on the policies and on the foundation upon which we are to establish governments. I look at it, sir, with a fear and trembling that predispose me to the most solemn considerations that I am capable of feeling, to search out, if it be possible, some means for the reconciliation of all the different sections and members of this Union, and see if we cannot again restore that harmony and that fraternity and that union which once existed in this country, and which gave so much of blessing and so much of benefit to us all. I hope that we shall not now engage in any irritating or angry debate. Our duties require of us very different dispositions of mind; and I trust none of us will allow ourselves to be irritated or provoked, or through any inadvertence involved in any angry or irritating discussions now. Calm consideration is demanded of us; a solemn duty is to be performed, not invectives to be pronounced; not passions to be aroused; not wrongs to be detailed and aggravated over and over again. Let us look to the future; let us look to the present only to see what are the dangers and what are the remedies, and to appeal for the adoption of those remedies, to the good feeling of every portion of this House. It is in that

way only that we can arrive at a peaceable and satisfactory conclusion.

I am content, sir, that the gentleman's motion for printing the message shall be passed, and will waive any remarks which I might have been disposed otherwise to make on that message. I do not agree that there is no power in the President to preserve the Union. I will say that now. If we have a Union at all, and if, as the President thinks, there is no right to secede on the part of any State (and I agree with him in that), I think there is a right to employ our power to preserve the Union. I do not say how we should apply it, or under what circumstances we should apply it. I leave all that open. To say that no State has a right to secede, that it is wrong to the Union, and yet that the Union has no right to interpose any obstacle to its secession, seems to me to be altogether contradictory.

ALFRED IVERSON,

OF GEORGIA.

(BORN 1798, DIED 1874.)

ON

SECESSION; SECESSIONIST OPINION; IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, DECEMBER 5, 1860.

I DO not rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of entering at any length into this discussion, or to defend the President's message, which has been attacked by the Senator from New Hampshire.* I am not the mouth-piece of the President. While I do not agree with some portions of the message, and some of the positions that have been taken by the President, I do not perceive all the inconsistencies in that document which the Senator from New Hampshire has thought proper to present.

It is true, that the President denies the constitutional right of a State to secede from the Union; while, at the same time, he also states that this Federal Government has no constitu

*See page 105.

tional right to enforce or to coerce a State back into the Union which may take upon itself the responsibility of secession. I do not see any inconsistency in that. The President may be right when he asserts the fact that no State has a constitutional right to secede from the Union. I do not myself place the right of a State to secede from the Union upon constitutional grounds. I admit that the Constitution has not granted that power to a State. It is exceedingly doubtful even whether the right has been reserved. Certainly it has not been reserved in express terms. I therefore do not place the expected action of any of the Southern States, in the present contingency, upon the constitutional right of secession; and I am not prepared to dispute therefore, the position which the President has taken upon that point.

I rather agree with the President that the secession of a State is an act of revolution taken through that particular means or by that particular measure. It withdraws from the Federal compact, disclaims any further allegiance to it, and sets itself up as a separate government, an independent State. The State does it at its peril, of course, because it may or may not be cause of war by the remaining States composing

the Federal Government. If they think proper to consider it such an act of disobedience, or if they consider that the policy of the Federal Government be such that it cannot submit to this dismemberment, why then they may or may not make war if they choose upon the seceding States. It will be a question of course for the Federal Government or the remaining States to decide for themselves, whether they will permit a State to go out of the Union, and remain as a separate and independent State, or whether they will attempt to force her back at the point of the bayonet. That is a question, I presume, of policy and expediency, which will be considered by the remaining States composing the Federal Government, through their organ, the Federal Government, whenever the contingency arises.

But, sir, while a State has no power, under the Constitution, conferred upon it to secede from the Federal Government or from the Union, each State has the right of revolution, which all admit. Whenever the burdens of the government under which it acts become so onerous that it cannot bear them, or if anticipated evil shall be so great that the State believes it would be better off-even risking the perils of seces