ten cents a pound. Two millions of the last year's crop
might have been counted upon as certain on this plan.  This, at ten
cents, with bags of the average commercial weight, would have cost the
Government one hundred millions of bonds. With this amount of cotton
in hand and pledged, any number, short of fifty, of the best iron-clad
steamers could have been contracted for and built in Europe-steamers
at the cost of two millions each, could be procured, every way equal to
the Monitor.  Thirty millions would have got fifteen of these, which
might have been enough for our purpose.  Five might have been ready
by the first of January last to open some one of the ports blockaded on
our coast. Three of these could have been left to keep the port open,
and two could have convoyed the cotton across the water, if necessary.
Thus, the debt could have been promptly paid with cotton at a much
higher price than it cost, and a channel of trade kept open till others,
and as many more as necessary, might have been built and paid for in
the same way. At a cost of less than one month's present expenditure on
our army, our coast might have been cleared. Besides this, at least two
more millions of bales of the old crop on hand might have been counted
on-this with the other making a debt in round numbers to the planters
of $200,000,000. But this cotton, held in Europe until its price shall be
fifty cents a pound, would constitute a fund of at least $1,000,000,000,
which would not only have kept our finances in sound condition, but
the clear profit of $800,000,000 would have met the entire expenses of
the war for years to come.
In this way cotton, as a great element of power at our commandsuch an element as no other people ever had-might have been used,
not only in breaking up the blockade by our own means, without looking to foreign intervention, but in supplying the treasury with specie to
pay interest on their bonds, thus giving a credit that no Government
ever had before. The public credit is as essential as subsistence in war. 
APPENDIX Q.
Such, at least, was, and is my opinion.  The Government,  however,
took a different view of the subject. Many thought it unconstitutional.
Some looked upon it as a project to relieve the planters. Others thought
it nothing short of a South-Sea speculation. I considered it, then and
now, just as Constitutional as to give bonds for gunpowder, or to buy
other munitions of war. It was not with a view to relieve the planters,
though its incidental accommodation to them would not have been
objectionable, but with the view of wielding effectually the element of
the greatest power we could command, that I wished this course
adopted.  This resource, then,-this element of power, we still havethough not to the same extent. There is enough, however, to effect
wonderful results, if properly used, as it can be. We may have lost a
year or two, but we are far short of seven years' war yet. With our
ports open many of the present evils and hardships of the war would be
relieved. We would no longer have to give fifty dollars for a bushel of
Liverpool salt, or ten dollars for the roughest sort of shoes. With ports
open and this in hand, we should be much better able to make it a
Peloponnesian struggle, if our enemy choose so to make it. This view,
and one other idea, I presented to the people at Sparta, upon the subject
of cotton, which I will repeat here.
Many to be met with suppose that by abandoning the growth of cotton
and burning what we have, we can force our recognition abroad. This,
I told the people there, and tell you, is, in my judgment, a radical and
fundamental error.  England will never be controlled by such a policy.
Our cotton should be treasured up, not sold-more precious is it than
gold-for it is more powerful, as a sinew of war, than gold is.  Like
gold, and everything else of value, it should be destroyed, if need be, to
prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy, but with no view to a
foreign policy; nor should the production of cotton be abandoned, with
such a view. You could not please Lord Palmerston better than to let
him know that there would not be grown a pound of cotton in the
Southern Confederacy for twenty years. The power of cotton is well
known to and felt by British statesmen. They know it is King in its
proper sphere, and hence they want the scepter of this King for their
own use.
The great error of those who suppose that King cotton would compel
the English ministry to recognize our Government and raise the blockade, and who will look for the same result from the total abandonment
of its culture consists in mistaking the nature of the kingdom of this
potentate. His power is commercial and financial-not political. It
has been one of the leading objects of Lord Palmerston, ever since he
has been in office, to stimulate the production of cotton in his own dominions-or those of his Sovereign-so as not to be dependent upon us
for a supply. This he cannot do to any extent, while his inexperienced
producers have to compete with us. Cotton can be raised in their East
784 
PROPER USE OF COTTON AND OTHER RESOURCES. 785
India possessions, and those on the western coast of Africa, at eighteen
or twenty cents a pound; but it cannot be raised there profitably, to any
extent, in competition with us at eight or ten cents. If assured, how ever, of no competition from this quarter, they could, or it is believed
would, after a while, get to producing it as cheaply as we can.
Improvements in agriculture are slower in their progress than in any
other department of life. No one can safely or wisely say how cheaply
cotton may or may not be grown in those countries, with a few years'
absolute control of the market, nor that the quality of the article may
not be as good.  No one can tell what may be effected by improvements
in agriculture and the introduction of new varieties suitable to climate
and soil. More money can be made here by growing cotton now at
eight cents a pound, than could be made at eighteen cents forty years
ago. The quality is also greatly superior to the old black seed. More
persons can now pick three hundred pounds a day than could pick one
hundred when I can first recollect; and one hand and horse or mule can
cultivate twice as much land.  It is a great mistake, I think, to suppose
cotton cannot be grown as cheaply, and with as good a staple-fine a
fibre-in other countries, as it can in this-not in all places where it is
now grown, but in some.
There is nothing within the bounds of human knowledge on which
reliance can be placed with such certainty as to results, as upon the
laws of nature. It is on these laws governing the races of men that our
Institutions are based. And there is nothing better ascertained in the
floral kingdom, than that on the same geological formation, within the
same lines of temperature and climatic conditions, (either from altitude
or latitude,) the same spectes and varieties of plants will grow, each producing its like under similar culture to as great perfection in one hemisphere as the other, and upon one continent as another. We have one
advantage in the production of cotton which they have not in the
British Provinces. This has no reference to climate, soil or varieties.
It is our system of labor. On our advantage in this particular, and to
this extent, (which is no inconsiderable item,) we may rely in looking at
the prospect of competition in the future, with these countries, should
they, by a continuation of our blockade, or our necessary abandonment
of the culture for a time, have the market of the world to themselves.
We should not, therefore, think of abandoning the production of
cotton, with any idea of thereby advancing our interests-politicallyabroad. This would be but playing into the hands of those Powers who
are trying to break it down. We have had to curtail it, and shall have
to curtail it while the war lasts-especially while the blockade continues.
Duty and patriotism, as well as necessity, require this. The first great
object of all now, should be to sustain our Cause; to feed, as well as
clothe men in the field. To do this besides raising sufficient provisions
for home consumption, will necessarily require larger grain crops. To
50 
APPENDIX Q.
have an abundance for home consumption, and for the army, should be
the object of every one. This is dictated by the highest considerations
of home policy, and not from any view of advancing our interests abroad.
On the contrary, after sufficient provisions are made for home consumption and to supply the army, the more cotton that can be grown the
better.
II.
LETTER OF THE AUTHOR ON MARTIAL LAW, AND
RESOLUTIONS ON TlHE SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS INTRODUCED BY HON. LINTON STE PHENS IN THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE AND PASSED
BY THAT BODY, IN MARCH, 1864, WHICH WERE AP PPROVED IN A PUBLIC SPEECH, BY THE AUTHOR;
AND WHICH WITH THE LETTER PRESENT HIS VIEWS
UPON THOSE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT,
PAGE 574.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, September 8th, 1862.
HON. JAMES M. CALHOUN, Atlanta, Ga.:
DEAR SIR:-Your letter of the 28th ult., to I-Ion. B. H. Hill, was
submitted to me by him a few days ago, for my views as to the proper
answer to be made to your several inquiries touching your powers and
duties in the office of Civil Governor of Atlani, to which you have been
appointed by General Bragg.  I took the letter with the promise to
write to you fully upon the whole subject. This, therefore, is the object of my now writing to you. - I regret the delay that has occurred in
the fulfilment of my promise. It has been occasioned by the press of
other engagements, and I now find my time too short to write as fully
as I could wish. The subject is one of great importance, and this, as
well as matters of a kindred sort, have given me deep concern for some
time past.
I am not at all surprised at your being at a loss to know what your
powers and duties are in your new position, and your inability to find
anything in any written code of laws to enlighten you upon them. The
truth is your office is unknown to the law. General Bragg had no more
authority for appointing you Civil Governor of Atlanta, than I had;
and I had, or have, no more authority than any street-walker in your
city. Under his appointment, therefore, you can rightfully exercise no
more power than if the appointment had been made by a street-walker.
We live under a Constitution. That Constitution was made for War
as well as Peace. Under that Constitution we have civil laws and military laws; laws for the civil authorities and laws for the military. The
first are to be found in the Statutes at Large, and the latter in the Rules
and Articles of War. But in this country there is no such thing as
786 
LETTER ON MARTIAL LAW.
Martial Law, and cannot be until the Constitution is set aside-if such
an evil day shall ever come upon us. All the law-making power in the
Confederate States Government is vested in Congress. But Congress
cannot declare Martial Law, which in its proper sense is nothing but an
abrogation of all laws.  If Congress cannot do it, much less can any
officer of the Government, either civil on military, do it rightfully, from
the highest to the lowest. Congress may, in certain cases specified, suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but this by no means interferes with
the administration of justice, so far as to deprive any party arrested of
his right to a speedy and public trial by a jury, after indictment, etc. It
does not lessen or weaken the right of such party to redress for an illegal
arrest. It does not authorize arrests except upon oath or affirmation
upon probable cause. It only secures the party beyond misadventure to appear in person to answer the charge, and prevents a release in
consequence of insufficiency of proof, or other like grounds, in any preliminary inquiry as to the formality or legality of his arrest. It does not
infringe or impair his other Constitutional rights. These Congress cannot impair by law. The Constitutional guarantees are above and beyond the reach or power of Congress, and much more, if it could be,
above and beyond the power of any officer of the Government. Your
appointment, therefore, in my opinion, is simply a nullity. You, by
virtue of it, possess no rightful authority; and can exercise none. The
order creating you Civil Governor of Atlanta, was a most palpable usurpation. I speak of the act only in a legal and Constitutional sense-not
of the motives that prompted it. But a wise people, jealous of their
rights, would do well to remember, as Delolme so well expressed it, that
"such acts, so laudable when we only consider the motive of them,
make a breach at which tyranny will one day enter," if quietly submitted to too long. Now, then, my opinion is, if any one be brought
before you for punishment for selling liquor to a soldier, or any other
allegation, where there is no law against it, no law passed by the proper
law-making power, either State or Confederate, and where, as a matter
of course, you have no legal or rightful authority to punish, either by
fine, or corporeally, etc., you should simply make this response to the one
who brings him or her, as the case may be, that you have no jurisdiction of the matter complained of.
A British Queen (Anne) was once urged by the Emperor of Russia to
punish one of her officers for what His Majesty considered an act of indignity to his ambassador to her Court, though the officer had violated
no positive law.  The Queen's memorable reply was that "she could inflict no punishment upon any, the meanest of her subjects, unless war9ranted by the law of the land."
This is an example you might well imitate. For, I take it for granted
that no one will pretend that any General in command of our armies,
could confer upon you or anybody greater power that the ruling Soy
787 
APPENDIX Q.
ereign of England possessed in like cases under similar circumstances.
The case referred to in England gave rise to a change of the law. After
that an act was passed exempting foreign ministers from arrest. So
with us.  If the proper discipline and good order of the army require
that the sale of liquor to a soldier by a person not connected with the
army should be prohibited, (which I do not mean to question in the
slightest degree,) let the prohibition be declared by law, passed by Congress, with pains and penalties for a violation of it, with the mode and
manner of trying the offence plainly set forth. Until this is done, no
one has any authority to punish in such cases; and any one who undertakes to do it is a trespasser and a violator of the law. Soldiers in the
service, as well as the officers, are subject to the Rules and Articles of
War, and if they commit any offence known to the Military Code therein
prescribed, they are liable to be tried and punished according to the law
made for their government. If these Rules and Articles of War, or in
other words, if the Military Code for the government of the army is defective in any respect, it ought to be amended by Congress. There alone
the power is vested. Neither Generals nor the Provost-Marshals have
any power to make, alter or modify laws, either military or civil; nor
can they declare what shall be crimes, either military or civil, or establish any tribunal to punish what they may so declare. All these matters belong to Congress; and I assure you, in my opinion, nothing is
more essential to the maintenance and preservation of Constitutional
Liberty than that the Military be ever kept subordinate to the Civil
Authorities. You thus have my views hastily, but pointedly given.
Yours most respectfully,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
RESOLUTIONS ON WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
The General Assembly of the State of Georgia do resolve:
1st. That under the Constitution of the Confederate States, there is no
power to suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but in a manner and to an extent, regulated and limited by the express, emphatic, and
unqualified Constitutional prohibitions, that "No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and that "The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized." And this conclusion results from the
two following reasons: First, because the power to suspend the Writ, is
derived not from express delegation, but only from implication, which
must always yield to express, conflicting, and restricting words. Second,
because this power being found nowhere in the Constitution, but in
words which are copied from the original Constitution of the United
7-88 
RESOLUTIONS ON WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  789
States, as adopted in 1787, must yield in all points of conflict to the
subsequent Amendments of 1789, which are also copied into our present
Constitution, and which contain the prohibitions above quoted, and
were adopted with the declared purpose of adding further declaratory
and restrictive clauses.
2d. That "due process of law" for seizing the persons of the people,
as defined by the Constitution itself, is a warrant issued upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
persons to be seized; and the issuing of such warrants, being the exertion of a judicial power, is, if done by any Branch of the Government
except the Judiciary, a plain violation of that provision of the Constitution, which vests the Judicial power in the Courts alone; and, therefore,
all seizures of the persons of the people, by any officer of the Confederate
Government, without warrant, and all warrants for that purpose, from
any but a Judicial source, are, in the judgment of this General Assembly
unreasonable and unconstitutional.
3d. That the recent Act of Congress to suspend the Privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in cases of arrests ordered by the President,
Secretary of War, or General Officer commanding the Trans-Mississippi
Military Department, is an attempt to sustain the military authority in
the exerctse of the Constitutional Judicial function of issuing warrants,
and to give validity to unconstitutional seizures of the persons of the
people; and as the said Act, by its express terms, confines its operation
to the upholding of this class of unconstitutional seizures, the whole
suspension attempted to be authorized by it, and the whole Act itself, in
the judgment of this General Assembly, are unconstitutional.
4th. That in the judgment of this General Assembly, the said Act
is a dangerous assault upon the Constitutional power of the Courts, and
upon the liberty of the people. and beyond the power of any possible
necessity to justify it; and while our Senators and Representatives in
Congress are earnestly urged to take the first possible opportunity to
have it repealed, we refer the question of its validity to the Courts, with
the hope that the people and the Military authorities will abide by the
decision.
5th. That as Constitutional Liberty is the sole object which our people and our noble army have, in our present terrible struggle with the
Government of Mr. Lincoln, so also is a faithful adherence to it, on the
part of our own Government, through good fortune in arms, and through
bad, one of the great elements of our strength and final sucass; because
the constant contrast of Constitutional Government on our part with the
usurpations and tyrannies, which characterize the Government of our
enemy, under the ever-recurring and ever-false plea of the necessities of
war, will have the double effect of animating our people with an unconquerable zeal, and of inspiring the people of the North more and more,
with a desire and determination to put an end to a contest which is 
APPENDIX Q.
waged by their Government openly against our liberty, and as truly,
but more covertly, against their own.
III.
A SYNOPSIS OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE CONSTI TUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL CONSCRIPTION ACT
OF MARCH 3d, 1863, AS PUBLISHED IN McPHERSON'S
"HISTORY OF THE REBELLION," PAGE 273, AND WHICH
EMBODIES THE AUTHOR'S VIEWS OF THE CONFED ERATE ACT OF CONSCRIPTION, PASSED APRIL 16thl, 1862,
WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT ON PAGE, 574.
1. The Constitution of the United States recognizes only two sorts of
military land forces, viz.: the "Militia," and the "Regular or standing
Army."
2. The Conscription Act of March 3, 1863, is not founded on that
Clause of the Constitution which provides for calling forth the Militia,
because the persons drafted under the act are not to be armed, organized,
and disciplined under the militia law, nor are they called forth under
State officers, as required by the Constitution.
3. There is no power given to recruit the Regular Army by forced
levies. This can only be done by voluntary enlistments.
4. The mode of "raising armies"  by forced recruiting for the suppression of Rebellion or Insurrection, is not authorized by the Constitution, because such cases are expressly provided for by the power therein
given for calling out the dormant forces, or militia.
5. The Constitution authorizes levies of the "militia of the States,"
in its organized form in cases of Rebellion and Invasion, but in no other
case or mode than is therein provided.
6. The mode of Coercion provided for this purpose, by the Act of
March 3, 1863, is unconstitutional, because
(1.) It is incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution relative
to the militia.
(2.) It exhausts the Militia force of the several States, which existed
as an institution before the formation of the Federal Government, and
was not only not granted away, but expressly reserved at the formation
of the Constitution; annuls the remedy for Insurrection expressly provided by the Constitution, and substitutes a new one not therein provided for; and converts into National forces as part of the Regular
Army of the General Government the whole militia force of the States,
not on the contingency therein provided for, nor in the form therein
prescribed, but entirely irrespective thereof.
(3.) It incorporates into this new national force every civil officer of
790 
DAVIS'S HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE MESSAGE. 791
the State except the Governor, and every officer of its social institutions
and military organization within the prescribed age, thus subjecting the
civil, social, and military organizations of the States to the Federal
power to "raise armies."
(4.) It provides for a thorough fusion of the Army and the Militia,
two forces which are kept distinct by the Constitution, by investing the
President with power to assign the soldiers obtained by the draft to any
corps, regiment, or branch of service at his pleasure.
(5.) It subjects the citizen to the Rules and Articles of War before he
is in "actual service," and proposes to effect this purpose by merely
drawing his name from a wheel, and serving notice of that fact upon
him.
The Key-note of Judge Woodward's opinion is this paragraph:
The great vice of the Conscript law is, that it is founded on an assumption that Congress may take away, not the State rights of the citizen,
but the security and foundation of his State rights. And how long is
civil liberty expected to last, after the securities of civil liberty are destroyed? The Constitution of the United States committed the liberties
of the citizen in part to the Federal Government, but expressly reserved
to the States, and the people of the States, all it did not delegate.  It
gave the General Government a standing Army, but left to the States
their Militia. Its purposes in all this balancing of powers were wise and
good, but this legislation disregards these distinctions and upturns the
whole system of Government, when it converts the State militia into
"National forces," and claims to use and govern them as such.
R.
I.
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT DAVIS ON THE HAMPTON
ROADH CONFERENCE.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, RICHMOND, February 6, 1865.
To THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE  CON     FEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA:
HAVING recently received a written notification, which satisfied me
that the President of the United States was disposed to confer informally with unofficial agents which might be sent by me, with a view
to the restoration of peace, I requested the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens,
the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, and the Hon. John A. Campbell, to proceed through our lines, and to hold conference with Mr. Lincoln, or any
one he might depute to represent him. 
APPENDIX R.
I herewith transmit, for the information of Congress, the report of the
eminent citizens above named, showing that the enemy refused to enter
into negotiations with the Confederate States, or any one of them separately, or to give to our people any other terms or guaranties than those
which the conqueror may grant, or to permit us to have peace on any
other basis than our unconditional submission to their rule, coupled
with the acceptance of their recent legislation on the subject of the relations between the White and Black populations of each State. Such
is, as I understand it, the effect of the Amendment to the Constitution
which has been adopted by the Congress of the United States.
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Richmond, Va., February 5, 1865.
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES:
SIR:  Under your letter of appointment of the 28th ult., we proceeded
to seek an "informal conference" with Abraham Lincoln, President of
the United States, upon the subject mentioned in the letter. The conference was granted, and took place on the 30th inst., on board of a
steamer in Hampton Roads, where we met President Lincoln and the
Hon. Mr. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States. It continued
for several hours, and was both full and explicit.
We learned from them that the Message of President Lincoln to the
Congress of the United States, in December last, explains clearly and
distinctly his sentiments as to-the terms, conditions, and method of proceeding, by which peace can be secured to the people, and we were not
informed that they would be modified or altered to obtain that end:
We understand from him that no terms or proposals of any treaty, or
agreement, looking to an ultimate settlement, would be entertained or
made by him with the Confederate States, because that would be a recognition of their existence as a separate Power, which, under no circumstances, would be done; and for like reasons that no such terms
would be entertained by him from the States separately; that no extended truce or armistice (as at present advised) would be granted,
without a satisfactory assurance in advance of a complete restoration of
the authority of the United States over all places within the States of
the Confederacy.
That whatever consequence may follow from the reestablishment of
that authority must be accepted; but that individuals, subject to pains
and penalties under the laws of the United States, might rely upon a
very liberal use of the power confided to him to remit those pains and
penalties if peace be restored.
During the conference the proposed Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, adopted by Congress on the 31st ult., was brought
to our notice. This Amendment declares that neither Slavery nor in
792 
LINCOLN'S MESSAGE ON THE CONFERENCE.
voluntary servitude, except for crimes, should exist within the United
States, or any place within their jurisdiction, and that Congress should
have power to enforce this Amendment by appropriate legislation.  Of
all the correspondence that preceded the conference herein mentioned,
and leading to the same, you have heretofore been informed.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
ALEX. H. STEPHENS,
ROBERT M. T. HUNTER,
JOHN A. CAMPBELL.
II.
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN ON THE HAMPTON
ROADS CONFERENCE.
To THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In response to your resolution of the 8th inst., requesting information
in relation to a conference held in Hampton Roads, I have the honor to
state that on the date I gave Francis P. Blair, Senior, a card written as
follows, to wit:
December 28, 1864.
"Allow the bearer, F. P. Blair, Sr., to pass our lines, go South and
return.
That at the time I was informed that Mr. Blair sought the card as
a means of getting to Richmond, Va., but he was given no authority to
speak or act for the Government.   Nor was I informed of anything he
would say or do on his own account or otherwise.
Mr. Blair told me that he had been to Richmond and had seen Mr.
Jefferson Davis, and he (Mr. Blair) at the same time left with me a
manuscript letter as follows, to wit
"Richmond, Va., January 12, 1865.
"F. P. BLAIR, ESQ.:
"SIR: I have deemed it proper and probably desirable to you to give
you in this form the substance of the remarks made by me to be repeated
by you to President Lincoln, etc. I have no disposition to find obstacles in forms, and am willing now, as heretofore, to enter into negotiations for the restoration of peace. I am ready to send a Commission
whenever I have reason to suppose it will be received, or to receive a
Commission if the United States Government shall choose to send one.
Notwithstanding the rejection of our former offers, I would, if you could
promise that a Commission, Minister, or other agent would be received,
appoint one immediately, and renew the effort to enter into a conference
with a view to secure peace to the two countries.
"Yours, etc.,             JEFFERSON DAVIS. "
793
"A. LINCOLN.'I
(Sio,ned)
In 
APPENDIX R.
Afterward, with a view that it should be shown to Mi. Davis, I wrote
and delivered to Mr. Blair a letter, as follows, to wit:
Washington, January 18, 1865.
*'F. P. BLAIR, ESQ.:
"SIR: You having shown me Mr. Davis's letter to you of the 12th
inst., you may say to him that I have constantly been, am now, and
shall continue ready to receive any agent whom he, or any other influential person now resisting the National authority, may informally send
me, with a view of securing peace to the people of our common country.
"Yours, etc.,                     A. LINCOLN. " 
Afterwards Mr. Blair dictated for and authorized me to make an
entry on the back of my retained copy of the letter just above recited
which is as follows:
"January 28, 1865.
"To-day Mr. Blair tells me that on the 21st inst., he delivered to Mr.
Davis the original, of which the within is a copy, and left it with him;
that at the tilme of delivering Mr. Davis read it over twice in Mr. Blair's
presence, at the close of which he (Mr. B.) remarked that the part about
our common country, related to the part of Mr. Davis's letter about the
two countries, to which Mr. D. replied that he understood it.
"A. LINCOLN."
Afterwards the Secretary of War placed in my hands the following
telegram, indorsed by him, as appears:
"Office U.S. Military Telegraph, l
" War Department. 
"(Cipher.) The following telegram was received at Washington,
January 29, 1865:
"'From Head-quarters Army of the James, t
"' 6.30 P. M., January 29, 1865. 
"'To HON. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:
"' The following despatch is just received from Major-General Parke,
who refers it to me for my action. I refer it to'you in lieu of General
Grant-absent.
(Signed)   "'E. O. C. ORD, Major-General Comd'g."'
"' Head-quarters Army of the James.
"' The following despatch is forwarded to you for your action, since I
have no knowledge of General Grant's having had any understanding
of this kind, I refer this matter to you as the ranking officer present in
the two armies.
(Signed)' JOIHN G. PARKE, Major-General Comd'g."'
794 
LINCOLN'S MESSAGE ON THE CONFERENCE.
"' From Headquarters Ninth Army Corpl)s, 
"' January 29, 1865.
"' MAJOR-GENERAL  JOHN G. PARKE, Headquarters Army of the
Potomac:
"'Alexander H. Stephens, R. M. T. Hunter, and J. A. Campbell desire
to cross my lines, in accordance with an understanding claimed to
exist with Lieutenant-General Grant, on their way to Washington as
Peace Commissioners.  Shall they be admitted? They desire an early
answer, so as to come through immediately. They would like to reach
City Point to-night if they can. If they cannot do this, they would like
to come through to-morrow morning.
"'0 O. B. WILSON, Major Commanding Ninth Corps."'
Respectfully referred to the President for such instructions as he
may be pleased to give.
" EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
"January 29, 1865, 8.30 P. M."
It appears that about the time of placing the foregoing telegram in
my hands, the Secretary of War despatched to General Ord as follows,
to wit:
"War Department, Washington City,  l
" Ja'l. 29, 1865-10 P. M. ~
" MAJOR GENERAL ORD:
" This Department has no knowledge of any understanding by Gen.
Grant to allow any person to come within his lines as Commissioners of
any sort. You will therefore allow no one to come into your lines under
such character or profession until you receive the President's instructions, to whom your telegrams will be submitted for his directions.
" EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
"(Sent in cipher at 2 A. M.)"
Afterward, by my directions, the Secretary of War  telegraphed Gen.
Ord as follows, to wit:
"War Department, Washington, D. C., l
"Jan. 30, 1865-10 A. M. 
" MAJOR GFNERAL E. O. C. ORD, Headquarters Army of the James:
" By the direction of the President you are instructed to inform the
three gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, that a message will be despatched to them at or near where they now are without
unecssr  deay            "EWI   M.Q STATON  SerAr of Wal"
Afterward I prepared and put into the hands of Major Thomas T.
Eckert the following instructions:
795
II EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. II 
APPENDIX R.
"Executive Mansion, Washington, Jan. 30, 1865.
"MAJOR T. T. ECKERT:
"SIR: You will proceed with the documents placed in your hands,
and on reaching General Ord will deliver him the letter addressed him
by the Secretary of War. Then, by General Ord's assistance, procure
an interview with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, or any of
them, deliver to him or them the paper on which your own letter is
written. Note on the copy which you retain the time of delivery and
to whomn delivered. Receive their answer in writing, waiting a reasonable time for it. and which, if it contain their decision to come through
without further conditions, will be your warrant to ask General Ord to
pass them through as directed in the letter of the Secretary of War. If
by their answer they decline to come, or propose other terms, do not
have them pass through. And this being your whole duty return and
report to me.
A. LINCOLN."
"City Point, Feb. 1, 1865.
" MESSRS. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, J. A. CAMPBELL, and R. M. T.
HUNTER:
"GENTLEMEN:  I am instructed by the President of the United
States to place this paper in your hands, with the information that if
you pass through the United States military lines, it will be understood
that you do so for the purpose of an informal conference on the basis of
that letter, a copy of which is on the reverse side of this sheet; and that
you choose to pass on such understanding, and so notify me in writing.
I will procure the Commanding General to pass you through the lines
and to Fortress Monroe under such military precautions as he may
deem prudent, and at which place you will be met in due time by some
person or persons for the purpose of such informal conference; and further, that you shall have protection, safe conduct, and safe return in all
events.
'THOMAS T. ECKERT, Major and Aid-de-Ca,?mp."
Afterward, but before Major Eckert had departed, the following despatch was received from General Grant:
"Office U.S. Military Telegraph,   }
"War Department. J
"(Cipher)
"The following telegram was received at Washington, Jan. 31,
1865, from City Point, Va., 10.30 A. M., Jan. 31, 1865:
"HIS EXCELLENCY ABRAHAM LiNCOLN, President of the United States:
"'The following communication was received here last evening:
796
" Yours truly, 
LINCOLN'S MESSAGE ON THE CONFERENCE.
"'Petersburg, Va., Jan. 30, 1865.
"' LIEUT.-GEN. U. S. GRANT, Commanding Armies of the United States:
"'SIR:  We desire to pass your lines under safe conduct, and to
proceed to Washington to hold a conference with President Lincoln upon
the subject of the existing war, and with a view of ascertaining upon
what terms it may be terminated, in pursuance of the course indicated
by him in his letter to Mr. Blair of Jan. 18, 1865, of which we presume
you have a copy, and if not, we wish to see you in person, if convenient,
and to confer with you on the subject.
"' Very respectfully yours,
ALEXANDER ]I. STEPIENS,
J. A. CAMPBELL,
R. M. T. HUNTER. X'
"'I have sent directions to receive these gentlemen, and expect to
have them at my quarters this evening awaiting your instructions.
U. S. GRANT, Lieut.-General,
"' Commanding Armies of the United States.'"
This, it will be perceived, transferred General Ord's agency in the
matter to General Grant. I resolved, however, to send Major Eckert
forward with his message, and accordingly telegraphed General Grant
as follows, to wit:
"Executive Mansion, Washington, I
"Jan. 31, 1865. J
" LIEFUT.-GEN. GRANT, City Point, Va.:
"A messenger is coming to you on the business contained in your
despatch.  Detain the gentlemen in comfortable quarters until he arrives, and then act upon the message he brings as far as applicable, it
having been made up to pass through Gen. Ord's hands, and when the
gentlemen were supposed to be beyond our lines.
"(Sent in cipher at 1.30 P. M.)                   A. LINCOLN.'"
When Major Eckert departed, he bore with him a letter of the Secretary of War to General Grant as follows, to wit:
"War Department, Washington, D. C., l
" Jan. 30, 1865. J
"LIEUT.-GENERAL GRANT, Commanding, etc.:
" GENERAL: The President desires that you procure for the bearer,
Major Thomas T. Eckert, an interview with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter,
and Campbell, and if, on his return to you, he requests it, pass them
through our lines to Fortress Monroe by such route and under such
military precautions as you may deem prudent, giving them protection
and comfortable quarters while there, and that you let none of this bave
any effect upon any of your movements or plans.
"By order of the President,
"EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War."t
797 
APPENDIX R.
Supposing the proper point to be then reached, I despatched the Secretary of State with the following instructions, Major Eckert, however,
going ahead of him:
"Executive Mansion, Jan. 31, 1865.
"HoN. Wm. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:
"You will proceed to Fortress Monroe, Va., there to meet and informally confer with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, on the
basis of my letter to F. P. Blair, Esq., of Jan. 18, 1865, a copy of
which you have. You will make known to them that three things are
indispensable, to wit: 1st, the restoration of the National authority
throughout all the States; 2d, no receding by the Executive of the
United States on the Slavery question from the position assumed thereon
in the late Annual Message to Congress, and in the preceding documnents; 3d, no cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and the
disbanding of all the forces hostile to the Government. You will inform
them that all propositions of theirs not inconsistent with the above will
be considered and passed upon in a spirit of sincere liberality. You
will hear all they may choose to say and report it to me. You will not
assume to definitely consummate anything.
'Yours, etc.,                       ABRAHAM LINCOLN."
On the day of its date the following telegram was sent to General
Grant:
"War Department, Washington,   }
"Feb. 1, 1865.
"LIHUT.-GEN. GRANT, City Point, Va.:
"Let nothing which is transpiring change, hinder, or delay your military movements or plans.
"(Sent in cipher at 9.30 A. M.)                   A. LirCOLN."
Afterward the following despatch was received from Gen. Grant:
"Office U.S. Telegraph, War Department.
"(In cipher.)
"The following telegram was received at Washington at 2.30 P. M.,
Feb. 1, 1865, from City Point, Va., Feb. 1, 12.30 P. M., 1865:
"' HIS EXCELLENCY ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States:
"'Your despatch is received.  There will be no armistice in consequence of the presence of Mr. Stephens and others within our lines
The troops are kept in readiness to move at the shortest notice if occaBion should justify it.
"I U.S. GRANT, Lieut.-Gen., I,
To notify Major Eckert that the Secretary of State would be at Fortress Monroe and to put them in communication, the following despatch
was sent:
798 
LINCOLN'S MESSAGE ON THE CONFERENCE.
"War Department, Washington, t
"Feb. 1, 1865. 
" T. T. ECKERT, care Gen. Ghrant, City Point, Va.:
"Call at Fortress Monroe and put yourself under the direction of
Mr. S. whom you will find there.
"A. LINCOLN."
On the morning of the 2d inst., the following telegrams were received
by me from the Secretary of State and Major Eckert:
"Fortress Monroe, Va.-11.30 P. M.,  I
"_ Feb. 1, 1865. 
"THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
"Arrived here this evening. Richmond party not here. I remain
here.
' WM. H. SEWARD."
"City Point, Va., 10 P. M.,   }
"Feb. 1, 1865.
"HIS EXCELLENCY A. LINCOLN, President of the United States:
"I have the honor to report the delivery of your communication and
my letter at 4.15 this afternoon, to which I received a reply at 6 P. M.,
but not satisfactory. At 8 P. M. the following note, addressed to Gen.
Grant, was received:
"'City Point, Feb. 1, 1865.
"'To LIEUT.-GEN. GRANT:
"' SIR:  We desire to go to Washington City to confer informally
with the President personally, in reference to the matters mentioned in
his letter to Mr. Blair of the 18th of January, ult., without any personal compromise on any question in the letter. We have the permission
to do so from the Authorities in Richmond.
" Very respectfully yours,
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS,
R. M. T. IFUNTER,
J. A. CAMPBELL.'"
' At 9.30 P.M., I notified them that they could not proceed further
unless they complied with the terms expressed in my letter. The point
of meeting designated in the above would not, in my opinion, be insisted upon.  I think Fortress Monroe would be acceptable.  Having
complied with my instructions, will return to Washington to-morrow,
unless otherwise ordered.
"THOMAg T. ECKERT, Major, etc."
On reading this despatch of Major Eckert's, I was about to recall
himnt and the Secretary of State, when the following telegram of General
Grant to the Secretary of War was shown me:
799 
APPENDIX R.
" (In cipher.)
"The following telegram, received at Washington at 4.35 A. M.,
Feb. 2, 1865, from City Point, Va., Feb. 1, 1865:
"'To HON. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:
"' Now that the interview between Major Eckert, under his written
instructions, and Mr. Stephens and party, has ended, I will state confidentially, but not officially, to become a matter of record, that I am
convinced, upon conversation with Messrs. Stephens and Hunter, that
their intentions are good and their desire sincere to restore peace and
Union. I have not felt myself at liberty to express even views of my
own, or to account for my reticence. This has placed me in an awkward
position, which I could have avoided by not seeing them in the first instance. I fear now their going back without any expression to any one
in authority will have a bad influence. At the same time I recognize
the difficulties in the way of receiving these informal Commissioners at
this time, and I do not know what to recommend. I am sorry, however, that Mr. Lincoln cannot have an interview with the two named
in this despatch, if not all three now within our lines. Their letter to me
was all that the President's instructions contemplated to secure their
safe conduct, if they had used the same language to Capt. Eckert.
"' U. S. GRANT, Lieut.- General. "
This despatch of General Grant changed my purpose, and accordingly I telegraphed him and the Secretary of War as follows:
'  War Department, Washington, }
"IFeb. 2, 1865. l
" To LIEUT.-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va.:
" Say to the gentlemen that I will meet them personally at Fortress
Monroe as soon as I can get there.
" (Sent in cipher at 9 A. M.)                       A. LINCOLN."
" War Department, Washington, D.C.,   }
"Feb. 2, 1865.
" To HON. WM. H. SEWARD, Fortress Monroe, Va.:
"Induced by a despatch from General Grant, I join you at Fortress
Monroe as soon as I call come.
" (Sent in cipher at 9 A. MI.)                     A. LINCOLN.7
Before starting the following despatch was shown me. I proceeded,
nevertheless:
I; Office U. S. Military Telegraph, )
" War Departmentt. t
"(In cipher.)
"The following telegram was received at Washington, Feb. 2, 1865,
from City Point, Va., 9 A. M., Feb. 2, 1865:
800
"' Office U. S. Military, Wfar Department. 
APPENDIX R.
also saw here for the first time the following note addressed by the
Richmond gentlemen to Major Eckert:
"City Point, Va., Feb. 2, 1865.
"THOMAS T. ECKERT, Major and A. D. C.:
"MAJOR:  In reply to your vrrbal statement that your instructions
did not allow you to alter the conditions upon which a passport would
be given to us, we say that we are willing to proceed to Fortress Monroe, and there to have an informal conference with any person or
persons that President Lincoln may appoitnt, on the basis of his letter to
Francis P. Blair of the 18th of January, ultimo, or upon any other
terms or conditions that he may hereafter propose not inconsistent with
the essential principles of Self-government and Popular Rights, upon
which our institutions are founded. It is our earnest wish to ascertain,
after a free interchange of ideas and information, upon what principles
and terms, if any, a just and honorable peace can be established without the further effusion of blood, and to contribute our utmost efforts to
accomplish such a result.  We think it better to add, that in accepting
your passport, we are not to be understood as committing ourselves to
anything, but to carry on this informal conference with the views and
feelings above expressed.
"Very respectfully yours, etc.,
" ALEX. H. STEPHIENS,
R. M. T. HUNTER,
J. A. CAMPBELL."
"[Note.  The above communication was delivered to me at Fortress
Monroe at 4.40 P. M., Feb. 2, by Lieut.-Col. Babcock, of Gen. Grant's
Staff.
"THOS. T. ECKERT, Major and A. D. C.]
"Executive Mansion, Feb. 10, 1865."
On the morning of the 3d, the gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens, Hunter,
and Campbell, came aboard of our steamer and had an interview with
the Secretary of State and myself of several hours' duration. No question of preliminaries to the meeting was then and there made or mentioned. No other person was present. No papers were exchanged or
produced, and( it was in advance agreed that the conversation was to be
informal and verbal merely. On my part the whole substance of the
instructions to the Secretarv of State, hereinbefore recited, was stated
and insisted upon, and nothing was said inconsistent therewith, while,
by the other party, it was not said that in any event or on any condition
they ever would consent to reunion; and yet they equally omitted to
declare that they would never so consent. They seemed to desire a
postponement of that question and the adoption of some other course
first, which, as some of them seemed to argue, might or might not lead
802 
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GEN'S. GRANT AND LEE. 803
to reunion, but which course we thought would amount to an indefinite
postponement.
The conference ended without result.
The foregoing, containing, as is believed, all the information sought,
is respectfully submitted.
ABRAEAM LINCOLN.
S.
I.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GENERALS GRANT AND
LEE PRECEDING THE SURRENDER OF GEN. LEE, WITII
HIS LAST GENERAL ORDER TO HIS ARMY.
April 7.
GENERAL R. E. LEE, Commanding Confederate States Armies:
GENERAL:-The result of the last week must convince you of the
hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern
Virginia in this struggle.  I feel that it is so; and regard it as my duty
to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood, by
asking of you the surrender of that portion of the Confederate States
Army known as the Army of Northern Virginia.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U.S. GRANT,
Lieut.-Gen. Commanding Armies of the United States.
To this note Gen. Lee replied as follows:
April 7.
LIEUT.-GEN-. U.S. GRANT, Commanding Armies of the United States:
GENERAL:-I have received your note of this date.  Though not entirely of the opinion you express of the hopelessness of further resistance
on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia, I reciprocate your desire
to avoid useless effusion of blood, and therefore, before considering your
proposition, ask the terms you will offer, on condition of its surrender.
4j~~ ~            R. E. LEE, General.
The following correspondence then ensued:
April 8.
GEN. R. E. LEE, Commanding Confederate States Army:
GENERAL:-Your note of last evening, in reply to mine of same date,
asking the conditions on which I will accept the surrender of the Army
of Northern Virginia, is just received.  In reply, I would  say, that
peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would itsist
upon, namely: that the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified 
APPENDIX S.
for taking up arms again against the Government of the United States
until properly exchanged. I will meet you, or will designate officers to
meet any officers you may name for the same purpose, at any point
agreeable to you, for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms upon
which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia will be received.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U.S. GRANT,
Lieutt.-Gen. Co?mlmanding Armies of the Uaitedcl States.
April 8.
LIEUT.-GEN. GRANT, Comrznandiig Argmies of the Utited States:
GENERAL -I received at a late hour your note of to-day, in answer
to mine of yesterday. I did not intend to propose the surrender of the
Army of Northern Virginia, but to ask the terms of your proposition.
To be frank, I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender. But, as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of all,
I desire to know whether your proposals would tend to that end.
I cannot, therefore, meet you with a view to surrender the Army of
Northern Virginia, but, so far as your proposition may affect the Confederate States forces under my command, and lead to the restoration
of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10 A. M., to-morrow, on
the old stage-road to Richmond, between the picket lines of the two
armies.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE, General Confederate States Armies.
Gen. Grant to Gen. Lee:
April 9.
GEN. R. E. LEE, Commanding Confederate States Armies:
GENERAL:-Your note of yesterday is received.  As I have no authority to treat on the subject of peace, the meeting proposed for 10
A. M. to-day, could lead to no good. I will state, however, General,
that I am equally anxious for peace with yourself; and the whole North
entertain the same feeling. The terms upon which peace can be had
are well understood. By the South laying down their arms, they will
hasten that most desirable event, save thousands of human lives, and
hundreds of millions of property not yet destroyed.
Sincerely hoping that all our difficulties may be settled without the
loss of another life, I subscribe myself, 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U.S. GRANT, Lieut.-Gen. U. S. A.
Gen. Lee to Gen. Grant:
April 9, 1865.
GENERAL: —I received your note of this morning on the picket line,
whither I had come to meet you and ascertain definitely what terms
were embraced in your proposition of yesterday with reference to the
Surrender of this army.
804 
TERMS OF GEN. LEE'S SURRENDER.
I now request an interview in accordance with the offer contained in
your letter of yesterday for that purpose.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE, Gene,,-al.
To LIEUT.-GEN. GRANT, Commanding U. S. Armies.
Gen. Grant to Gen. Lee:
April 9.
GEN. R. E. LEE, Coninmanding Confederate States Armies:
Your note of this date is but this moment (11.50 A. M.) received. In
consequence of my having passed from the Richmond and Lylchburg
road to the Farmville and Lynchburg road, I am at this writing about
four miles west of Walter's Church, and will push forward to the front
for the purpose of meeting you.
Notice sent to me on this road where you wish the interview to take
place will meet me.
Vei'y respectfully, your obedient servant,
U.S. GRANT, Lieut.-Gen.
TERMS OF SURRENDER.
Appomattox Court House, Va., l
April 9, 1865.
GENERAL:-In accordance with the substance of my letter to you
of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of
Northern Virginia on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate; one copy to be given to an officer
to be designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers
as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not
to take up arms against the Government of the United States until
properly exchanged; and each company or regimental comlnmander sign
a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery, and
public property, to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officers appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the sidearms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage.  This done,
each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be
disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.
U.S. GRANT, Lt.-General.
GENERAL R. E. LEE.
THIE SURRENDER.*
Headquarters Army of Northern Va., }
April 9, 1865.
LIEUT.-GEN. U.S. GRANT, Commanding U. S. Armies:
GENERAL:-I received your letter of  this date, containing  the
terms of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia as proposed
* Less than 8,000 muskets were turned over in pursuance of the terms agreed upon.
805 
APPENDIX S.
by you. As they are substantially the same as those expressed in your
letter of the 8th instant, they are accepted. I will proceed to designate
the proper officers to carry the stipulations into effect.
R. E. LEE, General.
GENERAL ORDER NO. 9.
Headquarters Army of Northern Va., 1
April 10, 1865. 
After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage
and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to
yield to overwhelming numbers and resources. I need not tell the survivors of so many hard-fought battles, who have remained steadfast to
the last, that I have consented to this result from no distrust of them,
but holding that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that
could compensate for the loss that would attend the continuation of the
contest, I have determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose
past vigor has endeared them to their countrymen.
By the terns of agreement, officers and men can return to their
lhomes aid -iriain there until exchanged., You will take with you the
satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend you His
blessing and protection. With an increasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of
your kind and generous consideration of myself, I bid you an atffectionate farewell.
(Signed.)                                      R. E. LEE, General.
II.
MEMORANDUM, OR, BASIS OF AGREEMENT, MADE THIS
18TH DAY OF APRIL, A. D. 1865, NEAR DURHAM'S STA TION, AND IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY
AND BETWEEN GEN. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, COMMAND ING THE CONFEDERATE ARMY, AND MAJOR-GEN. W.
T. SHERMAN, COMMANDING THE ARMY OF THE
UNITED STATES IN NORTH CAROLINA, BOTH PRES ENT.
I.-The contending Armies now in the field to maintain their status
quo until notice is given by the Commanding General of either one to its
opponent, and reasonable time, say forty-eight hours, allowed.
II.-The Confederate Armies now in existence to be disbanded and
conducted to the several State Capitals, there to deposit their arms and
public property in the State Arsenal; and each officer and man to execute and file an agreement to cease from acts of war and abide the action
of both State and Federal Authorities. The number of arms and mu
806 
SHERMIAN-JOHNSTON CONVENTIONS.
nitions of war to be reported to the Chief of Ordnance at Washington
City, subject to the future action of the Congress of the United States,
and in the meantime to be used solely to maintain peace and order
within the borders of the States respectively.
III.-The recognition, by the Executive of the United States, of the
several State Governments on their officers and Legislatures taking the
oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States; and, where
conflicting State Governments have resulted from the war, the legitimniacy of all shall be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
IV.-The reestablishment of all Federal Courts in the several States,
with powers as defined by the Constitution and the laws of Coingress.
V.-The people and inhabitants of all States to be guaranteed, so far
as the Executive can, their political rights and franchises, as well as
their rights of person and property, as defined by the Constitution of the
United States and of the States respectively.
VI.-The Executive Authority of the Government of the United
States not to disturb any of the people, by reason of the late war, so
long as they live in peace and quiet, abstain from acts of armed hostility,
and obey laws in existence at the place of their residence.
VII.-In general terms, it is announced that the war is to cease; a
general amnesty, so far as the Executive power of the United States can
command, on condition of the disbandment of the Confederate Armies,
the distribution of arms and resumption of peaceful pursuits by officers and men hitherto composing the said armies. Not being fully empowered by our respective principals to fulfil these terms, we individually
and officially pledge ourselves to promptly obtain necessary authority
and to carry out the above programme.
W. T. SHERMAN, Major-General.
Commanding the Army of the United States in North Carolina.
J. E. JOHNSTON, General,
Commanding Confederate States Army in North Carolina.
IlL.
TERMS OF A MILITARY CONVENTION HELD THIS
TWENTY-SIXTH (26th) DAY OF APRIL, 1865, AT BEN NETT'S HOUSE, NEAR DURHAM'S STATION, N. C., BE TWEEN GEN. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, COMMANDING THE
CONFEDERATE ARMY, AND MAJOR-GENERAL W. T.
SHERMAN, COMMANDING THE UNITED STATES ARMY
IN NORTH CAROLINA.
All acts of War on the part of the troops under Gen. Johnston's command to cease from this date.
807 
APPENDIX S.
All arms and public property to be deposited at Greensboro, to be
delivered to an Ordnance officer of the United States Army.
Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate-one copy to
be retained by the Commander of the troops, and the other to be given
to an officer to be designated by Gen. Sherman.
Each officer and man to give his individual obligation in writing, not
to take up arms against the Governmnent of the United States until
properly released from this obligation.
The side-arms of officers and their private horses and baggage to be
retained by them.
This being done, all the officers and men will be permitted to return
to their homes, not to be disturbed by the United States authority so
long as they observe their obligation and the laws in force where they
may reside.
W. T. SHERMAN, Major-General,
Commanding U. S. Forces in North Carolina.
J. E. JOHNSTON, General,
Commanding C. S. Forces in North Carolina.
Approved:
U.S. GRANT, Lt.-Gen.,
Raleigh, N. C., April 26, 1865.
GENERAL ORDER NO. 18.
Head-quarters, Army of Tennessee, near Greensboro, N. C., 
April 27, 1865. 
By the terms of a Military Convention, made on the 26th inst., by
Major-General W. T. Sherman, TU.S. Army, and General J. E. Johnston, C. S. Army, the officers and men of this army are to bind themselves not to take up arms against the United States until properly
relieved from this obligation, and shall receive guaranties from the
United States officers against molestation by the United States authorities so long as they observe that obligation, and the laws in force where
they reside.
For these objects, duplicate muster-rolls will be made immediately,
and after the distribution of the necessary papers, the troops will march
under their officers to their respective States, and there be disbanded,
all retaining personal property.
The object of this Convention is Pacification, to the extent of the
Commanders who made it.
Events in Virginia, which broke every hope of success by war, imposed on its Generals the duty of sparing the blood of this gallant
army, and saving our country from further devastation, and our people
from ruin.
J. E. JOHNSTON, General.
808 
GENERAL INDEX.
VOL. II.
ASHMUN, GEORGE, in Whig Convention
of 1852, 238.
ATKINS, J. D. C., 464; 761, 763.
AVERY, W. W., 464.
A.
ADAMS,  JOHN,  87; in Federal Conven  tion on three fifths clause, 98.
ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, amendment of,
to Ark. bill prohibiting slavery, 163;
position on N. J. Election case referred
to by Toombs, 193; on separation of the
States, 418.
ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, vote of,
on Resolution, in House, declaring Per  sonal Liberty Laws unconstitutional,
417.
ALABAMA,  Secession  of, 33, 312; Dele.  gates of; to Montgomery Congress, 324;
vote upon ratification of C. S. Constitu  tion, 355.
ANDERSON,   J. PATTON,  delegate  to
Montgomery Congress, 325; enters the
army, 464; 735.
ANDERSON,  ROBERT,  34, 36; declines
to surrender Sumter, 38; refuses to re  main neutral, 39; 349.
APPLETON, JOHN W., 661.
APPLETON, MABEL, 661.
APPLETON, MARY S., 661.
ARCHER,  WILLIAM  S., on Clay's Com  mittee of Thirteen, 158.
ARKANSAS,  admission  of,  opposed  in
1836 by  Centralists, 163; action  and
position of, on Secession previous to
Lincoln's Proclaination of 15th of April,
363; effect of this Proclamation in, and
consequent action of, 392; Delegation
of, to Confed. Congress, 393.
ARMSTRONG, JAS. W., 677.
ARMY,  CONFEDERATE  STATES,
strength of, in February, 1862, 487
force in the field at the surrender, 629,
force in the field from beginning to end
of the war, 630; list of General officers
in, 763.
ARMY, UNITED  STATES,  increased by
Presidential Proclamation in May, 1861,
407; force in the field in July, 1861,
469; force in the field in February, 1862,
487; force in the field at surrender of
Confederates, 629; force in the field from
beginning to end of the war, 630.
ASHE, Wm. S., 223.
B.
BABCOCK, LT.-COL., 596; 597; 618.
BADGER, GEORGE E., 198; 243.
BAKER, EDWARD D., 188.
BAKER, T. H., 430.
BALDWIN,  HENRY,  (Associate Justice
U. S. Supreme  Court,) on property in
Slaves, 86; 142; 152; 161; cited by
Toombs, 186.
BALDWIN, ROGER S., 220.
BALDWIN, JOHN B., 388.
BALTIMORE, MD., Whig Convention at,
in 1852, 236; Democratic Convention at,
in  1852,  235; Democratic  Convention
at, in 1860, 273; Bell Everett Conven  tion at, in 1860, 275; riot at, in 1861,
373.
BANKS, N. P., at Winchester, Va., 542,
543; in Louisiana, 582.
BARBOUR, PHILIP P., on Missouri Sla.
very Restriction, 143.
BARNES,  JOSEPH   K.,  report  of,  on
number of prisoners captured on both
sides during the war, 508.
BARNWELL, ROBERT W., 233; 325;
735; 761, 762.
BARROW, WASHINGTON, commissioner
of Tennessee  to negotiate alliance with
C. S., 391.
BARRY, W. S., 325.
BARTOW, FRANCIS S., delegate to Mont gomery  Congress  from  Georgia,  325;
464; killed at battle of Manassas, 478,;
735.
BATEMAN, EPHRAIM, vote of, on Clay's
resolution to admit Missouri, 161.
BATTLES (referred to), Barboursville,
Scarrytown,  Grafton,  Philippi, Laurel
Hill,  Cheat  River,  Alexandria,  Big
Bethel,  465; Fort Jackson,  Mo., 469;
First Manassas,  471,  479; Lexington,
Oak Hill, Belmont, Leesburg, Fort Hat teras, Port  Royal,  Fort  Henry,  F(rt
Donelson, Mill Springs or Fuhhing Creek,
8S9 
GENERAL INDEX.
BATTLES  (eontinued),
480; Williamsburg, Elkhorn, Shiloh,
540; Kernstown, McDowell, Winchester,
Cross  Keys, Port  Republic,  six days'
fighting around Richmiond, 542; Cedar
Run, Second Manassas, 543; Harper's
Ferry, Fredericksburg, 544; Richmond,
Perryville, Murfreesboro, 545; Chancel  lorsville, 547; Vicksburg, 566; Chicka  matuga, 579; Centreville, Bristoe Station,
Mine Run, Missionary Ridge, 580; Ocean
Ponid, 581; Mansfield, Pleasant Hill,
Okolona,  582;  Wilderness,  Spottsyl  vania, C. H., North Anna, Cold Harbor,
584; Atlanta, Franklin, Nashville, 585;
Griswoldville, 586; Petersburg, 627.
BAXTER, ELI H., 317.
BAYLY, THOMAS H., 180; 223.
BEAUREGARD, GUSTAVE T., 34; 35;
36; correspondence with Major Ander  son in relation to surrender of Sumter,
38; order from Sec. of War  to, to de  mand evacuation of Sumter, 38; bom  bards Sumter and forces its surrender,
39; 40; 348; 349; 423; at first battle
of Manassas, 470 to 479; 4,88; 489; at
Shiloh, 540, 541; 545; 628; 763.
BEE, BARNARD  E., at.battle of Manas  sas, 472; 764.
BELL, JOHN, 198; adjustment resolutions
of in 18501, 205, 212; 243; nominated at
Baltimore for President, 275; 406.
BELL, H. P., 324.
BENNING, ttENRY L., 324; 594; 765.
BENJAMIN,  JUDAH  P., appointed  At  torney- General, 345; appointed Secretary
of War, 487; 759.
BENTON, TIIOS. H., 174; 198; 242.
BERRIEN, JOHN M., 198; on Clay's
committtee of Thirteen, 212; 242.
BIRDSALL, AUSBURN, 174.
BLACK, JAMES,  vote of against Wilmot
Proviso, 170.
BLAIR,  FRANCIS  P., SR., visits of, to
Richmond in 1865, 589; 59l; 592; 593;
600; 601; 607; 621; 793; 794; 798.
BLAIR, MONTGOMERY, 386.
BLOOMFIELD, GEN'L, estimate of slaves
at the South in 1787, 98.
BLOOMFIELD, JOSEPH, vote of, against
Slavery Restriction on Missouri, 152;
vote on Clay's Resolution to admit Mis  souri, 161.
BOCOCK, THOMAS S., delegate from
Virginia to Confederate Provisional Con  gress, 464; Speaker of,Iouse of Rep  resentatives, C. S. Congress, 761, 762.
BOKEE, DAVID A., 224.
BOND, H. L., 374.
BONHAM, M. L., 465; at battle of Man  assas, 472; 764.
BOUDINOT, ELIAS, vote of, on House
resolution in 1790, denying jurisdiction
of Congress over subject of slavery, 31.
BO ULIGNEY, JOHN E., 324.
BOWMAN, CAPT., (U. S. A.), 433.
BOYCE, W. W., delegate to Montgomery
Congress from South Carolina, 325; 735;
761; 763.
BOY),  LINN,  203;  amendment of,  to
Texas and New Mexico Boundary bill,
221; 224; 225; 228; 231.
BRAGG,  BRAXTON,  campaign of, into
Kentucky, 545; retires from  Murfrees  boro, 546; 579; defeated at Missionary
Ridge, 580; 764.
BRAGG, THOMAS, appointed Attorney  General, C. S., 487.
BRECK, DANIEL, 190.
BRECKINRIDGE,  JOHN  C., nominated
for President in 1860, 274; 275; 276;
308; resolution of, in Senate, recom  mending withdrawal of U. S. troops from
Forts in Seceded States, 354; speech of,
in Senate, against the Indemnity Resolu  tionI, 458 to 460; 485; appointed  Secre  tary of War, 626; 764.
BREESE, SIDNEY, vote of, against Wil  mot Proviso, 168.
BRIGHT, JESSE D., vote of, against Wil.
mot Proviso, 168; vote of, on Douglas's
amendment  to  Oregon  bill, 173; on
Clay's Committee of Thirteen in 1850,
212.
BRODHEAD, RICHARD, vote of, against
Wilmot Proviso, 170; 174.
BROCKENBROUGH, JOHN W., dele  gate to Peace Congress from Virginia,
366; delegate to Montgomery Congress
from Virginia, 388; delegate to Rich  mond Congress, 464.
BROOKE, WALKER,  delegate to Mont  gomery Congress from Mississippi, 325.
BROUGHAM,  LORD, on formation of a
Union  or Federaey of States, 20; on
Privateering, 435.
BROWN, ALBERT  G., resolution of, de  claring Mr. Cobb speaker in 1849, 180;
C. S. Senator, 760, 762.
BROWN, CHARLES, vote of, against re  pudiation of the Missouri Compromise,
so-called, 174.
BROWN, GEORGE W., his efforts to pre  vent the riot in Baltimore, 373; sends
deputation of citizens to Lincoln, 374.
BROWN, JOHN, raid on Harper's Ferry
referred to, 258, 259, 269.
BROWN, JOSEPH E., 653; 654; by what
most probably influenced to accept  Con  gressional Reconstruction measures, 655;
656; General Sherman's invitation to, to
meet him in Atlanta, and his reply, 657;
664.
BROWN, NEIL S., letter to the public on
Lincoln's war proclamation, 390; 406.
BROWN, WILLIAM  J., nominated  for
Speaker in 1849, 180; his name with  drawn, 186.
BROWNE, W. M., 333; 759.
BRUCE, JAMES C., 378; 380
810
i 
GENERAL INICX.
BRUNE, J. C., 374.
BUCHANAN,  JAMES,  11;  on coercion,
34; 41; 131; on                  Compromise of 1850 and
Kansas-Nebraska Legislation of 1854,
132, 133; his letter accepting Demo  cratic  n          ominat ion fo r            President, 134;
135; his          torical error of, exposed, 150;
152; 157; 161;  162;  163;  241; his
endorsem             ent of Kansas-Nebraska   Le -
islation, 257;   259;   another  err      or     of,
exh ibited, 260  271; 274; 275;                                      B 308  359.
BUELL, D. C., at Sh              i loh, 541; 545.
BUNDESSTAAT,  the   United   States
neither a Staaten-bund exactly, nor a,
according to classification of Federal
Repub        lic s  by Germa n  Publicists,  18, 19.
BURLINGAME, ANSON, 282.
BURNETT,  HENRY C.,            Commission er
of  Kentucky  to negotiate an alliance
with C. S., 486; C. S. Senator, 760, 762.
BURNSIDE, A[BROSE E., attacks Lee
and is defeated, 544; 549; 550,
BURR, C. CHAUNCEY, 557.
BURT, ARMISTEAD, amendment of, to
Oregon bill, 165; its object, 166; 225;
231.
BURTON, WILLIAM, his reception of
Georgia Commissioner, 370; respcnse to
Lincoln's requisition for troops, 372.
BUTLER, BENJAMIN F., withdraws
from Democratic Convention and joins
the Breckinridge Convention, 274; 465.
BUTLER, A. P., protests against admis   sion of California, 233; 243.
BUTLER, JOSIAH, on Missouri Compro   mise Committee, 158.
BYRON, LORD, lines of, on Kirke
White, applied to " Stonewall" Jackson,
549.
BYRD, P. M., 316.
CAMPBELL, JOHN A., 266: acts as
mediator between U. S. Authorities and
C. S. Commissioners, 347; statement fur nished commissioners after his inter view with Sec. Seward, 348; second in terview of, with Sec. Seward, 349; 354,;
593;  appointed  one of  the  Commis sioners to meet Mr. Lincoln, 594; in the
conference with Mr. Lincoln in Hampton
Roads, 599  to 619; 621; 622; letters
of, to Secretary Seward in relation to his
assurances to him about the evacuation
of Sumter, 743, 746; 797.
CAMPBELL, J. A. P., delegate from Mis  sissippi to Montgomery Congress, 325.
CAMPBELL,   JOHN  W.,  on  Missouri
Compromise Committee, 158.
CAMPBELL, LEWIS D., 90; 225.
CANBY, E. R. S., surrender  of Gen. R.
Taylor to, 629.
CANNING, BRITISH MINISTER, letter
of, to U. S. Secretary of State, complain
ing of the South Carolina Police Act of
1822, 65.
CAMERON, SIMON, vote of, on Douglas's
amendment to Oregon bill in 1850, 173;
order of, to Gen. Banks to arrest mem  bers of Legislature to prevent secession
of Maryland, 413.
CARLYLE, THOMAS, 326.
CARMICHAEL, R. B., 369.
CARROLL, DANIEL, on the three-fifths
clause, 100.
CARTTER, DAVID K., 224.
CARUTHERS, ROBERT L., delegate from
Tennessee to Montgomery Congress, 464.
CASS, LEWIS, 32; vote'of against Wilmot
Proviso, in 1847, 168; 198; on Clay's
Committee of Thirteen in 1850, 212.
CHAMBERS, EZEKIEL F., President
irregular State Convention of Maryland,
368.
CHASE, SALMON P., speech of, in Peace
Congress, unequivocally declaring that
Northern States would not comply with
their acknowledged Constitutional obliga  tions, 46 to 49;5);51;57;58; 61; his
proposition for admitted breach of faith
neither fair nor jnst, 77, 79; 134; 198;
vote of, on  the  Soule  amendment  to
Clay's Compromise Bill, 220; 243; re   ferred to by Douglas, 245; manifesto of,
248; 366; 417.    -
CHESNUT,  JAMES,  JR., delegate from
South Carolina to Montgomery Congress,
325; 465; 735.
CHILTON, WILLIAM  P., delegate from
Alabama to Montgomery Congress, 324;
735; 761, 762.
CHOATE, RUFUS, 237, 238.
CLARKE,  JOHN  H.,  vote  of, on the
Soul6 amendment to Clay's Compromise
Bill in 1850, 220.
CLARK, H. F., one of Mr. Davis's sure   ties, 660.
a.
CABELL, EDWARD C., 230; commis  sioner from Missouri to form an alli  ance with Con. States, 484.
CADWALLADER, LAMBERT, vote of, on
resolution of 1790, denying jurisdiction
to Congress over the subject of  slavery,    31.
C3ESAR, 447.
CALHOUN, JOHN C., resolution       s o f, in
1847, on  the public Territories, and de  fining the extent of power poss         essed by
Congress over the subject, 166; disap  proved the policy which led to the Mexi  can war, 170; 197; speech of, on the
crisis in 1850, and showing how only the
Union of our Fathers can be preserved;
205; 210; death of, 211; 216; 307;
313; 345.
CALIFORNIA, position of Southern mem  bers on the admission of, 200 to 204;
protest in the Senate against the admis  sion of, 233.
CAMPBELL, D. C., Commissioner from
Georgia to Delaware, 324; 370.
811
It 
GFGERAL INDEX.
COMPROMISE,  MISSOURI  (so-called),
history of, 135 to 175; House bill-in
1819 for admission of Missouri Terri  tory, 136; Tallmadge's amendment pro  hibiting slavery,  136;  the  issue  pre  sented by this amendment, ]137; vote
upon this amendment in the House and
in the Senate, 137, 138; application of
Missouri for admission renewed in Dec.,
1819, and another bill reported for her
admission to which a like amendment
prohibiting slavery was renewed by Tay lor, of N. Y., 138; Thomas's amendment
to Senate bill for admission of Maine
and Missouri prohibiting slavery north
of 36~ 30', 149; this  amendment the
Missouri  Compromise, so-called,  149;
vote in the Senate onethe Thomas amend ment, 150; vote  in the House on  the
same,  150, 151; Committee of Confer ence asked by  Senate, and granted by
House, 151; the House meantime pass
their Missouri bill with the Taylor re striction in it, 151; report of the Con ference Committee  recommending  ad mission of Missouri with the Thomas
provision in it in lieu of the Taylor re striction on the State, adopted by the
Senate without a count, 151; vote in the
House upon  the Report on striking out
the Slavery Restriction on the State, 152;
analysis of this vote 152; vote in the
House on agreeing, then, to the Thomas
provision, 152; position of Southern
members upon  the Thomas provision,
153; the settlement not regarded as a
Compromise by the Centralists, but repu diated by them at the next session, 156;
Lowndes's resolution Dec., 1820, to recog nize Missouri as a State, and the vote
upon it, 156}; analysis of this vote, 156;
Missouri in fact never admitted under
the Compromise, so-called, 157; the
conflict fiercer at this session than the
last, when it was that Mr. Clay threat
himself in the breach, 157; Clay's motion for a Committee of thirteen and
their report, with the vote upon it in the
House, 157, 158; the vote reconsidered
and the report again defeated, 159;
Clay's Grand  Joint Committe, and their
report, 159; its adoption by both Houses
with the vote upon it in each, 160; passage by Missouri of the act indicated in
Clay's resolution and President's proclamation declaring Missouri's admission
complete, 160; this Resolution the real
Compromise, if there was any, 161; analysis of the House vote upon this resolution, 161; never at any time recognized or regarded as a  compact by  the
Centralists, 161; expressly repudiated as
such by Legislatures of New York and
Vermont, 162; again repudiated by the
CLAY, CLEMENT C., J., 243;  761, 762.
CLAY, HENRY, 32; had nothing to do
with              the origina t   ion of the  Missouri
Compromise,  so-called, 140; mo           tion  of,
on 2d February, 1821, for Committee  of
Thirtee                       n, 157; makes a report  from  this
Committee wh ich is voted down, 158;
motion on 22d February for a grand
J    oi nt      Committe             e of  the two Houses and
their  rep   ort, 159; again rerturned to the
Senate in 1849, af ter  his defeat for                     the
Presidency in 1844,  196; introduces   his
Compromise Resolutions of  1850, 198;
prov isions  of           this  Compromise,  200;
211;           reports   the "Omnibus Bill," 212;
213;218; disintegr ation of the " Omni   bus Bill," 221;                 on a reorganization  of
Parties, and declaring his purpose  to
support no man for office who does not
ag      re       e to and support           the principles  of
the Compromise Measure of 1850, 234;
death of, 242; 313; 345.
CLAYTON, ALEX. M.,   delegate to Mont  g                 omery  Congress from Mississippi, 325;
735.
CLAYTON,  JOHN M.,            vote  on the Wilmot
Proviso, 168.
CLINGMAN, THOMAS  L.,          223;           resolu  tion  by, recommending and                             advising
withdrawal of Federal forces from Con  federate States, 354;  enters                           the army,
465.
CLISBY,   JOSEPH, 677.
COBB, HOWELL,  Democratic nominee for
Speaker  in  1849,  179;  186;                   e lected
Speaker, 196; 203; 222; 2.:1; 234;
defeats McDonald  for Governor,  235;
delegate to Montgomery Congress, 325;
elected President                           of this Congress, 326;
character of, 331; 333;                        enters the mili  tary service, 464; Confederate Commis  sioner to arrange for exchange of pris  oners, 487; 516; 517; upon releasing
Federal prisoners on parole when their
Government refused to exchange, 519;
520; attacks Gen. Walcott at Griswold  ville, 586; 735; 765.
COBB, THOMAS R. R., sentiment of,
which did more than all else to carry
Secession in Georgia, 321; delegate from
Georgia to Montgomery Congress, 325;
332; brief sketch of his general charac  ter, 333; enters the military service,
464; 735; 765.
COBB, THOMAS W., on Missouri Com  promise Committee, 158.
COCHRAN, A. E., 677.
COCHRANE. JOHN., 583.
COCKE, P. ST. G., at battle of Manas  sas, 472; 764.
COGSWELL,. MILTON, 433.
COKE, SIR EDWARD, 414.
COLLINS, ROBERT, 677.
COLQUITT, ALFRED H., 581; 765.
812 
GENERAL INDEX.
COMPROMISE    of   1850  (continiied),
finally adopted, 231; Boundary Bill as
amended then passed with vote upon it,
231; analysis of this vote in the House,
233; protest against admission of Cali  fornia referred to, 233; the principle
thus established endorsed by the great
majority of the people of the States, 234
et seque,,tes; also  by the Whig  and
Democratic Parties in their respective
Conventions in 1852, 235, 236.
CLAYTON, referred to, 177.
WALKER, referred to, 177.
CONFEDERATE  STATES,  TIIE, Peace
not only with the Northern States, but
with the world, the earnest desire of, 37;
Commission sent by, to Washington to
settle all matters amicably and peace  fully, 37, 345; this commission how re  ceived and treated by the Washington
Authorities, 37, 346; correspondence  of
the Commissioners with Secretary Seward
and the letters of Judge Campbell upon
the subject, 735 to 746; order of Secre  tary of War  to  Gen.  Beauregard to
demand the evacuation of Sumter, 38;
right of, to demand  the possession of
Sumter and other  Forts within  their
jurisdiction, 42, 43; list of Deputies from
the seven  States to the  Montgomery
Congress, 324; Inaugural  Address of
President Davis, announcing the desires
and declaring the purposes or objects
of the Authorities of, 340; Commission
sent to Europe by, 359; accessions to,
of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina
and Arkansas effected by Lincoln's 15th
of April Proclamation, 395; material
advantages  secured to, by these acces  sions, 395; Seat of Government removed
to Richmond, 430; Authorities of, not
responsible  for  sufferings  of Federal
prisoners, 501 et seq.; a second commis  sion sent to Europe by, 482; election of
President and Vice President of, under
the Permanent Constitution, 483; Mis  souri received into the Union of, 484;
Revolutionary Government of Kentucky
recognized by, 486; Commissioner sent
by, to establish cartel, but not received
by Washington  Authorities,  566; his
commission from President Davis, 779;
list of officers, Civil and Military of, 759
to 765.
CONFERENCE, THE HAMPTON
ROADS, 576; military situation preced  i n g it, 578, 584; political situation pre  ceding it, 583; Mr. Blair's visits to Rich  mond, 589; objects of,:59t)  account of,
599 to 619; its results  noticed, 619;
President Davis's message to Congress
on, with report of the Commissioners,
791; President  Lincoln's message on,
with correspondence connected with it,
793.
COMPROMISE, MISSOURI (continted),
N          orth       on admission of Arkaisas, 163;
and again in the   case of  Texas, 164;
position of the South on the admission
of n      ew St ates,  164; again                repudiated
by the North                 on a vote upon                       4 the Wil  mot proviso in 1846 in the House, and
again on Mar. Burt's  a     m endment       to Ore gon  bill, in  1847,  165;  analysis of the
vote on Burt's amendment, 166; again
repudiated by the North in 1847 on the
vote upon the $3,000,000 bill, 168, 169;
analysis of the vote in the Senate, 168;
Wilmot's amendment to $3,000,000 bill
in the House and Graham's substitute
with the vote upon each, 169; if any
breach of faith the North the guilty
Party, 170; last time of its recognition
even indirectly by either House, 171;
its final and total abandonment by the
North on the Oregon Bill in 1848, 171;
Douglas's amendment to insert in lieu of
general slavery restr'iction the line of
36~:.0', 172; vote on this in Senate, 172;
vote in House, 173; analysis of the last
votes in both Houses in the last stages of
this so-called compact with comments,
173 et 8eqizetltes.
COMPROMISE OF 1850, history of, 176 to
240; position of Southern Whigs on the
situation,  178;  Plurality  Resolution
moved by Stanton and its reception in
the House, 187; the Senate in 1850, 197;
provisions of Clay's Compromise, 200;
Southern members on the admission of
California, 200; Doty's Resolution, 201;
position of Southern Whigs on admission
of California, 200; meeting of members
at the Speaker's house, 203; agreement
reached in this meeting, 204; speech of
Calhoun on the crisis, 205; Foote's reso  lution for Committee of Thirteen passed,
211; Clay reports Oniitibus Bill, 212;
amended by Committee, 212; Clay on
this, 213; Davis's amendment to Omni  bus Bill, 213; vote on this, 213; Doug  las's motion to strike out Committee's
amendment, 213; this motion first de  feated, but renewed afterwards and car  ried, 213; Doty's bill in House for ad  mission of California, 214; Green's
amendment, 214; Stanton's amendment,
214; vote on this, 214; Soul6's amend  ment in Senate to Clay's Compromise
Bill, 217; analysis of the vote on this,
220; passage by the Senate of Clay's
Compromise Bill as amended, 221; bill
to settle boundary between Texas and
New Mexico in the House and Boyd's
amendment to it, 221; various phases
of the conflict as it progressed, 221 et
seq.; motion to refer the bill with pend  ing amendments to Committee of the
whole, 222; Tootubs's amendment to
Boundary Bill, 226; Boyd's amendment
813 
GENERAL INDEX.
CONFLICT, THE AMERICAN (so-called),
not one between the advocates and oppo  nents of Slavery, but between Centralists
and trite Federalists, 27 et eeq.; 87.
CONGRESS, CONFEDERATE, (Provis  ional) list of Deputies from the Seven
States to, 324; Howell Cobb chosen Presi  dent, and J. J. Hooper Secretary of, 326;
Rules adopted by, for their government,
326, 710; formation of Provisional Gov  ernment and adoption of a Provisional
Constitution, 328; election of President
and Vice President of the Provisional
Government           by,  328; forma   tion         of a
Constitution for a Permanent Govern  ment, a       nd  its adoption by, 335, 339;
resolution       of,   authorizing a  Commission
to Washington                        to settle all questions
betwee       n        th e two     G     overnments, 345; acts
of, assuming jurisdi ction over and control
of all Forts, etc., in the several Con  federate States,, declaring na vigation of
the Mississippi River free, and authorize
ing a  Commission to be  se nt    t     o Europe,
358; action of, in April 1861, after Lin  coln's              first Proclamation, 427; act of, to
regulate the treatment of prisoners of
war, 430; assembling of, at Richmond,
in July, 1861, 463; delegations of Vir  ginia, Tennessee, and North Carolirns to,
464; a ction of, after first     battle  of Ma  nassas, 482; adopt Paris  Ag             reem ent of
1856, 482; Senators and Members to
First, under Permanent Constitution,
760; Senators and Members to Second,
under Permanent Constitution, 762.
CONGRESS, PEACE (of 1861), called by
Virginia, 45; Chase's speech in, 46;
States represented in, 366.
CONGRESS, UNITED STATES, House
Resolution in 1790, on the power of, over
Slavery, 28; vote on this examined, 30;
House Resolution  in December,  1863,
favoring vigorous prosecution of the
War, 49; vote on this resolution with
comments, 50; House Resolutions of
February, 1861, declaring Acts of certain
Northern States unconstitutional, 417;
Resolution offered in Senate to legalize
the extraordinary acts of Mr. Lincoln,
436; this never adopted, but men and
means voted to carry on the war, 456;
Resolution of, in July, 1861, declaring
the objects and ends for which the war
was to be prosecuted on their part, 457;
refusal of, to admit Southern Senators
and Representatives in 1866, 638; repu  diation by, of their Resolution of July,
1861, 639; Reconstruction Committee,
so-called, raised by, 639; action of this
committee reviewed, 639; terms first ex  acted of the Confederate States, 641;
adoption of Reconstruction Measures, so  called, by, 643; these acts considered
and their enormities exhibited, 644;
CONGRESS, UNITED STATES
(continued),
first act vetoed, but passed over the veto
by, 647; the act an abrogation of all law
in ten States, and their subjection to the
Despotism of Martial Law, 647.
CONRAD,  CHARLES  M., deputy from
Louisiana to Montgomery Congress, 325;
735; 761, 762.
CONSPIRACY, the only real against the
Constitution, 84; of the seven Northern
Governors, 354, 527.
CONSTITUTION, CONFED. STATES,
Provisional,  714; Permitnent, 722; the
changes in this from the U. S. Constitu  tion examined, 335 to 339.
CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES, De  Tocqueville on, 19, 20; Southern States
quit the Union to save the principles of
the, 34; Southern States ever loyal and
true to the, 43, 50, 76, 94; breaches of
the, by Northern States, 44, 45; Southern
States by reason of these breaches ab  solved from their obligations under the,
77  how regarded by the Centralists or
Republicans, 78; the only real conspi  racy against the, 84; history of the three  fifths clause of the, 95 to 102; vote by
States on its adoption, 96; its effect upon
the Southern  States considered, 102 to
106; the word Sovereignty not, but the
words State and States in the, 441; the
13th  Amendment,  611; the  proposed
14th Amendment, so-called, 642.
COOPER,  JAMES, on  Clay's Committee
of Thirteen in 1850, 212.
CORCORAN, MICHAEL, 433.
COX, J. D., 465.
CRAIGE, BURTON, delegate from North
Carolina to Confederate Congress, 464.
CRAWFORD, GEORGE  W., chosen Presi  dent Ga. Secession Convention, 313.
CRAWFORD,  MARTIN  J., deputy from
Georgia to Montgomery Congress, 325;
330; 331; Confederate Commissioner in
1861, to Washington, 345; 346; 348; 349;
see  correspondence  of Commissioners
with Secretary Seward, 735.
CRITTENDEN,  JOHN J., referred to by
Toombs, 119.
CUNNINGHAM,  FRANCIS  A., vote on
Burt's amendment,  166; vote against
the Wilmot Proviso, 170.
CURRIN, DAVID M., delegate to Confed.
Congress from Tennessee, 464; 761.
CURRY,  J. L. M., deputy from, Alabama
to MontgomeryCongress, 325; 735; 761.
CURTIS, BENJAMIN R., (Ex-Justice U.
S. Supreme Court) on  Lincoln's Proc  lamations of Martial Law and Emancipa  tion, 551,553: 557.
CURTIS, SAMUEL R., at Battle of Elk  h or n, 540.
CUSHING, CALEB, withdraws from Bal  timore Dem. Convention, 274.
814 
GENERAL INDEX.
DABNEY, PROF. R. L., 488.
DANIEL, W. C., Commissioner from Geor  gia to Kentucky, 324.
DANTON, 445; 446; 455; 463.
DAVIS, GEORGE, delegate to Confederate
Congress from North Carolina, 464; ap  pointed Attorney-General, 626; 761.
DAVIS, JEFFERSON, 37; 60; 120; 128;
198; amendment of, to Clay's Omnibus
bill, 213 > protests against admission of
California, 233; defeated for Governor,
235; 242; 272; elected President of Con  federate States, 328; Mr. Stepbens's
opinion as to how Mr. Davis came to be
chosen President, 329; inauguration of,
as President, 339; his inaugural, 340;
organizes his Cabinet, 344; sends Cotu  mission to Washington, 345; 348; 349;
summons  Congress  to meet  in extra
ression, 355; 376; message of, to Con  gress in extra session, 423; communica  tion of, to Mr. Lincoln in relation to
treatment of the prisoners captured on
board of the Savannah, 431; 433; 434;
457; message of, to Congress in July,
1861, upon the war as conducted by the
Federals, 466; 479; re-elected President,
483; 489; 499; 500; not responsible for
sufferings of Federal prisoners, 501 et
sequtenltes; Congratulatory Address of, to
Gen. Lee's army, 502; 516; 517; 520;
521; 525; 538; 550; 561   563; 561L
566; 567; 568; 573; 574; nature of the
differences between  Mr. Stephens and,
575; 577; 581; 584; 589; consultations
of, with Mr. Blair, 590 to 594; appoints
a Committee to treat with a similar one
on the part of the U. S., to terminate
the war if possible, 594, 595; 600; feel  ing of, at the failure of the Hampton
Roads Conference, and to what attribu  table in his opinion, 619; 621; position
of, as to what was next to be done, 622;
speech of, at African Church, 623; 624;
Mr. Stephens's last interview with, 625;
626; 627; 632; 634; 656; 657; 662; his
enlargement on bail, 663; 759; corn  mission of, to Mr. Stephens empowering
hinD  to arrang          e           fo r    the exchange of
prisoners, 779; message                      of,  on Hampton
Roads  Conference  with report  of the
Commissioner s, 791; 793; 801.
DAVIS, JOHN, vote on Soul6 Amendment,
in Senate, 220.
DAVIDSON, ANDREW J., delegate from
N. C., to Confederate Congress, 464.
DAYTON, WILLIAM L., vote against
Soul6 Amendment in Senate in 1851,
220; supports Resolution in Whig-Con   vention at Baltimore endorsing Compro   mise Measures of 1850, 238.
DEAN, JAMES, 677.
DECLARATION OF CAUSES of South
Carolina adopted in Sovereign Conven
DECLARATION OF CAUSES
(co,,titiied),
tion in 1860, justifying her Secession
from the Union, 671.
DE   CLOUET,  ALEXANDER,  deputy
from Louisiana to Montgomery Congress,
325; 735.
DE GRAFFENRIED, W. K., 677.
DE TOCQUEVILLE, M., on U.S. Consti  tution 19, 20.
DELAWARE, Commissioner from Missis  sippi heard by the Legislature of, and
their response, 370; Commissioner from
Georgia received by the Governor of,
370; response of the Governor to Lin  coln's call for troops, 372.
DERBY, EARL OF, in House of Lords, on
Lincoln's Proclamation  in  relation to
privateering, 434.
DE WITT, W. H., delegate to Confederate
Congress from Tennessee, 464.
DICKINSON,   HENRY,   Commissioner
from Mississippi to Delaware, 370.
DICKINSON,   DANIEL   S.,  vote  of,
against Wilmot Proviso in Senate, 168;
vote of, on Douglas Amendment, 173;
On Clay's Committee of Thirteen in 1850,
212.
DISNEY, DAVID T., 223.
DIX, JOHN A., 660.
DOBBIN, GEORGE W., 374.
DODGE,  AUGUSTUS   C., introduces bill
for  organizing Territorial  Government
for Nebraska, 242.
DODGE, HENRY,  vote of, against Soul6
Amendment in Senate in 1850, 220.
DOOLITTLE, JAMES  R., in debate with
Douglas, 352.
DOTY, JAMES  D., resolution of, instruct.
ing Committee on Territories to report
bill for  the admission  of  California,
201; 203; bill of, for admission of Cali  fornia 204; 214; 217; 221.
DOWNS,  SOLOMON  W.. on Select Com  Mmittee of Thirteen in 1850, in the Senate,
212.
DOUGLAS, STEPHEN  A., referred to by
Toombs, 32, 114, 118, 124; vote of, on
Burt's amendment to Oregon bill, 166;
vote of, against Wilmot  Proviso, 169;
amendment of, to Oregon bill, 172; vote
of, on this, 173; 196; 198; 203; bill of,
to admit California, 204; 211; 212; 213;
221; speech and report of, in Senate, on
the Nebraska bill, 243, 244; 249; 272;
301; nominated for President, 274; 275;
276, 277; speech of favoring withdrawal
of Federal troops from Southern  Forts
and their surrender to the States, 351;
354; speech of,  in the Senate, on the
powers of the President under the Con   stitution, 399, 401; on blockading the
Southern Ports, 404; 412; 415; not a
phrase or word of this speech on our
815 
GENERAL INDEX.
FOOT, SAMUEL  A., vote of, on striking
out Slavery Restriction on Missouri, 152.
FOOTE, HENRY S., 198; resolution  of,
for Committee of Thirteen, 211; defeats
Mr. Davis for Governor, 235; 761; 763.
FORD, WILLIAM  D., on Missouri  Com  promise Committee, 158; vote of, on the
Resolution to admit Missouri, 161.
FORREST, N. B., Sherman's projected ex  pedition to Mobile checked by, 582; 765.
FORSYTH, JOHN,  Confederate Commis  sioner to Washington in 1861, 345; 346;
correspondence of Commissioners with
Secretary Seward, 735.
FORTS, CONFEDERATE, fall of Fisher
and Caswell referred to, 619; Jackson,
St.  Philip,  Pulaski,  Macon,  Gaines,
Powell, Morgan, and Sumter referred to,
620.
FORTS,  UNITED  STATES,  MeHenry,
Lafayette and Warren turned into Bas  tiles, 412;  the terms on  which  New
York grafnted Lafayette openly violated,
413.
FRANKLIN,  BENJAMIN,  petition  of,
28; 87.
FRANKLIN, JOHN R., 369.
FREMONT,  JOHN  C., 232; defeated for
President, 257; nominated for President
again in 1864, but his name subsequently
wit hLLdrawn, 583.
FULLERTON, DAVID, vote of, on Mis  souri Slavery Restriction, 152.
DOUG LAS,  STEPHEN  A. (continued),
render of Forts and blockading  Southern
-Ports ever retracted or modified by, 419,
420; message of, to his sons a reaiffir  mance of the sentiments and principles
of this speech, 419; 558; 691.
DRAPER, JOHN W., LL. D., incident in
the life of Mr. Lincoln, 449.
DROMGOOLE, GEORGE C., referred to
by Mr. Toombs, 192.
]UER, WILLIAM, on organization of
the Mouse in 1849, 180; 181; 188; 231.
E.
EARLY, JUBAL A., at battle of Manas  sas, 472; 586; 764.
EDDY, SAMUEL, vote of, on striking
out the Slavery Restriction on Missouri,
152; vote of, on Clay's resolution to ad  mit Missouri in 1821, 161.
EDSALL, JOSEPH E., vote of, against
Wilmot Proviso, 170.
ELLIS, JOHN W., reply to Lincoln's  call
for troops, 375; 389.
EMINENT DOMAIN, ever accompanies
Sovereignty, 41; right of the States af  ter Secession to demand possession of
Forts, etc., within their jurisdiction, 41;
resides in the States under the Constitu  tion, 70.
EMIGRANT AID SOCIETIES, 258.
ERDMAN, JACOB, vote of, against Wil  mot Proviso, 170.
EUSTIS,WILLIAM, on Missouri Compro  mise Committee, 158.
EUSTIS, GEORGE,  JR., 482.
EVANS, NATHAN   G., at battle of Ma  nassas, 472; 480; 764.
EVERETT, EDWARD, nominated for
Vice President, 275.
EWELL,   RICHARD  S., at first battle of
Manassas, 472; 764.
G.
GAMBLE,   H.  R.,  364; declared  Pro  visional Governor of Missouri, 484.
GARLAND, A. H., delegate from Arkansas
to the Montgomery Congress, 393; 761;
762.
GARRETT, J. W., 374.
GEARY, JOHN,  661.
GEORGIA, 33; Sovereign Convention of,
in 1850, and its action referred to, 234,
235; Resolutions of this Convention, 676;
act of Legislature calling a Sovereign
Convention in 1860, 312; assembling of
this Convention, 313; Secession Ordinance
of, 314; resolution of Linton Stephens
to secure unanimity of action and defin in g position of those who voted against
the Ordinance, offered in Convention by
Mr. Nisbet, 316; Ordinance to resumeju risdiction theretofore ceded to U. S. over
places within the limits of, 321; resolu tion to elect delegates to Montgomery
Congress, 322; resolution defining pow ers of these  delegates, 323; Commis sioners sent to other  Southern  States
inviting cooperation, 323; delegates to
Montgomery Congress, 325; ratification
by, of the Confed. Pernianent Constitu tion, 355; Resolutions of the Legislature
of, on  the  war,  532; I-.abeas Corpus
Resolutions of the Legislature of, 788.
F.
FAIRFIELD, JOHN, 112.
FEARN, THOMAS, deputy from Alabama
to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735.
FEATRHERSTON, W. S., 227; 228.
FILLMORE, MILLARD, Vice Presi.
dent, 198; becomes President by the
death of Gen'l Taylor, 220; 238; 257;
308; 314.
FITZGERALD, THOMAS, vote of, in
Senate, on Douglas Amendment, 173.
FITZPATRICK, BENJAMIN, nominated
for Vice President, 274; declines nomi  nation, 275.
FLORIDA, 33; not acquired in the in  terest of Slavery, 90; Secession of, 312;
delegation of, to Montgomery Congress,
325; ratification by, of the Confederate
Permanent Constitution, 356.
FLOURNOY, THOMAS S., 594; 599.
FLOYD, JOHN B., 465; 764.
816 
GENERAL INDEX
GERRY, ELDRIDGE, vote of, on House
Resolution of 1790, denying jurisdiction
to Congress over slavery, 31.
GIBBONS vs. OGDEN, 71, 72.
GIDDINGS. JOSHUA, 52.
GILMAN, NICHOLAS, vote of, on House
Resolution of 1790, denying jurisdiction
to Congress over slavery, 31.
GLENN, LUTHER J., commissioner from
Ga. to Missouri, 324; 363.
GOODE,  JOHN, Jr., in Virginia Conven   tion, 367; 761, 763.
GOODHUE,   BENJAMIN,  vote  of,  on
House Resolution of 1790, denying juris  diction to Congress over Slavery, 31.
GOTT, DANIEL, 224; 229.
GRAHAM, WM. A., substitute of, for Wil.
mot Proviso, 169.
GRANT, ULYSSES S., defeated at Shiloh
541; 547; 550; 557;  562; 564; 567;
defeats Bragg at Missionary Ridge,
580;  appointed  Lieut.-General,  581;
582; losses of, in 1864, in his progress
from the Rapidan to Cold Harbor, 584;
593; reply of, to C. S. Commissioners'
note for permission to cross the Federal
lines, 595, 596; Mr. Stephens's opinion
of, 597; 598; 622; 624; 627; 628; his
report of affairs at the South referred to,
e44; telegram of, to Sec. Stanton, urging
the reception of Confederate Peace Com  missioners, 800; correspondence of, with
Gen. Lee preceding his surrender, etc.,
803; 808.
GREGG, JOHN,  delegate from Texas  to
Montgomery Congress, 325; 735.
GREELEY, HORACE, reply to the attack
of, on positions assumed in the first
volume, 5 to 15; 27; 29; 30; 57; 61;
62; 87;, n Whig Platformof 1852, 237;
239;                 on Kansas-Nebraska Legislation,
251; his estimate of number killed,
wounded, etc., on  both sides during the
War, 6I30: surety  for Mr. Davis, 663.
GREEN,   JAMES S.,  amendment of, to
Doty's  California bill, 214.
GREENE, ALBERT C., vote of, on the
Soul6 amendment, 220.
GRESHAM, JOHN J., 677.
GRINNELL, JOSEPH, 225.
GUTHRIE, JAMES, speech of, in opposi  tion to Lincoln's call for troops, 395.
GUYON, JAMES, vote of, on Clay's Reso  lution to admit Missouri, 161.
HALL, W. P.. declared Lt.-Governor of
Missouri, 484.
HALLAM, on the aggressor in a war, 35.
HALLOWAY, RANSOM, 225.
HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, on Slavery,
so-called, as recognized by the Constitu   tion, 25; 29.
HAMLIN, HANNIBAL, nominated for
Vice President, 275; 277.
HAMMOND,  JAMES  H., on Slavery, so   called, 83.
HAMPTON,  WADE,  465; at battle of
Manassas, 472.
HANCOCK, JOHN, 87.
HANDY, A. H., Commissiener of Miss. to
Maryland, 368.
HANNEGAN, EDWARD A., vote of,
against the Wilmot Proviso, 168; vote
of, on Douglas's amendment  to Oregon
bill, 173.
HARRIS,   ISHAM  G., 365; reply of, to
Lincoln's call for troops, 375; 389.
HARRIS, THOMAS L., 225.
HARRIS, W. P., deputy from Mississippi
to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735.
HARTLEY,  THOMAS,  vote of,  on the
Resolution of 1790, denying jurisdiction
to Congress over slavery, 31.
HARRISON,  J. T., deputy from  Missis  sippi to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735.
HARVIE, LEWIS E., 378; 380.
HASTINGS,  CLINTON  L., vote of, on
Burt's amendment, 166.
HAYNE,  I.  W.,  Commissioner of South
Carolina to Washington to demand the
possession of Sumter, 41.
HEISTER, DANIEL, vote of, on the
Resolution of 1790, denying jurisdiction
to Congress over slavery, 31.
HEMPHILL,  JOHN,  deputy  to  Mont  gomery Congress from Texas, 325; 735.
HENRY, GUSTAVUS A., 391; 761; 762.
HICKS,  THOMAS  H., 368; 372; procla  mation of. 373; addresses a meeting in
Monument Square, 373.
HIGGINSON, STEPHEN, on three-fifths
clause of the Constitution, 100.
HILL,  DANIEL   H., victory of,  at  Big
Bethel, 465; 579; 764.
HILL, D. P., Commissioner from Georgia
to Arkansas, 324.
HILL,  BENJAMIN  H.,  in Georgia  Se  cession Convention, 315; deputy to
Montgomery  Congress, 325;  329;  on
Reconstruction measures of Congress,
654; 760; 762.
HILL, MARK L., vote of, to strike out
Slavery Restriction  on  Missouri,  152;
vote of, on  Clay's Resolution to admit
Missouri, 161.
HILLIARD,  HENRY  W., C. S. Commis  sioner to Tennessee, 390.
HOAR, SAMUEL, 60; 62; his mission to
South Carolina  one of strife,  76.
HOLCOMBE, JAMES P., 378; 380; 761.
H.
HACKLEY,  AARON, on Missouri  Com  promise Committee, 158; vote of, on
Clay's Resolution to admit Missouri, 161.
HALE, JOHN  P., 198; vote of, on Soule
Amendment, 220.
HALE, S. F., deputy from Ala. to Mont  g          om     ery              C ongress, 325; 735.
HALL, SAMUEL, Commissioner from
Georgia to North Carolina, 324.
52
817
,, I 
GENERAL INDEX.
JANNEY, JOHN, chosen President  Vir  ginia Convention, 366; address of, to
Gen'l Lee, 382; 406.
JEFFERSON,  THOMAS,  new  principle
of, for constituting a Federal Republic,
20; 30; 31; 32; 87; acquisition of
Louisiana by, 89, 90; 97; 119; letter
of, to Mr.  Pinkney on  Mo.  question,
.   146; letter of, to Mr. Holmes  on  Mo.
question and against the slavery restric  tion, 147; letter of; to Madison on  Mo.
question,  148;  308; on the object  of
written Constitutions, 411, 448.
JOHNSON, ANDREW, Resolution of, de  claring objects of the war on part of the
United States, 457; 458; speech of, on
the war, 460; comments on this speech,
461; nominated for Vice President, 583;
584; becomes President, 628; disap  proves  Sherman-Johnston Convention,
628; the disapproval of this a great
error, 633; his proclamation of Amnesty
and Pardon, 635; his proclamation ap  pointing Provisio n al Governor  of N. C.
noticed,  636; conditions imposed by, on
Southern States in  for mation  of their new
Consstitutions,, 637; 6391; 6401; his veto
of the first Reconstruction Act, 645;
neg,ative error of, 648; 660; 667.
JO7HNSON, GEORGE W., address of, 485;
486.
JOHNSON,  IERSCHEL V.,  no minated
for  Vic e  President, 275; substitute oef,
for Secession  Ordinance, i n Geo rgia Con  v ention, 301;304; 315; 321; 688; 760
762.
JOHNSON,   ROBERT, delegate to  Con  federate Congress from Virginia, 464;
762; 763.
JOHNSON, ROBERT W., deputy from
Arkansas to Montgomery Congress, 393;
760; 762.
JOHNSON, W. C., quoted by Toombs on
power of House to adopt Rules before an
organization, 192.
JOHNSTON, ALBERT S., 490; 540;
763.
JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., 470; his report
of the battle of Manassas, 471, 479; in
the Council of War at Manassas with
President Davis, 489; 539; wounded
and succeeded in command by Lee, 542;
succeeds Bragg, 581; 582; 585; 587; the
policy of, the right  one,  588; 627; his
Convention with Sherman, 628, 806; 763;
terms of surrender, 807; last General
Order of, 808.
JONFA, D. R., at Manassas, 472; 764.
JONES, GEORGE W., delegate to Con   federate Congress from Tennessee, 464;
761.
JONES, I. D., 369.
JONES, JOSEPH, M.D., on condition of
prisoners at Andersonville, 517.
HOLDEN, W. W., 656.
tIOLT, PULASKI S., 677.
lOl.MES, JOHN, speech of, against the
Slavery Restriction on Missouri, and on
State Sovereignty, 139  * Mr.  Jefferson's
let                      ter to,    on the Missouri question, 147
rep(,rt of, from Committee of Conference
on  th          e  Maine bill, 151; vote            of,    against
the Slavery Restriction on Missouri, 152.
HOL       MES,        T.          H., at battle   of Manassas,
472; 764.
HOOD, JOHN B, 579; at                                       battles  of At  lanta, 585;  586; 765.
HOOKER,  JOSEPH,  544; d            e     feated by
G    e neral Lee               ait Fredericksburg, 547; 548;
549; 550; 557; 56f7.
HOOPER, J. J., chosen Secretary C. S.
Provision al Congress, 326;  735.
HOUSE, JOHN  F., delegate to         Confed.
Congress from Tennessee, 464.
HOUSTON, JOHN W., tote of, on Wil  mot Proviso, 169- vote of, on Douglas's
amendment to Oregon bill, 174.
HOUSTON,  SAMUEL, 1986  243.
HOWARD, VOLNEY E., 227; 228; 230.
HUGHES, JOHN, (Arch-Bishop,) 529.
HUNTER,  D         AVID,  558; 561.
HUNTER,  R. M. T., 192; 198; protests
against the admission of California, 233;
243; 266; delegate from Virginia to
-Montgomery Congress, 388; delegate to
Confed. Congress at Richmond, 464;
484; succeeds Mr. Toombs as Secretary
of State, 487; 590; appointed on the
Commission to confer with Lincoln,
594; in the Hampton Roads Conference,
608, 613, 615, 616, 6171 621- 622; 760;
762; 791, 793; 795, 797, 799, 801.
HUNTER, SAMUEL  B., 677.
HUNTINGTON, BENJAMIN, vote of,
on Resolution of 1790, denying to Con  gress power over Slav,ery,31.
I.
INGE, SAMUEL W., 188; 229.
INGERSOLL,  CHARLES  J., vote of, on 
Burt's amendment to Oregon Bill, 166;
vote of, against Wilmot Proviso, 170  vote of, on Douglas's amendment to the
Oregon bill, 174.
S.
JACKMAN,  DAVID  T.,  surety for Mr.
Davis, 660.
JACKSON,  ANDREW,  297; 308; 461. 
JACKSON, CLAIBORNE F., reply of,
to Lincoln's call for troops,  375; posi  tion of, 393, 394; appoints commission  ers to form an alliance with the Confed.
States, 484.
JACKSON, HENRY R., 324; 764.
JACKSON, THOMAS J., at Manassas,
472;         488;   valley  campaign of, 542;
543; death of, 548; 582; 764.
818 
GENERAL INDEX.
KINSEY,  CHARLES,   151; vote  of,  to
strike out the Slavery Restriction on
Missouri, 152; speech  of, on the Mis  souri question, 153.
Y.
KANE, GEORGE P., Marshal of Balti   more Police, 373.
KANSAS-NEBRASKA LEGISLATION
(of 1854), 241 to 262; in strict confor   mity with Territorial principle estab   lished in 1850, 241; Dodge's bill to or   ganize Territorial Government  for Ne   braska, 242; the Senate in 1854, 252;
Dodge's bill reported back from commit  tee with amendments by Douglas, 243;
remarks of Mr. Douglas on the report,
244; amendment of Sumnner to Nebraska
bill, 247; this op      ened de novo t he Terri  torial  question  settled in 1850, 248;
Abolition Mvanifesto of     Sumner  and
Chase noticed, 248; substitute for Ne  brask,A bill   p            rovidi ng   Territorial
Governments for Kansas and Nebraska
reported               from Committee by Mr. Doug  las, 249;  la2nguage  of the substitute
ide               ntical       with first Nebraska bill, 250;
the  strife which  ensued on this bill
gotte         n  up          and waged by  the enemies of
the Compromise Measures of 1850, 251;
sample of the ragings of the Restric  tionists at the time, 251; passage of the
bill by the Senate and vote upon it, 252;
analysis of this vote, 252; passage of the
bill by the House and analysis of the
vote, 252; this legislation defended, 253
to 262; endorsed by Cincinnati Demo  cratic Convention of 1856, 257; endorsed
by  Mr. Buchanan in his letter accepting
Democratic nomination, 257; also by the
people and States in the election of Mr.
Buchanan, 257.
KEFFER, CAPT., (U. S. A.,) 433.
KEITT, LAWRENCE M., 60; 1*06; deputy
from South Carolina to Montgomery
Congress, 325: 735.
KENAN, AUGUSTUS H., deputy from
Georgia to Montgomery Congress, 325;
nominates Mr. Stephens for Vice Presi  dent, 330; 735; 761.
KENNER, DUNCAN F., deputy from
Louisiana to Montgomery Congress, 325;
761; 762.
KENT, EDWARD, 112.
KENTUCKY, action of Legislature of,
preceding the promulgation of Lincoln's
Proclamation of War, 364; resolutions
of the Legislature of, after Lincoln's
proclamation, 394; address of Union
Party Committee to the people of, 394;
Provisional Government organized in,
and recognized by Confed. States, 485.
KING, PRESTON, 226.
KING, RUFUS, in Federal Convention,
on representation, 95.
KING, WILLIAM R., 198; on Clay's
Compromise Committee in 1850, 212; 242.
KINGSDOWN, LORD, on Lincoln's proc lamation declaring privateering piracy,
435.
L.
LAMAR. ALBERT R., 313; 762, 763.
LANE, ANDREW J., 320.
LANE,  JOSEPH,  nominated  for  Vice
President, 274; 275; 276.
LANDRUM, Z. P., 685.
LATIMER, F. H., 316.
LEE, RICHARD HENRY, 96; 382.
LEE,  ROBERT  E.,  380; letter of,  to
Gen'l  Scott, 381; his installation  as
Commander-in-Chief of Virginia  Mili  tary forces, 382; his reply to Mr.  Jan  ney's address, 383; Mr.  Stephens's first
acquaintance  with,  384; Mr.  Blair's
statement in relation to offer made to,
by  President  Lincoln,  386; succeeds
Johnston  in command,   542; defeats
Pope at Manassas, 543; movement of;
into Maryland, 544; defeats Burnside at
Fredericksburg,  544; defeats  Hooker,
547; 549; 565; 567; 578; 579; 582;
584; 593; 596; 622; 624; retires from
Richmond, 627; surrender of, 627; cor  respondence with Grant preceding his
surrender, 803; last General Order of, to
his army, 806.
LEE, S. P., 566.
LEE, COL., (U. S. A.,) 433.
LETCHER, JOHN, reply of, to Lincoln's
requisition for troops,  374; 376; ap  points General Lee Commander-in-Chief
of Virginia forces, 381.
LEWIS, DAVID P., deputy from Alabama
to Montgomery Congress, 325, 735.
LINCOLN, ABRAHAM,  6; 7; 32; the
war  inaugurated  by, 34; 35; 40; 43;
49; visit of seven Northern Governors
to, 84; referred  to  by  Toombs,  114,
118, 124; anecdote  of,  130; elected
President by a minority, 2591 265; cor  respondence of, with Mr. Stephens, 266;
nominated for President, 275; his elec tion, 277; 278; 346; 351; 354; effect
of his 15th; April Proclamation at the
South, 356; 358; 362; 367; his Pro clamation of 15th April, 1861, 370; its
effect upon  the Border States, 372; its
effect  at  the  North,  375; Blockade
Proclamation of 22d April,  376; 3'86;
390; 395; these Proclamations reviewed,
396; his Proclamations of 27th of April,
and  3d of May, increasing Army  and
Navy, 407; his  Proclamations to sus  pend writ of Habeas Corputs noticed,
409; 415; 418; 419; 420; speech of, at
Indi-.napolis referred to, 426;: his in crease of the Army and Navy by Procla  mation, 427; Mr. Da-vis to, on treatmaent
of  the Savannah  Privateersmen, 431;
this  communioation  never   answered,
I
819 
GENERAL INDEX.
MANGUM,  WILLIE  P., 198; on  Com  promise Committee of 1850, 212.
MANN, A. DUDLEY,  Confederate  Com  missioner to Europe, 359.
MARSHALL, HENRY, deputy from Loui  siana  to Montgomery  Congress,  325
735; 761.
MARSHALL, HUMPHREY, 485; 764.
MARSHALL, JOHN, (Chief Justice,) 261.
MARYLAND,  popular vote in, for  Lin  coln, 367; irregular Convention of, 368;
the riot at Baltimore, 373; members of
Legislature of, ordered arrested to pre  vent action looking to Secession, 413.
MASON, JAMES  M., 198; 205; on Com  promise  Committee in 1850, 212; pro  tests  against  admission  of California,
233; 243; delegate to Confed. Congress,
464; seized on board British Steamer
Trent, 482.
MASON,  JONATHAN,  vote of, to strike
out Slavery Restriction on Mo., 152.
MASSACHUSETTS,    Personal   Liberty
Bill of, referred to, 45; rights of citizens
of, in other States under the Constitu  tion, 74.
McCLELLAN,  GEORGE  B., 465;  suc  ceeds Scott in command, 481; 489; at
Yorktown,  539; 542; in command  at
Sharpsburg,  544;  550; nominated  for
President, 583.
McCLERNAND,  JOHN  A.,  202; 204;
221; 223; 230.
McCULLOCH, BENJAMIN, at battle of
Elkhorn, 540; 764.
McDOWELL, JAMES, 299; 230.
McDOWELL, IRVIN,:465; 470; 488; 550.
McLANE, ROBERT M.,  368.
McLEAN, F. E., 224; 230.
McLEAN, JOHN, (Associate Justice)
opinion of, on right of a State to guard
its citizens against dangers of a slave
population, 75; 87.
McQUADE, CAPT., (U.S. A.,) 433.
McRAE, COLIN J., deputy from Ala., to
Montgomery Congress, 324; 735.
McRAE, THOMAS M., 316.
MEADE, GEORGE G., 567; 579.
MEADE, RICHARD K., 226.
MEIGS, HENRY,  142; vote of, to strike
out the Slavery Restriction, 152; vote of,
to admit Missouri, 161.
MEMMINGER,  C. J., deputy  to Mont  gomery  Congress,  325; 328; appointed
Sec. of Treasury, 344; 626; 759.
MERCER, CAPT., (U. S. A.,) 431.
MERRYMAN,  JOHN,  414; decision of
Chief Justice Taney in the case of, 768.
MILES, W.  PORCHER, deputy from S.
C., to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735;
761; 763.
MILLER, JACOB W., vote of, on the
Soul6 amendment, 220.
MILROY, R. H., defeated by Gen. Jack  son, 542.
LINCOLN, ABRAHAM  (coitinued),
433;  his 19th of April Proclamation
on privateering in House of Lords
England,  434;  resolution  offered  in
Senate to legalize unconstitutional acts
of, 436; message of, to Congress, 4th
July, 1861, noticed, 437; this message
rev iew         ed, 438 to 444; Mr.  Stephens's
opinion         of, personally, and hi s   official
acts, 445 to 455; incident in the life of,
449; 456; 458; 461; 463; refer           red to
by Mr. Davis,  467, 468; 479; 500; 502;
529; 534; 538; his  Proclamations                              of
Emancipation and Martial Law, 550,
776, 777; 561; 563; 564; 565; 568;
577;  578; 581;  renominated for Presi  dent, 583,  5r4; 592; 593; his inter  view with  Confederate Commissioners in
Hampton Roads, 598 to 619; anecdote
of, 615; 621; assassinated, 628; 633;
on      the cap tur e  of  Mr. Davis, 634; 635;
637; message  of,                              oplton Hampton  Roads
Conference, 793.
LIVERMORE, ANNA W., 661.
LIVERMORE, CHARLES F., 661.
LIVINGSTON, ROBERT R., 87.
LONGSTREET, JAMES, 549; aft battle
of Chickamauga, 579; 580; 621; 764.
LOUISIANA, the acquisition of, 89; se  cession of, 33, 312; delegates of, to
Montgomery Congress, 325; ratification
by, of the Permanent Constitution, 355.
LOVEJOY, OWEN, 52.
LOWE, E. LOUIS, 368.
LOWNDES, WILLIAM, on Committee of
Conference on Maine bill, 151; resolution
of, to recognize Missouri as a State, 156;
on Missouri Compromise Committee,
158.
LOYALTY, the only true, in this country,
50.
LTUNDY, WILLIAM, 677.
14UNT, GEORGE  27.
XM'.
MACFARLAND, WILLIAM H., deputy
from Virginia to Confed. Congress, 464.
MACFARLAND, JAMES E., 482.
MADISON, JAMES,  letter of Jefferson in
1.786 to, 20; report by, of the' debate on
rating negroes for representation and
taxation, 100; his proposition and the
vote by States upon it, 101; 119; Mr.
Jefferson's letter to, on Mo. question,
148; 308.
MAGOFFIN, BERIAH, recommendations
of, to Ky. Legislature, 364; reply of, to
Linooln's call for troops, 375; 394; not
permitted by Feder~ to hold position
of neutrality, 484.
MAGRUDER, JOHN B., 539; 764.
MAINE. Governors of, refuse to deliver up
fugitives from justice, 44; 112.
MALLORY,  STEPHEN R., appointed
Sec. of Navy, 344; 566; 760.
820 
GENERAL INDEX.
MISSISSIPPI,  Secession  of,  33, 312; 
delegates to Montgomery Congress, 325;
ratification by, of the Permanent Con  stitution, 356.
MISSOURI, Sovereign Convention called
by the Legislature of, 363; Resolutions
adopted by this Convention, 364; vote
on the Resolution advising withdrawal
of Federal troops from Southern Forts,
364; Governor's recommendations to
the  Legislature  after  Lincoln's  Pro  clamation of War, 393; Commissioners
appointed by  Legislature  to form an
alliance with Confed. States, 484.
MOIR, CAPT., (of the Trent,) 482.
MONROE, JAMES, 308; 382.
MONROE, THOMAS B., 485.
MONROE  THOMAS B., Jr., 485.
MOORE,  SAMUEL, of Pa., on Missouri
Compromise Committee, 158; vote of,
on the Resolution to idinit Missouri, 161.
MOORE, S. McD., 378.
MORGAN, JOHN H., 567, 568.
MORTON, JACKSON, deputy from Fla.,
to Montgomery Congress, 325, 735.
MORTON, JEREMIAH, 367.
MOREHEAD, CHARLES S., 485.
MOREHEAD,  JOHN  M., delegate from
N.              C., to C. S.          Provisional Congress, 4641
MUHLENBURG, FREDERICK A., vote
of, on House Resolution of 1790, 31.
NORTH CAROLINA (contin,ued),
Proclamation of War, 365; action of,
upon the promulgation of this Proclama tion, and Secession of, 389; delegation
of, to C. S. Provisional Congress, 464.
O.
OCHILTREE, W. B., deputy from Texas
to Montgomery Congress, 325, 735.
OHIO, Governor of, refuses to deliver up
fugitive from justice, 44, 113, 121.
OLDHAM, W. S., deputy from Texas to
Montgomery Congress, 325, 735; C. S.
Sen       ator,  761, 762.
OLIVER, MORDECAI, 484.
ORD, E.   i   Cr,  421; 794.
ORDINAN.CE, Secession       of South Caro lina,  108: Secession, of  Georgia, 314; o f
Georgia resuming    jurisdiction over all
places within her limits formerly ceded
to the United States, 321: Secession, of
Virginia referred to, 376; of Virginia
adopting Confederate Provisional Con  stitution, 387.
ORR, JAMES L., 465; C. S. Senator from
South Carolina, 761, 762.
OSGOOD, SAMUEL, on three-fifths clause,
100.
OULD, ROBERT, 566; 619.
OWEN, ROBERT DALE, vote of, against
the Wilmot Proviso, 170.
OWENS, JAMES B., deputy from Florida
to Montgomery Congress, 325, 735.
N.
NAVY,  CONFEDERATE,  enlistment of
armed vessels under letters of marque in
lieu of a regular, 429.
NELSON, SAMUEL,  (Associate Justice,)
statement of, to Judge Campbell of Mr.
Seward's desire for peace, etc., 347; re  ferred to, in Judge Campbell's letters to
Mr. Seward, 743.
NEW YORK, Governor of, refuses to de  liver up fugitives from justice, 44, 113;
decision of U. S. Supreme Court upon
the act  of, concerning  passengers  in
vessels coming to the port of New York,
68 to 74; principle involved in this law
identical with that involved in the S.
C. law of 1822, for the government of
free negroes, etc., 69,; terms on which
Fort Lafayette was granted to United
States by, openly violated, 413.
NICHOLAS, SAMUEL S., 6.
NICHOLSON, A. O. P., 270.
NICIAS, 264.
NISBET, EUGIENIUS A., Resolutions of,
in Georgia Secession Convention, 304,
313; 315; deputy to Montgomery Con  gress, 325; 330; 7~5.
NISBET, JAMES A., 677.
NOBLE,  JAMES,  vote of,  in  Senate,
aga     in      st the Thomas amendment, 150.
NORRIS, MOSES, 213.
NOl' TH CAROLINA, position and action
of, on Secession, previous to Lincoln's
P.
PALMER, JOHN M., 510.
PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY and Sov   ereignty, the same, 22 et seq.
PARKER, JAMES, 151.
PARRISH,  ISAAC,  vote  of,  on  Burt's
amendment  to Oregon  Territorial bill,
166;'rote of, against the Wilmot Pro  -Viso, 170.
PATTERSON, ROBERT, 471.
PEARCE, JAMES A., 198, 243.
PEGRAM, ROBERT B., 429, 430.
PEMBERTON, JOHN C., 564, 764.
PENDLETON,  GEORGE  H., nominated
for Vice President, 583.
PENNSYLVANIA,  decision of the  Su  preme Couirt of, on the Constitutionality
of the U. S. Conscription Act of March,
1863, 790.
PERKINS,  JOHN,   JR.,  deputy  from
Louisiana to Montgomery Congress, 325,
338; 755; 781, 782.
PETIGRU, JAMES L., anecdote about, 52.
PHtELPS, SAMUEL S., 198; on Compro  mise Committee of 1850, 212.
PICKENS, FRANCIS W., 36; sends com  missioner  to  Washington  to  demand
possession of Sumter, 41; 349.
PICKETT, JOHN  T., Secretary of C. S.
Commissioners to Washington, 347, 739;
Confederate Diplomatic Agent to Mexico,
483.
821 
GENERAL INDEX.
PIERCE, FRANKLIN, on Compromise
Measures  of 1850, 239; 308.
PINKNEY, WILLIAM, 32;   speech  of,  on
admission  of Missouri and against the
Restriction, 145;  Mr. Jefferson    t      o, on
the Missouri question, 146.
POLKE, J            AMES  K.,                              6 165 197; 308.
POPE, JOHN,  defeate                 d at  Manassas by
Lee, 543; superseded by McClellan, 544.
POTTER, EMORY D., 230.
POTTER, MAJ., (U. S. A.,) 433.
PRATT, THOMAS G., 368.
PRESTON, WALTER, delegate from Vir  ginia to C. S. Provisional Congress, 464;
762.
PRESTOG, WILLIAM, 485; commissioner
on the part of Kentucky to negotiate
an alliance with C. S., 486; 765.
PRESTON, WM. BALLARD, 367; 378;
379; delegate to C. S. Provisional Con  gress, 464; 599; 761.
PRICE, STERLING, at battle of Elkhorn,
540; 587; 764.
PRISONERS OF WAR, Mr. Davis to Mr.
Lincoln on the treatment of the crew of
the Privateer S lvannah, 431; Washing  ton authoriti,- under pressure of public
sentiment enter into a Cartel for ex  change of, 486; general treatment of,
501; Federal authorities alone reponsi  ble for sufferings of, at the South, 503
the treatment of, by the Confederates
regulated by law, 504; Federal treat  ment of Confederate, 505; relative mor  tality of, in Northern and Southern pri  sons, 507; part of Federal policy not to
exchange, 508; release of, upon parole,
urged by Mr. Stephens, 516 to 520; con  dition of, at Andersonville, 517.
PRIVATEERS, CONFEDERATE, 429.
PRYOR, ROGER A., delegate from Virgi  nia to Provisional Congress, 464; 761.
PURYEAR, ROBERT C., delegate from
North Carolina to C. S. Provisional
Congress, 464.
' RESOLUTIONS (cottit,led),
representation, 96;  vote by States on
this,  96: of Mr. Clay from the Grand
Joint Committee for the admission  of
Missouri,  159;  vote  on  this  in  the
Senate and House examined, 160, 161:
of Mr. Calhoun, in the Senate, on the
public Territories, and defining the ex  tent of power possessed  by  Congress
over the subject, 166: of Mr. Upham, in
the Senate, known as the Wilmot Pro  viso, 168: of Democratic  Convention,
endorsing Compromise Measures of
1850, 235: of Whig Convention  endors  img these Measures, 236; per, capita vote,
and by States, upon the adoption of the
Whig Resolutions, 238, 239: in Demo  cratic Convention of 1860, inserting new ~
plank in the Platform, 272; comments
on this, 272: of 11. V. Johnson, offered in
Georgia Convention as a substitute for
the Secession Ordinance, 301: of Mont  gomery Congress, authorizing  the  ap  pointment of a Commission to the Wash  ington Authorities, to settle am'ic6bly all
questions of disagreement, 345: of U. S.
House of Reps., in 1861, declaring Per  sonal Liberty Laws unconstitutional, etc.,
417: in Senate, in 1861, to leg. iize the
extraordinary acts of Mr. Lincoln, 436:
of U. S. Congress, declaring the objects
of the War  on their part, and the eiis
for which it was to be prosecuted,  457;
of the Georgia Legislature on  the WaIr,
532: of Georgia Sovereign Convention,
known  as  the  "Georgia Platform of
1850," 676: of Georgia Legislature, on
suspension of the Privilege of the Writ
of Hsabeas Corpus, 788.
RtlIETT, R. BARNWELL, 60; 106; 127;
deputy to Montgomery Congress, 325;
Chairman of the Committee to frame
Permanent Constitution, 333; changes
in the  new Constitution proposed by,
338; 735.
RICHARDSON, WM. A., 203; 215.
RILEY, B., Proclamation of, calling a
Convention in California to organize a
State Government, ]99.
RICKETT, CAPT., (U. S. A.,) 433.
RIVES, Wm. C., sent to Washington by
Virginia Convention to confer with  Mr
Lincoln, 366; delegate to Montgomery
Congress, 388; 389; 406; 464; 763.
ROBESPIERRE, 445, 446, 455.
ROCKWOOD, CAPT., (U. S. A.,) 433.
ROGERS, THOMAS J., vote of, on Clay's
Resolution to admit Missouri, 161.
ROMAN, A. B., 345.
ROOT, JOSEPH M., 222, 224.
ROSECRANS, Wm. S., 545, 546; 579, 580.
ROSS, JOIN B.,   677.
ROSS, THOMAS L., 677.
ROST, A. P., Confed. States Commissioner
to Europe, in 1861, 359.
RANDALL, JAMES R., 413, 746.
RANDOLPH, GEORGE W., 367; 626;
760.
REAGAN,  JOHN H., deputy from Texas
to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735;
760.
RECTOR,  HENRY  M.,  replyof, to Lin  coln's call for troops, 375.
REID, ROBERT R., on Slavery, 142.
REVERE, MAJOR, (U.S. A.,) 433.
RESOLUTIONS, of House of Representa  tives in 1790, on the power of Congress
over Slavery under the Constitution, 28;
vote on this examined, 30: of House of
Representatives in 1863, favoring vigor  ous prosecution of the War, 49; vote on
this,  50:           of James Wilson, in Federal
Convention, fixing the basis of popdtlar
822
.4 
GENERAL INDEX.
RUFFIN,  THOMAS,  delegate  to C, S,
Provisional Congress from North Caro.
lina, 464.
RU SSELL,  JOSEPH,  vot             e  of, against the
Willnot Proviso, 170.
RUSSELL, CHARLES W., delegate from
Virginia to C. S. Provisional Congress,
464; 762, 763.
RUSSELL, D. R., Commissioner from
Mississippi to Missouri, 363.
RUST, ALBERT, delegate to Montgomery
Congress from Arkanszis, 393.
RUTLEDGE, JOHN, on three-fifths clause,
100.
RYAN, REV. A. J., 669.
SHAW,  HENRY  (eotdnted),
vote of, on the Resolution to admit Mis   souri, 161.
SHERIDAN,  PHILIP H., 510; 586; 588.
SHERMAN,  ROGER,   vote  of,  on  the
House  Resolution of 1790, on Slavery,
30; 87.
SHERMAN, WM.  T., march  of,  through
Georgia and the Carolinas,  510, 766;
p r oj e c t e d expedition of, to  Mobile
checked,  582; captures and burns At  lanta, 585, 586; 588; 589; 624;  627;
military  convention  of,  with  General
Johnston, 628, 806, 807; 633; Lincoln's
reply to inquiry of, whether he wanted
Mr. Davis captured or not, 634.
SHIELDS, JAMES, at Kernstown, 542.
SHORTER, JOIHN  G., delegate from Ala  bama  to Montgomery  Congress,  324;
735.
SIMMONS, JAMES, 316.
SIMMONS, JAMES P., 316.
SIMMS,  WM.  E., Commissioner of Ken  tucky to negotiate an alliance with C. S.,
486; 760, 762.
SIMMS, WM.  GILMORE, his account of
the destruction of Columbia by  Sher  man, 766.
SLAVERY, (so-called,) as it existed at the
South a Political Institution,  24; slave
not regarded entirely as a chattel, nor
subject  to  absolute  dominion  of  his
master, 25; the service of the slave, as
service of all persons due according to
law, property, 25; Hamilton  on,  25;
existed in all the States, 26; recognized
by the Constitution, 26; Story on fugi  tive slave clause,  26; history of  the
movement for its abolition, 27; petition
of Franklin for abolition of, and resolu  tion by Congress declaring its want of
authority to interfere with, 28; Northern
supporters of this Resolution, 30; the
conflict  in  Federal  Councils  not one
between advocates and opponents of, but
between Federalism and Centralism, 30,
87, 88; not founded in sin, but recog  nized and authorized by  Old and New
Testaments, 80 to 83; all the Patriarchs
slaveholders, 80; St. Paul on, 80; restores
a fugitive Slave to his Master, 81; Judge
Baldwin, Supreme Court, U. S., on Sla  very, 86; General Bloomfield's estimate
of slaves at the South in 1787, 98; acts
of Northern States abolishing, prospec tively, and  the effect upon the South,
102; the abolition of, in the Southern
States, required by President Johnson,
637; the discovery of the effect of this
doubtless the main cause of the proposal
of the 14th Amendment, so-called, 641.
SLIDELL, JOHN, captured on board the
Trent, 482.
SMITH, GERRIT, one of Mr. Davis'8
sureties, 663.
S.
SANFORD, J. W. A., Commissioner from
Georgia to Texas, 324.
SAWYER,  WILLIAM,  vote  of, against
Wilmot Proviso. 170.
SCHELL, AUGUSTUS, one of Mr. Davis's
sureties, 663.
SCHENCK, ROBERT C., 224.
SCHOFIELD, JOHN M., 624.
SCOTT, ROBERT E., 406; delegate from
Virginia to Provisional Congress, 464.
SCOTT, T. PARKER, 368.
SCOTT, WINFIELD,  did  not  "plan                              t
himself" upon the Whig Platform of
1852, 2       39; w    ithdrawal  of        troops from
Sumter recommended by, 351; position
of, in r       egar d            to the Se ceded  States, 351;
letter of Gen. Lee to, tendering his
resignation,    381; 383; 416; 433; 470;
relieved from active duty, 481.
SEARGEANT, JOHN, on Missouri Com  promise Committee, 158.
SEDDON, JAMES A., in Peace Congress
of 1861, 366; delegate to C. S. Provi  sional Congress, 464; 563; 565; 626.
SEDGWICK, THE       ODORE, vote  of,               on
the House Resolution  of 1790, on  Sla  very, 31.
SEMMES, RAPHAEL, 429.
SEAVERNS, DR. JOEL, 660, 661.
SEWARD, WM. H., 38; on rendition of
fugitive slaves, 57, 58; refuses to sur  render fugitive from justice, 113; 134;
198; 220; 239; 243; note of C. S. Com  missioners to, 346; Jud,e Nelson's state  ment of his interview with, 347; state  ment of Judge Campbell of his inter  view with, 348; the way in which "faith
as to Sumter" was kept, 349; 354; 372;
boast  of, in  cnaversation  with  Lord
Lyons, 409; on the Trent affair, 483;
577; in the Hampton Roads Conference,
598 to 619; 638; correspondence between
C. S. Comnmissioners and, with letters of
Judg.e Campbell, 735 to 746.
SEYMOUR, TRUMAN, defeated at Ocean
Pond, 581.
SHAW, HENRY, vote of. agatinst the
Slavery Restriction on Missouri, 152;
823 
GENERAL INDEX.
STANTON, EDWIN M., report of, show  ing the relative mortality of prisoners at
the North and South, 507; conduct of;
toward Mr. Stephens while a prisoner,
660, 662; telegrams and orders of, con  nected with Hampton Roads Conference,
in Lincoln's Message, 793.
STAPLES,  WALLER  R., delegate from
Virginia to Montgomery Congress, 388;
464; 762, 763.
STEPHENS, ALEX. H., reply of, to Mr.
Greeley's attack upon positions assumed
in the First Volume, 5 to 15; definition
by, of Sovereignty, 22; also of,,ltimt,te
Sovereignty, 24; 58; on Slavery,  84;
upon the acquisition of Louisiana, Flori  da, etc., 90- on a division of the public
domain between the Sections, 155; on the
admission of California, 200, et seque,  tes; 203; 204; on the passage by the
Senate of the  Sou]n  Amendment, 218;
on Missouri Compromise, so-called, 254;
reasons of, why he opposed Secession as
a redress of wrongs, 263 to 309; corre  spondence of, with Abraham Lincoln,
266; Union  speech of,  in 1860, 279;
speech of, in Ga. Secession Convention,
305; 312; votes against Secession, 315;
elected a delegate to Montgomery  Con gress, 322; 325; account of, as to how
Mr. Davis and he came to be chosen
President and  Vice-President, 329; on
appointment of Cabinet Ministers by
President, 338; appointed Commissioner
to Virginia, 376; negotiates an alliance
with Virginia,, 378; first acquaintance
of,   with  Gen. Lee, 380, 384; opinion of,
as to what  Mr. Lincoln ought not to
have done, and what he ought to have
done, 415; his opinion of Mr. Lincoln,
445; re elected Vice  President C.  S.,
483; opinion of, why Generals Johnston
and  Beauregard did  not  push on  to
Washington  after the rout of MeDow ell's army, 488; on the war and the fail ure of Confederate embassies in Europe,
490; personal relations of, with  Mr.
Davis, 500, 568; advises the release of
Federal prisoners on parole, 516, et se quentes; views of, as to the policy to be
pursued toward  Northern States, 521;
corner-stone speech of,  522; upon what
terms willing to make peace during the
war, 525; endorsement by, of Georgia
Peace Resolutions of 1864, 536; account
of the proposed mission to Washington
in ]863, its character and object, 538;
military statuts when undertaken, 539,
also the political statuts at the North,
550; letter of, to Mr. Davis, offering to
act  as commissioner to secure an  ex change of prisoners,  558: differed with
Mr. Davis on matters of Internal policy,
568; views of, on the use of cotton and
other resources for carrying on the war,
SMITH,  E.  KIRBY,  at battle of Rich   mond, Ky., 545; defeats Banks, 582;
surrenders to General Canby, 629; 764.
SMITH,  TRUMAN,  vote  of,   against the
SoulM  Am        e ndment, 220; 599. 
SMITH, WILLIAM,  of M                  d.,   on Missouri
Compromise Committee, 158.
SMITH,  WILLIAM,  of Va.,  at battle of
Manassas, 474; 762.
SMITH,  BERNARD, v               ote of, against
Slavery Restrict       ion   on  Missouri, 152;
vote                 of, on the Resolution           to admit Mis   souri, 161.
SMITH,    ROBERT,  vote  of,   on Burt's
am           endmen t, 166; vote of, against the
W im o t P         r    o     viso, 169.
SMITH, RO BE RT  H.,  deputy   from Ala   bama to  Montgomery Congress, 324,
735.
SMITH,  GUSTAVUS  W., in the council
of war at Manassas, 489; 764.
SMITH, W. N. H., delegate from North
Carolina        to C.  S. Provisional Congress,
464; 761; 763.
SMYTH, ALEXANDER,   spee                  ch    of,  on
admi         ssion  of         M issouri and against the
Slavery Re st    r     iction, 144.
SNEAD, THOS. L., Commissi on er                  of Mis  souri to form an alliance with the C. S.,
484; 763.
SOULE,  PIERRE,  amendment   of,  to
Clay's Compromise Bill, 217, 218.
SOUTHARD, HENRY, -vote of, on the
Resolution for admission of Missouri,
161.
SOUTH CAROLINA, demands possession
of Sumter, 41; the right of, to demand
possession of Forts, etc., within her ju  risdiction, after, and even before, Seces  sion, perfect, 41, 42; 59; attempted in  surrection in Charleston, 63; act of, for
the better regulation and government of
free negroes, and for other purposes, of
1822, 63; this act Constitutional, 64 to
75; right of, to enact this law based
upon the grounds of Police Regulations,
67; reasons assigned by the Sovereign
Convention of, justifying her Secession,
107, 671; Secession Ordinance of, 108;
Delegation of, to Montgomery Congress,
325; ratification by, of the Permanent
Constitution, C. S., 356.
SOVEREIGNTY and Paramount Authori  ty, the same, 22; definition of, 22;
not divisible but Sovereign powers are,
23; delegation of, not an alie,tation, 23,
definition of ultimate Sovereignty, 24.
SPARROW, EDWARD, delegate from
Louisiana to Montgomery Congress, 325;
C. S. Senator, 760, 762.
STAATEN-BUND, the United States
neither a, exactly, nor a Bundesstaat,
according to the classification of Fed  eral Republics by German Publicists, 18.
STANTON, FRED. P., 187; 214.
824 
GENERAL INDEX.
SUMMERS,  GEORGE  W.,  delegate to
Peace Congress from Virginia, 366.
SUMNER,  CHARLES,  52; 134; 243;
245; amendment of, to  Nebraska bill,
247; manifesto  of, referred to, 248;
249.
SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES,
decision of, on the power of a State to
regulate or interdict the entrance of cer  tain persons into her territory, 68; de  cision of, affirming the Constitutionality
of the Louisiana acquisition referred to,
89; decision of, on the Constitutionality
of the Missouri Restriction referred to,
260.
SUMTER, FORT, position of affairs when
bombarded, 36, 37; correspondence be  tween   Gen.  Beauregard and  Major
Anderson relative to evacuation of, 38;
bombardment and fall of, 39; terms nac.
corded the garrison upon their surrender,
39; the United States had no right to
hold, after the demand of South Carolina
for its possession, 40 et 8eq.
SWINTON, WILLIAM, works of, on the
War, 311; on the battle of Murfreesboro
or Stone River, 546; on  Grant's losses
in his progres. from the  Rapidan to
Cold Harbor, 584.
STEPHENS, ALEX. E. (oontinited),
on martial law, suspension of the privi    lege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,
and conscription, 571, 781, 786 788,
790; nature of differences with Mr.
Davis, 575; substance of a speech to,
C. S. Senate in  ecret session, 587; ob    jects of the Hamp ton Road       s conference
and how he became connected with it,
590;               h        is impressions of Gen. Grant at
their f      ir st m  ee ting, and opinion of him,
596; his interview with Mr. Lincoln in
Hampton  Roads, 599; his subsequent
interview with Mr. Davis, 619; actse(l
results of the war discussed, 631, et se    qgenttes; the Cause lost at Appomattox,
651; per sonal   relations  of, with   Gov    ernor  Brown,  and his  opinio n        of  him,
654,  664;  a prison    er in F      o rt Warren
and ho w tre    ated       there, 659;  the c aus e  of
the South the ca      use   of all, 666; l ett er of,
on the rupture  in the  D   emocratic party
at Charlest on, 677; letter  of, on the
rupture at Baltimore, 685; speech of, at
Augusta, advocating  the  election of
Douglais and Johnson, 691; Rules re   ported for       the  go vernment of the Mont   gomery  Congress, 710; letter           of authori   ty from Mr. Davis to, to establish
Cartel in  186 3, 779;  sp eech    of, on the
use of cotton in carrying on war, etc.,
781;  let        ter of, to Mayor Calhoun, on
Martial Law, 786; report of the Hamp   ton Roads Commissioners to President
Davis, 792.
STEPHENS, LINTON, Resolution of, in
Georgia Secession Convention to secure
unanimity of action, and declaring the
position of those in the Convention who
voted against the Ordinance, 315; letter
of, to Hon. Eli H. Baxter, showing the
sentiments and views of the Union Party
of Georgia, 317; Resolutions of, known
as the " Georgia Peace Resolutions " of
1864, 531, 532; Resolutions of, in
Georgia Legislature, on suspension of
the privilege of the writ of Habeas Cor  pus, 788.
STEVENS, JAMES, vote of, against
Slavery Restriction on Missouri, 152;
vote of, on the admission of Missouri,
161.
STEVENS, THADDEUS, 229.
STORRS, HENRY R., 137; vote of, against
the Slavery Restriction on Missouri, 152;
vote of, on the Resolution to admit
Missouri, 161.
STORY, JOSEPH, on the fugitive sla  very clause of the Constitution, 26.
STUART, ALEX. H. H., 367; address of,
to the people of Virginia, 388; 389.
STURGEON, DANIEL, vote of, on Doug  las's amendment to Oregon Territorial
bill, 173.
T.
TABLE, showing the depreciation of Con   federate currency, 569.
TANEY, ROGER BROOKE, (Chief Jus   tice,) 32; 260; decision of, in the case
of John Merryman, 414, 748.
TALLMADGE, JAMES, amendment of,
to the Missouri bill, 136.
TAYLOR, JOHN  W., 138; on Conference
Committee upon  disagreeing votes on
the Maine bill, 151.
TAYLOR, WALLER,  vote of, against the
Thomas amendment, 150.
TAYLOR,  ZACHARY, 199, 220, 266, 599.
TAYLOR, RICIIARD, defeats Banks, 582;
surrender of, 629; 764.
TAYLOR, THOMAS, 431, 433.
TENNESSEE,  action of, upon the ques  tion of Secession, previous to Lincoln's
war proclamation, 365; popular vote in,
for and  against calling a Convention,
365; action of, after the promulgation of
Lincoln's proclamation, 389, 391, 392;
popular vote in, for and against Seces  sion, 392; delegation of, to Provisional
Congress, 464; ratifies the 14th Amend  ment, so-called, 642.
TERRITORIAL QUESTION, THE, posi  tion of Southern States on, 88, 167.
TERRY, ALFRED II., 624.
TEXAS, Secession of, 33, 312; delegation
of, to   Montgomery Con gre ss, 325; rati  fication by, of the C. S. Permanent Con  stitution, 356.
825
f 
GENERAL INDEX.
THOMAS,  JESSE  B., amendment of, to
the Maine-Missouri Bill, 149; this the
Missouri Compromise, so-called, 149;
vote on this, 150.
THOMAS, GEORGE H., supersedes Rose   erans, 580; defeats Hood, 586.
THOMAS, JAMES, H., delegate from
Tennessee to Provisional Congress, 464.
THOMASON,   W.   F.,  delegate  from
Arkansas to Montgomery Congress, 393.
THOMPSON, JACOB, 223.
TOMLINSON, GIDEON, on the Missouri
Compromise Committee, 158.
TOOMBS, ROBERT, reasons assigned by,
in a speech in the Senate, 7th Jan.,
1861, justifying Secession, 109; his ob   iect was the perpetuation of that liberty
a nd  eq uality   established by  the Con   stitutioni, 126, 127, 128, 129; 171; 179;
posit    ion  of,  on  organization           of the
House in 1849, 181; on the power of the
House to adopt Rules before its organiza  tion, and on the Plurality Resolution,
187, et seqitente,; 196; 202; 203; speech
on the admission'of California and sla  very in the Territories, 204; speech of,
on  ad       mission   of          California, arraigning
the No rth for her repeated breaches of
faith, and  d    emanding equality fo r the
South  in the Territories, 214; 216; 217;
218; 226; 227; 239; 243; 283; 285;
288;  289;  a Delega       te t o  M ontgomery
Congress,  325;    the choice of Georgia for
President      of the Confederate States, 329,
330, 331,  333;  338;  app ointed Secretary
of State by Mr. Davis, 344; resigns and
enters the army, 464; 487; 500; 599;
764.
TOTTEN, A.O.W., Commissioner of Tenn.
to form an alliance with C. S., 391.
TOUCEY, ISAAC, 243.
TRENHOLM, GEORGE A., appointed
Secretary of the Treasury, 626.
TRENT (British Steamer), Mason and
Slidell captured on board of, 482.
TYLER, JOHN, 308; President of Peace
Congress of 1861, 366; 378; 379; Dele  gate to C. S. Provisional Congress, 464;
761.
UDREE, DANIEL, vote of, on the admis  sion of Missouri, 161.
UPHAM, WILLIAM, amendment of, to
the Three Million bill, 168; vote of, on
the Soul6 amendment, 220.
UNITED STATES, THE, neither a Staa  ten-bund exactly, nor a Bundesstaat,
but a Federal or Confederated Republic,
18; a Nation, but a Confederated Nation
or Nation of Nations, 21; the War iiia, gitrated by the Authorities of, 34; the
title of, to Fort Sumter, 42; the Authori ties of, alone responsible for whatever
sufferings endured by their prisoners at
the South, 501, et seqgtenetes; Secretary
Stanton's ro-ort of tbe relative mortality
UNITED STATES, THE (conti)itted),
among prisoners at the North and South,
5(17; Surgeon General Barnes's report (,f
numiber of prisoners captured in all on
both sides, 508; violations of the usages
of civilized warfare by  the Authorities
of, 509; a judicial decision of the ques tion of tree,son so fir eschewed by the
Authorities of, 659, 663.
V.
VALLANDIGHAM, C. L., nominated for
Governor, 558; 579.
VAN  BUREN, MARTIN, 308.
VAN DYKE, JOHN, ]S9.
VASON, W. J., commissioner from Georgia
to Louisiana, 324.
VATTEL, on power of the Sovereign to
forbid the entrance of his territory, 70;
cited by Toombs on rendition of fugitives
from justice, 122; on a "civil war," 425.
VENABLE, A. W., delegate from  N.  C.
to C. S. Provisional Congress, 464.
VERMONT, act of, nullifying the Fugitive
Slave clause of the Constitution, 45.
VINTON, SAMUEL F., 223.
VIRGINIA, an informal Congress of the
States called by, 45, 366; the Legislature
convened in extra session, 36o; delega.  tion sent to Peace Congress,  366; act
passed calling a Sovereign Convention,
366; effect of Mr.  Lincoln's inaugural
upon  the Convention,  367; delegation
sent to confer with  Mr.  Lincoln, 367;
passage by Convention of an Ordinance
of Secession, and vote upon  it, 376;
committee appointed to confer with C.
S. commissioner, and form an alliance,
378; Convention between Confederate
States and, 378; the articles ratified by
the Convention of,  380;  Gen  Lee  ap pointed Commander-in-Chief of the mili tary forces of,  381; ordinance of  Con  vention ratifying C. S. Prov'isional Con stitution, 387; delegation elected to the
Montgomery   Congress,  388; popular
vote on the ratification of the Secession
Ordinance, 388; delegation of, to  Rich mond Congress, 464; Federal forces in,
466.
VOGDES, MAJOR, (U. S. A.,) 433.
W.
WADE, BENJAMIN F., 6, 7.
WALDEN, HIRAM, 222.
WALKER,   ISAAC  P., vote of,  on  the
Soul6 Amendment, 220.
WALKER,  L. POPE, order of,  to Gen.
Beauregard to demand the evacuation of
Sumter, 38; telegram of,  in reply to
Gen. Beauregard's communicating Major
Anderson's answer to his demand,  38;
344;  speech of, at Montgomery,  after
the fall of Sumter, 415, 421, 422, 424;
487.
826 
GENERAL INDEX.
THOMAS,  JESSE  B., amendment of, to
the Maine-Missouri Bill, 149; this the
Missouri Compromise, so-called, 149;
vote on this, 150.
THOMAS, GEORGE H., supersedes Rose  crans, 580; defeats Hood, 586.
THOMAS, JAMES, H., delegate from
Tennessee to Provisional Congress, 464.
THOMASON,   W.   F.,  delegate  from
Arkansas to Montgomery Congress, 393.
THOMPSON, JACOB, 223.
TOMLINSON, GIDEON, on the Missouri
Compromise Committee, 158.
TOOMBS, ROBERT, reasons assigned by,
in a speech in the Senate, 7th Jan.,
1861, justifying Secession, 109; his ob  iect was the perpetuation of that liberty
an d   eq uality   established by  the Con  stitutioti, 126, 127, 128, 129; 171; 179;
posit    ion  of, on   organization           of the
House in 1849, 181; on the  power   of the
House to adopt Rules before its organiza  tion, and          on  the Plurality Resolution,
187 e    is    i, et seqGente; 196; 202; 203; speech
on the admission of California and sla  very in the T erritories, 204; speech of,
on  admissio n  of  California, arraigning
the North for her repeated breaches of
faith, and demanding equality for the
South i          n the Territories, 214;  216; 217;
218; 226; 227; 239; 243; 283; 285;
288; 289; a Delegate to Montgomery
Congress, 325; the choice of Georgia for
President      of the Confederate States, 329,
330, 331,  333; 338; appointe d Secretary
of State by Mr. Davis, 344; resigns and
enters the army, 464; 487; 500; 599
764.
TOTTEN, A.O.W., Commissioner of Tenn.
to form an alliance with C. S., 391.
TOUCEY, ISAAC, 243.
TRENHOLM, GEORGE A., appointed
Secretary of the Treasury, 626.
TRENT (British Steamer), Mason and
Slidell captured on board of, 482.
TYLER, JOHN, 308; President of Peace
Congress of 1861, 366; 378; 379; Dele  gate to C. S. Provisional Congress, 464;
761.
UDREE, DANIEL, vote of, on the admis  sion of Missouri, 161.
UPHAM, WILLIAM, amendment of, to
the Three Million bill, 168; vote of, on
the Soul6 amendment, 220.
UNITED STATES, THE, neither a Staa  ten-bund exactly, nor a Bundesstaat,
but a Federal or Confederated Republic,
18; a Nation, but a Confederated Nation
or Nation of Nations, 21; the War i,iait gutrated by the Authorities of, 34; the
title of, to Fort Sumter, 42; the Authori ties of, alone responsible for whatever
sufferings endured by their prisoners at
the South, 501, et sequenttes; Secretary
$tanton's rep)ort of the relative mortality
UNITED STATES, THE (contiiitied),
among prisoners at the North and South,
5(07; Surgeon General Barnes's report,f
numiber of prisoners captured in all on
both sides, 508; violations of the usages
of civilized warfare by  the Authorities
of, 509; a judicial decision of the ques tion of t,re,son so fair eschewed by the
Authorities of, 659, 663.
V.
VALLANDIGHAM, C. L., nominated for
Governor, 558; 579.
VAN BUREN, MARTIN, 308.
VAN DYKE, JOHN, ]S9.
VASON, W. J., commissioner from Georgia
to Louisiana, 324.
VATTEL, on power of the Sovereign to
forbid the entrance of his territory, 70;
cited by Toombs on rendition of fugitives
from justice, 122; on a "civil war," 425.
VENABLE,  A. W., delegate from  N.  C.
to C. S. Provisional Congress, 464.
VERMONT,  act of, nullifying the Fugitive
Slave clause of the Constitution, 45.
VINTON, SAMUEL F., 223.
VIRGINIA, an informal Congress of the
States called by, 45, 366 the Legislature
convened in extra session, 365; delega-t
tion sent to Peace Congress,  366; act
passed calling a Sovereign Convention,
366; effect of Mr. Lincoln's inaugural
upon  the Convention,  367; delegation
sent to confer with  Mr.  Lincoln, 367;
passage by Convention of an Ordinance
of Secession, and vote upon  it, 376;
committee appointed to confer with C.
S. commissioner, and form an alliance,
378;  Convention between  Confederate
States and, 378; the articles ratified by
the Convention of,  380;  Gen  Lee ap  pointed Commander-in-Chief of the mili  tary forces of,  381; ordinance of Con  vention ratifying C. S. Provisional Con  stitution, 387; delegation elected to the
Montgomery   Congress,  388; popular
vote on the ratification of the Secession
Ordinance, 388; delegation of, to Rich  mond Congress, 464; Federal forces in,
466.
VOGDES, MAJOR, (U. S. A.,) 433.
W.
WADE, BENJAMIN F., 6, 7.
WALDEN, HIRAM, 222.
WALKER,  ISAAC  P., vote of,  on the
Soul( Amendment, 220.
WALKER,  L. POPE, order of,  to Gen.
Beauregard to demand the evacuation of
Sumter, 38; telegram of,  in reply to
Gen. Beauregard's communicating Major
Anderson's answer to his demand,  38;
344; speech of, at Montgomery, after
the fall of Sumter, 415, 421, 422, 424;
487.
826 
GENERAL INDEX.
WALKER,  RICHARD W., deputy from
Alabama to Montgomery Congress, 324;
735.
WALLIS,  S. TEACKLE,  369; "Prayer
for Peace" of, written while imprisoned
at Fort Warren, 513, 774.
WAR, THE, character of, 360; not a Re  bellion, or Insurrection, or Civil War,
but a War between States, 361,  425;
426; object of the Confederates through  out, 426; object of the Federals, 427;
conduct of, on both sides, 509 to 516,
and 766; a necessity with the Republi  cans or Centralists'for their continued
hold on power, 527, et sequie,stes; the
actual results of, thus far, considered,
631 to 670; fli-st, Mr. Johnsoni's disap  proval of the Sherman-Johnston Conven  tion, 633; second, Mr.  Johnsonl's Pro  clamation of Amnesty and Pardon, 635;
third, Mr. Johnson's North Carolina and
other similar  Proclamations, 636; as  sembling of the 39th Congress in Dec.,
1865, and its action, 638; fourth, the
adoption by Congress of the Reconstruc  tion Measures, so-called, 643; fifth, the
Centralists have not-yet openly proclaimed
their ultimate object, much less acted in
anything yet done, upon any claim of the
actual  consummation of  that  object,
which is Consolidation and Empire, 650;
the Cause lost at Appomattox C. H., not
the Federative Principle, 651.
WARD, G. T., 465.
WARNER, HIRAM, 511.
WASHINGTON,   GEORGE,  styles  the
present Union a " Confederated Repub  lic," 21; 308; 461.
WATKINS, W. H., deputy from Arkansas
to Montgomery Congress, 393.
WATTS, THOMAS H., 626, 760.
WAUL, THOMAS M., deputy from Texas
to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735.
WEBSTER, DANIEL, 44; 197; his 7th
of March  speech referred to, 211; on
Compromise Committee of 1850, 212;
Secretary of State under Fillmore, 221;
his connection with the preparation of
the Resolutions adopted by the Whig
Convention in 1852, 237; death of, 242;
345; on the power of the President to
blockade Ports -or employ the military
force, 404; 412; 415; 420; 551.
WELSCH,  ARISTIDES, one of Mr. Da   vis's sureties, 663.
WENTWORTII, JOHN, 223, 227, 228.
WHEELER, HE NRY  W.,   h               is r epor t          of
Mr. Toombs's speech in 1849 in the
House, 195.
WIHELCHEL DAVIS, 316.
WHYTE, WILLIAM P., 368.
WICK,  WILLIAM  W., vote of,  against
the Wilmot Proviso, 170.
WIGFALL, LOUIS T., deputy to Mont  gomery Congress from Texas, 325; 464;
735; 761, 762; 764.
WILCOX, OLIVER B., 433.
WILKES, CHARLES, captures Mason and
Slidell, 482.
WILLIAMS,  COM., (British Navy,) 482.
WILLIAMSON,   HUGII, on  the  three  fifths clause, 100.
WILMOT,  DAVID,  165; proviso of, to
exclude slavery from the whole public
domain, 168.
WILSON, HENRY, 660, 661.
WILSON, JAMES, resolution of, in Fed  eral Convention, to fix the  basis  of
popular representation, 95, 96, 101.
WILSON, JAMES H., 510.
WILSON, W. S., deputy from Mississippi
to Montgomery Congress, 325; 735.
WINTHROP, ROBERT  C., Whig nominee
for speaker  in 1849, 179; defeated for
speaker, 196..
WIRT, WILLIAM, opinion of, on  the S.
C. law of 1822, for the better regulation'
and government of free negroes, etc., 66,
67, 69.
WIRTZ, HENRY, 504, 505, 506.
WISE, HENRY A., 465, 764.
WITHERS,  THOMAS   J., deputy  from
South Carolina to Montgomery Congress,
325; 735.
WOLCOTT, OLIVER, on three-fifths clause
in Congress of the Confederation, 100.
WOOD, A. M., 4:33.
WOODRUFF,  COL., (U. S. A.,) 433.
WOODWARD,  GEORGE  W., decision of,
on the Federal Conscript Act  of 1863,
574, 790.
WOOL, JOHN E., 487.
WRIGHT,  AMBROSE  R., Commissioner
from  Georgia to Maryland,  324, 368;
765.'
WRIGHT,  AUGUSTUS  R., deputy from
Georgia to Montgomery Congress, 325;
329; 735.
Y.
YANCEY,  WILLIAM  L.,  127;  C.  S.
Commissioner to Europe, 359; returns
from Europe and is elected C. S. Senator,
483; 682; 760.
Z.
ZOLLICOFFER,  FELIX   K.,  letter  to
public after Lincoln's War Proclamation
favoring  Secession,  390;  406; 465;
killed at battle of Fishing Creek, 481.
ERRATUM.
Page 455 line 11 from the bottom for ein/ranchise read emancipate.
827
iI 
I, 
DO YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY?
No business pays so well as an agency for popular Histories
and Biographies, for they are the class of books that every intelligent person wants, and is always ready to buy. The only diffi
culty in the matter is to secure a POPULAR  SERIES
OF BOOKS, and such pre-eminently are the works that we
are now publishing. No series published will compare with them
in real value, interest, and popularity.
Being the most extensive Publishers in the United States,
and having five houses, we can afford to sell books cheaper and pay
Agents more liberal commissions than any other company.
Our books do not pass through the hands of General Agents,
(as nearly all other subscription works do,) therefore we are
enabled to give our canvassers the extra per cent. which other
publishers allow to General Agents. Experienced canvassers will
see the advantages of dealing directly with the publishers.
By engaging in this business young, men  will ED U.
CATE themselves in that knowledge of the country, and of men
and things, which is acquired only by traveling and observation,
and which is recognized by all as essential to every business man.
Old agents, and all others who want the BEST PAYING
AGENCIES,  will please send for circulars and see our terms,
and compare them, and the character of our works, with those of
other publishers.
Address,   NATIONAL PUBLISHING  CO.,
At either of the following Places, (whichever is nearest to you)
26 South Seventh Street, Philadelphia, Pa.,
128 South Clark Street, Chicago, Ill.,
410 Marklet Street, St. Louis, 1Vo.,
3 School St., (cor. Washington,) Boston, sass.,
Broad Street, Atlanta, Georgia.
The  following  pages contain a  Cztlogue of
some of our most valuable and popular Works, a spe cimen copy of either of which will be sent by mail,
postage paid, to any address, on receipt of price. 
LIFE IN UTAH;
OR, TItE
MYSTERIES AND CRIMES OF MORMONISM.
BEING AN EXPOSE
OF THEIR SECRET RITES AND CEREMONIES; WITH A FULL AND AU       THENTIC HISTORY OF POLYGAMY AND THE MORMON SECT
FROM ITS ORIGIN TO THE PRESENT TIME.
BY J. H. BEADLE,
EDITOR OF THE SALT LAKE REPORTER, AND  UTAH CORRESPONDENT OF  THE
CINCINNATI  COMMERCIAL.
ILLUSTRATED WITH 34 FINE ENGRAVINGS.
For more than thirty years the world has been horrified, startled and perplexed by the
audacity and success of a sect calling themselves Mormons. Though founded in fraud,
this sect has succeeded in spite of all opposition, until it is to-day the standing reproach
of our country.
Several works have appeared, purporting to be exposures of the secret rites and mysteries of this strange sect, but note have been complete, and few authentic. At present the
demand for a work of this kind is greatly increased by the determination of the General
Governmuent to put in force active and decisive measures against those people who calling
themselves Saints have violated every law of God and man.
The Author's long residence in Utah; his position as editor of the leading journal of
that Territory; his spirited defence of the cause of morality against Mormon treason and
licentiousness, and his own sufferings at their hands, peculiarly qualify him for this task.
Mormonism has been productive of so many dark and strange mysteries-so many terrible
crimes that few can comprehend, without an intimate knowledge of it, how much wickedness it has to answer for, and what a standing menace to order and society it is.
THE "W"OGE TP,EATS O:
Mormonism; its origin and history, and shows how, founded on imposture, it has grown
by deceit and crime.   It showvs how JoE SMITH was enabled to deceive and cheat his
followers; how by leading them on from crime to crime, and enticing them with licen  tious baits, he succeeded in maintaining his influence over them.
Of crime and lawlessness in Utah; showing the Mormon leaders in their true light, as
thieves, murderers and assassins; how human life is every day taken in Utah; explain  ing and illustrating the infamous doctrine of killing a man to save his soul; and pre  senting a catalogue of crimes and horrors at which even the coolest and calmest reader
will turn pale. It tells of frightful massacres of whole trains of emigrants, how they are
murdered for their property, and how that property thus obtained, is seen daily in the
possession of the Mormon leaders.
Of the Mormon religion, its infamous and heathenish character, its multitude of gods, its
abominable doctrines and practices, revealing many strange mysteries and outrageous
ceremonies.
Of the Eadowment or initiation ceremonies, showing how obscene and disgusting they are;
how female modesty is outraged in them, and how licentiousness is taught as a part of
their religious creed.
Of the spiritual wife doctrine, showing how a woman may have more than one living hus  band and accord to each the same privileges; how women are debauched and degraded;
how they are required to prostitute themselves "for religion's sake;" showing the terri  ble results of polygamy and sin.
The high praise which this work has received from members of Congress, and Government officials to whom it was submitted, and by whom its publication was urged as a duty
to the country, stamps it as no ordinary work, but as one of the most powerful and thrilling
books ever published. It is comprised in one large octavo volume of 540 pages, illustrated
and embellished with 34 fine engravings, and furnished to subscribers,
Elegantly bound in Extra Fine English Cloth,    -   at $2.75 per Copy.
~"   "         Fino Leather, (Library Style,)    at $3.25  "    "
AGENTS WANTED. Address, NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO.,
Philadelphia, Pa., Chicago, Ill., St. Louis, Mo., Boston, Mass., or Atlanta, Geo.
I 
NEW ILLUSTRATED
DEVOTIONAL AND PRACTICAL
POLYGLOT FAMILY BIBLE
I   CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, APOCRYPHA,
CONCORDANCE, PSALMS IN METRE, ETC., ETC.
With a History of tile Translation of the Bible; over one hundred Scrip   ture llustrations, Valuable Treatises, Chronological and other
useful Tables, designed to promote and facilitate the
Study of the Bible.
Our New Illustrated BIBLE, with its numerous Tables and Treatises, Photographic Album for 16 Portraits, Beautiful Family Record, etc., is the most
perfect and comprehensive edition ever published.
The Marginal Readings and References, the Definitions and Explanations,
the Scripture Illustrations and Descriptions, will prove of inestimable interest
and value to every reader, and of vast practical assistance and importance to
Ministers, Theological Students and Sunday-School Teachers.
It is printed from large, clear, and handsome type, on fine white paper made
expressly for this workl, and contains over One Thousand Pages, and over One
Hundred Illustrations, and bound in the most substantial manner.
In Arabesque Leather, Marbled Edge,         at $ 7.50 per Copy.
~"    "  "     GGilt      "      -   at  9.00 ""
In French Morocco, Full Gilt, Panelled Sides, at 13.00 " 
The following is a specimen of the letters that we have
received from agents who are selling our Bibles:
New Milford, Susquehanna County, Pa.
September, 17th, 1869.
NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO.,
* GENTLEMEN:-You get up the best BIBLE in the market.   I can get fifty
certificates to that effect. A $10 Bible has just been delivered in this County,
and persons who bought it are anxious to trade even for your $7.50 Bible.
Yours Respectfully,
MATTHEW FREEMAN.
Bibles are always in demand, and you can often sell a really
valuable, handsome, and cheap one to persons who will buy no
other book.
AGENTS WANTED.   Address, NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO.,
Philadelphia, Pa., Chicago, Ill., St. Louis, Mo., Boston, Mass., or Atlanta, Ga 
PARIS BY SUNLIGHT AND GASLIGHT.
A WORK DESCRIPTIVE OF THE MYSTERIES AND MISERIES,
THE VIRTUES, VICES, SPLENDORS, AND CRIMES
OF THE CITY OF PARIS.
ILLUSTRATED WITH OVER 150 FINE ENGRAVINGS,
It may be safely asserted that every man and woman in the world would like
to visit the BEAUTIFUL and WONDERFUL CITY OF  PARIS, were an opportunity
offered.   Thousands  annually  find their way  to  the  GAY CITY, to taste its
pleasures and enjoy its unequalled displays, but these  are only a very small
part of the millions who  long for such a privilege.   Naturally most persons
must pass their days without  ever  realizing their wish to see  PARIS.    Thllis
Book supplies the want which they feel, and gives them a truthful and complete
picture of the Beautiful City without requiring them to undertake the expense
or fatigues of ajourney to it.
It Tells How Paris has become the Gayest and most Beautiful
City in the World.
How its Beauty and Splendor are purchased, at a Fearful Cost of
Misery and Suffering.
How Virtue and Vice go arm-in-arm in the Beautiful City.
How Visitors are Swindled by Professional Adventurers.
How the most Fearful Crimes are Committed and Concealed.
How Money is Squandered in Useless Luxury.
AND T} E.A TS
Of Paris, its People, its Society, its Rich, its Poor; their Lives, their Habits, their Haunts,
and their Peculiarities.
Of the Magnificent Public Buildings of the City, with their countless treasures of art and
history.
Of Palaces, Prisons, Statues, Paintings, Fortifications, Gardens and Parks.
Of the Emperor and Empress of the French; their Public and Private Life; with many
Startling and Curious Reminiscences of the Domestic Life of Napoleon and Eugenic;
introducing the Story of the Emperor and the ITALIAN COUNTESS.
Of the Nobility; their vast Wealth and Influence; their Virtues and Vices; showing how
great is the prevalence of crime among the Privileged Classes, and how terrible are
some of the means resorted to for concealing their crimes.
Of Suicides; of the Morgue and its inmates; Revealing many a Terrible History of Pov    erty, Love, and Crime.
Of the Grisettes of Paris; their History; their Follies and Extravagances; their Loves
and Lovers; their Jealousies and Revenges.
Of Fashion, Luxury, Dissipation, and Extravagance in Paris.
Of the Famous Balls of Paris; of Jardie Mabille; Closerie des Lilas; of the Carnival; its
Masquerades and Revelries.
Of the Tuileries, the Louvre, Versailles, St. Cloud, Fontainebleau, and St. Germain. 
Of the Catacombs;-those Wonderful Cities of the Dead that underlie the Gay Capital of
France.
Of the Demi-Monde, with Sketches of its Famous Characters.
Of Swindlers, Gamblers, Thieves, Adventurers, Beggars, Street Characters, &c., &c.
Of all that is great, noble, generous, magnificent, vicious, brilliant, startling, genteel or
shabby, and of all that is interesting and worthy of notice in the Beautiful City.
In one large volume of over 800 pages, embellished and illustrated with more than 150
fine Engravings of noted places, life and scenes in Paris, and furnished to Subscribers
Elegantly Bound in Fine Morocco Cloth..................................at $3.50 per Copy
.. ".                  Leather, (Library Style,)...............at $4.00 "
AGENTS WANTED.   Address, NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO.,
Philadelphia, Pa., Chicago, Ill., St. Louis, Mo., Boston, Mass., or Atlanta, Ga.