man from Clay, I did not intend to participate in the debate, but I have since changed my purpose, and determined to present a few views touching this matter. I have entertained the hope, until the last few days, that we were in the way of adjusting our difficulties; but that hope has been greatly depressed by the news I find in the morning papers. I have been fluctuating between hope and despair for many days, but this morning I feel greatly depressed. I feel that this nation is at this moment standing upon a treacherous crust of a fearful volcano. I regret that the discussion of this subject has taken such a wide range. I could have wished the members had confined themselves more strictly to the amendment. It is very important that we should, in this matter, act with great deliberation; and we should be sure, before we act, that we are right. There has never been a time when such important questions have been presented for consideration; and I feel that we ought to ascertain what is our duty, and then discharge that duty, whatever it may be. What we are doing, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, does not, and will not affect alone our interests, but will have an influence in all coming time. If we take steps which may involve the nation in civil war, we shall do that which in all future time we shall have cause to regret. Consequently, I say, that we ought to use the utmost deliberation before we attempt to do anything. We are taught, by philosophy, that a small stone cast into the bosom of the Atlantic, produces a vibration that is felt upon its extreme verge, and if this is true in natural philosophy, how much more true is it in moral philosophy, and that every act we commit on this occasion will have a relation to all future time. I am not disposed to go into a history of the difficulties that now surround us. I do not conceive that it is important that we should discuss the history of Abolitionism or Republicanism. But we should deal with facts as they now exist. I do not conceive that history has anything to do with the subject. It seems to me to be about as wise for the planters of Mississippi, in time of a crevasse, when the waters of the Mississippi are inundating their cotton fields, to stop and debate how much of that water came from the Ohio, how much from Lake Itasca, as it is for us to debate what have been the causes which have led to the present crisis in our affairs. Entertaining that view, I shall not attempt to trace the history of Republicanism, or trace any of our past history. I am ready to use all my feeble efforts towards the preservation of our Union. I shall never cease my labors until the last ray of hope is extinguished. But while we are upon this subject, we should talk about it plainly-we should not attempt to conceal our view. So far as solving the present difficulties are concerned, I trust no gentleman will feel disposed to occupy any equivocal ground. At the same time that we feel that our duty requires us to talk plainly in regard to our difficulties, we should speak in terms of the ut most kindness. I do not feel like casting censure upon any man at this time. This is no time for crimination. We should neither denounce a man for being a Secessionist, neither should we decry a man for being a Republican. But if we can do anything to save the country, I feel that our labors will have been sufficiently rewarded. I presume from what I have studied in regard to this matter,that there is but one point upon which there is any difficulty, or upon which this Government is to be shipwrecked. It is well known to you all, I presume, that the Crittenden propositions received great favor, and would have been submitted to the people but for one of its clauses, that relating to the subject of slavery in the Territories. I shall not attempt to discuss the merits of that proposition, but call your attention to the fact that there would have been no difficulty in the way of adjusting our present troubles had it not been for that clause. Now, gentlemen of the Convention, this difficulty which is exciting so much attention, is an abstraction, according to my opinion, although it is true there is a principle involved in it. It is maintained by some that slavery should be protected in every foot of Territory, and by others that slavery should not go into the Territories, and this is the platform upon which Mr. Lincoln was elected. It is proposed by the Crittenden proposition that we shall divide this territory-that all north of a certain line shall be free and all south all slave. Our friends of the North say that they will not grant this privilege, and the tendency of their acts thus far has shown that they are willing to disrupt the nation and drench it in fraternal blood rather than concede this right. I maintain that if this line were drawn slavery would never go north, and that it would not to any extent be established south of that line. I think every man ought to concede this proposition and sacrifice so much of the principle as to permit us to take slavery south of that line. There is no use of disguising the fact that unless this question is adjusted in a satisfactory manner, civil war will ensue, as well as a total dissolution and disruption. But what shall Missouri do at this time? Shall she secede at this time? No. I do not act here with that view. I do not propose that Missouri shall secede, but that she shall speak out to the border free and slave States, and to the whole Union, and tell them we want this Union preserved. We should tell them that we desire to settle the difficulties, and we should indicate the plan of doing it. She should act as mediator; and therefore it is I favor the amendment of the gentleman from Clay. The resolution offered by the Committee on Federal Relations does not, I think, place Missouri in a proper position. Acting as she should in the capacity of mediator, I say the amendment is well calculated to place her in her true position. It has been said that it contains a threat and an ultimatum. I do not so regard it. I think it gives the people of both sections to understand what we require and what is the duty of the North and South. It is true we are part and parcel of the General Government, yet we tell them that as a part we will not aid in coercing seceding States. I say that we should not menace the South nor the General Government, and when we say we will not countenance the Southern Confederacy in a war, or the General Government in a war upon the Southern States, we are taking the proper position. I do not think the resolution at all conflicts with our duty. We are dealing with the subject as it now presents itself. We say that as matters now stand, we believe that our line of duty lies here, and we will follow it. It is known that the very moment the General Government makes war upon one of the seceded States, all hope of adjustment is gone. There can be no adjustment if the General Government should attempt to supply Fort Sumter, or collect the revenue, or pass a law abolishing ports of entry. Any attempt of this kind, to cut off the supplies by means of the sword, would be coercion. I know that many differ with me in this respect, but I am opposed to the General Government moving one foot in coercing these States, in the manner which I have indicated. I am opposed to the reinforcement of Fort Sumter, or of supplying Fort Pickens, when such an attempt would involve the nation in such a manner as to place our difficulties beyond the hope of adjustment. And the moment that the first drop of blood is shed the last ray of hope vanishes, and then all the border slave States will go out. You cannot stop the tide of public feeling. I have as patriotic devotion for the Government as any man, but I cannot ignore the fact that when civil war is initiated then you must take a decided stand, and cannot be neutral. Then where shall we go? I think there cannot be any question about that. What is the true position in regard to the seceding States. Now, I shall not discuss the Constitutional question of secession. I do not know that any gentleman will underake to justify secession under the Constitution. I think secession is a heresy, and that no such term is applicable to the action of any State. The only term that can be used is revolution. Then I say that South Carolina and the other six States have revolutionized, and that the revolution is complete, and they are this day, although their independence has not been acknowledged by the United States, an independent government. This revolution has been bloodless, but it is com plete. There was a time when this revolution could have been arrested and its leaders hung for treason. But I ask, gentlemen, whether that state of case now exists. They have formed a constitution. Mr. Buchanan never attempted to arrest the tide which has taken them out of the Union, and now they can never be brought back, except by treaty or stipulation. Do you suppose that if Lincoln marched an army to the South, and captured Jeff. Davis, the articles of war would not be observed, and that Jefferson Davis would be treated otherwise than as a prisoner of war? Those who are now living under that government are subject to it. They have taken an oath of allegiance to it, and now their action cannot be considered treason. You will find that action of that character is not so regarded by the best authorieies. I say then, the course indicated by the amendment to the resolution under consideration, is the true one. I am unwilling to forego the hope that peace may be restored. I hope this amendment will be adopted, because its rejection will be fraught with evil. AFTERNOON SESSION. The question before the Convention being on the adoption of the following amendment offered by Mr. Moss, of Clay, to the fifth resolution reported by the majority of the Committee on Federal Relations, to wit: "And further believing that the fate of Missouri depends upon the peaceable adjustment of our present difficulties, she will never countenance or aid a seceding State in making war on the General Government, nor will she furnish men and money for the purpose of aiding the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seding State." Mr. HITCHCOCK said: I desire to speak briefly to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Clay. I am glad to see, from the remarks as well of the gentleman who last preceded me, [Mr. Comingo,] as of many others who have addressed the Convention, that in one feeling we are all united. I believe that there is no sentiment more earnest, more deep, or more heartfelt in this Convention than the desire that civil war may be avoided in this land, and that this Union may be preserved. We are assembled here to deliberate upon the duty of the people of this State at this crisis. The question has been-upon what principles shall we act? what conclusion shall we recommend to that people? The inquiry takes at once, in the discussion of those principles, a form which presents it, on the one hand as a question of policy merely, while on the other it is regarded as a question of principle underlying that policy. Now, I presume that the proposition will not be disputed here that we should not only carefully weigh all that we do but that in taking our position it is indispensable that we select a sure foundation for that position, on the principles of justice and truth. Thus alone, in these times of anxiety and doubt, can we hope to arrive at results which will endure. As when the mariner, on the broad waters of the Mediterranean, suddenly finds himself enveloped by the foam and fury of the whirlwinds, which sometimes sweep across that majestic inland sea; darkness and tempest surround him, and he may lose sight of the head-lands by which he shaped his course; yet though all other objects be hidden from his view, if he can but fix his eye upon his faithful chart and the unerring needle, steadfastly obeying their guidance through all the dangers and intricacies of his course, he is assured of at last reaching in safety the haven he desires. Never was there a time when it was so vital to our people to look into the principles which underlie our institutions. It is by those first principles that we must regulate our action, And I am rejoiced that these fundamental questions have been brought up before the Convention for discussion, since upon our views of these questions, whether we desire it or not, will practically rest the course which we shall adopt. In the discussion of the proposed amendment, therefore, I desire-and I deem it eminently appropriate to submit some considerations in reply to the remarks made yesterday by the gentleman from Marion, [Mr. Redd,] upon the right of secession. I think it cannot be denied, upon a calm consideration of the resolution now before us, that it contemplates the possibility of practical nullification by the State of Missouri. The resolution expressly declares that the State will not furnish men or money to aid the General Government in any attempt to coerce a seceding State. We are met at once by the ambiguity which, unfortunately, belongs to this much used word coercion. There have been various definitions of that word. According to some, it means the marching of an army into the South; with others, it embraces the retaking, and with others the mere holding of forts and arsenals--and again the collecting of the revenue. It seems to me that the word is generally defined more or less broadly, according to the degree of sympathy which the speaker has with the action of the extreme Southern States. And in view of the fact that so various meanings are given to the word, surely we are bound, if we use that word, to use it in view of any interpretation whatever which may be put upon it. We must foresee and be ready to stand by it under any possible interpretation. Now I apprehend that it has been demonstrated by one of my colleagues [Mr. Broadhead] that under the Constitution of the United States, which is supreme, the General Government has power to provide for calling out the militia, not only to execute the laws, but also to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Suppose that the General Government, in the lawful exercise of that power, should call upon the people of this State to execute any existing law-suppose Missouri were lawfully called upon to furnish men to aid in suppressing insurrection or repelling invasion. Suppose that in such case--if the Convention should have adopted this resolution, and thereby pledged the course of action of our people-suppose that a response to such call would come within what some of them understand to be "coercion"--should we not be compelled to raise a question which might produce disorder and confusion among ourselves? Should we not be obliged to look beyond any such resolution, and in spite of any such interpretation, at the true nature of our relations to the General Government? Should we not be bound to act in accordance with a just view of our true relations to it, and of the fundamental principles of our institutions, so long as the Union continued to exist? Therefore I do not see how in considering this resolution, framed as it is, we can escape considering the question and the right of nullification as at least a possible question: and when we speak of nullification, we may as well discuss the true question which that idea involves-namely, the question whether a State has a right to throw off its obligations towards the Union, and in refusing to obey any one of those obligations to repudiate them all. It comes to that, and nothing else. Nullification cannot be defended save on the ground that a State has not only the right to nullify but to SECEDE. And I desire, therefore, to consider, as directly pertaining to the question now before us, the arguments advanced in favor of the "Right of Secession." It will be remembered that the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Redd] in asserting the right of secession, laid down the following proposition: "That the Constitution of the United States is an "instrument made by the States, acting as States, "and having at the time, all the powers of sovereign"ty; and that it was a compact between them; and "that if this be true, then when that compact is vio"lated, each State has a right to declare that com"pact at an end." I read from my notes of the gentleman's remarks, carefully taken. I wish to state his argument fairly and correctly, and if I have not done so, I hope he will set me right. But I believe this is precisely what he said. In support of that proposition, a brief historical statement was made as to the circumstances preceding and attending the adoption of the Constitution. You were reminded that on the Fourth of July, 1776, the thirteen colonies declared themselves to be "free and independent States," claiming "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do all other acts and things which indepedent States may of right do." It was further stated, that in 1777, these free and independent States formed a compact, under the Articles of Confederation, by the fifth Article of which, they created an agent, the Congress, and delegated to it powers necessary for mutual defense and general welfare; that in that Congress, each State, without regard to size or population, had one vote; that by the second article each State expressly retained its sovereignty, and all powers not expressly delegated to the Congress. It was further stated that the confederation so formed lasted about ten years. But that experience showed the Congress to be deficient in the necessary powers, and that in 1787 it passed an act calling on the States to remedy these defects; that they did so, each State sending delegates appointed in its own way, which delegates met in convention in September, 1787, and formed the present Constititution of the United States. You were further reminded that by the tenth article of that Constitution it was provided that when ratified by nine States, it should go into effect as between the States ratifying the same; that it was ratified by three States in the fall of 1787, and by six more in the spring of 1788; and that then, and not till then, had it vitality. It was contended that these facts established the proposition above stated; that the action of the States as such alone gave vitality to the instrument; that the Convention performed the mere office of a scrivener, and that since, until ratified by nine States, the instrument had no effect, that the true question was-"When was the Constitution ratified?"-and that when you answer that, you tell when its vitality begun. That, therefore, it was not the action of the Convention, but the ratification by the several States, which gave vitality to the instrument. And the gentleman insisted that while the effect of the Constitution might be a question of law, yet the question as to what it is, is, as he expressed it, a mere question of fact, to be ascertained and established, like any other question of fact, by evidence. Upon the facts above set forth, therefore, he claimed that the Constitution was a compact between the several States, taking effect upon its ratification by the ninth State in June, 1788; and that afterwards the four remaining States concluded also to ratify it, and so became parties to the compact. It was further argued that the delay of these four States to ratify the Constitution, was additional evidence that it was a compact merely; for where, it was asked, were those four States in the interim? Not under the old Confederation, for that was dissolved; not under the new Constitution, for that they had not adopted. They retained, meanwhile, all their sovereign power, and as sovereign States they finally came in and became parties to the new compact. Upon these grounds the gentleman from Marion claimed to have established his proposition. He adduced further arguments, indeed, from the provisions contained in the Constitution itself for its own amendment, claiming that since amendments, even when proposed by a National Convention, must be ratified by three-fourths of the States, it is still the sovereign States which hold the power to ratify or prevent any change. And that it is therefore true that the Constitution is a compact formed by the States, and not by the people of the United States as one community. This, if I am not mistaken—and I ask to be corrected if I am-was the gentleman's whole argument as to the true nature of the Constitution. From this he deduced without difficulty the conclusion, that though there is no tribunal to which, in case this "compact" be violated, an appeal can be made, yet there is a law that provides for the settlement of all difficulties-a law founded on eternal principles of justice, and recognized throughout the civilized world-the law of nations. That according to this law, when independent sovereign States make a compact, they are bound to keep it in good faith. But, it was said, if the compact be violated, the law of nations provides a remedy in one of two ways. The injured party may either claim to hold the offender to the compact and demand indemnity for its violation, or it may rightfully declare the compact at an end. And if the offender refuse to consider the compact at an end when so rightfully declared, then an appeal to arms-military coercion-is the only resource. Pursuing the principles thus laid down, and which the gentleman declared to be the true and only principles upon which the mutual rights and duties of the States can be be determined, he admitted that, if the Northern States have not violated this "compact," then the Southern seceding States have done wrong, and may be rightfully compelled by the North to fulfill it on their part. But if the States of the North have violated the compact, then the States of the South have a right to declare it at an end. And thus, having established, to his own satisfaction, the right of secession, under the Constitution, the gentleman went into an elaborate statement of the wrongs on the part of the North, which, in his view, fully establish the right of the Southern States at this time, to declare the compact at an end. Into this latter branch I do not propose now to follow him. I deny his premises and dispute his argument-if I am right in that, his conclusions fall to the ground. I claim that the Constitution of the United States is not a compact, but just what it purports to be-a CONSTITUTION: the result of a compact, no doubt, but in no sense a compact between sovereign States as such. I claim that by and under that Constitution there was established and now exists a real National Govern ment: that for all the purposes of that Government, which was established by and for the people of this country, the sovereignty of the States respectively was taken away from them by the PEOPLE, who ratified and adopted the Constitution, to whatever extent they thought necessary for their own welfare. And I contend that it is to that instrument itself, the Constitution of the United States, that we must look, and that in it we shall find a true and unmistakable exposition of its nature, objects and extent. Indeed, the Convention must have been struck with the remarkable admission which was made by the gentleman himself, in opening his remarks-an admission which the advocates of his theory are usually very slow to make, and anxious in proportion as they find it difficult to get over. He frankly admitted that the very first words in the preamble to the Constitution-"WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"-were not in harmony with his interpretation of that instrument. He went further; he acknowledged (with a candor which I respect) that those words are "prima facie evidence" against him-"prima facie evidence" that the instrument was not a compact between sovereign States, but a Constitution established by one people. Prima facie evidence, Mr. President, as every lawyer knows, means evidence which if not overthrown or contradicted, is held sufficient to prove a proposition true. Has this evidence been overthrown by the argument which I have quoted? I confess I am unable to see any logical connection in that argu ment. What can be the connection between the nature of the instrument, and the time of its ratification? What difference can it make as to what that instrument was and is, whether nine States or thirteen States adopted it in 1787, or 1788, or four or ten years after. I claim that the Constitution itself is its own best and necessary interpreter, and that both as a matter of fact and of common sense, if we would understand the instrument we must look into it. But the gentleman from Marion prefers to look outside: he declares the express recitals of the instrument prima facie evidence-no more: and appeals to the history of its adoption to decide "as a question of fact," what it is. Well, sir, I will meet the issue of fact. I appeal to the true history of the times-the history of that instrument itself-the words and acts and declarations of the statesmen who framed it-the occasion which assembled them, the evils they were forced to remedy, the remedy which they did provide, and their express declarations as to what they thought that remedy was. And thus upon his own ground, and by the very evidence to which he appeals, I propose to show that the gentleman's theory of a compact between sovereign States is wholly untenable and mistaken. I remark, in the first place, that it is important to have correct ideas of the relations of the States to the central authority prior to 1787. It is a serious mistake to speak of the old Confederation, still more of the Congress which preceded it, as though the States had on a certain occasion come together and held a meeting and made an agreement and quietly gone on under it. The Continental Congress which adopted the Declaration of Independence, was little more than a Revolutionary Central Committee of the States, with powers necessarily vague and indefinite, and with an authority which nothing but the pressing necessities of the times upheld. That same Congress proposed, in 1777, the articles of Confederation which were ultimately adopted by the States; but not until 1781 were they adopted by all the States, nor did the first Congress of the Confederation meet (under the Article of the Confederation) till March 2d, 1781. The Confederation therefore really lasted but little more than six years, instead of ten. And there is nothing more striking or more manifest in the whole history of the Revolutionary struggle, or of the five years that followed its conclusion, than the fact that nothing but the pressing necessities of war had kept the States together, even imperfectly as they did it. Hardly was peace proclaimed, when the energies which a common danger had directed against a common foe, began to stir up internal strife. State pride, State rights, State jealousies, State rivalries, rapidly weakened the ties which had united them, and the most dangerous internal dissensions threatened to destroy all safety at home, while they were paralysing all respect and confidence abroad. The Confederation was hardly formed before it began to decay by its own inherent defects. This Confederation" was in every sense a compact between the States. It purported to be such, both in the preamble and by the tenor of the articles. The separate sovereignty of the States was expressly reserved by the 2d Article, and by 3d Article it is expressly set forth that the said States hereby severally enter into a firm league," &c. I do not dispute the gentleman's views as to the Confederation." They suit me exactly. tr But why were those "Articles of Confederation" abandoned? Why was the Federal Convention held in 1787? If, as the gentleman states -and as I agree-it was to remedy defects shown by experience, what was their nature and what was the remedy proposed? These are some of the "facts" with which I shall deal, and I propose to answer these questions from the original and indisputable records of the transactions themselves, and in the words of those who took part in them. I beg to read, in answer to the first of these inquiries, from an elaborate statement, drawn up |