Speech Transcript:

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has been
eminently prosperous in all its material interests. The general
health has been excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and
plenty smiles throughout the laud. Our commerce and manufactures have
been prosecuted with energy and industry, and have yielded fair and
ample returns. In short, no nation in the tide of time has ever
presented a spectacle of greater material prosperity than we have
done until within a very recent period.

Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the
Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is
threatened with destruction?

The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern
people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at
length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the
Union are now arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived,
so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile
geographical parties have been formed.

I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now
impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the
part of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery
from the Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to
defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law. All or any of these
evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the
Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection
might apply the remedy. The immediate peril arises not so much from
these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent
agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last
quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on
the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom. Hence a
sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This
feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile
insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in
dread of what may befall herself and children before the morning.
Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or
imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervade the
masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable.
Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted
in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose; and no
political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all
other respects, can long continue if the necessary consequence be to
render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the parties to it
habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of such
a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period
has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve
the Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.

But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It
can not be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the
North against slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills
and inflammatory appeals were circulated extensively throughout the
South of a character to excite the passions of the slaves, and, in
the language of General Jackson, "to stimulate them to insurrection
and produce all the horrors of a servile war." This agitation has
ever since been continued by the public press, by the proceedings of
State and county conventions and by abolition sermons and lectures.
The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on this
never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms,
indorsed by distinguished names, have been sent forth from this
central point and spread broadcast over the Union.

How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery
question forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted
country! They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to
accomplish the object, and all for which the slave States have ever
contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic
institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they
alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery
existing among them. For this the people of the North are not more
responsible and have no more fight to interfere than with similar
institutions in Russia or in Brazil.

Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still
greatly rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of any
President, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to
restore peace and harmony among the States. Wisely limited and
restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone
can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous
question.

And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our
fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford
just cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if
his election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a
majority of the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary
causes, which may probably never again occur. In order to justify a
resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be
guilty of "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers
not granted by the Constitution.

The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict
conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the result
justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason,
justice, a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall
wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President
elect before resorting to such a remedy. It is said, however, that
the antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to
justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their
constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent
danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction
of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the
very nature of his office and its high responsibilities he must
necessarily be conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast
and complicated concerns of this Government affords in itself a
guaranty that he will not attempt any violation of a clear
constitutional right.

After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the
Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws. And
it is a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the
repeated efforts of the antislavery party, no single act has ever
passed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri
compromise, impairing in the slightest degree the rights of the South
to their property in slaves; and it may also be observed, judging from
present indications, that no probability exists of the passage of such
an act by a majority of both Houses, either in the present or the next
Congress. Surely under these circumstances we ought to be restrained
from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man never
spoke, that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The day of
evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.

It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern
States are denied equal rights with the other States in the common
Territories. But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress,
which has never passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to
exclude slavery from these Territories; and certainly not by the
Supreme Court, which has solemnly decided that slaves are property,
and, like all other property, their owners have a right to take them
into the common Territories and hold them there under the protection
of the Constitution.

So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to
anything they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter.
It will surely be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is
no good reason for an immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true
that the Territorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February,
1860, passed in great haste an act over the veto of the governor
declaring that slavery "is and shall be forever prohibited in this
Territory." Such an act, however, plainly violating the rights of
property secured by the Constitution, will surely be declared void by
the judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a legal form.

Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United
States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a
Territorial legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the
times that the correctness of this decision has been extensively
impugned before the people, and the question has given rise to angry
political conflicts throughout the country. Those who have appealed
from this judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal to popular
assemblies would, if they could, invest a Territorial legislature
with power to annul the sacred rights of property. This power
Congress is expressly forbidden by the Federal Constitution to
exercise. Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden by its
own constitution to exercise it. It can not be exercised in any State
except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when framing
or amending their State constitution. In like manner it can only be
exercised by the people of a Territory represented in a convention of
delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to
admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not until then, are
they invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall
or shall not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign
authority, and not of subordinate Territorial legislation. Were it
otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the States in the
Territories be destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves would
depend not upon the guaranties of the Constitution, but upon the
shifting majorities of an irresponsible Territorial legislature. Such
a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can not long influence any
considerable portion of our people, much less can it afford a good
reason for a dissolution of the Union.

The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet
been committed consist in the acts of different State legislatures to
defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law. It ought to be
remembered, however, that for these acts neither Congress nor any
President can justly be held responsible. Having been passed in
violation of the Federal Constitution, they are therefore null and
void. All the courts, both State and national, before whom the
question has arisen have from the beginning declared the
fugitive-slave law to be constitutional. The single exception is that
of a State court in Wisconsin, and this has not only been reversed by
the proper appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal
reprobation that there can be no danger from it 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 unanimity. It is
rounded upon an express provision of the Constitution, requiring that
fugitive slaves who escape from service in one State to another shall
be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this provision it is a
well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself could never
have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other, under the
acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the
fugitive-slave law has been the law of the land from the days of
Washington until the present moment. Here, then, a 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
fail in the performance of this high duty, he will then have
manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the great
injury of the people of nearly 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 and of Christian
charity. 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 Administration, though Often, it is to be
regretted, with great loss and inconvenience to the master and with
considerable 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, it
is impossible for any human power to save the Union.

The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have
right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North.
Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States
are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them
in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the
remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used
all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be
justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the
Union.

I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance,
because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State,
whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede
from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any
violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the
Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of
its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire
from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be
on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary
association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the
contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of
sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of
public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three
States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and
hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without
responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to
such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into
fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of
toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as
the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with
the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of
the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were
discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the
country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the
Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its
advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument
there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty
struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it
never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or
advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all
vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved
she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this
have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States
would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not
until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such
a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the
conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the
16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South
Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:

The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at
will and without the consent of the other States from their most
solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the
millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such
authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles
upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects
which it is expressly formed to attain.

It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives
countenance to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon
inference; not from any language contained in the instrument itself,
but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it
was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an
individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the
remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the
father of the Constitution--

It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the
States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed,
consequently, by the same authority which formed the State
constitutions. Nor is the Government of the United States, created by
the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term,
within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the
constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is,
like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary
departments. It operates, like them directly on persons and things,
and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the
powers committed to it.

It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the
pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of
Confederation were entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual
Union between the States," and by the thirteenth article it is
expressly declared that "the articles of this Confederation shall be
inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be
perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the United States,
having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites
that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union." And
yet it is contended that this "more perfect union" does not include
the essential attribute of perpetuity.

But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively
from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the
Constitution on the Federal Government. These powers embrace the very
highest attributes of national sovereignty. They place both the sword
and the purse under its control. Congress has power to make war and
to make peace, to raise and support armies and navies, and to
conclude treaties with foreign governments. It is invested with the
power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof, and to
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.
It is not necessary to enumerate the other high powers which have
been conferred upon the Federal Government. In order to carry the
enumerated powers into effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right
to lay and collect duties on imports, and, in common with the States,
to lay and collect all other taxes.

But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon
Congress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the States
from interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has in
strong prohibitory language expressly declared that--

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of
credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of
debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts. Moreover--

No State shall without the consent of the Congress lay any imposts or
duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing its inspection laws.

And if they exceed this amount the excess shall belong, to the United
States. And--

No State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of
tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any
agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or
engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as
will not admit of delay.

In order still further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of these
high powers against State interposition, it is provided that--

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be
made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding.

The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the
obligations of official duty, and all Senators and Representatives of
the United States, all members of State legislatures, and all
executive and judicial officers, "both of the United States and of
the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support
this Constitution."

In order to carry into effect these powers, the Constitution has
established a perfect Government in all its forms--legislative,
executive, and judicial; and this Government to the extent of its
powers acts directly upon the individual citizens of every State, and
executes its own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this
respect it differs entirely from the Government under the old
Confederation, which was confined to making requisitions on the
States in their sovereign character. This left it in the discretion
of each whether to obey or to refuse, and they often declined to
comply with such requisitions. It thus became necessary for the
purpose of removing this barrier and "in order to form a more perfect
union" to establish a Government which could act directly upon the
people and execute its own laws without the intermediate agency of
the States. This has been accomplished by the Constitution of the
United States. In short, the Government created by the Constitution,
and deriving its authority from the sovereign people of each of the
several States, has precisely the same right to exercise its power
over the people of all these States in the enumerated cases that each
one of them possesses over subjects not delegated to the United
States, but "reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

To the extent of the delegated powers the Constitution of the United
States is as much a part of the constitution of each State and is as
binding upon its people as though it had been textually inserted
therein.

This Government, therefore, is a great and powerful Government,
invested with all the attributes of sovereignty over the special
subjects to which its authority extends. Its framers never intended
to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction, nor were
they at its creation guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own
dissolution. It was not intended by its framers to be the baseless
fabric of a vision, which at the touch of the enchanter would vanish
into thin air, but a substantial and mighty fabric, capable of
resisting the slow decay of time and of defying the storms of ages.
Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that day have indulged fears
that a Government of such high powers might violate the reserved
rights of the States, and wisely did they adopt the rule of a strict
construction of these powers to prevent the danger. But they did not
fear, nor had they any reason to imagine, that the Constitution would
ever be so interpreted as to enable any State by her own act, and
without the consent of her sister States, to discharge her people
from all or any of their federal obligations.

It may be asked, then, Are the people of the States without redress
against the tyranny and oppression of the Federal Government? By no
means. The right of resistance on the part of the governed against
the oppression of their governments can not be denied. It exists
independently of all constitutions, and has been exercised at all
periods of the world's history. Under it old governments have been
destroyed and new ones have taken their place. It is embodied in
strong and express language in our own Declaration of Independence.
But the distinction must ever be observed that this is revolution
against an established government, and not a voluntary secession from
it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us
look the danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor
less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable
revolution, but still it is revolution.

What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and true position of the
Executive? He is bound by solemn oath, before God and the country, "to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and from this
obligation he can not be absolved by any human power. But what if the
performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered
impracticable by events over which he could have exercised no
control? Such at the present moment is the case throughout the State
of South Carolina so far as the laws of the United States to secure
the administration of justice by means of the Federal judiciary are
concerned. All the Federal officers within its limits through whose
agency alone these laws can be carried into execution have already
resigned. We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney, or
a marshal in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of the
Federal Government necessary for the distribution of remedial justice
among the people has been demolished, and it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to replace it.

The only acts of Congress on the statute book bearing upon this
subject are those of February 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807. These
authorize the President, after he shall have ascertained that the
marshal, with his posse comitatus, is unable to execute civil or
criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the militia
and employ the Army and Navy to aid him in performing this service,
having first by proclamation commanded the insurgents "to disperse
and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited
time" This duty can not by possibility be performed in a State where
no judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there is no
marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were such an officer,
the entire population would constitute one solid combination to resist
him.

The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how inadequate they
are without further legislation to overcome a united opposition in a
single State, not to speak of other States who may place themselves
in a similar attitude. Congress alone has power to decide whether the
present laws can or can not be amended so as to carry out more
effectually the objects of the Constitution.

The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the
laws for the collection of the customs. The revenue still continues to
be collected as heretofore at the custom-house in Charleston, and
should the collector unfortunately resign a successor may be
appointed to perform this duty.

Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South
Carolina. This has been purchased for a fair equivalent, "by the
consent of the legislature of the State," "for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals," etc., and over these the authority "to exercise
exclusive legislation" has been expressly granted by the Constitution
to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel
the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should
prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received
orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency the
responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads
of the assailants.

Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be
practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be
the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He
has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to
change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to
acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a
mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution
of the confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears
no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government,
involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on
his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is therefore my duty to
submit to Congress the whole question in all its beatings. The course
of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency may soon
arise when you may be called upon to decide the momentous question
whether you possess the power by force of arms to compel a State to
remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I
not to express an opinion on this important subject.

The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to
Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is
attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the
Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the
principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare
and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have
arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to
Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is
manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not
among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it
is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper
for carrying into execution" any one of these powers. So far from
this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly
refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.

It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May,
1787, the clause "authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole
against a delinquent State" came up for consideration. Mr. Madison
opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract
but a single sentence. He observed:

The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration
of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be
considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous
compacts by which it might be bound.

Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never,
I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787,
when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any government
for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using
force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would
prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,"
evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old
Confederation.

Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the
power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit
and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in
the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we
hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature
of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the
people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to
Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own
volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a
constituent member of the Confederacy.

But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under
existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the
Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of
destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable
reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of
blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation
between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what
would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its
existence?

The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never
be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can
not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish.
Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but
the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.

But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and
deliberate before they determine to destroy this the grandest temple
which has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began?
It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of
the past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has already made
us the most prosperous, and ere long will, if preserved, render us
the most powerful, nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign
region of the globe the title of American citizen is held in the
highest respect, and when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the
hearts of our countrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely when we
reach the brink of the yawning abyss we shall recoil with horror from
the last fatal plunge.

By such a dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedom
throughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night of leaden
despotism would enshroud the nations. Our example for more than
eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as a
conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.

It is not every wrong--nay, it is not every grievous wrong--which can
justify a resort to such a fearful alternative. This ought to be the
last desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every other
constitutional means of conciliation had been exhausted. We should
reflect that under this free Government there is an incessant ebb and
flow in public opinion. The slavery question, like everything human,
will have its day. I firmly believe that it has reached and passed
the culminating point. But if in the midst of the existing excitement
the Union shall perish, the evil may then become irreparable.

Congress can contribute much to avert it by proposing and
recommending to the legislatures of the several States the remedy for
existing evils which the Constitution has itself provided for its own
preservation. This has been tried at different critical periods of
our history, and always with eminent success. It is to be found in
the fifth article, providing for its own amendment. Under this
article amendments have been proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of
Congress, and have been "ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the several States," and have consequently become parts of the
Constitution. To this process the country is indebted for the clause
prohibiting Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment
of religion or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of
the right of petition. To this we are also indebted for the bill of
rights which secures the people against any abuse of power by the
Federal Government. Such were the apprehensions justly entertained by
the friends of State rights at that period as to have rendered it
extremely doubtful whether the Constitution could have long survived
without those amendments.

Again the Constitution was amended by the same process, after the
election of President Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in
February, 1803. This amendment was rendered necessary to prevent a
recurrence of the dangers which had seriously threatened the
existence of the Government during the pendency of that election. The
article for its own amendment was intended to secure the amicable
adjustment of conflicting constitutional questions like the present
which might arise between the governments of the States and that of
the United States. This appears from contemporaneous history. In this
connection I shall merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr.
Madison's justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of
Virginia. In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions
of the preceding legislature against the strictures of several other
State legislatures. These were mainly rounded upon the protest of the
Virginia legislature against the "alien and sedition acts," as
"palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution." In pointing
out the peaceful and constitutional remedies--and he referred to none
other--to which the States were authorized to resort on such
occasions, he concludes by saying that--

The legislatures of the States might have made a direct
representation to Congress with a view to obtain a rescinding of the
two offensive acts, or they might have represented to their
respective Senators in Congress their wish that two-thirds thereof
would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution; or
two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might by an
application to Congress have obtained a convention for the same
object.

This is the very course which I earnestly recommend in order to
obtain an "explanatory amendment" of the Constitution on the subject
of slavery. This might originate with Congress or the State
legislatures, as may be deemed most advisable to attain the object.
The explanatory amendment might be confined to the final settlement
of the true construction of the Constitution on three special
points:

1. An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the
States where it now exists or may hereafter exist.

2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common Territories
throughout their Territorial existence, and until they shall be
admitted as States into the Union, with or without slavery, as their
constitutions may prescribe.

3. A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave
who has escaped from one State to another restored and "delivered up"
to him, and of the validity of the fugitive-slave law enacted for this
purpose, together with a declaration that all State laws impairing or
defeating this right are violations of the Constitution, and are
consequently null and void. It may be objected that this construction
of the Constitution has already been settled by the Supreme Court of
the United States, and what more ought to be required? The answer is
that a very large proportion of the people of the United States still
contest the correctness of this decision, and never will cease from
agitation and admit its binding force until clearly established by
the people of the several States in their sovereign character. Such
an explanatory amendment would, it is believed, forever terminate the
existing dissensions, and restore peace and harmony among the States.

It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the arbitrament
established by the Constitution itself would be received with favor
by all the States of the Confederacy. In any event, it ought to be
tried in a spirit of conciliation before any of these States shall
separate themselves from the Union.

When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, the aspect
neither of our foreign nor domestic affairs was at all satisfactory.
We were involved in dangerous complications with several nations, and
two of our Territories were in a state of revolution against the
Government. A restoration of the African slave trade had numerous and
powerful advocates. Unlawful military expeditions were countenanced by
many of our citizens, and were suffered, in defiance of the efforts of
the Government, to escape from our shores for the purpose of making
war upon the offending people of neighboring republics with whom we
were at peace. In addition to these and other difficulties, we
experienced a revulsion in monetary affairs soon after my advent to
power of unexampled severity and of ruinous consequences to all the
great interests of the country. When we take a retrospect of what was
then our condition and contrast this with its material prosperity at
the time of the late Presidential election, we have abundant reason
to return our grateful thanks to that merciful Providence which has
never forsaken us as a nation in all our past trials.

Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character.
Since the commencement of my Administration the two dangerous
questions arising from the Clayton and Bulwer treaty and from the
right of search claimed by the British Government have been amicably
and honorably adjusted.

The discordant constructions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty between
the two Governments, which at different periods of the discussion bore
a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely
satisfactory to this Government. In my last annual message I informed
Congress that the British Government had not then "completed treaty
arrangements with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in
pursuance of the understanding between the two Governments. It is,
nevertheless, confidently expected that this good work will ere long
be accomplished." This confident expectation has since been
fulfilled. Her Britannic Majesty concluded a treaty with Honduras on
the 28th November, 1859, and with Nicaragua on the 28th August, 1860,
relinquishing the Mosquito protectorate. Besides, by the former the
Bay Islands are recognized as a part of the Republic of Honduras. It
may be observed that the stipulations of these treaties conform in
every important particular to the amendments adopted by the Senate of
the United States to the treaty concluded at London on the 17th
October, 1856, between the two Governments. It will be recollected
that this treaty was rejected by the British Government because of
its objection to the just and important amendment of the Senate to
the article relating to Ruatan and the other islands in the Bay of
Honduras.

It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our
fellow-citizens, and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce,
that the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and
search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace
has been abandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to
the peace of the two countries which has existed since the War of
1812. Whilst it remained open they might at any moment have been
precipitated into a war. This was rendered manifest by the
exasperated state of public feeling throughout our entire country
produced by the forcible search of American merchant vessels by
British cruisers on the coast of Cuba in the spring of 1858. The
American people hailed with general acclaim the orders of the
Secretary of the Navy to our naval force in the Gulf of Mexico "to
protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search
or detention by the vessels of war of any other nation." These orders
might have produced an immediate collision between the naval forces
of the two countries. This was most fortunately prevented by an
appeal to the justice of Great Britain and to the law of nations as
expounded by her own most eminent jurists.

The only question of any importance which still remains open is the
disputed title between the two Governments to the island of San Juan,
in the vicinity of Washington Territory. As this question is still
under negotiation, it is not deemed advisable at the present moment
to make any other allusion to the subject.

The recent visit of the Prince of Wales, in a private character, to
the people of this country has proved to be a most auspicious event.
In its consequences it can not fail to increase the kindred and
kindly feelings which I trust may ever actuate the Government and
people of both countries in their political and social intercourse
with each other.

With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our relations continue to
be of the most friendly character. A decision has recently been made
by a French judicial tribunal, with the approbation of the Imperial
Government, which can not fail to foster the sentiments of mutual
regard that have so long existed between the two countries. Under the
French law no person can serve in the armies of France unless he be a
French citizen. The law of France recognizing the natural right of
expatriation, it follows as a necessary consequence that a Frenchman
by the fact of having become a citizen of the United States has
changed his allegiance and has lost his native character. He can not
therefore be compelled to serve in the French armies in case he
should return to his native country. These principles were announced
in 1852 by the French minister of war and in two late cases have been
confirmed by the French judiciary. In these, two natives of France
have been discharged from the French army because they had become
American citizens. To employ the language of our present minister to
France, who has rendered good service on this occasion. "I do not
think our French naturalized fellow-citizens will hereafter
experience much annoyance on this subject."

I venture to predict that the time is not far distant when the other
continental powers will adopt the same wise and just policy which has
done so much honor to the enlightened Government of the Emperor. In
any event, our Government is bound to protect the rights of our
naturalized citizens everywhere to the same extent as though they had
drawn their first breath in this country. We can recognize no
distinction between our native and naturalized citizens.

Between the great Empire of Russia and the United States the mutual
friendship and regard which has so long existed still continues to
prevail, and if possible to increase. Indeed, our relations with that
Empire are all that we could desire. Our relations with Spain are now
of a more complicated, though less dangerous, character than they
have been for many years. Our citizens have long held and continue to
hold numerous claims against the Spanish Government. These had been
ably urged for a series of years by our successive diplomatic
representatives at Madrid, but without obtaining redress. The Spanish
Government finally agreed to institute a joint commission for the
adjustment of these claims, and on the 5th day of March, 1860,
concluded a convention for this purpose with our present minister at
Madrid.

Under this convention what have been denominated the "Cuban claims,"
amounting to $128,635.54, in which more than 100 of our
fellow-citizens are interested, were recognized, and the Spanish
Government agreed to pay $100,000 of this amount "within three months
following the exchange of ratifications." The payment of the remaining
$28,635.54 was to await the decision of the commissioners for or
against the Amistad claim; but in any event the balance was to be
paid to the claimants either by Spain or the United States. These
terms, I have every reason to know, are highly satisfactory to the
holders of the Cuban claims. Indeed, they have made a formal offer
authorizing the State Department to settle these claims and to deduct
the amount of the Amistad claim from the sums which they are entitled
to receive from Spain. This offer, of course, can not be accepted.
All other claims of citizens of the United States against Spain, or
the subjects of the Queen of Spain against the United States,
including the Amistad claim, were by this convention referred to a
board of commissioners in the usual form. Neither the validity of the
Amistad claim nor of any other claim against either party, with the
single exception of the Cuban claims, was recognized by the
convention. Indeed, the Spanish Government did not insist that the
validity of the Amistad claim should be thus recognized,
notwithstanding its payment had been recommended to Congress by two
of my predecessors, as well as by myself, and an appropriation for
that purpose had passed the Senate of the United States.

They were content that it should be submitted to the board for
examination and decision like the other claims. Both Governments were
bound respectively to pay the amounts awarded to the several claimants
"at such times and places as may be fixed by and according to the
tenor of said awards."

I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their constitutional
action on the 3d of May, 1860, and on the 27th of the succeeding June
they determined that they would "not advise and consent" to its
ratification.

These proceedings place our relations with Spain in an awkward and
embarrassing position. It is more than probable that the final
adjustment of these claims will devolve upon my successor.

I reiterate the recommendation contained in my annual message of
December, 1858, and repeated in that of December, 1859, in favor of
the acquisition of Cuba from Spain by fair purchase. I firmly believe
that such an acquisition would contribute essentially to the
well-being and prosperity of both countries in all future time, as
well as prove the certain means of immediately abolishing the African
slave trade throughout the world. I would not repeat this
recommendation upon the present occasion if I believed that the
transfer of Cuba to the United States upon conditions highly
favorable to Spain could justly tarnish the national honor of the
proud and ancient Spanish monarchy. Surely no person ever attributed
to the first Napoleon a disregard of the national honor of France for
transferring Louisiana to the United States for a fair equivalent,
both in money and commercial advantages.

With the Emperor of Austria and the remaining continental powers of
Europe, including that of the Sultan, our relations continue to be of
the most friendly character.

The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by the Government of the
United States toward the Empire of China has produced the most
satisfactory results. The treaty of Tien-tsin of the 18th June, 1858,
has been faithfully observed by the Chinese authorities. The
convention of the 8th November, 1858, supplementary to this treaty,
for the adjustment and satisfaction of the claims of our citizens on
China referred to in my last annual message, has been already carried
into effect so far as this was practicable. Under this convention the
sum of 500,000 taels, equal to about $700,000, was stipulated to be
paid in satisfaction of the claims of American citizens out of the
one-fifth of the receipts for tonnage, import, and export duties on
American vessels at the ports of Canton, Shanghai, and Fuchau, and it
was "agreed that this amount shall be in full liquidation of all
claims of American citizens at the various ports to this date."
Debentures for this amount, to wit, 300,000 taels for Canton, 100,000
for Shanghai, and 100,000 for Fuchau, were delivered, according to the
terms of the convention, by the respective Chinese collectors of the
customs of these ports to the agent selected by our minister to
receive the same. Since that time the claims of our citizens have
been adjusted by the board of commissioners appointed for that
purpose under the act of March 3, 1859, and their awards, which
proved satisfactory to the claimants, have been approved by our
minister. In the aggregate they amount to the sum of $498,694.78. The
claimants have already received a large proportion of the sums awarded
to them out of the fund provided, and it is confidently expected that
the remainder will ere long be entirely paid. After the awards shall
have been satisfied there will remain a surplus of more than $200,000
at the disposition of Congress. As this will, in equity, belong to the
Chinese Government, would not justice require its appropriation to
some benevolent object in which the Chinese may be specially
interested?

Our minister to China, in obedience to his instructions, has remained
perfectly neutral in the war between Great Britain and France and the
Chinese Empire, although, in conjunction with the Russian minister,
he was ever ready and willing, had the opportunity offered, to employ
his good offices in restoring peace between the parties. It is but an
act of simple justice, both to our present minister and his
predecessor, to state that they have proved fully equal to the
delicate, trying, and responsible positions in which they have on
different occasions been placed.

The ratifications of the treaty with Japan concluded at Yeddo on the
29th July, 1858, were exchanged at Washington on the 22d May last,
and the treaty itself was proclaimed on the succeeding day. There is
good reason to expect that under its protection and influence our
trade and intercourse with that distant and interesting people will
rapidly increase.

The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged with unusual
solemnity. For this purpose the Tycoon had accredited three of his
most distinguished subjects as envoys extraordinary and ministers
plenipotentiary, who were received and treated with marked
distinction and kindness, both by the Government and people of the
United States. There is every reason to believe that they have
returned to their native land entirely satisfied with their visit and
inspired by the most friendly feelings for our country. Let us
ardently hope, in the language of the treaty itself, that "there
shall henceforward be perpetual peace and friendship between the
United States of America and His Majesty the Tycoon of Japan and his
successors."

With the wise, conservative, and liberal Government of the Empire of
Brazil our relations continue to be of the most amicable character.

The exchange of the ratifications of the convention with the Republic
of New Granada signed at Washington on the 10th of September, 1857,
has been long delayed from accidental causes for which neither party
is censurable. These ratifications were duly exchanged in this city
on the 5th of November last. Thus has a controversy been amicably
terminated which had become so serious at the period of my
inauguration as to require me, on the 17th of April, 1857, to direct
our minister to demand his passports and return to the United
States.

Under this convention the Government of New Granada has specially
acknowledged itself to be responsible to our citizens "for damages
which were caused by the riot at Panama on the 15th April, 1856."
These claims, together with other claims of our citizens which had
been long urged in vain, are referred for adjustment to a board of
commissioners. I submit a copy of the convention to Congress, and
recommend the legislation necessary to carry it into effect.

Persevering efforts have been made for the adjustment of the claims
of American citizens against the Government of Costa Rica, and I am
happy to inform you that these have finally prevailed. A convention
was signed at the city of San Jose on the 2d July last, between the
minister resident of the United States in Costa Rica and the
plenipotentiaries of that Republic, referring these claims to a board
of commissioners and providing for the payment of their awards. This
convention will be submitted immediately to the Senate for their
constitutional action.

The claims of our citizens upon the Republic of Nicaragua have not
yet been provided for by treaty, although diligent efforts for this
purpose have been made by our minister resident to that Republic.
These are still continued, with a fair prospect of success.

Our relations with Mexico remain in a most unsatisfactory condition.
In my last two annual messages I discussed extensively the subject of
these relations, and do not now propose to repeat at length the facts
and arguments then presented. They proved conclusively that our
citizens residing in Mexico and our merchants trading thereto had
suffered a series of wrongs and outrages such as we have never
patiently borne from any other nation. For these our successive
ministers, invoking the faith of treaties, had in the name of their
country persistently demanded redress and indemnification, but
without the slightest effect. Indeed, so confident had the Mexican
authorities become of our patient endurance that they universally
believed they might commit these outrages upon American citizens with
absolute impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 1856, and expressed the
opinion that "nothing but a manifestation of the power of the
Government and of its purpose to punish these wrongs will avail."

Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new constitution for
Mexico, the election of a President and Congress under its
provisions, and the inauguration of the President. Within one short
month, however, this President was expelled from the capital by a
rebellion in the army, and the supreme power of the Republic was
assigned to General Zuloaga. This usurper was in his turn soon
compelled to retire and give place to General Miramon.

Under the constitution which had thus been adopted Senor Juarez, as
chief justice of the supreme court, became the lawful President of
the Republic, and it was for the maintenance of the constitution and
his authority derived from it that the civil war commenced and still
continues to be prosecuted.

Throughout the year 1858 the constitutional party grew stronger and
stronger. In the previous history of Mexico a successful military
revolution at the capital had almost universally been the signal for
submission throughout the Republic. Not so on the present occasion. A
majority of the citizens persistently sustained the constitutional
Government. When this was recognized, in April, 1859, by the
Government of the United States, its authority extended over a large
majority of the Mexican States and people, including Vera Cruz and
all the other important seaports of the Republic. From that period
our commerce with Mexico began to revive, and the constitutional
Government has afforded it all the protection in its power.

Meanwhile the Government of Miramon still held sway at the capital
and over the surrounding country, and continued its outrages against
the few American citizens who still had the courage to remain within
its power. To cap the climax, after the battle of Tacubaya, in April,
1859, General Marquez ordered three citizens of the United States, two
of them physicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place, taken
out and shot, without crime and without trial. This was done,
notwithstanding our unfortunate countrymen were at the moment engaged
in the holy cause of affording relief to the soldiers of both parties
who had been wounded in the battle, without making any distinction
between them.

The time had arrived, in my opinion, when this Government was bound
to exert its power to avenge and redress the wrongs of our citizens
and to afford them protection in Mexico. The interposing obstacle was
that the portion of the country under the sway of Miramon could not be
reached without passing over territory under the jurisdiction of the
constitutional Government. Under these circumstances I deemed it my
duty to recommend to Congress in my last annual message the
employment of a sufficient military force to penetrate into the
interior, where the Government of Miramon was to be found, with or,
if need be, without the consent of the Juarez Government, though it
was not doubted that this consent could be obtained. Never have I had
a clearer conviction on any subject than of the justice as well as
wisdom of such a policy. No other alternative was left except the
entire abandonment of our fellow-citizens who had gone to Mexico
under the faith of treaties to the systematic injustice, cruelty, and
oppression of Miramon's Government. Besides, it is almost certain that
the simple authority to employ this force would of itself have
accomplished all our objects without striking a single blow. The
constitutional Government would then ere this have been established
at the City of Mexico, and would have been ready and willing to the
extent of its ability to do us justice.

In addition--and I deem this a most important consideration--European
Governments would have been deprived of all pretext to interfere in
the territorial and domestic concerns of Mexico. We should thus have
been relieved from the obligation of resisting, even by force should
this become necessary, any attempt by these Governments to deprive
our neighboring Republic of portions of her territory--a duty from
which we could not shrink without abandoning the traditional and
established policy of the American people. I am happy to observe
that, firmly relying upon the justice and good faith of these
Governments, there is no present danger that such a contingency will
happen.

Having discovered that my recommendations would not be sustained by
Congress, the next alternative was to accomplish in some degree, if
possible, the same objects by treaty stipulations with the
constitutional Government. Such treaties were accordingly concluded
by our late able and excellent minister to Mexico, and on the 4th of
January last were submitted to the Senate for ratification. As these
have not yet received the final action of that body, it would be
improper for me to present a detailed statement of their provisions.
Still, I may be permitted to express the opinion in advance that they
are calculated to promote the agricultural, manufacturing, and
commercial interests of the country and to secure our just influence
with an adjoining Republic as to whose fortunes and fate we can never
feel indifferent, whilst at the same time they provide for the payment
of a considerable amount toward the satisfaction of the claims of our
injured fellow-citizens.

At the period of my inauguration I was confronted in Kansas by a
revolutionary government existing under what is called the "Topeka
constitution." Its avowed object was to subdue the Territorial
government by force and to inaugurate what was called the "Topeka
government" in its stead. To accomplish this object an extensive
military organization was formed, and its command intrusted to the
most violent revolutionary leaders. Under these circumstances it
became my imperative duty to exert the whole constitutional power of
the Executive to prevent the flames of civil war from again raging in
Kansas, which in the excited state of the public mind, both North and
South, might have extended into the neighboring States. The hostile
parties in Kansas had been inflamed against each other by emissaries
both from the North and the South to a degree of malignity without
parallel in our history. To prevent actual collision and to assist
the civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a strong detachment of
the Army was stationed in the Territory, ready to aid the marshal and
his deputies when lawfully called upon as a posse comitatus in the
execution of civil and criminal process. Still, the troubles in
Kansas could not have been permanently settled without an election by
the people.

The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Under
this conviction every proper effort was employed to induce the hostile
parties to vote at the election of delegates to frame a State
constitution, and afterwards at the election to decide whether Kansas
should be a slave or free State.

The insurgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might be
considered a recognition on their part of the Territorial government
established by Congress. A better spirit, however, seemed soon after
to prevail, and the two parties met face to face at the third
election, held on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of
the legislature and State officers under the Lecompton constitution.
The result was the triumph of the antislavery party at the polls.
This decision of the ballot box proved clearly that this party were
in the majority, and removed the danger of civil war. From that time
we have heard little or nothing of the Topeka government, and all
serious danger of revolutionary troubles in Kansas was then at an
end.

The Lecompton constitution, which had been thus recognized at this
State election by the votes of both political parties in Kansas, was
transmitted to me with the request that I should present it to
Congress. This I could not have refused to do without violating my
clearest and strongest convictions of duty. The constitution and all
the proceedings which preceded and followed its formation were fair
and regular on their face. I then believed, and experience has
proved, that the interests of the people of Kansas would have been
best consulted by its admission as a State into the Union, especially
as the majority within a brief period could have amended the
constitution according to their will and pleasure. If fraud existed
in all or any of these proceedings, it was not for the President but
for Congress to investigate and determine the question of fraud and
what ought to be its consequences. If at the first two elections the
majority refused to vote, it can not be pretended that this refusal
to exercise the elective franchise could invalidate an election
fairly held under lawful authority, even if they had not subsequently
voted at the thir