Year: 1860

baton that there can be no danger from
it as precedent. The validity of this
law has been established over and over
again by the Supreme Court of the
United States with perfect unanimity.
1T is founded upon an express provis-
ion of the Constitution, requiring that
fugitive slaves who escape from service
in one State to another, shall be deliv-
cred up to their masters. Without this
provision, it is well-known historical
fact that the Constitution itself could
never have been adopted by the Con-
vention. In one form or another un
der the acts of 1898 or 1850, both being
substantially the same, the Fugitive
Slave Law has been the law of the
land from the days of Washington to
the present moment. Here, then, q
clear case is presented in which it will
be the duty of the next President, as
it has been my own, to act with vigor
in executing this supreme law against
the conflicting enactments of State
Legislatures. Should he fall in the per.
formance of this high duty, he will
then have manifested a disregard oi
the Constitution and laws, to the great
injury of the people of near one-half OF
the States of the Union. But are we
to presume in advance that he will thus
violate his duty? This would be at
war with every principle of justice-oi
Christian charity. Let us wait for the
overt act.


The Fugitive Slave Law has been
carried into execution in every con.
tested case since the commencement
of the present administration, though
often, it is to be regretted, with great
loss and Inconvenience, and with con.
siderable expense to the Government
Let us trust that the State Legislatures
will repeal their unconstitutional and
obnoxious enactments; unless this shall
be done without unnecessary delay, il
is impossible for any human power tc
save the Union. The Southern States
standing on the basis of the Constitu
ton, have a right to demand this act
of justice from the States of the North
Should it be refused them, the Consti
tuition, to which all the States arc
parties, will have been wilfully violated
by one portion of them, in provision
essential to the domestic security and
happiness of the remainder. In thai
event the injured States, after having
first used all peaceful and Constitution
al means to obtain redress, would be
justified in revolutionary resistance te
the government of the Union.


l have purposely confined my re
marks to revolutionary resistance, be
cause it has been claimed within the
last few years, that any State, whenever
it shall be her sovereign will and pleas
ure, may secede from the Union in &C
cordance with the Constitution, anC
without any violation of the constitu
tional rights of the other members o.
the confederacy; that as each became
parties to the Union by the vote of it.
own people assembled in convention
so any one of them may retire from ths
Union in similar manner, by the vote
of such convention. In order to jus
tify secession as constitutional RENE
dy, it must be on the principle that tn,
Federal Government is mere volun
tary association of States, to be dis
solved at pleasure by one of the con
tracing parties. If this be so, the con
federacy is rope of sand, and to b.
separated and dissolved by the frs
adverse wave of public opinion in any
of the States. In this manner ou
thirty-three States may resolve them
selves into as many petty, jarring ant
hostile republics, each one retiring from
the Union without responsibility, when
ever any sudden excitement might i'm
pei them to such a course; by this pro
cess a Union might be entirely broker
into Fragments in few weeks, which
cost our forefathers many years of toll
privation and blood to establish. Sucl
a principle is wholly inconsistent will
the history. As it was framed will
the greatest deliberation and care, j
was submitted to conventions of tn,
people of the several States for ratifi
cation. Its provisions were discussed
at length in these bodies composed O
the first men of the country. It's op
ponents contended that it conferred
power upon the Federal Governmen
dangerous to the rights of the States
whilst its advocates maintained tina
under a fair construction of the instru
ment, there was no foundation for sucl
apprehensions. In that mighty strug
gle between the first intellects of thi
or any other country, it never occurred
to any individual, either among the op
ponents or advocates, to assert or ever
to intimate that their efforts were al
vain labor, because the moment tha
any State felt herself aggrieved, sh
could secede from the Union. What
, crushing argument would this hay
proved against those who dreaded tha
T the rights of the States would be endan
gered by the Constitution The trutl
is, that it was not until manv years al
ter the ori gin of the Federal Govern
ment, that such proposition was frs
advanced. 1t was then met and refute,
by the conclusive arguments of Gen
J eral Jackson, who, in his message @
the 10th of January 1888, transmitting
the multiplying ordinance Of South Caro-
} lima to Congress, employs the following
language:


"The right of the people of singl
State to absolve themselves at viii
, wifhouf tho consont Of tho ofhor States