Part 87 (1/2)

The Convention was then a body of men without a recognized and ascertained const.i.tuency, called together in an exigency and without preparation, and invited to initiate measures for the amendment of the Const.i.tution in most important particulars, and all at a moment when the public mind was swayed by fears and alarms such as have never before been experienced by the American people.

In these circ.u.mstances the undersigned thought it inexpedient to propose amendments to the Const.i.tution, believing that so important an act should not be initiated and accomplished without the greatest deliberation and care. Nor could the undersigned satisfy themselves that any or all of the proposed amendments would even tend, in any considerable degree, to the preservation of the Union. Although inquiries were repeatedly made, no a.s.surance was given that any propositions of amendment would secure the return of the seceded States; and it was admitted that several of the Border States would ultimately unite with the Gulf States, either within or without the limits of the Union, as might be dictated by events yet in the future.

Indeed, no proposition was in any degree acceptable to the majority of delegates from the border slave States that did not provide for the extension of slavery to the Territories, and its protection and security therein.

And further, as appears from the Journal, the Convention was not prepared to deny the right of a State to secede from the Union. Mr.

Field, of New York, introduced the following proposition, which, on motion of Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, was laid upon the table:

”The Union of the States under the Const.i.tution is indissoluble; and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligation of obedience to the Const.i.tution and laws of the United States.”

After much debate and repeated attempts to avoid a direct vote, the following proposition was rejected:

”It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the present Const.i.tution that the union of the States under it is indissoluble.”

AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, New York, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, and Kansas--10.

NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11.

On the last day of the session, Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, moved the adoption of the following resolution:

”_Resolved_, as the sense of this Convention, that the highest political duty of every citizen of the United States is his allegiance to the Federal Government, created by the Const.i.tution of the United States, and that no State of this Union has any const.i.tutional right to secede therefrom, or to absolve the citizens of such State from their allegiance to the Government of the United States.”

Mr. Ruffin, of North Carolina, moved to postpone the consideration of the same indefinitely, and the resolution was thereupon postponed by the following vote:

AYES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10.

NOES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, and Pennsylvania--7.

For these reasons and others the Commissioners from Ma.s.sachusetts supported the proposition originally made by Kentucky, and introduced by Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, recommending a national convention for the purpose of revising the Const.i.tution, and of providing for the exigencies likely to arise from the changed and perilous condition of the country. This measure offered an opportunity for consideration by the people, and for careful deliberation by the convention that might be const.i.tuted for the purpose. It is highly probable that, after the lapse of three-fourths of a century, a convention of delegates from all the States would by general consent propose amendments to the Const.i.tution; and it is also probable that such a convention would at once tend to strengthen the feeling of brotherhood among the people of various sections, while the discussion of the principles of the Government would render its preservation of paramount concern to all.

This measure of peace and union was rejected.

The undersigned are constrained by the force of many facts and circ.u.mstances to believe that an exciting cause of the present difficulties, and a serious obstacle to their removal, is the possible acquisition of Mexico and Central America.

The proceedings of the Convention furnish evidence upon this point.

The proposition to restore the Missouri Compromise, which guaranteed freedom north of the parallel 36 30' north lat.i.tude, but furnished no protection to slavery south of that line, was rejected by the aid of the unanimous support of the slaveholding States.

The proposition to settle the territorial question by the admission of New Mexico as a State, was summarily discouraged by the South in the committee.

The suggestion of one of the Commissioners from Ma.s.sachusetts, that if the Convention would leave the territorial question out of view, the difficulties concerning the rights and relations of the existing States might be adjusted, did not meet with a favorable response from the slaveholding section of the country.

It is to be observed further, that the various propositions and amendments which were in any degree acceptable to the slave States guaranteed slavery south of said line.

It did not seem to the undersigned of signal importance, whether this guarantee was limited to our present territories, or made in words to apply to all future acquisitions. Whenever the line of slave States from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean shall be formed, an effectual barrier will have been raised against the migration of freemen southward. Nor can it be a.s.sumed, that either with or without const.i.tutional prohibition, the limits of the republic are not to be further extended; and if the proposed line be established by the Const.i.tution, the fairest portions of North America will be given up irrevocably to African slavery. Nor is the limitation of the right of a sovereign State to fix its own boundaries, which involves the right to acquire territory, consistent with its honor in peace, or compatible with its dignity and necessities in time of war. The American people are fully forewarned that it is unwise to rely upon const.i.tutional prohibitions against the acquisition of territory; nor can such prohibitions always withstand the a.s.saults of a determined and desperate majority when acting in harmony with the tendencies of public opinion, and the real or supposed necessities of the country.