Year: 1860




ton has arisen, has from the beginning
declared the Fugitive Slave law 10 be
constitutional. The single exception IS
that of State court in Wisconsin, and
this has been reversed by the proper ap-
pelate tribunal, but has met with such
universal reprobation that there can be
no danger from il as a precedent. The
validity of this law has been established
over and over again by the Supreme
Court of the United States with perfect
impunity. 1t is founded upon an express
provision Of the Constitution, requiring
that fugitive slaves who escape from SER
vice in one State to another shall be de-
liyered up to their masters. Without
this provision II is well known historical
fact that the constitution itself could new
er have been adopted by the Convention.


In one form or other under the acts Of
1898 and 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, clear case is presented, in
which it viii be the duty of the next
President, as it has been my OWE to act
with yigor in executing the supreme law
against the conflicting enactments of State
legislatures. Should be fail N the per-
fOrmance of this high duty, he will then
have manifested disregard of the Con.
stitution and laws, to the great injury Of
the people of nearly one half the States
of the Union. But are we to presume
in advance that he will thus violate bis
duty? This would be at war with every
principle Of justice and of Christian char.
ity. Let US wait for the overt act. The
Fugitive Slave law has been carried into
execution in every contested case since
the commencement of the present admin.
istration; though often, it is to be regret.
ted, with great loss and inconvenience tc
the master, and with considerable expense
to the Government. Let US trust thai
the State Legislatures viii repeal THEN
unconstitutional and obnoxious enact.
ments. Unless this shall be done with,
out unnecessary delay, it is impossible tC
save the Union.


The Southern States, standing on the
basis of the Constitution, have a right tc
demand this act Of justice from the State;
of the North. Should it be refused, ther
the Constitution, TO which all the State:
are parties, viii have been willfully vic
lated By one portion Of them in provis
ion essential to the domestic security ant
happiness of the remainder. In tha
event the injured States, after having
first used all peaceful and constitutional
means to obtain redress, would be just
fed in revolutionary resistance to the gov
ernment of the Union.


have purposely confined my remarks
to revolutionary resistance, because j
has been claimed within the last few
years that any State, whenever this shal
be its sovereign viii and pleasure, MAJ
secede from the Union, in accordanct
with the Constitution, and without AM
violation of the constitutional rights o
the other members Of this confederacy
That as each became parties to the Un
ion by vote Of its own people Assem-
bled in convention, so any one of then
may retire from the Union in simila
manner by the vote of such a convention


In order to justify secession as a con
stitutional remedy, it must be on the prin
cipal that the federal government is
mere voluntary association of States, t
be dissolved at pleasure by any one Q
the contracting parties. If this be SC
the confederacy is a rope of sand, to b
penetrated and dissolved by the first ad
verse wave of public opinion in any G
the States. In this manner our thirty
three States may resolve themselves in
to as many petty, jarring and hostile re
publies, each one retiring from the Union
without responsibility, whenever any sud
den excitement might impel them to sue
4 course. By this process Union nigh
be entirely broken into fragments in
few weeks, which cost our forefather
many years of toll, privation and bloc
to establish.


Such principle is wholly inconsister
with the history as well as the charaete
of the federal constitution. After it wa
framed with the greatest deliberation an
care, it was submitted to conventions {
the people Of the several States for rat
fcation. Its provisions were discussed 8
length by these bodies, composed of th
first men of the country. Its opponent
contended that it conferred powers upo
the federal government dangerous to th
rights Of the States, whilst its advocate


maintained that under fair constructio


of the instrument there was no foundi


ton for such apprehensions. In thi


mighty struggle between the first inte


lects Of this or any other country, it ne'


er occurred to any individual, to asse


or even TO intimate that their efforts wei


all vain labor, because that the momeI
any State felt herself aggrieved she mig
lsecede from the Union.


What a crushing argument would th


have proved to those who dreaded th
the rights of the states would be enda
gsred by the constitution. The truth
that il was not until many years after I.
. origin Of the federal government th
: such proposition was first advanced
: IL was then met and refuted by the co
] elusive arguments Of Gen. jackson, wi
: in his message Of 18th January, l83


transmitting the nulIifying ordinance
: South Carolina to Congress, employs d
J following language; " The right Of q
{ people of a single state to absoivs tbel
a selves at will, and without the consent
4 fha r.fher efafea frr.rra fl.oar mot noIs.