STATE OF THE UNION.
The SPEAKER announced the question to be on Mr. Prosser's motion to reconsider the second for the previous question.
Mr. PARRETT and Mr. ORR hoped it would not prevail.
Mr. FRASIER hoped it would. There were gentlemen desirous of speaking on this question who had not yet spoken, and he was disposed to give an equal chance to all.
Mr. JONES of Vermillion, said the time had been when he would like to say something; but he was not now solicitous. His constituents were for saving the Union by all means, page: 263[View Page 263] and they knew they had his hearty sympathy and cooperation, and he supposed the work would be done quite as well without his occupying the time of the House.
The second for the demand of the previous question was reconsidered, and the demand was withdrawn.
Mr. EDSON had not made speeches to be reported and sent to the country, and did not now propose to do so. He believed this the most important question that could come before this body. Whilst he was for the Union with all his heart, he was opposed to coercion. There were now two governments within the limits of the former Confederacy, and we must coerce, or recognize the action of the cotton States. Their action had not his sympathy. He did not believe in the right, of secession ; but he desired that everything should be done that could be done to retain the eight border States. Such resolutions as we passed this morning would waste the strength of the Union men in those States. He represented, in part, two counties, giving some 7,000 votes. These counties divided in the late elections ; but they were now nearly unanimous for compromise. He referred to a recent Union meeting, presided over by Judge Pitcher, a Republican, (and a majority of its officers and active men were also Republicans and Americans,) whose resolutions he had presented here. He believed a very large majority of the people in the southern portion of the State were in favor of adjustment and compromise, on something like the Crittenden propositions. Being questioned by Mr. Frasier, as to how Douglas Democrats could accept so readily the Crittenden propositions, he replied, that he was not for those propositions in the abstract, but for popular sovereignty as a great national principle that must ultimately prevail. He showed the Republican mistake here, as to the effect of the Crittenden propositions: which he read, to show that they were not the Breckenridge platform with the addition of a slave code, as asserted by Judge Bundy. He believed this question of the extension of slave territory, was a question of climate and not of legislation. The Crittenden propositions apply restrictions only to existing territory south of 36 deg. 30 min. ; whilst they apply unrestrictedly to territory north of that line. He hoped we were be able to get restrictions upon the future acquisitions of territory the source of all our national difficulties. With respect to these minority resolutions and his position, lie endorsed the sentiment on the Indiana marble block in the Washington monument that Indiana knows no North, no South, no East, no West, nothing but the Union. He exhorted to the duty of pacification by all means to save the border States, and bring back, if possible, the seceding States. He did not recognize the right of secession ; but there was a right of revolution. There was another government de facto if not de jure, in those six: cotton States. He denied the policy of coercion, and commanded the forbearance at Washington by which the seceding States were still recognized, and their names still called in Halls of Congress, though none of their representatives were there to answer. Being interrogated, he said, it was absurd to affirm that there were seven millions of traitors in the Southern States. He endorsed the minority resolutions, but not the report. He could not, and would not join in a sweeping denunciation of any class of citizens-as the report denounces ministers of the Gospel. He believed in the freedom of speech and of the press, and that ministers had the same civil rights of other men-out of the pulpit. He objected to this part of the report, as having no connection with the matter in hand. He elaborated again his position on the right of secession. He could admit the doctrine no more in the case of a State, than in the case of a county or any portion of a county. He admitted the difficulty in the question, whether coercion should not follow where there is a violation of natural right If these seceding States could not be recovered, he objected to the policy of coercion, or committing ourselves to any line of policy with respect to this division, as to which side we would fight for; but if the cotton States will go, let them go in peace. The question of the Union was infinitely higher than mere party successes and party spoils. He believed that all platforms and politicians, including Abraham Lincoln, would be compelled to subside before the will of the American people, when they shall rise up in their might and declare that the Union must and shall be preserved. He closed by referring to the singular character of the Republican record here on the Crittenden propositions.
Mr. POLK, proposed to amend, by adding the following:
Resolved, That it is impolitic and inexpedient to coerce by force of arms any seceding State.
On motion by Mr. Cameron, it was laid on the table-yeas 53, nays 37.
Mr. CHAIN now demanded the previous question.
Mr. McLEAN (by unanimous consent) said, That as a member of the Committee of Thirteen who submitted the minority report, he asked the privilege of making a brief statement. As certain Republican members of the House had charged that there was a vein of secession running through that report, and that the right of secession was virtually admitted in it, he would say for himself, that he was no apologist for secession. He had no words of honied sympathy for those reckless Hotspurs who had set this unrighteous and unholy movement on foot. If the minority; report contained one word of sympathy for those who, regardless of all duty and every dictate of patriotism, had set that ball in motion, he had not read it aright. He did not thus interpret it. The legal and constitutional right of a State to secede is against the page: 264[View Page 264] plainest letter of the preamble of the constitution, it is the wildest vagary that ever entered a madman's brain. Admit the right of a State to go out of the Union at pleasure, and for every fancied grievance, and there is an end of all government. As well might you say that a county, yea, an individual, could secede from the State, or from a municipal government. The constitution of the United States was called into existence by the people, and not by the States, as such, of the Union. It is a contract binding alike upon each and every citizen of the United States, and its design is to maintain a government for the benefit of the whole people. It must, therefore, by paramount to all State constitutions, and all other civil authority whatsoever. As to coercion, that was simply a question of expediency. Every Republican must know that the first blow for coercion in the South, yea, even though that blow were struck in South Carolina, would unite the entire South as a wall of living fire. From every hill and hamlet and valley of the South would bristle the bayonet and glitter the sword. The heather-hidden bands of Clan Alpin never responded with more alacrity to the shrill whistle of their chief, than would the solid South rise up, as one man, at the first blow of coercion struck within their borders. Let the laws be enforced to the extent of cutting off the mails in the seceding States, where the postal system costs the United States more than the revenue received therein. Let the ports of Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and other ports in those States be declared, by act of Congress, no longer ports of entry, with privileges to grant clearances to vessels. That would be the extent of the coercion he could favor. Coercion, in the lips of many modern Republicans means war, and war means disunion; final, everlasting separation. [Applause.] As used by many of them, it had still another meaning. It meant folly, madness. Nothing could be accomplished by such coercion, except the final and everlasting disunion of the States. It could accomplish no other object. [Applause, which was promptly suppressed by the Chair.]
Mr. HEFFREN, under a pro forma motion to bo excused from voting, explained that in the reference in the minority report to ministers of the gospel there was no intention of saying anything against ministers as a class, when they attended to their own business in the pulpit.
Mr. ATKISSON (pro forma.) I shall vote against the resolutions, because there is not one of them which every Democrat here has not voted for time and again; and because they were connected with other matters to which I object.
Mr. ROBERTS, (pro forma.) I desire to give a reason for the vote which I shall cast on the minority report. I shall vote "aye" on the resolutions, and in so doing I do not understand that I approve the argument presented by the minority in their support, believing that the argument, or report, and the resolutions are wholly disconnected under the parliamentary law by which we are governed, and that we are voting on the resolutions only, and not on the argument or report. I approve the resolutions entirely, but there are many parts of the report which I could not support, under any circumstances whatsoever, which I will not take the time to point out now.
Mr. STOTSENBERG (pro forma). There is one resolution here that it would not be wise to vote for. (He referred to the third, and re-cited it, and proceeded to remark upon the merits of the question until he was arrested by the chair.)
Mr. FORD (pro forma). There is not a single word or sentiment in these resolutions in which I do not concur, and in voting for the resolutions I do not intend by any means to endorse the accompanying report. I have a great reverence for ministers of the Gospel ; and I do not want to be considered as favoring the right of the secession of a State, any sooner than I would favor the same right in a county, township, or individual.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew, (pro forma). I ask to be excused from voting. [Consent, and laughter.]Mr. SMITH. The consent is not unanimous. Several about here say "no consent."
The SPEAKER. The chair did not hear a, dissenting voice, but he will now recognize the dissenting voices on the word of the gentleman. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. The reason why I want to be excused is, because I desire to wait for the result of a challenge which several days ago I sent to your honor, to make a speech against me on this question. Since that time I have spent sleepless nights in preparing my speech for that occasion. [Laughter.]
Mr. McLEAN. I move that the gentleman have leave to deliver that speech now.
Mr. SMITH. It might not be as lengthy as some, but I doubt not that it would be the most important of the session. [Laughter.]
The SPEAKER. The Chair would say that when he accepted the challenge referred to, he was not fully aware of the powers of the gentleman from Bartholomew. Becoming better informed of the gentleman's powers he has concluded to retire from the contest. [Laughter.]
Mr. BLACK. I have before voted directly in favor of every one of the propositions contained in these resolutions. I find them now coupled with matter I do not entirely approve of. I therefore ask to be excused from voting.
The House refused to excuse.
The yeas and nays were now reported as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Black, Combs, Cooprider, Davis, Dobbins, Edson, Fleming, Ford, Heffren, Horton, Howard, Jenkinson, Knowlton, Lods, McLean, Moss, Mutz, Owens, Packard, Pitts, Polk, Prosser, Prow, Roberts, Smith of Bartholomew, Stotsenberg, Trier, and Warrum-28.
page: 265[View Page 265]NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Bingham, Boydston, Branham, Brucker, Bryant, Bundy, Burgess, Cameron, Campbell, Cason, Crain, Dashiel, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gifford, Gore, Greshman, Grover, Hall, Haworth, Henricks, Hopkins, Hudson, Hurd, Jones of Tippecanoe, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Lane, Lee, Lightner, Moorman, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Thomas, Thompson, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, Woods, and Mr. Speaker-59.
So the minority resolutions were rejected.
