« ZurückWeiter »
Constitutional Amendment Proposed.
Davis defines the Rebel position.
in overt rebellion. A series of resolutions, however, aiming at peace on the basis of a preserved Union was agreed to by a majority, and the body adjourned on the 1st of March.
On the 11th of February, moreover, the National House of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution-shortly afterward concurred in by the Senate-providing for an amendment to the Constitution, forever prohibiting any Congressional legislation interfering with slavery in any State. Some there were, too, who were willing to concede almost every thing and surrender the long mooted question of slavery in the territories by the adoption of the so-called Crittenden resolutions, which were killed in cold blood by Southern Senators.
But no concession, short of actual national degradation, would satisfy the recusants. Jefferson Davis, the head of the "Confederacy," on placing himself at the head of the rebellion, at Montgomery, Alabama, February 18th, modestly defined the position of himself and his co-conspirators thus :
“If a just perception of neutral interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But if this be denied 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 blessing of Providence on a just cause.
This was at once clinched by a recommendation that "a well-instructed, disciplined army, more numerous than would usually be required, on a peace establishment,” should be at once organized and put in training for the emergency.
Seeks Divine Assistance.
The Departure-Farewell Remarks--Speech at Toledo, At Indianapolis—At Cincinnati
At Columbus-At SteubenvilleAt Pittsburgh--At Cleveland-At Buffalo At Albany -At Poughkeepsie-At New York-At Trenton-At Philadelphia-At"Independence Hall”—Flag-raising-Speech at Harrisburg-Secret Departure for Washington-Com ments.
Thus matters stood—the air filled with mutterings of an approaching storm—the most filled with a certain undefinable anxiety-the hearts of many failing them through fearwhen, on the morning of the 11th of February, 1861, the President elect with bis family, bade adieu to that prairie home which, alas ! he was never again to see.
The large throng which bad assembled at the railway station on the occasion of his departure, he addressed in words replete with the pathos of every true manly nature :
"MY FRIENDS :-No one, not in my position, can appreciate the sadness I feel at this parting. To this people I owe all that I am. Here I have lived more than a quarter of a century; here my children were born, and here one of them lies buried. I know not how soon I shall see you again. A duty devolves upon me which is, perhaps, greater than that wbicb has devolved upon any other man since the days of Washington. He never could have succeeded except for the aid of Divine Providence, upon which he at all times relied. I feel that I cannot succeed without the same Divine aid which sustained him; and in the same Almighty being I place my reliance for support, and I hope you, my friends, will all pray that I may receive that Divine assistance, without which I can not succeed, but with wbich success is certain. Again, I bid you all an affectionate farewell.”
Speech at Toledo.
Speech at Indianapolis.
" Coercion” and “Invasion" Defined.
Along the route, multitudes gathered at the stations to greet him. At Toledo, Obio, in reply to repeated calls, he appeared on the platform of the car and said :
“I am leaving you on an errand of national importance, attended, as you are aware, with considerable difficulties. Let us believe, as some poet has expressed it, 'Behind the cloud the sun is shining still.' I bid you an affectionate farewell."
At Indianapolis, on the evening of the same day, in reply to an official address of welcome, he gave the first direct public intimation of his views coucerning the absorbing topics of the day, in which homely sense and cheerful pleasantry were blended with a skill beyond the power of mere art:
“FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA :-I am here to thank you for this magnificent welcome, and still more for the very generous support given by your State to that political cause, which, I think, is the true and just cause of the whole country, and the whole world. 'there is a time to keep silence;' and when men wrangle by the mouth, with no certainty that they mean the same thing while using the same words, it perhaps were as well if they would keep silence.
“ The words 'coercion' and 'invasion' are much used in these days, and often with some temper and hot blood. Let us make sure, if we can, that we do not misunderstand the meaning of those wbo use them. Let us get the exact definitions of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainly deprecate the things they would represent by the use of the words.
“What, then, is coercion ? What is invasion ? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them, be invasion ? I certainly think it would, and it would he coercion also, if the South Carolinians were forced to
Coercion” and “Invasion” Defined.
The Rights of States.
submit. But if the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all of these things be invasion or coercion? Do our professed lovers of the Union, who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion and invasion, understand that such things as these, on the part of the United States, would be coercion or invasion of a State ? If so, their idea of means to preserve the object of their great affection would seem to be exceedingly thin and airy. If sick, the little pills of the homeopathist would be much too large for it to swallow. In their view, the Union, as a family relation, would seem to be no regular marriage, but rather a sort of 'free-love' arrangement, to be maintained on passional attraction.
“By the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a State? I speak not of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the Constitution, for that is a bond we all recognize. That position, however, a State cannot carry out of the Union with it. I speak of that assumed primary right of a State to rule all which is less than itself, and to ruin all which is larger than itself. If a State and a County, in a given case, should be equal in number of inhabitants, in wbat, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the County ? Would an exchange of name be an exchange of rights? Upon what principle, upon what rightful principle, may a State, being no more than one-fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionably large sub-division of itself in the most arbitrary way? What mysterious rigbt to play tyrant is conferred on a district or country with its people, by merely calling it a State ? Fellow citizens, I am not asserting any thing. I am merely asking questions for you to consider. And now allow me to bid you farewell.”
Proceeding to Cincinnati, he received a most enthusiastic
Speech at Cincinnatti.
The Republican Policy.
welcome. Having been addressed by the mayor of the city, and escorted by a civic and military procession to the Burnet House, he addressed the assemblage in these words :
"FELLOW-CITIZENS : I have spoken but once before this in Cincinnati. That was a year previous to the late Presidential election. On that occasion in a playful manner, but with sincere words, I addressed much of what I said to the Kentuckians. I gave my opinion that we, as Republicans, would ultimately beat them as Democrats, but that they could postpone the result longer by nominating Senator Douglas for the Presidency than they could in any other way. They did not, in any true sense of the word, nominate Mr. Douglas, and the result bas come certainly as soon as ever I expected.
“I also told them how I expected they would be treated after they should have been beaten, and now wish to call their attention to what I then said :
" " When we do, as we say we will, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell youas far as I am authorized to speak for the opposition—what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institutions; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution. In a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, as far as degenerate men—if we have degenerated-may, according to the example of those noble fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circunstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and to treat you accordingly.'
"Fellow-citizens of Kentucky, friends, brethren : May I call you such? In my new position I see no occasion and feel no inclination to retract a word of this. If it shall