1.1.1. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The time of half past 10 having arrived, the Convention, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the question being on the third resolution, as follows :

"3d. The choice of functionaries of a common Government established for the common good, for the reason that they entertain opinions and avow purposes hostile to the institutions of some of the States, necessarily excludes the people of one section from participation in the administration of Government, subjects the weaker to the.Page8 domination of the stronger section, leads to abuse, and is incompatible with the safety of those whose interests are imperilled; the formation, therefore, of geographical or sectional parties in respect to Federal politics is contrary to the principles on which our system rests, and tends to its overthrow."

1.1.2. PERSONAL EXPLANATION

With the permission of the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , who is entitled to the floor, I desire to correct, in some particulars, the report of some remarks which I submitted on Thursday last. I would not complain of this report, if, in certain respects, it made me speak respectable nonsense, but inasmuch as I am made to speak not even that, I cannot allow it to go farther to the world as emanating from me.

In the afternoon session on Thursday last, I offered an amendment to the report of the Committee of Twenty-one. As it is reported it reads thus :

"I propose to amend it by striking out after the word 'instrument' the words: 'the people of each State agreed to associate with the people of the other States, upon a footing of exact equality;' and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: 'each State acceded as a State and as an integral party with its co-States, forming as to itself the other party ;' so that it will read:

"That the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties, and in adopting that instrument, each State acceded," &c.

Now, sir, I made a quotation in the amendment which I offered, from the resolution which was drafted by Mr. Jefferson and presented by Mr. Breckinridge to the Kentucky Legislature for adoption, in 1798, and if I could have been guilty of writing such nonsense, Mr. Jefferson never was. The amendment I offered was, to insert after the words "this instrument," the following words : "Each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party."

If this amendment of mine had appeared upon the journal, I would not ask that the report of it and of my remarks in reference to it, which appear in the "Enquirer," should be corrected ; but it will no where appear except in the columns of that paper.

I stated, sir, in my remarks, that the right of secession was not derived from the Constitution, and could not be termed strictly a legal .Page9 right, but that it was one over and above the Constitution—a right that the States had never parted with, and that it still resided with them. I urged that it was one of the same class of rights which are exercised by each and every one of the sovereign powers of the earth, in forming treaties which they might abrogate; and that, although they might be held responsible to the contracting parties for a refusal to respect or a neglect to obey the injunctions of the treaty, yet, that the power, the sovereign power to abrogate, resided in each of the parties, and could not be controlled by the other, although it might involve the party refusing to obey the treaty in war with its co-contracting party.

My idea upon this point is presented in this report altogether different from the manner in which I endeavored to present it to the committee. I stated that this amendment which I then offered would not impair the beauty and the symmetry of the affirmations contained in the first section of the report of the committee of twenty-one. Instead of that I am reported as saying: "This amendment will add to the beauty, the symmetry, and the proportion of the first section," &c.

Then, again, in the few remarks, I submitted in reply to the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , I first remarked that I desired to read an extract from a letter from Mr. Madison to Mr. Everett in 1830. And I supplied the reporter with the letter itself. Yet no information is given from whence that extract is derived, and it might be inferred by the public that I had spoken of some private letter, as the gentleman from Fauquier did, and which I stated I had heard of but had never seen. The quotation from Mr. Madison is correct as it appears, but it does not appear as coming from a letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Everett.

But, sir, here is what is not respectable nonsense :

"In all the twenty-eight pages of the revised Code, what does my friend find? that the Federal Government, acting for and on behalf of their constituents, who are the people, ratified the Constitution of the United States, and declared that it shall be binding upon the people of the State."

Sir, I not only never uttered any such a confused idea upon a subject of which I profess to have some comprehension, but I never entertained such an opinion as in this declaration I am reported to have made. I asked the gentleman from Fauquier if on page 28 (not in all the pages, for I have some knowledge of that Code) , he could find that the Virginia Convention had undertaken to declare that .Page10 they, on behalf of themselves and the people of the other States of the Union, thereby ratified and confirmed the Constitution as presented by the Federal Convention of 1787. I argued that the Virginia Convention undertook to ratify that Constitution in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia, but did not undertake to declare that in that ratification, in any sense, they were associating themselves with all the other States composing the United States.

Now, sir, there are other mistakes in this report, as there are in previous reports of remarks I have submitted, but they are of a character that most readers would correct for themselves. I am very sure that the reporter did not design to misrepresent me, but either my manner or my delivery was so unfortunate as not to enable him even to catch the idea that I was endeavoring to advance before the Committee; and, as suggested by my friend here, there was a great deal of confusion at the time, and that it was not unnatural that the reporter should misunderstand the idea I was advancing, as well as the language I was using.

Mr. Chairman when I yielded the floor yesterday I was about to remark, that the people of Virginia had caused this Convention to assemble for the purpose of taking into consideration the great fact, whether Virginia should dissolve her connection with the Federal Government or not. As I am one of the representatives upon this floor, as well as one of the people of Virginia who believe that she or any other State in this Union, for cause to be judged of by themselves, have the right to dissolve their connection with the Federal Government, a decent regard for public opinion, and a proper appreciation of my own self respect, after what has occurred here renders it, in my judgment, imperative that something should be said in favor of this great right of secession. Only one gentleman, so far as I remember, had attempted during the progress of our deliberations to make an argument against this right. I allude to the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . Other gentlemen have sneered at it. The venerable gentleman from Rockbridge [Mr. MooRE] , denounced it as ridiculous and absurd; my friend from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] , sneered at it; the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , referred to it as ridiculous; the gentleman from Prince George, who addressed you on Friday last [Mr. RIVES] , denounced in open and bold terms all of us who entertained that opinion, and who were willing to act upon it as traitors, and inquired if there was not such a thing as hemp for us.

He went further, and imputed unworthy motives to us. He said that our desire to exercise this right was based on motives of self-promotion in the Southern Confederacy. Thus, sir, while we have been denounced as traitors, while our doctrine has been denounced as ridiculous, while the doctrine of the fathers of the Republic is held up to the scorn of the world, I trust I shall be excused if I attempt to put this great doctrine on a foundation from which I think it cannot be overthrown.

I trust, Mr. Chairman, that if, in the ardor of my temperament. I shall seem to manifest something like harshness and unkindness, gentlemen who differ with me will excuse me, for I assure them that I desire to be perfectly courteous and respectful to all. I have not an unkind feeling against a member of this Convention, and why should I? We are all Virginians. We are all seeking to attain the same great object. We have all been reared under the same great principles of constitutional liberty.

Although we may differ here for a time, I have the consolation to believe that the day is not far distant when all of us, the whole people of Virginia, will rally together as a band of brothers in defence of the time-honored rights of Virginia, and when Virginia does that the world will see that she is still the friend of liberty, and the uncompromising foe of tyranny and oppression.

Mr. President, one of the wisest men that Virginia or this country ever produced—I mean the venerable Mason, the author of your Bill of Rights—declared that "the perpetuity of our institutions depended on a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. I propose to recur briefly to some fundamental principles of our government, and see whether, by a proper application of those principles, to the crisis in which we stand, there is not a course of safety and of escape from the dangers which threaten to overwhelm us.

I hope the Committee will bear with me if I be somewhat tedious. What sort of Government is this we have? Is it a Consolidated Government? Is it a Central Empire, governed and controlled in all its departments by a mere majority of the whole people of the country? Or on the other hand, is it a compact between Sovereign States—a government of defined and limited powers, fixed and prescribed for certain well defined purposes? On the answer to this question depends, in my judgment, the proper solution of the great question of the doctrine of the right of secession.

The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , said that this doctrine of secession was a doctrine of modern origin—that it emanated from New England. I think I understood him to say that it emanated from the Hartford Convention, and was endorsed by that Convention. While I do not endorse the doctrine put forth in the Hartford Convention, yet I have read their resolutions with care, and I find no such doctrine laid down there. I take issue with the gentleman. I say that so far as this Commonwealth is concerned, and so far as these United States are concerned it had its origin in Virginia. Virginia was the first State on this Continent that ever exercised the great doctrine of secession. When did Virginia do that? On the 15th of May, 1776—prior to your Declaration of Independence. She did not go about to consult border States, to see what they would do. In the plenitude of her sovereignty, and in the depth of her patriotism, she severed her connection with the British Government, thereby exercising the great right of secession. As was eloquently said by my departed and venerated preceptor, the late Judge Beverley Tucker, "prior to your Declaration of Independence, her voice of defiance was always ringing in the tyrant's ears; hers was the cry that summoned him to the strife : hers was the shout that invited his vengeance."

It is a Virginian doctrine. I shall show, before I get through, that one of the greatest men of the country, differing with him as we in Virginia have always done on many great cardinal principles—a man whose ability the world has acknowledged and paid homage to John Quincy Adams—referred to that act of separation from England as secession, and quoted it as a precedent in favor of States resorting to the same means of getting rid of the Federal Government.

That, sir, was the first act of secession. What was the next? I hope the Committee will bear with me when I show that old Virginia, who adopted the first act of secession on this continent, was the first to take the move to bring about another great measure of secession. In January 1786, Virginia, by her Legislature proposed a Convention of Delegates from the States for the purpose of augmenting the powers of Congress in regard to the regulation of commerce. It was held in Annapolis, only five States being represented ; and that Convention recommended that all the States should appoint commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, on the second Monday of May, 1787, to take into consideration the situation of the country, &c. And on the 21st of Febr., 1787, Congress passed a resolution calling a Convention—for what purpose? For the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several .Page13 Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as should be agreed to.

That was the beginning of your present Confederation. That Convention met and formed our Constitution. That Constitution was referred to the people of the States for ratification or rejection by Conventions of the people. I have heard a good deal said against the people of the South, that they are usurping powers, that they are ratifying a Federal Constitution through their State Convention, without referring back the question to the people. Sir, they are following our example. They are following the example of the men of 1787 and 1788. In no single instance was the Federal Constitution ever voted upon by the people after it was ratified by the Convention of the States.

Do I understand my friend from Middlesex to say that the Constitution of the Confederate States, adopted by the Montgomery Congress, has been referred to Conventions of the people of the several States, for ratification or rejection, as was the Constitution of the United States?

Substantially the same thing, sir.

I understand that that Convention expressly refused to refer to the people of the several States the Constitution which they have adopted.

Yes, because they had Conventions in session at the same time, and it was idle, and absurd, and nonsensical, to be calling other Conventions, to do what the Conventions already in session had complete and adequate powers to do. It was substantially the same thing as our forefathers did.

Now, what sort of government is this? Is it a compact between sovereign parties? I will not stop to argue that question. Just take up the celebrated report of Mr. Madison, which has been the political law of Virginia for sixty years, and which is quoted as authority here by all sides, and you will see that it is declared to be a compact between sovereign States. If it is a compact, who is to judge of its infraction? We all know what Virginia has said on that subject. She has declared, and we have all acquiesced in it, that being a compact between sovereign States, the States who are parties to it can alone judge of its infraction, and of the mode and manner of redress. That is the Virginia doctrine. That was the doctrine of the whole country at the time the Constitution was pending before' the States for ratifica tion. I read from the "Federalist," page 144, an article written, not by .Page14 Mr. Madison, not by any Virginian, but by one of the great intellects of the North, Mr. Hamilton :

"But I may again be asked who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer first that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause ; and I answer, in the second place, that the National Government, like every other, must judge in the first instance of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last."

"Its constituents in the last." Who are the constituents of the Federal Government? Why, the sovereign States. Here, then, I have the political law of Virginia, agreeing with the law, as laid down by the great political philosopher of that day at the North, that this is a compact between sovereign States, and that the General Government can judge of the extent of its powers, and in the last resort, the constituents—the States themselves—are to judge of it.

I might here rest my argument. If you admit that this is a compact between sovereign parties ( States) , and that these parties shall judge whether the compact has been faithfully and honestly fulfilled, I might rest, because on that doctrine any State can judge for itself ; it can select any mode of redress that it may think proper. But, says my old and gallant friend—I beg his pardon, my young friend—from Powhatan [Mr. SCOTT] , this doctrine cannot be so—that this is a government of the people of the United States; following up the idea put forth by Mr. Lincoln, and taken up by my friend from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , that this is a government of a majority, and not of minority. He says that we are a government of the people of the whole United States, and he quotes the preamble to the Constitution for the purpose of showing that by the adoption of the Constitution, the States had merged their individuality and sovereignty in the naticnal government at Washington. I wish, just here, to put the committee in possession of a fact on this subject, the presentation of which scatters to the four winds of Heaven all ideas about this being a government of one people, because the preamble declares, "we, the people of the United States." Suppose that preamble had declared, as that of the South does, that "we, the people of the separate States," would that not have preserved the individuality and sovereignty of each State? Now, let us see what the preamble did say. The history of the preamble is this : On the 6th of August, 1787, a committee, appointed for the purpose, reported the first draft of the Constitution. The preamble was in these words : "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire,.Page15 Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain and establish," &c. (1 Ell. Debates, 255.)

On the next day this preamble was unanimously adopted, and you will see it distinctly preserves the sovereignty of the States by naming each.

Then, sir, and after they had adopted the preamble, to wit : on the 8th of September, 1787, they appointed a committee of five simply "to revise the style of and arrange the articles agreed to by the House." (Id. 324.) They gave to that Committee no power to alter or change the meaning, but simply "to revise the style and arrange the articles ;" that Committee made the report; they altered the preamble to what it now is—"we, the people," leaving out the States, and for these two reasons—first that the Constitution itself provided upon its face that after it was adopted and ratified by nine States, the Government should go into operation, the other four might never adopt it, and if the style had not been corrected there would have been four States named in the preamble not members of the confederation. This would have been absurd. Second, the Constitution provided that the Congress of the United States might admit new States, and if the preamble had not been altered you would afterwards have had fourteen or fifteen States in the confederation that were not named in the preamble. This is the history of the preamble.

Here then this fact shows that the very Convention that framed the Constitution recognised and acknowledged, in the history of the preamble the separate and sovereign existence of each State.

But, sir, let us look a little further into this matter. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated debate with Calhoun in 1832, as well as Judge Story in his commentaries upon the Constitution, as also Judge Kent, have all admitted that the old articles of confederation were but a compact of government between the States. Mr. Webster admitted that, if the scheme presented by Mr. Paterson had been adopted, it would have been merely a governmental compact. They all admit that the old articles of confederation were a mere compact between States. Mr. Webster said, in the debate with Mr. Calhoun in 1833, that if our government was "a compact or league, States may secede." He said "the system was not a compact between States in their sovereign capacity, but a government proper." And is it a compact between sovereign States? The Constitution, in the 7th article, declares "the ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the .Page16 establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." What is this but a compact, a bargain between the States? The plan of the Constitution submitted by Mr. Paterson, Mr. Webster said would have been a compact, had it been adopted. Now, if gentlemen will examine that plan, they will see that it is very similar to our Constitution.

But, as before said, all admit that the old articles of confederation were a compact between sovereign States. Now, sir, our present Constitution is but an amplification and enlargement of the old articles of confederation. No new principles are introduced. It is only an expansion of the old.

Let us see what Mr. Madison said. In the Federalist No. 40, pages 181-2, in examining the question whether the Convention were authorized to frame and propose the Constitution, he said :

"No stress, it is presumed, will, in this case, be laid on the title: a change of that could never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power. Alterations in the body of the instrument are expressly authorized : new provisions therein are also expressly authorized. Here then is a power to change the title; to insert new articles; to alter old ones. * * * Will it be said, that the fundamental principles of the Confederation were not within the purview of the Convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, what are these principles? Do they require, that in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. Do they require that the members of the Government should derive their appointment from the Legislatures—not from the people of the States? One branch of the new Government is to be appointed by these Legislatures; and under the Confederation, the delegates to Congress may all be appointed immediately by the people; and in two States are actually so appointed. Do they require that the powers of the Government should act on the States, and not immediately on individuals? In some instances, as has been shown, the powers of the new Government will act on the States in their collective characters. In some instances, also, those of the existing Government act immediately on individuals. In cases of capture, of piracy, of the post office, of coins, weights and measures, of trade with the Indians, of claims under grants of land by different States; and, above all, in the case of trials by court-martial in the army or navy, by which death may be inflicted without the intervention of a jury, or even of a civil magistrate.

"In all cases the power of the confederation operates immediately .Page17 on the persons and interests of individual citizens. Do these fundamental principles require, particularly, that no tax should be levied, without the intermediate agency of the States? The confederation itself, authorizes a direct tax, to a certain extent, on the post-office. The power of coinage has been so construed by Congress, as to levy a tribute immediately for that source also. But pretermitting these instances, was it not an acknowledged object of the Convention, and the universal expectation of the people, that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the General Government, in such a form as would render it an immediate source of general revenue? Has not Congress repeatedly recommended this measure, as not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the confederation? Had not every State, but one; had not New York herself, so far complied with the plan of Congress, as to recognize the principle of the innovation? Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the General Government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen, that in the new government, as in the old. the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.

"Truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the Convention, may be considered less, as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation." And on page 216, he says : "If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes, consists much less in the addition of new powers to the Union, than in the invigoration of its original powers."

That is what Mr. Madison said. He shows—if he is to be relied upon, and I know of no higher authority—that your present Constitution is but an expansion of the principles of the articles of confederation; and in the same book shows how the articles of confederation could be broken up. Let us hear him on that point :

"On what principle," he asks, "the confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? This question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case ; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, .Page18 an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the confederation, that in many of the States, it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require, that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void." (Federalist, page 205, No. 43.)

From these extracts it will be seen that Mr. Madison states, that the States are sovereign and independent powers, and that in all unenumerated cases the States are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign independence; and after throwing the similarity in principle between the old articles of Confederation and our present Constitution, he shows how the old articles of Confederation could be superseded and broken up. Why the old articles of Confederation declared that the Union which they formed should be perpetual, and that it could not be altered or abolished without the consent of all the States. Yet the fact is, that nine States, upon the principles laid down by Mr. Madison above, did secede from that Union and form another--Virginia advised and started it, and this is her second act of secession.

Now, sir, won't that reasoning apply here? If the existing Government is based upon the same principles as the old articles of Confederation, and if the States did break up these articles, does it not follow that the same right exists now, to break up the present Confederation? But notwithstanding all this, we are now told here, by able and distinguished men, that because we voluntarily assented to that Government, our hands are bound to it with hooks of steel, for ever; and if we resist, we are to be regarded by all the world as rebels and traitors.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with these general views on this subject, I come down to the action of the Virginia Convention that ratified your Constitution; and I say, if any gentleman will take up these debates and read them carefully, he will see that it was a conceded fact, running through the whole proceedings of secession or withdrawal,.Page19 that this great right belonged to the States, and that they could exercise it whenever they thought proper.

Sir, you know, and this Convention knows, that Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Wm. Grayson, and other able and distinguished men—your venerated father, sir, among the number [referring to Ex-President TYLER] warred against the ratification of this Constitution to the bitter end—warred against it upon the ground that it would concede a fundamental principle that would over ride State sovereignty and State rights, and consolidate everything into one Government, to be regulated and controlled by a numerical majority. How did the great Edmund Pendleton meet that? How did Edmund Randolph meet it? How did Col. Nicholas meet it? If gentlemen will give me their attention, I will show, from the debates of this Convention, how these gentlemen met that objection. I will now read from Elliott's debates, vol. 3, page 37.

Edmund Pendleton, the great lawyer and patriot, in reply to Patrick Henry said :

"Where is the cause of alarm? We, the people, possessing all power, form a Government, such as we think will secure happiness; and suppose in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse, and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument."

"Wholly recall our delegated powers." What is this but secession? And was it not held up by Pendleton as a remedy to the States, when the general powers had been perverted to their injury?

That is what our fathers understood. Sir, it was the great remedy of resistance which they laid down when they formed the Federal Government : and yet you now hear gentlemen denying the sovereignty of the States; and you have now disseminated the new doctrine that it is treason in me or in any body to preach the doctrine of our venerated ancestors. That is what Judge Pendleton said in that debate. Now, sir, let us hear what Mr. Madison said. I do not care what you may quote about Mr. Madison's writings .Page20 thereafter. You may quote what he said in his letters about revolutions. He meant revolution between Sovereign States, and not revolution between the State and the General Government. I will read what he said upon this subject, when he was trying by his reason and argument, logic and information to persuade the people of Virginia to ratify the Federal Constitution. In making his speech in answer to Patrick Henry who had made a violent onslaught upon that clause of the Constitution which gives to the President and Congress of the United States the power over the militia of the States, Mr. Madison said :

"An observation fell from a gentleman on the same side with myself [alluding to judge Pendleton's words, before quoted] which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence." (3 Ell. Debates, 414-15.)

That is what he said. Here I show you that Mr. Madison, the great Ajax who carried the Constitution through the Virginia Convention, and pledged his honor and his character to the people of Virginia, if all other efforts should fail to get redress of our grievances, that we could at last renounce the Federal Government, which right he declared was "an additional safeguard to our defence." Well, sir, Virginia reserved the right, whenever those powers which she had granted were perverted to her injury and oppression, to resume them. Now, let us see what the articles of ratification declare :

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, &c., do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will."

But, say gentlemen, that is the people of the United States, who must resume. I will let the President of our Court of Appeals, Judge Allen, answer this :

"Our people in Convention, by their act of ratification, declared and made known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever they shall be perverted to their injury and oppression.

"From what people were these powers derived? Confessedly, from the people of each State, acting for themselves. By whom were they to' be resumed or taken back? By the people of the State who were .Page21 then granting them away. Who were to determine whether the powers granted had been perverted to their injury or oppression? Not the whole people of the United States, for there could be no oppression of the whole with their own consent ; and it could not have entered into the conception of the Convention that the powers granted could not be resumed until the oppressor himself united in such resumption."

Gov. Randolph, who wrote the article of ratification, said before it was proposed: "If it be not considered too early, as ratification has not yet been spoken of, I beg to speak of it. If I did believe, with the honorable gentleman, that all power not expressly retained was given up by the people, I would detest this government.

"But I never thought so; nor do I now. If, in the ratification, we put words to this purpose, 'And that all authority not given is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perverted to their oppression; and that no right can be cancelled, abridged, or restrained, by the Congress, or any officer of the United States'—I say if we do this, I conceive that, as this style of ratification would manifest the principles on which Virginia adopted it, we should be at liberty to consider as a violation of the Constitution, every exercise of a power not expressly delegated therein. I see no objection to this." (3 Ell. Debates, 576.)

Col. Nicholas, after the articles of ratification had been proposed, said, as follows :

"Mr. Nicholas contended that the language of the proposed ratification would secure everything which gentlemen desired, as it declared that all powers vested in the Constitution were derived from the people, and might be resumed by them whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remained at their will. No danger whatever could arise; for (says he) these expressions will become a part of the contract. The Constitution cannot be binding on Virginia but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but, at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent to be (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition on him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, I ask whether, in this case, these conditions on which he has assented to it would not be binding on the other twelve? In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them." (3 Ell. Debates, 625-626.)

Both Gov. Randolph and Col. Nicholas were strong advocates of the .Page22 ratification of the Constitution, and you have here their opinion as to the meaning of Virginia's articles of ratification. They say it would be the condition upon which Virginia would enter the confederation, and would become "a part of the contract." Can anything be plainer? I have now shown what Madison, Pendleton, Randolph and Nicholas said in the Virginia Convention on this subject, and I hope I shall hear no more about treason and sedition—a modern, new fangled idea from New England. Consult the history of your country, and see what the authors of liberty in old Virginia said upon this subject before you talk to me about these new-fangled ideas of New England. The right to secede is no New England doctrine. It is Virginia's own doctrine, and by it I hope all true sons of Virginia will stand. It is one of the blessed doctrines of our glorious old mother, Virginia; it is one of the doctrines which had its origin in that high spirit of liberty which developed itself in Williamsburg in 1776, and which finally settled down in triumph and glory amid the applause and acclaims of the whole world, around the sacred monuments now mouldering upon the banks of the York. Here is where this doctrine came from; and, sir, if I am to be hung, if I am to be denounced as a traitor, why, in God's name, let it be for standing up and maintaining, in all their vigor and purity, the doctrines of the fathers of Virginia's immortal principles of civil liberty.

The Chair must order the galleries to be cleared. The gentleman will suspend his remarks until the gallery is cleared.

I will inquire of the Chair the effect of clearing the gallery—how long does the order last?

There is no limit to it.

Will it remain cleared all the time.

The Chair cannot answer how long the order will last. The object is to preserve the peace and decorum of the body. To clear the galleries and allow them to return immediately would be interrupting greatly the progress of our business.

I wish merely to remark, that unquestionably I saw some citizens there whom I can vouch for as not being guilty of disorder.

The Chair has no doubt of that. That is the great difficulty and makes the Chair regret that he has to confound the innocent with the guilty.

I believe there were gentlemen upon the floor who were guilty of the disorder as well.

The Chair did not hear any on the floor, nor did he believe that there was any in the lobby.

It was all around. I think it very hard that the innocent should suffer.

Certainly.

May they return immediately?

After a while.

Return after a while. How long will that be?

The gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , will please proceed with his remarks.

I believe these little ebullitions which have occured must occur in a time like this.

The Chair deemed it his imperative duty to enforce the order to clear the galleries.

I do not complain of the Chair. It is hard for men to restrain their feelings in a time like this. I assure gentlemen and the Chair that I have no desire to excite applause here. I did not come here with any such purpose. I came here to present my views to the heads of the people, and not to their feet.

I have shown that Virginia when she joined the Federal Constitution, reserved the power to withdraw whenever she might think proper. Having shown that that was the understanding of the men who ratified the Constitution in Virginia, let us see what they did in New York. In the ratification of the Constitution by New York, yol will find this : "That the powers of government may be re-assumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same." (1 Ell. Debates, 327.)

Here, then, the Committee will see that New York reserved the right to secede. Little Rhode Island, about whom we hear so much here, declared in the third section of her articles of ratification, "That the powers of government may be re-assumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." (1 Ell. Debates, 334.)

Here, then, you have three States going into the confederation upon a certain condition? What condition? Why, that they reserved the right to withdraw whenever in their judgment their happiness and safety require it. And just here I lay down a great principle, not only .Page24 of municipal, but of political law,—a principle that even as humble and poor a lawyer as I am, I am not afraid to assert even in the presence of the great lawyers here. What is the principle?

It is this : "That, in case of a contract between several partners, if the entrance of one on condition be admitted into the partnership, the condition enures to the benefit of all the partners." I am not afraid to assert that as a principle of municipal and political law of general and universal application. If, then, you admit the authority of this plain principle of law—and it cannot be denied—then having accepted these States into the political partnership, with the condition annexed that they had a right to withdraw—does it not thereby follow that the condition enures to the benefit of all the States, and that all the States, or any one State, "must have the right of withdrawing"?

I will proceed, as best I can, to present another view of this subject. I throw out no challenge to anybody here. I did not come here with that purpose; but if any gentleman here shall do me the honor to notice my remarks, I should be glad to have him confute successfully, if he can.

I say that the 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly makes it a great constitutional right. Sir, Virginia was the author, in part, of the 10th amendment. Virginia had just seceded from two Governments. She had just ratified another Government, with the express understanding that she reserved to herself, as I have shown you, the right to secede, if necessity should make it proper for her to do so. She was the author of it. What is the great principle of construction that the 10th amendment lays down?

The 9th amendment of the Constitution declares that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th amendment declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, sir, we have seen that this right of secession was, at the time Virginia proposed this 10th amendment, an acknowledged and recognized right in this country. It was declared to be a right in the Virginia Convention. There is not one jot or tittle in your Constitution which declares that the power is conferred upon Congress to prevent a State from withdrawing. All powers not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States respectively. This was a power that had been exercised, and unless you can show that it is prohibited by the Constitution to the States, it can still be exercised. It was one of the rights reserved to the States, and your 10th amendment to the Constitution .Page25 declares that if one of the reserved rights, it rests and remains with the people of the States, thereby making it a remedy within the power and pale of the Constitution itself. It is, therefore, a right under the Constitution.

But, sir, let us go a little further; and I beg the attention of the Committee to the point I am now about to make. Your Committee declare that the States, when they formed the Federal Constitution, were sovereigns. Then, if they were independent sovereigns when they formed the confederation, they went into the Union voluntarily. Nobody will pretend that any force was resorted to by any power, of carrying the States into the Union.

Now, sir, I ask, as it is admitted they went into the Union voluntarily, if there is anything in the Constitution which gives Congress or any department of the Federal Government the power to use force to keep them in? If there is, point it out. If any gentleman here shows me one word in the Constitution which gives Congress, or any department of the Federal Government, the power to keep a State in the Federal Union by force, I will yield the point. No, sir, it is not in the Constitution. You cannot find it there—it is not there. On the contrary, sir, in the Convention which framed the Constitution, they expressly refused to give Congress any such power over the States. What does the record say? Gov, Randolph's proposition proposed to grant to the General Government the power "to negative all laws contrary, in the opinion of the national Legislature, to the articles of the Union, or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the Union ; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union, failing to fulfill his duty under the articles thereof." This power was refused. Then came Mr. Charles Pinckney's plan, which proposed "that the Legislature of the United States should have the power to revise the laws of the several States that may be supposed to infringe upon the powers exclusively delegated by this Constitution to Congress, and to negative and annul such as do." This was refused.

The next plan was submitted by Mr. Paterson, which provided, "if any State, or body of men in any State, shall oppose or prevent the carrying into execution such acts or treaties [of the Union] the federal executive shall be authorized to call forth the powers of the confederated States, or so much thereof as shall be necessary to enforce, or compel the obedience to such acts, or observance of such treaties." This, too, was refused. Then came Gen. Hamilton's plan, which declared, "all laws of the particular States, Contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States, to be utterly void ; and, the .Page26 better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governor or President of each State shall be appointed by the General Government, and shall have a negative on the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governor or President." This, too, was refused. Later, it was moved to grant power "to negative all laws passed by the several States, interfering, in the opinion of the Legislature, with the general harmony and interest of the Union, provided that two-thirds of the members of each house assent to the same." This also failed. See the different plans referred to in 1st Vol. of Ell. Debates.

Thus you see from the journal of the Convention, that so far from being able to find any such thing in the Constitution of the United States, of the formation of that Constitution, itself shows that the Convention which framed it refused, in every instance, to grant any power to Congress to use force or coercion against a State in any form. Then, sir, you see that they went in voluntarily. Can the Federal Government at Washington resort to force to keep them in? Have they any authority to do that, sir? This Convention, in which we are now assembled, has the power to carry Virginia out, and to submit that question to the people to decide for themselves. Can any department of the Federal Government send any force here, under the sanction of the Constitution, to disperse this Convention, because it may do this. Show me where there is such power given in the Constitution and I will give up the whole question. It is not there. I think then I have conclusively shown you that if they went in voluntarily, as we all know they did, that after they are in, you cannot resort to force to keep them in; and your Committee of Twenty-one, whom you have endorsed by the resolution the other day declaring that each member should only have ten minutes to debate the amendments presented to their report, that committee which, by that vote, was pronounced to embody all the wisdom of this house, has declared in their report that the Federal Government has no power to subjugate these States, if they go out. When all this is admitted, is it not an argument which no man can meet that they must have the power to go out if they think proper. Let us see. The States went in the Union voluntarily. When in, you cannot resort to force to keep them in, and if they go out you cannot use force to bring them back—then does it not logically and irresistibly follow that they must have the power to go out if they see fit to exercise such power. The argument is a perfect syllogism. I ask gentlemen to meet it.

Mr. Chairman, thus much upon that subject. Now let us hear what some of the greatest lights, intellectually and morally, that this .Page27 or any other country has ever produced, have said upon this subject. I have nearly concluded my argument upon this branch of the subject, but since the gentleman from Harrison, [Mr. CARLILE] , in his argument rested his whole position upon the opinions of great men —Henry Clay, General Jackson and others—I will take the liberty of referring to what some of our great men have said. Let us hear what John Quincy Adams said. You, gentlemen—and I mean no disrespect to you, I have not an unkind feeling towards a member of this Convention but you Blue Light Federalists here ( and some of you are as blue as indigo) , my friend from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , who spoke so eloquently the other day about the light of his section, did not exactly show it, but I could see his light was tinged with blue—you gentlemen, who belong to the Adams' school of politicians, hear what that great man, Mr. Adams, said upon this question, and then, if you think proper, denounce the doctrine as "absurd and ridiculous."

Will my friend read the extract for me? It is from an address delivered before the New York Historical Society in 1839, at the jubilee of the Constitution.

"Nations acknowledge no judge between them upon earth. And their Governments, from necessity, must, in their intercourse with each other, decide when the failure of one party to a contract to perform its obligations absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfillment of his own. But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independence of States connected together by the immediate action of the people, of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven.

"With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every State in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part; and, under these limitations, have the people of each State in the Union a right to secede from the Confederated Union itself.

"Thus stands the right. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit.Page28 shall give way to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedent, which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be re-united by the law of political gravitation, to the centre."

That is what Mr. Adams said about it. He says we have had two precedents—one when we seceded from England, and the other when we seceded from the articles of Confederation; and when the day comes that the hearts of these people are divided, when the Government no longer rests upon kindly sympathies and affections, then it is time for them, as Abraham and Lot did, to separate in peace. Adams men present, listen to the voice of your father. Come up now; you cannot shut your eyes to the fact that the period has arrived when kindly sympathies no longer exist, and instead of keeping Virginia in a free-soil Confederacy, and keeping her down as a mere political dependency upon that central empire at Washington, use your efforts to bring about a peaceable separation of people that can no longer live together in peace and in harmony.

Sir, what did a distinguished gentleman of Virginia, whose portrait hangs yonder, and whose ashes repose, as I have been informed, near the residence of a distinguished gentleman now upon this floor [Mr. BOULDIN, of Charlotte] —I allude to John Randolph. What did John Randolph say in his celebrated resolutions at Charlotte Court House in 1833, upon that subject. Here it is, in the fourth resolution :

"That Virginia has never parted with the right to recall the authority so delegated, for good and sufficient cause, nor the right to judge of the sufficiency of such cause, and to secede from the Confederacy whensoever she shall find the benefits of the Union exceeded by its evils."

That is what John Randolph said in 1833, and he understood well the nature of this Government.

But I have a letter here to which I wish to call the attention of the distinguished gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] . He [Mr. SUMMERS] , spoke in warm and eloquent language of Macon, of North Carolina, as one who, the gentleman to whom I refer declared, had .Page29 never taken a position until he had surveyed the whole field, and whenever he took a position he was right, and when he was right the whole world could not turn him from his position. Let us hear what he said upon that subject. I happen to have a letter here from Mr. Macon dated the 9th of February, 1833, and addressed to the Hon. S. P. Carson, in which he says :

"I have received your letter of the 24th ultimo. There can be no doubt that the United States are in a deplorable situation, and that the publication of the opinion you desire would be useless. It has never been a secret, and always stated to those who wanted to know it. In the year 1824 the Constitution was buried in the Senate, the Senators who were then present will, it is believed, recollect the fact, and never afterwards quoted by me while I continued in the Senate. The opinions of General Washington, Mr. Jefferson and Governor Clinton are known, but not respected. I have never believed that a State could nullify and remain in the Union, but have always believed that a State might secede when she pleased, provided that she would pay her proportion of the public debt ; and this right I have considered the best guard to public liberty, and to public justice that could be desired; and it ought to have prevented—what is now felt in the South—oppression."

There is what a wise man—a man who, according to the distinguished gentleman from Kanawha, never was mistaken; who never took a position until he had surveyed the whole field, and whose grasp of wisdom was so great that he foresaw all the difficulties before him—there is what that man said upon the subject. He said that the greatest safety for public liberty and public justice, was the right of a State to secede from the Union, and the only condition attached was, that she should pay her part of the public debt; and we all will agree to do that. I say, sir, that if, when you exercise that right, you are to be denounced as being guilty of treason and revolution, that yon Government falls into a military despotism, and liberty will be buried, and the battles of the Revolution will have been fought in vain. That will be the consequence if this doctrine is to prevail; and I fear that this Convention is determined that it shall.

Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Mr. Giles, dated the 26th of December, 1825, distinctly admitted the right of secession, when he declared that we ought to separate from our confederates, "when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our union with them, or submission to a Government without limitation of powers."

The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , invokes the great .Page30 name and fame of Mr. Calhoun against the right of secession. All I have to say on that point is, if any gentleman will refer to his elaborate letter written to Gen. Hamilton, on the 28th day of August, 1832, he will see that while Mr. Calhoun draws a distinction between nullification and secession, yet he distinctly admitted the right of secession, and ably contended for both.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, I have passed thus far in the discussion of this subject. And here I want to make an enquiry of the distinguished Chairman of that distinguished Committee of Twenty-one. They say in their report that a State has a right to withdraw from the Union. but he, the Chairman, in his argument here the other day in which he denied the sovereignty of a State—and if a State is not sovereign, I don't see how it could withdraw—he said it was a revolutionary right. I want to know what he means by a revolutionary right—I ask for information?

Mr. Chairman, I can only answer that enquiry of the gentleman by saying that he misconceives, at least, my definition of the resolution to which he refers. I stated that I was unwilling to use the word revolutionary, so far as that word implied anything like revolt or force; that I conceded fully the right which the gentleman has so ably and clearly maintained in the argument—the right of a State, as a State, to withdraw from the Federal authority; and I expressly denied, always have denied, that under such circumstances, the citizens of a State can be regarded as traitors, or insurgents; and yet, sir, in one sense I did say that the right to withdraw may be termed a revolutionary right, that it is an extra constitutional right. I cannot conceive of any right in the Constitution to break up that Constitution; yet in consequence of the separate organization of the State, which I regard as a most important check and balance in our Constitution, that a State has a right by such action, for just cause, to re-form or abolish its Federal Government, precisely as it has a right to abolish its State Government—

And would not be guilty of treason in the attempt?

And would not be guilty of anything like treason. I say, sir, it is not a constitutional right. I desire to be understood ; and the able argument which the gentleman has just closed shows that it is not a constitutional right. It was a right which originated upon this continent at the very time of the commencement of the American Revolution. It was a right exercised by the colonies of America in severing their connection with the Crown of Great .Page31 Britain. Therefore, it cannot be a right which springs, in any mode from the Federal Constitution, adopted ten or fifteen years afterwards. I hope, sir, the gentleman is answered.

I understand you perfectly, and I am exceedingly rejoiced that I do understand you. You have got to take but one step more, and I will take your hand and clasp it as another volunteer to the Virginia States Rights doctrine. I cannot expect you to come over all at once.

I had intended, Mr. Chairman, to have presented an argument upon another branch of the subject upon this right of revolution. I could show from the law of nations, the international law, that these States, being sovereign, have the right to withdraw from the Confederacy, and that if any other Government in the world made war upon them it would have to do it according to the established usages of war, and if their people in the conflict were overcome, they would have to be treated as prisoners of war, and not as traitors. But the explanation of the gentleman from Frederick, I am very happy to say relieves me from the necessity of elaborating that argument. I will not, therefore, follow it further, although I am prepared to do it, and to establish the view I take by the most approved authorities upon international law. Here, Mr. Chairman, I rest the argument, and I want gentlemen who shall attempt to reply, as I have said before, to meet it in the same spirit in which I have attempted to deliver it; by calm, fair, deliberate reason and argument, not by sneers and epithets.

The gentleman from Kanawha, in his eloquent speech, did not come out openly and deny this right. He suggested, however, one difficulty to its exercise, which I will notice here. Another gentleman, the gentleman from Monongalia, and others who have spoken here, have thrown out the same objection : that these Southern States, Virginia included, ought not to secede, because of the difficulty which will spring up from the navigation of the Mississippi river. With great respect to that gentleman, and with entire deference and respect to other gentlemen here, I say, that that is no longer an open question. It is settled by well established principles of international law that these Southern States cannot, under any circumstances, close the navigation of the Mississippi. But the inhabitants of the States living above them upon its navigable waters may pass up and down without interruption. Here is my authority. I have not time to read it, but here it is. It is a principle for which your government has contended from its foundation—and it is now an established principle of the world. They would not have the right, even if they had the hardihood; .Page32 and if they were foolish enough to attempt to exercise it, it would bring upon them the condemnation of the whole world. I will read one single authority upon the subject : "The right of navigating, for commercial purposes, a river which flows through the Territories of different States, is common to all the nations inhabiting the different parts of its banks; but this right of innocent passage being what the text-writers call an imperfect right, its exercise is necessarily modified by the safety and convenience of the State affected by it, and can only be effectually secured by mutual convention regulating the mode of its exercise." (Wheaton's International Law, page 253.) Thus it is a matter which under this rule must be regulated by treaty, which is done all over the world—and which no nation would be justified in setting at naught.

That is a great and well settled principle.

Well, sir, what other argument? The gentleman from Monongalia brought forward here one argument against the exercise of this right which I was extremely surprised to hear. I allude to it with the kindest feelings and the most perfect respect. I assure that gentleman that I mean nothing unkind or discourteous when I call that argument against the right of secession to which I shall refer as the picayune argument, as the argument of dollars and cents. The gentleman says that Florida cost millions of dollars, that Texas cost millions of dollars, that Louisiana cost millions of dollars, and asks whether we shall now permit them to secede after having paid this large amount of money for them ; thus measuring this great principle of American liberty, to which my friend has adverted, and making it subservient to the miserable, picayune argument of dollars and cents. Why, sir, if you intend to test that argument by dollars and cents, go to the Federal Government at Washington, and make your officers there give you the amount of what you have received from the public land which you acquired under these treaties, and you will find that you have been paid an hundred fold the price you gave. That is the way to meet that argument. By the treaties under which these territories came in, your whole country guaranteed to them the same sovereignty, the same equality, and put them, in every respect, upon precisely the same footing as the other States. And yet they are to be kept in because of the love of the almighty dollar, which is crushing and ruining our whole country. And the same argument, I suppose, will justify the North for keeping in Virginia and the other States. I scout this argument. With perfect respect, I say to the gentleman that it is unworthy the consideration of any Virginian, to .Page33 measure sovereignty, to measure the great question of self-government, and the great eternal principles of civil liberty, by dollars and cents. I repeat, sir, it is such an argument as should not be used upon this floor.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have finished what I proposed to say upon that branch of the subject. I could elaborate it further, but I will let it stand as I have made it. And I will now, if I can hold out, give one or two reasons why, in my judgment, Virginia ought at this time, ought to-day, to resort to the exercise of this right. I dissent from the gentleman from Augusta in his declaration, which he made in his elaborate speech, that slavery is stronger to-day than it had ever been. It is stronger with its friends—it is stronger in the States where it exists; but everywhere else it has infinitely more enemies to-day than it ever had. The whole world is against you; the whole civilized world, including three-fourths of your own country—including every power of Europe, except Spain, and every power upon this continent, except Brazil—is against you. And with these facts staring the gentleman in the face, he gets up and proclaims that slavery is stronger to-day than ever. If that were so, how can he reconcile it with the history of our own government? That government is seventy-five years old. In its beginning, slavery existed in nearly every State ; and if slavery is stronger to-day than ever before, how happens it that your government is for the first time in the hands of the enemies of slavery? How did it get there? Now, sir, the war upon slavery was begun in 1790. It has been waged against us for seventy or seventy-five years; and ultimately it will triumph against us, unless we resist. This, sir, is a momentous, pregnant fact. It admonishes us in tones that cannot be mistaken, that unless we are true to ourselves, true to our little ones, true to our firesides, true to our blessed old mother Commonwealth, we will be crushed out and crushed forever. Sir, so help me God, I will die on her soil before I will give way. This war was inaugurated, I believe, some time in the year 1789. In 1790 petitions were sent from Philadelphia and New York to Congress asking them to abolish slavery. My friend from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] , read a debate which occurred upon the presentation of that petition signed among others, by Dr. Franklin, a man who had helped to make the Constitution. In 1792 petitions came again. In 1797 they came. In 1805 they came. In 1817 they came again. In 1819. So we had the war upon the Missouri question. In 1827 petitions came again. In 1831 they came again. In 1835 the war regularly begun upon the right of petition, and it was waged there until it was shifted from that .Page34 to a war upon the territories.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Committee to some other facts; and when I have presented the facts I will ask your attention to the deductions from them. In 1840 for the first time this anti-slavery element entered into the Presidential election. Twenty years ago Birney, as their candidate, received 7,000 votes. In 1844, he again received, as the candidate of the anti-slavery party, 62,140 votes. In 1848 Van Buren and Gerrit Smith received 296,233 votes. In 1852 Hale received 157,296 votes. In 1856, sixteen years from the commencement of the efforts of these anti-slavery men, in connection with the Presidential election, John C. Fremont received 1,324,812 votes, showing an increase in sixteen years of over 1,300,000 votes. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln got votes enough to elect him President.

These are the facts. Now for the deductions. The conclusion which I draw is this : These facts show that there has been a persistent war from the very first session of the First Congress down to the present moment, made upon you and upon your interests. Now, is there any principle of human reason, is there any principle of logic, any principle of common sense, by which any sensible man can arrive at the conclusion that these people, who have been contending now for nearly seventy-five years for the accomplishment of one object, will relinquish it, give it up, just when successful, and go back to where they started? Answer that point, gentlemen. Can it be answered upon any principle of human reason, upon any principle that governs human nature? If it cannot, these facts show you that your existence as a free people, that your existence as a slaveholding people depends upon your separation from this Government, where, if you remain, you will be crushed out ; you will become degraded outcasts among the nations of the earth.

That is enough, sir. If there was no other point, nothing else in the history of the slavery question but these facts, they would be enough to show that we cannot stop these aggressions, and that eternal separation is our only remedy. But, sir, let me look a little farther. I think, these facts show that these people cannot now relinquish that for which they have been contending for 75 years. Now, sir, I have no desire to say anything disrespectful about these Northern people. I have an ineffable contempt for their leaders, for such men as Seward, Sumner and Wilson. I believe they are hypocrites. I have no unkind feeling, however, for the great masses of their people. But the generation that now governs the North have grown up in the last 30 years, and every man of them, except Charles O'Conor, of .Page35 New York, that I have ever heard of believes in their hearts, honestly before God, that slavery is a sin. Judge Story, Chancellor Kent, and Daniel Webster, in his great argument before the Supreme Court of the United States have taught them the fallacious doctrine that this is a Government of one people, and being a Government of one people, it necessarily follows that one section must be in part responsible for the sins of the other section. They honestly believe it, and I can respect an honest man in that honest belief. But I contemn, I despise canting, hypocritical demagogues, such as those leaders who strive to rise to place and power upon these honest but fallacious and delusive convictions of the people of the North. Judge Story's book is a text-book in all their Colleges. Dr. Wayland, a great theologian, who has written a book upon Moral Philosophy, is an authority there, and his book is a text-book in all their Colleges ; and in that book there is a whole chapter put forth to show that slavery is a sin. Then, sir, there is Peter Parley, useful and instructive as his books are—yet, begin at the first, as I have done, and read them all through, and you will find pervading the whole works an anti-slavery feeling. This feeling lies at the bottom of the whole, and the design is to create the impression that slavery is a sin and a wrong. Here, then, you have the masses indoctrinated with Parley's doctrine, and the educated young man indoctrinated with Webster, Kent, Story and Wayland's doctrine. Then you have—and I defy any gentleman here to deny it—a union of the masses, the honest masses, to strike down an institution which they believe is sinful—a union, I say, of the masses with the educated men and political leaders ; and I again defy any gentleman here to point me to an instance in the history of the world, when the masses have united with the leaders for a given purpose, that they ever ceased from their efforts until that purpose had been accomplished, or they themselves have been destroyed in their efforts to accomplish it.

Then, sir, I say this is a reason why we should separate. Look again at the way in which these Northern people have been educated. They have had anti-slavery catechisms, anti-slavery priests, anti-slavery lecturers; they have anti-slavery everything. Their whole system is pervaded with anti-slavery feeling and anti-slavery sentiment. And yet Virginia statesmen get up here and talk about the overwhelming tide that is to destroy the anti-slavery feeling of the North, by paper guarantees attached to the Constitution. You may just as well attempt to dam up the tumbling waters of Niagara, with your little finger, as to attempt any such thing. Take this illustration: .Page36 You are a religious man. You go to church, to the Episcopal Church perhaps. Now take your little boy, seven years old, let his mother night and morning teach him to kneel and say his prayers, teach him the great truths of religion, and continue her instructions until he becomes a grown-up man, let him be taught all the beautiful formula of the Prayer Book, and when that man goes into the world, can you turn him away from the doctrines his mother has inculcated? Yes, sir, you may one or two, here and there, but the proposition is a general one, that he will adhere steadfastly to the end. Well, sir, these people of the North, in their honest zeal, in their sincere desire to eradicate an institution which they, in their heart and in their conscience, believe to be sinful, like Hamilcar, when he took his son Hannibal, nine years old, and made him swear upon the altar eternal hostility to Rome, they make them swear eternal hostility to your institution of slavery. And do you suppose you can change the sentiment of such a people by paper guarantees? Sir, I desire not to say anything unkind to any gentleman here, nothing that shall in its remotest tendency interfere with the feelings of any gentleman here, but I must state to you, Mr. Chairman, that I was startled, astounded to hear gentlemen stand up and declare such opinions; to hear them, in times like these, crying, "wait, wait," "delay, delay," when every day, every hour, brings the event these Northern people desire to accomplish nearer to your door.

Well, sir, our idea is, that Government is simply made to protect persons and property. That is my opinion. I believe that when you have a Constitution and laws sufficiently strong to protect persons and property, the less legislation you have the better. Their idea is just the reverse. Their idea is that Government is a great machine to dispense benefits and bounties to individuals; their idea is that the majority must govern without regard to the rights of minorities. Can we live with people like these? Look at your Government now at Washington. Is there so corrupt a Government upon God's earth as your present Government at Washington? There it stands, your citadel of liberty itself, a place where the most corrupt scoundrels upon earth gather together for the purpose of peculation and fraud upon the Government, upon the honest masses of the people of the country. Look at your members of Congress, expelled for receiving bribes. Every department of your Government has become corrupt as the Augean stables themselves. Do you tell me that you can save this by paper guaranties in the shape of amendments to the Constitution? Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, there is no other cure but to wipe .Page37 it out and begin afresh. It is a failure. It has lived seventy-five years, and now you have got to wipe it out and begin afresh or it will end in despotism; and those men who will not vilely and slavishly submit to that despotism will be slaughtered upon some battle field fighting in defence of the rights and principles that have been handed down to us from our ancestors.

Mr. Chairman, I find it is impossible for me to say all I intended to say. I cannot hold out. But, sir, there is one point I want to present before I take my seat. It is in reference to the moral question. I do not know what is the religious feeling of this assembly, but I am not ashamed here or elsewhere to proclaim the honest belief of my heart. I believe in God, I believe in His Providence, I believe in His direction, and I believe, as a moral, Christian man, it is my duty to do what I can to separate my State from these people at the North, who are striving day and night to destroy one of God's institutions the institution of African slavery. Let us look at it. How did it get here? We are told that about 1620 there was a storm at sea, and that somewhere off the Capes of Virginia—while the winds howled and the billows rolled, when spar after spar had gone down, when sail after sail had been reefed, when top-sail and stay-sail had been tattered and torn away, God, in His providence and mercy, to save a ship from being engulfed in the ocean, led her into a safe haven at Hampton Roads. Driven by the winds and waves into that haven, she put out twenty odd savage Africans. Our people assembled. They were amazed. They saw there a simple-hearted, docile people that might be elevated to a high standard of Christian civilization. They saw that Ethiopia had stretched out her hands, and was uttering the Macedonian cry, "Come over and help us," "Come over and help us." Virginia responded to that cry, and in consequence of her response these twenty odd savage Africans have grown to be four millions of civilized men now upon your continent.

As Virginia was thus the great pioneer of the institution and its great author, would it not be the rankest cowardice, the most disgraceful scene ever acted on the theatre of the world, for her, in this hour of distress and extremity of that institution which she has imposed on the land, to turn her back upon it and to permit Northern fanatics to exterminate it from the face of the earth? I do not believe that God will permit that to be done. You may talk about National Conventions, and Border Conferences, and you may send your committees to Washington every other day to confer with Mr. Lincoln. and to know when he is going to hit us ; you may read letters from .Page38 Secretary Cameron, and Colonel Somebody, and Major Somebody else, each contradicting the other, to show that they are not going to remove guns from this city, but all will have no effect. God means, through the instrumentality of African slavery, to accomplish His great purpose of Christianizing and civilizing that race. You may throw impediments in the way, and thereby bring down punishment on your own heads, but you cannot stop it. I met, recently, a very able book, written by a distinguished Presbyterian divine, the Rev. Mr. Stiles, of Georgia, from which I have made an extract which I submit to the consideration of the Christian members of this Convention and of the people of the State. Here it is :

"In 1855, heathen church membership is set down at 180,000. The present [1855] , estimate of colored Church members in the Methodist Church South, alone [which includes slaveholding States only, and does not include Maryland and a part of Virginia] , is 175,000. Eight or ten years ago the Baptist colored membership at the South was recorded as only 4,000 less than the Methodist. When to these numbers you add all the colored members of other unincluded organizations of Methodist and Baptist, also Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, Old School, New School and Cumberland, you readily reach an aggregate of colored Church membership near thrice as large as the strictly heathen orthodox Church membership of the world."

Here then the Almighty power, through us as its instrument, has Christianized more than double as many of those savage Africans as have been Christianized in all the rest of the world. Why, then, should we stand here idle, and fold our arms, and permit the run-mad people of the North to come down and exterminate this institution? Sir, you will be held to an accountability if you do not stand forth as moral Christian men, and do your duty in this great crisis in favor of protecting this institution which any man can see is destined to Christianize and civilize a great part of the heathens of the world.

Mr. Chairman I intended to have said more, but I forbear. I have spoken longer than I intended and have become exhausted. In conclusion I have to say, that differing as I do with my friends here, my earnest, honest, convictions—and I appeal to my God for the sincerity of the declaration—are that every consideration of duty, of interest, of high Christian moral obligation, conspires to make us cause Virginia to secede at once, settle our difficulties peaceably afterwards, if we can and if we cannot, forcibly.

If I find that you will not go with me, if you are determined to wait, wait, wait, and see when you will be hit, if my plan fails, I will .Page39 set up no factious opposition, but will go with you for the next plan which I think will best promote the great object I have in view. Mr. Chairman, I will not utter the common place sentiment of returning my thanks to the Convention. I had a right to speak, and they had a right to listen—both parties have exercised that right. I will conclude my remarks with this earnest, honest, declaration, that if I am in error it is an honest error of my heart. I believe I am right ; and I mean to stand by my principles and doctrines to the bitter end. If that day shall come—which God in his mercy avert—when you and I will have to be exiled or yield to this horde of Northern Vandals, I re-echo, sir [alluding to Mr. PRESTON] , your eloquent sentiment. I will not be exiled. I will not be a second Marius to go off amid the ruins of some Carthage, and there to weep away existence in bitter agony over the memory of lost and past glories, but, like you, sir, will stand at my post and fall as a true man—and when you shall sleep in your own green meadow, beneath your own native mountain, I will stand on the shores of my own native Rappahannock, and there will I fall ; and the ripple of its waves shall be the requiem that will soothe my repose till the morning of the resurrection. Virginia I will never forsake. I will die in Virginia, and trust to God and to posterity to vindicate what is just and what is right. [Applause on the floor and gallery.] Mr. MACFARLAND then obtained the floor, and addressed the Committee until two o'clock, when the Convention took a recess.

1.1.3. EVENING SESSION

Mr. MACFARLAND resumed his remarks and spoke for two hours, when he concluded. His speech will appear hereafter.

I understood the gentleman from the city of Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] , to say that a minority of the Committee took the majority by surprise in approving the position of the majority.

I say that the complaints against the Committee's reports proceeded mainly from members of that Committee. I remember perfectly the course of the gentleman from Amelia in relation to the report. I do not mean to convey the idea that the Committee was surprised by the position of any of the minority. I was about to state here what were the facts in this matter, when interrupted by the Chair. If it is in order, I will state now what I meant to say when I referred to this matter in my address.

It is not in order to state what transpired in Committee.

I understood the gentleman as having no reference to my action in what he said.

None whatever.

I understand the usual time for adjournment is near at hand. I desire to give to the Committee some of the views that I entertain respecting the questions that have been so long in debate, but feeling reluctant to trespass at this time upon the exhausted patience of the Committee, I will ask that the Committee rise.

The question was put and carried, and the Committee rose and reported progress.

I have, sir, a substitute which I have prepared for the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, that I desire now to submit in order that it may be printed, with a declaration that at the proper time, when it is in order, I shall offer it, in order that I may have an opportunity of recording my vote.

I will take this occasion to say, that the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] on yesterday, did me the honor—the high honor—to say that I was the strongest Union man in this Convention, not excepting the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] . I trust, Mr. President, that there are a number of members of this Convention who are as strong Union men as I am. I would to God that I had the power and the eloquence of the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] to enable me to place before this Convention and the country my views upon the great questions now agitating the country. My constituents heard my views, the views which I now entertain, and upon a full, fair and candid expression of them, they elected me to this Convention. I thank God that I have not allowed any persons to remain in doubt about my position, and I have not been here for six weeks to have it now debated as to what position I occupy. My constituents know, and the members of this Convention, with whom I have been brought in contact, know what is my position. I desire to place upon the record of this Convention my vote, in order that there shall be no possibility of mistake as to the position I do occupy, and it is for this reason that I shall offer the substitute which I have sent to the Clerk and which I ask may be printed.

The question was taken on printing the substitute offered by Mr. Early and it was agreed to.

1.1.4. TAXATION QUESTION

There is one question that was brought, some time ago before this body, in the Convention, not in the Committee of the .Page41 Whole, which I wish to inquire about and to know what has become of it—I mean the question of taxation.

The question of taxation is the subject now properly in order at this moment.

In what form is it pending before this body?

It has been the question in order in the morning, until the debate was arrested by the Convention going into Committee of the Whole ; and consequently it is in order as soon as the Committee rises.

I mean to ask what the particular question is?

Upon the adoption of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

There is no proposition.

Yes, sir, there is a distinct proposition of principle in the first resolution.

I mean no distinct proposition of constitutional amendment.2A correction (April 6) gives this sentence as "I mean no proposed amendment."

None.

I merely rise to say that I desire at some time or other, before the Convention shall dispose of this matter, if I am able to do so, to say briefly what I know upon that subject, as occurring ten years ago in the Convention that formed the present State Constitution. I claim upon that part of the new Constitution to have been a part, if not magna pars. That clause in the new Constitution I drew with my own forefinger and thumb as a guarantee for the East against unequal taxation, when I had waged a siege of eighteen months to destroy that odious thing which was called a mixed basis. It was that mixed basis, more than anything else, which made the institution of slavery odious. It was that which made property stand up against numbers of voters, and made numbers of voters curse the property which subordinated to itself the majority of the white population of the State. With all my might, with all my zeal, with all my head, and with all my heart, I tried to break down unequal representation, and with equal zeal I tried to secure equal taxation. I understnd that I have been upbraided in the West, and am now cited and quoted in the West as being the author of the exemption from taxation, of negroes under twelve years of age. I here avail myself of the opportunity in this place, before the whole State, to deny the charge. There were three points that I made with my constituents, throwing my bosom bare upon the spears of the popular prejudice on that question in the East; there were three cardinal points that I made with .Page42 my constituents at that day : free equal representation; free equal, universal, uniform, ad valorem taxation; and free universal education. I compromised with my constituents upon every other subject, and I appeal to them, who know the fact, at home, to say whether this was not my position. And now I appeal to the members who represented the West in that Convention, and who are members of this Convention, to bear me witness, if in the long and tedious effort that was made to obtain equal representation for the West, if the siege was not carried on at my instance. And to prove this, I need but refer you—for he was one of the divided West that stood by me throughout—toMr. CAPERTON, of Monroe. WM. SMITH, of Greenbrier, now of the Senate of Virginia, was another. When even the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] whenMr. SAMUELS, of Shenandoah, despaired almost of obtaining what they came to obtain, equality of representation ; and when the question was started in a caucus of the West, whether it was worth while for them to remain here, it was at my instance that they were kept here to obtain their rights—and I was backed in the appeal to remain by my friend from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] . He remembers it well; my friend from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] remembers it well. It was I that urged upon the West to stand firm, to continue the siege, to lay siege to the majority, until argument and reason should prevail, as they did ultimately prevail. When I had finished the work with the West and for the West, I retired from that caucus, and then went over to aid the East in obtaining the guaranties of equal taxation which I had promised to my constituents. I appeal to all who recollect the fact, to bear me witness—I am sure, Mr. President, that your colleague, my friend from Loudoun [Mr. CARTER] , remembers it—when I turned to the East that I said to the West : "I asked if you are earnest ;3The correction (April 6) gives this clause as "I asked of you no earnest." I made no bargain with you; I demanded no hostage of you; I did what I did for equal representation, because it was right, and not only because it was right, but because it was politic. I have freely done justice to you; I ask only that you shall do justice to me. I have pledged my constituents at home, that if the mixed basis is abolished, they shall have a better guarantee."

Sir, it so happened that in the Convention of 1829-30 there were two men—Abel P. Upshur, of illustrious memory, and Thomas R. Joynes, of the county of Accomack—the latter not quite so well known to the nation, but equally strong in all mental powers. These were the two men from the Eastern shore, of whom Mr. Randolph said, that one was the figure of rhetoric, and the other was the figure of arithmetic .Page43 of that Convention; and I believe no compliment was ever more just or more true. Both of these illustrious men had, only ten years before me, maintained the mixed basis—and in their faces, and in the face of their arguments, in the face of their example, challenging Mr. Joynes to meet me there before the people, I did say, what I now repeat, that I did find a better guarantee in equal taxation than ever the mixed basis afforded. What was that?

Now I come to what I want to say, that my only guarantee was, so far as I was concerned, the guarantee of making the taxation of slaves quadrate with the taxation of land. I wanted no more; I wanted no exemption; I asked for no exemption; but I was forced to take the exemption. I mean no reproach to anybody. A friend whom I loved, a friend from the South-side, a friend who is now no more, a friend who has not left behind him one who laments that he is no more, more than I do—a man of distinguished worth—an excellent man, William L. Goode, of Mecklenburg, led off thirteen Eastern men, including himself, from that proposition, and after one whole day's hard fighting in that Convention, I was defeated upon the guarantee which I offered. It so happens that that very man who was called the figure of rhetoric was then in this city, waiting here, and watching the result of that question. Thirteen men, as you well remember, Mr. President, Mr. Goode at their head, had filed out of the Eastern line and to defeat the guarantee which I proposed. Here let me say, sir, that upon the question of representation five men,4According to the Enquirer text, Mr. Wise named only four men, including himself.Stuart, of Patrick—I lament that he is no more—Carter, of Loudoun, White of Loudoun, and myself, were the five men, only, who came from the East, and who did strongly and manfully do justice to the West on the question of representation, against all the odds of the prejudices of our own constituents, and the views of our colleagues from the East; and, at last, when the East defeated her own guarantees under the lead of Mr. Goode, for one whole day I made an appeal to the West, to say whether I should be left defenceless and without my guarantee to carry home to my constituents, which I had promised them; and, to their honor be it said, precisely the same number from the West ( the number of five) , that had gone from the East to do justice to the West on the question of representation—that number no more, no less—came forward from the West, like men, to do justice to the East on the question of taxation. Martin, of Marshall—now a Marshal of the United States—rose from his seat, came down to me and gave me his hand, saying, "if no other man stands by you, I will."

Another was the member from Preston [Mr. BROWN] . He was one .Page44 of the five that came from the West, who voted for that exemption. I am sorry to hear that he has been hard pressed by that vote since, and that he has been compelled to retire from a canvass in consequence of it. Never mind it; it ought not to have hurt you; it ought not to hurt you now. You had gained the victory of equal representation, and you had approximated nearly to equalization of taxation, and you gave to the East a guarantee of the quadration of taxation with land.

Now, sir, I have got no bargain to offer to any body. I have got no consideration to exchange with anybody on this question. All I have to say is that, if negroes under 12 years were exempted, it is not because I was elected to exempt them, but because that exemption was forced upon me.

My doctrine of taxation ten years ago in that Convention the doctrine which I have entertained all my life since I could think upon the subject of taxation—the doctrine which, if you wake me up in the morning at six o'clock, I will tell you is my faith and one in which I am unchangeable—is that nothing in a free Republic ought to be exempt except your wearing apparel, food for the poor and the relics of the dead. Let all come in ; I am willing. I do not speak for my constituents. I was not sent here to represent them upon this question. So far as any prejudice in the West has been created upon this subject, I have here to affirm, and I support the affirmation by the journal, that without the five votes from the West that guarantee could not have been passed and I say now, that never, never in one session of a reform body, was there greater progress made, more triumphant progress made, from bad to better, than was made on taxation and representation. However defective the new Constitution may have been in other respects, no greater progress was ever made in any reform body, than was made by the firmness, eloquence and arguments of Western members in that struggle for equal representation and equal taxation. The triumph was complete, save and except the tax upon little negroes. And now if that question is to divide the State, I will clear my skirts of that, by saying that I did not prefer it then, and would advise my constituents to relinquish it now. My own personal tax—according to the valuation of $300, which was a fair valuation then—my own personal tax upon twelve small negroes under twelve years of age, would make a difference of only about three dollars and sixty cents. I am willing to pay it, if that is all you have to complain of against the East. And, when that last act of justice shall be done, when equality of rights shall be secured, when equality of.Page45 taxation shall be fully secured, all I have to say to you is and you know

it, no men ought to know it better, so far as I have a right to speak—that I have done justice. In 1855, my friend from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , when I was in his town, and abused then in Western papers for being the author of this exemption, when I called upon him at his home to testify, as to the matter at issue, returned me then and there his thanks for the part that I had borne in this matter. It has been acknowledged in various ways that satisfy me that I stand fair at least, in the hearts and in the judgment of my fellow-citizens of the West. I reproach them with no ingratitude to me. I have asked them for no pay or no reward that they have not given me. They have stood by me in the day of trial, and I have no complaint to make of them; but I have this to say: if the exemption from taxation of negroes under twelve years of age is all that is to divide us, that shall not divide us, so far as I am concerned. I have only one word more to say: that, if after doing you full justice, you deny me justice the justice of protection, the justice of standing by my rights, the justice of being as true to the East as you are to the West if you deny me that justice, I can tell you that then you will have stung me and then I shall feel that your sting is the sting which gives me the intensest pain; all the sting of all Yankeedom would not compare with it, for this would be the sting of ingratitude. When I am stung, if ever, by the West, this will be the only response in my bosom. I do not believe, I will not believe, that Western Virginia ever will be, ever can be, induced thus to sting their brethren of the East. Never, never; for when they do it there will be a war between brethren, the fiercest war of a hell upon earth. None could be worse, none bitterer, for that war is always worse which occurs between brethren. I cannot believe it either, come when it may, how it may, in a crisis like this, that a proposition, such as that of the gentleman from Monongalia, that this exemption shall be abolished intends, I cannot believe that it is his motive to drive us to a bargain or a bribe in order that justice may be done. Now, sir, I have made these remarks with but one object, and that is to say, that whoever else is the author of this exemption of negroes, under twelve years of age, from taxation, I am not. It was forced upon me, as it was forced upon the West. We could have passed nothing without it. And hereafter and forever, I appeal to Western men, of all parties and from all sections, whenever they hear my authority quoted, whenever they hear me blamed for that exemption, I call upon them to do me the justice to repel it. It is unfounded and untrue. Western men and myself did pass it because .Page46 we were forced to do that or do without any guarantee at all.

I am sure the distinguished gentleman from Princess Anne will not need my testimony in regard to the patriotic and gallant services he rendered, not to Western Virginia alone, but, in my opinion, to the whole of this Commonwealth, during the Convention of 1850 and 1851. I never see him without having my memory carried back to the labors of those days and those nights. I have never omitted any proper occasion to avow my sense of the valuable services rendered by that gentleman in regard to all that pertains to the subject of representation in the General Assembly of the State. I take pleasure in saying that that gentleman, according to my recollection—I have not the journal before me, or any of the transactions; I speak from memory; I speak, however, from a recollection impressed upon me at the time by many protracted conversations upon that subject, and upon all other topics connected with that question that he was in favor of the ad valorem system of taxation, without exemption of any species of property from the taxing power. In regard to the provision by which negroes over twelve years of age were not to be taxed at a higher figure than $300, it was a measure coming from other quarters, with which I was less familiar. In all matters touching representation, the gentleman from Princess Anne and myself stood side by side. I know, in regard to the ad valorem principle, where he stood, and that he was opposed to the exemption of any property. The sum of $300 was fixed on at the time as the assumed average value of negroes over twelve years of age. I remember that a gentleman from this city, Mr. Robert G. Scott, was somewhat active in that branch of the subject. I remember he had some statistics, which he laid before us, in regard to the average value of slaves, and it was finally fixed at the sum of $300. The recollection of the gentleman from Princess Anne and myself agree throughout in the statement which he has made, with a single exception, in which he has, unintentionally, I know, done perhaps a slight injustice to myself. It is not a matter of any consequence to anybody except myself. The gentleman mentioned that even I had, at one time, somewhat despaired.

I spoke doubtfully of that, sir, and I meant to speak more doubtfully, for I was not certain. I know that there were some in the caucus to whom I referred who had despaired and talked about adjourning and going home, but I am not certain who they were.

I remember very well the caucus to which the gentleman from Princess Anne refers. I know the troubles which then surrounded us. I recollect much that was said upon the occasion.

But I say to you all, Mr. President—and you yourself acted a prominent part in the Convention of 1850-'51—that during all those labors I never did despair. I was often discouraged, but never was brought to despair. I have always believed in the maxim that a citizen should never despair of the Republic. Upon that occasion, Mr. President, I did not permit the feeling of despair to pervade my bosom, and I do not permit it to influence me now, when still greater troubles are upon us. I never despaired of the Republic. I did not despair of it then; I do not despair of it now. That is the only correction I desire to make in the statement presented by the gentleman from Princess Anne. In all the matters of fact alluded to by him, his recollection and mine coincide.

I accept that correction with great pleasure. I was not certain that I was correct at the time I made the allusion. My friends from Loudoun [Mr. CARTER] , and from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] , remember the facts, and know the correctness of my statement, and when it was at last remembered that the siege should be carried on, I was called upon, as my friend from Loudoun knows, to state what I considered the programme of the campaign, I did not rest my feet until I had detailed the programme of proceeding, which I believe they followed out ad libitum. I believe I am correct in that statement. The programme did succeed with a minority against a majority. And I wish I was as hopeful here now, sir, that the minority would succeed.

I trust the Convention will pardon me for a moment.

I claim the floor upon the subject, before the Convention, but I am willing that the question should be put now, if the house is ready for it. If there is to be any further discussion, I claim the right to be heard.

I will only detain you a few moments.

I desire to know whether you wish to discuss the question.

I simply wish to make one or two remarks, not to speak at any length.

Does the gentleman from Doddridge yield the floor?

Not at present, sir. I want to ascertain whether the gentleman from Franklin desires to discuss this question, and also whether there are other members who desire to discuss it, for, if so, I will retain the floor.

I only want to make one remark.

Mr. STUART yielded the floor.

I trust the Convention will indulge me a moment while I make a remark or two in regard to the question now pending before it. I think the few remarks I shall offer will not be inappropriate. One of the gentlemen alluded to by the gentleman from Princess Anne was a delegate representing the district which I represent in this Convention. The three delegates voted for the present basis of representation. One, my honored friend Mr. STUART, was elected as a white-basis man ; the other gentlemen were elected as mixed-basis men. It so happened that I was a candidate on the conservative ticket, and was beaten by an overwhelming majority. I received only 112 votes in the county that sends me here with 1100 majority; I was a mixed-basis man. Two delegates changed their votes here, and when they went back there was a great clamor against them. I believe, though I had been one of the strongest mixed basis men in the District, that I was almost the only one who did not join in the clamor against those gentlemen. In a very short time we became satisfied that they had acted wisely, in agreeing to base representation upon white population. I am now fully convinced of the error of the opinion which I formerly entertained with regard to the proper basis of representation. In all the history of the legislation of the country from that time to this, no more conclusive and triumphant vindication of that policy is to be found than in the history and the organization of this Convention. I am fully convinced, sir, that my former views were erroneous, that the principle adopted by the Convention of 1850 and '51 was correct.

With regard to the other question of taxation I am fully and completely satisfied that the principle contended for by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , and the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HALL] , and others on this floor is just and right. But, sir, as I said to the Convention on another occasion, this question was not mooted before my constituents in the canvass; the question of union or disunion overrode all other questions. Therefore I don't feel authorized at this time to interfere in any way with the Constitution of the State, though as I said before, I opposed it from the beginning to the end, casting my vote against it at the polls ; and there are many of its provisions I would be glad to see changed.

But, sir, I will readily vote for a committee to take this subject into consideration. As I said before, I presume it is well ascertained that we are to have an adjourned session. In the mean time, I can go home and consult my constituents—we all can go home and consult our .Page49 constituents, and the committee can report to the adjourned session of this Convention. I acknowledge the justice of the principle contended for by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , and I shall advise my constituents to accede to the justice and propriety of that proposition.

Is this a question simply for the purpose of raising a committee.

No, sir, that is not the only question. The Secretary, perhaps, had better read the first resolution that the House may understand it.

Mr. ECHOLS moved that the Convention adjourn. A division was called for, and by a vote of 52 to 28 the Convention then adjourned to Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock.

1.2.1. THE TAXATION QUESTION

Mr. STUART, of Doddridge, addressed the Convention on the resolutions submitted by Mr. WILLEY, as follows :

Mr. President, I propose this morning to submit a few remarks upon the resolution of the gentleman from Monongalia, before the Convention goes into Committee of the Whole. I am sorry that more of my Eastern friends are not present, because it is especially to them that I desire to address my observations. It will be recollected that when the Committee rose last evening, I was entitled to the floor, but for the purpose of progressing as speedily as possible with the business of this Convention, I was desirous that the question should then be put upon the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , but I yielded very willingly, to the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , to give a history of his connexion with the subject of taxation and representation in the Convention of 1850-51, as well as in reference to his sentiments entertained at this time. I desire to say that we of the West have felt profoundly grateful to him for his past advocacy of our rights and our interests, and we now entertain a like sentiment, and are disposed to return to him our most profound thanks for the disposition he now manifests to accord us our rights. Mr. President, it is with diffidence that I attempt to say anything on the present occasion. I arrogate nothing to myself, but, representing a constituency, as I do, deeply interested in this question, I feel it to be my duty to raise my voice in behalf of their rights, feeble as it may be.

I am not one of those who are disposed to fold their arms and say that all is peace and quiet ; that the interest and honor of Virginia are in no danger. No, sir, I look upon the present aspect of affairs as threatening and perilous. If the ship of State can be steered clear of the breakers that surround us in the impending storm that is hanging over us, in dark and portending clouds, I for one shall rejoice. I cannot fail to see that there are many dangers and breakers ahead, and it is to avert these things that we are now convened in this Convention. I say that I am not one of those who are in favor of standing still and saying all is well—all is peace. I believe that we are .Page51 on the verge of a civil war that will be forced upon the people of Virginia, unless by wise and prudent counsels it may be averted. Entertaining these views and sentiments, I hold that it is our first duty to make all right within our own borders; seek to heal all and every dissension among our own people, bind ourselves together as a band of brothers, and come up to the work as a united people with one object and purpose. We can read from very good authority that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Although we may differ as to the mode and manner of redressing our national difficulties, we still concur in the fact that the institutions and rights of Virginia have been invaded by Northern free States, and that it is our duty and our right to ask at their hands a remedy against these evils complained of, and we of the North-west are willing to unite with our Eastern brethren in asking and demanding relief against these wrongs. Mr. President, permit me to say to my Northwestern friends who have argued this question before the Convention, that it seems to me they have fallen into an error in charging upon our friends of the East that they have said that we were unsound upon the slavery question. It is but justice to my Eastern friends to say that in all their remarks in this Convention which I have had the pleasure to listen to, and I believe that I have been in constant attendance, I have not heard one sentiment uttered by them indicating that we of the West were unsound upon the institutions of Virginia. It has been left for a Western member to bring this charge against his brethren of the West—the only one, so far as my observation has extended, who has charged the West with being unsound on the slavery question. To that member belongs the honor of bringing that charge against us. I most cheerfully acquit my Eastern brethren of having made the charge in this body. Unsound, indeed, upon the slavery question? Why, Mr. President, can the history of the world show a people who have been more loyal and true to the institutions of their State than the people of Western Virginia have been, and especially to the institution of slavery. They have for many years stood up for the institution and rights of slavery, when that very institution has been made to bear most oppressively upon the interest and rights of the Western portion of the State. Still you have always found them at their post. And, now, when this institution is not only made the means by which we are ranged, but when it is conceded that it is the direct cause of all present national difficulties, and when it is remembered that we have no direct interest in it, and yet, under all these circumstances, you find us at our posts ready to do battle for it, and to risk even the destruction of our .Page52 National Government in demanding its protection for you. Can it be possible that any man can be so lost to a sense of justice as to again bring that charge against us? Let me say to you, Mr. President, that the people of Western Virginia are as disinterested, brave and true hearted a people as ever stood upon this green earth. I may assert it, that the people of Western Virginia are true to the institution of slavery from principle, whilst I might bring the charge against you of the East that your loyalty to it is prompted upon interested motives. Yes, gentlemen, of the East, it is interest that now makes you ready to rise in rebellion against your Government, the interest you have in the protection of slavery, while we of the West are advancing solely upon principle, and the wish to secure to you your rights. Standing forth in this attitude, will you not mete out to us even-handed justice? or will you pursue a course that must alienate us from you? How do you reconcile to yourselves the fact that you are calling upon us to come to your rescue; even to help you to destroy our Government; a government that is endeared to us by many sacred ties, and under which we have enjoyed rights and privileges which no other people ever enjoyed ; a Government, too, under which we have prospered as no other people ever have? Still to secure your rights, and to prevent injuries which you say may ensue, you ask us to cut loose from the General Government, and run the risk of a war and conflict with our sister States, not only our sister States, but truly in the limits of which our fathers, brothers and sisters are. All this for fear a wrong may be done you. And yet you are not willing to redress positive and grievous wrongs to your brethren in the same State, and those wrongs inflicted by your own hands. You appear ready to sacrifice your all in struggling for your rights against your alleged injuries, and not willing to come forward and redress our injuries, which are much more apparent and flagrant than your own. We do not ask you to fight for our complaints. It needs no armament or State equipment to secure justice and equality to your western brethren. All that it requires at your hands, is "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The gentleman from Richmond city [Mr. RANDOLPH] , in arguing another question—the question of protection said that we of the West were poor, not in an offensive sense but argued that we were made so from the operations of the Federal Government; that if it had not been for the operations of the General Government in giving large protection to the New England manufactories, thereby building up a strong power with which Virginia could not compete, that we might have been a large manufacturing people, and, as a consequence, .Page53 would now be enjoying opulence and wealth. True, we are poor; but made so, in my opinion, more from the operations of the Government of Virginia and its unfriendly bearing to us, than by the Federal Government. But still, Mr. President, I might be permitted to inquire of that gentleman and of this Convention, where can you find a people who have advanced more in prosperity, population and in material wealth than the people of Western Virginia? It surely cannot be found in any other portion of Virginia. It will be recollected that trans-Alleghany, fifty years ago, was an almost unbroken wilderness. The emigration to that portion of Virginia commenced scarcely half a century ago, and yet, sir, those hardy pioneers have felled the sturdy oak, and in that short period of time, unaided, and as I think, oppressed by their Eastern brethren, have emerged from the wilderness and present a prosperous and happy people, counting their hundreds of thousands, and still advancing with an increase heretofore unknown to Virginia. But, Mr. President, while alluding to the remarks of the gentleman from Richmond, permit me to say that I love the institutions of Virginia. I love the Virginia gentlemen, their broad fields and large domain. It is here that the love of freedom is inspired and liberty can be proclaimed. I do not want to see our Virginia habits pass away. I do not want to see Virginia sundered from the manufacturing States, and protection between them and us, for the purpose of building up corporations and moneyed aristocracies. In that way, Mr. President, you would invite Yankee emigration to Virginia, and in less than 20 years, Virginia would be completely abolitionized. Then, sir, all the pride and glory of Virginia will be swallowed up, and our boasted superiority will have fled and it will be Virginia in name, and not in spirit.

I desire now to bring myself down to the question under discussion. One reason I wish to bring to the notice of this Convention, why our organic law should now be changed, and one, which, in any aspect of this case, will have force and reason with it. If you are not willing to give us equal taxation and representation, because you say you entered into a contract to wait until 1865, of which I will hereafter speak, we have a right, under any circumstances, to demand of you the representation we are entitled to under the bases you forced upon us. You will discover that in 1850 the white population of Virginia was 895,000; at the present time, as shown by the census report, the white population of Virginia is 1,047,000, showing an increase of 152,000 white inhabitants. Of this increase, 109,000 are in Western Virginia. Taking the present population of the State and the basis .Page54 of representation established by you in 1850-51, and it will be found that we in the West will now be entitled to 23 representatives over the Eastern portion of the State, instead of the 13 at present given to us. We are entitled to ten more representatives in the Lower House, and are now entitled to them on this floor, and they almost exclusively to Trans-Alleghany. And have we not, I appeal to you, a right at least to ask at your hands this small boon that is due us according to your own showing?

Then let me call the attention of the Convention to another fact, that must strike every member with its force and justice. I stand here this day, representing a large constituency upon the floor of this Convention, more than double the number that many do on this floor, and even three times the number of some.

Let me give you one illustration—take a small group of counties around my county. There is my friend from Wood, my friend from Marshall, and myself, representing a constituency of 35,383, while the six members here on this floor from another group in the Valley, do not represent that number, to wit : The members representing the counties of Shenandoah, Rockingham, Pendleton, and Highland. Why is it that the gentleman from Marshall represents a greater number of constituents than the two gentlemen from Shenandoah? Does not this great inequality demand an adjustment? Are you not willing to grant unto us our plain and undeniable rights, stated upon your own basis that you forced upon us? But the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. EARLY] , says that these questions were all settled in 1851 by a compromise entered into by the two sections of the State, and by that compromise it was to rest as then adjusted until 1865. According to my reading of the Constitution of 1851, I can see nothing in it that can fix any such a construction, except alone upon the tax question.

Let us look into this compromise even upon the tax question. That compromise was forced upon us by our Eastern friends. They could just as easily have said that the Constitution upon that question should not be interfered with until 1900 as to say what they did ; and will any man contend that a Constitution can be fastened on any people, and that it is irrepealable by the same power that made it? What would become of your American principle that you talk so much about "that Government is founded in the consent of the governed," if such a Constitution could be fastened on our people? But, sir, it cannot be fastened on us as a moral obligation, let alone a legal obligation. The people of the North-West protested against such an agreement, and when the Constitution of 1851 was offered to them for ratification they .Page55 voted against it, although, in their opinion, it was quite an improvement upon the old Constitution. They voted against it because they did not think that it gave to them that protecion they had a right to demand, and they were not willing that by their endorsement of it, that it should be construed into an acknowledgment of compromise. You had the power to force it upon us. We entered our protest against it, and yet you insist that it was a solemn agreement on our part. The facts do not bear you out in the assertion.

We are now assembled in Convention of the State of Virginia for the purpose of promoting the interest of Virginia, and if we can convince you that it is to the interest of the State that the organic law should be changed, are you going to stand out against it and say that you are not going to do what is right because you forced upon us a compromise, as you term it, against our consent and most solemn protest? Let me say to my Eastern friends that now is the time to come forward, and offer to the West her rights. Advance with the olive branch in your hands and harmonize the people of the State. Unite the people of the East and West as one band of brothers ready on all occasions to fight to the death for each other's interests. You who want us to pass an ordinance of secession, ask us to go home to our people and convince them that it is their interest to leave the Union, and cut asunder from the general government. Our people will be very apt to take a common sense view of this subject. They will ask us for what reason are they called upon to do this thing? We will have to answer, that it is because the institution of slavery is endangered by the encroachments of our sister free States in this Confederacy; but their reply would be that they have no interest in slavery, and that they should not be called upon for that reason to launch forth in an untried experiment. We would then have to reply, that it is true, they had no direct interest in the question of slavery, but that our State and our Eastern brethren have a large and vital interest in it, and that it was to our interest to protect the interest of slavery in the State. We would then have to cast about us for arguments and reasons for this hypothesis. I suppose that the only reason that could be offered would be the one pressed upon the consideration of this Convention by the argument of the gentleman from Culpeper [Mr BARBOUR] , the other day, and that was, that it was the interest and policy of the Western portion of this . State to make slavery valuable for in that way it would pay more into the public treasury in the shape of taxes and thereby help to meet our large State debt. This argument however, will not hold good, and will not bear an investigation by our Western people. Under.Page56 our present organic law, which you refused to change, your slave cannot be taxed higher than you tax $300 dollars worth of our land, and if we help you to dissolve our connection with the Union, and thereby make your slave, which is worth now $1,000, worth then $2,000, still it will not add one cent to the taxes, or help us to pay our large and increasing public debt. We are willing to stand forth in vindication of your rights, as we have always done heretofore, but we will with the same spirit insist and demand our rights at your hands. Your property must be taxed in proportion as our cows and horses are taxed. Our people know how to demand their rights as well as to protect yours. We are no Submissionists—

The hour of going into Committee of the Whole has arrived, and Mr. SOUTHALL will please resume the Chair.

The Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the question being on the third resolution, as follows :

"The choice of functionaries of a common government established for the common good, for the reason that they entertain opinions and avow purposes hostile to the institutions of some of the States, necessarily excludes the people of one section from participation in the administration of the government, subjects the weaker to the domination of the stronger section, leads to abuse, and is incompatible with the safety of those whose interests are imperilled; the formation, therefore, of geographical or sectional parties in respect to Federal politics is contrary to the principles on which our system rests, and tends to its overthrow."

On which Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier, was entitled to the floor.

1.2.2. CORRECTION

With the permission of the gentleman from Fauquier, I desire to occupy a few moments in the correction of a report of my speech, for I am determined to have it right. The result of my effort to correct it the other day, has been to make the matter worse than it was before, and out of regard for the reputation of the University, I want to have it right. I quoted from Virgil the well-known phrase, "Tantcene irce animis ccelestibus?" For animis they have printed animus, and they have left the word "Yellowlegs" instead of "Yellowley."

In my written speech I had made use of a Greek quotation, being .Page57 the famous advice of Hippolochus to his son Glaucus, but, as there was no Greek type in the printing office, I omitted that flourish, hoping to have my Latin at least right, and I am determined that I shall have it right.

Mr. Chairman : It is not without reluctance that I am about to trespass to-day on what I feel must be the exhausted patience of the Committee. The report under consideration, has already been the subject of discussion for several weeks, and we have reached only the third resolution. To-morrow the general debate is to cease, and yet the most important propositions remain to be propounded ; they are contained in the minority reports, and can only be properly considered when reached in their order; but it is principally to these propositions that I desire to address my remarks. If the discussion had been confined to the questions arising upon each resolution, as it came up in order, we would have made better progress towards the conclusion of our labors, and experienced less unwillingness on the part of this body to accord the time for necessary debate.

Mr. Chairman—We stand in the presence of grave events. A Union which, but a short time ago, we thought perpetual, has been broken, and a government which we deemed the strongest in the world is threatened with overthrow. At a moment of profound peace, when friendly relations prevailed with all the nations of the earth, when every industrial pursuit was returning its richest rewards; when through a thousand channels prosperity was shedding her choicest blessings throughout the land, upon the recurrence of a quadrennial election of Chief Magistrates for the country, seven States, dissatisfied with the result of that election, cast off the Federal authority, and are proceeding to erect a new government for their separate existence. Of the thirty-three stars that composed our constellation, seven have shot suddenly from their orbits, and in their eccentric courses now threaten the safety of the entire group. It is with the conditions brought about by these events we are commissioned to deal, being especially charged to provide for the safety of those by whom we have been summoned to act.

Chosen by counties, and elected by different constituencies, of necessity we must differ as to the measures most proper to be pursued ; but if we cannot agree upon measures the best, in the opinion of all, may we not yet, under the influence of a common object, unite in such as are reasonably calculated to defend the honor and advance the interest of the State.

A high trust is committed to our hands; the peace of the country, the integrity of the Union, the safety of the Government, the happiness and prosperity of the people, may be affected by our action; therefore, with a full sense of the responsibility, with a just appreciation of the difficulties, with a firm reliance on a beneficent providence and a patriotic desire to discharge our duty, let us address ourselves to the task before us. Let us deliberate calmly, act cautiously and move prudently; when a nation's safety and a people's welfare hang on the issue. Let us avoid precipitation and unseemly haste.

If diversities of views and divided counsels exist among us, we must be tolerant of the differences; they spring, in every case, from honest motive and patriotic desire. The State embraces a wide area, strongly marked by geographical divisions, touching in the east the waters of the Atlantic ocean, and in the west forming part of the great valley watered by the Mississippi and its tributaries. Diversities of soil and climate lead to diversities of pursuit, and the unequal distribution of that peculiar property, out of which the troubles that now press us have chiefly sprung. Its physical geography separates and diversifies the social and commercial relations of our people. Between the eastern and western divisions, lofty mountains interpose impassable barriers, and compel the products of each to seek different markets. Where they are accessible to the Ohio river, western products find purchasers in the cities and towns that stand upon its banks, and where our territory approaches the Potomac river, its products seek the markets of Pennsylvania and Maryland. With the Southern States, the people of the western division have but little intercourse, and it necessarily follows, that a separation of the States by which Virginia, is to be cut off from association with her western neighbors, and to become a border State, must affect unequally the people of the two sections. In such an event it is obvious that the western division would suffer most; and if gentlemen who represent the interests of that division are found to entertain stronger union sentiments than some who represent dissimilar interests, it cannot be alleged as any disparagement of their patriotism. The western is as much Virginia as the eastern part, and western interests appeal to us here as strongly for protection.

It is our duty to consult the interest of the entire State, and to determine finally on that policy and adopt those measures that will best promote the general welfare. We will take but an imperfect view of our duty, it seems to me, if we regard only the localities from which we come and address ourselves to such measures as will best.Page59 promote their peculiar interests. In the pursuit of such objects we can never agree. Where so many and so diversified interests press for consideration, there must be compromise and concession. In no other way can the affairs of State be safely conducted. I come from a part of the State as deeply interested in these questions as any other part within its broad limits. Our relations are most intimate with the people of Maryland. Baltimore and Washington are our important markets ; much of what we produce we sell in those cities, and much of what we buy we obtain from them. The prosperity of our county, its industry, its thrift, the welfare of our people are connected with those cities, and if you cut us off from them or destroy their prosperity, you strike a blow that must prostrate forever our safety and progress.

I will state, for the benefit of the gentleman from Fauquier, that he is mistaken as to the important points of trade with the West. Our most important market is New Orleans, in the Confederated States, and whether we start from the North-West with a boat load of coal or of plows, wagons or any thing else necessary for the use and consumption of the Confederated States, or whether we start with a boat load of grain, apples or potatoes, every mile we go, every sail we make, we have to meet with the competition of the Northern States in that whole route, and also meet it at the termination of the route. The States to which he refers, Ohio, Louisiana,1The speaker must have said, or meant to say, Indiana.&c., produce an immense surplus which we have to meet in competition in the Southern market.

I had supposed that the salt of Kanawha found its market in the Western States, beyond our limits; that its coal and its oil found their market there. I know that the cattle of the West, the great product of that section, find their market in the States of Pennsylvania and Maryland ; and I know that there is no trade in cattle which takes its direction to the South. Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, even New York, are the marts in which that great staple of Virginia finds purchasers. I know nothing about the oats and potatoes to which the gentleman refers.

When we contemplate the geographical position of the State, its broad extent, the diversity of its soil and climate, the variety of its products, and the social and commercial relations of our people, we must be forced to the conclusion that the best interests of all will be most strongly promoted by a reconstruction of the Union and the preservation of those connexions which a common government provides.

Virginia is herself a type of the Union, and she furnishes a striking .Page60 illustration of the practicability of harmonizing and adjusting great and varied interests of a widely dispersed people under the rule of a common government.

The States of this Confederacy are bound together by ties too strong to admit of a permanent separation. Social diversities, religious influences, party antagonisms, and fanatical prejudices may, for a time, produce a severance, but they will again become united. The necessity of Union to our national importance, the memories of the past and the hopes of the future, a common ancestry, a common interest; and the brotherhood of a century, will work their result. The heavenly bodies that compose our system, are not more perfectly adjusted to the great purposes of the Creator, than the States of this Union seem adjusted to the fulfillment of all the conditions of a great national power. Their position on this continent, their varied climates, their productions, the diversified pursuits of their people, establish them as dependencies upon each other, and define them, unmistakably, as separate parts of one great whole. I repel the idea of an "irrepressible conflict." What matters it that nineteen of the States forbid slavery of the African race, while fifteen recognize it? Neither class is responsible for the institutions of the other, nor has power over the relations that spring from them, and if in the conflict of parties antagonisms have arisen from this source, injurious to the harmonious working of the Government, we have only to overhaul the Constitution, repair its defects and adjust the balance between the sections to regain all that has been lost, and provide against the recurrence of the evils that have produced these estrangements.

But the Union is broken, and this Convention is assembled to deal with the events that have sprung from its rupture. The withdrawing States have associated under the name of the Confederated States of America, and are now exercising all the powers of an independent nation. Can they be restored to the Union? The adoption by them of the Federal Constitution, with but few alterations, as their form of government, and the nature of the alterations to which they confined their action, lead me to conclude that the people of those States will not be averse to the restoration of their former connections, provided such guarantees can be obtained as will protect them in the future against the evils to which the past has exposed them. If I am right in this conclusion, I can see no impediment in the way of a re-union which temperate counsels, just forbearance, and the softening influences of time may not remove.

But for the present, the separation of the Confederated States has .Page61 given to the non-slaveholding States such a preponderance in the Federal Government over the remaining slaveholding States as to make it incompatible with the safety of the latter to remain permanently associated with them under the present constitution. I will not detain the Committee by a statement of the reasons on which this conclusion rests; it is unnecessary, because all concur in it. Every member of this body unites in the demand of constitutional amendments; the demand is a concession of the necessity of amendment ; and the concession of this necessity involves the concession that without amendment it will be unsafe for us to remain subject to the present Constitution. There is yet another concession involved in the category, which is, if the demand for constitutional amendments be rejected by the non-slaveholding States, this State will, and the other border slave States ought, to withdraw from the Union; otherwise we should be but acting an idle farce, making demands, and at the same time proclaiming our readiness to submit to their haughty refusal.

But what is to be done? In this grave emergency we are to consider the measures necessary for the public safety. Various propositions are before us; we have the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, four minority-reports from the same Committee, and sundry schemes emanating from individual members of this body. I propose to consider these various propositions, and to inquire which of them is best calculated to secure the desired end. This diversity of opinion points to opposite inclinations. There is a Northern and a Southern Confederacy, and we have been told that we have reached a point at which we are compelled to choose between the two—that we must make up our minds to adhere to the Northern or unite with the Southern.

If it be true that we have reached this point, if our choice be limited to this alternative, for one, I am free to declare that my choice is already made. My interests, my feelings, my sympathies and my instincts attach me to our Southern brothers, and from the first moment that I considered the question I never hesitated in the choice. I care not what guarantees may be given for the protection of our slaves; we may write the covenants and they may execute the deed. But on what terms of equality can eight slaveholding States confederate with nineteen non-slaveholding States? The diversity of institutions necessarily gives rise to diversities of interest, and these interests are of a character to be affected injuriously or beneficially by the policy to which the government may be committed. But what security can guarantees ha the Constitution afford—what security can covenants and agreements give against a hostile policy? What security .Page62 can they furnish that the Government will not shape its policy to serve the interests of the dominant majority? In my opinion there would be no security. The interests of the free States would control the Government, and those of the slave States be reduced to the condition of humble subordination. Therefore, I repeat, that whenever I am satisfied that events have progressed to the point at which I am to choose between a Northern and a Southern Confederacy, my choice is made.

But, happily, Mr. Chairman, our choice does not lie between such alternatives; it is rather between different modes of reconstructing the Union. We may reconstruct upon the Federal Constitution with amendments, or upon the Constitution of the Confederated States; or we may reconstruct upon a Constitution to be proposed by the border States. The report of the Committee embraces the first plan; declaratory resolutions and propositions of constitutional amendment are to be submitted to the other States for adoption, which are thought to provide for all the exigences of the slavery question, and it is expected that the Confederated States will be willing to unite on them. But the Secessionists dissent from this plan, and propose on their part an ordinance of Secession. They desire to sever at once our connection with the Federal Government, and resume for the State her original independent position; here, however, divergent policies separate their councils. One class of them would sue at once for admission into the Southern Confederacy, while the other would demand a consultation of all the States for the purpose of a common adjustment.

The plan of the Committee assumes a disposition on the part of the people of the free States to adjust our differences on the basis of these amendments, and the willingness of the other States to accede to the same terms. I am myself not very hopeful of these results, but others, more sanguine, think they can be obtained and I am willing to defer to their better opinions. I do so the more readily because I am assured that, if these demands be rejected, our councils will be united, and the divisions that now embarrass our action will disappear in a universal resolution to sever a connexion no longer compatible with our safety or honor.

But there are other reasons why the effort should be made. We are under obligations to our co-States, and we shall thereby discharge the duties which those obligations impose. The conservative masses of the free States will feel its effects; their dispositions will be made more friendly; their energies will be invigorated. The border slave States will be brought, too, into harmonious action; experiencing .Page63 with us the same divisions, their embarrassments will vanish when ours disappear. These States stand together in a common interest—their institutions are the same—and anything that affects the safety of one equally affects the safety of all. The social and commercial ties that unite their people make it indispensable that they should act in concert, and this the plan of the committee proposes.

I entertain the opinion—and I know the same opinion is entertained by others—that if all of the border slave States sever their connections with the present government, and unite themselves with the Confederated States, the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois will not long remain separated from them. Everything that touches their material interests inclines in that direction.

To dissipate our divisions, therefore, and unite the people in entire harmony, we have only to proceed according to the plan of the committee; for when the amendments are rejected—and gentlemen on the other side tell us they are sure to be rejected—the border States will withdraw together, and the work of re-construction can instantly begin.

But it is objected that this process is too dilatory, and immediate secession is demanded. I desire to know in what condition an ordinance of secession would place us; and when I appeal for information to the advocates of the measure I find them divided in counsel and unsettled in purpose. Some contemplate an instant union with the Confederated States, while others insist that any movement in that direction must be delayed until the co-operation of the States of North Carolina and Tennessee can be obtained. They do not, however, explain how this co-operation is to be brought about, what time will be required to effect it, or what the condition of the State will be while the experiment is being made. They contemplate only the final result, and disregard entirely all intervening difficulties. To this class of secessionists I beg leave to say—since they find impediments in the way which can only be removed by the concerted action of other States, and the success of their scheme depends at last upon the concurrence of others—will it not be as well to remove those impediments and secure that concurrence in advance, and so avoid the hazard to which premature action might possibly expose us? I understand the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , and the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] , to be of this class of secessionists.

I would rather that the gentleman should not undertake to state my position now, because I am very sure that he has not my position in his mind correctly or fully. I will place myself in the .Page64 attitude where I wish to stand when I can get the floor with lungs to occupy it.

While I am up, permit me to interrupt the gentleman further. I did not interrupt him at the time because I did not wish to cut the thread of his very strong, well linked presentation of views. He has twice asserted, and his name is authority for the assertion, both in point of moral and intellectual weight, that there is no one member of this body, who, in debate here, in debate in the Committee of 21, or elsewhere, within his knowledge, has avowed or declared the doctrine of submission. Am I right in that?

Mr. SCOTT bowed assent.

Then the gentleman has heard no such declaration. Let me inform him that he would be in a bad predicament if he should happen to go home, and they who were arraigning his cause here should show him that on the 16th day of March—this, I believe, is the 3d day of April—on the 16th day of March, 15 and 3, or 18 days ago, a member of this body—I mean the Hon. gentleman who represents the county of Marshall [Mr. BURLEY] has not only laid upon your table a printed document, which I hold in my hand, avowing submission, but avowing the right of coercion to submission and not only that, but he has avowed in print here, as his doctrine, the right of the minority of this State, when she, in the exercise of sovereign and independent power, shall place herself in the attitude of secession, or shall resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution—he claims even the right of the minority of the people of this State to rise in revolution and resist their own State against the exercise of the right of secession. I put the document into the gentleman's hands, the resolutions submitted by Mr. BURLEY, on the 16th of March, 1861, and when the gentleman reads it he will understand that there is at least one person on this floor who avows submission, and who avows more than submission—the right of revolution against the State, against secession. And I say here authoritatively, that there are others here who, in my opinion, are as bad, and what is worse, who plant themselves upon the fact that they claim their constituency are the same way. I do not believe it as to their constituents, but I do believe it as to more than one member of this body.

I have not had my attention drawn to the document alluded to by the gentleman from Princess Anne, and therefore will not undertake to criticise or characterize it. That gentleman is upon the floor, and at the proper time can speak for himself. .Page65 But if he be an exception to the rule, so far as I am informed, he constitutes a solitary exception.

Now, sir, in reference to the position of the gentleman from Princess Anne, I certainly will leave it to himself to define it. I understood that gentleman, like the gentleman from Bedford, was an immediate secessionist, but that he did not contemplate a junction with the Southern Confederacy immediately upon the ordinance of secession; that he was one of that class of secessionists who propose, after the ordinance has been adopted, to wait for co-operation. I repeat to the gentlemen constituting that class, that if co-operation is necessary to the consummation of their purpose, if notwithstanding secession, they cannot move without the concurrence of other States, is it not better, is the policy not safer and wiser to seek co-operation first, and to secede after it shall be obtained?

But the other class have no difficulty. They are for no delay. They want instant secession, and when secession is obtained they are for an instant junction with the Southern Confederacy. They care nothing for obstacles that are in the way. What do they care for North Carolina? What do they care for Maryland? What do they care for Tennessee? With a bound they clear all these barriers. But did it ever occur to these gentlemen to inquire whether the offering they propose to make to the Southern Confederacy, will prove an acceptable offering? Did it ever occur to them to think whether the Confederate States, separate from Virginia by intervening States, would deem it wise and consistent with their own safety, to involve themselves by such a connection? Did it ever occur to them that reciprocal obligations would arise from the connection which neither party would be in a condition to discharge? Virginia would owe obedience to the laws of the Confederate States if she should join them. They will owe her protection. In case of collision with the Federal authorities, or in case of hostility with her neighbors, in what manner would the Confederate States give her protection? The territory of North Carolina and Tennessee interpose between them, and the communication by water would be possessed by the enemy. Without the right to approach her by land, without the power to approach her by water, in what way, I ask, would that obligation of protection be complied with? It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the union would be one of doubtful propriety; one calculated to impair the power of the Southern Confederacy, rather than to increase it; one calculated to increase the risk of hostile collision—one that, indeed, as I will presently show, would render collision almost a necessity. Do gentlemen .Page66 mean to rely upon the secession of Maryland, the secession of North Carolina, and the secession of Tennessee, as removing these obstacles out of the way? Are they, too, co-operationists? Are they like the gentleman from Bedford, and others that belong to his class, at last dependent for the success of their measure upon the co-operation of these other States? I think I have heard some of the gentlemen say—if none others, at least the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] -that if Virginia would secede, these other States were certain to go. If they are certain to go provided Virginia goes, will they not agree with Virginia beforehand to go? And if their co-operation is necessary, if their concert of action is essential to the feasibility and security of the scheme, why not take the precaution of consulation beforehand? Why not extend to them that courtesy, that respect, that common courtesy and common respect, that the relation of the States and their dependency upon each other would seem to demand? Do gentlemen fear discordant counsels upon the consultation? Do they fear that these States, advised with in advance, will refuse to secede? Is that their apprehension? That would be inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, with the declaration that if Virginia goes out, they will go also. I think, if they will follow the action of Virginia, if they are so connected with Virginia, if they will be so influenced by her movement as to require them to follow the direction in which she leads, this influence will control their counsel, and lead them to agree to her proposition in advance.

But it is possible at last that they may refuse to secede. Then, if a course of action is adopted by this State which may offend their dignity, which may justly wound their pride, that course of action may engender a spirit of antagonism, a spirit of hostility towards our people, that would be most likely to defeat the very end and purpose which gentlemen desire to accomplish. Is it not better, then, to confer beforehand? Is it not better to take counsel in advance, before a measure so important is adopted? If concert of action, if harmony of purpose, if Union is desirable, will not these be best obtained by a respectful courtesy?

Since then, at last, all agree that to make a union of Virginia with the Confederate States practicable, we must have concert of action with our neighboring States, why may we not all agree in that line of policy which leads to friendly consultation? Is anything to be lost by it? I apprehend not. Is there not something to be gained by it? It seems to me there is. In what condition would the instant and separate secession of Virginia place her? We may adopt an ordinance .Page67 of secession, and put the State out of the Union. We, then, would tear her from her present associations. Maryland would be in the Union, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri would all be in the Union; Virginia would be out. And what would be her relations to the General Government? That Government could not forsake Maryland. It could not forsake North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, or Missouri. So long as they remain parties to the contract, protection is due to them. The Federal Government, while remaining at Washington, would, of necessity, preserve its armed position, because the secession of Virginia would imperil its safety to a greater extent. The divided state of opinion in Maryland would be at once a source of danger, of imminent danger. Stimulated by the secession of Virginia, the people of Maryland would be driven to action. Discordant counsels would prevail there. Division now marks the sentiment of their people, leaving it doubtful on which side the majority remains; but the stimulant given by the secession of Virginia, would quickly excite to action, and precipitate a conflict that would end speedily in a hostile collision with the Federal power.

Separate secession on the part of Virginia has been commended as a measure of peace. I look upon it, Mr. Chairman, as a measure of war. I do not believe that the people of this country would remain at peace for sixty days. I believe it would bring on collision with the Federal forces. The point of collision would be the seat of the Federal Government. That Government could not remain in Washington with safety under the condition of things that the separate secession of Virginia would bring about. Instead, therefore, of its commending itself to me as a measure of peace, I reject it as a measure of war—of unnecessary war, because if we take counsel with the other States on the border, and concert action with them, peace will be preserved. We should reach a peaceable solution of the difficulties which now surround us and press on our attention. With the withdrawal of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, the Federal authorities would evacuate the city of Washington. They would not remain there if they could; they could not, if they would. An absolute necessity for them to remove elsewhere would arise, and they would obey the law of that necessity.

The District of Columbia would be retroceded to Maryland, reincorporated with her own territory, and restored to its original jurisdiction. The government would be removed to another State, and that point of collision would be avoided. Therefore, with a concert of action between the border States there will be peace; with the separate.Page68 secession of Virginia, there will be war—and the most horrible war, civil war.

If, then the one policy looks to the preservation of peace, and the other to the inauguration of war, which ought to be pursued? Do gentlemen desire war, or do they prefer peace? On that determination ought to depend—it seems to me—the selection of the one or the other line of policy. Gentlemen all agree that these border States stand on the same footing, and are surrounded by circumstances which affect all alike. They agree that if one go, all must go ; none can remain. They agree that their interests are the same, their destiny the same.

If, therefore, a prudent disposition is to prevail, we will adopt measures for consultation. I scarcely know how to argue the proposition. Its statement is its argument. Why then does this diversity of views prevail? Why is it that the one side insists so pertinaciously on instant secession, and the other on the policy of previous consultation? There must be some motive that has not been disclosed. There must be some hidden reason yet undeveloped. If concert of action is necessary, that is best attained by previous consultation. Why then this diversity of sentiment? There must be a reason for it, and yet I have heard no reason assigned. What has been given to us as reasons, are too inconsequential to account for the diversity. Therefore, I conclude, there is some motive which yet lies hid. There is some reason which yet remains to be explained. What is it? I do not know that I shall be successful in discovering it, but I shall make the attempt. Gentlemen on the one side tell us that the propositions for Constitutional amendments are idle forms and ceremonies; that the people of the North will never assent to them; and yet I think they are actuated by fear, least perchance by this negotiation, some adjustment might be made which would be satisfactory to the border States.

I wish to understand whether the gentleman in his imputation of the motives of those who want to go out of the Union, means to apply it to me?

I had not the gentleman in my mind at all.

It is strange the gentleman had not me in his mind when he classed me with the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] , as one who wanted to go out of the Union immediately.

I was speaking of another class.

I have only to say, for myself, that I have no fear about an adjustment being made with the North, for my desire is to form .Page69 a new and a better Union of the North and South; but I do fear the adjustment which some gentlemen are ready to make with the North. That is what I fear.

The Chair did not understand the gentleman from Fauquier as impugning the motives of any gentleman on the floor. It is certainly not in order to do so.

His inquiry is as to the fact of a motive on the part of those who wish to move first and to operate afterwards; and he asserts, as a fact, that one motive is the fear that an adjustment may be made. That is all legitimate.

Certainly. So the Chair understands.

I only want to know whether that imputation is applied to me, so that if I have an opportunity to reply I can answer.

No gentleman, I am sure, can have so misconceived me as to suppose that I was indulging in any suggestion of an improper motive.

So the Chair understood.

I was attributing a motive to those among us, who are the most ardent friends of the Southern movement, arising out of an apprehension from which I am not free myself. I think that many of them are, perhaps, actuated in their hostility to this course of proceeding by reason of an apprehension that an adjustment may be made which will fix the destinies of the border States with the Northern Confederacy. Gentlemen on the other side are actuated, I think, by a similar apprehension, proceeding from the opposite direction.

It is feared that if an ordinance of secession be adopted, the State will be committed to the Southern Confederacy upon a permanent separation from the other States. One fears a Northern, the other a Southern connexion, and hence the diversity.

But, Mr. Chairman, both sides are for re-construction. One proposes to re-construct the Union upon amendments to the Federal Constitution, to be sought for through the action of the non-slaveholding States ; the other proposes to re-construct upon the Constitution of the Confederate States. There are no disunionists among us. I feel at liberty to assert that there is no member of this body who would not, if he could, restore the Union to its former condition, if, by the restoration, that feeling could be restored between the people of the two sections which existed when the Union was formed. Every member who has spoken, has avowed sentiments friendly to the Union. Every one has declared a desire to see the Union re-constructed. We are all Unionists. We are all for re-construction; for mending the broken parts; for .Page70 re-uniting its shattered fragments, and the same sentiment prevails among the people. When expressions hostile to the Union gain utterance, it is because re-construction is despaired of. The diversity is not between those who are for the Union and those who are against it, but between those who are hopeful of re-construction, and those who are hopeless of it. It could not be otherwise. If we consider what the Union has accomplished in the past, and what it is capable of accomplishing in the future, every heart must leap with glad emotions at the prospect of its restoration. From thirteen subject Colonies lying along the Atlantic border, we have increased to thirty-four sovereign States, stretching broadly to the Pacific Ocean. From three millions of people, we have increased to more than thirty millions. We have subdued a wilderness and peopled it ; impenetrable forests have given place to a breathing, living population, and silent prairies have become vocal with human voices; cities, rivaling the proportion and magnificence of those of ancient days, every where dot the surface of our broad land, as if called suddenly into existence by some great magic power. In agriculture, manufactures and commerce, in the arts and sciences, in all that constitutes a nation's wealth, and a nation's greatness, in the short space of less than eighty years, we have reached an eminence that places us in the foremost rank of the nations of the earth. And for our own peculiar institutions, what has been effected? From five States that recognized slavery, we have increased to fifteen. From 600,000 slaves, worth one or two hundred dollars each, we have increased to 4,000,000, worth from five hundred to a thousand dollars each; and, upon the products of their labor, the world depends for its prosperity and progress. It cannot, therefore, be a matter of surprise that, in a Convention, composed of those who represent all the varied interests of this great Commonwealth, that a Union sentiment should pervade the entire body. Yes, sir, we are all for union, and differ only as to the proper mode of proceeding. Some would re-construct upon amendments to the present constitution; while others would attempt the same thing under the constitution of the Confederate States. But they cannot agree; a cause of division between them exists, which, I fear, will, to the end of our deliberations, keep them apart. Is there no common ground on which they may meet? Is there no way to avoid the Scylla, on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other? Is there no safe middle passage?

Permit me to call the attention of the committee on the amendment which I propose to offer to the 14th resolution, when that shall be reached. That amendment provides that, in the event that our propositions .Page71 of adjustment shall be rejected by the non-slaveholding States, the border slaveholding States shall each assemble in Convention, and appoint delegates to a Congress of those States, to be charged with the duty of proposing an amended Constitution, upon which the border slaveholding States, the Confederate States, and such of the non-slaveholding States as may concur in the same, may safely unite; at which Congress, the Confederate States, and the concurring non-slaveholding States are to be invited to send Commissioners. The border States will be in Convention, ready to act finally; a constitution will be agreed upon, satisfactory to the Confederate States, which can be submitted at once to the Conventions in session, when, by the same act, a separation from the present Union and a re-union with the Confederate States can be effected. Thus will all unnecessary delay be avoided, and the hazard and uncertainty arising from separate action. Thus, too, will a peaceful solution of the question be obtained; because, when the border States move off together, the dissolution of the present Union will be complete.

But if separate secession be de'termined upon, in what attitude will the State be placed? She will be sent to knock at the door of the Southern Confederacy an humble petitioner for admittance. We are told that friendly hands will be held out to greet her; but if she goes alone she will take the position which the Confederate States may choose to give her; she can make no terms. Does the Constitution of those States suit her? Can any advocate of this policy answer the question? Are her interests identical, in all respects, with the interests of the Cotton States? On the contrary, are there not diversities between them? She has had no voice in the construction of the Government, and can have no influence in the direction of its policy. I have said that if the Southern States remain permanently separated from us, that, in my opinion, the border slave States could not safely confederate with the non-slaveholding States, because the policy of the Government would be moulded with exclusive reference to the interests of the dominant majority, and I apply the same argument to the Southern Confederacy. Can those who would precipitate us into the Southern Union, give any assurance that our peculiar interests will not be subordinated to the interests of the dominant majority of our new associates?

Is there any motive for precipitate action? It was said that the fourth of March ought not to find us in the present Union, but that day has passed, and whatever disadvantage was anticipated from the inauguration of the new administration has now been encountered, .Page72 and that argument fails. May we not, therefore, proceed with deliberation, and place ourselves in a position to demand fair terms? If the border States act together they will assume the position to which their strength and importance justly entitle them. The Confederate States are not more necessary to them than they are necessary to those States; in fact, the Union will be of mutual advantage. The one will derive no less benefit from the union than the other, and by acting together the border States can command honorable and just terms of confederation. Why should any one entrusted with the great interests of the State desire to deprive her of this advantage? Let us then unite upon this proposition. Why should we differ about it? It is objected that in the progress of the scheme recommended by the Committee an adjustment may be reached by which the border States may be permanently separated from the Confederate States, but this objection comes from those who have heretofore insisted that the propositions to the Northern States are an idle and useless ceremony. If this be so; if the ceremony is indeed merely formal, why may they not defer so much to the opinions of others as to go through these forms and ceremonies, when the result must be to unite us all in a common policy and bring about eventually the very measure upon which their own party is so intent? If the Northern States reject our proposed amendments, no alternative will be left us but secession, and the other border States will stand in the same necessity. There can be no apprehension of any middle confederacy; no one proposes that form of adjustment. If, therefore, we separate from the Northern States, we must join the Southern Confederacy, we will only have to adjust the terms of Union.

But does any one fear an adjustment with the Northern States upon the plan of the Committee? I know there are some who yet remain hopeful of a settlement in that way, but I am not one of them. I once thought such a settlement practicable. I thought the people of the non-slaveholding States would consent to proper amendments of the Constitution; that an intelligent perception of the blessings of Union and feelings of common brotherhood would overcome the prejudices that stood in the way. I thought the same influence prevailed with the people of the Southern States; that underlying the excitement by which they had been precipitated into revolution there was evidence of a strong feeling for the Union.

Under these impressions, I left my home hopeful of a settlement, but I regret to say this hope has vanished.

The adjustment of which I am speaking is to be sought by amendments .Page73 to the present Constitution, and there are but two modes of amending that instrument. One is by propositions of amendment emanating from Congress, the other by the instrumentality of a National Convention. Is either mode practicable? The first has been already tried and failed. The recommendations of the Peace Congress were rejected; the Congress refused to submit them to the States. A National Convention can be called only upon the demand of two-thirds of the States, and any amendment recommended by it requires the concurrence of three-fourths of the States to make it part of the Constitution. Can two-thirds of the States be got to call a Convention, and can three-fourths of them be got to concur in satisfactory amendments? According to the Northern idea, the Union is yet composed of thirty-four States. They reject the fact of secession, and still claim the seven Confederated States as rightly subject to the Government. Upon this hypothesis twenty-three States will be necessary to call a Convention, and twenty-six will be required to ratify amendments. If the Confederate States be left out of the enumeration, eighteen States will be necessary to call a Convention, and twenty-one to ratify amendments. Can the concurrence of the requisite number of States be obtained? In any computation it will be conceded that the seven Confederated States must be left out; they have formed a separate government, and repudiate the Federal authority. Upon the one hypothesis, therefore, the non-concurrence of two of the States, and upon the other, that of six, will defeat a settlement.

I say, then, Mr. Chairman, that I am not of the number who look hopefully to this form of adjustment. I am willing, however, to try it. I am willing to defer so much to the wishes of others, especially as I am assured that when it fails, the divisions and diversities that now mark this body will disappear. To dissipate our divisions and obtain united action, may we not make this small sacrifice of individual opinion?

At one time I thought the experiment of the Southern Confederacy of doubtful issue. Time has removed that doubt. We have seen those States advance firmly and dispassionately in their work of revolution ; we have seen them adopt a government suited to their exigencies, on which their people repose in confidence. We see the opposition at one time manifested against it, daily growing less, and the Government itself becoming daily more firmly established. I have, then, on both sides, facts upon which to rest my opinion. In the North I see less and less disposition to re-establish the Union, and in the South less and less necessity for it. We met here under circumstances of great .Page74 excitement and pervading interest. For two months we have been debating questions that concern the peace of the country, the integrity of the Union and the safety of the Government; and we have held this debate in the very presence of the high functionaries to whom the powers of government have been recently confided. But not a word has been spoken to relieve our anxiety, not a measure projected or promised, having reference to the preservation of the peace or the restoration of harmony; nothing has been done to relieve the nation from the apprehensions that oppress it.

We hear of intentions to reinforce Southern forts, to supply Southern garrisons; the City of Washington is still in the keeping of the military, and the President and his Cabinet move by day and repose by night, under the protection of the Federal soldiery. Obdurate silence pervades all departments; no word of explanation, no kindly counsel, no expression of hope comes to dissipate the gloom.

If from the functionaries at Washington, we turn to the people by whom they were elevated to their places, we discover the same stolid indifference. I say then, however buoyant was my expectation, how- ever strong my hope of a satisfactory adjustment through the free States, that expectation is gone, that hope has fled. I do not believe it practicable, under existing circumstances, to reconstruct the Union by either mode of amendment provided by the Constitution. I do not believe it practicable under the policy of the immediate secessionists. If Virginia attaches herself now to the Southern Confederacy, and the other border States establish themselves at once at Montgomery, they will place an impossible gulph between them and their Northern associates. While, therefore, I have little hope of re-construction by the one scheme, I have as little by the other.

The border States must hold firmly to the position they occupy. Central as to the other States, their interests are divided, flowing partly into a Southern and partly into a Northern channel. They occupy a position in which they will suffer greatly by a separation from either.

They are the fortress of the Union, and Virginia is its citadel ; let us never surrender it. If we go to Montgomery, that is too far South for our Northern brethren to follow after us. It will be an act of estrangement, separating us forever; it will be a conversion into enemies of those who are friends; it will be the erection of a barrier in the way of re-construction, impassable forever. Let us, then, hold firmly to our position. If the border States move in concert, and withdraw together from the Union, the present Government will abandon the capital; its speedy removal will be an absolute necessity. With the Federal .Page75 Capital in our possession, half the work of reconstruction would be accomplished—half did I say, Mr. Chairman? I had almost said the work itself would be already accomplished. In the possession of the Federal Capital, with alterations and amendments to the Montgomery Constitution satisfactory to the border States and the Confederate States, a government would be established having all the prestige of the one it would supplant. It would be where the public mind has been habituated to behold the Government ; it would be where the Northern man could come without prejudice, where, in my judgment, at no distant day, New Jersey would come, Pennsylvania would come, where Ohio, Indiana and Illinois would speedily come, when the accession of the remaining States would be but a question of time.

Not believing in the practicability of re-constructing the Union upon amendments to the Constitution under a Republican dynasty, and having no hope that direction if we precipitately establish ourselves at Montgomery, I would adopt the middle plan.

With the border States assembled in a Congress, with their separate Conventions in session, with all the machinery in readiness for final action, with the strong inducements to a union with the Southern States, can any one doubt that terms of association satisfactory to both sides will readily be agreed upon? Can any one doubt that the accession of the eight border States, together will be far more serviceable and acceptable to the Southern States than the separate accession of the State of Virginia? Going alone she would carry no strength to her new allies, but add to their embarrassments; going together with her seven neighbors, she would carry the strength of all, giving solidity to the compact and the security which solid structure imparts.

But it is objected that the scheme of the border State Congress surrenders the ultimatum of the 1 1 th resolution and subjects Virginia to the determination of the other States. There is no foundation for this objection; for nothing in the proposed amendment impairs the force of that resolution. She may carry its determination into effect prior to entering into the Congress, or she may forbear its execution until a future time. I propose to leave the choice on that point perfectly free. She may abide by the recommendations of the Congress, or she may reject them. I propose to bind her in no way, but to leave her free, with all the lights then before her, to pursue that policy which enlightened statesmanship may dictate and the welfare of her people demand.

Can any one doubt that by the time the proposed Congress is to assemble, public opinion in our own State, and all the other border .Page76 States, will have ripened upon these questions, so as to lead necessarily to their easy solution? Can any one doubt that by that time the minds of all of us will be united in a common policy? Events are on the wing, and each successive flight contributes its influence towards instructing our judgments and dispelling the darkness that obscures our way.

At this time, our councils are divided; those of the other border States are in like manner divided; our people are divided; opposing sections of the State are arrayed against each other; and to set before them now an ordinance of Secession, taking Virginia alone out of the Union, will be to aggravate these divisions and antagonize the sections, until final agreement shall be made impossible. With Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee remaining in the Union, and acknowledging the authority of the Federal Government, in what condition would an ordinance of secession place Virginia? The industry of our people is now depressed; would such an act remove the depression? Their commerce is embarrassed; would separate secession dispel the embarrassment? Would it not rather deepen the depression and increase the embarrassments? Nay, would it not strike a fatal paralysis into every fibre of the entire system?

How long would she remain in her isolated condition? When would the interposing States follow her example? In the mean time, what would become of Harper's Ferry, of Fortress Monroe, of Fortress Calhoun, of her foreign commerce? How would it be possible to avoid collision and bloodshed? Secession now, under surrounding circumstances, will necessitate war. To ordain secession is to declare war, and to involve our people, without preparation, in all its horrors. If I represented the Southern States, and was seeking to influence the action of Virginia, with a view to their interests, I might advocate that plan, because thereby the attention of the enemy would be attracted to another quarter ; but as I represent Virginia, and am seeking her safety, I would avoid it; necessity may compel to it, choice never.

Concert among the border States will avoid war, or if that extremity at last be forced upon us, we shall have the strength to meet it that union gives.

But, Mr. Chairman, if we turn our thoughts from these painful contemplations, and lift them to the cheerful hopes of friendly adjustment and re-construction, there is much in the propositions of my amendment commending it to approval; some of its advantages have already been pointed out, but there is another to which I will advert. If the adjustment is reached upon the plan of the Committee's report, .Page77 or upon the basis of the Montgomery constitution, something would still be wanting necessary for the harmonious working of the renovated system. Neither would relieve us from the danger of a recurrence in the future of the very evils we now suffer. The effects of either, doubtless, would be palliative at first, but the root would remain, and instead of eradicating the plant, we would be only removing a part of the rank soil that nourishes its growth.

The slaveholding States and the non-slaveholding States have diversities of interests—the differences of soil, climate, labor and productions, necessarily give rise to them. When associated under a common government, these diversities must work their result. Unless evenly balanced, they compel to conflicts for governmental supremacy. The divisions will become sectional, and the conflicts will rage until victory brings estrangement and dissolution as its necessary attendants. The Constitution of the United States has this defect. Notwithstanding its departmental divisions, and separation of powers, and notwithstanding its various modes of official selection, the entire framework of the Government rests, at last, upon the power of the majority. Popular majorities elect the President, who appoints the Judges; they elect the Legislatures that appoint the Senators, and mediately or immediately give form and direction to all governmental action. If we re-construct upon the plan of my amendment, we can remedy this defect, and by engrafting upon our amended Constitution the principle of sectional equality in the Senate, forever extirpate the noxious plant from whose wild growth our misfortunes spring.

The resolutions reported by the Committee on Federal Relations, command my approval. The discussion of them will be more appropriate when they come up separately for adoption; but I will take this occasion to say that they proceed upon the true theory of constitutional construction. They recognize the States as the true parties to the government compact ; I mean the States in the sense of the people of the States; they recognize the original sovereignty and independence of the States, and deduce from these premises the right of the States, for just cause, to sever their connections with each other; they recognize the government as an agency of the parties, and the functionaries who administer it, as their trustees and agents, and thence deduce a total want of authority on the part of the government, or any of its functionaries, to hold a State, or the people thereof. to accountability for the exercise of that right. When a State withdraws and breaks the compact, the offence, if any, is committed against the other States, and they only have authority to deal with it. The .Page78 government can deal with those acts only that constitute, properly, offences against the government—such as sedition, insurrection, and revolt, in some phases.

The conclusion seems to follow, that, when a State withdraws, and severs its connection with the other States, it is the duty of the government to remain quiescent, and to do no act to forestall the proper judgment of the parties, but to leave them free to determine in their own time, according to their own pleasure, the manner in which the case shall be dealt with. The parties injured may adjudge the cause sufficient, or they may acquiesce in the act of the withdrawing State and discharge it from responsibility. For the agent to interfere, would be to usurp the authority of the principals, and to exercise a power in derogation from their rights. This is according to the American system, which derives the power of government from the consent of the governed. The European system is different, and we have only to contrast the two systems to be satisfied as to the conclusions stated. Anciently, by divine right, now, by the doctrine of legitimacy, monarchs claim an inheritance in the powers of government descendible according to certain ascertained and established laws. They represent in their persons the sovereignty of the nation, and the subjects owe to them allegiance and obedience. If the subject disobey, the monarch may enforce his obedience, and the power extends to any number, to the majority or to the whole. If the power be adequate the nation may be controlled.

But where States are parties to a government compact, and for their mutual convenience create an agency, endowing its functionaries with limited powers, it would seem absurd to suppose that the agent could rise superior to the principals, and according to its pleasure control their will. If the government can coerce the obedience of one State, it may coerce half of the States, or a majority of them, or, if it possesses the power it may, by the same reasoning, coerce the entire number. So that if the President should chance to have a full treasury and a numerous army, although all of the States might determine to withdraw from the Union, his power might coerce their will.

I will not protract the discussion further, or trespass any longer upon the indulgence of the Committee.

1.2.3. AFTERNOON SESSION

The Convention re-assembled at 4 o'clock, P. M., and resumed, in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the report of the Committee .Page79, of Fauquier, had the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have become so hoarse since the recess, that I am obliged to decline any further discussion. I thank the Committee for its attention to what I have said.

Mr. RICHARDSON obtained the floor.

With the consent of the gentleman from Hanover I desire to ask my friend from Fauquier a question.

Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier, made a remark.

The gentleman says he is so hoarse that he cannot answer. He does seem distressed and, of course, I will not vex him in his fatigue.

Mr. Chairman : I am not without hope that some member of the Convention will express or thank in my behalf the kindness uttered by the worthy gentleman from Petersburg [Mr. BRANCH] , of my distinguished friend from Albemarle, who sits on my right [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , for whose accommodation the former gentleman [Mr. BRANCH] , announced his willingness to adjourn, so that the latter gentleman [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , might be heard when the Convention was not fatigued, on the ground that he had troubled this body but little with speeches. I have presumed to speak here but twice—once less than ten minutes, advocating the election of a friend to an office to which he was preferred by the Convention; and once again less than fifteen minutes in explanation of a resolution looking to the military defence of the State, which I had the honor to propose. Though I have been firm in my sentiments on the momentous matters to be considered by Virginia in this the highest exercise of her sovereignty, I confess to some vacillation as to whether I should speak here or not. For, notwithstanding the interminable clamors and fault-findings of the respective outside partizans of the majority and minority, with regard to those who differ from them, I see around me gentlemen who, from character, talents and position, are the most distinguished men of the State, and my embarrassment is increased by the fact that I am, for the first time, a representative of the people in a body like this ; so that it is with awe that I attempt to address them. Nor should I make the effort at all had I not reason to believe that my constituents desire their voice, however humble when spoken by me, to be heard in this hall. Certain mental peculiarities of mine, sir, lead me, in considering a subject, to look to its historical surroundings. I, therefore, .Page80 propose first to take a glance at the origin of the Federal Union—of the many ties which should have united forever in fraternity and affection the North and the South—to show while the former section and a foreign power are, for the most part, responsible for slavery here, they have sought, with unhallowed hands, to destroy both the institution and those on whom they forced it; that the people of the North have rudely and cruelly crushed the mutual love which bound us together, and have cherished and do cherish towards us such feelings as render a longer union with them almost hopeless. Proceeding a step farther in the argument, and considering our responsibilities in connection with a once glorious but now disrupted nationality, I shall hold the position not only that our destiny is with the Southern Confederacy, but that the best mode of re-constructing the Union is promptly to identify ourselves with the seceded States. Maintaining this ground, I shall be drawn into a reply to arguments advanced by gentlemen on this floor, who take a different view of the subject, and having carried out this line of remark, I shall have completed the programme formed in my mind, and will cheerfully yield the floor to gentlemen who will doubtless be able to speak with more ability and eloquence than I can command.

Eighty-four years ago, Mr. Chairman, heralded by the clash of arms, and amid the shock of battle, a giant, so to speak, started into life that giant was the youthful, but already magnificent country which reached from the ice-bound hills of New Hampshire to the warm and illuminated fields of Georgia, the renowned and patriotic thirteen sovereignties which had been the brightest gem in the coronet of power and dominion of that green isle of the ocean, in the storied inscriptions of whose Westminster, we read with reverential awe, the merited eulogies of those heroes, sages and philanthropists, who illustrated the land where once our fathers dwelt. Long years of suffering and of sorrow succeeded the nation's advent, but there came at last that independence, which in the end rewards the devotion of the noble, the chivalrous and the free—and when the smoke of the conflict had cleared away, when the clouds of war rolled back, and left spanning the horizon the rainbow of peace, that young land displayed a moral and physical grandeur to which the world showed no parallel. Every thing seemed to demand of her sons for their country and their whole country, the tribute of their devotion and their love—a people on whose every lineament were stamped the moral and mental attributes of the great race from which they sprang. A federative system of separate State sovereignties of kindred institutions and kindred freedom, .Page81 which promised, in the matchless beauty of its construction and operation, to be typical of the order and regularity of the planetary system itself. Varieties of soil, climate and productions which seemed to have been ordained by a kind Providence, that this bright temple of freedom might be decked with every luxurious elegance of soul, of sense, or of intellect—rivers which rolled their brilliant tides through State after State, as if to mingle in great arteries the gushing life blood of those States—majestic ranges of mountains stretching forth their giant arms and uniting in fraternal embrace whole Commonwealths—washed by an ocean whose shores were indented with countless harbors, in which might safely ride the navies of the world—over whose waves were wafted the teeming products of a virgin soil to every clime—whence were brought in return over the same billows the commercial spoils of distant lands, the Confederate States of the Revolution had, besides these physical bonds of Union, the sacred recollections of a struggle in which they stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder. The blood and the bones of noble warriors from North, South, East and West, were mingled at Long Island and Camden, Brandywine and Savannah, Reading and Guilford, where lingered the melancholy memories of defeat, and at Lexington and Eutaw, Bunker's Hill and Cowpens, Monmouth and King's Mountain, Trenton and Hanging Rock, Princeton and Yorktown, above which hovered the glories of victory. To the progress of a portion of this beautiful country there was an obstacle which at first seemed insurmountable. Settled by Caucasians, by Saxons, and chivalrous Normans, whose genius and courage blazoned on their shields the quarterings of glory and renown won in every cabinet and on every field in Europe, and which fitted them for similar honors here, they found themselves lords of a country whose resources were to be developed in a climate, and under a sun beneath which their energies, mental and physical, drooped and withered. But the power which had guided them over the trackless ocean did not desert them here. Far away over the blue waves of the sea, and beneath the burning sun of Africa, there dwelt in the abasement of barbarism, heathenism and cannibalism, a race on whom, for the crime of their progenitor, had come down through the shadows of ages the curse of the God "whose nod can hush the thunders and serene the skies," whose throne is placed amid the music of circling orbs, and glows and glitters in the light of suns and worlds—the solemn and awful anathema, "cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." The dread Omnipotent who makes "the wrath of man to praise Him," and restrains "the remainder of wrath," to .Page82 lift that curse, that the degraded African might have his share in the atonement—as a part of the great scheme, which gives the Redeemer the heathen for his inheritance; in view of the slow progress of light through that benighted land, over which wave after wave of moral darkness rolled, brings him in contact with civilization here. But, that fair and glorious freedom might have no stain on her escutcheon, makes others than her sons the responsible agents of the evil, from which was to flow in full and gushing streams blessings and benefits. Yes, to the thousand sins for which despotism has to answer at the bar of history and of God, is to be added the expatriation of the heathen African for gold, with no view to humanity or benevolence, while the free men of our Southern States, guiltless in the means, but partakers of the merit of the end, have, by the dispensation of God, been made the honored instruments of good to a fallen race in the very act of developing the resources of their own beautiful and blooming land. They have made him a happy part of a patriarchal institution, infused into his savage and gloomy mind the kindlier sympathies and feelings leading to contentment and happiness, and unsealing the word of God, pointed him to the great sacrifice, which, when he has faithfully performed his duties here, offers him an inheritance in common with his kind in a world of eternal happiness. Passing from theory to history

from assertion to the logic of facts—inexorable truth will demonstrate that to Great Britain, the country which now so bitterly denounces us for our domestic institutions, must be charged the existence of slavery amongst us. She established it here by positive enactment of law, spreading on her statute book that it was not only profitable, but right. Citizens highest in rank, individuals and corporations, princes of the blood and even sovereigns participated in the traffic. Ten Judges of her highest Courts, including Holt and Pollexfen, declared negroes to be merchandise, and she introduced and continued the trade amongst us against our earnest protest. The North, lynx-eyed as to everything which advances her interest, took up and carried on the trade with an avidity which showed her constitutional thirst for and keenness in the pursuit of gain. Immaculate Massachusetts, as early as 1641, declared the lawfulness of African slavery and of the slave trade. In the other Northern States, slavery was established, but the immutable laws of soil and climate, which, if let alone, will carry into every country the labor, whether slave or free, best adapted to it, rendering the institution unprofitable, these enterprising people took their part in the trade more in selling slaves to the South than in introducing them into their own country. Hence they rapidly disappeared .Page83 from their territory into the Southern States, so as to make emancipation in the former no stretch of philanthropy. By the census of 1790, the number of slaves in the older and more flourishing colonies were only 40,370, while in the Southern and then more feeble colonies, there were, even exclusive of those in Virginia, 567,527; Vermont had only 17. Massachusetts, though slavery never was abolished there by statute, none. New Hampshire, whose statutes were equally silent on the subject, 158; Connecticut 2,759; Pennsylvania 3,737; New York 21,524; New Jersey 11,423, while Virginia alone had 293,427. These figures prove that in the Northern States the institution was not worth preserving, but the last four having the largest numbers, in order to avoid all loss, adopted a plan of prospective emancipation, before the arrival of the period for which there was a wonderful and nearly complete stampede of slaves to Southern States for Southern gold.

To the influx of Africans, through the slave trade laws of Great Britain, the history of the Southern Colonies presented an unbroken series of earnest protests. Noble, glorious old Virginia, who stands in reference to the slave trade like the Chevalier Bayard, "above fear and above reproach," passed no less than twenty-three acts to suppress it; the other Southern States also endeavored to put an end to it, but veto after veto of royal Governors trampled upon the ardent wishes of the people. Not until the revolution had given freedom to these States were they enabled to end the traffic, and then, notwithstanding the magnificent vaunting of England of her love of freedom and hatred of slavery, they suppressed it twenty years in advance of her. I have glanced at these historical facts to show the injustice, the iniquity, the cruelty of the attacks on the South and her institutions, and I ask if the world can furnish a parallel to an outrage so atrocious. Not only are we assailed by that country which forced the institution upon us, and which still retains bitter recollections of our forfeited allegiance and their defeat by our gallant ancestors, but the honest, benevolent and immaculate saints of the perjured North, who sold us slaves for gold, proclaim that a sin in which they were particeps criminis, is unpardonable, and seek to destroy our institutions and cut our throats, because we will not surrender these slaves, which have become necessary to our civilization, and to liberate whom would be our moral and physical death. No philanthropy commends itself to these wicked meddlers, save that which is a deadly injury to their countrymen. In vast regions of the earth millions wear the chains of a servitude to which our slavery is freedom; but the lamb-like hearts .Page84 of our pseudo brothers are cold—their sympathies dead as to them. To give their philanthropy spice and relish, it must have the seasoning of perjury—the stimulus of violated compacts, and comity with brethren, the fiendish thirst for the blood of noble men, and the dishonoring of lovely women. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disposition on the part of both real and imaginary wrong doers, to make others responsible for, and the scape-goats for their acts. Many a miserable old man who has had, during a long life, hundreds of slaves and reared a family to whom these slaves have become a necessity, when time has shattered his health, and weakened his nerves, is seized with a spurious remorse, and in an evil hour wills the liberation of his slaves, and the immolation of his children's birth-right. This folly and wrong finds many a parallel in the history of nations. France introduced slavery into her Colonies—and then, by abolishing it, gave them to fire and sword. So did Britain. And now this same Britain, having forced the institution on us, seeks, hand in hand with the unnatural North to enact the same tragedy in the South. Sir, the immaculate God could, in the sublime benevolence and boundless love, which are the attributes of divinity, offer up a sinless mortal life as an atonement for a lost world, but I utterly deny the right of any human power to make a vicarious atonement, and I demand that the North shall bear the guilt of their own sins. I referred in the beginning to the great physical links and the hallowed memories which should have bound together the North and the South in bonds of fraternity as firm as the granite of the everlasting hills. But for "bread" the North has given us the "stones" of immovable and incessant oppression. For "fish," the serpents of ceaseless agitation and attack. They, not we, have forgotten that the bones of our ancestors lie side by side with the bones of their ancestors at Princeton and Yorktown. They, not we, have forgotten that we are brethren, and that when once the hand "is stained with brother's blood," nothing less "than the waters of the sweet Heavens can wash it white as snow." Sir, to almost every conceivable insult and injury have we been subjected. I will not weary the Convention by reading the innumerable assaults upon us by the North. I could read page after page to show that our oft repeated complaints are true. That from the press, the pulpit, the school-house, conventions, legislative bodies, the masses, whether in cities or rural districts, from the leader of Senates to the lowest cross-road politician, who like a former Indiana Senator, plays steamboat for the amusement of rowdies and scoundrels at.Page85 there is one wicked, common, deadly and deep-seated hatred to the South and her institutions. As early as 1790 the war upon us began in the shape of petitions to Congress to interfere with our domestic institutions. These have been in every form—to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia—in the forts, dock-yards and other places, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government—to exclude it from the Territories, the common property of both sections—to prohibit the slave trade between the States—to abolish it in the States—and to dissolve the Union because of slavery—many of these petitions being couched in terms of the grossest insult to the South and her institutions. The platform on which the abolitionists went into the presidential contest in 1840, demanded the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia—in the Territories—of the slave trade between the States, and announced an opposition to slavery every where, "to the full extent of constitutional power." In 1848, that portion of the party which did not support the Buffalo nominees, went for abolishing slavery in the States by the General Government. The Buffalo and Utica platforms themselves ( claiming to be Republican, not abolition ) took the strongest ground for what they call "freedom," in opposition to slavery. For the "relief" ( as they called it) of the Federal Government from all responsibility for slavery wherever that government had jurisdiction. For the absolute prohibition by act of Congress of slavery in the Territories, and of more slave States; and they flaunted in our faces the inscriptions on their banner of "free soil, free speech, free labor and free men," declaring slavery to be "a great moral, social and political evil," and a relic of barbarism. In 1852 the independent Democrats (as they called themselves) , who supported John P. Hale for the presidency, declared that their organization was a Union "of freedom against slavery" "slave Territory" "slave States"—and any legislation for the reclamation of fugitive slaves; "that slavery was a sin against God," "a crime against man," and that "no human power could make it right." In 1856, the Republican platform denied the right of Congress—of Territorial Legislatures—of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States, and claimed that it was the duty of Congress to prohibit it. Added to all this, we have not the mere billingsgate of the Five Points, and the fish market eloquence with which .Page86 we have been bespattered by strong-minded women and obscure male traitors, but countless declarations of leading men, politicians and divines, that republicanism is not only the ally, "but the progeny of abolitionism." That they are for the logic of Sharp's rifles to oppose slavery—"higher law judges, an anti-slavery Constitution, an antislavery Bible, an anti-slavery God." "That the time shall come when the sun shall not rise on a master or set on a slave"— "slavery shall go out in fire and blood," and in its extinguishment the streets of our cities "shall run blood to the horses' bridles"—shall be abolished at the price "of the Constitution, the Union, and the country" —because of its existence the Union is "a sham, a lie, and imposture" —a "covenant with death, and an agreement with hell"—"insurrections are justifiable"—"a fugitive slave is right to kill his master if he attempts to reclaim him"—"servile war or anything is better than the extension of slavery to the territories"—"and that jurors are justified in violating their oaths in acquitting persons who effect the escape of fugitive slaves," as are States in violating the law for their rendition. Their repeated legislative resolutions have declared against any more slave States. Chase proclaims that the clause in the Constitution for the rendition of fugitive slaves is null and void, and forms no part of an oath when it is taken to support that instrument. Seward, besides his higher law and irrepressible conflict doctrines, proclaims "that slavery has no constitutional guarantee which may not be released"—"its ultimate extinction is certain." Sumner, besides holding similar doctrines, declares the fugitive slave law should not be executed. Webb is for preventing the extension of slavery, sword in hand. Wade is not only in favor of abolishing it in the District of Columbia, and excluding it from the territories, and everywhere, where the General Government has jurisdiction, but declares that agitation shall continue so long as the foot of a slave presses American soil. To the same purport are the declarations of Wilson. And the great splitter, who now occupies the Presidential chair, who seems as good at splitting the Union as he formerly was at splitting rails, who is as much out of place in his present position as a child or a monkey passing with a lighted match in the midst of open kegs of gun-powder, also proclaims the "irrepressible conflict ;" that the Federal Government has the power, and should exercise it, of prohibiting slavery in all the territories; is not even certain that the abolition of the slave trade between the States is unconstitutional, and declares that men who own slaves do not deserve to be free. Moreover, as far back as 1858, there were twenty abolition United States Senators, and 100 abolition .Page87 representatives, since that time, sixty-eight members of Congress endorsed the work of Helper, an infamous incendiary publication, recommending fire and sword for the South, and the alarming spread of whose vile doctrines is shown by the boasting flaunting on its title page of the sale of one hundred thousand copies. The statutes of no less than fifteen States nullify the fugitive slave law. Myriads in the North claim the crown of martyrdom for the thieves, bandits and assassins who, under the lead of John Brown, invaded our soil and murdered our citizens. Last, though not least, a sectional party has "seized the government," with the avowed purpose of warring with its thousand weapons of patronage and power on our institutions. Thus, through every channel of communication, speaks the stolid, relentless, moveless North. Thus are heard the denunciations and threatenings, not of a foreign power without weight or influence in our government, between which and its hoped for victim rolls the billows of an ocean barrier, but of a vast and powerful column and cordon of free States of eighteen millions of inhabitants, whose suffragans have an immense majority in the election of our governmental officers—whose territory is in immediate proximity to our own, spanning and outflanking our whole Northern, North-eastern and North-western frontier, which, before the secession of the Southern Confederacy, were to the slave States in number as 19 to 15 ; in white population as eighteen millions to eight millions; in representation as 188 to 114; which to the slave States which now remain in the Northern Union, are in number as 19 to 8; in white population as eighteen millions to five millions, in representation as 188 to 53; which immense preponderance of Commonwealths and population is to be steadily increased by the addition of new States, which is in possession of the power and the patronage of the government, with the ability and the will forever to exclude from it Southern men, and the unlimited power of taxing and trampling upon the hopeless minority.

And in this gathering of huge clouds, black as night—this rolling of the distant thunder, ominous of the approach of the storm—these shocks of the earthquake, heralding an explosion which may shake to atoms the pillars of our social edifice—this roaring and surging of the mountain waves of the great deep, by the breaking up of whose fountains we may at any moment be overwhelmed, my distinguished friend from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , who I was happy to see receive from fair hands the orator's wreath, not because I agree with him in sentiment, but because I am always pleased to witness rewards to intellectual merit; sees little more than the raving of madmen, joined .Page88 to the votive offerings of gallant persons to the toothless old maids of Yankeedom—these poor old creatures who stalk about with eyes dim as lamps living on a short allowance of oil—their cheeks blazing with the permanent blush of the brush—their heads decorated with a profane and alarming eruption of exotic curls, and who make the welkin ring in his own facetious, but expressive language, with the singing of "psalms and hymns." Sir, I hope my friend is what I say with sorrow and humilation I am not, a member in good standing and fellowship of some orthodox Christian Church; for I fear that if he is not in now, the scepticism which sees no danger to the South from Northern aggression, will keep him out forever. Knowing the solemn responsibilities of our position here, I feel rather rebuked at venturing upon an anecdote, especially a trite one ; but the gentleman really seems as hard of belief as the man who having been refused a place in the Ark, though the waters of the flood were rising in every direction around him, contemptuously told that distinguished old navigator Noah, to get along with his old boat, for he did not believe "there would be much of a shower after all."

Mr. Chairman, a fearful crisis is upon us—our agricultural, mercantile and commercial interests are prostrate—our finances are deranged—our once glorious Union is disrupted—seven stars have left our federative constellation, and others threaten to shoot from their spheres. Waiting in vain for sympathetic responses from the "blue mountains and monumental sea shore of Virginia," the Confederate Commonwealths have evinced the prudence of the traveller who stands on his guard as he hears by the wayside "the warning rattle of the serpent"—of the Western hunter, who raises his death dealing rifle when there is a "rush in the jungle," and he beholds the large green eyes of the spotted tiger glaring upon him. The flower decked fields of Louisiana ; the beautiful savannahs of Georgia and fair Carolina, "from plain to mountain cave," resound with the din of preparation, and echo the stern notes of defiance. The Gulf States bristle with bayonets—column after column of the Huguenot and Cavalier chivalry deploy into line, and the brilliant casque and more brilliant eye, the sable plume, the "dancing crest" of many a noble leader, gleam along the ranks where flash the banners of a glittering army.

Amid these raging elements, what should be the course of the border States and of Virginia? In my humble judgment they should at once resume the powers formerly delegated by them to the General Government, and in solid phalanx assert their independence. The time when .Page89 they could be accused of imprudence for such a course has passed ; necessity, not rashness, is now the word. Attempt after attempt at compromise has resulted in failure, until longer asking looks like supplication. Statesman after statesman in the Senate has endeavored in vain to calm the storm. Proposition after proposition for peace, which, though patriotically made, was regarded by the Southern men as in part a surrender of their rights, has been persistently voted down by the North. The voice of Virginia for peace, so potential, so successful heretofore with the nation, has been scorned; and having in vain attempted to secure the rights of the South by her separate action, when she again speaks, it should be from the head of the Southern column. Without the Confederate States she would be as helpless as a child. What, if she remained with the Northern, or Northern and middle Confederacy, would become of her cherished doctrine of State-rights, the liturgy of her political prayer book? How would she resist unequal taxation—the plunder of the public treasury, insults and aggression, and the steady encroachments of a relentless sectional majority upon her institutions? Every reading man knows the wild theories of the North and North-West on the subject of government. Scornful derision is their only reply to the cherished States Rights doctrines, to the perfection of which the great men of Virginia have devoted their lives. Trampling this hallowed creed in the dust, they favor the wildest and most partial schemes of internal improvement by the General Government. Rejecting both, an equal distribution of the public lands among the States, and the trust by which they are held, for the common benefit of all, they allow them to be seized by the States where they are situated ; they hold that no system of taxation, by duties on imports, however excessive, is unequal or unconstitutional, and advocate dangerous agrarian schemes in the shape of homestead bills and other obnoxious measures for robbing the treasury and ruining the country. If, when the South was a unit, we were unable to stem the tide of injustice and oppression, how hopeless will our condition be now, with this resistless majority of Northern and North-western States against us, and when seven of our sovereign allies have left the Confederacy? With these great political facts staring me in the face, I am forced to say that guarantees, which, for the sake of the peace, I would, at one time, have accepted, I would now consider myself unjust to my constituents to touch. Every moment's delay on the part of Virginia has confirmed the wavering and strengthened the anti-Southern rights party, in the border slave States, while the gulf States have become more and more exasperated .Page90 against the North; and the hope of re-construction grows fainter and fainter. As the breach between the Gulf States and Northern States widens, and the former become more determined to act with perfect independence, and thus diminishes our chance of having by our side our natural allies, so increase the perils of Virginia and the necessity for greater demands and guarantees, and for the assertion of her absolute equality in the Confederacy. How are these guarantees to be obtained? By the fiat of Virginia acting singly? The futility of such a hope has already been proved by the failure of the Peace Conference inaugurated by herself. If acting alone, she is too weak to command respect for her demands, she must seek more strength. Where is that to be obtained? The answer is plain : with the Southern Confederacy —though there may be matters in which our interests may clash with those cf that Confederacy (which I do not admit) , yet it is impossible that that clash can be so fatal as that between the slaveholding interests of the South and the anti-slavery aggressions of the North. To the Southern Confederacy alone can we look for a community of interest for strength, and for real sympathy in the maintenance of that most sensitive and vital of all our domestic institutions, slavery.

We cannot be sure of the effective co-operation of the border States —Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, notwithstanding the nation is in the throes of revolution, have refused to call conventions. How far North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have been influenced by the delay of Virginia in taking her position with the Confederate States, or what other causes have weighed with them, I have no means of knowing. But I fear there is too much reason to deplore the free soil proclivities of Delaware and Maryland; and Missouri on the 20th of last month, by a vote of 69 to 23, actually refused to declare her willingness to unite with the South, even though the Northern States refuse to agree on a just settlement of the slavery question, and the Union is dissolved in consequence thereof. Then we should not await the action of the border States. Delay and uncertainty are ruinous to our interests. The great objection to border State conferences, and all other measures for delay, is that business men are kept in a state of harassing and ruinous uncertainty, as to where the State is to go, and the country is to go—under what revenue system we are to live—as to what amount of protection, stability and safety is to be given to that domestic institution of ours, which is the foundation on which is reared the whole edifice of State prosperity and civilization. Not only do commercial and manufacturing men stand aghast at the doubts and difficulties of the State's future,.Page91 but slaveholders prepare to weaken our strength by the withdrawal not only of their energy, virtue and ability, but of millions of property from our soil—the motives which impel the latter to leave the State are two fold ; first by our unsettled policy they fear the reduction of the value of their slaves, and secondly they know that of all institutions on earth slavery is the most sensitive, and the most dangerous to be meddled with by any but its friends and owners. They well know that the history of every outside interference with the institution is written in blood hence they desire to place themselves and the institution in the keeping of its friends. Even though the secession of Virginia should in consequence of her delay fail to give her the proud leadership, which all were once willing to accord her, it would at least put her in a position where the slave interest would be free from attack by legislation—in an alliance with Commonwealths by whom she will not be trampled upon, and will be freed from insult, excessive taxation and ceaseless agitation.

We might have supposed our enemies to have prudence if not principle—shrewdness, if not wisdom and honor; and that this miserable government at Washington, when straining every nerve to keep the border States in the Northern Confederacy, when Virginia was staying the tide which threatened to sweep them from place and power, would have had the tact, not to say the common decency to stay the hand of oppression and plunder. So far from it, at that very time they seek to prostrate Southern prosperity. For, as the distinguished gentleman from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE] , who first addressed us has shown, at the very moment this Convention was discussing the modes of restoring union and fraternity, a Black Republican Congress passed, and a Black Republican President signed the odious Morrill Tariff, more unequal and oppressive to the South than that bill of abominations of 1832, which came near disrupting the government and destroying the confederacy. Go with the Southern Confederacy, sir, and no such oppression awaits us. We will then rest under the wise and statesman-like Constitution of the Confederate States, formed by Southern slaveholders for the benefit of Southern slaveholders. This is the conclusive answer to gentlemen who ask what we are to get by going to the Southern Confederacy, and express doubts as to the security of our rights and interests in it. Is there a gentleman on this floor who is not perfectly satisfied with that Constitution, who sees any thing in it incompatible with the interests of Virginia, or which does not better secure them than the Constitution under which we live. Moreover, the construction of an instrument is secondary in importance.Page92 only to the terms of the instrument itself. The Constitution of the Confederate States will be administered by a Southern Congress, a Southern President, with a Southern Cabinet, and construed by Southern Judges, all looking to the interest of Southern slaveholders; and not by a Northern free soil executive and abolition Congress, and a Supreme Court to be abolitionized as rapidly as death shall remove the remainder of the venerable States rights Judges who now grace its bench.

The distinguished gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , argued that in ranging herself with the Southern Confederacy, Virginia would go as a mendicant, ignorant of the manner in which she was to be received. As a mendicant, sir? Why, have not the States which led the secession movement, sent commissioners to Virginia, both before and since their withdrawal, not only inviting but imploring her to join the Southern Confederacy?

Again, sir, he has argued that the Government would not brook our withdrawal and it would be equivalent to war, and that the act would forever alienate the Northern States from us, so that there could be no re-construction of the Union. I do not see that the withdrawal of Virginia from the Confederacy, without aggression upon the Federal Government, will produce war any more than the mere withdrawal of the Confederate States has produced war. I apprehend that if war springs up between the rival Confederacies, it will not be in consequence of the isolated act of secession, but in consequence of some controversy with regard to the forts, and the collection of the revenue. And if it be said that the Government has up to this time stayed its hostile hand to keep Virginia with the Northern Confederacy I answer that if she secedes, the same policy will probably be pursued to keep in that Confederacy the remaining border slave States. And, with regard to the alienation of the Northern States from us by our alliance with the Southern Confederacy, and the consequent lessening of the chances of reconstruction, all I have to say is, that if, after all the injuries, insults and indignities heaped upon us by the Northern people, they are so sensitive, so squeamish as to make out union with the Gulf States a mortal offence, all hope of reconstruction is gone forever. The distinguished gentleman [Mr. SCOTT] , touched upon a subject which has already been alluded to more than once on this floor. It was started by the distinguished senior delegate from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] , and refers to the difficulty, in case of the secession of Virginia, and her alliance with the Southern Confederacy, which the State and the Confederacy would have in discharging their reciprocal .Page93 obligations. I understood the argument to refer in the beginning to the difficulty of the transit of our Congressional representatives to Montgomery, and I thought it a strange position, when only a few days before Commissioners from the seceded States of Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi had passed, without molestation and with welcome through unseceded States lying between us and the Southern Confederacy. In the discharge of these reciprocal duties there would be little difficulty in time of peace; and if it be said that in time of war it would be so great as to make secession for that reason unwise, I submit with great deference that the argument proves too much—for it would show that we could not safely secede the State, even if every effort of compromise with the North and every proposition proposed in this body—border State propositions and all—shall fail. In other words that we are helpless in the grasp of abolitionism. It is a difficulty then which, as we may have to meet it, we should look in the face and be prepared for it. I hope that it will be found more imaginary than real. If Virginia should join the Southern Confederacy, I should hope there would be no difficulty, in case of danger, in marching an army from one to the other through the Southern and friendly States still in the old Union, and that while those States would resist the march of a Federal army, the spirit of their people, of their institutions, the feeling of Southern fraternity, the principle of honor would prevent their opposing the march of Southern forces from Virginia to the Confederate States, or from the latter to the former. Besides, it is to be hoped that a Southern navy will start like magic into life, by which her troops can be transported where they may be needed. Then let Virginia go with her Southern sisters, and in concert with them demand her rights of the North. We have already sufficient evidence of the inability of Virginia, acting singly, to obtain proper guarantees of the North and its abolition government, and of the indisposition of the North to accede to the demands of a disunited South in the failure of the Peace Conference inaugurated by her, of the Crittenden propositions, and of the various other propositions of peace offered by Southern men, all of which were voted down and branded with scorn.

Though we contend that the Peace Conference propositions were a virtual surrender of Southern rights, and point to their failure in Congress to show that the North is not willing even to give us a part of our rights, the distinguished gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , says we are estopped in any reference to the subject because the Virginia Senators, Hunter and Mason, voted along with Seward against the propositions, but the answer is plain. Seward voted against .Page94 the report, because it gave the South more than he was willing it should have. Hunter and Mason voted against it because it gave the South less than its due. Does any human being suppose that Seward voted against it because it gave the South too little, or that the Virginia Senators opposed it because gave the South too much? The bare statement of the proposition is its own best refutation, and there is an end of it.

I confess, Mr. Chairman that my hopes of a reconstruction of the old Union are slight indeed. I fear that a separation of the States is eternal, but I am convinced that if there is any hope of reconstruction, it must be from the prompt secession of Virginia, and her union with the Southern Confederacy. Of one thing I am certain, after the terrible ordeal through which the country has been carried and is now passing, the Gulf States will never return without constitutional amendments, securing them thorough and absolute equality with the North. It is vain for any man to tell me the Union can be reconstructed without an utter abandonment of those principles founded in inequality, injustice and wrong, but which are the very existence of the free soil party. That there will be such an abandonment, is almost hoping against hope; and almost equally futile is the hope that the gulf States will return on any terms. But, if miraculously, almost, the free soil party, from a returning sense of justice, should be willing to accord us this equality, nothing but a union of Virginia with the States of the Southern Confederacy will bring them back. My distinguished friend from Halifax, who last addressed us [Mr. FLOURNOY] , referred to the proud position of Virginia. He told us in eloquent terms that at her command the government had stayed its hostile hand against the South. My heart responded to every sentence of his beautiful eulogy on the old Commonwealth, for I am one of those who so reverence and love the Old Dominion, that even when dissenting from her line of policy, my tongue will utter nothing in regard to her, unless couched in the most humble and respectful terms, such as a dutiful son might employ towards an aged, venerated, adored mother. If, in the sentiment of my friend, her position was proud, noble, glorious, when acting singly, what would be her attitude when, assuming her ancient and natural leadership which she has been implored to take, she marches at the head of the glorious Southern column? She would then be entitled to address the seceded States, and remonstrate with them in the spirit of an elder sister—she could say to them, sisters I have left the house of your enemies and am with you in the house of my friends—I ask you not to abandon a single .Page95 right or a solitary principle of honor—I will resist the invasion of either, with you, to the death. I am prepared with you to lay down a platform, an ultimatum of amendments to the Constitution, giving you perfect equality with the North and securing in all respects your full rights—if these are denied, with you I ignore the old Confederacy forever—but if they are accorded to us, will you not go back with me, reconstruct a once glorious Union, and, forgetting the bitter recollections of the past, rest again with me under the shadow of that flag, which has made our name so respectable, glorious and renowned among the nations of the earth? For my own part, much as I have loved the old Union and would love it now, freed from oppression and wrong, I think we have no safety in it unless these seceded States return. Having ranged ourselves with them we would go back when they return; and if that is never to be, then we should remain under the wise Constitution of the Confederate States, with powerful allies, and not be reduced to the weakness, the impotence of being alone. If all the slave States will not join the Southern Confederacy, I would, at least, make it as strong as we can by the addition of Virginia. The Northern States will then see the result, if they cannot comprehend the guilt of their acts, that the subjugation of the South is hopeless ; and ( harshly as it may grate on their haughty and guilty pride) that unless the war on our institutions is ended, and our equality admitted every where, and every where around our property as around theirs is thrown the protecting aegis of the law, the Union is gone forever. The eternal principles enunciated in three short words may re-construct the Union; they are truth, justice, equality—none other ever will. Then, sir, I favor the prompt secession of Virginia. This brings me to an examination of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, which I shall make with great respect and regard for the gentleman who compose the Committee. Looking, as it does, to other modes of redress, than the prompt resumption by Virginia of her delegated powers, I cannot give it my support—nor could I approve it, even if I was willing to live in the Northern Confederacy without the Confederate States of the South. There are objections to the second resolution of the first partial report of the Committee, but I pass them by to the 4th resolution, the latter part of which says :

"If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory, excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each .Page96 system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper developement."

Sir, that resolution defers to what, in my opinion, is an unjustifiable, illegal and abominable prejudice of the North against the institutions of the South. It holds out the idea that there is a moral degradation attached to those institutions, and that Northern men are contaminated in being brought in contact with them, and therefore in the very teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court, Southern men shall have no protection for their property in one-half of the Territory, while the property of Northern men is protected in all. I never will, willingly, give my vote for any resolution which sanctions such a principle.

The time has come when, if we are to live with these Northern people, they must give up the idea that we are a degraded class. They must admit that this busy-body intermeddling of theirs, in which they undertake to brand us and our ancestors with being an inferior race, in a moral point of view, shall cease. They must cease to insult us by telling us that our property in slaves is a claim so infamous, so polluting, as to be put under the ban of Northern morality and excluded from its constitutional right to protection in the Territories, or there never can be peace between us, and the sooner we separate the better.

The distinguished gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , illustrated his views in favor of a division of Territory, and the exclusion of slavery from one-half, by this example : Suppose, said he, a Northern man moved into a Territory belonging to the United States, he would have what he [Mr. BALDWIN] , termed to be a very natural prejudice, but what I conceive to be a most outrageous one, against the institutions of slavery; he might consider that there was something degrading in slavery, and therefore be unwilling that his family should live in a community where such an institution was tolerated. Well, sir, what is the meaning of that? The plain English of it is, you gentlemen of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Texas, and the other Southern States, hold an institution which is enervating and degrading, contrary to the spirit of the age, to freedom, chivalry. honor, justice and right.

Now, sir, is not that an impertinent and most unjustifiable stigma upon our institutions, our social system. "Look upon this picture and then upon that."

Suppose a Southern man chooses to go there, and to say, "I don't like this system by which boys are kept all day long learning tricks of Yankeedom, in making wooden nutmegs and swindling clocks, which are 'no go,' without any opportunity of cultivation or refinement. I .Page97 do not intend that this Territory, to which I have brought my children, shall be without that peculiar institution to which the South owes so much of her civilization—virtue, refinement and chivalry, I demand that the Northern men be excluded and that the Southern institutions be planted here."

Now, sir, would it not be just as fair and right for him to exclude the Yankee, as for the Yankee to exclude him? Both being citizens of a free country, I say, in the language of the Supreme Court, "that the territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and, if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms," and, that the Constitution, recognizing slaves as property, and pledging the Federal Government to protect it, is bound to redeem that pledge as to the Southern man's slaves, as well as to the Northern man's clocks or nutmegs. If Southern men go into the Territory with their slaves in sufficient numbers to make it a slave State, then it ought to be a slave State. If Northern men have the ability to exclude the system, not by Emigrant Aid Societies and Sharp's rifles, but by superior industry in emigration, and consequently by superior numbers, let them exclude it, and let the matter be determined when a State Constitution is formed by a Convention of the people of the territory according to the true States rights doctrine. So much as to that resolution, sir.

Again, sir, there is the 8th resolution, which acknowledges the right of States to withdraw from the Federal Government, and is so far right, and which says that the people of Virginia "will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exercised for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority." The objection to that resolution is that it is not strong enough. It does not recognize the fact that Virginia not only ought not to consent that the Federal power shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of the seceded States, but that she ought to resist the subjugation of those States with all the material power at her command, for the simple reason that if the seceded States are subjugated, we will fall an easy prey to the common enemy, the North.

But, sir, the most extraordinary resolution of all is the eleventh, which, after some preliminary sentences, goes on to say—"Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States either by the popular vote, or in Conventions similar to her own, to respond, at their earliest convenience, to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions, and the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States hereunto appended."

Well, now sir, that gives the Northern people of this Confederacy a carte blanche to delay this matter if they please to all eternity. There is no compulsion upon them even to call Conventions. They have under this resolution an absolute unlimited right to respond to the action of Virginia by their popular vote. Now, sir, let us see how that will work. I take it every body knows that the mere popular vote amounts to nothing—that all the people can do by this popular vote is to influence those who, as their representatives, are bound to carry it out as an indication of the will of the constituent body.

Now, mark you, the redress sought for the South is to be effected by amendments to the Constitution. Well, how is the Constitution to be amended? The only two modes by which it can be done are set forth in its 5th article. One is that Congress by a two-thirds vote shall propose amendments, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the States, by their Legislatures, or Conventions, shall become parts of the Constitution. The other is, by two-thirds of the States, by their Legislatures, uniting in the call to Congress for a National Convention ; and the action of that Convention is also to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, by their Legislatures, or in Conventions, before it becomes valid. Well, sir, under this resolution the people are to respond. The popular will is to be brought to bear on Congress, so that by a two-thirds vote of both houses it will propose the desired amendments to the Constitution, or upon the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, inducing them to apply to Congress to call a National Convention for proposing amendments, which in either case shall become parts of the Constitution, when ratified by three-fourths of the several States. The popular voice then to be of any avail must be brought to bear upon Congress or the Legislatures—then again upon the Legislatures or Conventions, as the case may be.

Do not gentlemen see that this is a roundabout process that will be interminable? "By the popular vote"—when? where? How expressed? how arrived at? By whom demanded? Popular vote in the election of local officers, members of the Legislatures, Judges, Congressmen, or President and Vice President? At which of these elections is this popular vote to be expressed? Under whose direction? Whose fiat is to be had in reference to the constitutional amendments proposed by this Convention? Sir, it is made the business of nobody, and they may put off this response to all eternity; for, mark you, they have the alternative of ignoring everything else except a direct popular vote. Sir, we hear of some very remarkable names among these long, lank, lantern-jawed Puritans of the North, which, whether they have any real existence .Page99 or not, are made sufficiently classic by the genius of Irving. If I recollect aright, he speaks in that delightful embodiment of wit and humor, Knickerbocker, of certain selectmen of Yankeedom, rejoicing in the musical titles of "Preserved Fish, Habakkuk Nutter, ReturnStrong-and-Determined Cock." Very similar to the names of these same Puritans in Cromwell's army and Parliament, such as "Praise-God Barebones," "General Cry-aloud-and-spare-not," "Colonel Fightthe-good-fight," and "Captain Smite-them-hip-and-thigh." Well, sir, the actual working of this proposition would be to request the people, to request Congress, to request the Legislature, to request Conventions, to respond to the action of Virginia. Very much like requesting Preserved Fish, to request Habakkuk Nutter, to request Return Strong, to request Determined Cock, to request General Cry-aloud-and-spare-not, to request Colonel Fight-the-good-fight, to request Captain Smite-themhip-and-thigh, to request Praise-God Barebones, to do the South justice. And if they do not do it some time between now and the day of judgment, we will play the very old Harry with them. [Laughter.] It seems to me that the South will get what she wants under this process when the archangel Gabriel blows his trump and frightens this crop-eared abolition crew into honest dealing with us, and not before. As well might Prince Rupert and the Royal Charles have asked their rights of the Barebones Parliament.

The twelfth resolution says that the people of Virginia will wait any reasonable time.

Now, sir, I am utterly opposed to any such indefinite language as that and, giving these men, who have always trifled with our rights, the liberty to wait as long as they please. Let us inform them what we mean by a reasonable time—that if they do not accede to our requests by a certain period, we will dissolve our connexion with them.

The 14th resolution proposes a Border State Conference, and is objectionable because of the delay which it involves.

Then comes the 2d report of the Committee.

The first section says, that involuntary servitude is prohibited North of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and that South of 36 degrees 30 minutes it is not prohibited. Well now, Mr. Chairman, that is securing the Northern share to the labor of the North, and failing to secure the Southern share to the labor of the South. The Supreme Court has decided in the Dred Scott case that slavery is entitled to protection everywhere in the territories. Now, if we are to surrender a part of our rights under that decision, and to give the North one-half of the territories, when the law adjudges us equal rights in all, and North .Page100 of 36 degrees 30 minutes slavery is to be prohibited, in God's name, South of that line let it be PROTECTED. Let us not be satisfied with a mere declaration that it is not to be prohibited.

Then there is the fifth section, which my friend from Richmond, who first addressed us [Mr. RANDOLPH] , proved conclusively, looks strongly in its terms (whatever may be its intention) to a prohibition of the introduction of slaves to this State from the Southern Confederacy.

Then comes the sixth section, in which it is said that if the reclamation of a fugitive slave is prevented, by intimidation of, or violence against a Marshal, he shall be paid for out of the Treasury of the United States; thus saddling the South with one-half the burthen of paying for her stolen property. The distinguished gentleman from Prince George [Mr. RIvES] , who addressed the Convention the other evening, made an argument upon the subject which seems to have brought down the House, but which struck me as a most remarkable one. He reduced the subject to mills in his calculation, and, with great respect, I thought the argument as small as the illustration. He went into a very interesting recital of a Southern man going North and bringing back, not his fugitive slave, but $1,000 from the public treasury, in his place, and then being laughed at by his wife, when, on counting the cost, it was found to be only two mills. In the first place, it seems to me a very extraordinary thing, when a great principle is at stake, to measure it by the mere matter of dollars and cents. When our ancestors resisted the stamp act, was there any calculation as to the number of cents each man would have to pay? No, sir. It was the principle—the violation of their rights—that they resisted, without stopping to inquire whether it would cost them a copper or not. Thus it should always be with nations in establishing the institutions under which they are to live. But, Mr. Chairman, the argument is a mistaken one as a matter of fact. If one or two slaves only are lost, then the cost will be small. But, suppose, under this process by which the United States undertakes to pay for all the stampeded slaves, thousands of them are lost in a year, the cost would be a more serious matter than the gentleman supposes. Added to the outrage and wrong—in the violation of your rights, of comity and fraternity—a premium would be offered to these Abolitionists to run off our slaves to be paid for out of the Treasury of the United States.

Great complaints have been made of the so-called rashness of these Cotton States, and of their failure to act in concert with the other slave States. Mr. Chairman, statesmen have to deal with questions practically. There is no propriety in standing upon stilts. In matters .Page101 of individual dealing, when A and B meet each other upon the field of honor, there may be as much display of chivalry as suits the parties —either may even go as far as a distinguished gentleman once did when he pointed out the white vest of his adversary, below a black coat, as presenting too fair a mark in the conflict; but, in a representative capacity, we have no right to be governed by such nice points of etiquette. Sir, we have the interests of our constituents and of our country in our keeping, and the question is not whether the Southern States have acted with perfect prudence and courtesy, but whether, under the facts as they exist, the interest of the State is with the Northern or with the Southern Confederacy. And, it seems to me, that the imputation of rashness or want of courtesy at all, to the Southern Confederacy, is rather illiberal, in view of their invitation to us, both before and since their secession, to co-operate with them.

Equally illiberal seems to me to be the complaint, that they have endeavored to coerce and drag us out of the Union. We must admit their sovereignty, or abandon our own, and sovereignty carries with it the right to secede.

Now, does a State, when she thinks her safety and honor require her to withdraw from the Confederacy, coerce States that do not withdraw? She uses no force upon them. She merely exercises her own Constitutional rights—her own attribute of sovereignty. If you and I, sir, were settled on the Western frontier, in a perilous district, surrounded by savages or robbers, and if you, after having remonstrated with me time and again about the danger of remaining, and notified me that if I did not leave the place with you, you would quit it by yourself, went away, would I be justified in saying that you insulted and coerced me? And yet I might as well say that, as that the seceding States have coerced and insulted us, or disparaged us in any way, by withdrawing from the Confederacy, after having warned us they would do so, and having invited us to go along with them. The coercion which a man exercises on another by the assertion of his unquestioned rights, is a very different sort of coercion from that of wrongful force; if not, every industrious man may be said, by force of example, wrongfully to coerce every lazy man in his neighborhood to be energetic; and, by a like argumentative fallacy, the charge of coercion may be made by every bad man against every good man, by every slow man against every prompt man, who, by example, keeps up so high a standard of action and morality in his community as to brand a stigma on a less elevated standard. One cannot be rightfully.Page102 complained of for exercising his unalienable rights, merely because thereby another is left in an unsafe position.

I listened, sir, with great pleasure to your [Mr. MONTAGUE'S] argument on the right of secession. I do not think it necessary for me to argue that subject—first, because you have discussed it ably ; and, secondly, because I do not consider it a practical question. This matter of secession lies in a nutshell, and can be disposed of, practically, in a few sentences just as well as in a whole volume. I have not heard any gentleman upon this floor deny the right of revolution. Every one who has spoken here admits that if the oppressions and wrongs of a people are intolerable, they have that right. The practical question, then, is, do our wrongs justify resistance? if not, we have not the mora4,right of secession, though the technical right were "nominated in the bond," written in the Constitution. The aim of my argument has been to show that our oppressions do give us the right of resistance—in other words, of revolution. That we have not exercised it, is because we choose not to do so? We have suffered, not consented to our wrongs. What, then, is the right of revolution? It is the right of an oppressed people, in unorganized bodies, to resist the Government. If unorganized bodies, in the existing state of things, have the right of resistance, a fortiori, and, as a conclusion of both logic and common sense, organized and sovereign Commonwealths, free from anarchy, and with settled institutions, have the same right.

It has been said, sir, that the South has submitted to, and sanctioned all the aggressions of the North. I think that argument has been well nigh annihilated, first by my distinguished friend from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , and next by the gentleman who now presides over this Committee [Mr. MONTAGUE] . But even suppose it were so, does anybody deny that these aggressions have been grievous wrongs? If they have been submitted to for the sake of peace, does that prove that they ought to be endured for ever? So far from being an argument to be used against us, it is one of the strongest to justify our present resistance.

The eloquent gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , told us that he did not despair of the Republic, and argued to show that we would get our rights from the North; that all the phases of the argument in favor of slavery, including the Biblical argument, and its effects—moral, social, political and civilizing—upon the country, were better understood at the North than ever before.

And the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , told us that there .Page103 were at this time more pro-slavery men in the North than there were ten years ago in the whole world. Now, sir, the answer to all this is, that it is idle to talk of the great number of pro-slavery men there, when they are out-voted in every election, and when, in their halls of legislation, they are defeated in every measure looking to Southern rights, and utterly powerless to stay the Vandal tide of sectionalism. While the distinguished gentleman from Kanawha is arguing to show the advancing enlightenment of the Northern mind on the subject of our domestic institution, the logic of facts and figures, as State after State increases her abolition majority, is utterly demolishing his beautiful theory. What use do the Northern people make of their increased knowledge? Are they any better for understanding the arguments by which the able and eloquent statesmen and divines of all sections have demonstrated that slavery is right, morally, socially, and politically? that in their assaults on the institution they are invading our rights and trampling the Constitution in the dust? No, sir; their aggressions advance with .their increase of light, in a sort of geometrical progression, until they threaten to overwhelm the South and destroy her institutions. This is the way in which they respond to the argument. In 1840, the Abolitionists cast 7,000 votes. By 1844, they showed that they had received great light upon the subject and were disposed to do perfect justice to the South, by increasing the vote of 7,000 up to 62,140. yi 1848, they show that they are still further enlightened, still 'more benevolent, by increasing the last vote to 100,000. In 1852, they eixhibit a still farther perception of our rights by polling 157,196 votes; and in 1856, by polling 341,812 votes; in 1860, by an overwhelming number of votes, they possess themselves of the Government and bring all its patronage and power to bear against our institutions.

But it has been repeatedly argued here, that for all these things, the Federal Government is not responsible; that it has made no aggression on the South; has taken no part in the passage of personal liberty bills, and has reclaimed some fugitive slaves. Sir, I think it has been shown you, clearly and conclusively, that the Federal Government has trespassed upon the rights of the South by legislation. Thousands upon thousands of fugitive slaves have never been reclaimed. And, further, the argument resolves itself into this: The Federal Government has or has not power to secure the recapture of fugitive slaves. If it has the power, it has been faithless, because, in countless instances, it has not exercised it; if it has not the power, it is impotent, and powerless to protect us; in either case the result is the .Page104 same, and the Government, in default of a change for the better, is a nuisance, and ought to be abated.

Sir, who can count the number of slaves which have not been reclaimed? Look at the report of the Committee appointed by the General Assembly of Virginia, to investigate the Harper's Ferry invasion. It shows the escape of numerous fugitive slaves, and, in some cases, the murder of their masters endeavoring to reclaim them. The reclamation of the fugitive Anthony Burns, under one of the late administrations, required the entire military organization of a State, with a large force of the Federal troops; and though the slave was worth only some $700 or $800, he cost the Treasury of the United States upwards of $100,000. Do you tell me then, that this is a Government of which the South has no right to complain, and which secures protection to the South? Sir, if this is protection, God save us from injustice and wrong!

I have been struck, sir, with the many attempts and ingenious arguments which have been made upon this floor to apologize for the North ; to underrate the enormity of Northern aggressions upon us; to prove that those Northern people are—what they are not—just and true to their obligations to the South. The gentleman from Prince George [Mr. RIVES] , read you the amounts of subscriptions in Northern cities to the towns of Norfolk and Portsmouth during the prevalence of yellow fever a few years ago. Well, sir, what does that show? Does it show anything but what everybody knows and what we all are willing to acknowledge, that there are some noble spirits and generous people in the North? Sir, when the British Government was pushing our ancestors to the wall, depriving them of their rights and liberties, and driving them to revolution, how many generous spirits, private individuals and public orators, were there in the mother country who protested against the whole system of oppression? But, though grateful for this sympathy, our noble forefathers considered it no reason for submitting to oppression and wrong.

Again, sir, it is argued that the claim of the South to equality of rights in the Territories is a mere abstraction, that slavery cannot and will not go into them. If this be so, it is a wanton exercise of power on the part of this Northern majority to exclude the Southern people from an equal right to carry their property into the Territories. But the truth is it is not an abstraction. No wonder that slavery does not go into the Territories when the moment it enters it is met there by Emigrant Aid Societies and Sharp's rifles? Though Southern men .Page105 could get the most fertile lands at the lowest price, they dare not carry slaves into the Territory where it is so insecure.

The eloquent gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , asked us if we were willing to make the Western section of the State the outside row of the Southern Confederacy—if we were willing to bring the Canada line down to the Border? Well, sir, I think the Canada line has been brought down practically to the border years ago. I scout the idea that ( with a few exceptions) the gallant men of the West are not as true to the interests of Virginia as the men of any other section of the State. I cannot believe that Virginians are wanting in fidelity to the State. I have a great respect for a Virginian wherever I meet him. I am always inclined "to give him my hand and call him brother." And I have the most earnest desire to afford to those gallant gentlemen of Western Virginia what I consider they need—protection for their property, their homes, and their families. Make them the "outside row"? Why, sir, I ask if they are not already the "outside row." Have they any protection there for their property? What prevents their slaves from being stampeded under the operation of the underground railroad? What has become of their slaves? I have taken the trouble to look a little into this matter, and a most remarkable state of facts presents itself to me upon this examination. I find, sir, that the border counties, with the number of slaves in each one, are as follows :

Now, compare these figures with those representing the slaves of other counties, with those showing the number in Hanover, where there are 10,000, or in Halifax, where there are 14,000.

Perhaps those gentlemen can inform me what has become of their slaves. I ask whether the abolitionists have not carried them away? Pressing thus upon the border and driving slavery from those counties, what, I ask, is to prevent them from pressing on still further and pushing it from the counties which come next in order, and so rolling on the wave of sectionalism till they sweep slavery away through Virginia, through the Confederate States, and into the far South?

Now, sir, I want to stop this fearful wave—to roll it back from our Western brethren, their homes and families. To effect this, let the Southern States in solid column leave the Northern Confederacy, and establish on our free State frontier a line of military posts which will prevent further encroachments by the abolitionists.

Sir, if the slaveholding States of this country were ocean-bound, there would be no danger from encroachments on the part of the Abolitionists. But they are not ocean-bound. We have a Northern frontier, bounded by the free States—by Pennsylvania and Ohio—and as well might you attempt to keep back the waves of the ocean, after you have destroyed the shores of that ocean, as to attempt to keep back the aggressions of this freesoil party of the North, unless you interpose some such barrier as I have mentioned, to stop them.

It is said that if we separate from the North, we will have to keep an immense standing army, to the ruin of the country. The gentleman from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE] , and my friend from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , have shown you that there are no fears of that. War is contrary to the spirit of the age. The people of the North are people of commerce and of peace. They will not support a large standing army, and we will not be compelled to raise a single man more than they raise.

But, sir, this idea that the maintenance of an army of 15,000 or 20,000 men is going to ruin our hoped for Southern Confederacy, is a most preposterous one. How is it possible that it can be correct? Ruin such a country, sir, by the appropriation of a few millions of dollars for its defence? Why, do not some of the most prosperous and flourishing countries in the world maintain immense standing armies of hundreds of thousands of men; and could not our giant Southern country maintain twenty or thirty thousand? Why, sir, when our cities were villages, our farms forests, when our large and beautiful stores were small shops, the want of a proper military force enabled Tarleton and Arnold, in the half of a short summer, to destroy twelve millions of property in Virginia; but that did not ruin her; though young and feeble and bleeding, she struggled and overcame it. When, then, the .Page107 great Southern Confederacy is in successful operation; when the commercial navies of the world ride in her harbors ; when, relieved from Northern taxation, she has grown to be independent and prosperous—she will no more feel the burthen of maintaining an army of fifteen or twenty, or thirty thousand men, than would a giant feel the stroke of a pigmy's arm. Then fort after fort would spring up along our free State frontier, and be manned by this army; thus would we protect our brethren, their homes and property. The federal army is now engaged in defending our extreme Western settlements, stretching from the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico South, to the British possessions North. In case of separation our federal army would not have to defend the immense territory North of the line of 36 deg. 30 m. where you have Mormons and savages; our half would be South of that line. The Indian troubles South of that line will probably be settled in a short time. Indeed, I think there is little difficulty experienced with the Indians anywhere South of 36 deg. 30 min., except in Texas. Troubles there will soon be ended. So that the whole strength of our force could be concentrated in military posts on our free State frontier, and thus raise a sort of Chinese wall, and stay, if anything will, this tide of Northern aggression.

Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored briefly, by historical facts, to show the aggressions of those Northern people upon the rights and interests of the people of the South; that they were ever advancing, never receding; that our only safety was with the Southern Confederacy. I have shown directly where and when assaults have been made upon us by States and individuals as well as by the General Government.

Sir, is there nothing else that should stir the blood of a free and gallant people, except interference with their rights? Is slander nothing? Is insult after insult nothing? Is defamation in foreign lands of the honor of our State and section nothing? They have libelled our great names, abused our fathers and our families, and desecrated the very graves of our ancestors by claiming that slaveholders are unworthy of association with them.

Sir, neither individuals or nations can submit, habitually, to insult and indignity, without degradation so fearful, that they become ultimately as base as the denunciations of the oppressors proclaim them. The spiritual dilapidation goes on ; it may be slowly, but surely, and soon or late moral ruin is the result. On the other hand, men cannot be made slavish or mean, who strongly will to be free and noble. Before they can be trampled on, their "spirits high" must be bowed to the dust—then may it truly be said of them :

Sir, I for one, will never consent to live or hold intercourse with men who claim that I am socially their inferior. The insolent pretension of those who—whether nations or individuals—have invariably the least right to make it ; the bloated arrogance and impudence which prefers such a claim, will be met by true men with the scorn and defiance of border chivalry.

The fanatical, meddlesome, overbearing disposition of the Puritans —their arrogant, conceited and wicked determination to ignore the moral fact that individuals as well as nations have quite enough to do to keep evil from their own characters without interfering with others; their ultraism and persistent claim to regulate and control the social rights and customs of other people, has deluged more than one country in blood. These detestable qualities altogether outweigh everything that is good in them, and render them the greatest curse that can be inflicted on a country. It would have been better for humanity had their Plymouth rock been riven by an earthquake and their Mayflower sunk into the bottom of the ocean. In England they persecuted the families, razed the houses and cut down the ancestral oaks of the cavaliers. So bitter—so arrogant—so conceited and tenacious of their peculiar views—so intolerant were they, that they became separated from the great body of constitutional reformers, and the re-actionary spirit of a gallant people hurled them from power like Satan from Paradise, and drove them beyond the ocean. Whether on American soil they are to relearn in bitterness and blood this historical lesson; whether after having desolated with fire and sword the homes of the South, they are again, by the outraged spirit of conservatism, to be voted a nuisance, and pushed over or into the sea, I am not prophet enough to tell. But this I do know, that "joined to their idols," and failing to profit by the evil example of their ancestors, they are again stirring up strife on another continent—that with no earthly right to interfere with them in any way, they have chosen to make themselves the bitter enemies of the peace, happiness and safety of the .Page109 gentlemen of the South; that while gentlemen hate strife and are constitutionally quiet, social and peaceable, yet, combining science with courage, when driven to resistance they pursue their enemies with the terrible energy of furies—the resistless sweep of avenging angels—and that while these our hereditary foes were driven from Britain with execrations and curses, the descendants of the bleeding Cavaliers sit again in peace and happiness in their once desolate but now beautiful homes, or under the shade of their renovated groves.

Mr. Chairman, no man has looked with more reverence on the flag, or regarded with more idolatrous fondness the Union of these States than I. I have remembered how that flag floated in triumph in conflicts when the only aspirations of the heroes and patriots who poured out their blood beneath its folds were for the honor and glory of their country; and I have remembered how the majestic Union of our fathers carried into every clime, not the trembling terror inspired by the Roman name, when its eagles overshadowed the world, but the awe, the respect, the love which the great heart of the whole race accords to freedom, to virtue and to justice; and I have said, in my "heart of hearts," should the South, to preserve its own existence, have to strike down that flag, her every true son would exclaim, in mournful resolution, with the great bard of Avon : "This sorrow's heavenly; it strikes where it doth love." It has been present to my mind that this great country was formed by the compact of independent sovereignties, not with the right, first, of libel, and then of destruction by one part of the institutions of the other, but with an endorsement of the institutions of the whole country, and an engagement of honor, and of law, in the very act of Union, to defend these institutions to the death. Sir, I am forced to remember how these solemn covenants have been fraudulently and foully repudiated by the North. How that Pharisaical land of every ism which degrades man to a level with brutes, Infidelity, Spiritualism, Mormonism, Free Soil—which means to rob a partner of all the partnership effects—Free Speech, which, with them, is the right of rank and reeking blackguardism, and atrocious slander on the South; Free Love, which means to roll back the tide of refinement and virtue, for the saturnalia, the hell of vileness and iniquity; has, in the blended spirit of avarice and fanaticism, not only assailed our fair fame abroad, but our very household gods at home. They, our pseudo brothers, have sought to direct upon us, in foreign lands, "the slow, moving finger of scorn." Great names adorn our Southern annals—Washington and Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, Carroll and Rutledge, and a host of others. Splendid mausoleums mark the resting.Page110 places of these great men, and they have still nobler monuments in the hearts of their countrymen. But the sacrilegious effort is made to blacken their sacred fame because they were slaveholders. Added to this, it is sought to outrage the reputation and profane the sanctity of the social circle. Our very ancestors are to be libeled because they were slaveholders. Sir, facts, stored in the memory of every gentleman in this hall, give the lie to these atrocious slanders.

Who is there, reared in Virginia, whose memory, in reverting to the days of his childhood, does not give him a thousand pleasant memories of the patriarchal institution of the State—of the good will between the servants and the families of their masters—of the many errands of kindness on which he has been sent to old or sick domestics of the household, and of the scenes in which these domestics would bless with their latest breath the benevolence of their owners? Raise the curtain of the past, and, forgetting the stern and wasting duties of manhood, he is carried back to the time when he was a happy member of a happy family circle. Before him, in memory, rises the aged and honored head and patriarch of the house, whose feeble steps, whose personal goodness, whose position of common ancestor, commanded for him the pious love and care of his descendants. He recalls the manly form of one whose kind words linger forever in his memory—who bore to him the sacred name of father. A soft yet bright eye sheds upon him its mild and beautiful light in pity and in love as his youthful mother watches him with tenderest devotion. As childhood fades in the past and boyhood puts on its free and joyous attributes, that mother's love still encircles him like the atmosphere of a holier and better clime. Her tears fall upon his head like the dews of Heaven. Her prayers ascend to God in fond and fervent aspirations for blessings upon him even beyond the lot of man ; and in after years amid the stirring scenes of life, the memory of that mother's counsel and that mother's love will better defend him from dishonor than a thousand bristling bayonets. Time rolls on, and these sacred forms depart, and he exclaims in bitterness of heart, all, all gone to return no more forever. They have sought the sanctuary of the dead, where repose other honored ones in whose veins once coursed the same life blood. Green grows the long grass and sweetly bloom the flowers planted on their graves by the hand of affection, and in the star-light and sunlight glimmers in pallid lustre the monumental marble, with the simple inscriptions of departed worth. With throbbing brow the descendant of that house says these were mine, and though dead their pure virtuous memories live. But Abolitionism, that fiendish libeller,.Page111 says cursed be they for they were slaveholders. Sir, let us say to these oppressors of the South, compromises with you are as nought. "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther." We demand stern, full and exact justice; cease your assaults on our institutions; stop your agitation and give us peace, that peace to which your honor bound you in the compact of Union; bow to the decision of the Supreme Court; sweep from the statutes of your States every enactment warring on our property; cease your attacks on the laws which have established slavery in places under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government; confess that we came into the Union on terms of perfect equality with you, and that wherever, in the common territories, our flag floats our property has the same right to protection that yours has; regard us, and let your legislation regard us as equals, not tributaries, and the seceded South may return. The Union may again stretch its grand proportions from Maine to California, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Deny us these, our rights, and our separation from you is eternal.

Before concluding, the Committee rose and the Convention adjourned.

1.3.1. BASIS OF TAXATION

The PRESIDENT stated that the business before the Convention was the resolution offered by Mr. WILLEY, on which Mr. CHAPMAN J. STUART had the floor.

Mr. President, when the Convention went into Committee of the Whole, yesterday morning, I was discussing the question raised before this House by the resolution of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . It is utterly impossible for any man to present his views in an intelligible form in this fragmentary way. I desire very much to facilitate the business of this Convention, and I am prepared at any moment to yield the floor to take a vote upon this question, if it should be the pleasure of the Convention to do so. I am prepared to vote on this and on all other pending questions before this body. I was saying yesterday when interrupted by the Convention going into Committee of the Whole, that my people were not submissionists. My District is on the extreme Western border of the State, washed by the beautiful Ohio river; we stand there on the Eastern shore of our beautiful river, looking across into our mighty and powerful neighbor State, saying to her and all others whom it may concern, that we and our friends in Virginia together with all others, have our guaranteed constitutional rights, and for the vindication of these rights we are willing and will make any sacrifice. Never for one moment would we entertain the idea that we would prove recreant to the interest of our Eastern brethren. But, Mr. President, we can right about face, and with the same determined purpose demand our rights under our State Government. We are not submissionists in either sense, nor do we ever intend to be. I stand here, at this moment, demanding, in the name of my constituents, their rights at the hands of this Convention, and I do not want to be offensive when I say, we intend to have them. We are compelled, in arguing this question, to anticipate your objections. You do not appear to be disposed to meet us in arguing the subject. Do you contend that we have nothing to complain of ? I would not be afraid to go before any jury of men in the civilized world, with the .Page113 evidence I could bring to bear against you, and obtain a verdict from their hands, that we have many wrongs which we can trace back to you. Sir, I would not be afraid to take a jury from the vicinage. Yes, willing to take twelve secession gentlemen from Eastern Virginia, and have them called up and sworn the truth to find, and from them wrest a verdict that we are being most ungenerously treated. And now for specifications. Let it be remembered that our State is vastly in debt, to the amount of 40 million dollars. That our people are borne down with grievous and burthensome taxation, which, when collected, is barely sufficient to pay the interest on our State debt. Then consider the large additional expense now accruing to our State, and the large appropriation just made a few days ago, and then enquire for what is all this for? The answer will have to be that it is for the protection of slave property. The Legislature of last year appropriated five hundred thousand dollars, and this present session one million of dollars to arm and equip the State, to defend the rights and interests of the slaveholder ; the extra session of the State Legislature convened last January, induced by the dangers to the institution of slavery; this Convention convened from the same causes; which make in all at least $2,000,000 additional debt, incurred in the last sixteen months, to protect your peculiar property; and yet you are not willing to let that property be taxed the same as our land, cattle and horses which give you no trouble and incur no expense to you. The taxes received into the treasury, collected from slave property the last year, I believe, were $327,000, while within the last sixteen months the cost that property has been to the State amounts to $2,000,000. This two million has to be borrowed by the State, and it is a low estimate to say that it will at least cost the State ten per cent to obtain that money. The interest on the $2.000,000 would be $200,000, leaving to the State one hundred and twenty-seven thousand dollars only to pay into the treasury after paying the interest on the debt which has been made within the short time named for the exclusive benefit of the slave property. At that rate it would take some twelve or fifteen years for the present slave tax to pay the debt made for its benefit within so short a period of time. By an examination into the revenue of our State and the appropriations made to the different localities of the State, it will be found that the Northwest will pay into the State treasury in five years every dollar that we have received from the treasury; and, after having done this, we are still to be oppressed and burthened with taxation to pay debts that have been contracted to build up improvements in your part of the State .Page114 and to protect your negroes, and still you are not willing that the slaveholder shall bear his equal part of the burthens. This is the kind of property, according to the argument of the gentleman from Culpeper, that we should be willing to sunder our connections with the General Government for, in order to make that property more valuable, that it might pay a large revenue into our State treasury—a property which, under our present Constitution, is a tax and burthen upon it. We have always stood up to our obligations, and will soon, as before stated, have liquidated every demand that the treasury has against us, while the amount of taxes received from the slaveholder will scarcely have paid the interest on the debt contracted for his benefit.

There never has been a dollar appropriated to my county since the formation of the Government.

I do not refer to individual counties, but to the principal divisions of the State. The gentleman's county may be an exception ; I know nothing about that matter. I say that there has been millions upon millions of dollars expended in the State, for improvements in which the Eastern portion of the State has been mostly interested, and now that our State is about to be bankrupted by your extravagant appropriations, for the purpose of building up your improvements, I maintain that it is our right to demand that you shall, at least, permit your property to be taxed as ours is taxed, to help to maintain the credit of our State. Is it not apparent to the most casual observer that the State of Virginia, unless something is done, must eventually repudiate her debt? I should have remarked when speaking about the extra session of the Legislature being called together for the purpose of looking after your slave interest, they undertook to relieve your contractors on the Covington and Ohio Railroad, and on account of the great depreciation in the market value of your State bonds, with which the contractors had to be paid, the Legislature found it necessary, to sustain the contractors and carry on the work, to increase their contract price ten per cent. This is ominous legislation when we are in debt 40 millions of dollars, still increasing the price of labor to be paid for ten per cent. to enable the contractors to peddle our State bonds around at 40 or 50 per cent. discount. A fine field for Yankee speculation, if they were not afraid that we would never pay them.

And may I be permitted to ask of you, gentlemen, who are for secession, what is to become of this great State improvement if your policy is to be carried out? I have always labored under the impression .Page115 that the millions of dollars that have been appropriated to this improvement, looked to its ultimate completion, and through it open up a great trade with the Western States—the very States that you want to cut loose from, and build up a protective system that will prohibit the trade you expected to support the road and build up your cities.

But more particularly to the question : it seems to me that you are willing to legislate in any way, so it does not tax your little negroes. And as I before remarked, we have to anticipate your objections. I suppose that your apology is that they are unprofitable until they arrive at that age. Let us compare notes and see how this affects the Western poor man, who pushes out into the wilderness and buys himself 100 acres of land for $100, takes his deed for the land, and you charge up the tax against him. When in its native state it is of no value towards supporting his little family, but absolutely requires years of toil and labor to bring it into value; and the very moment he erects a little house upon it to shelter him and his from the storm, you put the increased valuation on it and make him pay the additional tax before he has been enabled to realize one dollar, but which requires many years of most unremitting industry to subdue and bring into a state of cultivation. Many a noble and brave heart has sunk under the effort. But you were always ready to tax the very sweat of his face in his effort to bring into value your wild lands, while your little negroes were running around with a convertible value all the time, and growing in value most rapidly. By what mode of reasoning can it be justified, that the man of wealth who can afford to own slaves, and one of them under the age of twelve years and exempt from taxation, but still worth to the master more than the entire estate of his poor neighbor, yet that poor neighbor's cow may be exposed to sale by the sheriff to pay the tax that has been levied on his little all for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Government in defending the property of the rich man against the abolitionists of the North? It is indefensible, and such an open violation and invasion upon the rights of freemen as should not be tolerated one day longer than an opportunity offers itself that it may be corrected. That opportunity is afforded you now to do, and give unto us of the West our rights as attaches to all freemen. We are willing to demand and aid in securing to you your rights from your sister States. We stand as a barrier between you and your advancing enemies. Should a John Brown invade the territory of the little counties of Doddridge and Tyler, with five hundred followers, with a view of making war upon your institutions, much less a dozen with a few negroes, the crack of our .Page116 Western rifles would be heard, and, I predict, that not one would be left to be guarded and hung by due course of law.

The resolution of the gentleman from Monongalia contemplates the raising of certain Committees to prepare and report certain amendments to our Constitution. All the amendment we want in the Constitution, as far as it relates to the tax question, is to strike out of section 22 article IV, which reads, "Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and all property other than slaves shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained in such manner as may be proscribed by law," the words "other than slaves." Then strike out the entire 23d section, which relates to slaves under 12 years of age, and the valuation of other slaves, and we should then have nothing of which we would have a right to complain so far a s that subject was concerned.

Let me say to you in all candor and sincerity, until this thing is done by our Eastern friends, you might as well undertake to remove the Alleghany mountains from their base, as to undertake to induce the people of the Northwest, for present causes, to secede from the Union.

Then, sir, the basis question, which you say is to rest until 1865. we are not so strenuous about. But are you afraid to trust us with our rights! Would you not have every security when the Constitution would say that property should be taxed according to its value? Have we of the West not always stood as the guardians of the treasury? Have we not always opposed those large appropriations which are now bringing ruin and bankruptcy upon our State? Trust us with the power, and if we do not show another state of affairs, I will be willing to forfeit my right of citizenship.

The hour for going into Committee of the Whole having arrived. any further remarks were suspended.

1.3.2. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The hour of half past ten having arrived, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the question being on the 4th resolution, as follows :

"The Territories of the United States constitute a trust to be administered by the General Government, for the common benefit of the people of the United States, and any policy in respect to such Territories calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one part of the United States, than on the people of another part, is contrary to equality and prejudicial to the rights of some for whose equal benefit .Page117 the trust was created. If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory, excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper development."

Mr. RICHARDSON resumed and concluded his remarks.1Mr. Richardson's entire speech is given in the Proceedings of April 3. See note 2 on those Proceedings.

It had been my wish to address the committee on topics discussed in the general range of debate ; but in the very limited time that will elapse before the hour arrives when this debate is to close

not more, I believe, than 30 minutes I shall confine my remarks to a very few points, and I desire the attention of the majority, as well as of the minority; for, permit me to say, that while the minority have generally been in their seats, extending a close attention to gentlemen of the majority who have addressed them, yet when a minority man has occupied the floor, I have found the seats on the other side of the House very generally vacant.

When I presented myself to my fellow citizens as a candidate for a seat in this Convention, or rather when I accepted an almost unanimous invitation of the people of the county of Greene to become a candidate for a seat in this Convention, to that invitation I made a response, from which I will read a couple of lines. I said "the South should be satisfied with nothing short of equal rights, and the political power to protect them." This equality was the great principle which I announced to my constituents, and it is a principle which has resounded from every section of this Commonwealth, and every quarter of this hall, that we are entitled to equal rights. But when we come to carry the principle into practice, the very men who proclaim it, in the next breath tell you they are willing that there should be a division of the common territory of the United States, by the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, above which slavery shall be excluded, and south of which slavery may be permitted, and that, we are told, is equality. Sir, I say-that is not the equality of the present Constitution; it is not the equality declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. That tribunal has declared that all the territory belonging to the common government, shall be occupied by the citizens of the common government, with the right of protection for all their property. That I deem to be equality. Sir, is it to be said that it is a degradation to the Northern man to go South because my son or my neighbor may have a plantation of slaves by his side? Is the Northern man a better or a purer man than the slaveholder from the Southern States? I think not. It is no more a degradation for him to settle by a planter, a man his equal .Page118 and generally his superior, than it is for the Southern man to go North of that line, and settle by the Northern man. I say then, Mr. Chairman, while this principle of equality is proclaimed in our Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Northern man and the Southern man should go to all the territories together upon terms of perfect equality, the majority of the Committee of Twenty-one have agreed to a compromise which is a sacrifice of Southern rights if not of Southern honor.

So much, Mr. Chairman, for that branch of the subject. For one I say that if we come together again we must come by a re-construction, and I am never for re-constructing this government unless it is done upon the foundation stone of equality and unless that equality is carried to the very cap of the edifice.

Mr. Chairman, the next great principle that I enunciated to my constituents was that the South should have the political power to protect herself. The South is in a minority. We have seen what is the efficacy of paper guarantees. The distinguished gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] who has been the Ajax of the Union party upon this floor, yesterday made the manly declaration, the manly concession, that the eight slave States could not remain in a Union with the Northern States even if the free States permitted Virginia and the other border States to write a Constitution with all the guarantees that we might consider necessary for our protection. You cannot be safe, write the Constitution as you will; cross every "t" and dot every "i," because of the hostility existing between the nineteen free States and the slave States—because, I suppose, of that irrepressible conflict between free institutions and slave institutions. With that concession, coming from any quarter, but especially so distinguished a quarter as it emanated from yesterday, I ask if there should not be political power to protect us. I regretted very much that the gentleman's indisposition deprived us of hearing his argument upon the very point to which I am now directing the attention of the Committee, for, if he thinks, as I think, I know it would come with more power and influence from that gentleman than it will from me. But, sir, I say that we ought to have political power to protect ourselves; and at this point I am solicitous of having the ear of my distinguished friend from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] , for I am desirous of having his co-operation. I desire also the attention of the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] . Can we have these guarantees? If I can make it palpable to my distinguished friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , from the very principles which he laid down I think .Page119 he will concede it. Now, sir, these guarantees have been shadowed forth by the Committee of 21 in part, when they propose that no laws shall be passed in respect to the acquisition of territory without a majority vote of each section. I will illustrate the point by the action of clerical and lay deputies in Episcopal conventions. Gentlemen who have paid any attention to our ecclesiastical policy know that there have been dissensions and jealousies existing between the clergy and laity. We have a house of bishops. Then we have a lower house, composed of clergy and laity. Whenever any question arises in the lower House, as to whether the clergy are jealous of the laity, or the laity jealous of the clergy, they call for a vote by orders, and it must pass by a majority of the clergy and a majority of the laity. That is the principle which I ask now to have applied to both Houses of Congress on any or on all questions on which either a Northern or a Southern member shall call for a vote by sections. Let nothing become a law that has not a majority of votes from the free States, and a majority of votes from the slave States.

Then, Mr. Chairman, as respects the Judiciary! Let there be no confirmation of the appointment of a judge, whose tenure is for life, or during good behavior, except by a majority of Senators from the South, and a majority from the North. In that way, you will have national men filling the judicial bench, and not Black Republicans, as the present prospect is.

So much for Congress, and so much for the Judiciary. Then, as to the Executive! That can be effected by requiring any man who is elected president, to receive a majority of the electoral votes from the North and a majority from the South. The effect of that amendment would be that you would never see an Abe Lincoln dishonoring the presidential mansion. You would never see a worse man than him, Wm. H. Seward, presiding in the presidential mansion. You would find moderate men from either North or South. You would find such a man as Dickinson in the North or one of his type in the South. You would not find an extreme man in either section.

If we have these political guarantees, if the North be willing to concede to us guarantees of political power, then I think, we might safely see re-construction under the expectation and hope that the high destinies of the Union will be worked out with all of the distinction which the fathers of the Republic anticipated when they established our Government. You will then have security to a minority, and the majority cannot trample down and oppress the minority.

In throwing out these suggestions, I do not say that I have done more than shadow forth the general ideas. Whether or not these particular guarantees of power in one branch of Congress would suffice, whether they could be dispensed with in the Executive Department or in the Judiciary Department, is a matter which is for the Convention to decide. My own belief is, that if we acknowledge the principle in theory, we ought to apply that principle to every department of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I will not, in the few moments that I have left, expend more time on that branch of the subject. The distinguished gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] made the confession that Virginia and the border Slave States could not find security with the North even though she were to give us a carte blanche to write such a Constitution as we choose. He confessed also that when he came from home he had a confident hope that this Union could be reconstructed, and reconstructed with safety and with honor to all parties, but that that confident hope and expectation had "vanished into thin air." And he made another confession which I should be glad to hear echoed by my distinguished friend from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] and by all the trans-Alleghany range and the seaboard of Virginia—that if this Union cannot be reconstructed the destiny of Virginia is with the South. I believe that that sentiment will have, and has, a response in the bosoin of an overwhelming majority in this Convention. With these confessions, the point of difference to which I wish to call the gentleman's [Mr. ROBERT E. ScOTT'S] attention and the attention of this Committee is as to the policy of Virginia, whether she is to seek cooperation with the border States in the Union or out of the Union? The gentleman seemed to argue, with a confident and triumphal manner, that if we are to have consultation with the border States, that consultation had better be before than after the withdrawal of Virginia. I think that my friend from Culpeper [Mr. BARBOUR] , demonstrated, with as much mathematical precision as a moral question is susceptible of, that the true policy of Virginia is to act for herself and not to go into conference with the border States. If we are to have a border conference, this Convention is to nominate the delegates to that border Conference. You may judge from what has been the action of this body and of its President—all honorable men, all seeking to act for the best—what would be the stripe and type of the delegation from Virginia. My opinion is, that it would not represent the popular sentiment of Virginia—and there is the beginning point. Where will you find Maryland? Maryland has a Black .Page121 Republican Governor, or one who is cousin-german to a Black Republican, and he would depute submissionists from Maryland. What would you expect from Delaware—a State which has not as many slaves as there are in the city of Richmond—not one third as many as there are in my county? What would you expect from Kentucky? If there is a vote, of which I shall for ever be proud, it was that by which I refused a vote of thanks to John L. Crittenden. As much as I venerated and honored him in time past, I saw enough of him in Washington to satisfy me that he would rather give up the institution of slavery than give up the Union. You find him to-day proclaiming in Kentucky that the interest of Kentucky is in union with the North. Then what can you expect from Missouri and Tennessee, sir? If you were to go into council with those States you will find that they would bring you down to the lowest demand of the lowest submissionist in this Convention. I am against it. I want Virginia to act, and to act for herself. I would be willing to rest this question, if it were a new question, on the argument with the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] ; or, if I had not successfully met it myself, I say his argument was answered before it was delivered, by my friend from Culpeper [Mr. BARBOUR] .

But, Mr. Chairman, we have something more than theory, and something better than theory. The very policy which the gentleman from Fauquier is urging upon this Convention is that which caused the struggle in the Confederate States before there was separate State action. I was there when this question agitated those States. In the struggle in Alabama, in Louisiana, and in Georgia you did not find a man who said that the State should submit to the rule of the Black Republicans—not one that did not say that Southern rights had been invaded, and that they must be vindicated. But the co-operationists there, as the co-operationists here insisted that no State ought to act until five of the Southern States would agree to act together, and go out together. That was the struggle. The secessionists insisted on going at once, and co-operating afterwards.

Well, what has been the result, the signal result of that experiment? No man could pay it a higher compliment than my distinguished friend from Fauquier did yesterday, when he said, that though the Confederate Government has had but a short existence, it is conducted by wise men, by statesmen. It is a stable Government, and commands to-day more of the respect and confidence of the capitalists of the world than the miserable, crumbling, corrupt Government under which Virginia is yet seeking to find protection and shelter.

There is experience against theory. There you find secession first, and co-operation afterwards. Who doubts, who is bold enough to doubt, that if Virginia retires and unites her destiny with the South, the border States will not follow? I have not seen an intelligent man from any one of those States who expresses any doubt of it. We will solve the difficulty by our own action. If we retire now, we will have, by another year, a republic of fifteen slave States.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, permit me to say that we should form our own Constitution with none but slave States, and admit such of the border States as may affiliate with us in sentiment, as will purge themselves of abolitionism, as will acknowledge the right of a Southern man to go into those States with his servant in the same manner as Northern men are permitted to go into the Southern States with his white servant.

I say, until they come to this point, I will not go into union with them. Permit me to say another thing, sir, that, never in this new Confederacy, would I ask or permit the introduction of any free State unless they would not only acknowledge me their equal politically but socially. A friend told me, that last year, speaking of this same question, a man visited the State of Minnesota with a black servant to wait upon a dying wife; and he petitioned the Legislature to permit the servant to remain in the State until the fall to nurse that dying wife, and that pure, immaculate body considered that their soil and their social institutions would be contaminated, and they unanimously rejected the application.

Now, what do you want? Do you not humble yourselves by seeking an association with these men ? I humbly submit that you do. While I admire much that fell from my young friend who has just taken his seat, I have no idea of a necessity for 120,000 men to guard our border. I do not believe it will require more soldiers to guard that than our Canadian border. It is more to their interest to preserve the peace than it is to our interest. Now, sir, I will say, in the few moments left to me—are we men, or are we children? Can we not look to facts as facts exist? Where is the man that has any hope, or ought to have any rational hope, of a re-construction of this Union? Your "Peace Conference" resolutions were rejected, I may say, in Washington, because if the New York delegation had voted, they would not have passed them. It would have been nine to nine—this proposition, which the House of Representatives trampled under foot—this proposition which was scorned by the Senate, with Wm. H. Seward at its head ; and when it is brought to this Union-loving body, it is consigned to the silent .Page123 grave, with my friend from Franklin [Mr. EARLY] , leading a few sad mourners. And even as mean as it was; as despised as it was; it was too good for the South.

They tell you of the re-action in public sentiment; and this, whilst Abraham Lincoln has formed his Cabinet with five abolitionists from the free States and two renegades from the South.

At this stage, the hour of 12 arrived, when, under a resolution adopted a few days ago, debate, in the Committee of the Whole, should cease.

I have received a piece of information, this morning, which I was ignorant of the other day. I find that the resolution adopted by the Convention on the motion of the Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-one, instead of allowing ten minutes to each member who has objections to any proposed amendment, allows ten minutes to but one member. Am I right in that, sir?

The Chair thinks so.

The case is this : If "A" gets up and urges an objection that is not sound, "B," who might have an objection that is sound, is not allowed to make it.

If "A" makes a proposition "B" can object to it and speak ten minutes in support of his objection.

That is not the point I am after. I, for example, make a proposition, to which my friend, the Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-one [Mr. R. Y. CONRAD] , is able to make an objection, perhaps, that is sound and that would hold good with the body. But some body else, not as well informed as my friend, might get the floor, and he is then entitled to make the objection. Even though the objection be not a sound one, he speaks his ten minutes; but my friend, the Chairman of the Committee, would be cut off. Is that the interpretation?

There are two resolutions. The first is that the Committee shall at once proceed to vote upon the propositions before it, giving five minutes to the member offering any amendment, and the same time to any member opposing it for explanation.

That is not the resolution to which I refer. I ask the Clerk to read another resolution which was adopted.

The resolution adopted at the same time?

I don't know, sir—they got in there some way or other and I want to see whether I am in a vice or not.

The Clerk read the second resolution as follows :

"That hereafter no member in the Committee of the Whole shall be allowed to speak more than once upon the same proposition."

There is still another resolution or the Clerk informed me wrong this morning.

Here is the resolution to which I desire to call attention :

"That on Thursday, the 4th day of April next, at 12 o'clock noon, all debate in the Committee of the Whole upon the reports from the Committee on Federal Relations, shall terminate, and the committee shall at once proceed to vote upon the propositions before it, giving ten minutes to the member offering any amendment, and the same time to one member opposing it, for explanation, and ten minutes for replication."

Am I to understand that as giving ten minutes to each member, or to only one member of the Convention? Is he that happens to get the floor the only one who is to be allowed to make any objection?

That seems to be the letter of the resolution, and its probable spirit.

It is very easy, if that be the interpretation of the resolution, for a member making a proposition to get some friend to make a groundless objection in order to favor it. Two members may conspire together and kill off all objections, under this interpretation. I want this exclusion, not only of debate, but of objection, to be understood by the people of the State.

I hope I may be allowed to say one word upon this question, as I offered the resolution. This resolution, sir, was adopted by a vote of the friends of the report of the Committee. The gentleman from Princess Anne objected to the limitation of ten minutes, or five minutes, perhaps, which was then made, and, as I understood him, made an appeal to the Convention, and to myself, that if the time was increased to fifteen minutes for the party proposing amendments to the report, he would deem it sufficient.

No, sir.

I so understood him, and yielding to his appeal, the resolution was altered, by general consent, so as to give to the member proposing to amend the report of the Committee, instead of five or ten minutes, actually twenty minutes, with the additional advantage of dividing that time into two ten minutes—ten minutes to sustain the proposition, and ten minutes for replication.

I want to correct the gentleman. I claimed in point of time what was sufficient, in order to state either the proposition or the objection to the proposition. I said that in many instances fifteen minutes, and three times fifteen, would not be sufficient. It was in that connection that I spoke of fifteen minutes ; but I affirm to the.Page125 gentleman, that at the time I was making the objection, I thought that the word "one" was the word "each" in that resolution. I never looked at it until the clerk showed it to me this morning. It was not until this morning that I became aware that but one member was allowed to make an objection. I was under the impression that ten minutes was given to each of the members who might choose to object to a proposition.

I will state, sir, that the understanding of the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , is not at all material to the point to which I desire to call the attention of the Committee. As I stated, sir, the friends of this report were the ones who established this rule by their vote, and yet we find now that the gentleman from Princess Anne rises with a view of opening this debate, and making it an interminable debate, by permitting every member of the Convention to consume ten minutes, and he is doing that on the ground that he is asserting the rights of the friends of the report. It is fair to presume that all propositions for amendment are to come from the gentleman's side, and all explanations would be confined to the friends of the report.

Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him?

I will conclude immediately. I am explaining my views. The gentleman says, that when a proposition of amendment is made, an objection may be made to that amendment, and that this objection may not be a sound or good one, whilst some other member may have a better objection ; and he argues that this is an advantage to the friends of the report, because the best objections may not be presented to the Convention.

Will the gentleman permit me for a moment?

I will conclude in a minute or two. I was about to say, that I trust the gentleman will allow the friends of this report to maintain their own rights. They have voluntarily, with a view of bringing this Convention to a close, abandoned this right of debate, even upon objections to amendments ; and I understand they are willing to retain the position that they have voluntarily assumed. I will agree not to open my mouth again in this Convention, if gentlemen will allow us to go on and finish our business.

The gentleman has not stated my position, and let me say that he does not seem to appreciate his own position. By what authority is it that the gentleman claims that all who adopted this resolution are the friends of this report? When he undertakes to say before a vote is taken upon the report, who are its friends or its foes,.Page126 does he intimate to us that we are to be forced into submission by another body—a body that is king, it may be; but that is not king over me—a caucus that is held outside of this body? He may understand who are the friends of this report, but I don't understand who are its friends or who are its opponents until a vote is taken here.

There is a constituted body to ascertain who are the friends and who are the opponents of this report. But, granting that before a vote is taken, he does know to a certainty, aye, sir, to a caucus certainty, who are friends of the report, and grant it that the friends of the report have a right to take care of themselves, the question is, have I a right to take care of the minority, also, and to maintain for them the right of objection? I am not undertaking to take care of the friends of the report, for I know that they will take care, not of themselves alone, but I am afraid that they will take upon themselves the care of others to their ruin, and the ruin of me and mine. I know, sir; that they will take care of their own propositions and their own report, whether they take care of themselves and of me or not; but, I would ask, are they taking care, by a course like this, of the interest of the Commonwealth, when they propose here the tyrannical, exclusive vice rule that but one man shall be allowed to make an objection to any proposed amendment to this report, or any item or particle of this report? And, sir, it is a most odious act of tyranny—it not only assails the freedom of speech and the right of debate, but it assails the right of opinion and the right of stating an objection.

It is out of order to reflect upon the action of the Convention.

I will do it holding by the horns of the altar.

The gentleman is out of order.

Whenever it becomes out of order to exclaim against tyranny in any form in a body like this, your liberties are gone, Sir, and you are slaves already. Is that out of order? If it is, make the most of it.

The Chair has indulged the debate for the last ten or fifteen minutes, which, in his opinion, was irregular. The orders of the House must be obeyed, as the Chair understands them. The order which the House made, that debate upon the report of the Committee of Twenty-one should cease at the hour of 12 o'clock, must be enforced; as regards the character of that order, as regards its interpretation, if there be a difference in the Committee as to its interpretation, whether in its letter or spirit, whether it be tyrannical, oppressive or otherwise, this Committee cannot change it, cannot alter .Page127 it, and the only mode to obtain relief, for the gentleman from Princess Anne, or any other member, is to endeavor to get the rule changed, when we go back into the Convention. The Chair trusts, therefore, now, that all debate upon the question will cease, and that the Committee will proceed to vote. The question will be upon the third resolution of the Committee.

The third resolution was then reported as follows :

"The choice of functionaries of a common Government established for the common good, for the reason that they entertain opinions and avow purposes hostile to the institutions of some of the States, necessarily excludes the people of one section from participation in the administration of the Government, subjects the weaker to the domination of the stronger section, leads to abuse, and is incompatible with the safety of those whose interests are imperilled; the formation, therefore, of geographical or sectional parties in respect to Federal policies, is contrary to the principles on which our system rests, and tends to its overthrow."

Before the vote is taken upon that proposition, I move that the Committee rise, so that we may go into the Convention with a view of re-considering this resolution restricting debate.

The motion would not be now in order, until after two o'clock, the time fixed for the recess.

Suppose the house were on fire?

We would protect ourselves the best way we could.

The question was then taken on the third resolution, and it was agreed to.

The fourth resolution was then reported as follows:

"The Territories of the United States constitute a trust to be administered by the General Government, for the common benefit of the people of the United States, and any policy in respect to such Territories calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one part of the United States, than on the people of another part, is contrary to equality and prejudicial to the rights of some for whose equal benefit the trust was created. If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory, excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper development."

I move again that the Committee rise. Do I understand the Chair as making the same decision?

The Chair considers that the motion cannot be entertained at this time.

I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

On Saturday, the 23d of March, the Convention adopted the following resolution :

"Resolved, That on and after Monday next, and until further ordered, this Convention shall be called to order at 10 o'clock, A. M., at half past 10 shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, upon the reports from the Committee on Federal Relations; at 2 o'clock said Committee of the Whole shall take a recess until 4 o'clock, when it shall resume its session."

The gentleman from Princess Anne has moved that the Committee now rise. The Chair, upon a due interpretation of this resolution, and in obedience to the order of the House, overrules the motion of the gentleman from Princess Anne as out of order. From the opinion of the Chair the gentleman from Princess Anne has taken an appeal, and the question now is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Mr. Chairman, the Convention passed that resolution to be the law of the Committee until the further order of the Convention. My motion now is, that the committee rise, in order that it may go back to the Convention to obtain further orders upon this construction; and I submit it to the common sense of this body, whether the motion that I have made to go back into the Convention and take order upon the question is inconsistent with the order itself ? It does seem to me so plain that I know not how to argue it. It seems that, according to the construction of the Chair, from the hour we go into the committee of the whole, under all circumstances, until the Convention, of its own motion, shall order otherwise, we are obliged to sit here, debate, vote, or do nothing, until two o'clock comes. Now, I take it, the common sense and practical view of the matter is this—the same body of men constituting the Convention which constitutes the committee—that whenever the committee find that the rule is not practical, is not just, is not equal to the members of the body, that they can rise, and so report to the Convention, and the Convention can so amend it as to make it just and equal, fair and practical. I do insist that it is impossible for the members of this Convention to represent their constituents, if, out of 152 men, but one man can be allowed to state objections to propositions; that it is worse than the suppression of freedom of speech. You are now on the 4th section of the first report, which contains 14 sections; you have then a second .Page129 report which contains eight sections, thus leaving eighteen sections yet to be acted upon ; and in the very frontispiece of the report, before you begin to see the middle of it, let alone the end of it, you have adopted a rule, which does not allow objections, however reasonable, to be made to any proposition of these twenty-two sections, embracing many pages of an octavo pamphlet ; you allow no objections to be made, however sound, after objection, however unsound, may have been made by one man. I submit it, in the face of their constituents, to this Assembly, whether any body of men can deliberate in justice to themselves, or, what is of much more importance, in justice to their constituents, under such a rule as this. Seeing that it is so outrageous in its application, unjust to us, unjust to our constituents, I ask this Committee to report it to the House, in order that the House may take better orders upon the subject.

I rise to a question of order. I submit, whether it be consistent with the rules which the Convention have adopted for the government of the Committee, that a question of order can be raised in Committee, decided by the Chair, an appeal taken from the decision of the Chair and that appeal discussed without any limitation whatever as to debate, when the Convention has expressly instructed the Committee, that it shall only tolerate debate for ten minutes on the proposition upon which the Committee is required to vote.

The Chair overrules the question of order which the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , makes. This is a privileged question. All decisions of the Chair are privileged questions, from which appeals lie, and on all such questions there is no limit to debate.

The result then is, that upon questions raised in the manner in which this has been, unlimited debate is to arise, and the order of the Convention is never to be observed.

There is no limit to debate on an appeal taken from the decision of the Chair. The limitation of debate to ten minutes, is confined to the report of the Committee of twenty-one.

I do trust it will be the pleasure of the Committee to sustain the appeal that has been taken from the decision of the Chair. I suppose everybody understands that these rules are prescribed for the purpose of preserving order, and contributing to the dispatch of business intelligibly. The chief object I had in view in seeking to obtain the floor, even before the appeal was taken, was to state what seemed to me to be proper that this body should know, or at least some of them. My apprehension was, that many members voted for this resolution, not giving it the construction that the Chair gave to it.

It will be remembered by this Convention, that when this motion was made before, I opposed it for several reasons, which I stated very briefly, and I was cut off, under the rule confining the debate to ten minutes, from assigning other reasons. It did not enter my mind that this resolution was susceptible of the interpretation which has been given to it. I confess now that I have read and examined it critically as you have done, Mr. Chairman ; that I concur in the correctness of the interpretation literally; and if I had understood it, then as I do now, I would have commented in stronger terms upon the cruelty and injustice of such a rule than I did upon that occasion. Look at this matter for a moment. Here we are considering amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be made acceptable to the people of Virginia, and to the people of the other States of this Union. Those gentlemen who have considered this matter for six weeks and have had their opinions matured in regard to what those amendments should be, are prepared to vote without discussion at all. I rise to suggest a modification of some one of these amendments. In my feebleness I waste my time in a preface, or in an idle effort to show that the proposition or amendment I submit ought to be made. By my side sits my colleague, abler than I am, able to show to this body that this amendment ought to prevail, but for want of the explanation which he or any other member is able to give, showing the propriety of the amendment in question, the amendment fails, and thus, that which we all ought to desire to accomplish, to wit, the perfection of these resolutions to the highest degree, we are prevented from accomplishing by the operation of the rule which was prescribed for the despatch of our business intelligibly. Now, I submit that this appeal ought to prevail; if there were no other reason, because the Convention, I presume, voted for the resolution in question without giving it that consideration which it required, without giving it that interpretation which is now given to it—an interpretation, the injustice of which is so manifest that it seems to me scarcely a quorum or a majority of a quorum of this body could be found to vote for such a resolution, when the operation of it is to be such as I have shown you. As soon as we get into Convention I propose to offer the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the first resolution adopted on the 30th of March, in regard to the regulation of debate in Committee of the Whole be so modified as to permit any member advocating any amendment the space of ten minutes."

This is not done for the protection of the majority, who may have made this report, and who may be prepared in ten minutes, to .Page131 advocate the propriety of their action, but it is done for the benefit of those who may have some fault to find with it, and who may have friends who can furnish better reasons for it, than they can themselves. I ask that, in some mode or other, we may get out of the dilemma in which we have been placed.

I dislike very much, Mr. Chairman, to dissent from you upon this proposition. I do it honestly and sincerely. I know you well enough to know that you can appreciate the position of a gentleman when he dissents from a presiding officer. I understand you to decide the broad proposition, because the Convention has adopted a resolution declaring that they shall go into Committee of the Whole at a certain hour, then take a recess at another hour, to meet again at another hour, that for no cause can this Committee entertain a motion to rise until the hour of two arrives. Let us see how this is. As the gentleman from Princess Anne well stated, suppose the house were on fire, could not the Chair entertain a proposition that the Committee rise?

Will my friend allow me to ask him a question?

Certainly sir, with pleasure.

Would the gentleman from Middlesex wait to submit a motion of that kind if the house was on fire?

Yes, sir. Perhaps the gentleman from Middlesex would not be so much frightened as other gentlemen might be; and he would submit a motion so that the Committee might come back, according to the well-established rules of Parliamentary regulation. But, sir, let me put this illustration. Say you go into Committee of the whole at 12 o'clock, and in ten minutes after, a member of this body should fall dead upon this floor, do you say you could entertain no motion for the Committee to rise? Do you say that we should be compelled to sit here over the dead body of one of our members for nearly two hours? It strikes me as preposterous.

But take another case. Suppose you complete the consideration of the business before the Committee at one o'clock, will you stay here, like a parcel of children after they have finished their game of marbles, waiting till dinner is ready, until 2 o'clock, before you rise? Sir, such a thing was never heard of.

But, Mr. Chairman, this Committee has already decided that very identical question. The distinguished gentleman from the county of Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , wants to commit Virginia to certain principles and certain doctrines because, he says, such has been her .Page132 action that she is estopped from raising objection. I do not think it is statesmanlike to put in a plea of estoppel, but it is in accordance with Parliamentary law, for your whole code of Parliamentary law is but a compilation of precedents. When the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] , was addressing the Committee, the other day, and indicated his desire that the Committee should rise before the usual hour, because he was exhausted, a motion was made that the Committee rise and it did rise before the hour of two. The motion was entertained then.

I made that motion, sir, and the Committee refused to entertain it, but by unanimous consent it was agreed to.

Precisely so, sir. The Chairman refused to entertain the motion, but by unanimous consent the Committee rose before the appointed hour; and, if it was done by unanimous consent then, why can't it be done by unanimous consent now? Sir, I understand this whole question. I trust I will be the last member in this body, or elsewhere, to raise anything like a factious objection even to what I conceive to be a tyrannical movement; but I told you the other night, when you adopted this resolution, that if gentlemen thought proper to avail themselves of privileges guaranteed to them by the principles of parliamentary law, the resolution would protract your debate and protract your sessions, instead of shortening them. And now you see that I was right, don't you? Yes, sir, I am right. Now, you have got up an appeal from the decision of the Chair, and if gentlemen think proper they can debate this question for a month and you cannot stop them. Now, I do submit to this Convention, that the decision of the Chair is incorrect, that it ought to be overruled, and that this resolution ought to be reconsidered. Why, Mr. Chairman, what is the effect of this resolution before the country? It is arrogating to that Committee of Twenty-one, and I would speak of that committee, sir—

I rise to a question of order.

About what?

In arguing this question, the gentleman must confine himself to the point in issue, and that is, whether the decision of the Chair is correct or not.

Well, sir, in doing that, I have a right to give my reasons, and I may go somewhat into the merits of the resolution upon which the point of order is raised. I will not transcend any rule of order.

I was about to remark, Mr. Chairman, that I was a member of that Committee, and I entertain for every member of it the most profound respect. That resolution, sir, arrogates to the Committee of 21 the whole wisdom of this Convention. Yes, sir, you see that you do so by adopting a resolution which will prevent you from altering or improving their report in the slightest particular. Sir, if it is the desire of this body to put the destiny of Virginia and of the whole country in the hands of this committee of twenty-one, let us adjourn, constitute them a Committee of Safety, and let them decide what they please. That is the position of the whole question, sir. I told you the other evening, sir, that the members of this Convention were here as the representatives of the people of Virginia, and that such a course of action as this resolution proposed, would not be calculated to produce the feeling of harmony which was so much desired at this time in all parts of the State, but would increase the already too much distracted condition of the Commonwealth, and that such a resolution should not be adopted. As I said before, it will protract the session of this Convention, and you cannot prevent it from doing so.

The question now before the Committee is : "Has the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole correctly interpreted the order?" and is not as to whether the order has been correctly made or not. If the Chairman of the Committee has correctly interpreted the order, ought he not to be sustained, whatever might be the order? Whatever may be the order? What is that order? The order is that we shall go into Committee of the Whole at half past ten o'clock, remain in Committee of the Whole till two, and meet again at four. That is the order of the Convention, and under that order this Committee is acting. Now, if we rise before two are we obeying the order of the House? I think not. And if we are not obeying the order of the House, then the Chairman of the Committee has given the correct interpretation of the order. Now, sir, we have had arguments adduced and questions propounded here upon this matter. Suppose, it was asked, that a member should fall dead upon the floor, or suppose that some accident should occur to disperse the Committee without any motion, what is to become of the Committee of the Whole? Why, sir, I apprehend that the Chairman as has been the case in the British Parliament—would resume the Chair without any motion. If a fire should occur, who would wait here until all the forms of Parliamentary law were gone through? Why, sir, the Chairman would vacate the chair without any motion and we would all scamper off the best way we could. Those occasions are extraordinary and there.Page134 certainly is no law laid down for them in the rules for the government of the general proceedings of any deliberative body. And, whilst I have the floor, I desire to reply to my friend from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] , because he and I do not understand the order alike. Suppose he should offer an amendment to the report, and he would have ten minutes to speak upon that amendment; then the Chairman of the Committee, or any other member would have ten minutes to reply to him, then his colleague would have ten minutes in replication? That is not as I understand it.

Read the resolution.

If that is the construction that gentlemen put upon it, I think I have not understood the order aright. As I understand it, either the gentleman himself, who offers an amendment, or his friend, would have a right to occupy ten minutes in replication. Is not that the interpretation which you gave the order, sir?

The gentleman propounding the amendment has the right of replication for ten minutes.

Then it is confined to the gentleman himself who proposes an amendment; and he would have the privilege of occupying twenty minutes altogether, while the friend of the report as it is would have only ten minutes.

My argument is based upon the idea that I would be so restricted in time that I could not finish the reasons that occurred to my mind for presenting the amendment; and, further, that although I might not be restricted, I might not be so well qualified to present arguments in favor of the amendment as another member, and yet I would consume the time while he would have none.

I know my friend would not be so unfortunate as not to make himself understood in ten minutes ; but if such should be the case, I apprehend it would be better for his colleague to propound the amendment. He has the right to open and to conclude, and if he were confused at the outset, I hope he would be very clear at the conclusion, so that he would be distinctly understood. I think it is quite material to know what the sense of this committee is. I ask that the ayes and noes shall be called, and let us see whether the decision of the Chair ought to be sustained.

Will my friend from Greenbrier let me give him another illustration? Just now he made a blunder, an egregious one, in which the Chair corrected him, but under that rule he would not be allowed to correct himself.

I am aware, sir; it was a very immaterial blunder.

I differ from the Chair on this question. I would ask the attention of the Chair to the rules of the House. In the rules which you have adopted here, there is an express direction to the Chair to be governed by Jefferson's Manual. If the Chair will look at that Manual, it will find in the rules laid down to govern the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole, that this principle is clearly involved in the instances there cited : that when, for sufficient reason, by accident, or even by design—as in the case of a difficulty arising in the Committee of the Whole—when the Speaker took the Chair, and, by the act of taking the Chair, he, himself, on his own motion, dissolved the Committee of the Whole and the House was instantly in session. Now, sir, can it be that the Chair is so to construe the rule here as that the wish of the body of the Committee is to be ignored, their intention crushed out by the decision of the Chair, when the case is before you in that Manual by which you are directed to be governed, where, by the motion of the President himself, the Committee of the Whole was dissolved and the House resumed its session? Do you mean, sir, as you must, if your decision is sustained, that the body of the Committee cannot do what the body of the Convention itself can do? Suppose that this Committee should find itself without a quorum, has the Committee no power to send after members to bring a quorum here, if a question is pending before it? You cannot have a vote upon the question unless you have a quorum; and, if the decision of the Chair stands, you must wait here until 2 o'clock arrives before you can exercise this power. Is not that construction an equal absurdity? I might go on and illustrate the principle in fifty different ways. It is an absurdity which we would be forced into if you allow the decision of the Chair to stand. The Committee itself is the judge of when, under what circumstances, and how, it ought to report its action to the House.

It is suggested to me that the case which I have just put has actually occurred here, where there was no quorum, and the practice then adopted was to go back into Convention, and correct the evil, whatever it was—for I do not remember the case myself. But, sir, if this Committee sustain the decision of the Chair, we place ourselves in a position where it must necessarily follow—as I think can be demonstrated by the manual, which is the authority which should govern the Chairman of the Committee here—from which nothing but a total disregard of the rights of the minority, can by any possibility extricate you.

Gentlemen, it is proper that, after listening with much patience to the various arguments urged against the decision which has just been given touching the question before you, the views .Page136 of the Chair should be heard, and at the same time the Chair assures the Committee that if, in their opinion, the Chair is incorrect in the decision which it has just given—of the correctness of which the Chair has no doubt—it is the duty of the Committee, irrespective of the feelings of the Chair, to overrule its decision and sustain the appeal. It has been stated by the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] the resolution provides that this Convention shall be called to order at 10 o'clock, A.M., at half past 10 shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the reports of the Committee upon Federal Relations, at 2 o'clock shall take a recess until 4, when it shall resume its session and sit during its pleasure, and that that order shall so remain the law of this Committee until further ordered by the house. The gentleman is perfectly correct. Until the house alters this law which it has prescribed for the government of this Committee, it is binding and obligatory upon it ; and, in the opinion of the Chair, the Committee have no right to reverse the order of the Convention, and that order remains during the pleasure of the house, and until set aside by the house. It can only be in the House when it is in Convention assembled, that a motion can be made to rescind, modify, or entirely repeal an order which it has made. It has been further suggested by the worthy gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] that the decision of the Chair is not correct, simply upon the ground that the business of the Committee may be concluded before the hour of two o'clock on any day. I would say, that when the business of the Committee is completed, of course there is an end of it, and the Committee must rise. It resolves itself back into Convention and reports to the House that its duties have been entirely discharged, its business completed, and of course it is dissolved, and does not meet again. It has been intimated by the worthy gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] that the Manual lays down the rule. Whatever rule the Manual lays down, the Convention has made a rule for its own government independent of the Manual.

The Convention has made this rule and any provision of the manual to the contrary has been set aside by the order of the Convention.

Suppose we were without a quorum?

There would then be no Committee in session. It cannot be in session if there is no quorum. The moment, therefore, that fact is ascertained, the Committee must necessarily rise, go back to the House, and inform the House of that fact. But if there be a full Committee they must go on, as directed, to discharge their duty.

In regard to any sudden excitement, such as an alarm of fire, or from any other cause, which we cannot anticipate, it is not necessary for the .Page137 Chair now to give an opinion. If the house were in flames, the Chair supposes that members would look to their own personal safety, and that it would not be necessary for any exact parliamentary form to be observed. Indeed, if the danger was imminent, the Chair will not say that he should remain long enough to receive a motion that the Committee rise. [Laughter.] The question now is upon the appeal from the decision of the Chair, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. Those who are in favor of sustaining the decision of the Chair will say "aye," those opposed, "no."

The Secretary commenced to call the roll, but was interrupted by the Chairman, who stated that he believed the question was not understood. Those who voted for sustaining the appeal should vote in the affirmative.

The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee. Those who are for sustaining the decision of the Chair therefore vote in the affirmative.

The Chair intended so to state it.

Well, now, sir, I wish to know how to vote. The Chairman stated it one way at the first, another way the second time, and the third time as at first. Now, am I to vote aye or no by statement number one, number two, or number three?

The Chair will inform the gentleman that he may dismiss number one, number two and number three, and that he will now state the question, he hopes, so that every gentleman will understand it. An appeal has been taken from the decision of the Chair. The question to be decided is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee. Those who are of that opinion will vote "aye," those who are opposed will vote "no."

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative—ayes 85, nays 43—as follows :

AYES-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Jr., Boggess, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, Chapman, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, J. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Robt. E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey-85.

NOES-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bruce, Cecil, Coffman, Conn, Richard H. Cox, Fisher, Graham, John Goode, Jr., Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hughes, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Marye, Sr., Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Speed, Strange, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-43.

So the decision of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Committee.

Before the vote was announced, Mr. CHAMBLISS stated that he had paired off with Mr. HOLLADAY.

Mr. HALL stated that he had paired with Mr. FORBES, otherwise he should vote in the affirmative.2In the Proceedings of April 6, page 226, Mr. Hull noted that it was he, and not Mr. Hall, who had paired off with Colonel Forbes. It is not clear whether Mr. Hull referred to only one of the two votes in which Mr. Hall was reported to have paired with Colonel Forbes, or to both of them.

A member stated that Mr. BURLEY was absent on account of indisposition.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

The Chairman then stated the question to be upon the adoption of the fourth resolution, which was read as follows :

"The Territories of the United States constitute a trust to be administered by the General Government, for the common benefit of the people of the United States, and any policy in respect to such Territories calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one part of the United States, than on the people of another part, is contrary to equality and prejudicial to the rights of some for whose equal benefit the trust was created. If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper development."

I think the words "United States," were inserted by mistake, in the clause which says, "the Territories of the United States are for the common benefit of the people of the United States." "For the benefit of the people of the several States," I think was what the Committee intended to say. I may be mistaken about that, but I prefer the expression "several States," and I move therefore, to amend, by striking out the words "United States" in the third line of the fourth section, and inserting "several States."

Now, sir, I suppose under your rule, I am entitled to ten minutes. I do not know who holds the watch.

The Chair holds the watch.

If anything can express the idea of consolidation in its most direct form, the expression "for the common benefit of the people .Page139 of the United States," expresses it. You make the benefit common to the aggregate consolidated mass by that expression. I submit to you that the correct idea is, that the benefits spoken of are benefits which are common to the several States. The word "several" expresses their separation into individual sovereignties. "United States" are words which aggregate them in a national sense, and the word "common" prefixed to the word "benefit," when united to the one expression or the other, gives distinct force to the one idea or the other. Thus the "benefit" spoken of by that resolution is "common" to a consolidated government and people; according to the amendment which I now propose, it is "common" to the several confederates. Here, again, creeps out, or rather crops out, as we speak in geology, as almost everywhere throughout this report, the idea of consolidation, and it not only crops out, but the whole boulder of the idea is above ground. If for "the common benefit of the people of the United States," means anything it means, the consolidated benefit of the consolidated people of the States.

I only wish, in this State-rights State, in this mother of State rights, in a Convention of her people, that we shall preserve, at all events, all the guards against the direct assertion of any doctrines or principles opposed to her ancient faith. It may be that she has now, other opinions, that other faith has superseded her ancient faith. If that be so, I wish it known to the people and I wish it distinctly expressed. I shall fight that idea of consolidation, whether it presents itself in the full boulder, or whether it crops out just into sight anywhere in this report; and I offer this amendment, not for the purpose of seeming hypercritical, but because the phrase used is one which expresses the idea of consolidation.

I cannot acquiesce in the propriety of the proposed amendment. The language which is used in this section is precisely the language of the Constitution of the United States. Nor can I see any liability to this objection of consolidation which the gentleman has raised. It states that the "Territories of the United States constitute a trust to be administered by the General Government, for the common benefit of the people of the United States." Now, sir, I would ask, with what propriety can it be alleged that these territories are held for the benefit of the people of the several States? Is there any idea of severalty connected with the holding of these territories; and has not the State of Virginia refused—upon the very ground that the Federal Government has no right to divide and pay in severalty the proceeds arising from the sales of its public lands—to receive her .Page140 quota of these proceeds, alleging that they were for the common benefit of the whole people of the United States?

Now, sir, as to the idea that this language imports consolidation. If it does, the Constitution of the United States establishes consolidation ; but our construction has always been that the people of the United States are only the people of the States united, still preserving the character of a community to the people of each State, and not importing, in any way, that the people of all the States were consolidated into one people. Is there any such conclusion to be drawn from this language? It is that they are "for the common benefit of the people of the United States," and I repeat that the idea of a several ownership by the several States in their political capacity was certainly never intended to be applied to the common territories of the United States. They were ceded for the benefit of all, to remain in common, not to be divided, according to the doctrine of Virginia, even by the power of the Federal Government, the trustee.

How many minutes did I use the first time?

Only five.

Then am I to have the other five minutes added now to my ten?

The gentleman will only be entitled to ten minutes in reply.

Then, sir, you do not reward economy in time. [Laughter.] And, sir, I not only gain nothing in economy, but here I stand the exclusive monopolist, quoad hoc, of the floor. Now who objects to this proposition? Not one of you gentlemen, my peers, have the right to open your lips in reply to me or in reply to the gentleman from Frederick. He has had the floor, I have got it in reply, and sit still all of you and listen. I am, sir, as sufficient to reply as the report is infallible, and I must not be interrupted by any one. Oh! oh! the travesty of the performance of our duty upon a great question like this, the great important subject of sovereignty and consolidation, of separate identity or individual independence, and you are to give 10 minutes for its consideration at this crisis. Well, sir, I do not want two minutes, let alone 10, in reply to my friend from Frederick. But, mark you, he has got to sit still and take it. He cannot make any rejoinder. In a County Court he would have the right—here silence must be the argument.

The gentleman says, is there any idea of severalty in the States in respect to the territories? If there is not in relation to eminent domain, is there in relation to anything else? But suppose it to be true, that .Page141 there is no idea of severalty as to what is common—cannot a thing be common to several? Is the gentleman ansivered? He cannot answer me. I ask him a question; but you, Mr. Chairman, say no. You forbid him, you command him, not to answer. [Laughter.] I ask him, as a lawyer—whether a county court or a circuit court lawyer—cannot a thing be common to several? The idea of severalty unquestionably attaches to, and it is the only idea I have to deal with. You assert here that lands are not common to the several States, and that their benefits are not common to the several States, but they are common to the consolidated people of the United States—that they are common not only because they are held to be regulated by, or to belong to, the people of the whole nation, but that they are common because they belong to the United States as a nation, and not to the several States as confederates and several in their confederation—several, even as they are united--united because they are several; but several, though united, and not consolidated, though united. They are partners. Now take the instance of partners in a mercantile concern. We have a stock of goods on hand ; the goods are owned by the common partnership; yet, are not the partners several? So, in our Confederacy, the benefits, such as the public lands, for example, are common to the several confederates, and common to them as several. But the Committee asserts that they are common to the people of the United States, in a consolidated mass. That is what I deny.

Now, sir, take the grant of Virginia. My friend reminds me of it. Virginia ceded a larger territory than was ceded to the United States by any other State. When Virginia made her grant, when all the States made their grant to the General Government, of land, how did they grant their land? Take that as an instance of common benefit. They granted it for the benefit of the several States, and yet the gentleman says there is no idea of severalty attached to the common benefits of the Union, no idea of severalty attached to the lands of the Union. These grants, in their express terms, were for the common benefit of the several States. Well, sir, I only want to say, that these benefits are common to us, that they are common benefits to the several States and not to the people in a consolidated relation, as is claimed by the faith of my friend from Frederick. He believes in consolidation ; I do not. I believe in the several, though united sovereignty and independence of the confederation of the States. There is the difference between us. He has no idea of severalty. I have no tolerance for the idea of consolidation, and I will not entertain it.

Mr. SEAWELL demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 68, nays 66, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, J. Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Bruce, Caperton, Cecil, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. H. Cox, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, J. Goode, Hale, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Preston, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Whitfield, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Branch, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, J. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Early, French, Fugate, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, W. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey-66.

So the amendment was agreed to.

During the call of the roll Mr. HALL announced that he had paired off with Mr. FORBES.3See note 2, above.

Well I am glad that States Rights are triumphant by two. Now to make the remainder of the section conform, I move to amend in the fifth line which reads "calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one part of the United States than on the people of another part," by striking out "one part of the United" and inserting "some of the."

As I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Princess Anne, the insertion of the expression "some of the" States would make it liable, under a strict construction, to mean that it might not be conferred on one. I would suggest to him the use of the words "one or more."

Very well. I will move to insert the words "one or more."

The amendment was agreed to.

I move now to amend, in the 6th line, by striking out "another part" and inserting the words "other States." The clause as amended would then read : "calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one or more of the States than on the people of other States," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

I move to amend the fourth section, by striking out all after the word "created," in the eighth line, as follows :

"If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory, excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper development."

Mr. Chairman, according to my opinion, and the opinion of a majority of the gentlemen who have addressed the Convention, this clause, which I move to strike out, does not give to Virginia and the slave States that equality which all wish to see carried out. If the Northern man can come, with all his property, into the territory South of 36 deg. 30 min. ; and if the Southern man cannot do the same in the territory North of it, that is not equality. It is not in accordance with the present Constitution of the United States, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott decision. For one, I am free to say, that so far as my voice and my influence shall be potential, there never shall be a re-construction, unless I can stand the peer of the Northern man on any portion of our soil. I am not willing to be interdicted from taking any portion of my property into territory North of 36 deg. 30 min., if the Northern man can bring his into territory South of that line. If the North have such holy horror of Southern men and Southern institutions, let there be a division of the territory, and let it be declared that North of 36-30 the Southern man shall not have any participation whatever, and that South of it a man from the North shall not tread the soil with any portion of his property. In that there would be equality. But in the spirit of compromise you have given up that provision of the constitution which the Federal court has decided gives the Southern man his rights.

You give up that equality, and consent to give the North a monopoly of the territory North of 36-30, and you give it at the same time equal privileges in the territory South of that line. That is not equality. That is not justice. If slavery cannot be permitted to stand where the constitution has placed it, where the Bible has placed it, and where reason has placed it, then there is that incongruity between the two sections which prevents them associating together any longer.

Mr. WISE called for the yeas and nays on Mr. MORTON'S amendment.

The ayes and nays were ordered.

I want to give the reason why I shall vote for the amendment. The resolution recognizes the doctrine of drawing a line .Page144 of partition between free labor and slave labor. If it be wrong to carry slavery North of the line it must be wrong to carry it South of the line, and I do not mean to vote here or elsewhere to localize or sectionalize slavery. Hence, I shall vote for the amendment.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the negative yeas 38, nays 91, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Carlile, Cecil, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, J. H. Cox, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Garland, Graham, John Goode, Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Leake, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Strange, Thornton, R. H. Turner, Wise, Woods-38.

NAYS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, Addison Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Tredway, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-91.

So the amendment was rejected.

The Committee then, at 2 o'clock, took a recess till 4 P.M.

1.3.3. AFTERNOON SESSION

The Committee of the Whole resumed its session at 4 o'clock, P.M., the question being on the fourth resolution of the Committee on Federal Relations, as amended.

The question was taken and the resolution, as amended, was adopted. The fifth resolution of the Committee was then read as follows :

"5. The sites of the federal forts, arsenals, &c., within the limits of the States of this Union, were acquired by the Federal Government, and jurisdiction over them ceded by the States, as trusts, for the common purposes of the Union during its continuance; and upon the separation of the States, such jurisdiction reverts of right to the States, respectively, by which the jurisdiction was ceded. Whilst a State remains in the Union, the legitimate use of such forts, &c., is to protect the country against foreign force, and to aid in suppressing domestic insurrection. To use, or prepare them to be used to intimidate a State, or constrain its free action, is a perversion of the purposes for which they were obtained ; they were not intended to be used against the .Page145 States, in whose limits they are found, in the event of civil war. In a time of profound peace with foreign nations, and when no symptoms of domestic insurrection appear but whilst irritating questions of the deepest importance are pending between the States to accumulate within the limits of a State, interested in such questions, an unusual amount of troops and munitions of war, not required for any legitimate purpose, is unwise, impolitic and offensive."

I move to amend the resolution by striking out the words : "And to aid in suppressing domestic insurrection." In looking over the Act of Assembly by which the territory on which Fort Monroe and Old Point Comfort are located,4Some words, perhaps "was ceded," are omitted here. I find that Virginia, with her usual caution, and in the protection of her rights, gave this property to the Federal Government for no such purpose as to suppress insurrection. I will read the Act of Assembly:

"Whereas, It is shown the present General Assembly, that the Government of the United States is solicitous that certain lands, at Old Point Comfort, and at the Shoal, called the Rip Raps, should be, with the right of property, and entire jurisdiction thereon, vested in the United States, for the purpose of fortifications, and other objects of national defence."

The first section goes on to direct the Government to make the necessary conveyances. The second section is as follows :

"And be it further enacted, That should the United States at any time abandon the said lands, or appropriate them to any other purposes than those indicated in the preamble of this act, then, and in that case, the same shall revert to, and revest in the Commonwealth."

This refers to the preamble which I have read, and which says that the land is given solely for purposes of fortification and other objects of national defence. It may seem a little captious to move to strike out these words, but I really think it important to do so, especially when we look at the adversary with which we are dealing. I understand that the present head of the Government does not recognize the sovereignty of a State. If his public speeches, from Springfield to the seat of government, are to be relied upon as expressive of his opinions, he looks upon a State as he does upon a mere county.

If we should, in the progress of events that are rapidly developing themselves, find it necessary that Virginia should take a position of resistance to the General Government, we might be looked upon as insurgents, as insurrectionists; and it would be a most mortifying position to put ourselves in, that the very government which was treating us as insurgents and insurrectionists should quote our own .Page146 language to prove that the use of these forts was designed to suppress domestic insurrection, while the act which grants the land on which these forts are located, declares that the cession was made to the Government for no other purpose than for defence against foreign invasion. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that I move to strike out these words, leaving the section to read "that the legitimate use of such forts &c., is to protect the country against foreign force."

I would be glad to agree with the gentleman in his proposed amendment, if it was even a matter of indifference; but it is important, in my opinion, that these words should be retained. I would say, in the first place, that this resolution contains our own language, and that it is a matter of little moment to us how it may be construed by the Federal Government.

It will be conceded that it is part of the duty of the Federal Government, under the Constitution, to interfere in case of domestic insurrection; and it is the right of the State authorities to call upon the Federal Government so to interfere. I think it is important not to discharge the Federal Government from this obligation. I will remind the gentleman of a case that occurred in an adjoining county to my own—the case of Harper's Ferry. Was it not right and proper—nay, the duty of the Federal Government, upon the demand of the civil authorities of Virginia, to interfere then to put down domestic insurrection?

The apprehension of the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. FLOURNOY] , seems to be, sir, that by some construction or other that action of the State of Virginia, through its constituted authorities, may be construed to be domestic insurrection. That conclusion is excluded by the terms of this resolution. If the gentleman will look a little further into this resolution he will find that in the sixteenth line there is an affirmation to the contrary—"and when no symptoms of domestic insurrection appear." That domestic insurrection, sir, as I am led to think, means, and can only mean, an opposition to State authority; and, according to the Constitution of the United States, no interposition of Federal authority can take place except upon the demand of the State authority, so that it is impossible, in any way that this can be construed or understood, to import any right to interfere in case of State action, with the concurrence of the State authority.

Now, sir, I submit to the gentleman over the way, whether striking these words out, would not simply have the effect, so far as we can discharge, of discharging the Federal Government from this Constitutional obligation, upon our demand, to interfere in case of .Page147 domestic insurrection, and not only must it apply in the case of Harper's Ferry, but it must even apply to the very points instanced by the gentleman himself, Fort Monroe. Domestic insurrection might threaten the peace of Virginia there, and it may be necessary that the Virginia authorities should call upon the Federal authorities, to interpose their military arm there, in order to suppress insurrection against the authorities of the State of Virginia. I think, then, that the apprehension of my friend is unfounded ; that there is no possibility that a case can arise in this connection, which would be misapprehended to our injury; but a case might easily arise when it would be important and right for us to make a demand upon the Federal authorities for their interposition.

I trust that the amendment will not be adopted.

I have submitted this amendment in no captious spirit and for no purpose to occupy, unnecessarily, the time of the Committee; and if I shall offer any other amendment, I shall do so in no other spirit than to place these resolutions in such a shape as I think they ought to be put in order to be adopted.

I listened to the remarks of my friend with much attention, but I cannot admit the force of his argument in reply to the objections which I made to that portion of the resolution which I propose to strike out. A provision is made under the Constitution by which insurrection is to be suppressed, and it is to be done by application to the General Government for the use of the military power of the country and of the militia to suppress it; and, if this clause is stricken out, it will not impair, in the least degree, the right to make application to the General Government, in case of necessity, for the use of the military power of the Government to aid us in the suppression of insurrection.

But this declares, not that it is the duty of the General Government to aid a State to suppress insurrection when that State shall call upon it for aid, but declares that the forts were established for that purpose ; when the act of Virginia, granting the territory upon which the forts are located declares, in plain terms, that it was granted solely for purposes of national defence. Mark the distinction between the purpose for which the forts were created and the duty of the Federal Government to suppress insurrection, when the power of the State is insufficient to suppress that insurrection. If it becomes necessary to call upon the General Government for aid to suppress insurrection, does it impair the duty of the General Government to respond to the call of Virginia? It does not in the least degree, in my judgment, .Page148 lessen the obligation of the General Government to render the aid necessary to suppress any insurrection which may arise, and which the State feels unable to suppress. Why, sir, the militia of the country, the military power of the country are left as subject to the control and direction of the General Government, as perfectly, for all the purposes of aiding the State, as they can possibly be under the Constitution, after this clause is stricken out; for this has no reference to the military power of the Government as a military power; it has no reference to the duty of the Government in regard to the militia; but alone to the forts that are established, and to the purpose of their establishment in the States in which they exist. How can we ascertain better the purposes for which these forts are established, than by looking at the act of the State which ceded the territory, and which declares the purposes for which they were established? And when you look at that, you will find it declares, that it was ceded solely for purposes of national defence, and when diverted or applied to any other purpose, that the territory retrocedes to the State; so that the very moment, under a strict construction of the language of the act granting this territory, at the very moment that these forts are used for any other purpose than national defence, they belong again to the State of Virginia, and are forfeited by the General Government.

Sir, a copy of the "Force Bill," is just handed to me, in which I find this language :

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of an act approved the 28th day of February, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, entitled 'an act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for these purposes ;' and of the act approved the third day of March in the year one thousand eight hundred and seven, entitled 'an act authorising the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States in cases of insurrection,' are hereby extended to the case of insurrections against the authority of the United States."

Now, sir, suppose that we resist—suppose Virginia makes resistance

for I do not understand that the Federal Government concedes the right of a State to secede or resume her delegated powers—suppose Virginia shall make resistance, is she not then, in the estimation of this Government, an insurgent against the authority of the United States? And the very forts established here by her authority, solely for the purpose of national defence, become the common arm of power of the .Page149 General Government, to suppress insurrection against that Govern ment which may be committed by the State of Virginia.

But if I am not right in that, it is humiliating to Virginia—mortify ing to her pride; it is lowering her proud crest for her to assert that she ceded to the General Government, and procured the establishment of forts within her borders to protect her against a servile insurrection that may occur within her borders. I regard the amendment as an important one. I will not further occupy the time of the Committee in discussing it, but will leave it with the Committee to act upon it as in their judgment they shall deem best.

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. FLOURNOY,

Mr. GOODE, of Bedford called for the yeas and nays upon its adoption.

The call was sustained, and the question being put resulted, yeas 68, nays 63, as follows :5The Journal refers to and lists only 61 negative votes.

YEAS--Messrs. Ambler, Aston, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, .Branch, Bruce, Cecil, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, John Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Peter C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Neblett, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Whitfield, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-68.

NAYS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Armstrong, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Gray, Goggin, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spur-lock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Wickham, Willey-63.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The amendment just adopted makes it necessary to strike out also the 16th line which reads :

"And when no symptoms of domestic insurrection appear."

I would suggest to the gentleman that it will read better by striking out all after the word "and," and to substitute the word "and" for the word "but."

To render these amendments intelligible, we annex the section :

"The sites of the federal forts, arsenals, &c., within the limits of the States of this Union, were acquired by the Federal Government, and .Page150 jurisdiction over them ceded by the States, as trusts, for the common purposes of the Union, during its continuance; and upon the separation of the States, such jurisdiction reverts of right to the States, respectively, by which the jurisdiction was ceded. Whilst a State remains in the Union, the legitimate use of such forts, &c., is to protect the country against foreign force, and to aid in suppressing domestic insurrection. To use, or prepare them to be used to intimidate a State, or constrain its free action, is a perversion of the purposes for which they were obtained; they were not intended to be used against the States, in whose limits they are found, in the event of civil war. In a time of profound peace with foreign nations—and when no symptoms of domestic insurrection appear—but whilst irritating questions of the deepest importance are pending between the States—to accumulate within the limits of a State, interested in such questions, an unusual amount of troops and munitions of war, not required for any legitimate purpose, is unwise, impolitic and offensive."

I hope the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. FLOURNOY] will withdraw that amendment. I think his last motion is not consistent with his first. I hope he will withdraw it.

It occurs to me that I am right; but, as there is a different opinion about it; if it affects the force of the amendment, I will not insist upon it. I withdraw it, sir.

I propose to amend this section in the 20th line by striking out the words "unwise, impolitic and," and adding to the section after the closing word "offensive" these words, "and ought not to be tolerated by a free people."

It seems to me when the Committee read the 8th section, which, if adopted, would pledge the people of this Commonwealth to resist every attempt on the part of the General Government to exert its power for the purpose of subjugating such States as may choose to exercise its sovereignty by seceding from the Union, I say, sir, it seems to me, in view of the language of that section, that these words, in the 5th section, are not so expressive as they ought to be. We should, in my opinion, substitute for them a declaration, that if such an attempt is made that it ought to be resisted by a free people.

I presume the point of the amendment is fully understood and I do not, therefore, deem it necessary to elaborate it.

Mr. SPEED, after some conversation, modified his amendment as follows : to strike out the words, "is unwise, impolitic and offensive," and to insert the words, "is offensive and ought not to be tolerated by a free people."

Have I a right to call for a division of the question?

The question is perfectly divisible.

Then I call for a division of the question.

My object is to save time, and if it will accommodate the gentleman over the way, as it will equally answer all the ends I have in view, with the permission of the Committee, I will modify my amendment by proposing to add, at the end of the section, the following words : "And ought not to be tolerated by a free people."

Mr. MONTAGUE demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question was then taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 58, nays 80, as follows :6The Journal lists 53 affirmative votes, which is the actual count of affirmative votes in the Proceedings. The Journal has Carter among the 80 negative votes it lists.

AYES-Messrs. Ambler, Barbour, Blakey, Boissseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Cecil, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Cox, Critcher, Echols, Fisher, Graham, J. Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Johnson, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Robert H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-58.

NOES-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spur-lock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Tredway, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey-80.

The question now recurs on the resolution as amended.

I desire to offer the following amendment, and I wish to call the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to the amendment that I propose. It is a matter of taste as much as anything else.

The resolution now reads :

"The sites of the Federal forts, arsenals, &c. within the limits of the States of this Union, were acquired by the Federal Government and jurisdiction over them ceded by the States, as trusts, for the common purposes of the Union during its continuance; and upon the separation of the States."

I propose to strike out "during its continuance and upon the separa tion of the States," and to insert in lieu thereof the following:

"And upon the Federal Government ceasing to execute the trust." So that the resolution as I propose to amend it would read,

"The sites of the Federal forts, arsenals, &c. within the limits of the States of this Union, were acquired by the Federal Government, and jurisdiction over them ceded by the States as trusts for the common purposes of the Union, and upon the Federal Government ceasing to execute the trust, such jurisdiction reverts of right to the States respectively, by which the jurisdiction was ceded."

The section speaks of a trust being created and I conceive, whenever the General Government ceases to execute the trust, from any cause. that it reverts as a matter of right to the States.

I would inquire of the mover of this amendment whether he stated that he offered it as a matter of taste.

I called the attention of the Chairman to it and I stated that it might probably to some extent be a matter of taste. The General Government may cease to execute the trust for more causes than are assigned in the original resolution. The amendment I offer covers the whole ground, and provides that whenever the Federal Government from any cause ceases to execute the trust, either by being interfered with, or by the separation of States or from any other cause, their jurisdiction reverts as a matter of right to the States.

I oppose that amendment with all my might. It has something more than mere taste in it; there is something more than the gentleman named in it. As the report stands, I agree with the proposition of the committee, which commends itself to me upon the ground that it does acknowledge the act of separation of the States, and does admit that, under such separation, the forts do revert to the States by virtue of their own act of separation. The gentleman's proposition is meant to deny that, and it smacks to me of war. It is. in fact, an avowal of a proposition that the Federal Government has the right, after separation, to insist upon the occupation of the forts.

I had no idea of getting into a war. We have been hearing of war and bloodshed ever since we assembled here. I trust we will cease hearing of these bloody conflicts. I simply designed, by my amendment, neither to affirm nor deny the right of secession, or the right of jurisdiction reverting upon the secession of a State; but I intended simply to declare, that whenever the Federal Government, from any cause, ceased to perform its part and execute the trust confided to it, the State ought of right to assume jurisdiction over the subject.

The question was taken on Mr. BROWN'S amendment, and it was rejected.

Do I understand from the Chair that it would be in order to move to strike out the whole section?

It would be in order.

I propose to strike out the whole section, and I would like to have my name recorded in favor of striking it out, and therefore I will ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was then taken and the Committee refused to strike out the section—yeas 14, nays 115 as follows : 7The Journal lists 114 negative votes, adding the names of Custis and Fugate to those given in the Proceedings.

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Burdett, Burley, Carlile, Dent, Early, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Lewis, McGrew, Patrick, Porter, Tarr-14.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, J. Barbour, Baylor, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boggess, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Cecil, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., Hale, A. Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Hull, Hunton, Isbell, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, McComas, McNeil, Macfarland, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Masters, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-1 1 5.

I now move that the Committee rise. It is very desirable that we should take a vote in the Convention.

The question was taken and the motion was not agreed to. The 6th section was then reported as follows :

"Deeply deploring the present distracted condition of the country, and lamenting the wrongs that have impelled some of the States to cast off obedience to the Federal Government, but sensible of the blessings of the Union, and impressed with its importance to the peace, prosperity and progress of the people, we indulge the hope, that an adjustment may be reached by which the Union may be preserved in its integrity, and peace, prosperity and fraternal feelings be restored throughout the land."

I understand that it is in order to move a substitute for that whole section. As I am thoroughly opposed to every enunciation in it, except the one contained in the first line, I propose to offer the following substitute for the whole of it :

"Resolved, That an Ordinance of Secession, resuming the powers .Page154 delegated by Virginia to the Federal Government, and providing for submitting the same to the qualified voters of the Commonwealth, for their adoption or rejection at the polls in the spring election in May next, should be adopted by this Convention."

Mr. Chairman, there is but one provision in this sixth resolution that I approve. I do deeply deplore the present distracted condition of the country, and after saying that much, I utterly dissent from every solitary provision in this section. The section goes on to say :

"Deeply deploring the present distracted condition of the country, and lamenting the wrongs that have impelled some of the States to cast off obedience to the Federal Government."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I utterly dissent from the opinion expressed there, and the declaration made by this Committee, that the States are bound to obey the Federal Government. The Federal Government, in my opinion, is bound to obey the States. The States are parties to the compact that made the Federal Government their agent, and the States have the right to control the Federal Government. I utterly dissent from the doctrine, that under any circumstances, at any time, the Federal Government had the right to enforce obedience upon the States that created it. There is the great mistake, in my opinion, that this Committee of twenty-one have made. I am one of those who believe that the States have the right, in their judgment, if they choose, to put an end to this government. I do believe that this government is now ended; that it is not a government to which seven States owe obedience now, and that they did not owe obedience to it before they withdrew from it.

So much for that point. I have only ten minutes, a very limited time, in which to explain an amendment, much less to argue the great question of secession.

Another thing I wish to say here. I utterly dissent from the position which the Committee take here, that we are sensible of the blessings of this Union, for, if they were blessings which I was sensible I had derived from this Union, I would not now occupy the position that I do; nor would those States which have withdrawn from this Union, if they also were sensible of the blessings of the Union. It is because this Union does not extend blessings to those States, that they have withdrawn from the Union, and it is because I do not think that the Union extends blessings to the State of Virginia, that I am for following their example. Nor do I believe that the committee of twenty-one is right when they say, "but sensible of the blessings of the Union, and impressed with its importance to the peace, prosperity and progress .Page155 of the people," &c. I believe the case is exactly the reverse. I do believe that the prosperity and progress of the people have been curtailed by the operations of this Government, and I do not believe, if we remain in this Government, that the peace of the country would be promoted by it. I think that the only way to preserve the peace of the country is for Virginia to get out of the Union.

There is another position in this resolution that I dissent from just as strongly. I indulge no "hope that an adjustment may be reached by which the Union may be preserved in its integrity." I don't believe that the Southern States will ever come back into this Union under any proposition which you can get the North to adopt. I do not think they ought.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken this, the first opportunity I could get to offer these propositions of mine, because I expected they would be voted down when the vote should take place. Is my time up, sir?

Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I propose to amend that amendment, if it is in order, by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting the following—

Mr. Chairman, this being an important matter in the deliberations of this body, and the point of all our labors, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was put and the Committee refused to rise.

Mr. GOGGIN'S amendment was then read, as follows :

1.3.4. AN ORDINANCE OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

"Whereas, the State of Virginia has made every honorable effort to restore the friendly relations which should exist between the General Government and the several States of the Union upon terms perfectly just to all, but deeming it unnecessary to refer to the causes of complaint which have existed for a series of years, still more aggravated as those causes now are by the declared purposes of a mere sectional majority—and as all the efforts so made have proved unavailing without reciting the differences of opinion which exist in regard to the powers of the State Government, or those of the Government of the United States, as derived from the reserved rights of the one, the constitutional authority of the other, or the inherent rights of the people, constituting a Government which seeks to protect the persons and property of those who compose and who have ordained and established it, against the abuses of such Government itself, or which arise from its connection with the Government of other States, or that .Page156 of an association of States, the people of Virginia, in Convention assembled, deem it proper now to declare that the time has arrived when it becomes them to assume, as they do, their position as the people of a sovereign independent State.

1. Be it, therefore, ordained by the people of Virginia, and they do hereby declare, That the said State is no longer one of the Union of States known as the United States of America, and that the people of the said State owe no allegiance or duty to any Government what- soever.

2. Be it further ordained, and it is hereby declared, That the people of the said State do resume all the rights of property, or the use thereof, which have been granted by the said State to the Government of the United States, or which have in anywise accrued to the same by reason of the connection of the said State with the said Government, by the assent of the said State, given with a view to the protection of her own people, and the people of all the other States, composing a Union formed under an agreement that it should establish justice—insure domestic tranquility—provide for the common defence—promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity—that agreement having been violated, and the objects of the Union perverted so as to defeat the purposes of justice—to destroy the very foundations of domestic tranquility—to lessen the means of common defence—so as to disregard the objects of the general welfare of one entire section of the Union, and thereby to entail, in that section, injury and oppression upon the people thereof, and for their posterity forever.

3. And without determining, at this time, whether the State of Virginia will unite herself with any other State or association of States, in any common government, this Convention doth respectfully and earnestly request that the States of North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Arkansas and Delaware will, as soon as possible, appoint commissioners to meet commissioners to be appointed by the people of this State, in the city of Lexington, in the State of Kentucky, on the last Wednesday in May next, to confer together, and to propose a plan of constructing a Government to be formed by the said States, Virginia inclusive, and the Confederate States of America. Such plan of Government, however, to have no binding authority till the same shall be adopted and ratified by this Convention and by the people. And for the better accomplishment of the objects intended, the said Confederate States of America are also respectfully requested to send three commissioners to the Conference .Page157 herein proposed, who shall be invited, at such time as may be agreeable to them, to address the same. That each of the States herein-before named, shall be entitled to as many votes as it had Representatives and Senators in the last Congress, in the Conference herein proposed. That the Commissioners to be appointed by the people of this State shall make report to the Governor of this Commonwealth, as speedily as possible, of the result of their deliberations—whereupon he shall make known the same by proclamation. That on the 15th day after the date of such proclamation (unless the same be Sunday, then on the next day) , this Convention shall re-assemble in the city of Richmond, at such place as the Governor shall designate in said proclamation, and shall then and there consider the report of the said commissioners, and all other matters which at this time are, or may then be, proper subjects for deliberation, touching the future relations of the State of Virginia to any other Government or State, and for the submission of the action of the Convention to the people.

4. And it is hereby ordained and declared by the people of Virginia, That they do recognize and acknowledge the independence and nationality of the said Confederate States of America; and that they will extend to the said States any aid which they, the said people of Virginia can command, or which may be necessary to enable the said States to maintain their independence, or against any coercive measures which may be adopted by the authorities of the. United States.

5. Be it further declared, That the people of Virginia have ever cherished an ardent attachment for the Union and the Constitution of the United States while it was the bond of peace and fraternity; and that it can now only be restored upon the original basis by an amendment of the Constitution through the primary agency of the nonslaveholding States themselves proposing suitable and sure guarantees, and by a full and unconditional, plain and positive recognition of the rights of property in slaves, as held under the laws of any of the States; so as also to obtain satisfactory assurances and guarantees, for the future, as to slavery in the District of Columbia; as to the powers of the Federal Government over African slavery, and the employment of slave labor in the forts, arsenals, dock yards, and all places ceded by the States for Federal uses; as to protection against excessive direct taxes on slaves; as to the rendition of fugitive slaves; as to the transit with slaves through any of the States by land or water, and of the right of transportation on the high seas of slaves from one State to another State or Territory; as to the protection of slave property in the .Page158 common territories of the United States; as to the better security of the independence of the judiciary, and for protection against unjust taxation in the form of excessive imposts laid upon foreign importations.

6. Be it further declared, That the people of Virginia, though they have taken their position, have an anxious desire to preserve peace, and would, therefore, regard any action of the Federal Government tending to produce a collision, pending negotiations for the adjustment of existing difficulties, as aggressive and injurious to the interests and offensive to the honor of this State ; and they would regard any action on the part of the Confederate States of America, tending to produce a like collision, as hurtful and unfriendly; and as leaving the people of Virginia free to determine their future policy.

7. Be it further declared, That the President of this Convention shall immediately cause copies of this ordinance to be forwarded to the Governors of each of the United States, as the same existed on the first day of December, 1860, to the President of the Confederate States of America, and to the President of the United States. And it is further ordained, that this Convention will proceed at once to provide at once for the election, by the people of this State, of fifteen commissioners to attend on behalf of this State, the Conference herein proposed to be holden ; and it is provided, also, that if commissioners shall fail to attend the said Conference, from the other States named in the third clause of this ordinance, so that the said Conference shall not be holden ; then the said commissioners from this State shall, in like manner, report the fact to the Governor, who shall make proclamation thereof, when also this Convention shall re-assemble at the time herein provided for.

8. But this Convention, anxious as it is to take no step to disturb existing relations, only so far as is necessary, but seeking to avoid any collision, doth suspend the operation of the second clause of this ordinance till such time as it may deem proper to enforce the same, and with a view to an adjustment of the pending difficulties, through the agency of the Conference herein provided for, and by a returning sense of justice among the people of all sections. And it is provided and hereby declared, that the people of North Carolina and Tennessee shall have the right of transit through the State of Virginia, to and from the city of Washington, till such time as final action may be had by the State of Virginia upon the report of her commissioners under the third clause of this ordinance.

I desire to know whether it is in order to move a substitute to a substitute?

Certainly, sir, it is perfectly in order. This is a substitute for one section of the entire report.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear one word, there is such confusion in the hall. I have tried to hear the question but have failed. I have not heard the proposition of the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] . I don't know in what light this is offered—whether it is a substitute for the whole report or only for the amendment. We have such great disorder in this part of the hall that I cannot hear.

The Chair has almost exhausted itself in endeavoring to preserve the order of the Committee.

Does the Chair decide that my amendment is in order?

Yes, sir, it is in order.

How is it in order? I have made that enquiry before.

The sixth section of the report of the Committee of twenty-one has been reported to this Committee of the Whole; the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] offers an amendment, and the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] offers a substitute for the gentleman's amendment.

It is offered, then, as a substitute for the gentleman's amendment?

Yes, sir.

And if the gentleman's amendment is rejected, then the question will be upon the substitute as competing with the sixth section of the report of the Committee?

Precisely, sir.

Now, sir, I hope the gentleman from Bedford will withdraw his substitute. It is in the form of an ordinance to amend one of the resolutions of a series of resolutions that are proposed as resolutions, some of which are adopted as resolutions. When you come to the ordinance in the second report of the Committee, I presume that this amendment will be in order. There is much in the proposition I would like to sustain, and yet as a whole, as it is proposed and as it stands, I cannot vote for it. It is not germane to the subject matter.

I would ask the Chair to have the amendment offered by the gentleman from Amelia reported.

The Clerk again reported Mr. HARVIE'S amendment.

Not having heard, and not understanding the purport of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Amelia, or the effect .Page160 it would have, or object sought to be attained by it, I offered the amendment which I have offered. But, now, understanding more fully what it is, I withdraw my amendment to that amendment, with the distinct understanding, however, that I do so with the purpose of still introducing it at another time.

I object to the gentleman's withdrawing it; I want to vote it down.

Can the question of order be now raised? It is in reference to the reception of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Bedford. As I understand it, unless the Chair has decided that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Bedford is in order, the objection cannot be made.

The Chair decides that it is in order.

I was in hopes the Chair would not decide it in order, for good reasons which I think the Chair will see at once. I think the proposition is entirely out of order.

I move that the gentleman from Bedford have leave to withdraw his proposition.

That is the question which the Chair was about to put.

The question was then put, and Mr. GOGGIN was permitted to withdraw his amendment for the present.

The question recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , to the 6th resolution.

As it is about the usual hour for the Committee to rise, I move that the Committee rise.

The motion was put, and the Committee refused to rise.

I hope the resolution will be reported now.

The Chair will state the question as soon as the Committee shall come to order.

The Clerk will again proceed to report the sixth resolution, if desired by any member ; if not desired, the Clerk will proceed to report the proposed substitute.

The Clerk then read again Mr. HARVIE'S amendment.

The question will now be upon striking out and inserting.

Is it the committee of twenty-one that is to bring in an ordinance?

It will be reported again, and the gentleman can put his own construction upon it.

The Clerk then read again the proposed amendment offered by .Page161, of Amelia, to the sixth section of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, as follows :

"Resolved, That an ordinance resuming the powers delegated by Virginia to the Federal Government, and provision for submitting the same to the qualified voters of the Commonwealth for adoption or rejection at the polls in the Spring elections in May next, should be adopted by the Convention."

Mr. Chairman, as I have proclaimed again and again, I proclaim now, that I am opposed to the immediate secession of this State for secession's sake. But, sir, I believe that there is one form of secession which may be proposed, that is the only thing upon earth, according the best of my judgment, which can accomplish the end which I aim at above any end in the world, of restoring the unity, the peace, the brotherhood and harmony of this great nation, of bringing back to Union the States remaining in the Northern and the States that have seceded in the Southern Confederacy. With the view of bringing in such an ordinance, and with this understanding of the vote, regarding it as a substitute looking to a better ordinance which I believe can be prepared, and which, at the proper time, I will submit to this body for what it is worth; in order to afford an opportunity of proposing a plan of re-union, or new union, or restoration of the Union, I shall submit that this Commonwealth shall take an independent stand, and make a proposition that shall bring back the old Union, or a better Union of all our sister States. Above all things on earth I desire to see this Commonwealth placed in that high, independent position that shall not save the old Union, not restore the old Union—for you all admit that it is to be amended, but that will enable her to tender to all an amended Union that shall be acceptable to all. When the Committee of the whole shall resolve itself again into Convention, I propose to offer such a plan as a substitute for the report of this Committee; and, with a view of reaching that end, not to be understood at all as voting for secession per se, I shall vote for this as a substitute, in order to open the door of opportunity to present the other ordinance.

I shall address myself to—

The gentleman from Campbell is not entitled to the floor.

I had supposed, sir, that under the rule of the House I was entitled to as much time as the gentleman from Princess Anne, if not twice as much.

Under the order of the Convention, when the .Page162 amendment was offered by the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , he had ten minutes to state his reasons for offering it, the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , had ten minutes to reply, and the gentleman from Amelia has ten minutes in replication.

I will give the gentleman from Campbell my time, if the House will allow me.

Cries of "go on, go on."

The gentleman cannot go on unless it is the pleasure of the Committee that he shall do so.

Nobody objects, sir.

If there is no objection, of course the gentleman can proceed.

I beg leave to object, as the gentleman is proceeding contrary to the rules of the House.

I desire to say, sir, that I am among the last, perhaps the very last member of this body who would ask any courtesy to be extended to me as a matter of favor; but I claim for myself the same right that is accorded to every other member on the floor; and I don't understand by what rule of courtesy or propriety, or by what rule regulated by any other influence the gentleman from Princess Anne or the gentleman from any other county is entitled to privileges that are not granted to me, supposing him to be the highest and myself to be the humblest member of this body.

The Chair assures the gentleman from Campbell that so far as the Chair is concerned, it recognizes perfect equality among every member of the House.

I believe I am entitled to the floor, am I not, sir?

Yes, sir.

I have a right I suppose to yield to another gentleman, if I choose, for explanation?

Will the gentleman from Amelia allow the clerk to report the order of the Convention?

It is impossible to hear with any satisfaction what is transpiring in this Committee, and with a view of offering a resolution in Convention which will obviate the difficulty hereafter, I move that the Committee, do now rise.

The motion was put and the Committee refused to rise.

The Clerk will proceed to report the order of the Convention.

The Clerk read the order as follows :

1. Resolved and ordered, That on Thursday, the 4th day of April

next, at 12 o'clock, noon, all debate in the Committee of the Whole upon the reports from the Committee on Federal Relations shall terminate, and the Committee shall at once proceed to vote upon the propositions before it, giving ten minutes to the member offering any amendment, and the same time to one member opposing it, for explanation, and ten minutes for replication.

2. That hereafter no member in the Committee of the Whole shall be allowed to speak more than once on the same proposition.

The question will be upon striking out the 6th resolution of the Committee and inserting the amendment of the gentleman from Amelia, and upon this question the ayes and noes are called.

The ayes and noes were then called upon the question to strike out and insert, which the Convention refused to do by a vote of 45 to 88, as follows :8In the Proceedings of April 9, page 370, Mr. Mallory noted that he had voted in the affirmative on Mr. Harvie's substitute to the 6th resolution of the Committee of Twenty-One. The Journal lists J. B. Mallory, W. C. Scott, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner and Tyler among the affirmative votes, giving a total of 45. In the negative votes, the Journal omits J. B. Mallory, but includes Coffman, Gray, Marshall and Marr, making a total of 90.

YEAS—Messrs. Ambler, Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Cecil, Chapman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Garland, Graham, Goggin, J. Goode, Hale, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Williams, Wise, Woods, Wysor-45.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, J. B. Mallory, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Tredway, Waller, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-88.

1.3.5. EXPLANATION OF VOTES

I have paired off with Mr. HOLLADAY, from Norfolk county; if I could vote I should vote aye.

I would state that Mr. GOODE, of Mecklenburg, and Mr. DULANY, of Fairfax, are unavoidably absent. I feel warranted in saying that Mr. GOODE would vote no, and Mr. DULANY, no.

I have been requested by Mr. MALLORY, of Elizabeth City, to state that he has paired off with .Page164, of Norfolk county, but if he were present, he would vote aye.

I would state that Mr. GRANT, of Washington county has been called home by sickness in his family, and has not yet returned. If he were here I would feel warranted in saying that he would vote no.

At the request of the member from Chesterfield [Mr. COX] , I have paired off with him; I regret that the arrangement was entered into. If I could vote I should vote aye.

For the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , in his remarks, I shall vote aye.

I wish to state that Mr. GREGORY, of King William, is absent from the city. If he were present, I believe he would vote aye.

My colleague, Mr. SAUNDERS, is prevented from being here on account of serious illness. If he were present he would vote No.

The question recurred upon the adoption of the 6th resolution.

I propose to amend this 6th resolution, by striking out the words "to cast off obedience to the Federal Government," and inserting in their place, "dissolve their connection with the Federal Government." The section now declares that we deplore the wrongs "that have impelled some of the States to cast off obedience to the Federal Government." I do not propose to recognize obedience to the Federal Government, and therefore, I prefer the words "dissolve their connection."

I wish to submit to the Chair whether the refusal to insert the substitute which has been offered for the whole section does not, in fact, adopt the section so that it can now only be amended by addition.

A motion to strike out and insert, if carried in the negative, does not necessarily adopt the first proposition. Another motion to strike out the whole resolution and insert a substitute for it would still be in order, but the Chairman does not think that a motion to amend the original section, in part, would be in order.

A MEMBER moved that the Committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the Chairman [Mr. SOUTHALL] , reported progress.

1.3.6. CHANGE OF PLACE OF MEETING

I understand that we are now paying $125 a week for the use of this hall, $25 extra if the gas is lighted even for a few minutes, and for the additional reason that we are laboring under great difficulty here from the confusion that necessarily prevails in so large a Hall I submit the following resolutions :

Resolved, That in the event of the adjournment of the legislature to-day this Convention will meet on to-morrow and thereafter in the Hall of the House of Delegates.

Resolved, That the services of the Assistant Doorkeepers be hereafter dispensed with.

I presume the services of the Assistant Doorkeepers will not be necessary in that Hall.

I would suggest to the gentleman offering that resolution, the propriety of so altering it, that it shall take effect from Monday next. Our contract for this Hall is by the week, so that the two remaining days of this week will make no difference in the expense. I would suggest the change for another reason. I was at the Capitol this evening and gave directions to the employees in attendance, to have the Hall put in perfect order. I was informed that it is in so bad a condition that it would take at least two days to put it in order; I, therefore, hope there will be no provision for our going there before Monday.

With that statement, understanding that no expense could be saved by going to-morrow, I will so modify the resolution as to make it take effect on Monday.

I trust the gentleman from Highland will strike out the additional resolution, which dispenses with the services of the Assistant Doorkeepers, or any of the officers of the Convention. We can very well determine, when we get into the Capitol, whether their services are needed, and, if not, we can then dispense with such as are not needed. I trust the gentleman will withdraw that resolution.

I am willing to withdraw the latter resolution for the present, though I give notice that I shall renew it again; for I understand that we can dispense very well with all of them.

I would suggest the further provision, that when the Convention adjourns on Saturday, it adjourn to meet in the hall of the House of Delegates. And I would suggest, further, that as his resolution still reads, it makes our adjournment to the Capitol dependent upon the adjournment of the Legislature, I suppose if the resolution is not to take effect until Monday, that is not necessary.

When the resolution was offered, that provision was put in, to meet a contingency that might possibly arise, if we changed our place of meeting to-morrow. I suppose the condition is not necessary if the resolution does not take effect until Monday, and I will, therefore, omit it and add the other provision, suggested by the gentleman from Greenbrier.

The resolution, as modified, was then read as follows :

Resolved, That this Convention will meet on Monday next, and thereafter, in the Hall of the House of Delegates; and that when the Convention adjourn on Saturday next, it adjourn to meet in said Hall.

I desire to know whether it is certain that the Legislature will adjourn before Monday next?

I think I can answer that question. There is very great doubt whether a quorum of the Senate is remaining in the city at this time. The Senate suspended their business this morning until half-past seven this evening for the purpose of giving the committee on enrolled bills an opportunity of finishing up their business. The Legislature will certainly adjourn to-day.

The resolution, as modified, was adopted.

1.3.7. TAXATION QUESTION

I believe the first business in order is the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . I understand the gentleman who holds the floor upon that resolution is willing to yield it for the purpose of having a vote taken upon it to-night.

I am willing to yield the floor for that purpose.

For the purpose, then, of having the vote taken to-night, I move the previous question.

I hope that motion will be withdrawn.

Another gentleman who sits near me, and who is deeply interested in this question, desires also that I shall withdraw the demand, and I will therefore withdraw it.

Some time since I raised a point of order upon the reception of this resolution, which I believe the Chair has never decided. If he decides the point not to be well taken, I then desire to offer a substitute.

The Chair remembers that his attention was called to it, and that he intimated at the time that the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia were in order, because they covered .Page167 ground not occupied by those of the gentleman from Jackson, which now lie on the table. That is the decision of the Chair.

I desire then, to offer a substitute for the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia. I do it for the purpose of bringing before the Convention this question of taxation, simply desiring, as I do, that it shall be treated alone, without any connexion with any other question whatever. I move to strike out the resolutions now pending and to substitute in lieu thereof, as follows :

"1. Resolved, That it is expedient and proper that the 23d section of the 4th article of the Constitution of this State shall be so modified, that slaves, like other property, shall be taxed without exemption, and according to value, and that no exemption of any property from taxation shall be had without the vote of a majority of all the members elected to each House of the General Assembly.

"2. Resolved, That a Committee, to consist of thirteen members, to be selected from the different sections of the State, be appointed, who shall report to this Convention such amendments to the Constitution of the State, as will effect the object indicated in the foregoing resolution."

I desire that these resolutions may be adopted, for the further reason that they indicate the manner in which the Committee is to be selected. I demand the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the substitute.

Is it in order to offer an amendment to the amendment?

It is.

I move, then, to strike out the resolutions of the gentleman from Jackson, and to insert as follows:

"That a Committee of 13 be appointed to inquire into, and report to this Convention whether any, and if any what alteration of sections 22 and 23 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth are proper to be made at this time."

Would a motion be in order to lay the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment on the table?

It would carry the original resolutions with it.

I do not desire to do that.

I move that the Convention adjourn.

The motion was agreed to, and the Convention thereupon adjourned, until to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, A. M.

1.4.1. BASIS OF TAXATION

I beg the indulgence of the Convention while I make an explanation which is due to my friend from Doddridge [Mr. STUART] , as well as to myself. Yesterday the hour for going into committee arrived while the gentleman from Doddridge was in the midst of his speech on the question of taxation. Yesterday evening, understanding from some friends of the resolution before the Convention that it was desirable a vote should be had at once, I submitted a few remarks, thereby cutting off, unintentionally, my friend from Dodd-ridge from his right to the floor. I trust that it will be the pleasure of the Convention to allow him, when the subject is again under consideration, to resume the floor and conclude his remarks, that he may not be prejudiced by an unintentional act.

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be the substitute offered by the gentleman from Gloucester [Mr. SEAWELL] to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

Mr. President, I feel that I should offer an apology to the Convention for detaining them on this question, but it will be recollected that I only had some fifteen minutes each morning before the hour of going into Committee of the Whole. Being anxious to proceed, without delay, to the business of the Convention, I was willing, at any moment, and am now willing to have the question submitted to a vote. I attempted, last evening, to get the floor to conclude my remarks, but was prevented by my friend from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] .

I desire now to set myself right in some things in which I may be misunderstood.

It will be recollected, Mr. President, that I said yesterday that my constituents were ready and willing to stand up in defence of the rights and institutions of the people of the Eastern portion of the State. In saying so, I did not wish to be understood as meaning that the people of the West were willing to take the course pressed by those whom we call the ultra men of the Eastern portion of the .Page169 State, but that the people of the West are sound on the question of slavery, and are willing, at all hazards, to demand and have secured to you your rights ; but I do not wish to be understood as being in favor of secession, or the constitutional right of secession. We believe in the right of revolution. We believe that when the Constitution has been perverted to our injury and oppression, we have the right to throw off the shackles and appeal to our natural rights. But revolution presupposes, in my opinion, a remedy, and if the fact of dissevering our connection from the Federal Government would be a remedy for the evils of which we complain, then we would be in favor of it. But I cannot see for my life how, under present circumstances, secession or revolution would be a remedy for the evils of which you complain. Will it relieve us from any of them? If we had to complain of the perversion of the Constitution by the Federal Government, to our injury and oppression, then revolution, if successful, would be a complete remedy. But if the complaint is in regard to the action of separate States, then secession from the General Government would be no remedy. If it were even successful, we would still find ourselves in identically the same position in which we now are. The institutions and laws of those States derogatory of the rights of the South, would still remain on their statute books.

The people of my district are in favor of contending for their rights in the Union. In that we go with our friend from Princess Anne. We all stand up as one solid mass of people to contend and fight for our rights in the Union. We believe that secession, instead of being a remedy for the evils complained of, would be an aggravation of those evils. The great question that has given rise to complaint is the slavery question. And I have told you that although we have no direct interest in that question, we were loyal and true to the interests of the people of the eastern portion of the State.

We take the position that slavery is right, legally, morally, and in every sense of the word. But the Convention will recollect that the sentiment of the whole civilized world, at this day, is arrayed against the institution of slavery, and it is nothing but the prestige and power of the General Government now that guarantees to the slaveholder his right. We find a large portion of the people of the Northern States standing up also to vindicate and support our rights. I believe that at this day there is a majority of the people of the free States in favor of the right of the Southern portion of the Confederacy to the institution of slavery.

They appeal to us to come to the rescue and help them to save the .Page170 Union. They have fought for our rights in days gone by, and now they appeal to us as friends, for whose rights they have ever stood firm and true, to come to their aid and help them to save the Union. If we pursue the course indicated here by the secession party, we will cut ourselves loose from our friends in the free States, and array them against us and our institutions. If we say to those in the North, who have heretofore stood up for our rights, "We will have nothing more to do with you," can you expect or hope to retain the good will and kind feeling of that people? No, sir. By pursuing this course, you will, in my humble opinion, drive from us our heretofore best and truest friends, and unite them in one solid mass against our institutions. Then we will have the whole world arrayed in sentiment against our institutions, with a power right on our borders three times our strength, made our enemies by our own acts. Can we expect our friends in the North to stand by us after we have destroyed our common Government and brought ruin upon them? It is hopeless to expect so. Then I hold that secession or revolution is no remedy for the evils complained of, but will tend as an aggravation of them, and will, if persisted in, lead to the extermination of slavery. I find, Mr. President, that I have no time left to discuss any other proposition before the Convention goes into Committee of the Whole, and, as I do not wish to pursue this course any further, I now yield the floor.

For the reasons indicated by me some time ago, I now move to lay the whole subject on the table for the present. I think its discussion premature and disastrous in the extreme.

Regarding this as a test question, I call for the yeas and nays.

I ask the gentleman to withdraw the motion to lay on the table, that I may submit a few remarks.

No debate is in order.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas, 55, nays 73, as follows:2The Journal refers to 54 affirmative votes, and lists the affirmative votes given here.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Carter, Chambliss, Conn, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Gravely, J. Goode, A. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Neblett, Nelson, Randolph, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Tyler, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Williams-55.

NAYS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Boyd, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Cecil, Chapman, Clemens, Coffman, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, .Page171 Dent, Deskins, Early, Echols, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Graham, Gray, Goggin, Hale, Cyrus Hall, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Peter C. Johnston, Lawson, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Masters, Morton, Moore, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, Chapman J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, F. P. Turner, Willey, Wilson, Woods, Wysor73.

So the Convention refused to lay the whole subject on the table. The Convention then went in Committee of the Whole, Mr. SOUTHALL, of Albemarle, in the Chair.

The Chair would avail itself of the present occasion to say that in the somewhat excited proceedings of yesterday evening, not altogether free from confusion, the Chair entertained a motion which, as soon as it was made, it was satisfied, it ought not to have done. It was during the pendency of the proposition of the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , to strike out the 6th resolution and insert his proposition as a substitute for the whole.

The Chair entertained as an amendment to that proposition, the motion of the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] to strike out the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] and to insert his proposition in lieu thereof. The Chair is of opinion that he should not have entertained the motion of the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] and was about to correct the error, when the gentleman withdrew his proposition ; so that no inconvenience resulted from the motion.

The Chair will now state, for the information of those interested in its opinions and decisions, that when an original proposition is pending, a motion is made by way of amendment to strike out the original proposition, and insert, say proposition "A," it is not in order to move to strike out "A" and insert proposition "B"—the friend of B, should intimate its character and object, and the friends of B would unite in voting down the amendment A, with a view of substituting B for the original proposition.

If it will be now in order, I will propose an amendment to the 6th resolution. I move to strike out the words "to cast off obedience to the Federal Government," in the third line, and insert in lieu thereof "to dissolve their connection with the Federal Government."

I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman by striking out the entire section.

It is not in order to move to strike out the whole section. The friends of the section have a right to perfect it.

When this amendment was proposed by the gentleman from Westmoreland [Mr. CRITCHER] , yesterday, it seemed to me to be a decided improvement both of the phraseology of the section and of the idea expressed. I merely rise to say that I shall cheerfully vote for the amendment which is proposed.

The amendment was agreed to.

I move to amend the 6th resolution by striking out the word "wrongs" in the second line, and substitute the word "causes."

I inquire of the mover of this, whether by the amendment he means to assert that there were no wrongs which compelled or impelled the withdrawal of some of the States.

I will answer the gentleman without hesitation.

I believe that there have been great wrongs inflicted upon Virginia and the other border States, but I don't believe that the seceding States have withdrawn for any such causes. I believe it is more a calculation of interest with them—that they believe they can profit by a disruption—and the wrongs set forth are mere pretexts intended to operate upon us.

I call for the yeas and nays upon that motion.

The call was sustained, and the yeas and nays being called, resulted —yeas 26, nays 107—as follows :

AYES-Messrs. Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Carlile, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Dent, Early, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, Masters, Moore, Patrick, Porter, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Tarr, White, Willey, Wilson-26.

NOES-Messrs. Janney [President] , Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, James Barbour, Baylor, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Byrne, Campbell, Carter, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Hale, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, .Page173 Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Hull, Hunton, Isbell, Marmaduke Johnson, Kent, Kilby, Lawson, Leake, McComas, McNeil, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Whitfield, Wickham, Williams, Wise, Woods, Wysor-107.

I desire to amend this 6th resolution by inserting in the sixth line, after the word "hope," the words, "provided the authorities at Washington shall maintain peaceful relations with the seceded States."

I desire to make but a few remarks in explanation of this amendment.

I cannot express any hope for any adjustment that will restore peace and unite this country again, unless the authorities at Washington shall maintain peaceful relations with the seceded States. I cannot express that hope, because I am ready myself, at any time when they shall undertake, under any pretext whatever, "to enforce the laws or reinforce the forts," or commit any other act within the seceded States of a coercive character—I say, in any of these events, I am ready to vote to dissolve our connection with this government; and not only that, but to pledge myself to resist that authority in the execution, as they may consider it, of the laws in the seceded States, which I consider nothing more or less than war.

It is due to myself, it is due to the constituency which I have the honor in part to represent, that I should make this statement; for the position which I have assumed is the same that I occupied when a candidate before them. I now say, that unless this or a similar amendment is adopted, I shall be under the necessity of voting against the whole resolution, because I have no hope of the reconstruction of the Government as it was, except on peaceful relations. I have no idea of recording my vote expressing any hope to preserve it upon any other terms. It is, therefore, sir, that I offer the amendment.

Will it be in order to move to add to the amendment proposed by the gentleman?

The Chair sees at once, that if the order of the House is to be strictly and technically construed, that a most serious inconvenience may result in the progress of the amendments to this report:

"All debate in Committee of the Whole shall cease at 12 o'clock on Thursday, and the Committee shall at once proceed to vote upon the .Page174 propositions before it, giving ten minutes to the member offering any amendment and the same time to one member opposing it, for explanation, and ten minutes for replication."

It seems, therefore, if the Chair is to look to the phraseology of this order of the Committee and to consider it according to its language, that no amendment to the amendment would be sustainable or allowed. The Chair did hope, after what passed yesterday, that members dissatisfied with this rule, this morning in the Convention would have had it changed and modified.

I was dissatisfied with the construction put upon that rule yesterday, but I was not here this morning, being necessarily absent. I understand the Chair now to say that that rule, which concerns the limitation of time to be consumed in debate and refers to persons debating any question, precludes an amendment that would otherwise be in order.

The Chair feels the difficulty, as he has just said, in deciding that question that the rule seems to be confined entirely to an amendment, opposition to it, and then a replication.

It confines and designates the persons who are to debate the amendment, but it does not exclude any amendment that would otherwise be in order.

The Chair would be very happy if it could be brought to that interpretation of the order. The Chair will make its decision, and it will be in order for any gentleman who differs from the Chair to take an appeal.

Will the Chair permit me to say one word upon this question of order, which has been raised by the Chair.

It is out of order, but the Chair certainly will indulge the gentleman.

I feel myself responsible for that order, and I beg leave to say that, little versed as I am in parliamentary law, I cannot think that the construction which the Chair seems disposed to put upon that order is the correct one. I submit that an amendment to an amendment is not the less an amendment. Now, the rule reads that when any amendment is offered, ten minutes shall be allowed to the member proposing the amendment to discuss it, ten minutes for a reply, and ten minutes for a replication. Why should not that rule apply as well to an amendment to an amendment, if such motion be in order, as to the original amendment? It must apply, unless the decision of the Chair involves this proposition, that an.Page175 amendment to an amendment is not an amendment at all. I ask the Chair, without deciding the question—I do not understand that the Chair has decided it positively—to re-consider his opinion, that I may not be driven to the necessity of appeal.

The Chair will decide that it will receive the amendment, because the author of the resolution gives it a different interpretation, and the Chair is satisfied that its interpretation would work more inconvenience and perhaps injustice, and, therefore, the Chair will decide to receive the amendment, and the Chair hopes that any member who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Chair, will take an appeal, so that the sense of the Committee can be ascertained.

I want simply to inquire what the decision of the Chair is—whether it conforms to the views of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] ?

Distinctly.

I desire to know, under the construction which the gentleman from Frederick has given to this resolution, whether the limit as to the time is to be applied to the amendment, to the amendment, as if no amendment were offered at all.

It applies to any amendment.

I desire to say, that under the strict phraseology of that rule, the Chair, in my opinion, was right.

I propose to add to the sixth resolution of the report of the Committee, the following words :

"And not seek to accumulate, within the limits of any Southern State, an amount of troops or munitions of war not required for the purpose of external defence."

I beg to call the attention of the gentleman from Pittsylvania [Mr. SUTHERLIN] , and the gentleman from Lynchburg [Mr. SPEED] , both, to the 5th and 12th resolutions. I shall be compelled to vote against both of the amendments offered by these gentlemen, because the amendment of the gentleman from Pittsylvania [Mr. SUTHERLIN] is provided for expressly and fully in the 12th resolution, which declares "they will expect, as an indispensable condition, that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States." That, of course, necessarily implies the idea, unless that pacific policy be adopted, that we cannot hope for the continuance of peace and progress.

As regards the last amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lynchburg [Mr. SPEED] it seems to me to be but a repetition of the amendment offered by him to the 5th resolution, when he moved .Page176 to add after the words "unwise, impolitic and offensive," the words "not to be tolerated by a free people."

I understand that question to be decided substantially already by this Committee.

I do not understand that the decision made yesterday was necessarily an exclusion of the amendment that I propose now. The 5th resolution declares that "An unusual amount of troops and munitions of war, not required for any legitimate purpose is unwise. impolitic and offensive." Why unwise, impolitic and offensive? Surely for some reasons, and the reasons will occur to members without stopping to suggest them. It does seem to me it would be idle to suppose, taking as an example the other States, that we could have a peaceable adjustment of the difficulties now pending between this State and the other States of the Union, not seceded, if there were at Old Point Comfort, for example, an accumulation of troops and munitions of war, which this State understood was carried there for purposes connected with the administration of the Federal Government in its external affairs, but for the purpose,3There seems to be some omission in this sentence, as the speaker must have meant to say something like "but which, on the contrary, were carried there for the purpose." and there could be no other purpose, of intimidating and preventing Virginia from following the policy that she might be disposed to adopt. I do believe it is indispensable as a condition to a settlement of this question, not only that there shall be no attempt to coerce the seceded States, but. further, that there shall be no attempt by actual intimidation, or by any measure which might be regarded as such, to operate upon the State of Virginia or any other State. Those who concur with me in opinion, ought to express that opinion by voting for the amendment.

I wish to add a word in reply to the gentleman from Rockbridge [Mr. DORMAN] . He says that the amendment I offer is provided for in the 12th resolution. The 12th resolution is not yet adopted. Even if that resolution had been adopted, it only asserts a principle, and the amendment I offer asserts another principle. It says, unless this relation is maintained, that we cannot express the hope of the re-construction of this government and the preservation of peace ; that we cannot even express the hope. I certainly cannot, and therefore, it is, that I insist upon the amendment. I saw in the papers this morning, that in all probability there will be an attempt made to reinforce the forts at the South; that in all probability the vote given here against immediate secession will stimulate that effort to re-inforce those Southern forts; and I, for one, who voted here yesterday against immediate secession, have no idea that it shall go forth to the world that I am in favor of maintaining this government by force. I shall .Page177 express that opinion here. I wish it to go forth as my opinion. I have no doubt that it is the opinion of a large majority of this Committee, that they cannot and will not express any hope here of a re-construction and preservation of this government, unless it can be done peaceably.

Mr. SPEED, demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question was then taken on Mr. SPEED'S amendment, and it was rejected; yeas 61, nays 75, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, J. Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Richard H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Garland, Graham, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., Hale, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, McNeil, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wise, Woods, Wysor-61.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Alfred M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, G. Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, J. Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-75.

The Committee have voted down the amendment of the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] , and I hope that they will now vote down the amendment of the gentleman from Pittsylvania [Mr. SUTHERLIN] . I think it must be obvious to every one who will take the trouble to read these resolutions in connection, that the purpose of both amendments is fully answered by the resolutions as they stand. I am sure that there is not a member of this body who does not concur entirely in the propositions announced by both the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment. The effect of proposing these amendments is, to some extent, to place the members of this body in a false position making them seem to vote against propositions in which all concur.

Now, sir, you have only to look to the resolutions, which precede these, to find an earnest protest against the accumulation of an unusual number of troops and of an unusual amount of munitions of war. The purpose intended to be subserved by the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] is already answered .Page178 by the fifth resolution. Then, sir, you have only to read the concluding paragraph of the sixth section to find that the purpose of the amendment of the gentleman from Pittsylvania [Mr. SUTHERLIN] , is answered, because there you will find that we indulge the hope that an adjustment may be reached, by which the Union may be preserved in its integrity, and peace.

Further than that, if you will turn to the 12th resolution of the series, it is emphatically declared that we regard it as an indispensable condition that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, "and that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority, nor to reinforce the forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States, nor recapture the forts, arsenals, or other property of the United States within their limits."

I can conceive that a purpose designed to be answered by both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment can be more strongly obtained than by the resolutions as they already stand.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLIN, and it was rejected.

I propose to amend this resolution in the fourth line, by striking out "the" before "Union." In the place where it is, it makes the Committee, in this resolution, utter a sentiment directly at war with almost the whole tenor of their report. On referring to subsequent resolutions in that report you will see that provisions are made for a state of things directly at war with the idea that we are convinced that the present Union—"the Union"—is a blessing to us. The use of such an expression here would be uttering an absurdity, would be giving utterance to an idea directly at variance with the ideas expressed everywhere else in the report. Moreover, sir, let me remark that my recollection is—and I have no doubt I will be sustained in that recollection by the other members of the Committee—that, as the resolution was prepared and intended to be reported by them, as it was actually shaped by the Committee, the word "the" was stricken out. It did not appear in the resolution as adopted by the Committee on Federal Relations. By what mistake it has come to be introduced here in the report, I do not know. It is sufficient, however, for the present, to see that it is here, and I move that it be stricken out.

I hope it will be stricken out by general consent. It is there simply by mistake of the Clerk.

Unless the Chair hears some objection, the article "the" will be stricken out before the word "Union," in the fourth line .Page179 of the report, so as to cause it to read "blessings of Union." The Chair hears no objection.

So the word "the" was stricken out, by general consent.

Mr. Chairman, I move to amend this sixth section, by striking out, in the second and third lines, the words, "and lamenting the wrongs that have impelled some of the States to dissolve their connection with," and inserting, "caused by some of the States having cast off obedience to." The section now reads : "Deeply deploring the present distracted condition of the country, and lamenting the wrongs that have impelled some of the States to dissolve their connection with the Federal Government," &c. If the amendment which I propose should prevail, the section will then read : "Deeply deploring the present distracted condition of the country, caused by some of the States having cast off obedience to the Federal Government." I do not concur with the Committee in the opinion that there have been any such wrongs inflicted by the Federal Government upon those States as justified them in casting off their obedience to it.

The CHAIRMAN stated the motion.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment be adopted by the Committee, it will be a distinct reversal of the proposition of the gentleman from Rockbridge [Mr. MOORE] , and of the gentleman from Westmoreland [Mr. CRITCHER] . I hope the Committee will not stultify itself by adopting the amendment.

The Committee then refused to adopt the amendment offered by Mr. CARLILE.

In the sixth line of the same section I move to amend by striking out the words "indulge the hope" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "earnestly desire," so as to make the section read, "but sensible of the blessings of Union and impressed with its importance to the peace, prosperity and progress of the people, we earnestly desire that an adjustment," &c. My reasons for offering this amendment are that there are many of us from whom hope has gone, and yet who earnestly desire a restoration of our ancient Union in its integrity, with guarantees just, honorable and safe to all. Therefore, I desire to place it in such a condition that those concurring with me in the opinion that hope is gone, may still be able to vote, expressing a desire that that state of things may be restored.

The question was stated by the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, sir, to find that my friend from Charlotte [Mr. BOULDIN] , is in such a hopeless condition. I trust, however, that it is only for a season that hope has bid .Page180 this country farewell. I trust that she will again re-visit our land. I am not quite as hopeless as the gentleman from Charlotte, and I am free to say that notwithstanding the gloom that now overhangs us, I have an abiding, confident hope that it is within the purpose of a benign Providence to unite the people of this land once more in the bonds of brotherhood. Whether effected, Mr. Chairman, by amendments to the present Constitution, or by amendments to the Montgomery Constitution, or by amendments to be proposed by these Border slave States, I repeat, that I not only have the hope, but I feel a confidence, that in one or the other of these modes, or in some other mode, the States that composed the United States of America, will again be united in strong bonds of fellowship. In respect to the amendment of the gentleman from Charlotte, I can perceive no objection to it whatever. The resolution now expresses the indulgence of a hope. The gentleman from Charlotte and some others, as he says, cannot, if this language is preserved, conscientiously vote for the resolution. It will not impair its force, it will not impair its strength, it will not render the resolution less expressive to substitute, "earnestly desire;" and sir, if it be the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Charlotte, as I trust it will, I shall desire that the vote upon this resolution shall be taken by the ayes and noes, that our constituents may know, and that the entire country may know, that notwithstanding all the excitement and all these various causes of heart burning, there yet abides in the bosom of this Convention, there yet abides in the bosom of the people of the State of Virginia, an earnest desire for the restoration of our ancient harmony.

The question will be upon the amendment.

I understand the gentleman from Fauquier to require the ayes and noes.

No, sir, not on the amendment; I said on the passage of the resolution.

Mr. BROWN, of Preston, called for the ayes and noes on the amendment.

The ayes and noes are now ordered.

The ayes and noes were then called, and the amendment was adopted by a vote of 131 to 5, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, Jas. Barbour, Baylor, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Clemens, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, .Page181 Couch, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Goggin, John Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Hubbard, Hughes, Hunton, Isbell, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Chas. K. Mallory, Jas. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Richardson, R. E. Scott, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-131.

NOES-Messrs. Ambler, Berlin, Boggess, Harvie, Neblett-5.

I move to further amend the sixth resolution in the seventh and eighth lines by striking out the words "preserved in" and inserting the words "restored to." That part of the resolution will then read, "earnestly desiring that an adjustment may be reached by which the Union may be restored to its integrity, and peace, prosperity and fraternal feelings be restored throughout the land."

I think, if my friend will allow me a moment, he will accept a slight amendment which I wish to propose. In order to avoid the recurrence of the word "restored," I propose to substitute the word "re-established," where the word "preserved" now occurs. So that the section will then read : "Earnestly desiring that an adjustment may be reached by which the Union may be re-established in its integrity, and peace, prosperity and fraternal feelings be restored throughout the land."

I merely wish to say that I am exceedingly anxious to make this resolution conform to the wishes of the gentleman, and I trust it will be the pleasure of the Committee to indulge the gentleman from Bedford in this amendment, which does not detract from the resolution in the slightest degree.

I ask for the ayes and noes upon that question.

Cries of "No," "no."

The call for the ayes and noes was not sustained.

The amendment of the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GOODE] , was accepted by the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] .

The question was taken upon Mr. SPEED'S amendment, which was then adopted by the Committee.

The question now is upon the sixth resolution as amended.

I have so much amendment to offer to the verbiage of this resolution, that, with a view to save time, I shall move to strike out the whole of it, in order to reach all the changes of language and terms that I propose, without changing, except in one respect, the sense of it. I shall propose to strike out the word "deploring," and insert the words "affected by" in the first line. I did not come here to deplore. I propose to strike out the word, "lamenting," in the second line, and to insert the word "resisting" the wrongs, &c.

After the word "Union" I propose to add the words "in its integrity." The latter part of the resolution I propose to change, not substantially, but altering the language, and then to add, "And Virginia should not offer or adopt any terms of adjustment which ought not to be acceptable to the Seceded States and restore them to the Union."

So that the resolution, if amended as I propose by the adoption of my substitute, would read :

"Deeply affected by the present distracted condition of the country, and resisting the wrongs that have impelled some of the States to dissolve their connection with the Federal Government, but sensible of the blessings of the Union in its integrity, and impressed with the importance to the peace and prosperity of the people of preserving its faith, we indulge the earnest desire that an adjustment may be reached by which peace, prosperity and fraternal feelings throughout the land may be restored ; but Virginia should not offer or adopt any terms of adjustment which ought not to be acceptable to the Seceded States and restore them to the Union."

I ask for a division of the question.

If we are to have a division of the question, I do not propose to say any thing until the vote shall have been taken on striking out. If that motion shall be adopted, I then propose to offer some remarks upon the matter which I propose to insert.

Suppose the motion to strike out is rejected will that have the effect of adopting the section.

It will, and no further amendment will be in order except by way of addition.

Then I will say what I have to say upon the motion as it now stands. I wish to give notice that if this motion shall prevail, I will then move an amendment such as I have in my hand to the tenth resolution.

I do object to placing ourselves in the attitude of standing aloof, as it were in this controversy between the States, and simply deploring and lamenting our condition. We have got something more to do, .Page183 as Virginians, than to deplore and to grieve. These wrongs which have impelled other States to secede from the Union, are your wrongs more your wrongs than those of any body else. You stand upon the frontier; you are in the front rank; in the vanguard; you are in the immediate presence of the enemy; in contact with their alignment; and what an attitude is it, when you come to the vital conflict; when the issue is the life or death of your institutions; of your social state; of your political compacts; of your republican existence what an attitude is it for you to stand in, your friends, behind you suffering less, further off from the enemy, less injured by the enemy than yourselves, cut loose from the Union—grant that they have been precipitate, that they have taken up your quarrels and theirs combined, the only complaint is that they have taken up the gauntlet rather too early for you—what an attitude, I say, is it that you should be standing here, shedding tears, declaring merely jeremiads of grief as if you were a mere spectator, standing aside, looking on in a contest in which you are not the greater and more responsible participant! Sir, you are obliged to say that you are affected by the present distracted condition of the country—affected more than to the extent and in the emotion of deeply deploring; you are deeply affected in interest, and you are deeply affected in other emotions; in more powerful emotions than grief.

You ought to be affected even to indignation. You ought to be affected even to anger. But here we stand, wiping our eyes and weeping, while our friends South of us are moving into action with hearts too steeled, with countenances too stern to be weeping, puling and wiping their eyes at a moment when we are over the very crater of a revolution.

Are you going to stand in that attitude?—the very women who are fit to be the mothers of Virginia's sons, will scorn you. Take, then, the attitude of manhood, not of old women. Make the declaration, firmly and manfully, that you are affected in all your emotions, in all your feelings, in all your passions, in all your thoughts, in all your interests deeply affected by the distracted state of the country; that you are not affected only in the single emotion of grief. Do not stop here saying over and over and over that you are wretched, urging again and again your lamentation over your woes; but say to your enemies, in the strain in which revolutionists ought to speak in which our fathers have set us an example of speaking—that you mean to resist—that you mean to resent these wrongs. They are yours; they are yours more than any body's else, because you have a larger interest in it than any .Page184 body else. You are more in the immediate presence of the enemy. I say to you that you ought to enter the lists like men, and meet the enemy at the half way mark. I will never stand when I see the enemy approaching outside my lines. By the God of Battles, when he threatens invasion, I will leap the half way mark and carry the war into the enemy's country. That is your true position; and when you take it, the enemy will either meet you and bring the issue to a conflict and the conflict to a final termination ; or, if you are armed, as God Almighty has armed us in this cause, with justice, the enemy will retire. No puling, no weeping. It is not only maudlin and mawkish to use this language, but it is to me positively offensive, it is nauseating. Then, as to the last. How much time have I, Mr. Chairman?

About one minute.

I could not say what I would say upon this latter point in one day, let alone one minute. I will give you that minute.

Thank you, sir. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman.

I did hope, Mr. Chairman, when under the rule of the Convention we had come to the point of voting upon these resolutions, that we had done with the King Cambyses views. Now, sir, I have no intention of replying to the eloquent remarks we have heard from the gentleman from Princess Anne, but I do trust that the gentlemen of the Committee will look for themselves at this resolution upon which they are now called to vote. If they agree with me that they do deplore the present distracted condition of the country; that they prefer peace to war, which I am sorry to find the gentleman does not, they will vote down the substitute he has offered, which does not accord with the general tone and current of the report of the Committee, and leave to be adopted this resolution, in every sentiment of which, I must say, I most heartily concur. I see no necessity for alteration. I confess I have not looked very particularly into the amendments proposed by the gentleman to see how far they would carry us, but I gathered enough as he read his substitute, to see that they do, to a considerable extent, change the tone and character of the resolution. Certainly, from the argument which the gentleman offered in behalf of his substitute, I could not really gather what his purpose was, but I am satisfied with the resolution as it stands, and I trust that the members of this Committee have so far examined it as to be satisfied with it, and that they will vote down the substitute of the gentleman from Princess Anne.

I believe I have ten minutes, and, Mr. Chairman, I will .Page185 take them myself. Why what has the gentleman urged? No reason, no argument. He has confessed that he did not understand the substitute at all. No, sir; but in his own King Cambyses vein he tells us—and he really ought to put both arms akimbo—that he thinks, really that the resolution ought to be adopted and that the substitute, which he does not understand, ought not to be. Is there no other argument than that? Yes, sir; one is intimated. He thinks that I have changed the tone of this resolution. That is precisely what I meant to change. To change an old woman into an armed man; a pretty material transformation. But, sir, my friend mistakes my tone and temper, when he supposes I am aiming at war. I am preparing only to keep the peace. That man of peace, imitating the Prince of Peace, George Washington, who nearer than any uninspired man on earth, imitated his Master in this respect, told us to be prepared for war. And you have need of it. Sir, a despatch this moment received, states that all correspondence with Washington has been cut off at Charleston; that supplies are forbidden to Fort Sumter, but that an attack will not be made until orders are received from Montgomery, unless an effort shall be made to reinforce.

Are we in this danger? Is the spark so near the magazine? And are we to stand here weeping and puling like women and infants, or are we to stand more erect than ever? Which position will best keep the peace? Which will best cause the Government at Washington to withdraw its forces in time? A tone of Virginia which shall speak authoritatively, at the same time that it speaks pacifically; or, an attitude of Virginia which shall look on "lamenting" at these immediate dangers, which are more than distressing or distracting—which is the destructive policy? Which best will keep the peace—the namby-pambyism of deploring and lamenting, or the assertion that this is our quarrel, and that we must take it up if hostilities shall be commenced? Which will best keep the peace—the gentleman's submissiveness and tears, or a position firm and moderate? There is certainly nothing intemperate in saying that we are "deeply affected," instead of "deploring;" and that we mean to "resist" these wrongs, instead of simply lamenting them. There is nothing intemperate in that. There is no voice of Sempronius there. Not at all.

But it is the latter clause of the amendment which affects my friend, and for which he cannot vote. He and I differ there toto ccelo.

He will stay in a Northern Confederacy without the South, and I tell him I will not. It may suit his views of policy and his sympathies to stay with the North when divided from the South, and to become a disunionist in that form; for it seems that one kind of disunionism is to .Page186 be sustained by gentlemen themselves, while another is not to be allowed. Division of the old Union, we remaining in the South, is disunion ; but division of the old Union, we remaining in the North, is not disunion. Now I cannot see the difference between the two species of disunionism.

Gentlemen who mean to slough off the Southern States, who mean to soothe us and pacify us in a mediatorial, or deploring, or lamenting position, rather than in the position of declaring the cause which really is our cause, to be our cause, and taking it up as more our cause than that of the seceding States, prefer, if the Union is to remain divided, to belong to the Northern portion. We desire to belong, where we belong naturally, physically, morally, socially, and politically South of Mason and Dixon's line, possessed of 500,000 slaves, pro-slavery, co-sufferers of wrong, and pro-South. That is our position; and there would be no great objection perhaps, on the part of my friend [Mr. ROB'T Y. CONRAD] , were it not that in changing the verbiage, I alter the tone and temper of his resolution, and append the addendum that we will take no terms that will not or ought not to be acceptable to our friends—to those who have shown themselves so strongly our friends as even to outleap us in our own cause, to pass us so far that we do even reprehend them for what is fashionably called their "precipitation."

The gentleman's ten minutes is out.

Well, I am about "out," too.

I call for a division of the question, and for the yeas and nays on the first branch of it.

The yeas and nays were ordered on striking out the 6th resolution. The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 57, nays 84, as follows :4The Journal lists 57 affirmative votes, among them L. S. Hall and Lewis E. Harvie ; the Enquirer seems to have telescoped these two names into "L. S. Harvie." The Journal lists 83 negative votes.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Carlile, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Richard H. Cox, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Leake, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Robert H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Alfred M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, .Page187 Kilby, Lawson, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Robert E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Southall, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, Chapman J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey-83.

So the Convention refused to strike out the sixth resolution.

Is it in order now to move an addition to that resolution?

If it does not affect the substance of the resolution it will be in order.

I would want to make no addition at all, if it did not affect it and add another idea to it.

In the opinion of the Chair it is not in order.

I do not want to change the matter which has been adopted. I do not want to take anything from the substance of it, but I want to put on additional matter.

The Chair has just expressed the idea that it is in order to add to here the resolutions as adopted, provided the addition proposed does not affect the substance of the resolution.

I propose to add this amendment :

"But Virginia should not offer or adopt any terms of adjustment that ought not to be acceptable to the seceded States and restore them to the Union."

I submit that the amendment is not in order under the ruling of the Chair. I understand that the vote on the motion to strike out has adopted the 6th resolution.

The Chair has an impression that the Convention has adopted some rule in regard to the subject which changes the manual.

I desire to submit another objection to the amendment, that the proposition has, in fact, just been voted upon by the Committee. It constituted a part of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Princess Anne, and the motion was to strike out in order to insert the substitute. Is it competent now to take a portion of that substitute and offer it as an addition to the resolution?

On that point the gentleman is unquestionably inexperienced in parliamentary law. He confesses to his inexperience, and when he makes such a proposition as this, it must be looked over. The rule is this. Here is the Parliamentary law adopted by this body :

"Any member may call for a division of the question, and it shall thereupon be divided, if it comprehends propositions in substance so distinct, that one being taken away, a substantive proposition shall remain .Page188 for the decision of the House; but, a motion to strike out being lost, shall not preclude a motion to strike out and insert."

That is one of the rules of the Convention. The Chair was acting, a little while back, on the manual, but as the Convention has changed the manual in that respect, of course the law of this Committee will be changed in conformity.

Permit me to say, too, that this is a different proposition, although it is in totidem verbis, the same one. Why? Because it is now disconnected from the other proposition. Non constat that gentlemen would not vote for it, standing alone, although they voted against it when connected with other matter.

Some of my friends appear to have been frightened by what I said in regard to leaping over the half way mark, and therefore did not vote for my amendment. I will say now, that I will only go to the halfway mark, and shall not go across the line.

Mr. BOISSEAU, called for the yeas and nays on Mr. Wise's amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 64, nays 74, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Garland, Graham, Goggin, John Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, McNeil, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-64.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Alfred M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Southall, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey-74.

So the amendment was rejected.

The question then recurred upon the adoption of the 6th resolution, as amended.

I call for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of that resolution.

The call was sustained, and the roll being called resulted, yeas 103, nays 31, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, Clemens, Coffman, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Early, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, Richardson, Robert E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Wilson, Woods-103.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bruce, Carlile, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Conn, Richard H. Cox, Fisher, Graham, John Goode, Hale, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Seawell, Strange, Williams, Wise-31.

So the 6th resolution was adopted. The 7th resolution in the report was then taken up, for consideration. It reads as follows :

7. To remove the existing causes of complaint much may be accomplished by the Federal and State Governments; the laws for the rendition of fugitives from labor and of fugitives from justice may be made more effectual, the expenditures of the Government may be reduced within more moderate limits and the abuses that have entered into the Administrative departments reformed. The State authorities may repeal their unfriendly and unconstitutional legislation, and substitute in its stead such as becomes the comity and is due to the rights of the States of the same Union. But to restore the Union and preserve confidence, the Federal Constitution should be amended in those particulars wherein experience has exhibited defects and discovered approaches dangerous to the institutions of some of the States.

I have another King Cambyses amendment to offer to this.

The 7th resolution reads :

"7. To remove the existing causes of complaint much may be accomplished by the Federal and State Governments."

And then the resolution goes on to state what may be done :

"The laws for the rendition of fugitives from labor, and of fugitives from justice, may be made more effectual."

What next?

"The expenditures of the Government may be reduced within more moderate limits and the abuses that have entered into the Administrative departments reformed."

What next?

"The State authorities may repeal their unfriendly and unconstitutional legislation, and substitute in its stead such as becomes the comity and is due to the rights of the States of the same Union. But to restore the Union and preserve confidence, the Federal Constitution should be amended in those particulars wherein experience has exhibited defects and discovered approaches dangerous to the institutions of some of the States."

Now, I propose to amend this by striking out all after the word "Governments," in the second line, to the word "Union," in the 10th line inclusive, so that the section will read :

"7. To remove the existing causes of complaint much may be accomplished by the Federal and State Governments. But to restore the Union and preserve confidence, the Federal Constitution should be amended in those particulars wherein experience has exhibited defects and discovered approaches dangerous to the institutions of some of the States."

I propose to offer an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Princess Anne.

When I am done, the gentleman will have an opportunity of offering his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of the amendment proposed, will be simply to state the general proposition which I presume is sufficient, that much may be done by the Federal and State Governments; but not content with stating the general proposition that much may be done to remove existing causes of complaints, by Federal and State governments, this resolution goes on to state, and means and may be understood to mean to state the material things that may be done. Sir, if that is the express or implied understanding of this resolution, I say that it has not begun to state what may be done even independent of amendments of the Constitution. I know that the first part of the resolution undertakes to state merely what may be done by the administrative department. In that point of view even, it is a pitiful statement, a meagre statement of the existing causes of complaint. And it .Page191 is but a meagre statement of the means of removing the existing causes of complaint.

What is the first?

Why the first complaint is only that about the glorious privilege of catching runaway slaves—one of the least, one of the last, one of the lowest of the rights that I claim upon this floor, or claim as a citizen of Virginia, or claim as a slaveholder, and that, sir, is stated only in the permissive sense.

What is next? I am sorry to say that in the next there is a seeming of petty party spirit, at a time when party spirit ought to be silenced and rebuked, even as Satan was rebuked to silence by the Saviour on the Mount. Every man ought to say to it : "Get thee behind me, Satan." Why turn from the great critical questions of the hour—why turn from the great, radical, fundamental, constitutional differences that exist between us—why depart from the great social questions that divide us, and go into a question passe more than forty years ago yes, forty-six years old? The question was started by the Democratic party against the Adams administration of 1824. Did our constituents expect that when we came to settle the differences between the North and the South, that we were to leave these great fundamental grounds—these great chronic and constitutional diseases—and treat the mere party questions of economy and reform? Is it meant as an imputation upon the last administration? God knows that I am not here to defend it. You have weightier matters to attend to—you have bigger questions than this to settle—you have more important work to do than the settling of the accounts of the Land office, the Treasurer's office, the Collector's office, the Postoffice, or the Pension office. Before you go into mere administrative measures, you had better settle the matter of life and death. Before you go into the matter of accounts with mere ministerial and executive officers, you had better settle whether you are to have a government with officers, high or low.

Then the third clause reads, "The state authorities may repeal their unfriendly and unconstitutional legislation."

"The state authorities may repeal"—not in the imperative sense shall, not in the sense of duty and obligation ought, but in the milder sense, the third degree still, in the permissive and elective sense, the States that have nullified the fugitive slave act, "may repeal their unfriendly and unconstitutional legislation." Sir, when South Carolina in 1832-'33 nullified, was that the language you used towards her? No. You not only were imperious towards her, but you were belligerent towards her. You flew to your halls of legislation and under the shield .Page192 of the popular Caesar of the day, with the Senate at his heels, you passed a force bill against her nullification; and now for nullification of the fugitive slave bill at the North, instead of declaring against their unconstitutional legislation in language imperative or authoritative, and instead of claiming obligations of duty from them, you want simply to say, softly, you may repeal your unconstitutional acts.

Sir, their unconstitutionality and their unfriendliness toward us may soon come up before the Supreme Court of the United States. Another judge is dead; another vacancy is in the Supreme Court bench. This morning the papers announce the death of John McLean of Ohio. Let the great majority that elected Lincoln, put upon his tomb that thus far John McLean was the only man in our history that has put Abolitionism and Freesoilism into the decisions of a judge upon the Supreme bench. I have no doubt that the majority of the North who are to fill these two places at a moment when death has stricken down the battlements that defend you, and the parapets of the Supreme Court—

Here the hammer fell.

Right exactly in the middle of a sentence. [Laughter.] Hurrah for the ten minutes rule.

I propose to amend the amendment by striking out the word "may" in the 4th line, and inserting the word "shall."

I beg leave to say to the gentleman from Princess Anne, that I am sure it was no part of the intention of any member of the Committee from which this report has emanated to incorporate in it one sentence, one word or syllable having the slightest reference to former party divisions. I confess that I am exceedingly at a loss, when I read this resolution, to perceive anything that can be tortured into such a construction as he has given it. We have heard complaints from gentlemen of all parties against the extravagance of the Federal Government. It is one of the chief causes of complaint alleged by Southern politicians, in justification of their secession movement. They complain of exorbitant tariffs and the rate of duties made necessary by extravagant expenditures; and it is of the unequal operation of high tariffs upon the Northern and the Southern sections of the country that the Southern people complain of. If you will read the debates in their recent Convention, you will find that they complain, not only of the extravagant expenditures of the Government, but of the unfaithful manner in which that government has been administered, not by this or the other party, but by all parties, who in modern times have exercised power.

The gentleman complained of the use of the word "may"—that it is "permissive." I would remind the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , that this word "may" has many significations, and that its signification in any particular case must be determined by the context in which it is used. Does he not know that in the same connections it has an imperative sense, and means "shall?" Does he not know that it may have the signification of "can," "should" or "shall?" And can any one read this resolution without coming to the conclusion that the sense in which it is used here is the imperative sense? Suppose you strike out the word "may" and insert "must"—would it change the sense of the resolution? Suppose you strike it out and insert "should"—would it change the sense? In the connection that the word is here used, I submit that it has the sense of "shall."

The resolution glances at certain causes of complaint, which it is supposed are within the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Government, which causes of complaint must be removed, in order to restore harmony. Does it not follow, therefore, that the true meaning of the resolution is that the action of these Governments must be such as to remove these causes, and I submit that though other words may be supplied, no other words will express the meaning, which is desired to be conveyed, more strikingly than the words objected to. Whether the Committee strike out the words in the manner proposed by the gentleman from Princess Anne, or retain them, I do not conceive to be a matter of any great importance. It seemed to me that these were prominent causes of complaint—the inefficiency of the Fugitive Slave Law, the want of that comity which States associated together in the same Union ought to extend to each other, and an extravagant Administration, and they have been pointed out by persons of all parties in the Southern Confederacy as prominent causes of complaint.

I beg my friend from Fauquier to remember that I did not impugn the motives of any one. I merely complained that one of the three modes which he points out for removing causes of existing complaint, might reasonably be regarded as introducing party contest. But, sir, as the gentleman has alluded to it, permit me to say, if there is anything in man that is as blind as an adder and that has an adder's sting in it, it is party. Unconsciously to itself, it will manifest itself in action in moments like these. Sir, I cannot but see and feel that it exists here, that its influence is all around me, and somewhat in me. Does the gentleman suppose, if the Southern States had been of different politics from what they are or have been, that there would have been a marked general distinction between us in the questions .Page194 that have arisen in relation to their secession? Do we not see the question of the tariff springing up on every side? Have we not seen internal improvements springing up like dragon's teeth in our path?

Have we not seen gentlemen on this floor consume hours in the mere party discussion of administrative questions? Sir, at the very foundation of the Government there was a party, that pure, plain Republican party, that told you for fifty or sixty years—that has been telling you all the time—that if you allowed the Federalists to set up towers like those which characterized their advent, you would share the fate of the builders of Babel tower. Has not the prediction been sadly fulfilled? Grasping at empire—to make plain, simple republicanism become "monarch of all it surveys"—whatever may be the motive, the question still remains, who is accountable for the shabby splendor of that overgrown government which now requires large expenditures, and resorts to high tariffs in order to have protection? Is it an offence, on the part of the South, that they have been democratically opposed to high tariffs, democratically opposed to spanning continents with iron railways from ocean to ocean, democratically opposed to large expenditures, and all the paraphernalia of "splendid misery" and "shabby splendor," to use the language of Mr. Randolph, of a consolidated central despotism? Why stick it in here? I do not allude to this matter for party effect. We stand here, Whig and Democratic, joining hands on other questions than those of mere party—joining hands on other questions than those of mere administrative import. How is it that a State that has kept a standing army to defend State rights, from 1799 and 1800 up to this moment, is now questioning whether she will stand on her arms or not? Sir, to the other gentlemen opposed to me in politics, I wish to be distinctly understood that I am repelling party issues. I want to drive them out of this report. I honor the Whig who is a professed State rights man, who comes to me and proves himself to be as good a State rights man as I am. By his fruit I will judge him, and by my fruit he will judge me. These are the times to try the temper of the steel that is in men. Democrats who have been preaching State rights all their life time, are now brought to the test of manly patriotism. And some of the Whigs that have been denounced as Federalists heretofore, prove themselves to be true State rights men—as true as I can claim to be. On the other hand, Democrats on this floor have been led captive to the precepts of Federalism. Thus we stand divided—not on questions of party, but of fundamental principles. But in my conscience I believe, if the South was not a Democratic South, if the South was not an anti-tariff

South, if the South was not for a plain, economical, administrative Government, the South would not encounter much of the opposition now manifested on this floor. Some of us would be better content to go over to a Southern Confederacy rather than to remain in a Northern Confederacy. Those motives do not govern me, and certainly I am not imputing those motives to my friend from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] . I have no right to impute them to him, and I wish it to be distinctly understood that all I ask him is, if he does undertake to enumerate the means to remove the causes of the existing complaints, that he will avoid even the appearance of partisan appeals, and that he will enumerate all the means. He says these are the more prominent means. He says these are the more prominent means to remove the causes of complaint. I deny it. They are among the means. Sir, I cannot go on to show what are the means.

The gentleman's time has expired. Gentlemen, it is proposed to amend by substituting the word "shall," in the fourth line, for the word "may."

The question was then put, and the motion was lost.

I ask for the ayes and noes on my amendment.

The question will be upon striking out, and upon that the ayes and noes are ordered.

The vote was then taken, and the motion to strike out was carried by a vote of 68 to 66, as follows :5The Journal lists 67 negative votes, adding Haymond and Summers to those given in the Proceedings.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gravely, Goggin, Jno. Goode, Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, McNeil, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Strange, Tayloe, Thornton, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Whitfield, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, McComas, McGrew, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Sutherlin, Tarr, White, Wickham, Willey-66.

Mr. CHAMBLISS, when Mr. SEAWELL'S name was called, said : I am requested, by Mr. SEAWELL, to state, that he was compelled to leave .Page196 the hall on account of indisposition.

The question now occurs on adopting the resolution as amended.

I move to amend the resolution by striking out the word "restore," in the tenth line and substituting the word "preserve." I take it for granted, sir, if the Union is broken up, confidence does not exist. I intend to follow this motion with another motion to strike out the word "preserve" in the next line, so as to make it read, "to preserve the Union and restore confidence."

I beg leave to say that if that amendment is adopted it will be directly in the teeth of the amendment adopted awhile ago to the sixth section. The word "preserved" in the seventh line of the Sixth section was stricken out, and the word "re-established" substituted. The Committee refused to entertain the idea that the Union could be preserved. It might be re-established ; and now the gentleman proposes to restore the word that has already been stricken out in this application.

I did not vote for the amendment in the sixth section; but it is not inconsistent to adopt the amendment I propose to the seventh section. As it reads in the sixth section it is to "re-establish the Union in its integrity." Now, sir, the Union may exist and yet not exist in its integrity, and I think the terms are not in conflict with the words I propose to substitute. I don't think the Union is at an end, and therefore I shall prefer that word and shall vote for it.

The question was then put, and the Committee refused to adopt Mr. EARLY'S amendment.

I move, sir, to amend that seventh resolution by an addition at the end. The latter part of the resolution, as it stands, reads :

"But to restore the Union and preserve confidence, the Federal Constitution should be amended in those particulars wherein experience has exhibited defects and discovered approaches dangerous to the institutions of some of the States." I propose to add : "And the people of the non-slaveholding States must abstain from all interference with the institution of slavery as it exists in any of the States or in any of the common territory; and there must be an entire abandonment of all the political organizations based upon the principle of hostility to Southern institutions."

The question will be upon the amendment.

This section, sir, undertakes to say that the Union may be preserved and confidence restored by the amendment of the .Page197 Constitution, when it is well known that the present distracted condition of the country has been brought about by the election of the Chief Executive of the United States.

The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the remarks of the gentleman from Goochland were interrupted, and the Committee took a recess till 4 o'clock, P. M.

1.4.2. EVENING SESSION

The Committee re-assembled at 4 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN stated the pending question to be upon the amendment offered by Mr. LEAKE as an addition to the 7th section, as follows ;

"The people of the non-slaveholding States must abstain from all interference with the institution of slavery as it exists in any of the States or in any of the common territory; and there must be an entire abandonment of all political organizations based upon the principles of hostility to Southern institutions."

I apprehend, Mr. Chairman, that the business of this Convention is to discover what is the disorder of the times, and to apply the proper corrective. I think it is admitted—not on all hands, for there are some here who deny it—that there is just cause of complaint of interference upon the part of the North with the institutions of the South—that there is a settled hostility on the part of a large majority of the Northern people to the institution of slavery, which is the cause of the present distracted state of the country. Now this section of the report of the committee says it is to be restored by amendments to the Constitution. Sir, when we look at the amendments which are proposed in another part of this report we fail to find any such amendment proposed as to at all reach the heart of the disease. In the amendments proposed by the distinguished gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , to the Constitution of the United States, if they should be adopted, there is to a considerable extent a remedy for the evils which cause the present disturbance of the public mind. Those amendments, in my judgment, if adopted, will be calculated to restore harmony and peace to the country. But, sir, the disease which has called together this Convention, which has given that disturbance to the harmony and peace of the country, strikes its roots deeper than any constitutional provision. It is not a mere functionary derangement; it is chronic, it is deep-seated ; it is necessary for the Northern people to correct their sentiments upon the subject of slavery, it is necessary that they should abstain from intermeddling with the.Page198 institution before any harmony or quiet can be restored. Sir, the State Government and Federal Government may do whatever belongs to them to restore peace and harmony, but it will be utterly impossible to accomplish, by any action of the State Government, or by any action of the Federal Government, a restoration of that harmony which ought to exist in a brotherhood of States, while sentiments are entertained, cultivated, encouraged and disseminated which are at war with the rights and institutions of one section of the country. Sir, no amendment has been propounded by any gentleman, which would reach that disturbance which occurred at the commencement of the first session of the last Congress of the United States, which was brought about by the effort of a part of the people of the representatives of the Northern States, to place in the Chair of the presiding officer of the House of Representatives a man who had endorsed that infamous book—the Helper Book—which had been put in circulation throughout the country for the purpose of stirring up the blood of the Northern people, and of the non-slaveholding portion of the Southern people, against the institution of slavery. No amendment of the Constitution of the United States can possibly reach a case of that kind. And again—no amendment to the Constitution of the United States can reach a case such as has but too recently transpired that of the election of a President of the United States, upon a question of sectionality and of sectional opposition to the institution of slavery. Is there any amendment of the Constitution of the United States which can prevent the President of the United States from sending to all the foreign governments, as ministers, men who are directly opposed to the rights and the institutions of the South, and who, at those foreign governments will use all their power for the purpose of slandering and injuring the institutions of the Southern people of the country in their estimation.

Sir, what amendment to the Constitution is it that can possibly reach a case of this sort? And yet, gentlemen when they are proposing a basis by which these difficulties are to be settled between these different sections of the country, are failing to look to the very root of the disease, are failing to warn the North that it is these sentiments and feelings which have been engendered in that section of the country which have produced the disturbance that now exists ; and unless we do say to the North that they must abandon all their organizations which seek the destruction of our rights and our institutions, it is utterly impossible for us to look for the restoration of harmony and quiet.

I admit that much may be accomplished by the adoption of such .Page199 amendments as will secure to us all our rights—as will secure to us equal rights in the territories—as will secure the recognition of the institution of slavery everywhere. But, sir, still the Northern portion of the Confederacy are not disposed to recognize those rights. They will be governed by the "higher law" rather than the Constitution, and so long as they recognize the superior obligations of that "higher law," no amendments to the Constitution will restore harmony and peace to the country.

I cannot, Mr. Chairman, give my assent to the amendment of my friend from Goochland, for it seems to me the gentleman himself contemplates the execution of a higher law. It seems to me that laying down the proposition that Virginia shall here declare that the people of a State or the people of a Territory, shall abstain from all interference with the question of slavery, no matter where it exists, the gentleman, in expressing these views, declares that no constitutional guarantees will suffice to satisfy him as a member of this Union; that he is for going beyond the reach of constitutional amendments, and of taking the law into his own hands, thereby adopting precisely what he complains of on the part of the people of the North—a higher law.

Now, sir, I appeal to this Convention, how can we adopt such an amendment as that? How can we declare that the people of the States and Territories shall abstain from interference with slavery, no matter where it exists? How many people? The people of a county? The people of a district? The people of Kansas? The people of Washington, or of any other Territory? It seems to me that it resolves itself into a great higher law principle, that we will be content with nothing, unless we arrogate to ourselves the power of commanding every man in the United States. It is not for me to arrogate such a power. My most ambitious hopes will be most abundantly gratified, if I can obtain from the people of the United States—from a majority of the Northern people—their consent to such constitutional amendments as will give repose to this too much disturbed and distracted country. But, sir, it does seem to me that my friend from the county of Gooch-land is one of those of whom, I fear, there are a number here—and I say it with the kindest regard and the highest respect—who desire to throw difficulties and obstacles in the way of an adjustment of these questions, rather than to contribute their influence to advance the possibility of a satisfactory settlement. You cannot command, you cannot dictate to the people of the States or of the Territories. All that you can do—and if you accomplish that, you will have ac-

complished much more than any other deliberative body ever did do—is by your influence, now and here, to induce a sufficient majority of the people of all the States, to enter into guarantees such as shall put at rest those questions which have so long disturbed the peace and the happiness of the country. I trust, therefore, Mr. Chairman, it will not be the pleasure of this Convention, to say for the people of Virginia, that we announce to the people of all the States and Territories, that no matter where slavery exists, no matter under what circumstances, they shall not interfere with it. But if they do, then what? What is the remedy which my friend proposes? None at all. What does he propose to do if they do interfere? Nothing. How then will you be better off? If the gentleman had embodied in his amendment any remedy by which he could have brought them into terms of accommodation, I could have appreciated the force of his proposition. If the gentleman had accompanied his amendment with anything that could give quiet and repose to these questions, I would have gone with him, heart and hand. But he says the people shall not do it; none of the people shall do it. In other words, he proposes to take away the liberty of individual action and freedom of speech as to the people of the United States, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the people of each State may, by sound, solid, governmental, constitutional amendment, have repudiated any interference with slavery where it exists. I say, it seems to me that we have not that right, and I trust it will not be the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Goochland.

I feel confident that the gentleman from the city of Richmond has not comprehended the amendment which I have proposed, or he would not have urged the objections which he has urged to it. I am satisfied he has not paid full attention to the clause to which I propose my amendment, or he would have seen that the objections he urges to my amendment apply with equal force to that portion of the report to which I have proposed an amendment.

Now, sir, his first objection is, that I propose to require that the people of the States and Territories, shall not interfere with the subject of slavery no matter how much it may be necessary and expedient that they should do so. Sir, this is not the amendment that I propose. My amendment is, that the people of the non-slaveholding States shall not interfere in any way with slavery in the other States, or in the common Territory of the United States. And am I to understand the argument of the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. JOHNSON] , as going to the length of contending that the people of the non-slaveholding .Page201 States, must have reserved to themselves the privilege of interfering with the institution of slavery where it exists in the other States or in the common Territory where it exists? If not, there is no force in the objection which the gentleman urges against my amendment, for it is simply that the people of the non-slaveholding States shall not interfere with slavery. Is not that a sound position? Yet the gentleman from the City of Richmond [Mr. JOHNSON] , has argued against that position. He is for preserving for them, at some time or other, under some circumstances or other, that right to interfere. I trust that it is the sense of this body at no time, under no circumstances, no matter what may turn up, shall they be permitted to interfere with an institution which is not under their control, and which is beyond their jurisdiction. And I understand that it is the duty of this Convention to assert, on behalf of the people of Virginia, that the people of the non-slaveholding States shall, under no circumstances whatever, interfere with the institution of slavery, either in any State or in any Territory. Yet this is the opinion which my friend from Richmond has controverted. Sir, is it not a sound position? Yet he says that if we declare that they must not interfere, it is arrogating something to ourselves; it is appealing to a higher law.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment only asserts what is necessary to be obtained in order to restore harmony. If the Committee adopt my amendment, they will, in effect, say that it is utterly impossible that harmony should be restored between the States unless the people of the Northern States abstain from interference with slavery. Is there any higher law in that? If that is higher law so is the Constitution of the United States, for there is nothing in it in conflict with the Constitution. It is that higher law which says that my individual rights and individual property shall be protected. And does the gentleman from the city of Richmond say that the Northern people shall have the right, under some sort of higher law, to interfere with my rights and my property?

I wish simply to say that I do not occupy any such position. I cannot interrupt the gentleman to explain.

Then, sir, the argument of the gentleman cannot hold water. I am satisfied that he has not looked at this amendment. Is there a gentleman in this House who is not for saying to the Northern people that they shall not interfere with slavery either in the States or territories? Yet the gentleman says that is asserting for ourselves a higher law which we complain of in others. Why, has not this report just before said "to remove the existing causes of complaint .Page202 much may be accomplished by the Federal and State Governments," and the report in the first part of it says, that State Governments ought to remove the causes of complaint and members of this Committee have argued to show that the word "may" meant "must." In the report which my friend himself supports, is there nothing, which he voted for, declaring that the Northern States must remove these causes of complaint? Yet now, when it is desired further to add that, in order to restore harmony, in order that that good feeling which has heretofore existed among the States shall be restored, in order that we may live together in peace and quiet, and that these existing disturbances may be removed, there must be, hereafter no party organizations based upon the principle of hostility to our institutions. Because we say that, in a report which is merely laying down general principles, making merely general declarations of what are our rights, and what ought to be done under the circumstances that surround us, is the objection to be raised that we are asserting more than we are entitled to assert? I cannot see that a declaration of this sort can be offensive to any body upon the face of the earth, except the President of the United States and those that surround him. We are here making the declaration that the President of the United States now occupies a position to which he has been elevated by placing his pretensions to popular support upon hostility to the institutions of the South. And that state of feeling which has led to his election, has existed long at the North, and has been increasing from day to day until it has finally triumphed in placing him in power. And do you not find that he is using the powers with which he is invested in accordance with the principles upon which he was elected? And has the Virginia Convention no right to assert the mere declaration that those principles cannot be carried out and peace and harmony be restored?

But my friend does not like this declaration, because he thinks I am not as much wedded to the Government of Abraham Lincoln as he may be. Well, sir, I confess that I have no very great attachment for an administration that has been elected upon the avowed principle that my State is not equal with the Northern States of this Union. I confess that I am not prepared to pay homage to any such power as that. I do confess, that unless the principles upon which this administration have been inaugurated and upon which it is conducted are to be overthrown, I want to seek connection with somebody else. Yes, sir, if there be an objection to this amendment, that it is proposed by one who is willing to seek communication with those alone.Page203 where his rights, as an equal, shall be acknowledged, then it is a good objection. But I trust this Committee is not going to decide upon the merits of this amendment upon any such grounds. You are making declaration to the North—

Here the hammer fell.

Mr. LEAKE called for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of his amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and decided in the negative ; yeas 40, nays 93, as follows:6The Journal lists 93 negative votes, adding Maslin and Wilson to those in the Proceedings.

YEAS--Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Chambliss, Chapman, Conn, Fisher, Graham, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Leake, J. B. Mallory, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Speed, Strange, Thornton, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wise, Woods, Wysor-40.

NAYS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, French, Flournoy, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, A. Hall, Cyrus Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spur-lock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey-93.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

The 7th section, as amended, was then agreed to.

The 8th section was read, as follows :

"8. The people of Virginia recognize the American principle that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new governments for their better security, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority."

I suppose it is competent to pass over the 8th section, and recur to it again subsequently, for the purpose of considering the 9th.

It may be done by general consent.

I object.

I suppose it is competent to do it by motion.

It is.

I move then that the 8th resolution for the present be passed over. I know that some gentlemen desire to amend the 8th, and that others desire to amend the 9th. Now with a view of obviating the objection to the 8th, I desire a modification to the 9th, and for the purpose of ascertaining whether that can be so modified as to make the 8th acceptable, I move to pass over the 8th.

I object.

The Chair supposes a majority would have the right to pass by any resolution, with a view to going back and acting upon it subsequently.

Did not the Chair decide under the resolution of the Convention, that we would have to go on with this report seriatim, that no proposition could be taken up out of its order?

The Chair does not recollect any such decision. The Chair supposes that the Committee may, in their discretion pass by any resolution.

Then you could pass over the whole report, and go to something else.

It is for the majority to say whether they will pass by this eighth resolution.

I call for the reading of the resolution we adopted in Convention.

The Secretary read as follows :

Resolved, That on and after Monday next, until further ordered, this Convention shall be called to order at ten o'clock, A. M. At half past ten, it shall resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole upon the report of the Committee on Federal Relations; and, at two o'clock, said Committee shall take a recess until four o'clock, when it shall resume its session.

The Chair supposes, perhaps, that is not the resolution to which the gentleman refers.

Yes, sir, that is the resolution to which I refer, and the Chairman stated that this Committee had no right to adopt any rule; that its rules of proceeding had been prescribed by the Convention, in consequence of which, even a motion to rise could not be entertained before 2 o'clock. You now propose that the Committee shall pass by one resolution and go to another. If you can pass by one .Page205 can you not pass by the whole and take some other subject besides the report of the Committee on Federal Relations? I, therefore, contend that we have no right to pass by the resolution.

Does the gentleman appeal from the decision of the Chair?

No, sir.

I think it important that we should understand correctly the operation of the order adopted by the House. It is perfectly clear from the authorities in parliamentary law, and from the practice in the Convention of 1850, that according to ordinary rules, the Committee has a perfect right to pass by any resolution at any time, and unless that rule is changed by the specific order of the Convention it must stand as the order of proceeding.

The Chair deems this discussion entirely out of order, unless there be an appeal taken from the decision of the Chair. The question being on Mr. PRICE'S motion, to pass by the eighth resolution.

Mr. WISE called for the question.

The question was ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the affirmative—Yeas 68, Nays 67, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Branch, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Dent, Deskins, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Jackson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey-68.

NOES-Messrs. Ambler, J. Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Brent, Bruce, Carlile, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Custis, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Goggin, J. Goode, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, M. Johnson, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Miller, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Robert H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Whitfield, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-67.

So the Committee agreed to pass by the eighth resolution.

The ninth resolution then came up for consideration, and was read as follows :

"The exercise of this right by the States of South Carolina, Georgia, .Page206 Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, without the assent of the other States, has given rise to new conditions, and presented questions touching those conditions, intimately affecting the rights and safety of the other States. Among these are the free navigation of the Mississippi river, the maintenance of the forts intended to protect the commerce of the Gulf of Mexico, and the power to restrain smuggling along the interior borders of the seceded States; but the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States as parties to the government to take lawful action touching them."

The first line in the ninth resolution reads, "The exercise of this right." What right is there referred to? Something in the eighth resolution that has been passed by. Are we in nubibus, sir? I ask if this ninth resolution attaches itself to anything else but that which we have passed by?

It is not for the Chair to decide.

I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that, having passed by the eighth resolution, we cannot take up the ninth, because the ninth is a part of the eighth. We must pass that by, too, and take up something independent of both eighth and ninth. The one reads with the other. The old doctors did, I believe, divide the psalms and the Bible generally into verses, and yet did not make them independent. Following that example, the Committee has divided the eighth resolution in two, although the eighth and ninth read as to one. Now, that we have passed the eighth, however, it does not follow that we go to the ninth. We have to skip over the ninth, too.

If the gentleman from Princess Anne, will permit an amendment to be offered, he will see that it strikes the part of the ninth resolution to which he refers.

Does the gentleman from Princess Anne yield the floor?

No, sir. I make the point that no amendment can be offered to the ninth resolution, because, in fact and in consecutive grammatical construction, it is a part of the eighth, which has been passed by. You may number this the ninth if you please, but still it is part of the eighth and so connected with it that they cannot be severed.

I can probably remove the difficulty of the gentleman from Princess Anne, by moving an amendment to this ninth section.

That is exactly what I am objecting to.

The gentleman has a right to do that, if the gentleman from Princess Anne, will yield the floor.

I object to any amendment of the ninth section, because it reads as a part of the eighth.

The Chair will entertain an amendment. It is for the Committee to dispose of it.

Then I understand that the Chair overrules my objection.

The Chair decides that the ninth resolution is now open to amendment.

I move to amend the ninth resolution by striking out the words "exercise of this right" and inserting in lieu thereof "withdrawal from the Federal Government."

I ask whether the object of this amendment is not simply to remove the objection of proceeding with the ninth resolution because it is the continuous matter of the eighth resolution, and whether it is not moved expressly to avoid that objection? If so, I humbly submit that the amendment is not in order. It is ex post facto. You have agreed to pass by the matter of the eighth resolution, and if the matter of the eighth continues with the ninth, then logically and by every fair construction, having passed by the eighth the ninth is also passed by. It is in pari materia with the eighth. In fact it is the same matter and was intended to be the same.

Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from Princess Anne is objecting to the amendment as out of order.

Yes.

And raise, on that, a point of order?

Certainly.

Will the gentleman be kind enough to reduce his point of order to writing, as the Chair does not exactly understand it.

I have completed my primer of points. They are as follows :

"The Committee of the Whole, by vote, decided to pass by the 8th resolution of the pending report, without deciding to what subsequent resolution of the report it would pass to the consideration of; the next resolution—the 9th—commences in these words: 'The exercise of this right'—referring to a right declared in the 8th resolution, which was passed by. To obviate this, the gentleman from Frederick moved to amend the 9th by striking out the words, 'the exercise of this right,' relating to the 8th resolution, and to insert words making the 9th .Page208 independent of the 8th resolution. The point submitted is, that this resolution proposes to amend the matter of the 8th, which has been passed by."

The Chair overrules the point of order.

I desire to state here—as that point of order may appear in some way upon the journal—that the facts stated there are certainly not conceded on my part. It was not without assigning any reason that the motion was made by the gentleman from Greenbrier [Mr. PRICE] , to pass by the 8th resolution, but it was expressly with a view to move an amendment to the 9th resolution, and this very amendment which I do move.

I certainly am correct that the motion was not to pass by the 8th to the 9th, or to any other resolution. I don't care about the statement ore tenus on the floor; I make my point of order by the journal.

I understood, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Greenbrier [Mr. PRICE] , who can speak for himself, to state that some proposition should be made to amend the 9th resolution, and it was supposed that the necessity for any amendment to the 8th resolution might be obviated by passing on to the 9th and amending that, and, therefore, the reason for his motion, as I understood, was to reach the 9th, in order to amend it and reflex back upon the 8th.

Will the Clerk read the motion of the gentleman from Greenbrier as it was entered on the journal. That is the test.

The motion reads, "I move that the 8th resolution be passed by for the present, with a view of considering the 9th resolution."

It was not so made.

The Chair certainly understood the motion to be made as the journal has it.

I certainly did not understand the motion to be made in that form. Did the Secretary make the entry himself?

The entry was made by the assistant Secretary at the time the motion was made.

The motion may require, perhaps, a word of explanation from me.

The 8th resolution, sir, asserts the right of the people of the several states of this Union, for just cause to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government. The 9th resolution immediately following commences : "The exercise of this right by the State of South Carolina," &c., and taking the two together, it was supposed.Page209 by some that the right asserted of withdrawing was that peaceable or constitutional right of secession which it was understood, these Southern States have asserted in their act of withdrawal; and in order to remove that difficulty in the minds of some members in the Convention, it is proposed not to connect the two resolutions at all, but to strike out these words—"The exercise of this right," and leave the fact of withdrawal stated without determining upon what particular right this act of these seceding States was done.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The call for the yeas and nays was sustained.

The motion is made upon the ground, as I understood the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. R. Y. CONRAD] , distinctly to announce, that although the ninth resolution admits "the exercise of this right by the States of South Carolina," &c., as expressed now, he means to put it in words that will neither avow nor disavow the right. He refuses to assert the right. Then, the purpose is to ignore the right of the States to withdraw.

The roll was then called upon the proposition of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , and resulted—yeas 76, nays 58, as follows : 7The correct number of affirmative votes is probably 77, as it is in the Journal.

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Branch, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, French, Gillespie, Gray, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Southall, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-76.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, J. Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Brent, Bruce, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gravely, Goggin, J. Goode, Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wise, Woods, Wysor-58.

Is it necessary to make a motion now to recur to the eighth resolution?

No, sir.

Is not the ninth resolution perfected now, sir?

The Chair cannot say, sir. The question now is on agreeing to the resolution as amended.

I propose to offer an essential amendment to the 9th resolution. I propose to strike out from the word "States" in the 6th line to the close of the resolution, and to substitute what I shall presently read. It will be perceived by the Committee that the resolution asserts that the withdrawal of the States of the Southern Confederation has given rise to many questions. The resolution then proceeds to refer to those questions without giving a full enumeration, as is obvious upon inspection. Then the resolution proceeds to assert that the Federal authorities disclaim the power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and the power consequently to deal with the questions growing out of this withdrawal.

Now, for one, sir, I am not prepared to affirm that the Federal Government does disclaim a power, the disclaimer of which is the foundation of the allegation found in the resolution. I cannot undertake to say that the Government feels itself incompetent to deal with the question which has occurred.

Will the gentleman allow the Chair to understand the amendment.

I have just stated, sir, that I propose to strike out all after the word "States," in the 9th resolution.

Does the gentleman propose to insert anything as a substitute?

Yes, sir, but I prefer, before submitting what I propose to substitute, to make a few preliminary remarks.

It is not in order for the gentleman to proceed with any remarks before he submits his proposition.

I propose to insert in lieu of what I have just proposed to strike out, the following: "to the adjustment whereof, and to the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States of the South, or their restoration to their former relations as negotiation may eventuate, the Federal Government is hereby called upon to address itself."

The Secretary will now read the portion of the resolution proposed to be stricken out.

The secretary read as follows :

"Among these are the free navigation of the Mississippi River, the maintenance of the forts intended to protect the commerce of the Gulf of Mexico, and the power to restrain smuggling along the interior borders of the seceded States; but the Federal authorities .Page211 under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States as parties to the Government compact to take lawful action touching them."

I was proceeding to call the attention of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, to the consideration that the enumeration of the questions growing out of the secession of the Southern States was by no means full and complete, and the enumeration is singularly unhappy in omitting the most important of those reasons. Then I adverted to the consideration that the resolution affirmed the disclaimer of powers by the Federal Government of which I am not aware there is any satisfactory evidence. I, therefore, think that there is a manifest propriety in dropping so much of the resolution.

Then, Mr. Chairman, to explain what I propose to substitute. It will be remarked that it calls upon the Federal Government to exert itself in restoring the retired States to their former position, if negotiation can effect it; at all events, to treat and negotiate with these States. Now, I apprehend that whilst there may be differences of opinion in respect to an immediate recognition of the independence of the Southern States, there can hardly be any diversity of opinion in respect to the propriety and expediency of so far recognizing their position as to enter into conference and negotiation with them. My own conviction is, that the Federal Government committed a great mistake in not receiving commissioners from the South, when they first appeared in Washington. Manifestly, there is an impediment to any understanding, so long as the Federal Government refuses to acknowledge, or even to recognize their actual condition.

Sir, the federal government has acted upon the principle that it cannot know what is known by all the world besides, viz that the seceded States are in a condition of de facto independence. If the federal government and these States are to be brought together, it is indispensable that there should be communication between them, necessary that negotiations be begun and that they should be conducted upon the basis of reciprocal respect. It is within the historical recollection of us all that in the early stages of our Revolutionary war, the thing which of all others most offended the national pride of the country was the refusal of the British authorities to acknowledge the title of Washington. It put an end to attempts at negotiation.

Now, sir, the amendment proposed simply enunciates a proposition, the propriety of which, I trust, will address itself to the good judgment of the committee. It asserts that it is expedient that the Federal .Page212 Government enter into negotiations with the Southern States hold communication with them for the purpose of ascertaining whether their restoration to their ancient position, or their actual independence, shall ensue.

I beg further to say, if it be the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment, that I propose to follow it up with a proposition to drop the whole of the tenth resolution, as the proposition will dispose of both.

The proposition which is made by the gentleman from Richmond, is to strike out what I regard as the most important feature of this portion of the Committee's report. The gentleman states that he is not aware that the Federal authorities have disclaimed the power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and yet, in the same breath, almost, he complains that the Federal authorities do positively refuse to recognize the fact, upon the ground that they have no authority to recognize the facts. I certainly so understood the gentleman ; but whether he so stated it or not, we know that the present Federal authority does disclaim the right or power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and the late Executive of the United States, Mr. Buchanan, made the distinct disclaimer. I hold it of importance, not merely to avail ourselves of this disclaimer by the Executive of the United States, but to maintain the truth of the position which they have assumed, viz—that the federal authority has no right to deal with this fact of withdrawal of one or more States from the federal authorities, because, whilst they do disclaim the right to recognize the fact of withdrawal, the right to negotiate with these withdrawing States, they assert the power to deal with the subject in the other and most dangerous aspect, that is, the power to deal with them forcibly, in order to prevent a withdrawal of any State from the Union, disclaiming, at the same time, the power to negotiate and make peace with the seceding States. And in order to form a rational basis for the protest of Virginia, the Committee have reported these resolutions, for which the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] , now proposes a substitute, pledging the power of this State to interpose in case of any attempt to subjugate or coerce these seceded States.

If the Committee will indulge me I will reply to the objections which have been made by the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . I apprehend, Mr. Chairman, and I desire to call the attention of the Committee distinctly to the statement, that all that can be accurately or truly predicated of what has transpired in .Page213 Washington between the Government and the States of the Southern Confederacy is, that the Government has so far simply declined accrediting the Commissioners from the South. That we all know, but whether it proceeded from an indisposition of the Government to exercise its power, or upon whatsoever ground it may have proceeded, there certainly is not such evidence as to satisfy our official judgment, and enable us to declare.

Sir, I do not agree with the gentleman, that the power to treat with these States with a view to the acknowledgment of their independence was distinctly disclaimed or renounced in the message of President Buchanan. And yet I apprehend, sir, that if there had been such a disclaimer, it could hardly be regarded as indicating the fixed, unchangeable policy of the government. But that administration has passed away, and I should like to know if there be any thing in the nature of an explicit declaration on the part of the present administration to satisfy gentlemen that it has disclaimed the power to treat with the Southern States?

And then I take issue with the gentleman distinctly upon the proposition that the Federal Government have not the power to treat with these States. For myself, I believe that the Government has now the power, without further legislation, certainly with it, to provide for the public peace by consenting to pacific measures with the Southern States. Does any one doubt that? Can it be for a moment supposed that the administration is not at liberty to make terms with the Southern States, by which the peace, for a time, at least, will be preserved? Can there be a doubt upon that subject? It will not be said that the Government is under a necessity to proceed to hostilities with these Southern States. The Government, then, may forbear from hostilities. It may forbear under the formalities of a distinct and solemn avowal. Is it conceivable that a great State policy may be instituted without authority in the Government to pledge itself to adhere to it, and if hostilities may be avoided for a time they may not be for any time?

If hostilities may be suspended for six months, they may be for six years, and this power of forbearance, followed to its logical consequences, establishes the power of making a permanent peace, and, by consequence, of entering into treaties.

I should be glad of an opportunity of going more fully into considerations connected with this question. I beg gentlemen to observe that the proposition contemplates the effectual security of the peace of the country by the removal of the exciting, inflammatory material .Page214 contained in the refusal of the Government to acknowledge the representatives of the South. It is recommended by that consideration, and by the further, that if it be within the range of peaceable, persuasive, conciliatory means to bring back our brethren to their ancient position, it may be thus accomplished; so that, Mr. Chairman, whether we would preserve the peace of the country, or whether we desire the restoration of the States, the resolution in question provides for the object. I have again to express the hope that the proposition will meet with the approval of the Committee.

Mr. DORMAN demanded a division of the question and called for the yeas and nays on the motion to strike out; which were ordered.

The question was then taken on striking out, and it was decided in the negative—yeas 58, nays 71, as follows :8The Journal includes Kilby in the affirmative votes, and Janney and McComas in the negative votes, in addition to those listed here.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Bruce, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, Chas. K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Robt. H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods-58.

NAYS-Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Alfred M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, McD. Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Robert E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, Chapman J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey-71.

I have an amendment which I propose to offer to the 9th resolution. I would state, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment contemplates that it shall be followed up by a motion to strike out the whole of the 10th resolution, inasmuch as that 10th resolution is but the sequence of the doctrines set forth in the 9th resolution. The amendment I propose is, to strike out all after the word "States" in the 10th line, and insert the following: "With a view to a peaceable adjustment of these and kindred questions, the people of Virginia hereby express their earnest desire that the Federal authorities, if so empowered, shall recognize the independence of the Confederate States of the South, and make such treaties with them, and pass such laws as separation (if unavoidable) shall render proper and expedient."

It is stated, Mr. Chairman, in the 9th resolution that "the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and consequently to deal with these questions," and for that reason the 10th resolution contains the express declaration that "the people of Virginia hereby declare their desire to confer upon the Government of the United States the powers necessary to enable its proper authorities to deal peaceably with these questions." As I understand it, sir, the assertion in the 10th resolution is, that without the conference of that power upon the General Government, they are not enabled to deal peaceably with these important questions; and for that reason it is I am disposed, so far as the action of Virginia is concerned, that her express will shall be made and set forth, in language that cannot be misunderstood; that it is her desire, that if the power be possessed, that power shall be exercised, for the purpose of securing the peace, by enabling the General Government to recognize the independence of the Confederate States of the South, and to make such treaties and such laws as may be necessary for the purpose of securing this great end. I do not believe, sir, that it is consistent with the dignity of the State of Virginia that any doctrine which she is disposed to set forth shall be based upon deference to the opinions of the authorities of the Federal Government. I believe that her doctrines should emanate from herself and depend upon the judgment of Virginia alone; and I am not willing, so far as I am individually concerned, that the enunciation of her doctrine shall be based on such a risk as that alluded to in this resolution.

In the second place how is this power to be conferred upon the General Government? What is the machinery that is to be used so as to enable the General Government to deal peaceably with this important question? What does it mean, sir? Does it contemplate a National Convention? If not, in what way is this power to be conferred? I see no necessity that we should involve ourselves in difficulties of that kind when it is the desire as well as the judgment of this Convention to express in language which cannot be misunderstood, that if the power be possessed by the General Government, it is the wish of Virginia that that power shall be exercised for the purpose of recognizing the independence of the Confederate States, and for the purpose of making such treaties and such laws as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I really approve of the motives of my friend from Norfolk City [Mr. BLOw] , but I cannot concur in the .Page216 action, or rather, in his proposition of action. Sir, I wish I had the power to address myself to the hearts and heads of this Committee, in calling their attention to the possible effect of these two resolutions—the 9th and the 10th. You are men of peace. You are patriots. We are all trying with heart and head to unite in preserving and protecting our people from civil war. I hope that the being is not upon this floor that would, by direction or indirection, if it can be avoided, cause the worse calamity that can come upon our land. What are you doing by adopting these two resolutions? I address myself earnestly to you as brethren, when I ask, can you by implication entertain the remotest idea that there is wanting in our present government, the most essential power of government, that which ministers most to the happiness of mankind? Are you about to vote here to day—without designing it, for I am sure you do not design it—that the Government of the United States, at Washington, has not within its grasp all the power of peace, the power of preventing civil war.

Sir, in this ninth resolution, you have no resolution at all. What is a resolution? It is that which proposes a purpose, a plan, a measure of action or motive of action. Is there any purpose avowed in this ninth resolution? Is there any plan avowed in that ninth resolution? No, sir, none whatever. It contains a mere assertion—a declaration of fact—unconnected with any action, or motive of action. You state there that the Government of the United States disclaims power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union. Do you assent to that? Do you admit that proposition? You seem to do so, by implication, in the two resolutions. If you state the fact that the disclaimer is made, and then you prepare to give them the power—it would imply that they did not have it already.

Sir, the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] , well remarked, have they not the power of forbearance? I thank him for that word. If they have no other power, they have the power of abstaining from the exercise of power. What is the doctrine avowed in these resolutions? The odious, detestable doctrine that came from Mr. Buchanan's message. You have no power to declare war upon the States, he says, by Congress; Granted. What then? You are bound to execute the law. That, at all hazards—at even the hazard of national disintegration—at the hazard of all hope of its ever being re-united—through blood, through fire, through human misery—the law must be executed. Is that so? Are we bound to wait until a National Convention can give the power of peace? Are we about to.Page217 vote here, by indirection, or implication even, that at all hazards—at all peril at all risk, the laws must and shall be executed?

Then another question arises—a fearful question to me—one that deeply agitates my bosom—and as brethren I appeal to you, that I may clear myself of it. Is it the purpose of any of you—for it seems to me there is some lurking purpose in these two resolutions—is it the lurking purpose of any of you to slough off the Southern States and to let them go in peace? Can any Union man consent to do that? If he can, let him never after this call himself a Union man. You consent to part with all the rights of the navigation of the Mississippi river—you consent to part with seven States of the Union—you consent to part with all the Gulf coast—you consent to part with all the South-east Atlantic coast—you consent to break the golden chain that once bound us together? If so you are worse than murderers. You do not stone Stephen, but stand by and consent to the death. I am making no factious opposition to these resolutions; and when my friend from Norfolk tells me that he wants language plain as light, let me tell him that he is mistaken if he supposes his own is plain. He puts an hypothesis. That hypothesis is "if." "If" they have the power, he says. And he, too, thus raises an implication that they have not the power of peace.

Have they not the power of peace? 0, Heaven defend us! Who who so weak, who so humble, as not to have the power of peace, the power of forbearance? Sir, if the gentleman will withdraw that proposition, I would move, if I had the opportunity, to strike out this which professes to be a resolution, but which is not, because it has not a single idea of a resolution in it; it merely makes a statement of facts, has no purpose, proposes no plan, no action ; it simply states facts, which may be dubious, which may be misapplied, which are somewhat doubtful, about which, at all events, there is some controversy. I would move to strike out the portion which admits that "the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States, as parties to the government compact, to take lawful action touching them." Here it takes two resolutions to do what one would do as well as two ; with only one, you see what your meaning is at once, without touching the free navigation of the Mississippi river—

Your time is up, sir.

I could not be allowed to get to the Chesapeake Bay, .Page218 where I wanted to show another mare clausum, where a pretext for coercion can be raised just as plausibly as at the mouth of the Mississippi.

I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Norfolk City [Mr. BLOw] , by striking out after the words "Federal authorities," "if so empowered." The separation of the seceded States is a fact which we cannot ignore. It is a fact which we know to exist as a fact ; and the question for the consideration of the Government at Washington, is—and it is a question which is now agitating the public mind and troubling the public heart—whether that Government shall deal with this subject peaceably or forcibly. As I understand it, sir, the Government at Washington disclaims the power to deal with this subject so vital to the peace, so vital to the interest, so vital to the very existence of our country, peaceably. It has not asserted directly, the right to deal with it forcibly, but it has, in effect asserted that right; for, notwithstanding the fact to which have I alluded, the President, in his Inaugural, has declared that the union of these States is unbroken, that he will execute the laws in all the States, that he will use the power confided to him, to hold, possess and occupy the forts, and to collect the revenue within the seceded States. That, sir, is the assumption of the power to deal with this subject forcibly.

Now I maintain, that a government which possesses the power to deal forcibly with a subject, has also the power to deal peaceably with it. The resolution has a proper object, the resolution has a noble object; the resolution has for its object, the dealing with the seceded States as a government, de facto; it has for its object, not the conferring upon the General Government the power which it does not possess, but it has for its object to call upon the General Government to treat this subject peaceably, by negotiation, by treaty, and not by the sword. And the object of my amendment to that amendment, is to remove from it any doubt as to the existence of the authority on the part of the General Government to treat, to negotiate, with the seceded States, for the recognition of their independence.

Sir, I say that the first step for the Government of the United States to pursue in order to preserve the hope, if hope may be preserved, of the reconstruction of this Union, is first to recognize their independence. Go there with the sword, and you make a gulf between them and the other States as wide as eternity. Treat with them, recognize their independence, and you do not alienate them forever, but you leave at least a hope for them to return if we remain .Page219 banded together. I propose, therefore, for the purpose of removing all questions in our minds, that Virginia shall speak as to the authority of the Federal Government to preserve peace. That Virginia statesmen shall speak in advance, that they shall place it beyond any doubt or equivocation, that this Government has the power of peace, and that it should assert the power of treating peaceably with the Southern Confederacy. I move, therefore, this amendment, for the purpose of calling on the General Government to negotiate with, to recognize the independence of the seceded States, and thereby secure the peace of the country, and a hope of the restoration of the Union.

The purpose of these resolutions is a peaceful purpose. I am sure the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , will acquit all his associates upon the Committee of Federal Relations of any other purpose. Unquestionably, Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the fact of withdrawal by the Southern States. And we all know that this withdrawal has given rise to novel and difficult questions. The amendment now proposed to be made to the amendment of the gentleman from Norfolk, is intended to obtain from this body a declaration that the Federal Government, under the power with which it is now clothed, has the right to recognize this withdrawal, and to deal with the questions which have arisen from it. This body may have its opinion. It is entitled to have its opinion. It may be its opinion that the government possesses this power. Of what avail will it be that we shall communicate this opinion to the authorities at Washington? We may send up a rescript of Constitutional construction; of what avail will that rescript be? These authorities tell us that according to their construction of the Constitution no such power is imparted to the Government. We must say that they came to the conclusion honestly; we must conclude that this is their deliberate, honest opinion. How are these difficult, novel, and various questions to meet their solution?

According to my understanding, there are certain offences with which government may deal; offences committed against the government, such, for instance, as sedition, insurrection, revolt, in some of its phases. If the case be one of sedition or insurrection, being an offence against the government authority, the government may deal with it. I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the withdrawal of a State by virtue of its sovereign power, from association with the other States, does not come within the category of offences against government; and is not, therefore, one of those offences with which a government can deal. I take it, sir, that the withdrawal of a State from a .Page220 government compact, if an offence at all, is an offence against the other parties to the compact, and it is, therefore, an offence with which the other parties can deal. Then, sir, when we find the government authorities disclaiming the right to recognize the withdrawal of a State, what remains? How are you to prevent a hostile collision? It seems to me there is but one way to do it, and that is by an appeal to the parties to the compact.

Will the gentleman allow me to ask a single question?

I cannot, if it is to come out of my time.

We will extend your time.

I merely want to ask the gentleman a single question. Admitting the position of the gentleman, so long as these parties to the compact communicate with each other through their common agent, the General Government, by what process will the other parties deal with the seceded States, except through that common agent?

That is the very question I was proceeding to argue. I said that there was but one mode, and there is no other possible mode that I can see, by which a peaceable solution of these questions can be reached, than by action upon the part of those who are interested in the question, and who have the power to deal with it. The government remains the agent of the other party. The withdrawing States have cast off the agency, and the government continues alone the agency of the remaining States. If it has not the power, then, to deal with these questions, those States, whose agent it is, may communicate new powers to it.

By a National Convention.

The gentleman says, by a National Convention. That is one mode, but it is not the only mode by which the Constitution may be amended and these powers communicated to the government. The States may demand through their representatives in Congress an amendment of the Constitution by other means. We do not propose to indicate the mode or prescribe the means, but we propose upon the part of Virginia—a State which yet remains associated in this Union—a State in respect to which as one of the parties this act of withdrawal may not be regarded as a wrong or an offence—we propose, upon the part of Virginia, to say that we recognize the justice of the causes which impelled to the withdrawal ; we acquit our sister States of all offence, and we appeal to the other States remaining with us in the Union to take the measures necessary to solve these questions amicably; to communicate to their agent new powers, if new .Page221 powers be necessary, to relieve it from the embarrassment under which it proclaims itself to labor, and if necessary to recognize the independence of these seceded States.

The gentleman from Princess Anne asks if we can part company with the seceded States. Sir, there is nothing in the resolution proposing such a step. The recommendation of the acknowledgment of their independence is, if it shall become necessary—

Here the hammer fell.

We have now been in session nearly seven hours. I do not know how it is with other gentlemen, but I am tired, and I move that the Committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the Chair, the Chairman [Mr. PRICE] , reported progress.9According to the Journal, it was Mr. Southall who reported the progress of the Committee. The Proceedings of April 5, page 171, note that Mr. Southall took the chair in Committee of the Whole.

And then, on motion of Mr. STAPLES, at 10 minutes before 7 o'clock, the Convention adjourned.

1.5.1. PROCEEDINGS OF CHARLOTTE MEETING

Mr. President, I desire, with the leave of the Convention, to present this morning, the proceedings of a portion of my constituents, and after having submitted a few remarks,1In the Proceedings of April 9, page 381, Mr. Bouldin made some corrections of the second and fourth paragraphs of his remarks. I will ask the Convention to make such order as is usual in such cases. I will read such portion of the proceedings as bear upon the question before the Convention. They are as follows :

I ask that the usual course be taken with the resolutions. Allow me to say, in presenting them, that they come from the people of a county as largely interested in the peculiar institution which is the cause of all our present trouble, as any county in the Commonwealth save one or two. For material prosperity, for moral, mental, and social elevation, they will compare favorably with the people of any portion of this Commonwealth. They have ever shown themselves, under all circumstances, jealous of their rights, restless under injustice, and prompt to resist oppression.

Indeed, sir, from their surroundings it could not be well otherwise. The very soil on which they tread would rise up in condemnation against them if there could be found a man among them who could, for a moment, encourage the craven spirit of willing submission to oppression and wrong. Their soil may be called classic ground it is the shrine of the mighty dead. It holds the consecrated dust of the inspired prophet of liberty [Patrick Henry] , the patriot orator of the revolution. There are yet one or more persons living among them who have heard his clarion tones, and they and their children, and children's children will cherish his teachings and cling with undying devotion to his lessons of constitutional liberty. It holds, also, the honored remains of another faithful and esteemed son of Virginia—John Randolph, of Roanoke—one whose image is here now to cheer and encourage, and whose features I might almost fancy I can see to gaze on these sons of Virginia with intense solicitude, as they have gathered here to protect the interest and honor of the State which he served so long and loved so well. His life, sir, was one long-continued battle for the rights of the States and the sovereignty of Virginia. His last battle was fought for the same glorious cause. As has been eloquently alluded to by my friend from Halifax [Mr. FLOURNOY] , he had been absent in the service of his country in distant lands. He returned with a frame worn by disease, but with the old fire still burning brightly in his breast. It was at a moment when the stalwart arm which he had contributed to clothe with power was raised in its majesty to strike down the rights of that State to whose interests he had been so long and so faithfully bound. He did not hesitate, though the spark of life was just then expiring, to put on the old familiar harness, and right clearly in that last battle did the old war cry ring out once more. The lance which in his boyhood had been directed against the helmet of Patrick Henry, was boldly aimed against the towering crest of Andrew Jackson. It was at the close of such a life that he illustrated the maxim, coronat finis opus.

Mr. President, the people of Charlotte stood by him through all his trials, and in all his battles in defence of State sovereignty. Their vote had been almost unanimous in carrying Andrew Jackson into power, and with the same unanimity they stood by Mr. Randolph in resisting that spirit of encroachment on the rights of a State, which was set forth in the proclamation of Andrew Jackson.

With such memories, and such teachings, the people of Charlotte could not well do otherwise than they have done in these resolutions; the spirit of resistance to oppression, is a part of their very nature. I approve of these resolutions. I am authorized to say, from recent association with that people, and from information which I have received since the meeting, that these resolutions were not intended to trammel or to instruct me. It would not have been kind in my constituents to do so, for when they called on me, without solicitation on my part, to come out from the private life to which I had hitherto been devoted, I told them that the crisis was such, and the character of the questions to be presented was such, that they must entrust to me a large discretion, that I should have the untrammelled right to deal with those mighty questions according to the dictates of my judgment, on general principles made known to them, and by the lights which should surround me when I should be required to act. I reserved that right, and they conceded it to me.

I desire now to say to the members of this Convention and to my constituents, that while I acknowledge the right of instruction, and while I would never thwart the wishes of my constituents, I mean to stand here the peer of honorable gentlemen around me, fully at liberty to bring my mind, such as it may be, to bear on the questions to be decided, to compare opinions, to reconcile and compromise difficulties, and to strike out, for the honor of this good old Commonwealth, that course which I think will promote it. Should my constituents be dissatisfied with this position, I have only to say, that I will, at any moment, allow them to send in my place some other person to represent them.

I have made these remarks, Mr. President, because the fact of sending these papers might, perhaps, be regarded as instructions to me. There have been, and still are, difficulties between us, and I will state them frankly. I am satisfied that more than nine-tenths of my constituents now desire the immediate secession of Virginia from the Union, and I have cast a vote here in deference to that wish. They did not instruct me to do so. They expressly avoided doing so, because they knew that I thought, situated as Virginia is with the difficulties .Page226 existing among us, that another course would be wiser and better, even for the friends of immediate secession, and they trusted me to act as I might think proper. Under the generous latitude thus allowed me I did give a vote which I knew would gratify my constituents.

I have never had any difficulty as to this right of secession. I told my people, when I was a candidate, that I believed that Virginia, in becoming a member of the Federal Union, delegated certain powers to a common agent to be exercised for her benefit, but parted with no portion of her sovereignty ; and that she has the right to secede at will, whenever, in her opinion—and to use the language of the people of Charlotte in 1833—the benefits of the Union shall be exceeded by its evils. And, sir, I said that whenever Virginia thought proper to take that stand, there was no such thing as traitor in Virginia unless it be he who, when Virginia calls, shall, like a dastard son, hesitate to enroll under her banner.

The proceedings were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.5.2. CORRECTION

Mr. President, in the proceedings of Thursday I stated that I had paired off with Col. FORBES. It is reported in the "Enquirer" this morning, that Mr. HALL had paired with Col. FORBES. I presume it is a typographical mistake, owing to the substitution of one letter for another. The omission of a letter may generally be important, but it is very important in spelling my name, whether you spell it with an "a," "e," or a "u." I desire the mistake to be corrected.

1.5.3. PETITIONS FROM NORFOLK COUNTY

Mr. President, I hold in my hand two petitions, one from the people of Norfolk county and one from the city of Portsmouth. They have been sent to me, enclosed in the envelopes which you see, with the request that I should present them to this Convention. The memorials are couched in respectful language, and are decided in opinions, which opinions are in unison with my own. I, therefore, feel bound, notwithstanding these people are represented by two very respected friends of mine, to present those memorials, and ask that they be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

The Portsmouth petition was read as follows :

The memorials were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

I would remark, sir, that the other memorial is in almost identical language, and therefore I do not see the necessity of reading it. I would remark that the Norfolk memorial is signed by 526; the other from Portsmouth by 358.

Referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

I desire, with the indulgence of the Convention, to offer a memorial, which, if I am afforded an opportunity, I shall accompany with a few remarks.

Will the gentleman permit a single remark on the subject of the memorial just presented?

Certainly.

My friend, Mr. CHAMBLISS, from the county of Greensville, has just presented the memorials of the citizens of the county of Norfolk and of the county of Portsmouth, which have been forwarded to him for presentation. I don't believe that any disrespect was intended to their representative ; and I have no objection to the course pursued by the gentleman from Greensville [Mr. CHAMBLISS] , I would say that it was pursued after consultation with my colleague and myself. I am satisfied, sir, that it is not intended by this action to reflect upon my colleague, because I recognize among the petitioners a number of very warm personal friends of mine. But they have selected a gentleman who reflects the sentiments of the memorial better than my colleague or myself ; and I would simply say, in addition, that the memorial is of a small minority of the voters of my county, gotten up very laboriously, and fails to embody the sentiments of a majority of .Page228 my constituents. I say here, sir, that from private accounts and from my personal observation on my return a short time since, the voters of that county stand now where they stood in the election of delegates to this Convention. A large and overwhelming majority stand now as they stood then, still maintaining the rights of the Union and the Constitution, with a desire to secure for them all proper guarantees.

Mr. Chairman, the question to which I desire to call the attention of the Convention, is one somewhat personal to myself ; and as I will be very brief, I hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention to let me get through with the little statement that I propose to make.

There was handed to me yesterday by a highly respectable citizen of the city of Richmond, a memorial addressed to this Convention, which I hold in my hand. The address is but in a few words, and can be more briefly read than explained :

"To the Convention of the State of Virginia:

"The undersigned, voters of the city of Richmond, in view of the policy indicated by the inaugural of Abraham Lincoln ; the complete failure of the Peace Congress, and the rejection of Crittenden's Compromise, now feel that Virginia should at once sever her connection with the Federal Union. We respectfully petition your honorable body to adopt at once an ordinance of secession."

This memorial, sir, is signed by 1,530 subscribers. I don't mean to say 1,530 voters, for I am not aware of that fact. I desire, sir, inasmuch as I know from my own personal association with the people of Richmond, that it was the purpose of some of the subscribers to this memorial that it should operate somewhat in the shape of an instruction to me and to one of my colleagues [Mr. MACFARLAND] , for I take it that my other colleague [Mr. RANDOLPH] , requires no instructions upon the question—I say, I desire in view of this fact to make a brief statement.

This memorial came subscribed by very many of the most sterling and substantial people of Richmond—many of them my personal friends, from whom, however, I widely differ in regard to the subject of the day.

I wish to state, sir, that this paper has been being gotten up ever since about the time that this Convention met; that by the most earnest industry and active efforts it has been circulated, I believe, at least in every reputable locality of the city for the purpose of adding to the number of the names; and sir, I opened it yesterday,.Page229 and will inform the Convention that there are pasted together fifty-three different pieces of paper. I mention this for the purpose of showing the number of agents who so industriously applied themselves to the procurement of these signatures.

I state further, that upon inspection—which the Convention, if they have the curiosity to find out, will perceive—that very many of the names are in the same handwriting; and I will state, further, that there are at least 4,500 voters in the city of Richmond ; that in the presidential election there were polled between 4,300 and 4,400 voters, making it safe for me to assume that there are 4,500 qualified voters in the city; so that there were obtained by these agents, thus actively engaged, about one third of the number of the voters of the city of Richmond.

I am not prepared to say, for I don't feel authorized to say, that there are some of the subscribers to this memorial who are not legally qualified voters, and that there are some who do not live in the city of Richmond, and some that are not 21 years of age. Under these circumstances I propose, that this memorial be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

I will state, in conclusion, that the gentlemen who were most active in getting it up, are gentlemen of the highest respectability. I trust the memorial will receive the consideration of the Committee.

If the Committee will indulge me for a moment, I will present a paper which is connected with the paper just presented by my colleague.

I will say that the paper which I now propose to read is the result of the deliberations of a public meeting in this city, held a few days since.

The following resolution was adopted at the meeting held by the conservative Union men of Richmond, last night. The number present could not have been less than 2,000, many estimated the number as high as 2500.

"Resolved, As the sense of this meeting, that when Messrs. Johnson and Macfarland were elected by the conservative men of Richmond, they were voted for as conservative men. We, therefore, request them not to heed any paper purporting to be instructions, signed by those who voted against them.

"March 30th, 1861. J. H. GILMER."

I ask, Mr. President, that this paper may receive the destination given to that presented by my colleague.

It was ordered to be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.5.4. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The Convention then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. SOUTHALL of Albemarle in the Chair.

When the Committee rose last evening, it had under consideration the ninth resolution of the report of the Committee of Twenty-one. A motion was made by the gentleman from Norfolk [Mr. BLOW] , to strike out all that part of the resolution commencing at the tenth line, after the word "States," which will be again reported if desired, and to insert in lieu thereof the following : "With a view to the peaceable adjustment of this and kindred questions, the people of Virginia hereby express their earnest desire that the Federal authorities, if so empowered, shall recognize the independence of the Confederate States of the South, and make such treaties with them and pass such laws as separation, if inevitable, shall render proper and expedient."

It is proposed by the gentleman from Smyth [Mr. SHEFFEY] , to amend the amendment by striking therefrom the words, "if so empowered."

Should the amendment prevail, that part of the amendment will then read, "the people of Virginia hereby express their earnest desire that the Federal authorities shall recognize the independence," &c.

The question will be upon the amendment to the amendment, and upon that question the gentleman from Smyth is entitled to the floor.

The policy of Virginia has been to keep the peace, and to preserve the hope of restoring the Union by preventing collision and bloodshed. We differ widely as to the mode of accomplishing so beneficent an object. I have thought that since the failure of the "Peace Conference," prompt and decided action by Virginia, was the course of wisdom, prudence and safety. I believe, now, sir, that a bold and decisive position by this Convention would have united the South, and that a united South would have assured peace. With an united South there would have been no thought of war on the part of the authorities at Washington, or on the part of the States of the North. What effect the course which is pursued—the course of delay and indecision of "a wise and masterly inactivity," must have upon the great issue of peace, or war, the future alone can disclose. I trust, sir, that that course may redound to the great interests of peace, and our skirts may be clear of fraternal blood. Seven States have seceded; they have established a Government, and the question now is, how these States are to be treated. Shall they be reduced by the sword, or shall they be treated with and recognized as independent sovereignties—as an independent nationality? They passed through a bloodless revolution, if you please—I maintain that they have passed through it in the exercise of a right—of a peaceful right. How, then, are they to be treated by the Government at Washington? Are they to be reduced by the sword, or are they to be recognized as an independent nationality? One course is war, the other peace. Coercion is war, negotiation is peace. We are called upon to express to the authorities at Washington, the voice of Virginia, by the mouth of this Convention. Shall that voice be for negotiation, or shall it be for coercion? I am one of those who desire to send forth a voice to the world and to the authorities at Washington, for peace, for negotiation, for settlement upon a fair and equitable basis, and not for war, collision and bloodshed.

Mr. Chairman, this report of the Committee has conceded the right of these States to withdraw for just cause. It has declared that the people of Virginia will never consent that the Federal power shall be used to subjugate these States to Federal authority, and it has deplored the "wrongs" which have impelled them to a separation.

Now, sir, the wrongs which we have endured, I think all ought to admit are just causes for separation. Then, sir, the separation has been rightful and has been in the exercise of a conceded right, and those .Page232 States are now—whatever may have been their position under the Union until it was dissolved—sovereign, and as to this Government, foreign, and may be treated with as this Government may treat with any foreign government. What is the power of the Government at Washington? Is it alone to make war upon these States, and to reduce them to a state of subjugation, or is it to recognise their independence and make a negotiation and treaty upon a fair basis of adjustment? Suppose, sir, they inaugurate a war. What, then, is to be the condition of affairs? The result will be, according to the position of the distinguished gentleman from Fauquier, that that war may proceed, as a war of extermination, till the States convene and authorise the Federal Government to make peace. Then, you must make war in order to make peace, and you cannot have peace until the States convene and empower that Government to make such peace.

Now, sir, this is not a question of peace or war at all. There has been no war; there is no necessity for a treaty of peace. It is a question whether our National Government may recognize the independence of sovereign foreign States as to us. The Government of England and the Government of the United States have always recognized a Government de facto as an independent Government, and treated with it as such; and shall our Government be held to have the power to recognize a de facto foreign Government, and not have the power to recognize the independence of sovereign States which, in the exercise of a rightful power and authority, have withdrawn from this Union? And shall it be, sir, that blood shall flow and our soil dyed with the blood of our citizens before there be any measure for the restoration of harmony to the country? I maintain that this Government has the authority to recognize the independence of the seceded States, and that it is their duty to recognize them as the only measure to prevent collision and bloodshed, and as the only means of preserving the hope of peace and restoring the Union. Why, sir, coercion now would be a war of the North against the South. The Northern hordes, like the Goths and Vandals, are to be gathered, marshaled and marched upon our own sunny South. They come, if they come at all, to make us slaves. They come to transpose the relations of Southern society, and to make freemen of slaves and slaves of freemen, and yet we sit here, debate and deliberate whether we shall remain allied with those who would reduce us to a state of subjection and keep us estranged from our natural allies and friends of the South. I am one of those who believe that it is the right and duty of the Government at Washington, to recognize the independence of these seceded States .Page233 and treat with them for a peaceable solution of this difficulty; to treat with them—if we cannot live together in peace—for terms of separation; that we should not place ourselves in the predicament of waiting until the States convene and empower the General Government to recognize their independence, while, in the meantime streams of blood may be made to flow all over the land.

I regret, Mr. Chairman, with the views I entertain upon this subject, that I do not feel at liberty to accept the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Smyth [Mr. SHEFFEY] , or to agree with him in the propriety of that amendment. The object of the amendment I have offered, is to avoid some of the difficulties and objections which may be urged upon the 9th and 10th sections of the report, and which will commend itself, in my estimation, upon a proper examination, to the sense of this Committee. The Committee, in the 9th resolution, assert that the withdrawal from the General Government of the State of South Carolina, and other States, has given rise to new conditions, and presented questions touching those conditions intimately affecting the rights and safety of the other States. Some questions are referred to us, springing from this new relation which has been produced by the withdrawal of these States. The resolution then goes on to state :

"But the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States, as parties to the Government compact, to take lawful action touching them."

Then the 10th resolution goes on to express that Virginia, in deference to this opinion on the part of the Federal authorities, desires to confer upon the General Government the powers necessary to enable the proper authorities to deal. peaceably with these questions. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the peculiar phraseology of this portion of the resolution :

"The people of Virginia hereby declare their desire to confer upon the Government of the United States the powers necessary to enable its proper authorities to deal peaceably with these questions."

Now, sir, I ask if a fair interpretation of that language does not convey the idea, on the part of this Committee, that unless these new powers are conferred upon the General Government, they cannot deal peaceably with these questions. I know, Mr. Chairman, that a different construction is placed upon this language by other gentlemen; but I hold, that so important a question as this, which may be regarded .Page234 as the hinge of the whole controversy—a question, upon the decision of which, depends the issue of war or peace—an issue which may be precipitated upon us at any moment—a question upon which this Committee has already expressed its opinions in the most unmistakable terms, ought not to be left in doubt.

It is, therefore, for the purpose of avoiding an inference deducible from the language used in the tenth resolution, viz : that the people of Virginia believe that peace cannot be preserved except by conferring extraordinary powers upon the Federal Government—that I have offered this amendment.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that there is a question of difficulty which has arisen in consequence of the withdrawal of these States from the Federal Government. I know that there are two classes of opinions in the country upon this subject. I know that one class entertain the opinion that the Federal Government, under existing circumstances, can deal peaceably with these questions—can make a treaty—can recognize the independence of the Confederated States of the South; whilst another class of gentlemen, whose authority is entitled to equal consideration, hold the opinion that the power does not exist, and that specific powers should be conferred upon the Federal Government, for the purpose of enabling them to accomplish these desirable results.

Now, sir, in the accomplishment of the object I have in view, I am not disposed to raise that question of power. The amendment proposed by the member from Smyth [Mr. SHEFFEY] , will raise that question. I am disposed to leave it open, to let gentlemen think as they please upon that particular point. I do not regard it as essential to carry out the object I had in view, and I, therefore, am opposed to any change of the language of the amendment. Its object is to secure a peaceable adjustment of this and kindred questions. "The people of Virginia hereby express their earnest desire that the Federal authorities if so empowered shall recognize the independence of the Confederate States of the South, and make such treaties," &c.

Here is the question of policy presented, and it deals with this question as a matter of fact. Gentlemen may entertain just such opinions as they please with reference to the question of power, but I want the distinct expression of an earnest desire on the part of the people of Virginia for a peaceable settlement of the questions referred to in this resolution. Why should not this be done? Has not this committee, in this very report, laid down the doctrine in unmistakable terms, that this question should be peaceably dealt with? Have we not announced in one or two places, and expressed the positive opinion, .Page235 that coercion must result in a termination of our relations with the Federal Government?

Is there any doubt upon that subject in the mind of any man who will carefully read the report which is now the subject Of consideration? None, sir. Then, is there any difference of opinion upon the question whether the Confederated States are to be regarded as a Government de facto? I have listened to debates from all sides of this House; I have heard the opinions of gentlemen expressed upon this subject, and I have yet to hear the first member of the Committee who has expressed a contrary opinion. Then, sir, if they have established for themselves a Government de facto, is it improper for us to express the desire ( if the Federal authorities have the power) that they shall carry out the whole spirit and object of this report; that this Committee shall express its earnest desire, representing, as it does, the popular voice of Virginia, that the independence of this Government, de facto, shall be recognized, and that such treaties be made, and such laws be passed, as, under the circumstances, and with a view to the preservation of peace, may be proper and expedient?

The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered.

The question was then taken and the amendment was rejected—yeas 64, nays 72 as follows : 2The Journal includes Boggess among the 72 negative votes it lists.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Richard H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, Jr., Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Hoge, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Miller, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, William C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Robert H. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Wysor-64.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Alfred M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Jr., Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Haymond, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, Robert E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spurlock, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey-72.

After the call of the roll had been completed Mr. GRAY said that he had paired off with Mr. TURNER, of Jackson.

Mr. HULL said that he had paired off with Mr. FORBES on all questions upon which he stood opposed to Mr. HARVIE.

I would like to offer a substitute for the whole of the 9th resolution, if it is in order to do so ; and I offer it with a view of afterwards striking out the 10th resolution, so as to make the substitute I now offer, a substitute for the 9th and 10th resolutions.

Mr. BOULDIN'S substitute was read, as follows :

"The States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas, having withdrawn from their association with the other States of the Union under the Federal Government and united in a separate Confederacy, the State of Virginia is of opinion and hereby declares, that the separate independence of the seceded States ought to be acknowledged without further delay, and that such treaties should be made with them, and such laws passed as the separation may make proper."

Mr. Chairman, I desire to submit to the Convention a few remarks in explanation of that substitute. The question which has just been discussed as to the power of the Federal Government directly to acknowledge the separate independence of the seceded States is avoided, as will be seen, by the resolution. This substitute affirms distinctly and unequivocally the opinion of Virginia, that the separate independence of those seceded States ought at once to be acknowledged, that proper treaties ought at once to be made with those States, and all laws necessary and proper for the condition of things growing out of the separation, ought at once to be passed. The substitute is commended to my mind from the fact that we may avoid what seems to me to be a dangerous concession in the original proposition. The original proposition concedes the fact that the Federal Government has no power to deal with the question, and the inevitable effect of such concession is that it is left to the remaining States themselves in their sovereign capacity. I confess, Mr. Chairman, that when this idea was at first presented, I thought it a concession to State rights. I was disposed to receive it with favor. I thought it was a concession of a principle which I had always recognized, and which had guided me through life. But I am satisfied, upon further examination, that it is dangerous to the State rights policy.

Sir, I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the position in which we would be placed by admitting the position assumed by the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , when he argued this question yesterday. He said the States must confer that power. They are now .Page237 acting under the Federal constitution through which they can confer it in a particular mode, and in that mode alone; and that is by and through that Government by amendments to the constitution, and the mode in which that constitution is to be, and can only be amended as prescribed therein.

Now, sir, let us see what will be the position of the seceded States in order to get their separate independence recognized and acknowledged, and their rights accorded to them, if Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas shall follow the lead of the seven States now confederated in a separate Republic and out of this Union. There will then be ten States out of the Union. The idea is that until recognized by the Federal Government they still remain integral portions of the old Union, and it requires three-fourths of all the States in the Union under the Constitution to make an amendment to that instrument. There will then be but twenty-four States left, and three-fourths of all the States will require twenty-six, so that the twenty-four, until the end of time, never can confer the power, in the mode in which my distinguished friend from Fauquier. [Mr. SCOTT] , has told us is the only mode by which this power can be conferred, and that is by delegating the power through their common agent—the Federal Government. I take the view that the States which have gone had a right to secede, that they are outside the Union, and are foreign powers, and that the constitutiOn confers upon the States that still remain and which claim this Union as their Union, and this Government as their Government, the power, through that Government, to treat with those States that have seceded, now foreign States, as foreign States.

Mr. Chairman, there is another objection that I have to the admission in the resolution. It is admitted here that the present authorities of the Federal Government disclaim the power to deal with this subject. This resolution was probably prepared before Mr. Lincoln went into office. I have seen no indication -of a. disclaimer of power to deal, either peaceably or forcibly, with this question by the present authorities of the Federal Government, and it is with them and with them alone that we have to deal. We hear of wars and rumors of wars daily. But I know not that the present Federal Government has disclaimed any such power. I rather think they have avoided such disclaimer. They are made to say, I apprehend, that which is inconsistent with the present position of affairs. This brief explanation is all I desire to make.

It is suggested by one of my friends that I should repeat, that my .Page238 proposition expressly avoids either affirming or disaffirming, but is so shaped that the voice of Virginia shall be heard in reference to the matter, and every gentleman can vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, the object of each of the amendments offered to this section, including the one now offered by the gentleman from Charlotte [Mr. BOULDIN] , is certainly, as has been said, one and the same. It is to preserve the peace of the country as between the Federal Government and these Confederated States. The objection which has been made to the section as it stands in the report of the Committee is, that it affirms by implication a want of power on the part of the Federal authorities to deal with this subject; and the amendment proposed, as the gentleman states, expressly avoids any affirmation upon the subject. I admit, sir, that the report of the Committee is equivocal upon this question; but when we come to the tenth resolution, I shall propose to amend it so as to make the declaration that the Federal authorities have no power, in any aspect, to deal with this question.

Now, sir, the only enquiry before the Committee is, which is the best mode to attain the common object—either to avoid any declaration in regard to the power of the Federal authorities concerning that question, or, if we can properly make an affirmation, to deny to the Federal authorities all power to deal with the subject in any respect. Because, sir, I hold it to be clear that gentlemen who concede the power to deal with these seceded States by making treaties with them, and to acknowledge that they have withdrawn from the Federal authority, must be prepared also to admit that the Federal authority has a correlative right to deal with this subject in the other alternative ; that is, that they have the right of coercion, the right of war.

Well, sir, is it better to ask of this Federal authority as a matter of favor, as a mere matter of forbearance, that it will not exercise this power of coercion, but will adopt the alternative of a peaceful adjustment of the difficulty with these States, or is it better to deny, if we have a right to deny—as I hold we have—to this government the power over the subject? I do not think the difficulty mentioned by the gentleman from Charlotte [Mr. BOULDIN] , does arise here—that it would require three-fourths of all the original States of the Union to amend the Constitution so as to confer the power. In the mean time, no injury could be done. The Federal Government is paralyzed. It can preserve the status quo. It can use no power of aggression upon the seceded States without, as we say, a palpable usurpation of power not granted in the Constitution.

And, sir, I confess, that I have been utterly at a loss to discover in the Federal Constitution, in its objects, in its terms, any grant of power, either to recognize the disruption of the Government, of which it is the common agent, or to force back any one of the States of this Union after such State has overthrown the Federal authority within its limits. I hold that when the States have overthrown the Federal authority, they are out of the authority of the Federal Government. The remaining States still have a common agent, for, although they cannot dissolve the Union as to themselves, they can dissolve the Union as to the others; and this government was never created for the purpose of dealing with the extraordinary position of things by which we are surrounded. It is a Government of limited powers. Has my time expired yet, sir?

No, sir, you have several minutes yet.

Then I shall press this subject a little further, because I really consider it all-important. It is a novel, and I admit, a difficult question. It is one that has never occurred to my mind before. There has never arrived an occasion to consider this question before; and therefore it is that such diversity of opinion exists among the members of this body upon the subject. But I put it to any gentleman to examine the Federal Constitution—especially to those gentlemen who have been in the habit of construing that instrument strictly, who have called themselves States-rights men—I put it to them to examine the Federal Constitution, to grant the concession only, that the Government is a Government of limited powers, that it can exercise no powers not expressly delegated in the grant, or an incidental power necessary to carry out some express power; and then tell me where is the power granted to acknowledge the disruption of the very constituents which have erected it into a common Governmental agent?

Sir, it is not in the treaty-making power, for that gives the Government authority to make treaties with foreign nations. It is not in the war power, for that gives authority to make war upon foreign nations. Here is a State, one of the integral constituents of this very Government, which overthrows the authority of the Government which its agency had assisted in creating for the common benefit of all, in peaceful and harmonious operation. Was this contingency foreseen at the formation of the Government and provided for in the Federal Constitution? Is there a word in that Constitution pointing to such a condition of things as now surround us? I apprehend not, sir. If there is, I have been unable to discover it. I deny—as gentlemen of the State rights school always have denied—that this Government .Page240 has any inherent governmental power. I deny that, according to our ideas of Government, it is anything more than a mere agency for the benefit of the people who constitute it.

I deny that it is even an entity in any such sense as Governments are regarded according to the old European idea. It is not even an entity; it is a mere agency. Agency for what? Can an agency deal with a subject not contemplated at all, and not provided for, in the instrument conferring powers upon the agency? And especially when it goes to break up the constituency which appointed the agency?

Here the hammer fell.

With all respect to my able friend from Frederick, I submit that the argument he himself has submitted is sufficient to show the propriety of the position I have assumed. Sir, the question we have to meet in this proposition is whether the Confederated States, the present condition of which we are now treating in this resolution, are now in the Union or out of the Union. The distinguished gentleman from Frederick, in the course of his remarks has, in my humble judgment, made a concession which is fatal to the residue of his argument. It is this : He was compelled to concede, in order to meet the force of the argument I presented to the Committee when I was up before, that the seven seceded States are not now integral parts of the Union. Then what are they? They cannot be in the Union and out of the Union; they cannot be States in the Confederacy and foreign States at the same time ; they must, of necessity, be either foreign States or States in the Union, there can be no intermediate position, there can be no transition state. He has conceded that they are foreign States, in order to meet the argument—for he could meet in no other way. Then, sir, I beg to know, in the first place, if they are foreign States, whence he can derive the argument that there is not a plain grant in the Constitution, both in its letter and its spirit, to treat with foreign States? He asked me to point out any clause in the Constitution conferring upon the General Government the power to treat with the Confederate States. I point him to that clause in the Constitution which confers upon the government, as a common agent, the power of treating with and of entering into alliances with foreign governments.

What is the condition of these States after their secession? Are they a government or not? Are we a government or not? Does Virginia claim that the Federal Government is her agent for the purpose of exercising this power of sovereignty which she exercises in treating with foreign powers? If the Federal Government is her agent for that.Page241 purpose, has that Government powers to treat with this new Government which has just now sprung into existence? If not, has the Government the power to recognize any new Government which has sprung into existence since the formation of the Constitution? If the gentleman would argue that the Federal Government cannot recognize the Government of the Confederate States—admitting that they constitute a Government—because they are a Government; the same argument would require that the Government of the United States should recognize no Government that was not in existence at the time of the formation of the Constitution of the United States. To such an extremity does the argument of the gentleman drive him. If the Federal Government has properly recognized any Government which has sprung into existence since its agency was conferred upon it in the formation of the Constitution, then it may properly recognize the Government of the Confederate States.

Sir, permit me to say, further, that I claim this power as beneficial in its effect, and as, in fact, an indispensable necessity for the preservation of peace between the States; and in this connexion I shall repeat, in a measure, the argument I have already presented. The gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , differs widely from the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , as to the practicability of securing any satisfactory amendments to the Constitution; for, in the able and, to my mind, perfectly conclusive argument of the gentleman from Fauquier, the other day, when he was in a more hopeless condition of mind than he seemed to be yesterday, he demonstrated the utter futility of any attempt to amend the Constitution, because the seceded States, upon the theory of the Government at Washington, must count as a part of the Federal Union, and yet the Constitution says, that for the adoption of any amendment to the Constitution, there must be a concurrence of three-fourths of all the States. I put, then, the argument of the distinguished gentleman from Fauquier before the Committee, against the argument of my able friend from Frederick; for he has answered the argument of the gentleman from Frederick more perfectly than anything I could utter.

I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that upon the first reading of this section of the report of the Committee, I was pleased with it; I saw no objection to it, until I came to trace its consequences, and especially after the concession of the gentleman from Fauquier, that in failing to recognize the independence of the seceded States until the votes of three fourths of the seceded States shall have been obtained; and the fact, that if in the meantime three States more shall have seceded, the .Page242 door to such amendment of the Constitution will be forever closed, unless you admit that the union of the balance of the States is dissolved into its original elements, and as such may meet to form a new Government. But, sir, there is another objection. I do not want to affirm any want of power which implies the necessity of my appealing to that inexorable Black Republican majority of the Northern States to meet in Convention and give me help. I do not wish to concede any want of power to act, until I can obtain from the Northern States the concession of my right to act. I do not want to place the rights and interests of my constituents at the mercy of a Black Republican majority of the Northern States. With these remarks, sir, I submit the amendment.

Mr. FISHER called for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 68, nays 71, as follows : 3The Journal lists the same 69 affirmative votes given in the Proceedings. In the Journal, the name of Jackson makes up the 71 negative votes.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, J. H. Cox, R. H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, Jr., Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., Hale, A. Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Parks, Randolph, Richardson, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Wysor-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, White, Wickham, Willey-71.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

During the call of the roll Mr. WOODS stated that he had paired off with Mr. ORRICK.

The ninth resolution of the Committee of Twenty-One being under consideration in the Committee of the Whole—

I move to amend the ninth section in the 11th line, by striking out from the word "is," as follows :

"Disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the .Page243 Union, and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States as parties to the compact to take lawful action touching them."

And by inserting as follows :

"Are bound to forbear the exercise of powers touching these questions until the States, as parties to the Federal compact, take action thereon."

So that the clause will read :

"But the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, are bound to forbear," &c.

Mr. Chairman, as to these two resolutions, or rather as to the preamble contained in the 9th and 10th resolutions, I have to say that they were very ingeniously drawn to cover up the "cat in the meal tub" of a National Convention. The gentleman from Fauquier yesterday pretty distinctly disclosed that that proposition was calculated upon as the effect of the resolution—without claiming it—on the ground that the Federal authorities had disclaimed the power of peace with the Confederate States. He avows a desire to confer powers of peace, and to do that, he admits that he has to resort to a National Convention, or the other mode of amending the Constitution of the United States. My friend from Charlotte [Mr. BOULDIN] , has relieved me from any necessity for an answer upon that subject, but I rise to call the attention of my friend from Frederick, the Chairman of the Committee of twenty-one, to the assertion that he made to-day, that the Federal Government has power to treat only with foreign powers. I deny the proposition. In the Constitution of the United States you have four provisions touching treaties. In the first place it is provided that "no State shall enter into any treaty of alliance," &c. Of course it is understood that that clause refers to a State in the Union.

Again—clause three, of section ten, of article one :

"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."

Now, is there not the power of treaty by implication with these States? Can they not make a compact or agreement with the other States? But if this is considered as straining a point, I come now to the main power itself of treaty-making conferred upon the Executive department in connection with the Senate by the Constitution of the United States :

"The President shall have power by and with the consent of the Senate to make treaties."

Treaties with whom? It does not say with foreign powers, as the gentleman from Frederick interpolated into the phrase of the Constitution. Sir, you have made treaty after treaty, compact after compact, with new States as they have been admitted into the Union. You made a compact with Virginia when she ceded Kentucky, a treaty that is immutable between the United States and the State of Virginia. You made a compact with North Carolina when she ceded Tennessee, an immutable treaty. You made a compact with Georgia when she ceded Mississippi to you. You made a compact with Virginia again even before the Constitution was formed and confirmed it afterwards, in respect to the North-Western territory. When you admit any State into the Union you make treaties with that State in respect to the Indian tribes, in respect to the right of taxing the public lands : you even deprive the State by treaty of its power of eminent domain over the public lands within its limits. You have gone further than that. You have taken first a portion of the States of Virginia and Maryland, constituting the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government has exercised the power of ceding back a portion of that District. Just the other day, the Federal Government ceded to you its control over the Bellona Arsenal. But all this is nothing, compared with the treaty-making power you exercised by legislation with Texas. What did you do in the case of Texas? In the first place, you dispensed with the treaty-making power contemplated by the Constitution itself. You actually put the treaty-making power aside, and adopted legislation. Against the recommendation of my friend, then President of the United States [Mr. TYLER] , you admitted Texas into the Union, and made her a component part of the Union by legislation, as before you had made Louisiana a component part of the Union by treaty. And what more have you done? After Texas came into the Union, you made another treaty with her; a treaty in the form of a tender by legislation, that, for a cession of 44,000 square miles of her territory, you should pay to Texas $10,000,000.

But in the face of all this history, in face of all the treaties, compacts and agreements, immutable and unchangeable, made under the powers conferred in these four clauses of the Constitution, you now pretend to give countenance, by this resolution, to the doctrine, that after a State has gone out of the Union, you cannot agree to allow her to remain in peace, but that you are to leave the peace of this country at the discretion, the sole, arbitrary discretion of the powers that be, .Page245 with such dispositions and inclinations as possess them—you are to leave that peace at their mercy until you can call a National Convention, or until you can get three-fourths of the States to consent to an amendment of the Constitution, for the conservation of peace. Where is the guaranty of peace, in the meantime, while you are waiting for the consent of three fourths of the States, if there be three-fourths remaining to consent—as was very well said by the gentleman from Charlotte? How are you to preserve the peace while you are waiting, waiting, waiting for a National Convention?

Sir, the gentleman from Fauquier has shadowed forth throughout, the idea of a National Convention, of delay, of procrastination, of time, as an element to compose the difficulties that surround us. There are two evil tendencies attaching to this policy. In the first place, its tendency is to keep us in a Northern Confederacy, or to force us eventually to a violent rupture with the Northern Confederacy. It either forces us by delay, by giving the serpent time to coil around us, until we share the fate of another Laocoon, or until we are exposed to the horrors of a civil war. Sir, I want the question now acted upon. A question comes before us this very day, showing the necessity of immediate action—the question of the Tortugas.

Here the hammer fell.

My friend from Accomac—

Princess Anne. I am royal.

My friend from Princess Anne, has a wonderful faculty for discovering "cats in meal tubs." [Laughter.] As the gentleman from Princess Anne has moved an amendment—but in the course of a ten minutes speech, has said not one word in its advocacy—concurring, as I do, in what I understand to be the principle of the amendment, I beg leave to supply, in some degree, his deficiency. Now, sir, I have not time within the limits of ten minutes, to respond to that portion of his remarks addressed more particularly to myself. I desire to occupy my time in considering the proposition of his amendment.

When a State withdraws from this Union, I understand that it breaks a Government compact. I desire to know from the gentleman from Charlotte [Mr. BOULDIN] -I need not put the question to the gentleman from Princess Anne—whether, in such case, the withdrawing State incurs any liability growing out of that act; and if a liability is incurred, I desire further to know, to whom does it accrue? Does it accrue to the Government from which she withdraws, or does it accrue to the other parties to the government compact? In fact, sir, when a bargain is broken even between independent sovereignties, some liability .Page246 attaches growing out of the broken bargain. I desire to know in what quarter the liability is found? If it is not to the government, must it not necessarily be to the other parties to the compact? And if it be only to the parties to the compact, does it not follow necessarily that those parties only can deal with the question? I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Princess Anne to concede that the questions growing out of State secession are to be dealt with by the other States as parties to the government compact, and that his amendment announces the proposition that the government, as an agent, must forbear to deal with the questions growing out of it until the States who are the other parties to the compact take action. That, sir, is the principle of the resolutions reported by the committee. That is the very doctrine intended to be announced by the 9th and 10th resolutions.

They do not touch it—either of them.

Now, sir, entertaining exactly the opinion which I understand the gentleman from Princess Anne to entertain, that it is reserved for the other States, as parties to this bargain or compact, to take action upon this question, I would ask him in what manner he proposes this action to be taken? A National Convention he seems to have a mortal horror of ; yet, he says, these other States are to take action.

No, I do not.

I understand the amendment of the gentleman to say that the government shall forbear until the other parties take action concerning it. The amendment, therefore, contemplates action upon the part of the other States. And what I desire to know is in what manner the gentleman expects that action to be taken?

They may take it through a general convention, or they may take it in another way, as may seem most proper and desirable. But I say to the gentleman from Charlotte, that I think he altogether misunderstood the argument of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , when he supposed that from anything that fell from him he had the right to conclude that these withdrawing States were still to be regarded as members of the Confederacy. I understand all of us concede that these States have withdrawn and are without the obligations of the Government compact; and it remains for the other States to take such action touching their withdrawal as to them seems proper. And we mean to deny the power upon the part of the Federal Government, to deal with these questions at all. Now, how the States are to take action is a question for them alone to determine. What action .Page247 they are to take is a question for them to decide, and I cannot see the point of difference between the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Princess Anne, and the proposition of the Committee in their report—I mean any substantial difference in principle. The purpose of the amendment, if I comprehend it, seems to be the same as the purpose of the resolution, that is to announce in respect to these new and novel questions, that the government shall not take action, but that all action remains to be taken by the other parties to the compact; and that if they desire the government to act as their agent, they must communicate new power.

Here the hammer fell.

The gentleman says I have a wonderful faculty for finding out "cats in the meal." Let me say that if I have such a faculty, it is because he has a very remarkable one of covering up so many cats in the meal. I never saw a gentleman so thoroughly secretive in his propensities as I find the gentleman to be. I have watched him constantly. I have to watch him constantly, and he has trained me to a pretty good understanding of his purposes.

Now, sir, the gentleman says that the report itself, in the 9th and 10th sections asserts the same principle as the amendment. It does no such thing. What do the Committee on Federal Relations assert? That the Federal Government is to forbear? This Committee asserts no such thing anywhere. The language is that "the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim the power to recognize the withdrawal of any State," &c. The report says no such thing as that the Federal authorities are to forbear, touching these questions; but they merely avow the fact that the Federal authorities disclaim the power to recognize the withdrawal of a State. I do not concur with the Federal authorities, and I want that we shall impose a most authoritative demand upon them until the States shall act. And there, the gentleman takes a turn upon me that is not a fair one. He says that my amendment is intended to make the States act. I do not care whether they act or not. My resolution proposes no such thing as that they shall or shall not act. I say they may or may not act. All I want to say here is that until they do act—or whether they act or not—the Federal Government shall be instructed to forbear to exercise the powers of executing the laws within the jurisdiction of the seceded States until the other parties to the Federal Compact shall act. So that there is no difficulty there. The resolutions do not declare that the States shall act, but to satisfy the gentleman on that point if this.Page248 amendment shall be adopted, when we come to the 10th section I shall propose an amendment to show how they should act.

I shall then propose that the people of Virginia "hereby declare their consent, for themselves, to the recognition of the separate independence of the seceded States—that they shall be treated with as independent powers, and that the proper laws shall be passed to give effect to such recognition."

Well, sir, suppose the other States do not act—suppose that they are a long time in acting—still, I wish this Convention, speaking for the sovereign people of Virginia, to say that we require that the Federal authorities shall not merely disclaim the power to treat with those States as independent powers, but shall forbear to attempt to execute laws over them which they disclaim. The resolution reported by this Committee leaves them free to execute the laws against the seceded States, and thereby to bring upon us civil war.

Now, I contended, in my first ten minutes, that the Federal Government has power, already, to make compacts with them, to make a treaty with them, to recognize them—by the convertible forms by which we admitted Louisiana. I deny the doctrine that they have not the power to keep the peace. They have the power to treat with them. The President of the United States might have submitted an agreement to the Senate, and, if confirmed by the Senate, it would have been, by the fourth provision of the Constitution in regard to treaties, the supreme law of the land. I believe that to disclaim the power to treat, and yet to leave with them the power of executing the laws in the meantime, until the power to treat shall be conferred, is to expose the very heart of the nation to civil war. The argument of the gentleman from Charlotte [Mr. BOULDIN] , has not been answered yet.

But conceal it as the gentleman [Mr. R. Y. CONRAD] may, move directly or indirectly as he may, his aim is but too apparent. It is for delay, and for all the machinery that will obstruct a speedy termination of this question. I tell him now, for my people, that his course is making more precipitationists than any other one cause.

This delay, this suspense, this prostration of business, this state of dubiety, this distraction, is kindling fire upon the fever which will soon burst out into the most terrible consequences, unless we come to some more immediate and more decisive action. The time is past to soothe and coax, and honey-fugle this people into submission. The time is too dangerous for delay, which will allow the boa-constrictor to enfold us to our death. You ought now to take your independent stand and speak to the present Government; you ought now to have a commissioner .Page249 in Washington to demand, in the presence of the President of the United States, whether his purpose is peace or war.

We ought to be informed at this moment what is the meaning of these armaments that have gone South. We ought to be informed what is the point which they intend to make as to Tortugas and Fort Pickens. We ought to tell them distinctly that they must forbear while we are making efforts, long or short, to keep the peace and defend our rights.

The gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. ROBERT. E. SCOTT] , takes the ground incorrectly, that there is any concurrence or semblance of concurrence between the proposition which I now make, and those two resolutions of the Committee of Twenty-one. Theirs leave the Federal Government the power to execute the law. They have not restrained that power to bring upon us civil war at any moment. They leave us to all the delay and all the machinery of a national Convention, or an amendment of the Constitution to attain peace. My proposition says to the powers at Washington : "You must forbear to execute the laws over this people until the parties to the Federal compact—when, it matters not; soon or late, it matters not—can make an arrangement. Forbear to bring States and States into conflict, power and power into conflict, Confederacy into conflict with Confederacy."

At the request of some friends, I propose to change my amendment by substituting for the word "until the States parties to the Federal compact shall act," the words "until pending difficulties are adjusted."

There being no objection the amendment was so modified.

I propose to amend the amendment by striking out the words "are bound to" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "should," so that it shall read : "should forbear the exercise of powers," &c.

I care nothing about the words. To me they are equivalent. I accept the proposed amendment if the Committee have no objection.

There being no objection the amendment was so modified.

The question was taken on Mr. WISE'S amendment, and, on division, there were, ayes 49, noes 76.

So the amendment was rejected.

The question recurred on the 9th resolution as amended.

If I understand that resolution aright there is a clause in it which I would like to have stricken out. I move to strike out, in the third line, the words "without the assent of the other .Page250 States." I will state, in a few words, the point of my objection. That clause does not declare directly that the assent of the States in the Union shall be given to the withdrawal of the seceding States; but it might be inferred, from implication, from the words which I propose to strike out, that such assent was necessary. That idea would be in conflict with my opinions and, perhaps, with the opinions of others. If it does not convey that idea, then it seems to me the words are unnecessary and mere surplusage, and that they may be stricken out without in the least impairing the harmony and compactness of the other part of the section. This is my view of it, and therefore I submit the amendment.

Mr. WISE called for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 54, nays 80 ; as follows :4The Journal includes Marye, but not Williams in the affirmative votes; in the Journal, McComas and Preston are among the negative votes, but Marye is not.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, J. Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, J. Goode, Hale, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, R. H. Turner, Williams, Wise, Woods, Wysor-54.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-80.

So the amendment was rejected.

I desire to offer an amendment to the resolution, one which I think ought to be made. In the 10th line these words occur : "but the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize," &c.

I move to insert after the word "authorities" in the 10th line, the following: "as they were constituted when this section was drafted."

I offer this, sir, because we all affirm, if that resolution shall be adopted, a fact that no man in this Convention knows to be true, and shall place ourselves in the position of a witness swearing to what he .Page251 does not know to be true or false. We do not know how the Federal authorities, as at present constituted, stand upon this question ; we do not know what opinions they entertain upon it. It is true that Mr. Buchanan disclaimed that power, but I do not think that Mr. Lincoln disclaimed it. If we adopt that resolution to-day, we affirm that to be true which no gentleman on this floor knows to be true.

Unless I am grossly deceived, the President of the United States both the present and the last President—have distinctly uttered the disclaimer that is mentioned here, that "they disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union." Mr. Buchanan unquestionably did disclaim that power, and that disclaimer, as I understand, has never been withdrawn by any subsequent Federal Executive. That fact would be sufficient to maintain the affirmant here ; but, in addition to that, the present President, in his inaugural, if I am not mistaken, also disclaimed the power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union; asserted his right and duty to execute the Federal laws within the seceded States, and has continued, so far as we know, up to this moment, to assert that authority and duty.

Now, sir, if that does not involve a disclaimer of power to recognize the withdrawal of the States, I know not what would amount to a disclaimer of that power.

The latter part of the resolution says it has no power to deal with these questions.

That is the mere inference of the Committee, "and consequently to deal with these questions." That is mere inference, as I have said. Because it has no power to recognize the withdrawal we say it has no power of coercion; and the whole object of this resolution is to protest against the exercise of any coercive power by the Federal authorities against these States, recognizing, however, in full force, the responsibility of these seceding States to their co-States in the Union.

I have never held—although gentlemen seem to have so conceived the admission that these States or any States of this Union have a right to withdraw from the obligations of the government compact into which they have entered. They have a right to withdraw from the Federal authority, but their responsibility, for such withdrawal, to the extent of any injury which may have been done to the co-States or the other parties to the compact, still remains—remains to be asserted by the parties to the compact, and not by the Federal agent, who is not authorised to assert such rights.

Will it be in order to make an observation or two?

No, sir.

I was about to ask the Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-one a question. I will do so if it be in order.

The Chair would think not, because the Chairman of the Committee would probably seek to answer the question, and that would lead to debate.

Is the question divisible?

No, sir, the question is not divisible.

The question was then put upon the amendment offered by Mr. FISHER, and decided in the negative.

The question then recurred upon agreeing to the resolution as amended.

I call for the yeas and nays upon that resolution.

The call was sustained, and the question having been taken, resulted—yeas 92, nays 37—as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, Chapman, Coffman, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Early, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, Hale, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spurlock, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-92.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Cecil, Chambliss, Conn, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Graham, Gregory, J. Goode, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Leake, Macfarland, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Randolph, Richardson, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Speed, Thornton, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Wise, Woods, Wysor-37.

So the resolution was adopted.

Mr. WILSON stated, when Mr. JAMES BARBOUR'S name was called, that that gentleman paired off with the gentleman from Lewis county [Mr. BoGGES S] , and that both were absent.

I move that we now recur to the consideration of the 8th resolution.

The motion was agreed to, and the 8th resolution was then taken up and read, as follows :

"The people of Virginia recognize the American principle that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new governments for their better security, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority."

I move to amend this resolution by striking out all after the word "and," in the third line, and inserting the following :

"In the language of the illustrious statesman, James Madison, whom the people of Virginia have been taught to venerate and revere as the wisest, safest and truest expounder of the Constitution which he so largely contributed to construct; that that instrument makes the Government to operate directly on the people, places at its command the needful physical means of executing its powers, and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it over the Constitution and laws of the States, subject to the revolutionary rights of the people in extreme cases; that a political system that does not provide for a peaceable and authoritative termination of existing controversies would not be more than the shadow of a Government ; the object and end of a real Government being the substitution of law and order for uncertainty, confusion and violence; that in the event of a failure of every constitutional resort, and an accumulation of usurpations and abuses rendering passive obedience and non-resistance a greater evil than resistance and revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all—an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the Constitutional Compact to the original rights and the law of self-preservation. This is the ultima ratio of all governments, whether consolidated, confederated, or a compound of both. It cannot be doubted that a single member of the Union, in the extremity supposed—BUT IN THAT ONLY-would have a right, as an extra and ultra constitutional right, to make the appeal."

This resolution, sir, is not my own. It is the language of Mr. Madison, and will be recollected by the Committee as one of the series proposed a week or two ago by the delegate from Marshall [Mr. BURLEY] .

The eighth resolution, which is now before the Committee, asserts, as the opinion of the Committee, that the States of this Union have a right to secede from it, and not concurring in or being willing to .Page254 admit by any act of mine here such a political heresy, I prefer, sir, to avail myself of the labors of the gentleman from Marshall, who had looked up, in the writings of Mr. Madison, the correct doctrine, in my opinion, upon, this question. And it will be for this Committee to say whether they or Mr. Madison, who has been styled the father of the Constitution, best understand it.

I will now read the resolution as it would read should the amendment be adopted. [Mr. CARLILE here read the resolution indicated.] The original resolution, in my opinion, lays down nothing but abstractions and political heresies, one of which is the assumption of this constitutional peaceable remedy of secession. It is idle to presume that James Madison, and those who were associated with him in forming the government, expressly provided in the Constitution for its dissolution, and that they spent years of thought and years of toil in building up a government which was to be dissolved the next morning at the pleasure of a single member of that Government.

We have been enlightened, I at least have been, upon this new idea for the first time by this 8th section of the report. These gentlemen present this new sort of governmental idea that a sovereign State has the right to withdraw from the government and that the government has no right to question this act of the sovereign State, inasmuch as they say it is an offence committed, not against the government, but against co-States. Now, I confess that I have not comprehension enough to understand this idea. It is a novel one to me at least, for I have heard it for the first time upon this floor. I believe that the government has the right of self-preservation. I believe if a State withdraws from this government that it must be prepared by the right arm of revolution to maintain its separate existence. I believe, when this government becomes oppressive to the people of any of the States composing it, that they should resort to that revolutionary right which our fathers resorted to—that they will do, as they did not take shelter from their acts under the cover of a right that cannot exist; but place the reasons and the acts before the civilized world, and appeal to the God of battles, to sustain them.

As one of the Committee of twenty-one, I feel myself bound to defend the Committee at all events upon this section, because I have had an humble part in forming it. Now, I undertake to say, if any proposition was ever made to any body divided in sentiment, that ought to be received on all sides in a spirit of fairness, without compromitting principle upon either side, this proposition is one.

It affirms nothing about the revolutionary or the sovereign right. You and I concur in avoiding that rock, the Scylla on the one hand and the Charybdis on the other. It is the fairest proposition that could have been presented to the minds of our people. I care not whether my neighbor acts upon the revolutionary right, or I act upon the States right I upon the sovereign right or he upon the individual right—if he and I march unitedly, shoulder to shoulder, to resist aggression.

I rose more particularly to say, that now it is demonstrated openly, by the bold and candid member who has just addressed us, that we have the same dissension tearing the womb of this Convention that is now tearing the womb of the Cabinet at Washington. The image of Sin, the Mother of Death, sits at Hell's gate with her offspring, barking, eternally barking at every thing that is good upon earth ; when disturbed running back to the mother womb, and even there still barking; and now in that Capitol, in the womb of that Cabinet is the very conflict going on, the barking, which we have just heard in this body—the power of war claimed against the power of peace, the power claimed of war and war only to execute the laws through blood, flame and devastation—and that put upon the ground of self-preservation.

Let me tell the gentleman, that if he relies upon that for self-preservation, he will be deceived. The moment that this government resorts to coercion to demonstrate that that Government has power, has existence and because it has it, it will wield it—whenever this government adopts that principle, it rushes upon its certain and fearful fate of destruction. Let him establish that doctrine, that there is no power of peace—let him establish the doctrine, whether under the supposition of revolutionary or of sovereign right, of constitutional or extra-constitutional right, that there is no peaceable mode of composing strife, that there is no power of agreement by which these States can part, like Abraham and Lot, in peace, if they cannot live together without dissension—let that be established; let it be said that the laws at all hazard shall be executed or, if the admission be made, that they must not be executed for the sake of peace, that then the government becomes defunct; let that be the received faith and practice of the hour, and I tell gentlemen, that however hesitating the people of Virginia and the border States may be about secession now, their decision will be made upon the instant whenever that decision is proclaimed.

I am told that the great arch-enemy of the South—he who has .Page256 invented and proclaimed the "irrepressible conflict" is now for peace. Seward is the leader of peace and is called now the "conservative" of the Cabinet. I dread his peace, I confess, worse than Greeley's war. But I am told that the Seward policy is in the descending node and that the Greeley and Chase policy is now dominant, and that is the reason that these forces are sent from New York to the South. Let it be understood now that the gentleman who offers this amendment takes the side of Greeley and Chase against Seward on this question. This is the conflict, the real conflict that at this moment is sending forth arms. The resolution which the gentleman proposes to amend I shall vote for intact as it is. I would not amend a word of it, lest any other part of it should be disturbed, and if that is not adopted here, if the competing proposition is adopted, you will then have sown dragon's teeth from which will spring forth armed men.

I confess my surprise at the remarks of the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] . I believe I may call him my friend.

Yes, sir.

In opposing the amendment which I have offered, the gentleman attempts to identify that amendment with myself, and by so doing, he identifies its author, Mr. Madison, with myself.

Oh no; I have heard the Devil quote Scripture before.

If, in giving my opinion, in the few remarks which I submitted to the Committee, that this Government, under which we have lived for near three quarters of a century, is, in fact, a Government, and, as such, of necessity, had the right to preserve and maintain its own existence—if the expression of an opinion, like that, will justify the remarks and attribute to me the disposition that was attributed by my friend from Princess Anne—then I stand corrected. Sir, if I said anything expressive of a wish that force should be used or coercion resorted to, I am unconscious of it, and I think the report, of the few remarks that I made, will bear me out, that I did not so treat the subject. On the contrary, I have, on a former occasion in this Convention, expressed it as my sincere wish that the difficulties now surrounding us shall be peaceably settled, and I believe they can and will be, if the efforts of the gentleman from Princess Anne and the Confederated States will but allow a settlement in a peaceable and amicable mode. I can see from no information laid before the public, any disposition on the part of the Administration at Washington to use force. I confess I am not as familiar with the differences in the Black Republican Cabinet, at Washington, as the gentleman from .Page257 Princess Anne seems to be—that there is any disposition on the part of this Federal Government of ours to use force against any member of that Government, has not as yet been made known to the public. But, sir, when I am called upon, as a representative of a constituency, here to commit myself to what I have believed to be a political heresy, I certainly will endeavor, at least, to assert that which I believe to be true. I would willingly, if it could be done, vote against the whole of the first part of this report. The adoption of all these resolutions can lead to no practical good. They can only commit gentlemen to the assertion of principles about which we differ. That there are those here who believe in the constitutional right of a State to secede, there can be no doubt; that there are those who deny it, there can be as little doubt; and when we speak of a right acknowledged by the founders of the Constitution that exists outside of all constitutions, the right of revolution, we all understand what that means and what we are called upon to do. If the people of Virginia have suffered intolerable oppression from this Federal Government, which some are so desirous of overthrowing, they have the nerve to declare they will do the deed that they believe they are justifiable in doing, and that they will hazard the result that must follow in the event they fail in their efforts.

Mr. EARLY called for a division of the question.

The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered.

The question was then taken, and the motion to strike out was not agreed to—yeas 23, nays 114—as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Burdett, Burley, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Early, Ephraim B. Hall, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Lewis, McGrew, Masters, Moore, Porter, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, A. H. H. Stuart, Tarr-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Byrne, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, 'Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Gregory, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Holladay, Hull, Hunton, Isbell, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, McComas, McNeil, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Maslin, Miller, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Wickham, Willey, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-114.

I propose to insert in the 8th resolution after the word .Page258 "principle" the words "as established in the American Revolution," so that it would read :

"The people of Virginia recognize the American principle as established in the American Revolution, that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new governments for their better security, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority."

I propose to enter into no argument at all upon this amendment. I simply desire to say that it is offered in no captious spirit by me. I expressed my opinion in this Hall long before this report was brought in by the Committee of Twenty-one. I cannot vote for the resolution as it now stands. As I said before, I do not intend to go into an argument of the question, because I know very well that there is nothing I can say, after so much has been said upon both sides, that will change the vote of a single member in this body.

Is this a proposition, Mr. Chairman, to restore a controverted point? If the principle is good in itself, it is just as good without saying how it was established, or when it was established. We are not voting for the mode in which the principle was established; we are voting for the principle itself. It certainly is something remarkable for a gentleman to tell us that he will not vote for a principle without telling us how the principle was established. Does it matter how the principle was established? If you state how the principle was established, that does not alter, does not change the principle itself. The real meaning of it is that the gentleman wants to use the word "revolution," and to raise the very point which the Committee of Twenty one avoided as a point of controversy—of ceaseless controversy. Some may say it is revolutionary; others may say it is sovereignty; let us agree to disagree upon those points, and come to the principle; and without giving it its name, let us take it for itself.

I endeavored to make myself understood when I explained my proposition. I never have believed that any State has a right peaceably to secede from the General Government, of its own will and pleasure. I always thought that after we entered into the Federal compact, we had a General Government, but if it be true that any State has a right to secede of its own will and pleasure, at any time, without entering into a compact to that effect with the .Page259 Federal power, then we have no Government at all. When the several States of the Union ratified the Constitution of the United States, I do not believe it was the intention that they should have the right to secede the next day, if they chose, from the Federal Government; and I propose to insert those words, in order that we may draw a distinction between a revolutionary right and a right of peaceful secession. We all believe in the revolutionary right, and my object is simply to draw that distinction.

The question will be upon the amendment.

I call for the ayes and noes.

I wish to ask a question of the gentleman from Princess Anne. It was stated by the gentleman from Princess Anne, I believe, that it was the purpose of the Committee of 21 not to assert either a revolutionary right or a Constitutional right, but to leave that question open.

This discussion is not in order.

I would like, since the question was allowed to be asked, that I should be allowed to answer it.

I suppose that since the question has been asked the Committee will bear with the answer, though it is not strictly in order.

I thought I was distinct twice in stating what I understood to be the intention of that Committee. It was to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis, not between Constitutional right and revolutionary right, but sovereign right and revolutionary right. They did not intend to raise that issue, by the report; but without characterising the right, its source or its application, they merely meant to assert the principle of the right to be governed only by consent, either on the part of men or on the part of States.

The vote was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. BAYLOR, and the question was decided in the negative—ayes 29, noes 101, as follows :5The Journal lists 106 negative votes, adding Woods to those listed in the Proceedings. In the Journal, Willey's name is only among the affirmative votes, and presumably it should be deleted from negative votes in the Proceedings.

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Couch, Dent, Early, Ephraim B. Hall, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Lewis, McGrew, Masters, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Porter, Sharp, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Willey-29.

NOES-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, Alfred M. Barbour, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boggess, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Byrne, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Gregory, Jr., Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Addison .Page260 Hall, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Holladay, Hunton, Isbell, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, McComas, McNeil, Macfarland, Chas. K. Mallory, Jas. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Miller, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Pendleton, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, Richardson, Robert E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Robert H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Wickham, Willey, Wilson, Wise, Wysor-105.

I move to amend the 8th resolution by striking out all after the word "the" before the words "several States" in the third line, and inserting in lieu thereof the following : "United States to resume the powers granted under the Federal Constitution whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." So that the section, as amended, will read :

"8. The people of Virginia recognize the American principle that Government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people of the United States, to resume the powers granted under the Federal Constitution whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

That portion of the resolution which was stricken out being :

"Several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new Governments for their better security, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority."

The amendment which I have proposed is in the language of the form of ratification adopted by the Virginia Convention which ratified the Constitution of the United States, that was prepared by a committee of which Governor Randolph was chairman, and of which such men as Jefferson, Madison and Williamson were members. This is the language of the ordinance of ratification :

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them .Page261 whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression," &c

Now, sir, I shall not say anything in regard to the argument upon the subject of the right of secession. That, sir, was fully exhausted thirty years ago, and the most impressive argument I have to present in return, is that based upon the form of ratification adopted by the Virginia Convention. On day before yesterday, in the third line of the fourth resolution, the word "several" was inserted, by a vote of this body, in place of the word "united," upon the express idea that the words "the people of the several States," were words of consolidation, and that they established the doctrine that this was a consolidated government. Now, sir, here is a similar declaration of the Convention of Virginia, in a form which was prepared by the wisest and best statesmen; and if gentlemen of the State Rights school of politics are willing to risk the doctrine of secession upon this form of ratification, I think I have the right to ask them to come up for their own doctrine, for in their opinion these are words of consolidation. I call for the ayes and noes upon the question.

I desire to know, sir, whether the motion is to strike out all of the eighth section from the words "several States," down to the end, or whether any part of the remainder is to be preserved?

The motion is to strike out the whole, from the words "several States."

I ask for a division of the question.

In reply to the gentleman from Lee and Scott [Mr. JOHNSTON] , I would say that it was my purpose to strike out the whole. To put it in proper form would require an entire change of phraseology, and the same doctrine is contained in two or three other resolutions of the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

I ask for a division of the question.

The call has already been made by the gentleman from Middlesex, and the question will first be put upon striking out.

The House expressly refuses to strike out.

There is a rule of this House which provides that although a motion to strike out and insert is overruled, it does not overrule a motion to strike out something else.

I submit that it is not competent to have a division of the question.

That point of order is overruled.

The question was then put, and the Committee refused to strike out —ayes 35, noes 98, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Couch, Custis, Dent, Early, E. B. Hall, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Lewis, McGrew, Masters, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Willey-35.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Ambler, Armstrong, Alfred M. Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Cecil, Chambliss, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Gregory, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., Hale, A. Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Holladay, Hunton, Isbell, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson. Leake, McComas, McNeil, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Maslin, Miller, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Wickham, Wilson, Wise, Woods, Wysor-98.

The hour of two o'clock having arrived, the Committee took a recess until 4 o'clock, P. M.

1.5.5. EVENING SESSION

The Committee assembled at 4 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN stated the question to be upon the adoption of the 8th resolution of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

As that is a very important resolution, and one exceedingly distasteful to me, I hope we shall have a fuller House than I now see present. As I perceive I am in a very small minority in this Committee, I should like to have as much company as possible. I propose to amend the resolution in the third line after the word "the" by inserting the word "revolutionary" so that the clause would read,

"They concede the revolutionary right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just cause to withdraw," &c.

Has not that proposition been already substantially voted on in this Convention? The revolutionary character of the right was involved in the amendment of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . The amendment of the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BAYLOR] , too involved the same idea. I submit, for that reason, that the amendment of the gentleman from Wood is not in order.

It will be for the Committee to say whether they .Page263 will adopt the amendment or not. The Chair decides that it is in order.

I do not desire to detain the Committee. I belong to the silent voting portion of this body; and it would have been much more agreeable to me if some other gentleman had proposed the amendment, and I could have simply given my vote upon it. But, sir, I cannot vote for this resolution as it now stands—not even with the amendment I have proposed, if it should be adopted. I should be compelled to offer other amendments. I offer this for the purpose of redeeming the resolution from the objection which many gentlemen believe it to have, in respect to the character of the right which is asserted. I propose to make it so clear that there shall be no doubt about it.

It is due, however, to candor to say that I have not the slightest hope of my amendment being adopted—none whatever—and I shall not, therefore, undertake to debate it as I might under other circumstances. I simply propose to make my own record in reference to it. I shall not even call the yeas and nays upon it; for I know that to spend any time in reference to it would be a work of supererogation. I content myself with offering the proposition and asking for a vote upon it.

I call for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the amendment.

The yeas and nays were not ordered. The amendment was disagreed to—ayes 29, noes 58.

The question then recurred upon the adoption of the resolution.

I have an amendment to propose to that resolution. I propose to strike out all after the word "they," in the third line, down to the word "and," in the seventh line, as follows :

"Concede the right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new governments for their better security."

And to insert this in the place of it :

"Assert that the people of the several States, whensoever the powers granted by them under the Federal Constitution shall be perverted to their injury and oppression, have the extra and ultra constitutional right to resume the same, and that every power not granted by them remains with them and at their will."

So that the clause will read : "The people of Virginia recognize the American principle, that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they assert that the people of the several States," &c.

Mr. Chairman, there have been four amendments proposed to this .Page264 resolution, two of which have been propositions to strike out and insert. Upon these amendments a division of the question was called, and I voted, in each case, to strike out, not because I was in favor of inserting the propositions presented, but because I am opposed to the resolution as it now stands.

Now, sir, I propose to strike out what I have indicated, and to insert what I have presented, upon this ground. I agree that government is founded on the consent of the governed. I agree that this is not a consolidated government, but, on the contrary, that it is a government founded by the people of the several States, acting in their individual sovereign capacity, and that they are the parties to the compact; that they being the parties to the compact they alone can judge of the grievances which may be sustained by them under that compact; that in the exercise of that right, if they determine that the government has been perverted to their injury and oppression, they have the right to amend, alter or abolish it and that they are responsible to their co-States for any injury which they inflict upon those States by such amendment, alteration or abolishment. What I mean to say is this : that while Louisiana had the right, if in her opinion, the government had perverted its powers for her injury and oppression, to go out of the Union, and while the Federal Government has no right to collect duties upon her imports, yet she has no right to control the mouth of the Mississippi river; and the fact that she has so gone out gives her no right of such control ; and if by her going out she has inflicted injury upon the States bordering upon that river she is responsible to them for that injury.

Now, sir, this resolution is obviously uncertain. It has been avowed upon this floor that it is intentionally uncertain ; that it was purposely so frmed, that this word "right" might be made to accord to the peculiar views of the individual who uses it, whether a sovereign right, a constitutional right, or a revolutionary right. I prefer that it shall be construed by us. I believe it to be an extra-constitutional right; and when this Convention is declaring a great principle, I want the declaration made in such terms that he who reads it may understand it. I am, therefore, opposed to the resolution as it stands, and it is for the purpose of rendering it more certain in its construction that I have proposed this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS called for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the amendment.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The amendment was disagreed to.

I propose to add nothing to this section, but I do propose what would render it more appropriate in language and more acceptable to some. I propose to strike out in the 3rd line, the words "they concede."

One word only as to the object of the amendment. It will be perceived by the gentlemen of the Committee, that if these two words be stricken out, it will leave us the word "recognize" as the governing word of the sentence. Now this affirmation of right must apply to the rights of our own people, who are making this concession, as well as to the rights of the people of the several States. It now reads, "the people of Virginia recognize the American principle that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people," &c. Now we are employing a term here which, it strikes me, is not appropriate ; when we say we "concede" the right of the people of the Several States, we are then speaking of our own rights as well as the rights of the people of the several States. Now I think it is sufficient to say that we "recognize the American principle that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and the right of the people of the several States of this Union for just causes to withdraw," &c. That includes the people of Virginia as well as the people of the other States. We are not called upon to concede anything to the people of those States, and I see no reason why this word "concede" should not be omitted, leaving the word "recognize" to cover the right of the people of all the States. The use of one verb is sufficient, and I think it is proper that we should strike out these two words. The whole sentence is left perfectly grammatical, and I think the language is more appropriate. We desire here to recognize the right of all the people of all the States under certain circumstances to throw off the government. I do not know how the word "concede" is employed there. The word "concession" and the word "concede" imply some superiority in the party exercising or employing the term. It is necessarily improper, it seems to me, and I hope it will be omitted.

I merely desire to say that I consider the amendment proposed a very decided improvement to the section ; I shall vote for it very cheerfully, and, as far as I am concerned, I hope it will be adopted.

I rise, sir, to offer a suggestion. Now, as to this word "concede," it may imply that I am a grantor of a right, as I understood him [the gentleman from Kanawha] to indicate, and in that sense it would be too strong a term, but in the sense in which it is .Page266 obviously used in this connexion, as a qualification of the phrase, it is merely admitting the right, merely an acknowledgment; acceding to a confession of the right. That is the only meaning it has there, and in that sense, it is not too strong. But, if proper to be stricken out, because implying more than it ought to import, then the question arises whether the word "recognize" is sufficient to imply enough. What is to recognize? It is merely a term that takes cognizance of an act. Does it necessarily imply the acknowledgment of a right?

I know that in our vernacular, we sometimes mean, by the word "recognize," to imply that we acknowledge the thing, but literally it means no such thing. It is a mere vernacular implication, and not an implication derived from the root of the word. The word "recognize" means only to know again. You may recognize a fact without acknowledging it at all. You may recognize a right because it is set up, and you have known it to be set up, but that does not express necessarily that you acknowledge the right. I recognize, for example, the doctrine of consolidation as a doctrine which is held by very high and respectable authorities; but I do not acknowledge it. I more than recognize the doctrine of State sovereignty. I not only recognize it, but I acknowledge it, and concede it, and we act on it.

While, then, we are getting clear of one word which might, perhaps, imply, in some sense, rather too strong a meaning, we ought to be cautious, it seems to me, not to fall back on the other governing word "recognize" which might be short of what is meant. I submit to my friend from Kanawha, that if for the word "concede" we substitute the word "acknowledge" that would meet every difficulty. But if he means merely to recognize the right, without acknowledging it, I cannot go along with him. I wish to go with him, because I think his criticism on the word "concede" is right.

It occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would not be necessary to insert any word in place of the words proposed to be struck out. The gentleman from Princess Anne appears to think that the word "recognize" is not quite strong enough and he suggests the insertion of the word "acknowledge" instead of the word "concede." It is clear to me, however, that when we say "we recognize the American principle," &c., and the right of secession, that is equivalent to the word "acknowledge." Do you mean simply to use the word "recognize" as you would use it to a friend from whom you had been long parted—that you recognize his features on meeting him again? In its application here you mean to say that you acknowledge the American system. What do we mean when we say we recognize .Page267 the independence of Greece, of the South American Republics, of Sardinia? We mean that we acknowledge their independence. It is equivalent to the use of the word "acknowledge" and would be so understood by all here. I think we need not employ any stronger or different word in either sentence. I regard it as tautology; and in adopting amendments to the Constitution we should do so in as few words as possible. I think there can be no objection to the striking out of these words ; it will make the sentence more neat and grammatical and would be better in every way.

The question was taken on Mr. Summers' amendment and it was agreed to.

I move to insert in the blank just created, the words "they acknowledge," and on that I call for the yeas and nays.

I would remind the gentleman from Middlesex and the Committee, that the insertion of the words proposed would be obnoxious to the same objection that I made to the other words. As the sentence now stands, we recognize the rights of all the States, including this State.

That is exactly the object which I have in view. I know enough about men and things to know that that gentleman and his friends, if this resolution is to stand as you have fixed it by this vote, will quote this as a decision of this Convention that Virginia did not concede the great right of State secession. And it is to test the sense of the Convention on this question that I move to insert the words "they acknowledge." I do it, not with the view of deceiving anybody, but of seeing, whether this Convention are, by their votes to-day, ready to stultify themselves by taking back everything they have said.

I prefer the word "recognize" to the word "acknowledge," and shall vote against the amendment, but I do not concede at all that I am yielding or surrendering the right of secession.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 28, nays 90—as follows :

AYES-Messrs. Ambler, Alfred M. Barbour, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Cabell, Cecil, Chambliss, Coffman, Conn, Fisher, Hale, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Leake, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Robt. H. Turner, Wise, Woods, Wysor-28.

NOES-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Bouldin, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Chapman, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Flournoy, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, .Page268 Gravely, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Hoge, Holcombe, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Masters, Mills, Morton, McD. Moore, Neblett, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Randolph, Robert E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Slaughter, Spurlock, A. H. H. Stuart, Chapman J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-90.

So the amendment was rejected.

During the roll call

Mr. CRITCHER stated that Mr. Richard H. Cox having been called home by indisposition in his family, had requested him to pair off with him.

Mr. SITLINGTON stated that he had paired off with Mr. BRANCH. Mr. STAPLES stated that he had paired off with Mr. BOISSEAU.

Mr. FRANKLIN P. TURNER stated that he had paired off with Mr. GRAY, otherwise he should have voted "aye."

The result was announced as above recorded.

In order to meet the criticism of my friend from Kanawha on the words "concede" and "acknowledge," I propose, in the blank left by striking out the word "concede," to insert the word "assert." The gentleman argued that it was inappropriate to employ the word "concede," as to the rights of our own people. I admit the force of the argument, and therefore propose the word "assert." There certainly can be no objection to that. I think that in times like these it is highly appropriate that this Convention should assert this right on the part of the people of Virginia. It is the prevailing idea in the Northern mind, that the people of Virginia have no such right as we do assert here. As I understand that these resolutions are to be sent to the Northern people, to be responded to by them, it is certainly proper and appropriate that they should understand this assertion of rights which I believe to be the ground-work of our federative system.

I do not understand on what principle it is that the gentleman gives such a preference to the second right mentioned in the resolution, over the first one. I understand that exception is taken to the term "recognize" as not being strong enough to apply to the right of secession; and it is proposed to use the word "assert" in place of the words stricken out. Now, I should like to understand on what principle it is, if the word "recognize" is strong enough for this great American principle, that it is not strong enough for any principle whatever?

If, however, the gentleman objects that the term "recognize" is not strong enough for the second principle I suggest whether it is not better to go back and substitute the word "assert" for the word "recognize" in the first line. Thus both rights would be placed on the same level as regards the strength of the asseveration. I cannot see any ground for the preference. The term "assert" means, under some circumstances, to "exercise" a right—not merely to declare it, but to exercise it, and, therefore, the use of that word would lead to some ambiguity.

Now it seems to me that there is no necessity whatever for inserting anything in place of the words struck out. In regard to the 8th resolution, I desire to say that I understood this morning from the gentleman from Princess Anne, that it was the object and purpose of the Committee of Twenty-one in drafting that resolution to evade the controverted question in regard to the right of secession, and merely to assert that right, leaving it to every one to characterize the right as he holds it.

I should like to know from the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , if that is his recollection. It is mine, and if I am sustained in that by his recollection, I do not see that there is any necessity for protracting this sort of controversy. If it is the understanding of this Committee, that this 8th resolution is not intended to touch the question of the right of secession or revolution, but simply to assert the right, for just cause, to throw off that Government—I say if that was his interpretation as to the character of the right, it seems to me that we can all go for it.

I will make one or two remarks in reply to the gentleman.

The gentleman desires to know why I give a preference to the word "assert" in the third line over the word "recognize" in the first line, and he seemed to think that the word "assert" might be as well employed in the first as in the third line. If he looks more particularly, he will see that the word "recognize" in the first line is qualified by the word "founded" in the second line, and that therefore his criticism does not apply.

Again—he speaks of the admission made by the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , that it was not contemplated by the Committee that the great doctrine of secession was to be settled by this Convention. I don't know what was contemplated by the Committee, but I desire this Committee to bear in mind that they are enunciating principles which are to be submitted to the non-slaveholding States as .Page270 a complete enunciation of principles on the part of the people of Virginia ; and it is in that connection that I wish to assert, what I understand to be denied by the people of the Northern States, and even by the President of the United States, in his inaugural address—that the people have a right to withdraw from the Federal Government for any cause; and it is this right that I wish this Convention to assert—a right which is essential to our existence as a free people.

I desire to offer an amendment to this resolution.

I move to strike out all after the word "governed," in the second line, and insert in lieu thereof the following :

"Denying the constitutional right of the several States to secede from the Union, yet they may, in the exercise of their revolutionary right, disrupt the ties that bind them to the Federal Government, and form such associations with other States as may best promote their security and welfare."

The question was taken on this amendment, and decided in the negative.

The question then recurred upon the adoption of the resolution, and the question being put, was decided in the affirmative.

It is now 5 o'clock, and I am informed that unless this body leave this hall, so as to enable the furniture to be removed before bed time to-night, the State will have to pay another week's rent. I am aware, moreover, that the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] has a resolution to offer in committee of the whole which I know is important and will require some consideration.

If that motion is insisted upon I will call for the yeas and nays. I wish to state that this body costs the State of Virginia about $1,000 a day, and if we lose one week's rent of this hall it is but $150—not equal to one hour's labor, and we can probably accomplish the work of two or three hours' labor to-night, and thus save two or three hundred dollars. I will state, moreover, that the proposition which is prepared by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] can be offered as well in committee as in convention.

If there is any objection to the motion I will withdraw it.

Cries of "No, no, no."

I will not withdraw it, then.

Then I ask for the yeas and nays.

Cries of "withdraw it," "withdraw it."

I withdraw the call, sir. I understand it will be voted down if I do not.

The motion that the Committee rise was then put, and agreed to ; whereupon, the Committee rose and reported progress.

I beg leave to offer the following resolutions, which I ask the Clerk to read.

The Clerk read the resolutions, as follows :

1. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the Federal Government of this Union is one of limited and expressly granted powers; that the Constitution confers no power upon its constituted authorities to subjugate a State or execute the Federal laws within the limits of a State which has withdrawn from the Government, expelled the civil authorities of the same, and is in the exercise of an independent sovereignty.

2. That, as one of the parties to the compact of government, this Commonwealth has the right to protest against any such exercise of coercive policy on the part of the Federal authorities, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is, in part, their power, shall be exercised for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority.

3. That a committee of three delegates be appointed by this Convention to wait upon the President of the United States, present to him these resolutions and respectfully ask of him to communicate to this Convention the policy which the authorities of the Federal Government intended to pursue in regard to the Confederate States.

I rise to a question of order, and it is this : that under the rule adopted when the Committee of Twenty-one on Federal Relations was appointed, all resolutions relating to Federal subjects were to be referred to that committee; and it is not competent for this Convention to pass upon these resolutions, until they pass through that Committee.

Will the Secretary report the resolution under which the Committee of Twenty-one was appointed?

I believe the rule has been to permit the gentleman who offered a resolution to make a few remarks.

The Chair is of opinion that the resolutions will have to go to the Committee of Twenty-one; but the gentleman is at liberty to make some remarks upon them.

With the consent of my friend from Montgomery .Page272 [Mr. PRESTON] , in order that these resolutions may be considered now, I move a suspension of the rule.

I ask if it does not require a two-thirds vote to suspend the rule.

I am not aware of any such rule. We are not governed here by the rules of the House of Delegates or of Congress either.

These resolutions are very important, and upon the motion to suspend the rule, which I have just made, I call the yeas and nays.

There is no occasion for that call.

I desire to submit a question of order.

When the Convention was last in session, it had under consideration, and what I will characterize, as the unfinished business, the resolutions submitted by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , with amendments submitted by other members. The point of order I wish to make is this, that until some disposition has been made of the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia, with the amendments thereto, it is not in order to proceed to any other business.

The gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , moved that the Committee should rise, and indicated the purpose for which he made the motion. A vote was taken upon that motion and the Committee did rise. The gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , then rose, without objection on the part of any member, and presented his resolutions. The Chair took it for granted that it was done by general consent.

Mr. President.

The question of order is decided so far. Does the gentleman rise to another point of order?

I am requested to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, which I do not wish to do myself.

I think the House has pretty clearly indicated its purpose to take up and consider this subject. It has been done almost by universal consent, and it is now too late to make any objections.

Mr. President, I have but a remark or two to make. I have thought proper upon consultation with a few of my friends to offer the resolutions which I have just submitted to the Convention. They embrace propositions of great magnitude, and I regard them as questions upon which we ought now to act, and act decisively.

The first resolution, Mr. President, affirms a proposition which I believe is conceded by a very large majority of this Convention. It is .Page273 that there is no power on the part of the Federal Government to coerce one of these seceding States. The second proposition is that the people of Virginia will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part our power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of seceded States to the Federal authority. In that proposition there is a very general and hearty concurrence on the part of most gentlemen here. The third resolution proposes that this Convention shall elect a committee to proceed to Washington, for the purpose of presenting these principles, avowed by this Convention, to the President of the United States, and to respectfully ask from him an answer thereto, with the hope of breaking a silence that has been so long protracted, so profound, and so mysterious as to create the greatest solicitude and alarm throughout the country. None of us know what the condition of things will be to-morrow. I very well see the difficulties that may exist in the recognition of the Commissioners from the Confederate States, presenting themselves as they do as ministers or as the representatives of Foreign Governments. Our Committee will present themselves in no such relation to the President—they will present themselves to him as their President, in the exercise of their trust, in the enjoyment of their power, in the administration of their government and their laws, for the purpose of knowing how that agent is executing that trust—how he intends to execute that trust. We desire an opportunity to express to him our entire protest against the exercise of that trust in a certain manner. I am not alarmed, Mr. President, by the newspaper accounts or by the telegraphic dispatches. I have not regulated my conduct by such sources of information. We have waited here for more than a month, with an anxious desire, on the part of us all, to preserve the peace, and on the part of many, a very ardent wish that there should come from the President of the United States such a clear and distinct enunciation of the manner in which he intended to exercise his power and to discharge the trust that has been reposed in him by others, that the country at large might understand and know it, clearly and distinctly. This long silence is operating most injuriously upon every interest in the land. I should feel that I had failed to discharge my duty, if I were to return to my constituents and say to them, after all the sources of information that have surrounded us, that I could not tell what the President of the United States and his Cabinet intend to do on the momentous questions of war and of peace. I trust that he may speak the words of peace; but from the long silence the President has kept, and from various circumstances connected with the Government, there are serious.Page274 grounds of apprehension that a contrary course may be resolved on. I do not affirm that he intends war—I hope and trust he does not—but a suspicion of that kind exists in the minds of many; and that very apprehension is the point of difficulty under which I labor.

Will such an enquiry as these resolutions propose be regarded as an intrusion upon him? I have studiously and particularly guarded the resolution and couched it in the respectful language that is due to the President of the United States. The language has been selected by me with great care, that it may be language proper to address to the President of the United States. The request is, that he shall communicate to this Convention—a Convention of one of the sovereign States of this Union—the course of policy which he intends to pursue with regard to the great and momentous question now agitating the country. We desire peace, but there is no sense of security and peace in the country under this uncertainty and great delay, and under the machinations, may I say, that surround the President at Washington. The silence is more alarming, more ominous of the future than any words, unless they are words of express, implacable and immediate war.

Now, sir, another remark. Will the President feel that this is an intrusion upon him? He cannot. It is intended in no such sense, with no such purpose. Is it an improper thing for a sovereign State to call upon the government of which it is a constituent part, to know what its purposes are?

This is an inquiry addressed to our agent, to our Government, to know whether, as the agent and head thereof, he intends to make war upon sovereign States ; war that must involve me and my people, my friends, in its consequences and results. I consider this silence most remarkable and most ominous; and we want to break it, if possible. Gentlemen may say that he will not answer. Very well. We cannot compel him to answer; but we will place him in this position that he must make some declaration of his intentions. I believe the fairest measures that can be resorted to on this subject, are those which are most manly; and can he or will he say that he will not answer? Is it an intrusion to ask him what his policy is to be? Has it com, to this, that the Government of the United States will feel its dignity wounded, or its rights infringed upon, because a sovereign State in Convention asks him to speak the word which they desire—the word of peace, of forbearance? Suppose he does not answer. Silence at such a time as this would be regarded as very significant, and it is in .Page275 consequence of that silence that I desire the appointment of a Committee to go to Washington.

It is said that he will not answer. Then you see the President of the United States in a position in which he will not answer his principal—will not answer those whose trust he administers—will not answer, so that our families, our friends, our vocations, our business, can go on in the steady and assured form in which alone any government ought to be administered. Sir, a greater curse could not come upon a country than the curse of perpetual apprehension of war. I had rather realise it to-morrow—and so would every man—than to have the strong, perpetual, and permit me to say Mr. President, just and reasonable apprehension resulting from this long silence. What superinduces it? I shall not go into any general debate upon this question. What can superinduce it? Is it because he wants to take us by surprise, if he does intend war? I impute no such motive. The greater, however, is the necessity for the disclosure. Does he intend to avoid war—not to do an act tending to result in war? Why, then, is he silent? Is it for the mere purpose of adjusting mere party questions, enabling gentlemen to make an easy transit from the extreme of error they have labored under to truth and justice? The more he is stimulated, hastened, by our just demands to declare his policy on this subject, required of him in the resolutions, the better and easier it will be for him. I see a powerful necessity pressing upon him to break this portentous silence.

We heard, in the Inaugural Address, that he was not going to do certain things (which this Committee of Twenty-one, in this connection, have since told him are very dangerous measures to be ventured upon) , because his masters, the American people, had not clothed him with the means necessary to carry them into effect. Are we to wait during the whole summer, until his purse is replenished, before we are to know what is to be his policy. But we hear now that the President has recently negotiated a large loan of eight millions; and if that is the state of his finances, and his American masters have furnished him with the sinews of war, we must expect something decisive in a short time. I ask if that is not a conclusive reason why we ought to act on these resolutions without delay?

Again, let us look at this matter in another aspect. If the resolutions are calculated to produce mischief—if they did not tend to preserve peace and secure tranquility—I could not have been induced to offer and advocate them. But, I ask, will they not tend to peace?

Do they not ask for a fair and manly understanding with regard to the principles upon which our own government is to be conducted?

There may be some apprehensions that the President will not speak. Gentlemen to whom I disclosed my purpose, said to me, that he might delay or protract his answer. Very well. The longer he protracts his answer, the more ominous and dangerous the silence becomes, the greater the necessity that we who are sent here to shield and protect the Commonwealth by our vigilance, and by our conservative opinions and action, should be at our posts. I think this Convention could not do a better thing than to stand to their posts and watch vigilantly and patiently the progress of affairs, especially, when fleets and armies are concentrated by the General Government for objects and purposes we know not of.

I hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention to elect, from their own body, three gentlemen who shall go to Washington, present themselves to the President, and respectfully ask of him that he shall answer on all the subjects referred to. I sincerely hope and trust his answer will give to the country repose; that it will insure tranquility and peace, and, at least, that we may know what we are going tot do and what we ought to do on the great subjects that are now engrossing all our thoughts and evoking every patriotic impulse of our nature.

I rise to a question of order. The Committee have made a report embracing this very question of coercion. That report, embracing these resolutions, was referred to the committee of the whole, and the question of order I make is, that it is not competent for the Convention now to entertain this question without discharging the committee of the Whole from the farther consideration of the subject.

The object of the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, as the Chair understands it, is to agree to the amendments to the constitution of the United States, which are to be submitted in a constitutional way to the people of the other States for their ratification or rejection. The Chair understands the object of the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , to be to express the sense of this Convention upon certain topics and to communicate them directly to the President of the United States.

The Chair is, therefore, of the opinion that the point of order is not well taken, and he overrules it.

Whither are we drifting? Why are we here, and what is the legitimate business in which this Convention should employ itself? The law providing for this Convention contemplated, I think, two things, that it should consider whether it would advise .Page277 the people of Virginia to change their existing relations with the Federal Government, and whether it would advise any change in the organic law of our own State? Were we sent here to inquire of the Federal Government the reasons for either its silence or the utterances of its determination?

I understood the distinguished gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , to say that he does not rely upon any thing that appears in the newspapers, in the telegraphic despatches or any thing that is before the public; but he predicates the support of his resolutions upon the ground that the continuance of peace on the part of the Federal Government, for more than a month since the present administration came into power, is evidence of war.

Now, sir, if we are to judge what is to be the policy of the Administration in the future, by what has been its policy in the past, there cannot be, and the gentleman must be mistaken when he supposes that there is, any apprehension in the minds of any individual in the Commonwealth of Virginia, that this Administration means war.

There is another reason why I do not see that the gentleman himself can entertain such an apprehension. He has been at one period of his life a Cabinet officer, I believe. He must, therefore, know that the power to declare war is not vested in the President of the United States. War can only be declared on behalf of this Government, by the Congress of the United States. The Executive Department has no power to make war; and, therefore, I think that there is no ground for apprehension that the President of the United States will do that which he has not the power to do, and which, were he to attempt, would render him liable to impeachment. It would be an unconstitutional act on his part, one that he has not the power to perform.

Furthermore, sir, as the representatives of the people of Virginia, who are a part and parcel of this Government, how can we be apprehensive that its power is to be used and wielded for the purpose of making war upon them? Or is it a legitimate business, in the minds of gentlemen of this Convention, that we are to watch here as a guard for the Confederate States? Were we sent here for any such purpose? Were we not rather sent here to determine what is the interest of the State of Virginia, and what duty requires to be done by her in this crisis? We were told, not more than three or four days ago, that Virginia should unite her fortunes with the Confederate States of the South, because this Federal Government of ours was unable to obtain the loan of a dollar; that it was bankrupt, was the language used by the gentleman from Culpeper [Mr. BARBOUR] , but .Page278 two or three days ago. And now, sir, it would seem that we are to be frightened out of our propriety by the fact that this bankrupt Government has succeeded in obtaining a loan of eight millions of dollars, which the Confederate States could not succeed in obtaining, but which the gentleman from Culpeper informed us they were about to procure. I cannot for the life of me reconcile these conflicting statements made by gentlemen who seem to be driving to the same end, for the accomplishment of the same purpose—to involve this State in greater difficulties than she has yet been involved in, to bring still greater peril than that which has already been brought upon the country by the acts of those who tell you that they have done so because they believe this Government should never have been formed, and not because of any oppression inflicted upon them by the Federal Government.

But there is another objection to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] . The co-ordinate department of the Government, whose duty and right it is to enquire of the Executive Department as to kindred subjects brought before this Convention by the resolutions of the gentleman from Montgomery, for a disclosure of its policy, never makes an enquiry without saying "if it be compatible with the public interests." Now, sir, we have no Constitutional authority to enquire as to the purpose of the Administration at Washington, to exercise a power which the co-ordinate department of the Government does not itself exercise when it performs a constitutional and a legitimate duty; and I would say that the President might well treat your Commissioners—or whatever title with which you would clothe the gentlemen whom you would send in accordance with the resolution—by saying "It is not my duty to answer your inquiry."

And he would be right in so saying, because if we have a right to make an enquiry of him, each and every one of those States which, we are told, are threatening war against those Southern States, and which have volunteered to give men and money to the Administration for the purpose of bringing on a war and aiding him in this coercive policy which gentlemen tell us he intends to pursue, might make similar inquiries, might ask him why he did not inaugurate a war, why he did not enforce the laws, why he had allowed these States to go on as they have done, and to continue their present attitude, the attitude of hostility, the attitude of a foreign Power to the Federal Government. Why, sir, if such would the case, the Cabinet, and all the employees of the Administration would be engaged, not in the legitimate duties .Page279 pertaining to the simple administration of the Government, but in answering enquiries made by the various States of this Union, following the precedent which the gentleman from Montgomery would have the Virginia Convention set. I understood the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , to move that the Committee rise, because it would save the State a week's rent, and if it did not then rise there would not be time to move the furniture. I think, sir, we might as well adjourn; and I move that the Convention do now adjourn.

Is that motion in order.

The PRESIDENT decided that it was.

I hope that motion will not prevail. The gentleman having charge, tells me that he will take care of the furniture, take up the carpet and store it away for $25. You can have the use of the Hall till 12 o'clock to-night.

The motion to adjourn was put and lost.

It seems to me Mr. President, that this proposition is one which, if properly directed, has merit in it; and that it will not do for us on the one hand to hurry it through without fair consultation, or on the other hand, to reject it, without giving it the consideration that its importance demands. It cannot be denied that the condition of uncertainty into which the public mind is left as to the policy of the administration at Washington, in regard to the great questions of peace or war, is doing serious damage to the commercial and industrial interests of the country. It is presenting a serious obstacle to anything like the calm deliberation which is essential to the proper adjustment of the pending difficulties, and is tending constantly towards exasperation, violence and bloodshed. I think we will all agree upon that. But I think there will be a little difference of opinion in regard to this proposition : that the President of the United States would do an immense public service if he would at once determine upon a pacific policy and announce that policy to the public, so as to give to the public mind a perfect assurance as to the future upon this subject—I have no doubt, sir, that if this Convention communicates with the President of the United States upon this subject, under proper circumstances, that much good can be effected in bringing about such a desirable disclosure of the mind of the administration; and I think that it is important for us to address ourselves to the manner in which that communication ought to be made. I have not the least objection to the appointment of a committee. It seems to me that a proper committee, such as would be appointed by this Convention, would exert a favorable influence, not only upon the .Page280 disclosure of the policy of the administration, but upon the adoption of the policy by the administration.

But, sir, it seems to me, with all deference to the gentleman who has moved these propositions, that he is in danger of destroying, to some extent, the influence, the just weight of the movement, by accompanying it by propositions of political law, as to which much diversity of opinion may be found among the members of this Convention. It seems to me the less we indulge in our communications with the administration at Washington, in abstract propositions of constitutional law, the less we engage in discussion about political matters, the more apt we are to come to a favorable result from this mission. I fear there is too great a tendency in this Convention to run into discussion of abstract politics. I hope we will confine that agency to such declarations as we make peculiarly as a Virginia Convention addressed to the other States of the Confederacy, and when we come to a practical matter, addressing ourselves to the administration at Washington, that we will avoid the mooting of any question about which there can be difference of opinion.

I do not see the necessity of the first and second resolutions offered by the gentleman from the county of Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] . It seems to me that a single resolution appointing a committee, and defining the duties of the committee in regard to the obtaining of the information, and in regard to impressing a particular line of policy on the Administration, will answer every purpose. Having heard of this plan, and having seen something of the resolutions, as the gentleman did me the honor to show them to me on the way to the Convention, anticipating that I should have another opportunity of conferring with him, I was engaged in the preparation of something in the way of a substitute, not to be offered here, but to be submitted to him in conference for his consideration, and I have gotten to the extent of preparing a short preamble intended to be followed by his third resolution substantially, and had proceeded no further. I will read what I did prepare, as an indication of my views as to the proper declaration to be made in approaching the President of the United States.

Mr. BALDWIN read the preamble he had prepared, as follows :

"Whereas, In the opinion of this Convention the uncertainty which prevails in the public mind as to the policy which the General Government intends to pursue toward the seceded States is extremely injurious to the industrial and commercial interests of the country, tends to keep up an excitement which is unfavorable to the adjustment of.Page281 the pending difficulties, and threatens a disturbance of the public peace ; therefore,

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed," &c.

The reason why I offered that resolution was because it is a copy of the precise phrase of the 8th resolution in the report, that has met so hearty an approval in this House all day long; that the people of Virginia will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be used for the purpose of coercion. I made that as the ground upon which the committee might present themselves to the President and say: "This is the temper of Virginia and in that temper we come in peace to ask you to pronounce and declare what your policy is." Anything on that subject, sir, I am willing to accept, that will meet the approbation of the house. The inquiry

I do not desire, sir, to impress upon this mission to Washington any peculiar opinions of mine. I have not the least desire to infuse into the preamble or the resolutions any of my opinions upon abstract policy—not the least. I do not think I am asking anything unreasonable of gentlemen who may differ with me in regard to questions of abstract politics, when I urge upon them not to press their peculiar views into these resolutions. It seems to me that there is no sacrifice of principle anywhere in withholding the expression of these opinions upon controverted points. If this mission is to be beneficial, if it is to have weight in determining the policy of the Administration, or if it is to bring from the Administration a respectful recognition of the objects that we have in view, that object, sir, will be very much promoted, as we can all see, by unanimity on the part of this body. I understand the gentleman from Montgomery to accept the preamble which I offered as a preamble to the third resolution, and to withdraw his first and second resolutions. I have no objection whatever to his third resolution. I was about to suggest whether it would not be well—I have not formed an opinion myself upon the subject—but I suggest whether it would not be well, in addition to enquiring into the policy of the Administration, for the Committee to express their hope that that policy would be pacific. I simply throw out the suggestion, for consideration, without having formed any opinion of my own upon it.

The Clerk read the preamble and resolution as amended.

I move to amend the preamble by inserting after the words "Seceded States" the words, "and as to the policy the seceded States intend to pursue towards the General Government," so as to make it read :

"Whereas, in the opinion of this Convention the insecurity which prevails in the public mind as to the policy which the General Government intends to pursue towards the seceded States, and as to the policy the seceded States intend to pursue towards the General Government, is extremely injurious to the industrial and commercial interests of the country, tends to keep up an excitement which is unfavorable to the adjustment of the pending difficulties and threatens the disturbance of the public peace, therefore."

I understood the gentleman from Halifax to move to suspend the rule by which this resolution should go to the Committee on Federal Relations. I think that vote has never been taken.

The Chair understood the objection to considering the resolution now as waived.

On the contrary I made the point of order which the Chair decided. The gentleman moved to suspend the rule and I inquired of the Chair if it did not require two-thirds to suspend the rule.

The Chair certainly understood the objection to be waived and he thinks it is now too late to renew it.

The amendment was disagreed to.

I now move to amend the resolution by adding, "and that a like Committee be appointed to wait upon the seceded States and report to this Convention what policy they intend to pursue towards the General Government."

I was about to suggest playfully to my friend, that it was likely he would be appointed upon that Committee to go South, and if he is, it will be the last of him.

I suppose I may be indulged by way of reply, to the gentleman from Princess Anne, that if this Convention will adopt the amendment, I will most cheerfully go South, if it is the pleasure of the body to send me upon that Committee, and I have no fear of not returning. [Laughter.] The amendment was disagreed to.

The question was then put, and the Chair decided the preamble and resolution adopted.

I understand that this resolution has been passed. I did not understand that the proposition was propounded to the Convention any more than I understand the sense of the Committee when .Page283 they rose, as was generally understood, for the purpose of an immediate adjournment. I rise now to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution was adopted.

How did you vote?

I did not vote at all, because I did not understand the question as put to the Convention, but I submit to the Chair that I am in order, because any gentleman not dissenting is understood to be in the affirmative.

The Chair understands the rule to be, that the motion must be made by a member actually voting with the majority.

Well, sir, every member around me supposed that you were propounding the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] .

The Chair propounded distinctly the proposition made by the gentleman from Harrison, first to the preamble, then his amendment to the resolution, then upon the adoption of the preamble and resolution.

I suppose, if there was, to any general extent, a misunderstanding on the part of the Convention, the Chair would have no difficulty in again taking the vote.

It may be done by general consent.

I rose several times to gain the attention of the Chair, but I am exceedingly unfortunate in that respect. I mean no reflection upon the Chair, but I certainly did endeavor to obtain the floor before any vote was taken upon this resolution.

The Chair will again put the question to the Convention.

I do not participate in the merriment which seems to pervade the hall upon the present occasion. In my humble judgment, it is the most solemn moment that has occurred since we have met here. I utterly dissent from this resolution, the adoption of which seems to be a foregone conclusion. The resolution proposes to do that which you have no constitutional right to do.

I rise to a question of order. I do not understand that the courtesy extended to the gentleman to have the vote taken over goes to the extent of permitting him to enter into a discussion of the resolution.

The Chair regards it as if no vote at all had been taken.

The Constitution of the United States, as has been very justly remarked by the gentleman from Harrison, has properly .Page284 provided a certain mode by which information is to be obtained from the Executive Department, and as I understand it, being a bit of a lawyer, that excludes all other ways expressio unius est exclusio alterius. I say the Constitution provides certain means by which you may get certain information; and it provides that even then it is to be given only, if in the judgment of the President, it is compatible with the public interest. That is the proper mode of addressing the Executive.

Sir, if you pass this resolution, and send these Commissioners to Washington, will they be received with more consideration than was the distinguished gentleman, I believe not now in his seat [Mr. TYLER] who was sent by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly of Virginia, to Mr. Buchanan? What was the answer he received? If I recollect correctly, he reported to the Governor that Mr. Buchanan received him very politely, treated him very much like a gentleman, but told him substantially, that it was none of his business. Certainly he reported that the interview was wholly unsatisfactory. And now, sir, I put it to you, when you send this committee to the city of Washington, what answer can you reasonably expect? The preamble of your resolution is in fact an annunciation to the President that the policy he has seen fit to pursue has been such as to bring upon the country the calamities which are now pervading it.

And it is true, too.

It may be true, but it is not very polite to tell the President that it is true; and my word for it, if this committee goes there with such a preamble as that, he will regard it as a reflection upon him. If he is a sensible man, he cannot regard it otherwise. If it be true that his policy has caused the difficulties that pervade the country, this preamble is as much as to say that he can change the policy under the circumstances that surround him. Sir, if his policy has produced that effect, and he can change it, it would be a monstrous reflection upon him. He is a miscreant if he would not relieve the country, if it were in his power to do it. Does any gentleman here believe that the President of the United States is a Nero—that he is fiddling while Rome is burning? Does any gentleman believe that if the President of the United States could relieve this great country from the throes and convulsions that now agitate it, he would hesitate a moment to do it? Sir, he would be worse than a miscreant if he had it in his power and did not do it. Why, then, does he not do it? Simply because the condition of public affairs is such that he has not the power. If he has information which would quiet the country, he owes .Page285 it to the whole country, as well as to us, that it should be imparted. But, sir, in view of all the responsibilities resting upon him and of the circumstances with which he is surrounded, I have no doubt he is pursuing that policy which, in his judgment and in the judgment of his Cabinet, is calculated to promote the public good. Your resolution and your preamble are a reflection upon him. They are an announcement that he is dark—I will not say a sort of midnight lantern, but that he is dark, that he is mysterious and that he ought to be more communicative to us and to the country. Sir, why should he withhold information unless the public good requires that it should be withheld? What other answer could he give to your committee? I venture to say that when your committee have called upon him he will return them no other answer than that. He could not make any other answer without stultifying himself. He could make no other answer without rendering himself infamous in the public mind.

But, sir, that is not my chief objection to the resolution. I ask gentlemen to bear in mind—I ask Western gentlemen to bear it in mind, that when your committee come back, as I think they will do—if it were not a vulgar expression, I would say with a flea in their ear—when they come back with an answer that is wholly unsatisfactory, and then comes up this Ordinance of Secession, we shall be expected to rush off like a flock of sheep, right into the embrace of the Southern Confederacy, where sir, so help me God, I do not mean to go under any circumstances. ' [Laughter.] I want my decision to be understood, though I stand here solitary and alone. Sir, I only claim to speak for myself, and I think, for my constituents, when I declare that you cannot under any circumstances make us go to South Carolina.

Suppose Virginia goes, what then?

If Virginia desires to form this middle confederacy contemplated by the propositions now under consideration, we will stand with her; but when you ask us to break up our markets, impoverish our people, destroy our domestic interest, to drench our homes in blood, to exile from our altars, and stultify ourselves in the sight of the whole world by admitting that which we know is not true, that there is any sufficient cause to break up this Union, I tell you we will not do it. We do not mean to do it. We are ready to stand by you in securing all the guarantees that are necessary for your protection, in view of the altered circumstances of the country, but when you ask us to go farther—to disrupt all our social and political relations—to subject our homes and all that we possess to the horrors of .Page286 border and internecine strife, then we tell you that this thing called secession has more stings in it than one. We will tell you that we will throw ourselves on our own rights and stand by them. We will stand by you as long as you will permit us to do so, but when we can no longer do so, then we will take care of ourselves.

And now I tell you, Western gentlemen, that when this Committee comes back with their unsatisfactory answer, the agitation by which the country is now convulsed, and in which so many gentlemen here delight, who are rolling it as a sweet morsel under their tongues, will be intensified, and you will be expected to go over to the secessionists, horse, foot and dragoon.

They will struggle to launch this State upon the sea of the Southern movement, and then you may bid adieu to the star spangled banner and all the untold blessings which we have enjoyed under it for the last seventy years. I ask gentlemen to bear my prediction in mind. I know that my words are not to have any weight here. I know that the passage of this resolution is a foregone conclusion. But I am ready to throw myself in the breach even if I have no one else to stand by me but my friend from Harrison t [Mr. CARLILE] . If other champions had been ready to take up this glove I would have remained as I have hitherto remained—retired, silent, and content with casting my vote. But when there was nobody else to speak I had to raise my voice. I had to show my little farthing light; though it was ever so small and ever so little heeded by those near me, and warn them of the consequences of their hasty and ill-advised action. Sir, I have done.

Mr. President, I have heard the declaration of the venerable gentleman who has just taken his seat, with a vast amount of surprise. I confess, that while I had some dim expectation that such was the design of that gentleman, I did not think that that design would be publicly avowed on the floor of the Convention. What is his declaration here? And he tells you he speaks for the North-west.

No, sir, I did not say that. I said that I spoke for myself, and that I believed I represented my constituents in so speaking.

The gentleman speaks for himself and his constituents, and in the same breath he appeals to his Western brethren on this floor to observe what will be the result of the movement now attempted to be put on foot. The plain English of it is that while these gentlemen stand here and vote with us, their votes counting equally with our votes—while they declare that justice and equity require that our slave property shall be taxed ad valorem with all other .Page287 property, yet in the same breath they tell you that if a majority of the people of Virginia decide to carry Virginia into the Southern Confederacy, they are determined to divide the State, and join the free soil Confederacy.

Himself, not they.

Well, do other Western gentlemen disclaim it?

The gentleman misapprehended me. I said nothing of the kind.

What did you say?

I said this—that we would stand by you in securing you the Constitutional guarantees necessary for the protection of your rights; that if you were content with that we would stand by you, but that if you intended to hitch us on to South Carolina we would not go with you.

Yes ; and you and not we are to be the judges of the efficiency of those guarantees.

This Convention was to be the judge of that.

You would stand by us and give us such guarantees as you might judge proper, if we would stay with you in a middle Confederacy or remain in the Northern free-soil Confederacy; but if we would not do either, then you would divide the State. That is the plain English of the matter. Now as you have appealed to the West, I appeal to the East, to note carefully and mark well what has occurred here this evening.

Mr. MARR called for the previous question.

Several members requested Mr. MARR to withdraw the call.

Does the gentleman withdraw the call for the previous question?

I object to its withdrawal.

The previous question was seconded, and the President stated that the ten minutes debate was now in order.

I have made no professions on this floor of my devotion to the State of Virginia. My little experience in life has shown me that expressions of patriotism are very little to be relied upon. I trust in God, that when Virginia's hour of trial does come, I will have the nerve and the ability to do my duty. My fortunes are with her, and shall ever be with her, under all circumstances, through weal or woe. I shall neither desert her in her hour of prosperity, her hour of adversity, her hour of glory, or her hour of shame. She is my mother, and I will stand by her under all circumstances. That I hope to prove, Mr. President, not by my declarations, but by my acts. What do we .Page288 propose to do? To call upon the President of the United States, with a declaration in our mouths that his course has been so uncertain that it has precipitated the country into all this calamity, and that we want him now to tell us what is to be his course of policy. Why, sir, if the President has a particle of pride, if he has a particle of manhood in him, will he not say, as Mr. Fillmore said to the Governor of South Carolina, in 1852, "I am not responsible to you, or to the Convention of Virginia, I am responsible only to the nation"? What, then, will be the effect of this call? It will be to precipitate on the State of Virginia that condition of things which we have been seeking to avoid.

When the motion that the Committee rise, was made by the gentleman from Middlesex, the avowed reason was, that it would cost the State $150 extra if we should sit here too late to allow the furniture to be removed. It is true he mentioned the fact that the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , was going to offer a resolution. But, who of us voted to rise on the latter ground? Here is a resolution of which I had no anticipation. It is sprung upon us, and we are called upon now, on this Sabbath eve, to give a vote which may precipitate us into revolution before another Sabbath eve rolls around. I submit to this Convention, whether it is not due to the great interest involved, due to Virginia, due to her dignity, that we should, at least, take one night to reflect on this question? If the question is to be put at this time, I will be compelled to vote against the resolution.

Mr. President, we are not to be controlled in our action here by threats or promises thrown out to the West, on this or any other question. We stand perfectly free and perfectly independent, and so we will stand so long as the eternal mountains raise their heads. We will stand by the honor and interests of Virginia and maintain her right and integrity, at this time, at any time, and under all circumstances. But we do not wish to be precipitated into a measure which, in my humble opinion, demands some reflection. I am very much mistaken, if this is not a measure fraught with the deepest and highest importance.

I am very much mistaken about this measure if it will not precipitate us into revolution before fifteen days. In that view I rise to submit to the Convention whether the occasion is not one of such emergency, that we ought not to be compelled to record our votes upon it to-night; and whether we ought not to be permitted to reflect over it during the Sabbath day, and to come here on Monday morning with our minds maturely made up on the question. Why this hot haste?

Why this endeavor to put the resolution through without deliberation and discussion? I beg gentlemen to pause and reflect.

I beg them to consider the consequences which may ensue from hasty action. I am rather favorably impressed with the propriety of the resolution as now modified. My judgment inclines me to support it. But at the same time I desire to say that I have some hesitation. some doubt, which is of a painful character. Suppose our committee, when appointed, should meet with a rebuff—suppose that it should come back with intelligence not favorable to us—are we in a condition to meet such a contingency? Is Virginia in a condition to meet such a contingency? Suppose the report should be adverse to our hopes and wishes, would it not precipitate that crisis on us at a time when we may be unprepared to meet it? Let us pause and reflect.

As to the insinuation of the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , in regard to the want of fidelity in the Western character, I hurl it back, as I have hurled back such insinuations from the beginning. I say here, that if the worst comes to the worst, it will be again as it has been heretofore : Western men will have to fight your battles. It is on our own mountain men that you must rely at last for the vindication of Virginia's rights, Virginia's honor, and Virginia's integrity. No impeachment of the kind will affect us, more than to cause us pain.

Again I ask, therefore, why should not this Convention be allowed to reflect on this matter for a day and night? Dissatisfaction may be caused by precipitation. I ask whether it may not be worth the consideration of Eastern gentlemen to pause and reflect before, by any action of theirs, they alienate their best friends—the friends of whom they may soon stand in the greatest need?

I stated awhile ago that I was inclined to the opinion that this matter, properly adopted, would be a beneficial movement, but that to give it proper efficiency it ought to be the unanimous or nearly the unanimous, action of this Convention. For one, I cannot consent that a move of this sort shall be taken by pressing gentlemen to a vote without giving them a fair opportunity for consideration. When I see gentlemen coming forward with an earnest sincerity which commands my confidence, and ask time, expressing their inclination to vote for the measure, but at the same time declaring that they have doubts, which they desire an opportunity to solve, I cannot consent to press them forward to a vote on a measure of this importance. Particularly would I regard it as extremely disastrous to press this House to a vote on this question in its .Page290 present temper and feeling. I regretted exceedingly to hear the sort of discussion indulged in in regard to the sections of the State. I come from the very centre of the State, and have no sympathy whatever with extreme feelings in any part of it. I have no sympathy with the declarations of a determination to divide the State, coming from the extreme West ; nor have I any more sympathy with declarations of civil war and resistance to the Government, coming from Eastern men, if their views do not prevail. We have had enough of this on both sides. It does not become gentlemen on either side to be throwing hard words at one another by such declarations.

We have had, from the members of the West—of the extreme West a firm declaration of a purpose to resist the will of Virginia ; aye, sir, and we have had from members of the extreme East, a declaration of a purpose to resist the declared will of Virginia. Coming from the great central heart of the State, I represent a people who have no sympathies with any of these extreme views on either side.

-Has the gentleman any reference to me in these remarks?

Not at all, sir. I understood the gentleman to disclaim these ultra views.

I make a similar inquiry.

I certainly referred to some of the views of the gentleman, uttered, as I hope, under the influence of the excitement of debate, rather than that of a permanent and abiding conviction. I hope that expressions of the same character, uttered by gentlemen from Eastern Virginia, do not prevail, but that they are mere ebullitions caused by temporary excitement. I do not think we are in a condition now to act with the discretion and calmness which becomes a grave and important subject of this character, and I trust that it will be the pleasure of the Convention not to press these resolutions now, but to pass them by until we can act upon them with more coolness and deliberation than we can now exercise in their consideration.

I propose the withdrawal of the call for the previous question, because I desire to see this debate stopped at the earliest moment.

I beg leave to say, without referring to one side or the other, that it is the most unfortunate debate that has occurred within this Hall since the Convention met, and I want to see it stopped as soon as possible. I have been in favor of the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , and I was prepared to vote for them .Page291 without delay, and without question; and I was still more ready to adopt them in the form as amended by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , but I recognize the force of the reasons offered by-that gentleman, and in order that this matter shall be properly considered, and to avoid crimination and recrimination, on the part of Western and Eastern Virginia, I will make a motion to adjourn. I hope the Convention will take until Monday morning to consider this question, and avoid now a discussion which, if persisted in, will do us a great deal of harm.

I move that this Convention now adjourn.

That motion is not in order.

The Chair is of opinion that a motion to adjourn is in order before the Convention has directed by vote that the main question shall be put.

I would inquire whether the main question has not, by a vote of this body, been ordered?

The call for the previous question was sustained, but the main question was not ordered.

The question was then put on the motion to adjourn, and was decided in the affirmative.

The Convention then adjourned, at half-past seven o'clock, P. M., to meet in the Hall of the House of Delegates, on Monday.

1.6.1. COMMUNICATION FROM THE GOVERNOR

I have received a communication from the Governor of this Commonwealth which I beg leave to lay before the Convention.

The communication was read as follows :

1The Arkansas resolutions and ordinance transmitted by Governor Letcher were printed on April 13 in the Enquirer. The Convention Journal for April 8 notes that the communications and accompanying documents "were laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed." The three letters printed in the Proceedings of April 8, and the resolutions and ordinance, were printed as Doc. No. XVI, Communication from the Executive of the Commonwealth Transmitting Communications from the President of the State Convention of Arkansas. It appears that the resolutions and ordinance were not included in the Proceedings.

While the communications were being read,

Unless some gentleman specially desires the communication to be read, I move that the reading of it be dispensed with, and that it be laid upon the table and printed, so as to give members an opportunity of reading it at their leisure.

I call for the reading of the communication.

As the SECRETARY proceeded further with the reading

Mr. WISE moved that the reading be dispensed with.

I think that this communication is as instructing as the Constitution of the Confederate States which was read the other day. I desire to have it read.

The Secretary was proceeding again with the reading, when—

For reasons that did not exist before, but which now exist, I move that the further reading of the communication be dispensed with, and that it be laid upon the table and printed.

The motion was agreed to.

I offer the following resolution :

Resolved, That the order requiring the Convention to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole at half past ten o'clock, be suspended for this day, to complete the unfinished business under consideration when the Convention adjourned on Saturday last.

If the resolution is objected to, can it be received?

The Chair is not aware of any rule that prevents the reception of that resolution.

My reason for offering the resolution is, that if we are to adopt the resolution of the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , it is important that it should be adopted at once, so that the information which is sought under it may be given to the Convention at as early a day as possible.

I desire to be informed as to the order of business. After this resolution is disposed of, will not the business then in order be the customary morning business—the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] ?

No, sir. The business in order will be the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] .

I defer to the decision of the President, whilst I must confess to some doubts as to its entire correctness.

I think, sir, it is inexpedient to depart from the important business that brought us here to take up a resolution that is, to say the least of it, of very doubtful character. I think, without meaning to reflect upon the gentleman who offered the resolutions—that he should know that the great business of this Convention is to proceed regularly and orderly to the accomplishment of the work in which we have been so long engaged, and which it is our duty to dispose of at once. I will say, sir, without meaning any disrespect to the mover of these resolutions, that they are a sort of side bar—a bomb thrown into this Convention, which is calculated in my opinion to create distraction and confusion in this body; and I therefore move to lay the resolution of the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] , on the table, and upon that motion I call the yeas and nays.

Is it in order to call the previous question upon this motion?

The motion is to lay on the table, and is not debatable. The gentleman's object being to stop debate, the motion made will accomplish that object.

I rise to a question of order.

On Saturday evening, if I understood rightly, the question before the Convention was whether the main question should be put, on which ten minutes speeches were allowed. If that is the question before the House, is it in order to introduce a separate resolution from that which is under consideration?

No objection being made to the resolution when it was offered, the Chair thinks it is in order for the Convention now to consider it.

I will ask my friend from the county of Wood [Mr. JACKSON] , to withdraw his motion for a moment, to enable me to offer an amendment.

I cannot consent to withdraw my motion. I prefer to look straight ahead.

The roll was then called, and resulted, yeas 64, nays 64, as follows :2The Journal adds the name of Brent to the affirmative votes listed here. The Journal is presumably correct in listing P. C. Johnston in the affirmative votes, rather than M. Johnson, since the latter was paired with Mr. Thornton.

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, ()ouch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Dorman, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, Addison Hall, E. B. Hall; Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, M. Johnson, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Spurlock, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, White, Wickham, Willey-64.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Bruce, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Deskins, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Holcombe, Holladay, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marr, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Preston, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Wilson, Wise, Wysor-64.

So the motion was lost.

Mr. AMBLER, when Mr. HARVIE'S name was called, stated that Mr. HARVIE had paired off with the delegate from Rockingham [Mr. COFFMAN] .

Mr. NELSON paired off with Mr. WOODS, of Jackson.

Mr. THORNTON paired off with Mr. JOHNSON, of Richmond. Mr. WHITEFIELD was absent from indisposition.

Mr. BRANCH paired off with Mr. SITLINGTON. He would otherwise have voted no.

Mr. WYSOR stated that Mr. BLAKEY paired off with another gentleman.

The question then recurred upon the adoption of the resolution offered by Mr. SPEED.

The hour has arrived for the Convention to go into Committee of the Whole.

I move to suspend the rule requiring the Convention to go into Committee of the Whole.

The Chair will take the question upon the resolution, but it cannot entertain debate upon it.

I call for the yeas and nays upon the resolution.

The call was sustained, and the question having been taken resulted —yeas 67; nays 64, as follows :3The Journal adds Baldwin to the negative votes listed here.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, Goggin, Jno. Goode, Hale, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Preston, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Wilson, Wise, Wysor-67.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, P. C. Johnston, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Spurlock, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, White, Wickham, Willey-64.

So the resolution was adopted.

When his name was called, said he was willing his friends should have an opportunity of disposing of the resolution now [that of Mr. PRESTON] offered on Saturday last; he would, therefore, though opposed to the adoption of that resolution, vote in the affirmative on the resolution of the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] , now before the Convention.

I rise to a privileged question. In behalf of the people at the door, I offer, for the adoption of the Convention, a resolution, that the door keepers be permitted to pass into the Hall such a number .Page297 of orderly persons as can conveniently fill the space which we have at both ends of the Hall.

The resolution was then read as follows :

"Resolved, That the Door-keepers be permitted to pass into the Hall such number of orderly persons as to fill without excessively crowding the lobby; and when the lobby is filled to pass in no more persons."

The resolution was then adopted—ayes 59, noes 44.

Before proceeding to take up the business first in order, I ask the Convention to consider a resolution which I have prepared, and which will not occupy five minutes. It is, that the Superintendent of the Public Buildings shall take charge of the furniture which was left at the Mechanics' Institute. In all possibility the furniture will be greatly damaged unless some such action as I propose, is taken.

Instructions were given by the Chair to the Sergeant-at-arms to attend particularly to that duty, as it was a duty that belonged to him, and he promised to attend to it.

I understand from the Sergeant-at-arms that he has performed that duty.

The pending question is—shall the main question now be put upon the resolution offered by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , as amended.

I desire to express the hope that it will not be the pleasure of the Convention to order the previous question, and, as a reason for it, I wish to say, if the previous question should not be ordered, I will present an amendment. While I appreciate the patriotic spirit of the gentleman who moved the resolution, and cordially concur with him in the object which he has in view, yet, in my judgment, in the form in which this resolution has been presented, it is calculated to do harm, rather than good. It proceeds upon the idea of the right of this Convention to make a call upon the Executive of the United States for a disclosure of his policy. I think that there is no such right upon the part of this Convention to make such a call. It is true that the government of the United States is our government—that it is in part our government. It is the government not only of Virginia, however, but of twenty-six other States, excluding those States which have already seceded. All have equal rights in this government, and have an equal right to make a demand upon the Executive of the United States for a disclosure of his policy. It strikes me that it will be establishing a dangerous precedent to affirm that any one State has a right, either through its Convention or through .Page298 its Legislature, to make a call upon the Executive of the United States for a disclosure of his policy in reference to any particular question which may be pending. I think I may safely appeal to the veteran gentleman [ex-President TYLER] , who sits before me, and who has filled the high position of the Chief Executive officer of the United States—to bear me witness that, at the time negotiations in regard to the admission of Texas were pending, if any one of the Northern States had undertaken to call upon him to make known to them and to the public, what his policy was to be upon that subject, he would have promptly declined to furnish such information.

Now, sir, if it be right of Virginia to make a demand upon this occasion, you establish a precedent for all future cases, and you prevent the United States Executive from fulfilling its appropriate functions by withdrawing the veil of secrecy at times when it is essential to the success of any negotiations which may be pending. I think it is peculiarly important, in view of the relation which this Convention bears to the present Executive, that we should be careful not to place the great Commonwealth of Virginia in a false position. The Executive, sir, is not the President of our choice, and hence we ought to approach him with all the forms which are proper under such circumstances. We ought to observe all that etiquette which is appropriate to govern the relations between two governments. I am anxious to obtain the information, and will cheerfully vote for a resolution which will accomplish all the purposes which the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , has in view, but I am not willing to vote for the resolution in the form which he presented it; and, by way of argument against the call for the previous question, I beg leave to submit to the Convention an amendment which I propose to offer in the event of a refusal to order the previous question :

"Whereas, The apprehension which now exists in the public mind, that the Executive of the United States may be impelled to pursue a coercive policy toward the seven States which have adopted ordinances of secession, has tended to create an unhappy excitement among the people, and to affect, injuriously, the commercial and industrial interests of the whole country; and whereas, in the judgment of this Convention, such a policy would be, in a high degree, unwise and inexpedient. Be it therefore

"Resolved, That the President of this Convention be requested to make known to the President of the United States, in such form as he may deem most advisable, the firm conviction of this body, that a pacific policy towards the seceded States is demanded by every consideration .Page299 of public interest; and to express to the President of the United States the earnest desire of this Convention, that he will seize an early opportunity to assure the public of his determination to adopt such a policy."

If the Convention refuse to sustain the call for the previous question, I will submit that proposition, which I have no doubt will be productive of all the results contemplated by the gentleman from Montgomery , [Mr. PRESTON] .

In answer to the request made upon me by the honorable gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , I have only to say, that in negotiations pending between the United States and a foreign Government, it is undeniably true that a President of the United States may have very strong reasons for not communicating to Congress the actual state of such negotiations. To do so might even lead to a disastrous termination of the negotiation itself. During my own time I remember many instances in which I felt constrained, pending a negotiation, to withhold information called for by Congress. Such calls are always couched in respectful language, and whether proceeding from the Senate, or House of Representatives, are always qualified by the declaration "if not incompatible with the public interests," or words of equivalent import. Such calls were more than once made, by one or other of the Houses, during the negotiation of the Ashburton Treaty.

In regard to the question which is immediately before us, there may be a different view taken. That we have the right to make a request of the President to be informed of his intended course of policy, I do not entertain the slighest doubt. Virginia is one of his constituents and you are emphatically her representatives. Whether Virginia voted for him or not—it is a matter of no consequence—none in the world. She is as much one of his constituents as if she had voted for him. He is the President of the United States—the representative of each individual State and of all the States. The States are parties to the social compact of the United States.

They have originated the government, have ratified the Constitution, and through their electoral colleges the President is elected. The Government of Virginia has the people of Virginia for its constituent body, while the Government of the United States has its constituent body composed of States. Thus it often happens that the President is elected by a large electoral vote, while a decided majority vote of the people has been polled against him. Such has been especially the case with Mr. Lincoln. No member of this body would .Page300 pretend to deny to any one of his constituents the right to make an application to him for information, and no member here would resist the application thus made, unless, indeed, there was a question of State policy so important as to require the Convention to meet in secret session for deliberation. The same rule applies to a State, as a constituent of the Federal Executive.

Now, sir, I am not going into the question whether the President will answer your inquiries or not. He will, undoubtedly, if you approach him respectfully, respond to you respectfully. If, for instance, he has reasons for not disclosing the whole line of his policy, he will tell you that he is constrained in that behalf by considerations of public good, and, therefore, he will only make you such revelations as he thinks himself justified in making in view of what the public interests, in his opinion, may require. To that extent Mr. Lincoln will go. That you have the right to make the application of him there can exist no doubt. That he ought to answer, is my deliberate opinion ; whether he will nor not, is a question for him to determine. In the present emergency of the country, he ought to answer. He ought to answer plainly and emphatically as to his course of policy touching the Confederate States—the forts and arsenals. Every thing depends upon it—the peace of the country—its commercial, manufacturing and agricultural interests. Whether we are to have peace or war ought to be made known by every consideration of private and public interest—the whole country is interested in that answer. It must be a strong matter of State policy which shall close his lips and result in a refusal to answer you fully, broadly and satisfactorily upon the whole subject.

In regard to the question put by the honorable gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] I repeat with very great pleasure and promptitude, that in negotiations with foreign powers, the President is always shielded against an application in relation to them, by the acknowledged propriety of his retaining to himself so much of the secret of his negotiation as will enable him to conduct that negotiation to a successful issue. In this matter, however, I think that the application to Mr. Lincoln to make public his opinions and his course of policy are much more pressing and more important than upon any ordinary occasion.

Sir, pardon me for one more remark. If it be the design of Mr. Lincoln to reclaim these cotton States by force, there is the absence of a great step in his career. It should be preceded by a proclamation. To strike down a people without giving them notice that you were obliged by the estimate placed on your duties to level at their hearts the dagger or the sword, would be in the greatest degree an act of .Page301 impolicy, inhumanity, and cruelty. Sir, when the whiskey insurrection broke out in Pennsylvania, what was the course of that God-like man whose memory we all so much idolize—what, I ask, was the course of Gen. Washington? When that insurrection, not of a State, but an insurrection on the part of the whiskey boys as they were called, occurred, what was the course of policy pursued? Gen. Washington issued a proclamation forewarning them of the consequences of their conduct. He demanded that they should retire from their purpose—that they should abandon their insurrectionary move. Do we not all know the effect of that proclamation? It is true that he had to muster troops, but before those troops had reached Pittsburg resistance to the laws had been abandoned.

Coming down to a still later period, let me advert to the action of the Executive, in connection with the nullification of South Carolina. Why, Gen. Jackson never thought for a moment of inaugurating an era of blood, before he had issued his celebrated proclamation; he proclaimed his policy to the States and the people, according to his interpretation of the Constitution and the Executive duty. Why shall not Mr. Lincoln do this? Why go about sneakingly, as represented by the newspapers? Why dodge in this corner, and hide himself in that? Is the President of the United States, with all the power of the government in his hands, according to his interpretation of his rights and powers, driven to such an alternative, that he is obliged to shut himself up in his closet and not let the people know what is his purpose in regard to them—one day to feed them with smiles, and the next to threaten them with the sword? I wish this state of things could be ended. I wish with all my heart and soul, that he would come out openly and boldly, and let the country know what he means to do.

Sir, the declaration of letter writers copied into the "Enquirer" of this morning is that the greater portion of these forces, now collected at New York, are designed for another region—to guard us against the inroads of the Mexicans and of the Indians upon our Western border. Can it be false? Can a man at the head of the Government tolerate, for one moment, the idea of deceiving the people of the United States by false rumors? Why not speak out openly? If you mean to take the forts, say so. If you do not mean to take the forts, say so. Let us be at peace. Let us understand our relative positions to each other. I think that is his plain and obvious course. But I am far from undertaking to dictate any course of policy to the President of the United States. Whether his course be right, or whether it be .Page302 wrong, it will, when developed by words or acts, be our duty to decide.

I intend to vote for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , in some form, because I expect good results to come from the movement. From all that has occurred since this Convention assembled, and from a very careful and anxious examination of all the facts which have appeared before the public, I do not believe that any coercive policy, any policy which would be deprecated by this Convention, is intended to be pursued on the part of the Federal Executive. Such, sir, has been my hopeful conclusion from all the facts. And I should expect that in response to the request of this Convention, we should have, will have, from the President of the United States a satisfactory and soothing answer. Therefore it is, sir, that I heartily concur in the movement which has been instituted by my friend from Montgomery. But for the very reason that I do expect great good to result from this movement, in calming the agitation of the public mind, in removing that which, as the gentleman has well said, is worse than almost any condition of certainty—an anxiety of suspense and imaginary apprehension—I am the more anxious, that when we approach the Federal Executive, we shall do it in some form where there will be less likely to arise any obstruction of mere etiquette. Reflecting, sir, upon this subject, and especially the idea thrown out by the gentleman who has just addressed the Chair—that, preceding any attempt at coercion, the President of the United States would be bound by every consideration, to give fair public proclamation of such purpose—for these considerations, sir, I am, as I said, the more anxious that we shall approach him in such form as will secure a direct answer. I have my doubts whether it is proper to address him in the form of interrogatory. I am utterly ignorant upon these subjects, and I would avoid that, as some suggestion has been made that that would be an improper mode of approach. And I propose, in order to attain the main object, to offer another resolution, if the Convention will refuse to direct the previous question to be put. I concurred entirely with the substitute offered by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , except in one single feature. I do not think the subject can be satisfactorily managed by a correspondence between the President of this body and the President of the United States. I think it would be most respectful, and most probably effectual, to adopt the original form proposed by the gentleman from Montgomery, and send a Committee of this body to ascertain the fact which is so important to be ascertained.

I will read, by way of argument, the resolution which I will present, if an opportunity is given to do so :

"Resolved, That a Committee of three members be appointed by the President of this Convention to proceed at once to the city of Washington, wait upon the President of the United States and respectfully communicate to him the anxious desire of this Convention that a pacific policy will be pursued toward the seceded States, and that such a policy will be announced by him as soon as may be expedient, in order to quiet the public mind."

Mr. President, I think, sir, that in the consideration of the question involving the interests which the question now before this body does involve, we should not be embarrassed in the interchange of our views by the demand for the previous question. I think, sir, the time of this body could not be more profitably employed than in a free interchange of views, on the part of the members of this Convention on this interesting question. I take occasion to say that I was among those with whom the gentleman from Montgomery consulted previous to the introduction of his resolution, and that I heartily concurred in the object which that gentleman had in view. I trust that it will be the pleasure of this Convention to address the President in some proper form for the purpose of acquiring the information which this resolution proposes. I cannot conceive that the President of the United States will hesitate, if approached in respectful terms, to respond freely and frankly to the enquiries. But, sir, whatever may be the disposition of that high functionary, I am among those who desire to obtain information upon this question with a view to the government of my own action. We have adopted a resolution, Mr. President, declaring in emphatic terms that the State of Virginia will never consent to be made a party to an unnatural war upon her sister Southern States. We adopted that resolution, I believe, with some degree of unanimity. Now, sir, I trust that that resolution was not intended to be mere words without any specific meaning. I trust that something more was intended by it; that it was intended to declare emphatically the unalterable determination of this body, so far as its powers extend, that under no circumstances will an aggressive policy, on the part of the Federal Government, against these Confederated States, be tolerated by Virginia. Sir, I desire the information, as I have said, with a view to govern my own action as a member of this body, and I am free to say, that the moment when it is disclosed to me that the Federal Government meditates aggressive war upon these Confederate .Page304 States, for one I am ready to vote upon the instant for an ordinance of secession.

The lobbies will be instantly cleared if such disorder is repeated.

The disorder, sir, I think, was on the floor of the House.

I beg leave, Mr. President, to say that I concur entirely with the opinion of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . I beg leave to say that I concur in the opinion that the Federal authorities do not meditate aggressive war. I have seen no indication given yet, to the public, sufficient to induce such a belief. On the contrary, as I understand the indications, as I interpret them, I have come to the conclusion that the policy of the Administration is to be a peace policy; and I shall be slow to change that opinion ; I shall change it upon nothing short of that direct and positive evidence which will exclude the possibility of a doubt. It has been suggested that the President will consider the resolution of the gentleman from Montgomery as offensive. I can not perceive, sir, how such an interpretation can be put upon the preamble and resolution. I see nothing in them but respectful language. I would not address the President, or any other functionary, except in the language of respect. But, sir, so far from entertaining the objection which other gentlemen have thrown out against the matter of this preamble and resolution, I myself would be willing to go further and employ even stronger terms. I would be content, Mr. President, to employ terms expressive of our settled determination to the President, and to let him know, in no spirit of threat or of menace, but calmly and firmly, that upon the policy of the Administration in respect to these Confederate States depends the action of this Convention.

Mr. President, there is one view of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , which I desire to present to the Convention, and which in my judgment renders it indispensable not only to the slave States, but to the honor of this Commonwealth that this inquiry should be propounded. We all know, Mr. President, that there is a large military expedition fitting out in the Northern ports. We have adopted a resolution saying that the Federal power, being in part the power of this Commonwealth, should not be employed to subjugate the Confederate States. Now, sir, have we not a right to know if that military expedition, raised in part by our resources, manned in part by our citizens, is to be employed against the Spaniards or against the Southern .Page305 States? Will it be disrespectful, will it be impolitic, for this Convention, respectfully to ask the President of the United States whether he has ordered Virginia to engage in military operations against the Confederate States? We know, sir, without being officially informed, that there are many Virginians in the military posts, now employed in and about the Confederate States. We know that some of the best officers we have are from this State. We know that the engineer officer in Fort Sumter is a Virginian. We know that the first Lieutenant of the first ship that was sent with troops to the South—the gentleman whose duty it would have been to bring that ship into action

is a Virginian, a native of this city. We know that many of those officers are opposed to the service, and that many are refrained from tendering their resignation, because many have families depending upon their pay for their support. Now, is it not right that we should know whether our sons are to engage in this strife, if strife there be; whether Virginia treasure is to contribute to the raising of an army to subjugate those States; and whether Virginia is to contribute her blood, on the other side of that bloody battle?

Can the President of the United States object to telling us that? Is there any analogy between that question and the question of an inquiry into the foreign policy of the Government, and does the President recognize his relations to the Confederated States as foreign relations? Are you not to know whether the South is to be subjected or conciliated—whether we are to fight on one side or the other in this quarrel? Are we to be led blindfold into a war, the end of which no man can foresee or predict? Are we not to be permitted to inquire of one, our Chief Magistrate, whether he intends to use our blood and treasure in the subjugation of those States, by war, or whether he means to treat peacefully with them?

Why, Mr. President, do gentlemen recollect that there are numerous officers now employed in your army and Navy who are natives of this State? My venerable friend from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] will remember an incident which occurred some few years ago which illustrates the extent to which Virginians are engaged in the military service of the United States. Some two or three years ago, being accidentally at Old Point Comfort, and being about to receive the honors due to him as an ex-President of the United States, he did me the honor to invite me to go with him to the fortress. We went together to the fortress which was at that time garrisoned, if I mistake not, by a company of the 3d Regiment of Artillery commanded by an officer from New England, by the name of Gardiner. After the usual .Page306 ceremonies of the occasion were over, we were invited to the house of the commanding officer, and the conversation turning upon the service of that regiment in Mexico, he mentioned an occurrence which he said ought to be known by Virginians, inasmuch as it was highly honorable to the State. He informed us that being in command of six companies of that regiment, and having been called on to detail from his command twenty-four men to perform a part of the forlorn hope in storming the Castle of Chapultepec, he informed his men of the dangerous nature of the service to be performed, that in all probability some of them would never return, and then called for volunteers, who promptly presented themselves. He afterwards took occasion to ascertain something in reference to the history of the men who had volunteered, and he ascertained, that of those twenty-four men from a regiment recruited from every portion of the United States, and commanded by Northern officers, eighteen were native born Virginians. I take pleasure in announcing the fact, that it may go upon the record and stand as an honorable circumstance in the history of the State.

Now, sir, we know that there are numerous native born Virginians in all branches of the military and naval service of the United States. It is a service which the people of this State have all favored and liked. We know that there are men—Virginians--connected with the expedition which is being fitted out in the port of New York, who have no mcans of disconnecting themselves from that expedition. Sir, it is not kind to them; it is not kind to their State to require them to go upon such an expedition, if it is to be directed against the Government upon our Southern border. Let us go, then, with all respect, for I should be the last man to treat the incumbent of the Presidential Chair, no matter who he may be, with the slightest disrespect; let us go, then, with all respect, and I confess I do not understand how a resolution could be framed more respectful in terms than the one before us, and ask this President of ours to state plainly whether he is going to use force against the Confederate States, or whether he is going to treat with them; and let us tell him, in respectful terms, but plainly, that if it is his determination to use force, if it is his determination to inaugurate war, the sovereign Convention of Virginia declare to him, that in such a war the State of Virginia will take no part—at least upon the part of the United States—and ask him to relieve from service all the officers of the army and the navy who are natives of Virginia, and who have received orders to march against the Confederated States. I trust the members of this Convention will .Page307 bear in mind that they have received communication after communication, application after application, to take action in reference to this matter. I myself have received communications from officers connected with that branch of the service to which I once belonged, announcing boldly that they will take no part in any war that may be inaugurated against the South; that they do not know what to do. If they remain in the service they may at any time be ordered to march against the South, while, if they resign, they may be beggared. I say, then, let this Committee not only request the President to inform us what is his intention towards the Southern Confederacy, but let them further request while, negotiations are pending, that all officers of the army and navy who are citizens of Virginia shall be relieved from any service in the region of the Confederated States. That is what I desire; and I desire, further, that in order to present the inquiry in a form more imposing and in such a manner as shall entitle it to yet more of consideration, that it shall be presented by a Committee of this body in person, and not by the mere transmission of a communication in writing. It is time that all uncertainty should cease, that this Commonwealth should know what the policy of this government is to be in regard to the new nation upon our Southern border.

I did not want to, say anything about this question. I was disposed, from various considerations, to leave this question in the hands of its friends or of its opponents. But the debate has taken a turn which I think brings the subject calmly and considerately before us; and in that view of calm consideration, I wish to say a few words as to the character of the inquiries that should be addressed to the President of the United States. You are in a state—as was well remarked by the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , and by the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] ofanxious dubiety. I am written to from every section and quarter, where I have acquaintances and friends, and by many strangers, to know what is to be the result, what we are to expect. Is the danger on the right or the left? or, what danger is it that is to be expected, which seems to threaten us on every side? I can tell nobody; and I presume there is not a representative in this body who is not in the same condition with myself. He knows not what reply to make. We see that the sword of war is hanging over us by a thread, and although we know that it is impending over us, we know not whether the decree of fate is that it shall fall or not. It is not information sought in respect to a foreign war; it is in respect to the imminency of a civil war, that our people are kept in this painful suspense. Are we to be kept in this state of .Page308 suspense by public servants who hold the questions of peace and war in their hands? Unquestionably not. Sir, besides the personal interests that are involved; besides the lives; besides the blood; besides the misery of horrid civil war, there are important local questions, and national questions—local and national to us as well as to the seceded States—that point to this view and this policy; let alone the important personal interests that are involved, and which have been alluded to by my friend from Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] .

Now, sir, as to the ground which these questions cover. Every sentiment uttered by the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] I concur in. I concur in the opinion that we ought not to tolerate an aggressive or a coercive policy; but the question arises, what is aggressive? What will be a coercive policy? The President may 17 asked by you or by a Committee. "What is your intention? Do you intend coercion or aggression?" He would answer "no" to that general question, and yet not answer truly and fairly all the time. Why? How? I will give you an illustration, one of apprehension in my own mind. I believe the fort that is within the limits of South Carolina, Fort Sumter, is about to be evacuated. Why? Because it is a fort that may be called intramural, within the walls of the State. But I should like to ask the President of the United States, whether the same policy will be pursued in respect to the Tortugas, in respect to the Barrancas, and in respect to Fort Pickens. Is there not clearly defined, a disposition to pursue a different line of policy between the forts, in reference to which questions about mare clausum may be raised in connection with the forts, guarding the entrance of the Gulf and the mouth of the Mississippi as compared to the intra mural condition of Fort Sumter. While he will evacuate Fort Sumter, for example, he will still occupy Tortugas, Fort Barrancas and Fort Pickens. But, if the President answers the question at all, he will probably say—"I will give up one, because it is a local fortress; but I shall occupy the others because they are co-national fortifications." What does he mean by co-national fortifications? One that guards the navigation of the Gulf Of Mexico, one that guards the free navigation of the Mississippi river. Then comes up the question, is not Tortugas within the limits of Florida, which has seceded as much as Sumter is within the limits of South Carolina? It undoubtedly is. Suppose he replies—"we regard this, sir, as outside the shores of Florida, one that is not within the limits of the marine league." All the questions that may be raised then about mare clausum—all the questions that may arise about the marine league—of islands as contra-distinguished from points within .Page309 the main territory of a State—all these questions may arise, and these questions may bring on a conflict just as well as the occupation of Fort Sumter. Yet he may say to you—"While I would regard the occupation of Fort Sumter as aggressive and coercive, I would not regard the occupation of Tortugas and Barrancas as aggressive." Why not? "Because, even if I considered the States connected with the Southern Confederacy as permanently separated from the Government of the United States, we shall claim an interest in Tortugas, although we shall not claim an interest in Sumter." May not that involve war? Although his intentions may not be coercive, though he may deny the occupation of Tortugas to be aggressive or coercive, yet, granting the principle that he has the right to occupy Pickens and Tortugas upon the ground that the Gulf is a great mare clausum, upon the ground that it is co-national, still, in what attitude does it put Virginia to that very question? You stand with a fort in the very same relation, in that point of view, as Tortugas stands. When you have decided that his policy is aggressive ; when you have decided that it is coercive in retaining these forts, if you ever do so decide; if the time shall ever come—and it will come—when you, too, must depart from the Union—the same question will then arise in respect to Fortress Monroe. Why? Because the Susquehannah river rises at the lip of the lakes within the State of New York, flowing through the States of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and emptying into the ocean between Cape Charles and Cape Henry. It would also establish the Chesapeake Bay also, as a mare clausum. You have seen me deeply interested, living as I do within the sound of guns of that fort, on learning the fact that those guns had been turned landward. And, sir, I repeat, that the issue here involved, whether the Administration at Washington shall regard as aggressive or not the occupation of Pickens and Tortugas as well as Sumter, is one in which we are directly involved, and one much more important than the lives of our officers—involving the mare clausum of the Chesapeake Bay and the question of the co-national right to the mouth of the Susquehannah, of New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, as well as Virginia, the very question that may bring us into conflict with the National Government, as it is now likely to bring Florida and Alabama into conflict with the Federal Government, in respect to the occupation of Tortugas and Fort Pickens.

The PRESIDENT announced the gentleman's time had expired.

I hope I shall be allowed to utter a single sentence in addition. [Cries of "leave."] I only desire to say that I am for no .Page310 resolution that will not go further than my friend from Frederick proposes. The gentleman's resolution, as I understand it—only expresses the wish, that the policy of the President shall be peaceful. I desire more. I desire that we should insist upon such information as will enable us to judge as well as the President himself, as to the tendency as well as the intent of his policy.

Mr. President, I rise to say that I shall vote against any proposition having for its object the sending of a committee to Washington, to make any inquiry from the President of the United States. I shall especially vote against the proposition of my friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] . That proposition looks to sending a committee to the President, to ask him what line of policy he is going to pursue in regard to the seceded States. If I know anything of the history of the seceded States, they are now represented at Washington by Commissioners. When has Virginia been put in possession of facts showing that those Commissioners have failed to do their duty?

Members of this Convention avowed, before Lincoln was elected, what he would do. They announced, after his election, what he would do. They predicted, before his inauguration, what he would do. After his inaugural address, they declared what he would do. And now, in self-stultification, they come up here and say they do not know what he is going to do, and want to send somebody to ask him. [Laughter.] I ask those gentlemen, and I ask the press of Virginia, whether they have not made these declarations?

Oh, yes, before the 4th of March you tried to fire the Southern heart, by predicting what Mr. Lincoln would do. And now, that he has taken an oath to perform the duties of President of the United States, and sent forth his inaugural, leaving you to read it and decide upon it for yourselves, you are not satisfied. To get up a new issue by which to fire the Southern heart, a Committee is to be sent to him to ask him what line of policy he is going to pursue in regard to the seceded States. And you base your action on what? On the ground that suspense injures the commercial and other interest of the country. The seceded States have produced the state of things complained of, and, instead of demanding of them what they mean, we are to go to the President of the United States, and ask him what he means to do. Yes, sir, after telling the people of Virginia what Mr. Lincoln meant to do, you now confess yourselves to be false prophets. Not a public meeting has been held at a Court House or cross-road in this State, at which the people were not told, that when the fourth of March came, their interests would be ruined.

But I know what the game here is, and I will tell it right out. There was a vote taken here on the 4th of April. That vote decided an important question, and now it is necessary to raise a new issue. That vote decided that Virginia would not commit the suicidal act of secession. That was the time when the harpoon went into the vital spot of the whale, and it is not remarkable that the whale should dive down, and that blood should spout, and that the rolling and dashing waters should now break over him; but I tell you if we do our duty it will be but a little while before his white belly appears on the surface. [Laughter.] With the attitude of these seceded States before us, with the fact staring us in the face, that the military forts in New Mexico have been seized by the Secessionists, we propose to ask the President what he is going to do. Suppose it shall turn out that the Governor of New Mexico is acting in concert with the seceded States, will New Mexico, too, under this new fangled idea of secession secede? If so I reckon they may "get their hemp."

Look at the condition of affairs in the country; while officers of the General Government are throwing up their commissions, while territorial forts are being delivered up to secessionists, we are going to ask the President what he proposes to do. Has he not a right to shape his own course of policy and make it conform to the circumstances which may present themselves? Suppose the seceded States—which are claimed to be independent States—should raise an army and navy and come up here to take fortress Monroe—must he still remain inactive, and let them do it? They have their Commissioners abroad; and if they should make an agreement with France, England or any other power, to unite with them in subjugating the remaining portions of the State, is the President still to remain inactive? Is he not bound to pursue that policy which his sense of duty to the country dictates? Shall I go home and tell my constituents that womanish fears had struck me I do not say that they have struck any here—and that I had got so much frightened that I voted to send off two or three gentlemen, as fast as they could speed, to ask Mr. Lincoln what he was going to do?

Sir, my constituents are not so easily alarmed. I do not represent people of that sort. Mr. Lincoln knows the policy of this Convention. It has been openly avowed. There are not ten men here who have not declared their opinion and their determination not to sanction any forcible measures, whether in the collection of the revenue or in the recapture of the forts. The President has, perhaps, framed his line of .Page312 policy on this very action of the Convention. He pursues what is called the inactive, silent kind of policy. Some time ago he was represented as a roaring lion, seeking whom he might devour; but now he has become silent and inactive—these same men wait to send some persons to rouse him up.

I do not occupy the position of those gentlemen referred to by the gentleman who has just taken his seat. I am not among those who predicted that after the 4th of March, Lincoln would make war on the seceded States. I am not among those who were in favor of precipitating the action of Virginia, because I believed there was nothing so very alarming immediately in the election of the present President of the United States. But I am among those who came here with some apprehension. I could not shut my eyes to the fact that, shortly after Mr. Lincoln's coming into possession of the powers of the government, there might result some forcible action which might bring on civil war. We have been here deliberating for well nigh two months. We have come here, some entertaining one opinion in regard to the course which Mr. Lincoln may pursue, and others entertaining a different opinion. We have been all watching the course of events and endeavoring, from the developments that are being made from time to time, to adapt our action to the exigencies that arise. Now at this time we hear, as we have heard before, of preparations for war. The information that comes on the telegraph daily is such as to satisfy the public mind of one thing—that there are unusual movements of men and munitions of war; that the Executive is certainly taking some action now which authorizes us to believe that he entertains a purpose either of coercion or defence.

We do not stand, in regard to the present Executive, in the same relation as do the Commissioners from the Confederate States. The gentleman who last addressed you [Mr. RIVES] , spoke of those Commissioners being there, and being ineffectually endeavoring to get such information, and said that it would, therefore, be useless for Virginia to send commissioners, inasmuch as the President would refuse to answer them. But I beg leave to submit that our positions are very different. In regard to the Confederate States, there is a grave question involved. The President says, that if he confers with those Commissioners at all, he will be thereby acknowledging that they represent an independent nation. It is on a question of constitutional or legal propriety that he refuses to meet those Commissioners who represent States now in opposition to the present Government. When Virginia sends commissioners she will occupy a different attitude. It was well .Page313 remarked by the gentleman from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , "we are one of the constituents of the Executive. We make no offensive demand of him. We simply ask him, in respectful terms, to indicate to us, who are a part of this Government, and have to bear its burdens and take its responsibilities, what is to be his policy." As was remarked by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , "we do not, in making this request, assert any right which is to be a precedent hereafter." It is only the right of petition. It is only the right of asking information as to a matter in which we are deeply interested, information which is material to our deliberations. The people are clamoring and complaining that the body has not before this, come to some result. For one, I am unwilling to adjourn this body leaving the State of Virginia not in a condition to meet the emergencies that may arise, so long as the Executive of the United States keep himself buttoned up and does not indicate his policy. I can imagine no good reason why he should not tell us. If he breaks the suspense which is now hanging like a dark cloud over the nation, and tells us that he means to coerce, that his policy will be to maintain the power of the General Government in those forts, we will then know what action to take. All doubt and hesitation will be removed from my mind, and I will be then for taking our position with the Confederate States and going out of the Union. I have been hesitating, and have been kept back because I hoped that the policy of the Executive of the United States would be peaceful. If I could be assured of that I should not then feel myself justified in taking the position which I have just indicated. I ask those gentlemen who oppose the appointment of the proposed committee, to indicate to us and to the country what great objection there can be to the course indicated? We tell them that it is, in our opinion, important that we should have this information, on which we may base our action. They say that the President will probably not answer the committee. Suppose he does not, still, if he gives a good reason for his silence, we must judge of his response as given.

We may not take his response with any factious or carping spirit, but as men who are to act on their responsibility. I reiterate the inquiry, what harm can result from this application? What good reason can you give for not making that simple attempt, respectfully, to obtain from the highest source known to us important information on which we may act? I ask, whether this body is to adjourn, in the present state of suspense and doubt, with the indications before us .Page314 of movements of men and arms? We cannot do so until we have more certain information.

I certainly did not intend to take any part in this debate, and should not have said a word upon this subject but for the remarks that fell from the gentleman from Prince George [Mr. RIvES] . It is a matter of perfect indifference to me whether this Committee is sent to Washington or not. I care very little whether the information looked for is transmitted to us or not. I have no manner of doubt that the resolutions to which the gentleman referred will have to be offered in this Convention, if not in a short time, they will have to be submitted ultimately in spite of anything the Convention can do. I merely rise now, sir, for the purpose of disabusing the mind of this Convention that I, or those who act with me, have anything to do with these resolutions. My friend who offered the resolutions on Saturday, did me the honor to inform me that he had resolutions of this character to offer, but not feeling any interest in them, I did not remain in the Convention to vote upon them; I have no interest in the movement. When the Convention voted down the resolutions which I submitted the other day, I felt relieved from any responsibility that might attach to me for any results that may take place from the action of this Convention. I concluded to throw upon this Convention all the responsibility for its future action, and not to interfere except so far as I shall vote for any proposition that may recommend itself to my judgment in preference to others which are now pending. I speak with reference to the propositions of the Committee on Federal Relations. I shall vote for this proposition because it seems to gentlemen that a development of the purposes and the policy of the Administration may lead, by possibility, to action upon the part of this Convention. It is that consideration, and that alone, which will permit me to give my support to the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] . But, sir, if this question assumes a different aspect—if, instead of Virginia going out, she should, through her commissioners, assume a crouching, humiliating, imploring attitude, with a view to ascertain the policy of the Administration, I shall undoubtedly vote against the resolution.

I should be glad if my friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , would come up with a proposition directing that Virginia should be represented at Washington as, in my judgment, her interest and her honor require that she should be represented. I shall gladly vote for such a proposition, but I am not willing, at any time, to vote for any action here which would afford to the administration a mere pretext.Page315 for evasion, and enable the President, by equivocal diplomatic terms, to cover up his purposes. I shall vote for no resolution that proposes that letters shall be sent to the President inquiring what his future policy shall be. I want, if any action is taken on this subject, that proper representatives shall be chosen, who can report to us what occurred when they waited on the President of these United States, to which, in my opinion, we now unfortunately belong. I will do nothing which my judgment does not lead me to believe, will not lead to a severance of the connection which now exists between Virginia and the Northern States of this Union.

I am willing to vote for the proposition of my friend on my left [Mr. GOGGIN] , which proposes to take independent action; and that is the farthest that I mean to go in that direction. I am willing, if Virginia severs her connection with this former Confederacy—for I will not admit that it is a Confederacy now—that she shall take an independent act and shape her own course. I don't desire that she shall proclaim, before leaving this Confederacy, that she is going—as I know she is—with the South. I am perfectly certain that her interests, her honor, and her inclinations will drive her to the South. I would be perfectly willing that she should pass an ordinance of secession disconnected from her future policy of union with the Southern States, or any other States; for I am satisfied, that her interests and sympathies will inevitably lead her in that direction.

When these resolutions were offered on Saturday evening, whilst I had some doubts as to the propriety of the matter, I was strongly inclined to vote for them, and should have done so, had a vote been taken on that occasion.

The information sought to be elicited is, in my judgment, eminently proper. We all must concede, sir, that the public mind requires to be enlightened upon the subjects involved in the resolutions referred to. I have no doubt, sir, that the information sought to be elicited, if asked for in a proper manner, would be furnished, and that the result would be to quiet the apprehensions which may now exist upon the minds of a portion of the people of the Commonwealth. I express this belief, sir, because when I couple the pacific course pursued by the Administration with the inaugural address of the President, I feel justified in saying sir, that the policy of the Administration is a peaceable policy. And whilst I have no apprehension that the information sought would elicit anything to the contrary, I was anxious that the information might be obtained in order that it may produce a beneficial effect upon the public mind.

I thought on Saturday, that the resolutions contemplated merely to elicit from the President of the United States information as to the policy he meant to pursue towards the seceded States; but, sir, I frankly confess, that the course of remarks indulged in here to-day on the part of the few who have addressed this Convention have created doubts in my own mind as to the policy of this matter at all, and I am strongly disposed to vote against the resolutions which are now before the Convention.

Sir, I had supposed, if I shall be permitted to reiterate, that the object was respectfully to draw from the President an expression of the policy designed to be pursued by him. I had no idea that gentlemen would construe these resolutions to authorize an inquisitorial course on the part of the Commissioners, who may be selected to go to Washington under these resolutions. But, sir, I cannot fail to perceive that there is a construction existing in the minds of some gentlemen who have addressed the Convention, which, in my judgment, will render the appointment of Commissioners, under these resolutions, exceedingly inexpedient, and exceedingly dangerous. It has been intimated here that we are not only to address an inquiry to the President as to what course he means to pursue, but that we are to follow up the inquiry—an answer to which is to pacify the public mind or determine our action in this body—by detailed inquiries as to what the President intends to do in reference to that fort or this fort, this thing or that thing. Now, the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , has given a reason here why he wants Commissioners appointed, which disposes me to go diametrically opposite to the course which he desires. He is not willing that a correspondence should be opened by this Convention through its President, with the Administration at Washington. He is not willing to receive the declaration of the President of the United States through that channel; but he desires the information to be received, and the manner in which it may be communicated directly from the report of the commissioners who are to be selected to wait upon the President. I say that there lies a cat in the meal tub here, as has been remarked by a gentleman on the floor of the Convention a few days ago. We propose to send these commissioners to the city of Washington. In what manner are they to deport themselves when they get there? What inquiries are they to address to the President? The action of the Convention may be perfectly proper and respectful, but I am not authorized to say that every gentleman who may be selected will have the disposition and the desire to conduct this matter in such a way as to draw forth the information that would .Page317 be calculated to pacify the public mind. I say, sir, I have been disposed to favor these resolutions; but I must confess that, whilst I am solicitous that the information should be obtained, I am entirely indisposed to pursue the course to obtain the information that we desire, which the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] proposes.

The proposition of the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , met4The Enquirer text, presumably garbled, says "ray met." me this morning for the first time; and I am free to say that that proposition commends itself to my best judgment as avoiding all the difficulties which may present themselves in the mode in which the information may be sought by personal interview between members of this Convention and the President. I say, therefore, if my mind comes to the conclusion from the debate here, that that is the proper course to pursue, I shall decline to vote for this proposition and shall vote, if an opportunity is afforded me, for the proposition which the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] brought to the attention of the Convention.

Now, sir, we desire to ascertain from the President of the United States what is to be his policy in reference to the seceded States. If I understand the resolution correctly, that is the object it has in view. Are you not to address the President upon the subject? Will not the resolution speak for itself? If the President of the United States in response to this resolution shall communicate the desired information I ask will not the object be accomplished which the members of this Convention profess they desire to have accomplished? Can there be any objection to it? It is the information we desire, and I humbly submit here, that an objection as to the mode of appointing this commission is a matter foreign entirely to the object. I desire that this information shall be acquired in such a way as not to complicate it with the difficulties that environ it. I am not disposed to put the cause of the constitution and the Union and the preservation and construction of this Union into the power and keeping of any man or of any three men. Sir, let this Convention speak directly to the President of the United States through the President of this Convention. Let the response be a response to the resolution of the Convention, and I trust that no man who is in favor of the preservation of this Union will trust any man or any set of men, with the mode and manner of conducting this thing which may disappoint the hopes and expectations of those who may vote for it. I say, therefore, that I shall unhesitatingly vote against the proposition, when it shall come up.

1 am really very much surprised at the opposition .Page318 which the resolution of my friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , has received upon this floor. It seems to me that a little reflection on the part of the members of this body, would satisfy them of the absolute propriety of some communication upon the part of this Convention to the President of the United States, in regard to the policy which he intends to pursue towards the seceded States. The vote of this Convention, taken I believe on Thursday last, by which the proposition for extreme action on the part of Virginia, was voted down by a majority of more than two to one has indicated to the Administration and the country, in unmistakable terms, that the object of Virginia is the peaceable adjustment of all these difficulties which now distract our country, and the restoration of our entire country to its former position. Sir, I imagine that every gentleman who voted on Thursday last, in this body, against the propriety of passing an ordinance of secession, voted his sentiments, and that in recording his vote he desired to declare, before his country and his constituents, that the time had not come when Virginia must sever her connection with the General Government, but that earnest, fair and manly efforts are yet to be made by us, as a body representing the State of Virginia to procure from that General Government such recognition of our equality and rights, as well as those of all the States of this Confederacy, as would have the effect to heal all our distractions and divisions, and restore the Union again to its former position. Then why, I ask, when Virginia has declared her policy by an overwhelming vote, is the proposition, on our part to ask the Administration to declare its policy in regard to these seceded States, to be regarded as dangerous, or matter of offence to that Administration? Sir, I will read the resolutions of my friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] . Mr. FLOURNOY, after reading the resolutions, resumed as follows : If language could be more careful and respectful than that in which the preamble and resolution are couched, I am unable to perceive it.

Sir, there is not a word in that preamble and resolution that the strictest caviller for propriety could regard as offensive to the President of the United States, when these resolutions shall be presented to him by a committee of this body. We go to him, too, after having carefully indicated, in an unmistakable manner, the policy of Virginia in reference both to the seceded States and the Federal Government, with the recorded vote upon our journals, expressing, by a declared majority of two to one, the desire of Virginia that this Union shall be maintained ; that the government shall be re-united upon terms of .Page319 equality and that Virginia does not wish to sever her connection with it. When my friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , on Saturday evening, offered these resolutions, my distinguished friend from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , had prepared a preamble which I thought would be more acceptable to the Convention, and less objectionable than the resolution of my friend from Montgomery; and, when he indicated it, my friend from Montgomery, without hesitation upon his part, accepted the preamble as a substitute for two of his resolutions, and connected it with the last resolution appointing commissioners. It was done in a spirit of conciliation, in a spirit of fairness, and with a purpose to give unanimity, as far as practicable, to the action of this body in approaching the President of the United States. On Saturday evening it met with scarcely any objection. How has the change come over this body since Saturday evening? Gentlemen have discovered in this—as it has been frequently discovered before in the action of this body—a cat in the meal tub.

Let me say, for one, that if this resolution is introduced here for the purpose of bringing about a state of things that will drive Virginia into extreme action, I have no part in any such purpose. Sir, the day may come when we may have to stand in this Convention and vote for Virginia taking her extreme position. I shall regret that day when it does come, and I hope, if it ever comes, I shall have the manliness and firmness to stand up, with my life in my hand, if it may be, and record my vote, or do any other act to place Virginia wherever her honor shall require her to go. But I am sure my friend, the mover of these resolutions, and the friends who were consulted, had no such purpose of seeking an opportunity to place her in that extreme position. Our purpose, however different, was to get from this Administration a declaration of its policy, that would enable us, when we adjourned, after having adopted such propositions, and proposed such amendments to the Constitution as ought to be sent to the North for their adoption, to go home to our people, and assure our disquieted, distracted and distressed constituencies, that while the North was acting upon these propositions, we have the assurance that the peace of the country is not to be disturbed. I do hope that it will be the pleasure of this Convention to pass the preamble and resolutions as they are, and to select from their body three discreet and prudent gentlemen to go to the city of Washington and present these resolutions, make the requisite inquiries, and bring back the report to us; and I trust in God, as I would deplore the shedding of blood, as I would deplore the destruction of my country, that a change may come .Page320 over the spirit of the dream of the man at the head of the government, if he has war in his purposes, and that he may say to us in honest truth that it is his purpose to deal with this whole question peaceably, and then we will be left to deal with it wisely, and bring about such results as may be best adapted to the interests of our country, our whole country; but whatever may be his purposes—whether peace or war—it is our right to know it. If peace, I shall rejoice to know it, if war, we must prepare to meet it.

From the remarks submitted by the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. FLOURNOY] the inference might be drawn that the acceptance, on Saturday evening last, by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] of the preamble which I suggested as a substitute for his first resolution, was upon some understanding or agreement.

Oh, no. If any such inference could be drawn, it was not in my mind, because there was no understanding or agreement on the subject.

I merely wish to disabuse the minds of the Convention of any idea that I intended, by moving the preamble as a substitute for the first two resolutions, to commit myself absolutely to the plan as thus amended, and I think I can remind the members of this body that in the remarks which I submitted I stated that I had the impression—I could not say it was a distinct opinion—that the third resolution ought to be modified in certain particulars which I indicated; and the gentleman from Halifax will recollect that pending the discussion afterwards, at my instance, he called upon the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] to make a suggestion enlarging the scope of the resolution.

Yes, sir.

So, sir, I do not regard myself as committed to the plan by having offered the amendment and by that amendment being accepted. I stated that I believed the mission to Washington at present, if properly conducted, would be of value. I think so yet, and if we can have the proper men to go to Washington with the right feeling, I have no question that a mission of the sort would be of great advantage.

I was very much struck with the remarks made by the gentleman from Norfolk County [Mr. HOLLADAY] in regard to the latitude which seems to be indulged in in anticipation by gentlemen upon this floor. Is it proposed that we shall send a Committee to the City of Washington to cross-examine the President of the United States, and press .Page321 upon him an inquiry into minute particulars, after he shall have indicated in such terms as he deems proper his general policy? Is it proposed that he shall be put upon the witness stand and subjected to a minute examination, and that the result of this sort of interview is to be brought back here and referred to this body, according to the impression which it may make upon each one of the envoys engaged in it. If that is the idea, I desire utterly, utterly to protest against any such mission. I concur in the sending of a mission, the main object of which shall be to represent to the President of the United States the desire of this body for a pacific policy, and the opinion of this body that a declaration of such a policy, at an early day, will conduce to the public good. If it is in the mind of any member here, that upon such a mission he would be entitled to go further than that, it seems to me that every mind here ought to be disabused of any such impression.

In regard to the form of this resolution, it does not strike me as being at all wanting in respect to the President of the United States; but, sir, the direct enquiry, asking the President of the United States to report to this Convention, seems to me, to go beyond any constitutional right that we have in addressing the President of the United States. As has been stated by the distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Ex-President TYLER] , if the Senate of the United States, or both Houses of Congress, representing the entire Government, the people and the States, were to call upon the President for information in regard to any line of policy as to which secrecy might be desirable, they would adopt towards him the courteous language, "if it consists with the public interests to make the disclosure." Is there any reason that we should address to him a direct inquiry and depart from what is universally regarded as the respectful language of inquiry to be addressed to the President of the United States in regard to Executive business? If there is no reason—none occurs to me and none has been suggested to me as yet—for leaving out what seems to me recognized as the universal formula in all such cases; if we are to confine ourselves to the simple inquiry—then I would suggest that we ought to adopt the form universally recognized under such circumstances. Why? To avoid the idea that some persons have intimated here—an idea that I think the gentleman who moved the resolutions intimated the other day, that if the President declines to give the information sought, we are to treat his refusal as an act of hostility? Now, I am not willing to make any forgone conclusion of that sort. I desire, if we go beyond our plain, constitutional right, as clearly defined, to ask questions in .Page322 regard to matters about which we earnestly crave information, that we shall not determine in advance to fall out with the President and attribute other than proper reasons of State for his declining.

I prefer, sir, the resolution suggested by the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . It is the form of resolution that I would prefer; and if I could see that resolution adopted, and proper men selected to represent this Convention upon such a mission, I should expect much good to result from it. But unless something of that sort is done, unless some definite assurance could be given, both in regard to the frame of the enquiry, and in regard to the dispositions and opinions—I don't mean general opinions but opinions on the policy to be pursued on this mission—of the gentlemen who would go upon that mission were distinctly understood by me, and understood to confine them to this respectful enquiry, and to avoid a cross-examination of the President of the United States, I should be compelled to vote against the whole proposition.

I think this mission, sir, one of doubtful propriety. If the vote had been taken on Saturday evening, I should unquestionably have given my vote for it with my whole heart; but upon further examination and information, I think it is doubtful whether this resolution should pass or not. Sir, what are the circumstances connected with the condition of the country at this time? We are informed by the latest telegraphic despatches from Washington, that the whole policy of the Administration is in profound mystery; that neither the President, nor any member of his Cabinet, has indicated to any individual what that policy is to be.

We know, sir, that military expeditions have been undertaken; that vessels have been sent off with troops; and we know that secrecy is the very soul of all military expeditions. What are we to expect if we send this committee to Washington? Do we not know that the policy of the Administration will not be communicated to them? Ought Virginia then to be put in the humiliating attitude of asking from the Executive of the United States that which we have every reason to believe will be refused? And, sir, if refused, and the information comes back to this Convention that it is refused, what course will gentlemen then take in regard to that refusal? But, sir, notwithstanding all these objections, I shall vote for the resolution. I shall vote for it, Mr. President, because I wish the committee to go to Washington and inform the President what, in their opinion, the opinion of the majority of this Convention is. I wish the committee to let the President know that the coercive policy will not be submitted to by the people of .Page323 Virginia. I wish this committee to let him know that he must not misunderstand the temper of this Convention; that while we are conservative, while we are disposed to do everything in the world to reconstruct this Union, if his purpose is to subjugate the people of the South, the honor and the interest of Virginia require that we shall take sides with them and endeavor to prevent that coercion. These being my sentiments, I hope the resolution will be adopted, and that these gentlemen will be selected by this Convention to go to Washington and inform the Executive of the United States what is the tone and temper of this Convention.

Mr. President, if there had been any indications from the friends—

The Chair is inclined to the opinion, but wishes to be corrected if he is in error, that the gentleman from Harrison has spoken ten minutes upon the previous question.

I did speak, sir, but I spoke before the previous question was called, as the President will remember.

I did not recollect; I merely wished to be informed.

I was about to remark, Mr. President, that if there had been any indications from the friends of this resolution that they would yield to the request not to press the previous question, I should not have troubled the Convention with any remarks, and should not have consumed the ten minutes to which I am entitled under the rules of this body. Upon the first introduction of the resolutions on Saturday evening, without previously having the slightest idea that any thing of the kind was contemplated by any member of this Convention, I felt satisfied that it would be improper to adopt them, and I gave expression to that opinion then. Subsequent reflection has but confirmed me in that opinion ; and if I had a doubt that doubt would have been removed by the remarks of the very distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , when he told us this morning that it would be cruel and inhuman, on the part of the President, to adopt a coercive or warlike policy without first declaring to the nation his determination thus to adopt that policy. Now, sir, however much we may dislike the man who now occupies the Presidential chair, I for one, am unwilling to declare, by any act of mine, that I believe him to be that monster which the declarations, coming from such a respectable source, would necessarily make him, if he did contemplate anything like war or coercion. And I think that the very statement to which I have referred as having been made by one who has himself occupied the position of President of the .Page324 United States [Mr. TYLER] , now occupied by Mr. Lincoln, is the very best argument why there cannot be, upon the mind of any gentleman, the slightest apprehension that anything like a warlike or coercive policy towards the seceded States is contemplated by the President of the United States. But, sir, we may see—at least, I think I can see—strong reasons why those who desire a maintenance of the Union, and those who believe that no Union exists, but desire its reconstruction, and yet demand of the Executive a public avowal of his policy at this time, should believe that his policy is pacific ; it has been pacific, and no man can doubt that it will continue so to be, until he, by public proclamation, declares his determination to reverse that policy; no man who is not willing to attribute to him, in the language of the gentleman from Charles City, cruelty and inhumanity, can for a moment doubt. And that it is the true policy, no man who has reflected upon the matter can question. Let him, as has been heretofore the course, give no farther disclosures of his policy than have appeared already through the sources of public information, and allow those in power in the Confederate States, to continue their exhausting and harassing measures of preparations for war, both by getting men and money, and you will see that in a month or two more, the people in those States will take the reins of Government out of the hands of politicians, and the patriotic sentiment in the hearts of those people, will bring back those States to their ancient allegiance, and then they will be found once more in the family of States. Such a policy, in my opinion, is the true policy to be pursued.

But this preamble, as well as the resolution, seems to point to the fact that the policy which the Administration is now pursuing, and has heretofore pursued, is paralyzing the industrial and commercial interests of the country, and, by virtue of apprehension in the public mind as to the action of the Federal Government, these industrial and commercial interests are prejudiced. Sir, is there a man who doubts for a moment that all that has been done to the prejudice of the industrial and commercial interests of the country, has been the necessary, direct and legitimate result of the action of the seceded States, and of the action of those other States which are like ourselves, South of Mason & Dixon's line, yet remaining in the Union, and who indicate a disposition to resist the Federal authorities in the event the seceded States should provoke hostilities by attempting to take possession of the forts necessary to protect our commerce?

We were just about recovering, so far as our State credit is concerned, from the effects produced by the act of the Legislature providing .Page325 for the issue of one million of $10 treasury notes. The action of this body on the 4th of April, declaring by a vote of two to one that Virginia was not prepared to resort to the adoption of an ordinance of secession, was about to restore confidence and our bonds to-day, but for the offering of these resolutions, would have been in the market at a much better rate than they now command. I find in the leading disunion and sensation journal in this country, the New York "Herald," this very proposed action reported as having been adopted the day previous, twenty-four hours before the resolutions of the gentleman from Montgomery were submitted. I begin strongly to suspect that it was necessary to keep up the disunion feeling on the part of the editors of that paper, who have done more to destroy the government than the editors of any other press in the land, that this false statement was published as another means to fire the Southern heart, to alarm the patriots of the country and to remove the healthful impression that was about being made by the action of this body in refusing to adopt the secession resolution submitted by my friend from Amelia. I find in the New York "Herald" of the 6th inst. the following :

"IMPENDING REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA

"WASHINGTON, April 5, 1861

"A special meeting of the Cabinet was called to-night at half-past ten to give a hearing to a select committee from the Virginia State Convention. * * * * * * *"

This dispatch was received from Washington on the night of the 5th instant, and it was not until the night of the 6th instant, the resolution for the appointment of a select committee to go to Washington was introduced into this body.

The previous question should be voted down, in order to allow the amendment indicated by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] . If we desire the information which it is the object of the resolution to obtain, it should be in the language of the President of whom we make the enquiry; and it would be better to adopt the amendment which the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , has indicated his purpose to move in the event that the previous question shall not be sustained. Let the President of this body address a letter to the President of the United States, and let him answer in writing. But you propose to appoint a committee of three gentlemen, taken from this body, they to enter into conversation with the President, then to detail.Page326 to us and give us in their own language their impression of what that conversation was.

Sir, feeling, as I do, an ardent desire to preserve forever the institutions under which we have lived thus far, loving my whole country, every part of it, Louisiana and Texas as much as any other part, save and except the mother of us all, I desire that no action shall be taken which will not promote the great end and object we have in view—the preservation of the Union and the restoration of the harmony of the country. Therefore, sir, if I were upon that committee ( of course I shall not be) , I would receive the declarations made to me by Mr. Lincoln under very different circumstances from those in which they would be received by my friend before me [Mr. HARVIE] , who tells you frankly, he does not desire perpetuity of the Union or its reconstruction.

The gentleman did not read the whole of the dispatch to which he alluded in the Herald.

I read that portion of it which we all know to be untrue. I have not time, in the few minutes allowed me, to read more, or I would do so.

Well, I wish to say that I would like to show that the remainder of the dispatch is also untrue.

I wish to occupy the whole of my ten minutes; if I had longer time I would give way.

The gentleman from Harrison has already occupied his ten minutes.

I hope I will be allowed one moment to finish what I was about to say.

If there is no objection the gentleman can proceed.

In illustration of the point to which I was directing the attention of the Convention, I desire to call the attention of the members of this body for one moment to the remarks which were made upon this subject by the gentleman from Princess Anne. He told you that the retention of the Tortugas and those other forts which are necessary to protect the commerce of Virginia, and of the whole country, would, in his view, be aggressive and coercive. Sir, so long as I remain a citizen of the United States, I shall never consent to the abandonment of any fortifications which are necessary to protect the commerce of the people of Virginia and the commerce of the Union in which we remain.

I should not have ventured, Mr. President, to express opinions upon the question now before us, but .Page327 for what was said by the gentleman who has just taken his seat. That gentleman ventured the opinion that the deranged condition of the trade, and business of the country, is the result of the secession movement of the South, wholly unaffected by the course or policy of the Administration. There is no opinion more mistaken or erroneous.

It is true the disruption did operate adversely upon business and pursuits, reduced prices, suspended confidence, and led to great sacrifices; yet, had the country been assured of a peaceful policy on the part of the Government, trade and industry, at this early day, would have, in the main, recovered their activity. It is characteristic of our people, and denotes their energy and resources, that be the depression of an unexpected disaster what it may, it requires but a short period for them to regain their confidence and repair the waste. I hazard nothing in saying, that, by this time, if the policy of the Administration had been stable and avowed, and the fear of commotion and war been dismissed, confidence would have taken the place of uneasiness and distrust, and industry and enterprise been in the enjoyment of their rewards. It is important, therefore, with reference to its commercial effects, that the course of the Administration should be declared.

But, I fear, an importance is attached to this resolution to which it it not entitled. Assuming that the administration entertains purposes of hostility against the seceded States, they cannot be long hid or concealed. Preparations for war do not admit of being covered up or disguised; nor would there seem to be any adequate or just motive for concealment, if the President meditated war. He may be, and probably is, without any definite plan, only waiting upon events and expecting relief from some fortunate conjuncture. With an humble estimate of his statesmanship, and that of his Cabinet, I might suggest it as probable that he has not any settled views in respect to the course he will pursue. He may contemplate devolving the decision upon Congress, at a called, or at the regular session. For myself I do not expect any specific or valuable disclosure from the proposed mission to Washington, yet I am so sensible, from my connection with the general business of this city, of the importance of disabusing the public mind of the apprehension of war, that I am in favor of any fair means of gaining information from the Executive. I desire, therefore, that the resolution may be adopted, for which there is good reason in the time we have been engaged about it. If the mission accomplish nothing, it cannot eventuate in evil.

The intimation that the committee may make an unfair report is .Page328 both unjust and chimerical. Should the President abuse the grave occasion by indulging in evasive and oracular responses, the discredit will be all his own, whilst our position will be unchanged. The judgment of this body is far too enlightened and well balanced to be betrayed or disturbed by reports from Washington.

The proposed application to the President is proper and becoming, and is authorized by the highest sanctions. In England, it is a familiar resort, when the business or commerce of the kingdom is threatened by acts of State, for merchants and others to appoint committees to wait upon the ministry, to remonstrate against the proposed measure. And, to their credit, be it said, the ministry habitually receive such delegations with courtesy, and respond to them with frankness. In whatever other particulars the President may be indifferent or unconcerned about the public uneasiness and anxiety, it would, if I may so say, betray an ignorance and obtuseness, unexampled and shameless, to refuse to a committee from this body a respectful and candid audience.

I think, Mr. President, that the question which we are now debating is one of no ordinary interest, one which demands a calm and dispassionate consideration. The spirit of our institutions invests the functionaries of Government with no such sanctity as renders them unapproachable either to the people or to the States.

We are assembled here, sir, representing the people of Virginia. We have shadowed forth in the action of this Convention, a policy looking to peace, to reconstruction and to the restoration of the whole Union. Yet, pending that policy, pending that course, we have borne to us, by every mail, communications, to which we cannot close our eyes, showing that there is a warlike policy prevailing in the General Government. Now, sir, this policy concerns us. It matters not whether that war be against a foreign foe or against members of our own community, we have a right to know—being a part of that great community over which Mr. Lincoln presides as President—what these preparations for war mean? If it is a foreign war, we are involved in it, for we still remain a part and parcel of this Union. Our institutions are affected by it, our treasure is to be expended in it, our blood is to be shed in it, our commerce and our institutions are to be deeply affected by it. We look to the constitution to see what power there is to involve the country in war, and we ascertain that that power exists in Congress alone. But, sir, we have heard of no declaration of war against anybody, and yet we see warlike preparations and warlike movements all over the country. What does all this mean? Have not .Page329 we, sitting here and deliberating as we are about the course Virginia is to pursue, the right to know from the President of the United States whether his policy is peace or war? Mr. President, there has been an ominous, and, to my mind, awful silence in the North and in the functionaries of the Government at Washington. We have been in session now for two months, and yet no voice from the North, no commissioners from the North or from any portion of it have come to tell us that the pacific policy foreshadowed by the action of this Convention meets or has awakened any action, any sympathy or any responsive chord in the Northern mind or heart. On the contrary, wrapt in silence, in rigid, frigid dignity, she stands with an eye steadily fixed upon the devoted South, immovable, and in unbroken silence. And what has been the course of the President and his Cabinet? We have heard from the Halls of the Senate a debate between Mr. Douglas and those who are the organs of the President; and when Mr. Douglas interprets the inaugural address of the President to be pacific, as shadowing forth a pacific policy and not as breathing a war spirit, we hear no response to that interpretation. But when he brings his interpretation home to the organs of the Administration and asks them to declare whether that interpretation is correct, whether his policy is peace or war, they not only refuse to answer, they not only maintain a perfect silence upon that point, but they hurl vehement and vindictive denunciation at Mr. Douglas for daring to say that the policy of the President was not warlike but pacific. And, sir, we have indicated by our solemn declaration that we, the people of Virginia, represented in this Convention, the arbiters of her destinies, linked and interlinked with the destinies of the remaining States of this Union, have spoken to the country, have spoken to the Government at Washington, our fixed determination that no coercive measures, that no measures of subjugation of these seceded States shall be adopted by our consent. Yet we hear that expeditions are being fitted out, that men are being armed, that light batteries are being placed on board vessels, and are being sent off. Is it against a foreign foe? Why should the people of Virginia be refused that information? Why should they be refused the information as to whether they are to be involved in a foreign war? Is it against our own people? Have not we, the people of Virginia, the right to know that such is the purpose of our own Government at Washington.

Sir, we are deeply, vitally interested in a plain and unequivocal response to the inquiry proposed by the distinguished gentleman from Montgomery. We have the right to know whether, in violation of the .Page330 express will and wishes of the people of Virginia, through their Convention, and in contempt of the pacific course of policy of this Commonwealth, we are, under these circumstances, and at such a time, to be committed to a war of coercion against the seceded States in any form.

We have been told—and that is the only thing that has broken the seal of silence on the part of the Executive of the United States—that the laws shall be executed in all the States. We have been told that the forts will be held, will be occupied, will be possessed; that is, re-captured and re-occupied. We have been told that the revenues will be collected. Now, sir, we all hold here that the re-capture and reoccupation of the forts in the seceded States, and the collection of the revenues, would be coercion. Now, sir, if these troops, if these war-like operations, secretly and silently carried on, are intended to subjugate these seceded States, either by a re-capture and re-possession of the forts, or the collection of the revenue, we have the right to know it. Then, sir, let us present, respectfully, through the Commissioners appointed by us, a manly, bold and unequivocal demand to know, "Sir, what is your policy? What mean these warlike preparations? Are we to be involved in a war against our consent? And especially, are we to be involved in a civil or fratricidal war—a war against our own institutions—a war that will end, God only knows where or when?"

The PRESIDENT here informed the speaker that his time had expired.

In my humble judgment, this motion of the gentleman from Montgomery ought to prevail. I regard it as eminently wise and conservative, and because it is so, in my opinion, I approve of it. It has been my fortune, or, as some may suppose, my misfortune, to become disconnected, by the vote I gave on the third5The vote occurred on April 4.of this month for the submission of an ordinance of secession to the people of Virginia, from those with whom I have been heretofore politically associated. Whether that vote was wise or unwise, I shall not now stop to inquire. I think if I had the opportunity, I should be at least enabled to show to those more immediately interested in my action here, that I acted with the best lights before me, and with an anxious desire to do my duty to those who have entrusted me, in part, with their interests. I claim, Mr. President, to be conservative in my opinions, and anxious, always, to support every measure conservative in its tendency and peaceful in its influence. I trust no gentleman on this floor will suppose that I and those who are associated with me, advocate this measure with a view of accomplishing, indirectly, what we cannot .Page331 accomplish directly. To the extent that they impute such motives to me, certainly I beg them to believe they do me great injustice.

Look, Mr. President, at the condition of things. I, in part, represent an agricultural, manufacturing and commercial constituency, and they have a deep and abiding interest in the question of peace or war, and they desire to prepare themselves for any fate that awaits them. Look at the means which, with anxious concern, we are endeavoring to arrive at the truth in regard to this momentous question. Men of wisdom and experience say that all the lights and indications point to the fact that we are to have war, and that at an early day. Gentlemen upon the other side—I will not call them "submissionists," because it is far from me to impute to them any such purpose as the use of that term would impute. It would be disrespectful; it would savor of discourtesy; and I assure gentlemen that there is no feeling in my bosom of the slightest disrespect to them. These gentlemen, on the other hand, I say, seem to entertain no fear in regard to the action of the authorities at Washington. They have assigned no reason which has reached my ear, why they entertain this opinion, other than the fact that up to this time no warlike step has been taken. I beg to remind them that steps have been taken which some have interpreted as distinctly warlike. Others have not given them that interpretation. Steps have certainly been taken of an equivocal character. Steps have been taken which, in the estimation of many whose opinions are entitled to weight, can mean nothing except to set on foot a hostile expedition against the seceded States. If there be such a movement, ought we not to know it? If these steps are not designed for such a purpose, ought we not to know the fact? Have not the reasons set forth by the distinguished gentleman from Richmond city [Mr. MACFARLAND] , affecting the commercial interests of this city and this Commonwealth, been sufficient to show that in regard to this matter we ought to be informed, and that it is our solemn duty to be correctly informed?

But it is suggested, that perhaps we have no authority to make this application at Washington. The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , inquires if you are to send delegates there to cross-examine the President of the United States. Sir, I presume, when this body sends delegates on such a mission, gentlemen of intelligence will be appointed, who will understand the proprieties of their position and of the occasion. If for no other consideration, respect for the office of the President of the United States would dictate to them that they should propound no other than proper and respectful questions.

If in reply to such questions the President does not give answers that are satisfactory, because not understood, is it the expectation of any gentleman here, that those to whom we have assigned the duty of making these enquiries of the President, will desist from their enquiry, simply because the answers given are not clear and satisfactory in the first instance? If the President of the United States, in regard to matters of such transcendent importance, will not condescend to give satisfactory answers—if he will place himself in the category in which a cross-examination would be necessary, and, therefore, proper, I hope it will be addressed to him. To suppose that he would give evasive answers is to show, in another form, the necessity of a cross-examination, which is to extract from him that which we desire to know. I take it, however, that proper answers would be given to proper questions propounded by the Committee, and that if they failed to secure such answers in the first instance, in consequence of the questions not being such as to elicit them, they would in the second instance so frame their interrogatories as to draw forth proper responses.

It is suggested by a friend near me, that the resolutions, do not contemplate that any questions shall be propounded to the President.

Well, sir, I suppose it would be useless to communicate with the President, unless the communication was in such form as to elicit answers on the points suggested, and on which we desire information, and that form I would respectfully submit would, in effect, amount to an interrogatory.

Mr. President, at the session of the Legislature before the last, the sum of $500,000 was appropriated—and for what? To put the State in an attitude of defence. $1,000,000 more were appropriated at this last session for the same purpose—and not only for the purpose of general defence, but for the purpose of preparing for any sudden emergency that may arise. Against whom are we to defend ourselves? Against the very government we have aided in inaugurating and sustaining? And, now, the question arises are we to have immediate use for the arms and munitions bought and to be bought by this immense outlay of treasure? Are we to have peace or war? When we propose to address the President of the United States a respectful communication for the purpose of eliciting that information, gentlemen upon the other side resist the proposition—some for one reason, some for another

and others, permit me to say, it seems to me, for no reason at all, that has been assigned, satisfactory to the Convention.

I trust that no gentleman will be induced to vote against this resolution, .Page333 on the ground that anything unfair is designed; on the ground that it is the intention of those who want to precipitate Virginia into a condition that is to accomplish the purposes of those who desire secession; for I believe that no such purpose is entertained. [Here the speaker's ten minutes expired.] Mr. PRESTON obtained the floor.

Will the gentleman allow me to make two or three remarks, as I suppose I shall have no other opportunity?

The gentleman will have an opportunity to speak if he desires.

I was afraid I should not be able to obtain the floor. I will not, however, take up the time of the gentleman from Montgomery.

The relation in which I stand to this question is the only apology that I shall make for again intruding myself upon this Convention. I shall occupy but very few moments; and my desire will be to bring this question back from the discursive debate which has attended it to the real question, and the real objects I propose to effect by this resolution. Sir, there has been much said in regard to the purpose that may lie hidden under this movement of precipitating revolution, of bringing up again the ordinance of secession, and by other gentlemen in reference to certain coincidences in time. Before I proceed, I wish to ask the gentleman from Harrison to give me his ear and to respond distinctly to the question I shall propound. The gentleman alluded to a coincidence in time between a certain dispatch which he read from the New York Herald, and my action on Saturday. I ask him whether he meant by pointing to that concurrence of time, to insinuate directly or indirectly that those who prepared the resolution had any connexion with that dispatch?

If the gentleman from Montgomery had heard the connection in which I read from the "Herald," he would not have taken up the impression which now seems to be upon his mind. It will be remembered that I was alluding to the "Herald" as a great disunion sensation organ, and I was referring to the fact that if there had been nothing in conflict with the vote of this Convention on the 4th of April, in my opinion confidence would have been, by this time, in the way of being restored, and our State credit would have occupied a much higher position than it now occupies. I read from that paper, not at all to impute—for I trust I never will be so far forgetful of what is due to myself and others as to impugn the motives of any gentleman upon this floor or elsewhere—not for the purpose, I say, .Page334 of imputing any improper motives, in any connection, between this resolution or the action of the gentleman from Montgomery, and those who wrote that dispatch, but for the purpose of showing that such action, together with such paragraphs as that I read from the "Herald," and still others equally untrue, were calculated to get up again the feverish excitement which has prevailed in the country for the past few months. Immediately following the paragraph which I read were other paragraphs, equally untrue, as there are in other sensation disunion papers, gotten up, I presume, for the same purpose.

The point and the only point to which I wished to call the gentleman's attention was this. I have not seen or read the paragraph to which the gentleman refers, the whole of which I hear he did not read, and which would have placed a different aspect on what he did read. About that, however, I care nothing. The gentleman dated the paragraph which he read on the 4th, and then said this resolution was offered upon the 6th, connecting me and this movement in that coincidence of time, so as to leave upon my mind the inference that the two had some connexion.

Will the gentleman pardon me for one moment? The reason, as appeared from my statement at the time, why I did not read the whole paragraph was that I regarded the remainder as equally untrue, and I only read from the paper at all for the purpose of showing that many of the articles in these disunion papers had not the semblance of truth about them, as it was in my power in this instance, to show, from the fact that the paragraph appeared twenty-four hours before the gentleman from Montgomery had submitted his resolution to the Convention. I presume that all these statements are equally unfounded. This dispatch actually made the Convention wait upon the President, and a Cabinet meeting be convened at 10 o'clock at night for considering the matter before any resolution on the subject had even been introduced into the body. I gave it as an instance of the efforts being made on the part of disunionists to keep up the excitement in the country.

And therefore, as I understand, the gentleman disclaims any intention of imputing any connexion whatever between myself and those acting with me, and the paragraph which he read.

Certainly I do.

Having passed this point most satisfactorily and agreeably, I beg to recall the Convention, if I can for a moment, to the true questions presented or intended to be presented by those who consulted together, and, to a certain extent, whose organ I was in .Page335 presenting this resolution. Sir, upon the vote which occurred on the 4th day of April, in this body, I felt that a new condition of things had arisen in this Hall, that there were new relations and new obligations imposed upon me and upon all who acted with me. The contest had gone on for months in this Commonwealth as to what was the remedy under the circumstances for the difficulties that surrounded us. One portion believed it to be secession. Another portion, among whom I have been and am and will be while there is a just hope of procuring our rights and maintaining our institutions—maintained that the remedy was under and within the Federal Constitution and Government as it is. On the fourth day of April we vanquished our adversary, but thereby imposing upon ourselves the entire obligation, the high duty of providing safety and protection for the Commonwealth of Virginia by such other remedies as we might desire. It is a high, a responsible trust. It is a trust that I think God has devolved upon us, the trust of preserving our rights within this Union against the judgment of those who believe our only security is in separation. It is the judgment of this Convention, solemnly proclaimed in Committee of the Whole, that our rights shall be preserved in the Union, and all the obligation, all the responsibility, all the difficulty, all the danger, all the accidents that may occur, all the disasters that may befall the Commonwealth are upon us who have remained instead of departing. I assume it. So far as I am concerned, I shall meet it. No circumstances but those of ignominious cowardice could make me shrink from it.

What, then, is our duty? We have told the people of the State that they were safe within the Union. We have told them, moreover, that we have a committee engaged in considering propositions on which we hoped to secure our rights, which propositions were to be submitted to, and, as we hoped, adopted by the North. Under this state of things, I felt that there was a sense of great security resulting from the silence, the protracted and pertinacious and unaccountable silence of the President of the United States. I thought he had it in his power, and hoped he would use it, to speak a word of peace, and to tranquilize these troubled waters. Look at the aspect in which we stand. The language of my resolution is admitted on all hands to be courteous, and respectful, and deferential, as all language ought to be. Not because, perchance, it may be due to the estimate which gentlemen have of the President himself, but because the only language which I could permit myself to use is the language of courtesy, the language of courage, and the language of decision—I want no equivoque, I want.Page336 no evasion, I want no suppression—I want nothing but language of courtesy; and no language is so courteous as the language of frankness and courage. What now is our position? We have told our people that the President was safe to be trusted. We ask him now to confirm that confidence, and to afford tranquility and repose to the country; and gentlemen rise with vehemence, with temper, with feelings which did not exist in my own bosom then and do not now, and declare that this is an attempt to carry us out of the Union. Look, at what a work of supererogation and folly we are engaged in if gentlemen suppose that the President's answer is not to be propitious! We inspired the hope in the bosom of the constituents of two-thirds of this body that the North is ready and willing and anxious to shake hands with us, to accept those propositions, and to restore harmony. And when we come to test it, the great impersonation of the party, the great representative of the North, is silent, and you will not permit us to break that silence lest his answer might be adverse and the Union should be dissolved. We are going with demands of justice, with propositions which we know, confront and oppose some of the strongest prejudices of the North and their most compact party organization, and while we have the hope and expectation that these propositions will be acceded to gentlemen here refuse to permit their President to speak the words "peace, be still."

I say, therefore, to the gentleman from Wood [Mr. JACKSON] , to the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , and to my friend from Franklin [Mr. EARLY] , that when they take the ground that the President will not promptly, willingly, cheerfully avail himself of this opportunity to initiate and lead on those great measures of adjustment which we propose to carry out during the summer, then the game is hopeless and the work is one of supererogation. If we cannot talk, we cannot bargain. If we cannot address the President of the party, we certainly cannot address the subalterns of the party. If we cannot hold treaty with the general in his tent, we cannot subsidize the privates in their ranks. The declaration, therefore, that Lincoln ought not to be questioned, is a declaration which can rest only on the conviction of an unfriendly answer, and if that unfriendly answer is in his bosom, this re-construction is in its grave.

I come, sir, with altogether different feelings. I believe the President will answer. I believe he will be glad to answer. I believe he will find, in this demand upon him, an opportunity of saying to the violent partisans who are now holding him up to their party issues, that the exigency is so great that he must speak or dissolve this nation. In the.Page337 necessity which constrains him, he will find a justification in their bosoms for doing this work of justice and reconciliation. This is the sentiment in which I offered the resolution. [Here the ten minutes expired, but, by common consent, Mr. PRESTON was permitted to proceed.] I cannot consent to the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , because it does not reflect the temper of this Convention or of the Commonwealth. My resolutions as they were originally prepared, declared, in the very terms of a resolution which the Committee had adopted not an hour before, that Virginia would never consent that the Federal power, which is, in part, her power, shall be exercised for the purpose of subjugating the seceded States. My resolution puts itself, not on the courtesy or discretion of the members of the Convention, but would send the message to the President in the language of Virginia, courteous, firm, bold, wise, inviting in respectful terms his answer. I thought, after the consultation which I had with deliberate and wise friends, that here was a common ground on which all of us could stand. I thought there was no member of this Convention who did not feel the obligation and duty of calling on the President for information. I supposed that when the call came from our side, on which the duty more properly devolved, our side would consent to adopt it, and I know that the other side could not refuse to do so. That is "the cat in the meal tub."

I say here, with confidence and assurance, that it is the deliberate judgment of nine-tenths of the Commonwealth of Virginia that this silence is ominous, portentous, dangerous, that it ought to be broken, that it must be broken, and that, if the President continues to administer the Government without declaring his policy, it shall be broken. The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , said this morning that the Executive was not commissioned by us, and that therefore he was to be treated deferentially. Non constat. The reverse precisely. He is not in our confidence; he is adverse to our opinions; he is dangerous to our institutions. We are bearing with him and forbearing, because we love the Government more than we hate him. That is the sum and substance of it.

Now, I ask, deliberately, what on earth can induce the President not to answer? Who are we, the representatives of this Commonwealth of Virginia? Occupying a position the very front and eye and view of this administration, we stand, as in truth we are, the sentinels on the outer wall. We see an adverse government moving and approaching and congregating forces. I am an humble sentinel from .Page338 Montgomery. I hail the movement. I say to the man : "Hail, stand fast, who are you—friend or foe?" I ask him to give me the countersign. Let him say "peace," and I will pass him into the encampment. Let him say "war," and we then know what is to be done. Will he not give the countersign to me, an humble and earnest sentinel on the watch tower? What would induce him to refuse it? Nothing but a covert movement, or a mere party combination, which a President of the United States is not justified in resorting to under any circumstances.

A word more, Mr. President, and I have done. There is one difference between my proposition and that of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , or that of the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] . They propose that the Committee shall be appointed by the President. I propose that they shall be elected by the Convention. I proposed that because it is a common ground on which we ought all to stand, and we ought all to participate in the choice of the Committee. The gentleman from Norfolk county [Mr. HOLLADAY] , is not willing to trust to three men appointed by the President. He thinks that a dangerous mode of appointment, and wants the appointment to be made in a different way.

I hope the gentleman will not regard my remark as a reflection on himself, for, I say it with perfect candor and frankness, if this resolution should pass, I would regard the appointment of the gentleman himself as absolutely essential and there is no gentleman of this body for whom I would vote more cheerfully.

I see that the gentleman, instead of looking at the principle, is looking at the man. I am sorry for that. God forbid that I should participate in that feeling. Mr. STUART'S amendment proposes that the President shall communicate in any manner he may think proper—either by letter or Committee—with the Executive. My friend from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , proposes that the President shall appoint the Committee. Sir, you know, and it is unnecessary for me to say, that when I proposed the election of the Commissioners, it was through no discourtesy to you. You know, too, that it was in forgetfulness of self, for if I had offered the resolution in the usual form, parliamentary courtesy would have made me one of the members. I did not choose to put myself in any such position. I put myself on the broad, catholic ground, that all Virginia should require from the President, whom she was unwilling to trust, such assurances as would enable us to calm apprehensions, and as would command our concurrence and support.

I think this will do good. I believe that Mr. Lincoln will respond to the inquiry. If we go home without doing this, there will be a condemnation of our course. Sitting here with all the opportunities of commanding an answer, we will be condemned for not making inquiry on a point on which every mind in Virginia is enquiring, about which every tongue is speaking, and which every purse is feeling. If we cannot trust him to answer, how can we trust him to govern? If he is ignominious enough to avoid an answer, how is he noble enough to keep the bonds of the Union strong?

This is a great crisis. We want the moral courage to meet it : we have the physical courage. We want that calm serenity which draws inspiration from our own bosoms. By a prompt and manly action we would dispense a beneficial influence on all around us. Let us then stand up fully and fairly. I pray to God that the members of this Convention may be wise, strenuous, firm, of unsubmitting souls, "to check this torrent, of a downward haste, to slavery borne, and bid us rise again in all our native strength of freedom bold." Let us come in this spirit to the question.

I want to give notice, that if the main question be not ordered, I shall offer an amendment to the preamble and resolution. The preamble as suggested by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , on Saturday, and accepted by the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , recites :

"Whereas, in the opinion of this Convention, the uncertainty which prevails in the public mind as to the policy which the General Government intends to pursue towards the seceded States, is extremely injurious to the industrial and commercial interests of the country, tends to keep up an excitement which is unfavorable to the adjustment of pending difficulties, and threatens a disturbance of the public peace," &c.

I shall move, if the main question is not ordered, to strike out in the second line the words "Federal Government"6Mr. Wise must have meant to say "General Government." and insert the words "Federal Executive." The Federal Executive cannot, I presume, be called upon to answer as to the policy of the General Government. The General Government consists of three departments, and we are only calling upon one, and according to the terms of this preamble, he would have to speak for Congress and the judiciary. Our intention is to call upon the Executive, and the Executive alone, for information as to its policy, that being the department which is sworn to execute the laws.

Then, again, the resolution of the gentleman from Montgomery .Page340 reads : "Resolved, 3. That a committee of three delegates be appointed by this Convention to wait upon the President of the United States, present to him these resolutions and respectfully ask of him to communicate to this Convention the policy"—embracing the general terms—"which the authorities of the Federal Government"—again-- "intend to pursue in regard to the Confederate States."

Now, I shall propose to strike out the words "authorities of the Federal Government intend," and insert the words "Federal Executive intends," so that it will read, "That a committee of three delegates be appointed by this Convention to wait upon the President of the United States, present to him these resolutions, and respectfully ask of him to communicate to this Convention the policy which the Federal Executive intends to pursue in regard to the Confederate States."

I accept the amendments.

Then, I want, in order to remove certain objections to the resolution which exists in my mind, to add, "and particularly in respect to the forcible occupation of the various forts within their limits, by the troops of the United States," so that the resolution will read—

"Resolved, That a committee of three delegates be appointed by this Convention to wait upon the President of the United States, present to him these resolutions, and respectfully ask of him to communicate to this Convention the policy which the Federal Executive intends to pursue in regard to the Confederate States, and particularly in respect to the forcible occupation of the various forts within their limits by the troops of the United States."

And in explanation of this, I ask leave of the House, sir, through you, to say a word.

There being no objection,

Mr. President, the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , remarked that he will not consent to go into a cross-examination of the President as to the policy which he means to pursue in regard to the seceded States. I concur with him in the extent of his objections, but do not concur with him, however, in the application of his objections to any remarks I have heard on this floor to-day. It cannot be inferred, from what I said, at all events, that I propose to interrogate the President of the United States so as to involve us in any confusion of questions and answers. But I do wish to interrogate him as to one point. I do wish your resolution to indicate one point. What is that, sir? He is now occupying the forts within the jurisdiction of the seceded States. He holds now Fort Sumter; he holds the.Page341 Tortugas; he holds Fort Pickens; he holds the Barrancas. Sir, I repeat it, whether he has troops there or not, he holds to the idea that he has a right to put troops there. I infer from his continuing to hold these forts, that he intends to persist in holding them. Well, now, sir, I don't go into the question at all of the right to hold them or the pretext to hold them, I only look at one fact which inevitably follows, and it is this, that if he persists in holding these forts, after these States have seceded—after they have resumed the powers granted by them under the Constitution of the United States—he holds them at the peril of war; he holds them at the risk, Mr. President, of resistance by the seceded States—he holds them, in my mind, under a momentary apprehension that South Carolina, that Alabama, that the seven States combined, with their confederated power, will attempt to expel the forces of the United States. If so, what does it matter to you and me, sir, whether he makes the attack ; whether he commits the aggression; whether he brings on a collision; whether he is the one to initiate the war. Does it make any difference with you or me, sir, or to the people of Virginia, whether he commences the war or whether the Confederate States make the attack? In either event, they can say to him, "You have commenced the war—you first committed hostilities by holding these forts, within my sovereign jurisdiction." He will say, "No; I hold them under a general power from you; you have not been released from your obligations to the Federal authority; I have not admitted the right of a State to secede; I am compelled under my oath to execute the laws of the United States, and if you attempt to expel the forces of these United States, you commence the aggression —I am defending only the power which I am sworn to protect and exercise." Sir, is not that war? You may say that he is right; you may say that this is not aggression. He will say so; but I say it is war or it is nothing; and let me say, sir, that there are members on this floor who hold that this is not aggression; that that is not coercion. One gentleman has avowed it already openly upon this floor. There are other gentlemen who hold the same opinions, among whom is the chairman of the Committee of twenty one. He holds to the doctrine that the Federal Government have a right to hold the Tortugas. Am I right in that or not?

I am not aware that I had occasion to state anything about my opinion upon the subject in the Convention. I don't recollect that I have.

Have I made a mistake then? I can only say that I went to the gentleman and asked the question in order to understand .Page342 the effect of the resolution. I did not ask it in confidence, nor did I receive his answer in confidence. But he expressed the opinion, as I understood, when asked the question, that holding these forts was not aggression or coercion.

I took it for granted the gentleman referred to something that transpired on the floor of the Convention.

No.

I am not here to answer any inquiry in relation to matters which may have occurred out of Convention, nor do I desire to consume the time of this body by explaining in Convention what I may have said out of it.

I hope that gentlemen will declare their opinion here that they will come out and say what they think is coercion, what they think is aggression, and what not. I hope that we will not act in the dark. You ask the President of the United States, what is your policy peace or war? "Oh, peace, sir peace;" he will say to the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , when he goes to Washington. Yet enquire more specifically, and he will avow "I have a right to occupy the Tortugas; I have a right to occupy Fort Pickens; if any body attacks me, I am bound by my oath to defend these Forts; I cannot recognize the act of the seceded States." He has told you officially "if they attack me, they are rebels, and I shall defend myself." He doesn't call that war he calls it defence. Some gentlemen here maintain that that is defence —I call it aggression —I call it coercion —I call it war; and, therefore, I want to ask him a specific question : "Do you mean to hold those forts in the seceded States?" and I would say "if you do, we know then what you mean, for we have reason to know that the seceded States mean to attack you in the forts." And when gentlemen say that they do not intend to cross-examine the President, I hope they will unite with me in the converse sentiment that they do not mean either to whitewash him! that they do not mean that we shall delude our people with the idea of peace when war is imminent.

I understood the gentleman to be engaged in making an explanation by the courtesy of the Convention. If this system of attack and defence is to go on, I desire that all shall be in the ring.

So do I. I should like to have a full ring and give all a chance. If the gentleman objects to the courtesy, I will withdraw.

No, sir, I only desire if this system of attack is to be pursued that the courtesy of reply will be given. I do not object to the gentleman's receiving this courtesy if the same courtesy is extended to others.

The Chair desires to enforce the rules which the Convention has given to him for his government.

I will relieve the Chair.

I hope the gentleman will permit the Chair to finish his remarks. The Convention by universal consent agreed that the gentleman should go on and make his explanation. All power upon the subject was therefore taken out of the hands of the Chair, and the gentleman is at liberty to go on.

I will take the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , at his word, and wait to clear the deck of the previous question and then go into the ring with him.

I will ask the permission of the Convention to read an extract from the New York Herald, which the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , omitted to read a while ago, when he quoted from that paper.

The gentleman can do so only by general consent.

I object. If it is a personal matter to the gentleman I will withdraw my objection.

I only ask a courtesy which has been extended to every other gentleman on this floor.

I desire that the gentleman shall have leave to proceed; but I shall ask that the same courtesy be extended to me.

Cries of leave, leave.

The gentleman from Harrison read this extract to the Convention—

I object, sir, to the gentleman's proceeding. Courtesy will eat this body up, and destroy the country.

The gentleman was proceeding with his remarks when the objection was made, and he is, therefore, entitled to the floor.

I renew my motion to adjourn.

You have no right to make a motion while I have the floor.

I rise to a question of order. I was protesting against the gentleman's proceeding, and there could not, therefore, be general consent to his proceeding with his remarks. I make that point of order.

The Chair stated that the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , could not proceed except by general consent. I heard no objection at the time. He took the floor, commenced his remarks, and the Chair decides that it is too late to object.

The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] took occasion to make a fling at that portion of this Convention to which I am attached, by quoting some remarks from the New York "Herald." He read from a communication in the "Herald," dated at Washington, such portion as was necessary to suit his purpose, while he withheld the balance, though requested by me to read on. Now, I want to call the attention of this house to the language of this communication. I want, sir, to call the witness back to court, and to present all that the witness adduced by what the gentleman has to say. I want to ascertain who it is that is engaged in these sensation movements to which the gentleman from Harrison referred. I want to ascertain who it is that is in correspondence with the head of the Black Republican party—whether they are persons connected with the party to which I belong or persons identified with the principles and policy of the gentleman from Harrison. Here is what is said :

"A special meeting of the Cabinet was called to-night at half past ten, to give a hearing to a select committee from the Virginia State Convention."

That far the gentleman read, and I could not make him read any farther.

Now, sir, I read on—

"The Committee arrived here to-night, and it is believed that they not only laid before the Cabinet the exact state of affairs in Virginia, where there exists a strong revolutionary feeling, but they bring a letter from Letcher, expressing a hope that the administration will take some prompt action to stay the tide of revolution and restore fraternal feeling in all the States."

Now, who were that Committee? Here it is, sir. There are more engaged in the efforts to produce these difficulties, than that secession organ, the New York "Herald," as the gentleman from Harrison is pleased to designate it. Here is a statement simultaneously made upon the subject by the Philadelphia "Inquirer," a paper not published in New York but Philadelphia. There is evidently a mistake in saying that a Committee of delegates of this Convention were in Washington; but let us see who they were. Here they are—

"Senator Chandler and Colonel Segar, members of the Virginia Convention, with John Minor Botts, are here from Richmond, and are having an interview with Mr. Lincoln, urging peace and deprecating activity in the War Department."

-I would ask the gentleman from what paper he reads that.

The Philadelphia "Inquirer." These are facts. So don't call down public indignation upon me and mine, because you and yours are stated by the New York "Herald" to be implicated in what you want to implicate me in.

While I am up, I wish to state that I have got a sensation dispatch which I received from Washington, since I have been upon this floor, which reads as follows :

"All Southern men and nearly everybody else in Washington consider war certain and imminent. The only question is where the blow is to fall."

What is the date?

It is dated about an hour ago.

Mr. President, I shall not permit myself to exhibit any excitement upon this occasion. The Convention will bear with me witness that, at the time the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , requested me to read the whole paragraph from which I had read, I remarked to him I had not the time to say what I desired within the ten minutes allowed me under the rules of this body. The gentleman has thought proper to connect with what I read from the New York Herald, a scrap which was in his possession and which I had never seen or heard of until he read it. I take occasion to say that I had never seen the article from the Philadelphia "Inquirer," mentioning the names of the three individuals to whom the gentleman from Amelia referred; and I did not know the article was in existence until he read it. Therefore, I did not omit to read that which was in my possession. I read, as the Convention will remember, so much of the paragraph in the Herald, as the Convention knew to be false. I did not know whether the remainder of the paragraph speaking of the action of Governor Letcher, was true or false; nor did I suppose any member of the body knew it to be false or not. I believed it to be equally false with that which I had read. I read the paragraph in question for the purpose of showing that it was the business of the press engaged in promoting the disruption of this Government by false statements, to keep the public mind in constant alarm; and for the purpose, also, of impressing, if I could, upon the friends of this resolution, that it was the policy which those whom I presume differed from them, had been engaged in pursuing. I think, therefore, that any attempt to convey the idea that I was suppressing, for any purpose whatever, any portion of that paragraph, cannot be believed by any member of this body. It was for the double purpose, as I have before stated, of showing the falsehood resorted to, and of showing the .Page346 friends of this resolution, who, to judge from what they have hitherto said, have given evidence of their desire to preserve the Union, what course they were expected to take, if they followed the policy which had been pursued by the editor of this paper and those who were associated with him in that particular policy.

Every member of this body feels himself somewhat responsible for the vote which he will in a few moments be called upon to give. At any rate whether gentlemen do or not, I for one must answer for myself, and I say that I do feel myself accountable to my constituents for the vote I shall have to give, and for that reason I want to state the reasons which will govern me in giving my vote. If I know my own heart, I want to do what is right, I want to do what is best for the common welfare of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the whole country, and I have not the shadow of a doubt that the mover of these resolutions is just as honest as I am in his opinions, or as any other man can be.

Mr. President, if we send this commission to Washington to wait upon the President of the United States, and ascertain from him what may be his future policy, and if it should turn out to be a peaceable one, it will be a matter of sincere rejoicing with us all. I do not know, but I may be a little too fast in saying all of us, because there are some gentlemen here who do not want to preserve the country, and who are in favor of breaking up the government. A favorable reply from the President, however, would be acceptable to a large majority of the Convention, I have no doubt.

I rise to a point of order here. I beg the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BAYLOR] , to believe me, when I say I have not singled him out, because he happens to be the gentleman upon whom the point of order is made. We have been discussing this question now, for five and a half hours, and, in my opinion, the whole discussion has been out of order. It is now time to stop it. Your rule says that on the call for the previous question, each member may speak for ten minutes, that is, he may give reasons why the call should not be sustained; but yet, he is not allowed to go into the general merits of the whole question. The object of the previous question is to stop debate upon the general merits of a question, and to get to a vote. We have now sat here and permitted that rule to be violated for five and a half hours. The whole subject has been thoroughly discussed, and now I raise the point of order, and ask the Chair to decide it at once, so as to put a stop to this thing.

It would be very unfair towards me.

The Chair was perfectly aware of the existence of the rule stated by the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , but the Parliamentary law expressly states that while it is not proper to go into a full discussion of the merits of the original question, yet it may be argued to a certain extent for the purpose of showing why or why not the main question should be ordered and all debate upon it closed.

I agree to that, but he may not argue the whole question.

Then comes the application of the rule. Almost every gentleman who has addressed the Chair has spoken to the point, whether or not the main question should be ordered, but then gentlemen have gone also into the general merits of the original question, so that the Chair has found it impossible to discriminate so far as to call any gentleman to order who has addressed the Convention. The Chair, therefore, thinks that it cannot now arrest the debate, and the gentleman from Augusta will be allowed to proceed.

I trust I shall say nothing which I have not a perfect right to say upon this floor, and I remark, in advance, if I should happen to say any thing which seems to be out of order that it is not my intention to do so. I was saying, when interrupted, that if the answer from the President should be a favorable one, it would be glorious news for the majority of this Convention. If there were any reasonable, well-founded hope that such would be the result, I would vote for this resolution with all my heart. But, Mr. President, suppose it should turn out otherwise. Suppose, for some cause unknown to any of us, for some good cause, the President of the United States would not give a favorable response and the Committee should return here with the news of such unfavorable response —then, sir, I ask you what would be the course of this body? I have not heard any one undertake to say what would be the course of this body under such circumstances. I now put it to gentlemen to say, if that should be the case, would they not feel themselves committed to take the course that they could not otherwise take? Would they not feel themselves committed to take a course which might lead us to adopt what might be called war measures—a course to which I think the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia would not want to be committed at this stage of our proceedings.

Now, my position is this: If I was certain I could do good by voting for this mission, I would be willing to do it; but I want to be certain. Whilst I may not be certain that I can do good by such a vote, I .Page348 want, at least, to be certain that I would do no harm; and unless I can have some reasonable certainty of that, I would rather not act at all. We have heard gentlemen here repeatedly say, during the course of our discussions, that wherever the Commonwealth of Virginia was to go, there they would go, and that with her destiny their own destiny was linked. I want to go with the Commonwealth too, but I want to keep her right. If she goes wrong, I should have to go with her in sorrow; but if she goes right, I can go with her with joy and pleasure. I say, sir, for these reasons, because I can see no reasonable and fair hope that good may be done and because I am not satisfied that harm would not result from it, I shall feel constrained to vote against sending this mission to Washington.

I shall occupy but a moment's time. Permit me to say, Mr. President, so far as the previous question is concerned, so far as the question in the resolution is involved, I care but very little about it, one way or the other. I do not care whether the gentlemen who may constitute this committee ever speak or have any communication with Abe Lincoln or not. But I can never yield the principle that a sovereign State has the right to demand of the President, to demand of her servant, what that servant is going to do. I would not take back my vote with the immortal forty-five for the world. It is a fact the Convention had better realize, that the flood-tide which is now rising and increasing every hour and moment with increased volume and momentum, will sweep all the riff-raff and stuff down into the vortex of oblivion, never to rise again. Appreciating the motives of the distinguished gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , I will be compelled to sustain him in the resolution he has offered; but being one of the immortal forty-five who want to go to Dixie's land, I say the responsibility is with the majority, whether the result that will follow the action now contemplated be for weal or woe.

I rise merely to state that inasmuch as a correspondence between the Governor and the Executive of the United States has been alluded to this morning, I am authorized to say that no such correspondence has taken place. I move, sir, that the Convention do now adjourn.

Cries of "no, no!"

Suppose we adjourn now, do we adjourn till tomorrow?

Yes, sir.

Will my friend withdraw the motion for a moment in order to enable me to have the journal corrected?

You can do it to-morrow morning.

I will renew the motion to adjourn. It will not take a minute to make the correction.

Mr. CARTER yielded.

Mr. President, the resolutions which I submitted on Saturday are improperly described in the journal. I beg leave to ask that the error shall be corrected.

It shall be done, sir.

I now renew the motion to adjourn.

A division was taken on the question, and by a vote of 42 in the affirmative, and 56 in the negative, the Convention refused to adjourn.

I move that this Convention take a recess till 5 o'clock, or to half past four, if that hour would be preferred.

I rise to a question of order. By the 33d rule I understand that no motion can be entertained by the Chair, pending a call for the previous question, except a motion to adjourn.

The previous question has not been ordered by the Convention. This debate of ten minutes each, which is allowed upon the question, may keep us here till Saturday night. Of course the Convention must have the power to take a recess or to adjourn.

I now move that the Convention take a recess till 5 o'clock.

A division was called for, and by a vote of 47 to 40 the Convention, at 3 o'clock, took a recess until 5 o'clock, P. M.

1.6.2. AFTERNOON SESSION

The Convention re-assembled at 5 o'clock, the President in the Chair.

The pending question is, shall the main question be now put on the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Mont gomery [Mr. PRESTON] ?

Mr. BURDETT called for the ayes and noes.

The ayes and noes were then called on the motion to demand the previous question. The motion was carried in the affirmative, ayes 59, noes 51, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Bouldin, Branch, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Cox, Deskins, Dorman, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, J. Goode, Jr., Hale, Addison Hall, C. Hall, Hammond, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Preston, Randolph, Richardson, Rives, Robt. E. Scott, .Page350 Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Tredway, Waller, Wilson, Wysor-59.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Boggess, Brent, Burdett, Burley, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gray, Goggin, Ephraim B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, A. H. H. Stuart, Summers, White, Wickham, Willey, Wise-51.

1.6.3. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTES

Mr. President, I paired of with Mr. SOUTHALL, who is unwell. Otherwise I would vote no.

I am requested, sir, by Mr. KILBY, of Nansemond, to state that he is indisposed to-day.

I am requested by Mr. MCNEIL, of Pocahontas, to state that he is indisposed.

Mr. WISE, of Princess Anne, announced the indisposition of Mr. TYLER, of Charles City.

I have paired off with Mr. WOODS, of Barbour, upon the subject of Federal Relations, and I suppose this comes within my contract. Therefore I cannot vote.

It is decided that the previous question shall now be put.

I call for the ayes and noes upon the main question. Before the question is taken, I ask that the resolution may be reported.

The Clerk reported the preamble and resolution.

The main question was then put, and the preamble and resolution were carried in the affirmative, ayes 63, noes 57, as follows :7The Journal lists 63 affirmative votes, omitting Borst from the list as given in the Proceedings.

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Ro. Y. Conrad, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Deskins, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gregory, John Goode, Jr., Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Preston, Randolph, Richardson, Ro. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Tredway, Waller, Wilson, Wysor-63.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Brent, Burdett, Burley, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, Dorman, Early, French, Fugate, Gray, Goggin, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore,.Page351 Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, Sharp, Sitlington, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, White, Wickham, Willey, Wise-57.

1.6.4. EXPLANATION OF VOTES

I wish to say that I have paired off with Mr. SOUTHALL, of Albemarle, who is not very well to-day. Otherwise I would vote no.

I am requested by Mr. WHITFIELD, of Isle of Wight, to say that he is sick. If he was here he would vote no.

1.6.5. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS

After the announcement of the vote,

The resolution which has just been adopted, provides that the Convention shall appoint three Commissioners to go to Washington, and that business is now in order.

I suppose there are various modes of making the appointment. If candidates are to be put in nomination, I beg leave to nominate the gentleman from Montgomery, who presented the resolutions.

Name the three commissioners at once.

Under the rule there can be but one vacancy filled at a time. Gentlemen, there is placed in nomination for the office of commissioner, under this resolution, WM. BALLARD PRESTON, of Montgomery. All who are in favor of his appointment will say aye.

A unanimous response in the affirmative confirmed his appointment.

Mr. President, I rise, sir, for the purpose of making another nomination. As the gentleman from Montgomery, who has just been appointed as a commissioner, has himself filled a place in the Cabinet, under a former Administration, I rise to propose the name of another gentleman who held a like situation. I move to appoint ALEXANDER H. H. STUART, of the county of Augusta. Then you will have two gentlemen who have heretofore held Cabinet appointments.

I nominate R. L. MONTAGUE, of the counties of Matthews and Middlesex.

I rise, sir, to make a nomination that I am sure I need not say one word in approval of. The gentleman is well known to every member of this body and throughout the United States. I nominate R. E. SCOTT, of the county of Fauquier.

I beg leave to say that circumstances will make it impossible for me to leave the city, and, therefore, I cannot serve on the Commission.

It is very evident, sir, from the proceedings of this body thus far, that there are three very distinctly marked parties here. One, the extreme secession party, to which I belong; the second, the middle party, to which my friend from Montgomery, who has just received an appointment as one of these Commissioners belongs; and the third is a party a little lower down.

A little higher up.

No, sir, a little lower down. I think in the selection of these Commissioners there ought to be one Commissioner taken from each of these parties. I am unwilling to represent the party to which I belong; and, therefore, I respectfully decline the nomination. I hope another gentleman, who has more experience than I have, will be selected. I have another reason for declining the appointment. I would be perfectly willing to discharge any duty that this Convention, or any other proper authority, should see fit to impose upon me, consistent with what was just and right and honorable; but I will not consent that this Convention shall send me; and unless they bind me, and send me by force, they cannot get me to go to Washington, to ask favors of Mr. Lincoln, either in an official or in any other capacity.

I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the committee to the constitution of this body, which has been very plainly indicated by the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] . We have what are called secessionists; we have the middle men; and we have the extreme Union men; and I think that in the delegation to Washington, it is eminently proper that every branch of this Convention should be represented. By unanimous consent, the mover of this resolution has been nominated and appointed. He is a representative of the middle party. There has been a nomination of a gentleman belonging to the extreme Union party—a party which, if I were as courteous as gentlemen are to the secession party, which they denominate as "precipitationists," I should call the "submission party." I will not call them, however, by that name. I call them the "extreme Union party." The gentleman from Augusta belongs to that wing of the Union party. I have a choice, however, from that wing of the party; and I now place in nomination, in opposition to the gentleman from Augusta, one who is as extreme as he is, but for whom I will more readily vote. I nominate the gentleman from Rockbridge-SAMUEL MCDOWELL MOORE.

I trust the House will concur in the nomination of my friend, Mr. STUART, of Augusta. I have no desire .Page353 to go to Washington upon this commission. I do not know how the thing is to be conducted there. If I am to take notes of all the conversation that takes place in my presence or anything of that sort, I cannot do it. But upon personal grounds, I prefer the nomination of my friend from Augusta [Mr. STUART] .

I beg leave to say that there must be a misapprehension about the terms of the resolution which has been adopted. Gentlemen seem to think that we are raising a committee to be sent to Washington for the purpose of catechising the President. I have no thought of such a proceeding myself. I take it for granted that gentlemen labor under this misapprehension more from what has been said upon the floor during the discussion than from what appears in the resolution itself. As I understand it, the duty of the committee will be to proceed to Washington and respectfully present the resolution, and so far as their commission from this body is concerned, they will have but to present that resolution and bring back the reply of the President, if he sends one. As to their being charged with the duty of catechising the President, of taking notes of what he says, and of reporting them to this body, I should be the last man in this House to give my consent to anything like it.

While I am up, I take occasion to say, that I cordially concur in the nomination made by the gentleman from Kanawha, and trust it will be the pleasure of the House to concur in the selection of the gentleman from Augusta.

I am not willing that this resolution should go out with the interpretation against its express terms, which has been put upon it by the gentleman from Fauquier. I have voted against it. I would have inserted in it more direct and specific enquiries to be addressed to the President. Yet, the resolution has not only directed the Commissioners to go to the President of the United States, and present to him this preamble and resolution, but also to ask him respectfully to communicate to this Convention in regard to the policy of this Administration towards the seceded States. Thus, the resolution not only directs enquiries, but those enquiries must cover all the grounds of his policy, in all respects, towards the seceded States. According to the terms and letter of the resolution, the committee are required to ascertain the policy of the Administration as to the free navigation of the Mississippi ; as to the free navigation of the Gulf of Mexico, and as to the dozen other matters, embracing the entire policy of the Executive towards the seceded States.

Now, sir, as to this idea of catechising the Executive or of cross-questioning him—gentlemen here may use terms that will cast opprobrium upon what, fairly considered, may be a very proper proceeding. It is for us to say, whether in breaking the matter to the Executive, the Committee are to ask for the precise definite information that is to be useful to us or not. If you mean to ask for information, to define the information you want in your resolution, is what I think you ought to have done. But you have not done it. You have left it as vague as the whole horizon of enquiry. You start at this centre, the capital of Virginia, and send this Committee to diverge upon the whole world of Executive policy in respect to the Confederated States. And they are not only to get at that information by going in person and presenting this resolution, but they are to go in person and ask the President to communicate his policy. They are not to report "private conversation," but to ask the President to report, officially to this Convention. The conversation which your Committee will hold with the President, will not be "private." It will be official; and can be reported to us without indelicacy or indecorum. Sir, I voted against the resolution, and have been sitting here watching to see the difficulty that comes out of the very letter of it. Now appoint your committee, and then you have got to decide other questions. You have got to decide the question, who is to ask the President for the information. Is it to be by a majority of two? Is the committee, as a committee, to do it, or is any one of the committee to ask the question? I tell gentlemen that I once officiated in a matter of this sort, and there is no indelicacy at all in going to the President officially, not for the purpose of private conversation, but to announce to him that you have come in an official character. You ask him a question, and you may repeat his answer to him. I once served exactly on such a committee. I would not serve on this. I have had to do that very thing with a President of the United States. I was assigned the duty of taking down, for a whole delegation, his language; of taking them aside to report it to them; of having it approved by them, in order that it might be recorded, and taken back to the President himself, to be confirmed by him. And I tell gentlemen again, that there is no difficulty nor indelicacy about the matter at all. One of the most valued papers that I own now, upon earth, is an entire report of a communication with the lamented President Harrison, in a matter of very grave importance; no less a matter than the policy of his administration in respect to the formation of his Cabinet. And there was no difficulty about conducting the mission, none whatever. I have .Page355 now in my possession, in my own archives at home, and could produce it this authoritative paper, which I value as much as any I possess. You are to go there and announce yourself as a committee; you present as your credentials this preamble and resolutions; you show them as authority for asking questions, and you do ask them. Sir, if I were to go there, I would be sure to ask him, "Do you consider that you are bound, under oath, to hold on to these forts? Is it your intention, your policy to hold on to these forts at the risk of collision with the States claming jurisdiction over them?" If he answers me, "Yes, sir," I should report his answer to you. If he answered me "no," I should report that answer to you. But, sir, I should not deem myself as having fulfilled my duty under this resolution if I should go there and ask, "What is your policy?" or simply hand him this resolution, asking him to indicate his policy. Suppose he were to say that his policy was peace, and nothing but peace, that he was merely executing his duty, that he did not intend to attack anybody, that he only intended to protect and defend the property of the United States? Why, sir, his language, brought back to you, would be delusive. If he intends to hold on to these forts, if he intends to risk civil war, by an attempt to retain or re-capture the forts, that is not a peace policy. I was asking, this morning, when I was interrupted, whether he would attempt to hold a fort, or drive a State out of a fort within its own jurisdiction, the occupation of which that State would control? Sir, it would be war, and it would be a war in which this State, more than any other, is directly interested. It would be a war that you and I could not control. I say his answer in such a case would be delusive to your constituents and mine. I will not consent to vote for any resolution here that may be answered delusively. He may, when gentlemen ask a question, beg to be excused from answering that question, on the ground that it is incompatible with the public interest. As long as you ask him for his entire policy, for the whole field of policy of the Executive in respect to these States, he may make that the ground work, and very properly of returning you no answer at all. He may say that it would require an answer longer than a message. The Committee are simply directed to ask him to indicate his policy. To whom? To the Convention. How? Why through your Committee of course. Do you expect him, Mr. President, to send you a message? The message of the President of the United States is directed to the Congress of the United States of America. He is required under oath to give them information when called for. How will the message to this Convention be addressed? What an .Page356 extraordinary thing it would be for him to answer your resolution by sending a message to JOHN JANNEY, Esq., President of the Convention of the people of the State of Virginia. Then, sir, he has to answer to the members of the Committee; he has to answer questions which they ask and which you direct to be asked and desire to be answered. Yet, the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , rises and tells us, after voting for this resolution, that if there had been any such idea in it he would not have voted for it at all. I did not vote for it.

Before I cast my vote for the gentleman who has been nominated, the gentleman from Augusta, which I shall do with a great deal of pleasure, in consequence of something which has been said upon this floor, I deem it proper in fairness to state, that I cannot assent to the propriety or necessity of constituting this committee upon the idea of the representation of parties in this Convention. I wish, in order that my vote at least may not be misunderstood, to say now, that I can vote for no member of this committee who I am well assured desires ardently to preserve the Union and the constitution of the United States. I hope, therefore, it will be distinctly understood, in order to relieve myself from any vote I may subsequently be expected to give, that while I shall vote for the gentleman from Augusta it will not be upon the ground that he is the representative of any particular party, nor shall I vote for any of the three members of that committee upon any such ground.

I wish to ask the gentleman one question. I desire to know whether he means to exclude from representation upon this committee, or from any other representation in this body, gentlemen whom he calls "precipitationists," or secessionists? I want to know whether we are to be excluded in representing the State of Virginia, in any and every capacity, by the dominant party in this House? Now, sir, I voted for the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , as a member of this committee. I intended to vote, and shall vote, notwithstanding what the gentleman has said, for the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] . Then I wish to see how many of the dominant party in this House will follow the example of the Chairman of the principal committee of this body, in excluding and cutting off from the service of the State of Virginia, gentlemen who acknowledge as much fealty to that State, gentlemen who are as true to its interests as he or any other member of the Union party in this House or in this world.

I take it that those who go there will endeavor to represent the interests of Virginia, and to ascertain what the President of the United .Page357 States is going to do affecting the interests of Virginia. I want to know from the gentleman from Frederick, whether, if Virginia outlives this Confederacy—and if she does not, she will have but a very short time, in my opinion—he would still exclude those men who differ with him as to the time when Virginia should go out of the Union?

I rise to a question of order. We are here to elect three delegates to wait on Mr. Lincoln; and yet gentlemen do not speak to the qualifications or disqualifications of nominees, but are taking a wide latitude of argument. We have passed the resolution, and I presume that the gentlemen nominated are qualified to carry out its meaning. If they want any counsel, I will give them the best advice I can. I am opposed to this irregular way of doing business out of order, and therefore I call the gentlemen to order.

The occupant of the Chair, while he is in the Chair, knows nothing about parties. Out of it he has his own opinions and, at the proper time, will express them. But gentlemen on the floor avow that there are parties here, and the Chair understands them to be now discussing the question whether it be right and proper that the various sentiments entertained in this body shall be represented in this Committee. The Chair, therefore, thinks that to that extent the debate is in order.

Mr. President, I shall sustain with the greatest pleasure the nomination of the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] . I think that gentlemen forget the dignity due to themselves as representatives of the sovereignty of Virginia, when they undertake to characterize the parties here, assuming a high position to themselves and assigning a low one to others. When gentlemen present themselves on this elevated position I am inclined to say, "how we apples swim!" Sir, does all honor, all chivalry, consist in resisting the government instituted by our forefathers? Does all heroism consist in rebellion against the constituted authorities of the land?

There are some of us here who have had no voice in the government of this country for years, and who have nothing to expect, either in a party or a personal point of view ; and yet we have to encounter odium because we desire to sustain the Constitution and the Union formed by our fathers. Gentlemen think we should imitate one who was lately a distinguished General in the Federal Army, and be ready to yield at the first command. They do not seem to appreciate the high position which the gallant commander of Fort Sumter occupies—a man who will, for all time to come, stand out as a beacon light, for fidelity to his trust and devotion to his country.

There was a President of the United States with whom, though young at the time, I never did agree—I allude to Andrew Jackson. He issued a farewell address to his countrymen; warned his countrymen of the danger of slavery agitation, and pointed out to them the remedies which they have in the Union and under the Constitution. He advised them to appeal to the people, and said that when all remedies had failed, it became no less the duty of the public authorities than of the people, to yield a patriotic submission.

The Chair thinks the gentleman is taking rather too much latitude just now.

Gentlemen spoke about submissionists.

The gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] , was understood to disclaim, in express terms, the use of the term "submissionist" in any offensive sense.

I remark that the party to which I feel proud to belong, was repeatedly pointed to as precipitationists, and I suggested whether or not, if I applied the term "Submissionist" to the extreme party on the other side, I would be manifesting less courtesy than they manifest to us. But I said at the same time that I would not apply the term to them, but would call them extreme Union men. But when the gentleman manifests so much excitement on this question, when he reflects on a distinguished general of the federal army, who, in discharge of what he considered his duty to his country, resigned his position—

The Chair thinks the gentleman from Orange is indulging in too much latitude.

I trust, Mr. President, that I give to any gentlemen on this floor, who differ from me, credit for honesty, integrity and patriotism. I trust I will never forget what is due from me as a gentleman, and as a representative of the people, to my co-delegates in this Convention. I can understand and appreciate the patriotic motives that may influence gentlemen who disagree with me. It so happens that never, since I was able to cast a vote, has the Federal Government been a government of my choice. It is true that two Presidents for whom I voted were elected. One of them, however, lived but a few months after his inauguration, and the administration of the other was against my political views. But I have always yielded what General Jackson calls "patriotic submission" to the authorities of the country, and have always been able to appreciate the patriotism and sincerity of gentlemen who disagreed with me in opinion.

I think gentlemen forget what is due to themselves, and from them .Page359 to other members, when they undertake to characterize the motives and feelings of their colleagues. I feel that I would be unworthy of the trust which my constituents, who are opposed to me in sentiment, have placed in me, if I were not able to go forward in discharge of my duty without regard to any of those insinuations cast upon those with whom I have been acting and expect to act. I should feel that I was a submissionist in the very worst sense of the term, if I could submit to be bullied out of my sentiments by any kind of denunciation here or elsewhere.

Mr. President, I regret to see so much excitement prevailing here in regard to the selection of Commissioners to wait on the President of the United States. I do not participate in that excitement, and see no reason for it. I rise, however, in the discharge of a duty to make a nomination. I do not know whether the gentleman whom I desire to put in nomination will accept the position, if tendered to him; but I think it important to the interest of the State and of the country that he should be placed on this commission. He is well known to the Convention and the country, possesses the confidence of the entire country, and has, in my judgment, all the qualifications necessary to enable him to discharge the important duty with satisfaction, with honor, and with benefit to our beloved Commonwealth. I refer to the distinguished member from Princess Anne. We have heard here of parties. I know no party myself in making these selections. The gentleman I have nominated is sui generis, and if he be placed on this Committee he will represent the whole State without regard to party. I do not place him in competition with the name of any other gentleman, and I do hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention to command his services on this important occasion.

Mr. MORTON obtained the floor, but yielded to—

There is but one condition, Mr. President, on which you could get me to go to Washington. That is, that you should send me there alone, and let me adopt my own course. Do that, and I think I could end the controversy in a very short time. I would treat the President with the utmost kindness, and I have no doubt that he and I would have one of the most perfectly confidential cheek by jowl talks. [Laughter.] We would meet in all courtesy, and part in peace. But I would understand him perfectly before I left him, or else he would have a great deal of trouble to avoid being understood, and he would understand me distinctly.

Personally, I pity the man. No man could be in a more pitiable .Page360 condition than an ignoramus and coarse creature as he is, elevated by a surprise, to one of the most responsible positions on the face of the earth, with the destinies of the great country in his hands. I have no doubt that he is unapprized of the sentiments of the hearts of this people, a portion of the people he governs. I would try, on my part, to make him understand them. I would not come back with any word, or shadow of word or thought, that could deceive any body, especially when common mercy requires that there should be no veil over the face of the prophet at this hour.

Sir, no veiled prophet of Khorassan, no Mokanna, was ever more dangerous to a people than the veiled President who now sits in the Executive Chair of this republic.

I cannot consent to go there under a resolution which I voted against. I cannot consent to go there, not knowing how far I would be controlled by two out of the three members of the Committee. I will not consent to go there for the very reason mentioned by my friend who nominated me, that perhaps I am sui generis. I could not content myself, however much I loved the Union, to come back here, knowing that the President intended to hold those forts—knowing that he thought it was right and peaceful to do so, and say to you that his words were peace, while I knew they were not peace, but war. I could not be instrumental, even in the third degree, in practising a deception on a people who ought to be waked up, if ever a people ought to be, by God's own thunder, if nothing else will rouse them from their slumber. They are slumbering over a volcano. They are pursuing their peaceful avocation while the match is almost touching the magazine of explosion. I cannot, and shall not, admit that he means peace, so long as he holds those forts. Gentlemen here think he has a right to hold them. I do not so think.

Policy as well as peace forbids him to hold them. I am well assured, that if he is asked the general question, under this resolution, he will tell you his dispositions are pacific. I am well assured, that if he does tell you that, it will be pointed to in this Convention and out of this Convention, to lull our people into false security.

Sir, I was surprised by the language of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . I do not want to be understood as urging the least objection to the appointment of the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , on this Committee. I am advocating no one's election, and opposing no one's election; but I do oppose this sentiment which has been uttered by the gentleman from Frederick. While saying that he would not be guided by party, he tells us frankly and expressly that he .Page361 would put no man on the Committee, except from his own party alone. He does not regard parties, it seems, but he regards one party alone; and that is the party which will, at all hazards, to the utmost extremity, maintain a Union which does not exist any longer, even in name.

Yesterday we were the United States of America, to-day we are the dis-united States of America; and there is no disputing the fact—disunited in the issue of war and peace, disunited now in commerce, disunited socially before we were divided politically. I can't agree to pursue a plan that is to keep up appearances, when the solemn reality is upon us, that the forts in the seceded States are still held by United States forces, and that re-inforcements are sent on to strengthen them. And gentlemen here say that it is proper, that it is right to hold the forts; that it is just to hold them, that it is politic to reinforce and supply them with men, and arms and munitions of war. And gentlemen hold this as the doctrine of peace, because it is the doctrine of defence, as they say—and but the exercise of right and the execution of law. That is the doctrine here as well as at Washington; and it is not called war; but it is called defence. I wish it distinctly understood, sir; I wish to impress it on the minds of the people, as well as upon this body, that we are here deliberately called upon to delude ourselves with a mere distinction of words, without looking to the substance to ascertain whether that substance is peace or war. The gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , may explain it—and I will say here, that I regret having alluded, as I did to-day, to what I understood to be his opinion. I must apologise for doing so. I alluded to his opinion, only with a view to give an illustration, simply by way of argument, not to expose any opinion, whatever, of his, which he desired to retain as private. I beg his pardon, if in the least I have transgressed. In alluding to his opinions, I meant nothing in the world but to illustrate the arguments which I was presenting. But I put the illustration to you, sir : If I knew it was your opinion that these forts should be held, and that duty required of you to hold them—that your disposition was not to aggress upon any body in holding them, but that your purpose was to defend yourself in case of attack—I ask you the question, sir, is your policy peace, or is your policy war? You might truthfully, you might conscientiously answer, "my policy is pacific ; my policy is peace; my purpose is not war; I want to preserve the peace." And it might be accepted as a truthful, a satisfactory, a consolatory reply. And yet, if it were so; if you intended to hold those forts at issue with those States; to hold those forts against their claim .Page362 of jurisdiction; to hold them against their claim of sovereignty and independence too, and the States intended to take them; if, in the face of that, you were to proclaim that your policy was peace, knowing that you would be attacked, knowing that the attempt would be made to capture, knowing that that would bring on war—I ask you, sir, whether the answer would not be delusive?

That is the position that I wanted to impress upon your minds—upon the minds of my constituents, and upon the minds of gentlemen here. I wanted to ask gentlemen who entertain these opinions with Abraham Lincoln, whether that is their meaning by this resolution. If it be, under no circumstances would I go there—not even to save the Union. I could not practice such a delusion upon our people.

Sir, it would be the most certain and fearful mode of bringing on war. Suppose you go there and put these various questions to him, and he answers that his policy is peace, and by the time the report of that reply is heard at that table; you receive intelligence of the booming of cannon for the attack and defence of these forts. These very ships that have just sailed from New York have gone, it is said, to Forts Sumter, Pickens and the Tortugas, with supplies and munitions of war, and they proceed, knowing that they will be attacked if they attempt to reinforce or land supplies; and yet it is said that Lincoln's policy is peace. Would it not bring disrepute upon any committee that would bring back such a report—that, forsooth, Lincoln's policy is peace, while he continued to hold the forts and reinforce them, knowing that he would thus provoke attack? Would it not in fact bring disrepute upon the President to maintain that his policy was peace, while he pursued such a course as this? And what would be the defence of the President in such a case? His defence would be, that he did not mean war; that he did not mean anything else than peace; he only meant to execute his duty; to obey his oath, and he would also say that he was defending himself. I care not whether he regards the was as offensive or defensive, the question is, is he bringing on war?

I rise to a question of order.

I will save the necessity of making any point of order on me, for I am done for the present.

Mr. President.

I believe I am entitled to the floor, I merely yielded it to the gentleman from Princess Anne, for an explanation.

The Chair did not understand for what purpose the gentleman yielded the floor.

I yielded it merely to enable the gentleman to make an explanation.

Then the gentleman should have called the gentleman from Princess Anne to order, and resumed the floor.

The gentleman from Lunenburg is entitled to the floor.

I hope, Mr. President, we will proceed with the nominations. I believe I am regarded as pretty extreme upon the subject of Southern Rights, but I shall vote for the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , with a great deal of pleasure, and I hope that it will be the pleasure of my friends in all parts of the House to vote for him. After we have acted upon that nomination, I trust that the House will, with equal unanimity, fill the other vacancy with a gentleman whom I shall put in nomination.

I nominated the gentleman from Rockbridge [Mr. MOORE] , in opposition to the gentleman from Augusta—both entertaining the same phase of opinion. From the indications that I see around me, and also from the fact that my friend to my right , [Mr. GOODE, of Bedford] , has nominated the distinguished gentleman from Princess Anne, I shall withdraw the name of the gentleman from Rockbridge.

My name is withdrawn too.

And while the gentleman from Princess Anne, repudiates the idea of his being nominated, and also lays down conditions of acceptance, I take it for granted that that gentleman has too much patriotism not to fill any position in which this Convention may consider he will be serviceable to the State, and it may be to the Union. For one, sir, I had rather send that gentleman alone than any half a score of the members of this Convention. I say this without intending any disrespect to any member. Whilst I think he knows what courtesy is, I am perfectly satisfied that upon his return, there would be no doubt upon the mind of any member of this Convention or any citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as to the policy of the Executive of the United States. As the gentleman has justly remarked, under the terms of this resolution, there may be a response from the President that his policy is pacific, while he means to hold to the forts in the seceded States and reinforce them. I very much fear that the report may partake of this vague and general character, leaving us in a state of painful doubt and uncertainty.

We do not want any such report as that. We want to know distinctly whether the policy of this administration is peace or war. My belief is, that it is a war policy—I am confident it is a war policy. You .Page364 will find that every Black Republican newspaper in the city of New York—the "Tribune," "Post," the "Times"—and all the Black Republican papers throughout the Northwest are crying out for war. We find also that armaments and troops are to be transported to the South, and that leads me to the belief that the object and intention of the administration is war.

I rise to a point of order; and it is this, that the remarks of the gentleman do not pertain to the question before the House.

The Chair understands that the gentleman from Princess Anne has been nominated, and that nomination not being withdrawn, the gentleman from Orange is therefore in order.

Thank you, sir—I am in order, and I shall be very glad if gentlemen will keep themselves in order. [Laughter.] The question is as to the nomination of suitable Commissioners, and in construing the question who are suitable, it is perfectly legitimate for us to consider the subjects which are to be dealt with. I want to have a delegation sent that will not be put off with any general answer. I wish a delegation sent that will propound respectful, yet probing questions to the Executive; and if he answers equivocally, I would take the interpretation of the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , this morning, that we should construe an equivocal answer as a war policy; and I am satisfied, if we had the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , upon that committee, whilst he would observe all courtesy that is proper, and would have a fixed determination to obtain definite answers which will satisfy it that the policy of the administration will be either peace or war. I shall, therefore, second the nomination of the gentleman from Princess Anne.

At a risk of wearying further this Convention, and averse as I am at all times to occupying its time, I still deem it necessary to say a word in answer to my friend from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] .

I endeavored to get the floor as soon as the gentleman took his seat, but have not been able to succeed until now.

When the gentleman from Augusta was put in nomination, I think the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] , rose, and, approving the nomination, or, perhaps, making some other nomination, he proceeded to indicate his suspicion that this committee would be selected upon representative grounds from different parties in this Convention. As I intended to vote for the nomination that had been made, I deemed it due to candor and propriety that my vote should not be misunderstood..Page365 To correct the impression of the gentleman from Orange , [Mr. MORTON] , so far as I was concerned, I rose, sir, to speak as an individual, as an humble individual member of this Convention. I appealed to no party and denounced no party. I said not one word except to remark that I did not regard the Constitution of this Commonwealth as having anything to do with the representation of parties on this floor, and that I did not mean to vote upon any such ground.

Now, sir, I repeat again, that I will vote for no member myself for this committee whom I do not believe desires a satisfactory, favorable answer to the inquiries which this committee is sent to Washington to make.

What do you understand by a satisfactory answer?

I do not choose to be interrogated. I have borne with patience and forbearance all these vituperations, all these epithets which have been applied to me, in connection with others, in reference to the opinions which different members of this Convention may entertain upon this floor. I desire to treat every member here with all respect; and, sir, I shall continue to disregard utterly all denunciations of my opinions, or of the opinions of those with whom I may stand upon this floor.

I merely wish to set my friend from Amelia right in regard to my position. My object in rising was to prevent any misunderstanding, that when I cast my vote for the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. STUART] , I was bound to vote thereafter for the nominee of some other supposed party upon this floor. In voting, I shall vote for each member of this Committee as, in my judgment, will best conduce to the object of constituting such Committee; that is, of quieting the public mind, by getting what would certainly have that effect—a satisfactory and soothing answer from the Federal Executive.

I desire to say but one word. I very much prefer the mode of communication with the President suggested by my friend from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] . But as the Convention would hardly accede to that suggestion, I am compelled to make the best of what I can get. I do not concur with another friend of mine, the gentleman from Middlesex , [Mr. MONTAGUE] , that a position in this Commission is one which, upon principle, a gentleman holding views common to us both ought to be unwilling to accept. I feel assured that the purpose for which this resolution was passed, was a patriotic one. I am not one of those who anticipate great results either one way or the other, from this mission. I believe, however, that it ought to be fairly tried. I rise now, simply to say that I shall vote with great pleasure for the .Page366 gentleman from Augusta, whose name has been put in nomination. After the Convention has elected two Commissioners, I give notice that I shall put in nomination my friend from Richmond [Mr. GEORGE W. RANDOLPH] , and I am sure that in his discretion, and in his courtesy, the Convention will have all possible confidence. I shall put his name in nomination because I understood the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , as expressing a determination not to accept the position. I do not now put Mr. RANDOLPH'S name before the Committee, but simply give notice that I will do so.

I desire to withdraw the name of the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , for the present.

The question now is upon the nomination of A. H. H. STUART, of Augusta.

The question was then put, and the nomination was agreed to by an unanimous vote.

I now put in nomination the name of GEORGE W. RANDOLPH, of this city.

I take great pleasure in seconding the nomination of Mr. GEORGE W. RANDOLPH. I need not say a word by way of recommending Mr. RANDOLPH to the favorable consideration of this Convention. He was well known to some of you before the meeting of this Convention. He is now well known to every member of this body; and I trust it will be the pleasure of this Convention to adopt the suggestion made by the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , and place him upon this commission with the same unanimity with which they have agreed to the other gentlemen who have been appointed.

I beg leave to nominate GEO. W. BRENT, of Alexandria.

I do not desire to be one of these Commissioners, and I would therefore ask the gentleman from Frederick to withdraw my name.

Is the name withdrawn?

No, sir.

I would suggest the name of the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] .

I will not go. I just wish to call the attention of Convention to one single fact. If you will look at the yeas and nays, you will see that the majority who adopted the resolution appointing this commission, belong to that party which has been called the secession party here. Now, I ask this Convention, if there is an instance in the history of parliamentary legislation, where members representing .Page367 that portion of the votes which constitute the majority, that have passed a resolution providing for a committee, have been excluded from appointments on such committee. Such a practice is unheard of, and it is unjust and improper. The minority here upon every principle of justice, reason and parliamentary law, ought to have a representative upon that committee.

The Chair can only take the question upon one nomination.

There seems to be some little uncertainty as to whether the nomination of the gentleman from Alexandria [Mr. BRENT] , is before the Convention. I rise to request the gentleman over the way [Mr. CONRAD] , to say if he desires that his name shall be used, notwithstanding his objection.

I desire my friend from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , as a personal favor to me, to withdraw my name.

I withdraw the name, then, of Mr. BRENT.

Mr. STUART, of Doddridge, put in nomination the name of Mr. MARSHALL, but at Mr. MARSHALL'S request, withdrew it.

Mr. STUART inquired if Mr. BRENT'S name was withdrawn. The PRESIDENT said it was.

I renew it again.

I put in nomination the name of GEO. W. SUMMERS, and I want to vote for him or for some other man whom I know to be a strong Union man.

I hope my friend from Rockbridge [Mr. MOORE] , as a personal favor to myself, will withdraw my name without hesitation.

At the gentleman's request, I will withdraw his name.

I hope the gentleman's name will not be withdrawn. He did so well at the Peace Conference at Washington.

I did much better than the gentleman from Princess Anne would have done.

Yes ; for I would have brought back nothing—rather than what you brought.

I would put in nomination GEORGE BLOW.

I must ask my friend, as a personal favor to myself, to withdraw my name. I happen to be one of those who voted in opposition to these resolutions. There is great force in the views which some gentlemen have taken upon this floor, that the various sections of opinion in this Convention should be represented in that commission. I do not see—if I may be pardoned for making the remark—why the great interests of the Union party, and the great interests of .Page368 this State, cannot be as well represented and as well maintained by the gentleman of distinction, good temper, large experience and patriotism, whose name now stands as a candidate. I trust that it may be the sense of this Convention to confer upon him this distinguished position with the same unanimity that has been conferred upon other gentlemen. I repeat that I trust my friend as a personal favor will withdraw my name.

Mr. CRITCHER withdrew the name of Mr. BLOW.

I am one of those who voted against this mission to Washington, but I think there is force in the remarks that have been made here, that as far as practicable the different shades of opinion that exist in this Hall should be represented upon that mission. I think the propriety of that must strike us all in a greater or less degree. and having elected two gentlemen who are said to represent two shades of opinion, I do hope that it will be the pleasure of the Convention to elect with the same unanimity, the gentleman from Richmond City, who has been nominated. It will give me great pleasure to vote for the gentleman, and I hope his name will be carried with the same unanimity as the names of the other gentlemen were.

Cries of question, question.

At the solicitation of Mr. BRENT, I will withdraw his name, and put in nomination, that of Mr. PRICE.

I would be very reluctant to accept the nomination, and I must indeed positively decline it. I don't suppose I would be elected, because I think it is the sense of the Convention now to elect Mr. RANDOLPH, and I hope my friend from Doddridge will be good enough to withdraw my name.

I will withdraw the name of Mr. PRICE then, and put in nomination that of Mr. TREDWAY.

Mr. TREDWAY declined being a candidate.

I put in nomination the name of Mr. R. Y. CONRAD.

I am very anxious as he is, for some name upon which to rest my vote, and I cannot vote for myself.

I cannot withdraw your name.

I hope the gentleman will withdraw it for another reason. I have duties to perform here in connection with the report which is under consideration, and it is impossible, for that reason, that I should leave here, even if I should happen to be appointed. I would suggest to the gentleman that it is useless to make farther opposition; and I beg leave to add that no gentleman in this.Page369 Convention could be more acceptable to me personally than the one who has been nominated to fill the vacant place in this committee, and whilst I desire certainly to vote upon principle for some other man, yet, so far as I am concerned I will withdraw any opposition to the nomination ofMr. RANDOLPH, and I hope the gentleman from Doddridge will withdraw my name.

I am afraid I will have to withdraw the name of my friend of Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , and I will put in nomination the name of Mr. BRANCH.

The gentlemen is mistaken in the man. He must mean Mr. BARBOUR, of Culpeper. [Laughter.] I most respectfully decline the nomination tendered me.

Is the name of Mr. BRANCH withdrawn?

It is, and I would put in nomination Mr. MOORE, of Rockbridge.

I desire to nominate Mr. STUART, of Doddridge. [Laughter.] Calls of "Question! question!"

Is the name of Mr. BRANCH withdrawn?

Yes, sir.

Then there is no name before the Convention but that of Mr. RANDOLPH.

I made the nomination of Mr. STUART, of Doddridge.

I must decline to serve on that Commission.

Is the Committee alive now, sir, or is it killed?

The Committee is two-thirds alive, and I hope will soon be entirely alive.

If this proceeding goes on you will kill it before you create it.

I withdraw the nomination of Mr. STUART, of Doddridge.

The question was then taken on the nomination of GEORGE W. RANDOLPH, of Richmond city, and he was unanimously chosen as the third Commissioner.

On motion of Mr. PATRICK, of Kanawha, the Convention then, at 7 o'clock, adjourned till Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

1.7.1. CORRECTION

I wish to correct an error in the report of the vote on the proposition of the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] . On Thursday last when the sixth resolution of the Committee of Twenty-One was under consideration, Mr. HARVIE offered a substitute, looking to secession, and on that question, I voted in the affirmative, but I find I am reported in the "Enquirer" of yesterday, as voting in the negative. I have referred to the Richmond "Whig" of Friday, and find that I am correctly reported in that. I hope the reporters will notice this explanation in order that I may stand correctly before my constituents.

1.7.2. PUBLIC MEETING IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

I desire to call attention to the proceedings of a meeting held in the County of Prince William on the 1st of April. That constituency, sir, like myself, for a long time have thought that the only solution of our present difficulties was to be found in immediate secession, and had they not entertained those sentiments they never would have been represented on this floor by me. Being able to represent their sentiments in strict accordance with my own views, I feel justly proud of the noble and generous constituency which I have the honor to represent, and I take great pleasure in laying before this Convention their sentiments upon the subject now agitating the country.

The proceedings of the meeting were then read as follows :

The proceedings took the usual course of being referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

I beg leave to lay before the Convention the proceedings of a meeting recently held in the county of Cumberland, .Page372 which I wish to accompany with a few remarks after they are read.

Mr. President, I rise to a point of order of this Convention which requires its proceedings to be opened by prayer. I hope the President don't think we are past praying for.

The President has no right to form an opinion upon that subject. But he would state that there was no clergyman in attendance either yesterday morning or this morning. Two were invited but neither attended.

Mr. President, can I make a suggestion to you on that subject?

Certainly, sir.

The course pursued by the House of Delegates and the Senate in reference to the subject alluded to by the gentleman from Clarke [Mr. NELSON] andthe plan has worked very well indeed—is this : For the Clerk, on Saturday, to address a note to one minister and request him to make arrangements so that he could officiate during the week at the opening of the proceedings ; and the next week to address a similar note to a minister of another denomination. That plan has worked very well.

That is in substance, sir, what the Clerk of this Convention has done; and yesterday he especially invited two ministers, fearing that the one might not be able to attend. But neither came.

1.7.3. PROCEEDINGS OF A MEETING IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY

The proceedings of the public meeting, presented by Mr. SCOTT of Cumberland, were then read as follows :

Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks, in order to explain my position in reference to instructions through meetings of my constituents. In the canvass for the election of delegates to this Convention, I took the ground that Virginia could not permanently remain in the Union as it stands, after the withdrawal of those Southern States which now constitute the Confederate States of the South; but I announced distinctly that I was in favor of an amicable settlement of all the difficulties between the States of the South and the States of the North. In regard to the mode and the terms of adjustment, I left myself perfectly free to judge according to the best suggestions of my own mind. In the canvass I declared that I would make no pledges, and that I did not wish to be elected .Page376 in such manner that I would be trammelled in any way. I told my constituents, that if I should be sent to this Convention, I would go entirely untrammelled. In this connection I declared, in a public speech in Cumberland, that I did not desire to be elected, unless I could go into the Convention

"Free as the mountain antelope, Free as the wild bird on the wing."

Under these circumstances I was elected, and was opposed to the immediate secession of Virginia, and am still opposed to it under the existing state of things.

The meeting whose proceedings have just been read, was called in the county of Cumberland, to be held on the 25th of March, for the purpose of giving me instructions, and I was present at that meeting. A gentleman—not the one who prepared the resolutions which have been read here this morning—another gentleman, Mr. Matthews I mean, presented a series of resolutions and made a speech, declaring that I ought not be allowed to address the meeting. Afterwards, however, a gentleman moved that I should be requested to state the condition of affairs in this Convention, and that motion prevailed. Then, I did not address the meeting upon the general questions at large, but merely made a statement of the course which this Convention had pursued, and how its members were divided. I made but few remarks in reference to these matters.

After that, sir, another gentleman, not a citizen of Cumberland, was called on, and made a speech, after which a vote was taken, and it appears that a majority of the meeting was in favor of giving me instructions. How many voted, and how they voted, I do not know. How many of those who voted for giving me instructions had voted for me, I do not know. There were only three or four, to my knowledge, who voted for me at the election.

On the following Monday, a meeting, for the same purpose, was held in the county of Powhatan—my own county. I attended that meeting, and felt quite at home there. A division was taken upon the question of instructing me. One gentleman counted 125 for, and 77 against instructions; another gentleman counted 119 for, and 85 against instructions. Then I requested all those who were in favor of instructions, and who had voted for me as a member of the Convention, to step out, in order that I might see how many there were. Three came forward, and one of those three told me, in the evening, that he took back his sanction to instructions, stating that he would rather depend .Page377 upon my judgment than upon his own. I understand that there were more of those who did not vote for me, who were opposed to giving me instructions, present. That being the case, I did not consider myself instructed. And I now wish this Convention, and the people of the county, to know, that I do not consider myself instructed by the action of those two meetings. The persons who composed them did not represent one-half of the voters of the two counties; and very few of those who voted to instruct me at those meetings, voted for me at the election.

But, sir, notwithstanding all that, I believe the majority of my constituents are in favor of secession. I have come to that belief, sir, not from the fact that those meetings were held, but from private information that I have received from my friends. There is one precinct in the county of Cumberland, the precinct of Raines' Tavern, in which I obtained an almost unanimous vote, and in the neighborhood of which I understand now that nearly all the people who voted are in favor of secession. Believing, therefore, that a majority of my constituents are in favor of secession, as long as I am of that belief I shall vote in that way upon every test question. Upon all other subjects I shall vote as my judgment shall dictate.

I undertake to say, Mr. President, that there is not a more intelligent constituency within the limits of Virginia, than that contained within the counties which I have the honor to represent. And, I undertake to say again, sir, that there is no constituency more deeply interested in the difficulties which now endanger the country; for in them are more than two slaves to one white, in those two counties.

The proceedings were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.7.4. PUBLIC MEETING IN BEDFORD COUNTY

I do not intend to detain the Convention with any remarks. I merely wish to present the proceedings of a meeting. I do not intend even to ask that they shall be read. They are the proceedings of a large and respectable meeting of citizens of Bedford, held on Saturday, the 6th of April, to express the sentiments of the people in that portion of the county in which the meeting was held in relation to the present attitude of public affairs and in relation to what the duty of Virginia is in reference to those affairs. After reciting a long catalogue of abuses, in the first resolution, and referring in the others to the industrial interests of the country, which have been made to suffer by the present condition of our national.Page378 affairs, and the great inequality which the South experiences by our present condition, and particularly the State of Virginia, and that in the language of the third resolution, Mr. Lincoln denies that the Union is dissolved, yet it is just as apparent to their vision as the Blue Mountains near which those people reside that it is dissolved; and the fourth resolution declares that it is the duty of the State of Virginia to unite her destiny with the Confederate States of the South, and that a further adherence to the Federal Government, under existing circumstances, is unwise and improper. I merely ask that the proceedings shall be laid upon the table, and take the usual course by which they will become a part of the proceedings of the Convention and be printed with them.

The proceedings were ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.7.5. THE TAXATION QUESTION

The next business in order is the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . But there are only .Page381 two minutes before the hour for the Convention to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

I desire to give notice that I cannot consent to give way for the convenience of gentlemen any longer. I have been giving way for about a month past. Now I give notice that to-morrow I shall ask that a determination shall be arrived at in some form or other.

Mr. HULL, of Highland, offered the following resolution :

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of reducing the number of employees of this Convention, and make such reduction, if in their opinion, it can be done without detriment to the public good.

On motion of Mr. BURDETT the resolution was laid on the table.

1.7.6. CORRECTION

Mr. President, I ask to correct the report of my remarks in Convention on Saturday morning last, on presenting the resolutions of the people of Charlotte. In alluding to Mr. Randolph's last struggle for State sovereignty I am made to say, "as has been eloquently alluded to by my friend from Halifax [Mr. FLOURNOY] , he had been absent, &c."

I said : "His last battle was fought in the same glorious cause. It was during that memorable struggle for State sovereignty in 1833, which has been so eloquently alluded to by my friend from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE.] " I then went on to say that Mr. Randolph had been absent in the service of his country, &c.

Farther on, in alluding to his last effort in Charlotte, I said : " 'Right clearly in that last battle,' as has been well said, 'did the old war cry ring out once more,' " &c., &c. In appropriating the language of another I always prefer to make the acknowledgment.

I am made to say, in relation to the Charlotte resolutions, "I approve these resolutions." I said I approve the spirit of these resolutions, but differed with my constituents as to time, &c.

There are other slight inaccuracies which it is unnecessary to notice.

1.7.7. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The hour of half past ten having arrived, the Convention, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into a Committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the 10th section being under consideration, as follows :

"10. Without expressing an opinion as to the question of power, .Page382 but in deference to the opinion of the Federal authorities, the people of Virginia hereby declare their desire to confer upon the Government of the United States the powers necessary to enable its proper authorities to deal peaceably with these questions, and if it shall become necessary, to recognize the separate independence of the seceding States, and to make such treaties with them, and to pass such laws as the separation may make proper."

1.7.8. PRIVILEGE OF MEMBERS

When the Convention went into Committee, I was about to call the attention of the President to a matter which is perhaps within the province of the Committee to consider.

On yesterday the Convention passed a resolution admitting persons, not members of this body, into the lobbies. It is my fortune to occupy a seat here just in the rear. I do not know how it may have been with others, but in my own case I found the passage leading to the lobby perfectly blocked up, so that there was no free ingress or egress by that passage. The consequence was that I was run over by every man who had occasion to pass out or into the lobby; insomuch that I was compelled to vacate my seat and remain standing. What I desire to ask is whether, under the resolution passed yesterday in the Convention, the passage leading to the lobby may be blocked by strangers? If it may, I shall, on the first occasion which presents itself, move to rescind that resolution.

It is certainly within the province of the Chair, as it is within the province of the Committee to preserve order and to secure to members their personal rights. But it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms, without the order of the Convention or of the Chair, to see that the comfort of members is not intruded upon by persons not members of the Convention. The Sergeant-at-Arms will see that that duty is executed now, and that in future there shall be no cause of complaint in this respect.

I desire to say in confirmation of the remark made by the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HALL] , that I experienced yesterday all the inconvenience of which he speaks. It was impossible to write without subjecting every thing I wrote to the inspection of persons standing behind me. If these passages are to continue full and overflowing with human beings, I think the resolution had better be rescinded, and if it be in order I will move that the resolution be rescinded.

It is not in order in Committee to move to rescind what has been adopted in Convention.

Well, sir, it is very easy for gentlemen occupying seats inside to submit resolutions, but it is a serious matter for those of us who occupy seats here in the rear.

It is the duty of the Sergeant-at-arms to see that the passages leading to the lobby are kept clear and to see that members of the Convention are not interfered with.

I offered that resolution and it is specifically confined to orderly persons and permits them only to occupy the lobby. These passages are not the lobby. The lobby is merely the open space at the end of the passages, and it is of course the duty of the officers of the Convention to keep the passages clear.

While the Committee is upon this subject I desire to call attention to another fact. I desire to say that my friend from Fauquier [Mr. MARR] , myself and several others, were yesterday spit upon by persons in the gallery. [Laughter.] It is certainly disagreeable to be spit upon from that or any other quarter.

The Chair will suggest that it would be for the Convention to take action in reference to such a matter and not for the Committee.

1.7.9. FEDERAL RELATIONS AGAIN

The Committee then resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

I move to strike out of the 1st and 2nd lines of the 10th section, the following words; "Without expressing an opinion as to the question of power, but in deference to," and to insert in lieu thereof, the following words : "concurring with," so that the clause will read : "concurring with, the opinion of the Federal authorities, the people of Virginia hereby declare," &c.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the amendment I have proposed will raise a question which may meet with some opposition in the Convention. Indeed, some diversity of opinion has already been expressed upon this question. It is intended to affirm, substantially, that in the present condition of things, the Federal authorities have no right to deal in any respect, with this question of secession or with the questions growing out of the secession of some of the States of the Union. I think the amendment is required in order to make the report consistent with itself. It is also required, I think, in consistency with the action taken by the Convention yesterday, in sending the .Page384 commission which they did to Washington. I think it is all important, if it can be done in the judgment of this Convention, that the position should be assumed that the Federal authorities are in truth paralyzed by the occurrence of this state of things, not contemplated at all in the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. I think it is all important, in order to justify our demands upon the Federal Government, that we should found them upon this position of constitutional right.

My own view, I may remark, without undertaking to argue it, is simply this : That the Constitution was framed simply and only for the normal condition of the Confederacy; framed for its peaceful operation with all the States in the Union, and that there is no authority expressed in the Constitution which would justify the Federal authorities in dealing in any way with the abnormal conditions of a disruption of the Confederacy.

I am well aware that this state of things, if it be conceded, will give rise to questions extremely difficult of solution, some of which were alluded to yesterday, by the gentleman from Princess Anne. I am well aware that it is almost impossible to draw clearly the line of demarcation in regard to this very question of coercion, which this position would mark out for the Federal authorities to follow. There are difficulties in regard to these forts. My own opinion is, that in general the Federal Executive is bound to preserve—and I think the gentleman from Princess Anne indicated the same opinion yesterday—is bound to preserve the status quo; that he is not permitted to act upon the subject in any way which either expressly or by implication would assume to decide. He has not the right to re-take the Forts, which, by the act of secession, or after the act of secession, have come within the possession of the seceded States. In my opinion, he has not the right even to maintain or hold any fort, which is within—as the gentleman termed it—the walls or boundaries of a State which has withdrawn from the Union, and that was erected for the purpose of local defence only, or a fort, the possession of which would be likely to intimidate, or could be used rather for the purpose of intimidation, which would be likely to provoke war with that State. Yet, at the same time, I am by no means prepared to say, that under this obligation to preserve, as far as he can, until the matter can be remitted to the proper authorities—the other States of the Union—to settle and adjust it, the status quo, that the President would have the right to give up the forts, which are national in their character, although nominally within the limits of seceded States. I would take the fort, .Page385 for instance, to which the gentleman from Princess Anne yesterday referred, upon the Florida Keys. That fort, as I understand, is remote from any settlement in Florida. It can by no possibility be used for the purpose of intimidating or embarrassing the people of Florida. It is nominally within the limits and jurisdiction of that State, yet it was erected in the place where it stands for nothing else than to protect the general commerce of the Gulf of Mexico. It has cost the United States an immense sum of money. It was erected at the cost of the National Treasury for purposes of National defence. The State of Florida can have no use for it, and I am not prepared to say that it would be the duty or the right of the President of the United States at this time, to surrender that fort to the authorities of Florida, or that it would be properly termed coercion to fortify or reinforce, or maintain that fortification for national purposes.

The same may also be true in reference to the fort which commands the mouth of the Mississippi river. But, sir, I merely allude to these instances for the purpose of stating that these are difficulties necessarily growing out of this position, and that it is, therefore, the duty of the Federal Authorities to practice forbearance, to desist from all hostilities, because of the intrinsic difficulty there is of drawing this line of demarkation as to the duty of the Executive in regard to this matter. All I would ask would be a clear indication, upon the part of the Executive, that so far as possible it would aim to preserve the status quo until the States which, in my opinion, alone have the right of determining this question, should have the opportunity of doing so, that he would do nothing which would be likely to lead to a collision of the forces of the Federal Authorities and of the Authorities of the Seceded States. And that is the general indication of the report of the Committee.

We have requested this Southern Confederacy also to forbear from any act likely to give rise to hostile collision. We have requested both parties to forbear until the people of Virginia have exhausted every effort which they propose to make to reconcile these differences, or, if irreconcilable, to settle them peaceably. I, therefore, think that this amendment ought to be adopted, and, I trust, that the Convention will concur in that opinion. I think there can be no difference of opinion if we place it upon this clear, strong, foundation of constitutional right in our demand upon the Federal Executive not to attempt any force. If we can do that it must be better than to place it upon the ground of mere request, asking him only as a matter of favor instead of demanding as a matter of right.

I trust that the committee will pause before it affirms that this high attribute of sovereignty—the capacity to make a treaty with the Confederate States exists, at this time, no where in this country. I trust the committee will pause before it follows the able Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations in taking a position which is to denude the Federal Government, denude the State of Virginia, denude every State now remaining in the old Union of the United States of the power to make any treaty whatever with the seceded States. The position assumed is that, in the present abnormal state of things, as it is called, there is no power in the Federal Government to deal in any manner with these questions with the seceded States.

It is not denied, by the able Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, that we are still bound by the Constitution of the United States, and by each and every provision thereof. That instrument denies to Virginia the power to treat with any State whatever, either to form alliances, make treaties, enter into confederations, or make any other arrangement whatever of that character; and the gentleman says that the Federal Government has not that power. He wishes the people of Virginia, now in the crisis of our fate, when action, and immediate action, becomes every day more necessary, solemnly to declare that there is no human power that can treat with the Confederate States. They are called upon to say that this high attribute of sovereignty, this power to make a treaty, is a myth; that it is, as the law writers say, in abeyance; that it is nowhere; that it is not held by the States, because by the Constitution it is denied to them; and that it is not held by the Federal Government, because they say, that in this abnormal state of things it is not there. It is a myth—an airy nothing—wholly impotent for good. War may be upon us, the enemy may be thundering at the gates of the capital, a moment may bring on a state of things which would urgently require prompt and immediate action, which would make a treaty indispensable ; but yet the gentleman tells us that there is no human power that can make that treaty. And why does he say so? Because, he says, the present state of things was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.

He does not deny that the power is plainly given. The grant is general, unlimited. The President, by and with the consent of the Senate, has the power to make treaties, &c. The power thus conferred is general and unlimited; and I say that both the spirit and letter of that grant of power means this, if it means anything, that the.Page387 President shall make all treaties which the exigencies of the government may at the time require. When you look to the fact that the power to make these treaties is denied to the States, you are bound to give a fair construction to the power given to the President and Senate, and say that it means what I have just said it ought to mean—the power to make such treaties as the exigencies of the government may require.

But I go farther. I take issue with the gentleman, and say that the Constitution itself, when it was framed, not only looked to this state of things, but could not have been formed without looking to it. Why do I say so? When the Constitution was formed, we were then bound in a bond of perpetual union, called the Old Articles of Confederation. The present Constitution provides that when nine States should ratify it, it should be the complete government of the nine States so ratifying it, and they should be the United States. Here, then, the attention of the States was called directly, in the very forming of the instrument itself, to a condition both of secession and of excision—of the secession of the nine States which should ratify, and the excision of the four which might fail to do so. Did they contemplate that the nine States which should accept the Constitution should have no power whatever to deal with the four that might not accept? They were then bound in a union of thirteen States; and the Constitution provided that when nine should accept the new Constitution, it should be the Constitution of the nine accepting it. Is it to be supposed that in thus framing the Constitution they did not look to the possibility, aye to the probability, of some of the States being out of the Union from the fact of their not accepting the Constitution, and of the necessity of making treaties with them?

The fact was, that for some year or more, one or two States did not come into the Union. Was there no power to make a treaty with those that were out? The power to make treaties was given to the President by and with the consent of the Senate, and that power was denied to the States. I ask, is it reasonable to suppose that the States did not contemplate that a state of things might arise which the very instrument itself provided for, and that there would or might be a necessity of making treaties with the States cut off?

But I come down to another fact in history. Years later we added to the Federal Union the foreign State of Texas. We added it by joint resolution and negotiation. Prior to its admission, we had, of course, the power to treat with Texas, and we did treat with her. We agreed to pay her debts, and by joint resolution and negotiation she.Page388 was brought into the Union. The States that made that arrangement with Texas, through their authorities at Washington, had power to make a treaty, and did in effect treat with her before she came into the Union. Suppose that Texas had been the only State to secede. I desire to know whether she could thus deprive the other States of the power of treating with her? Suppose there had been difficulties in construing and carrying into effect the terms of the agreement under which she became a member of the Union, and she had seceded alone and made war on the United States to compel a compliance with the contract of annexation. Is it possible that there would have been no longer a power to treat with her? That the mere fact that she had been for a short time a member of the Union, is of itself sufficient to deprive the Union, after her secession, of a power it clearly had before? Could she thus deprive them of this essential attribute of sovereignty? Are we prepared to admit that this is a reasonable doctrine? Now, I do not deny the position assumed by the able Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, and by the distinguished gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , who argued this question in the Convention a day or two ago, that the offence of separating from the Union—if offence it be at all—is an offence by the seceding States against the other States. But how are the States which remain and which hold the Federal Government as their Government to deal with this offence? They have constituted a Government to deal with it. By and through the Federal Government, their agent, they do deal with it, and they can deal with it no other way. The language of the Constitution is sufficiently broad to cover the ground. The Federal Government has, within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, the power to treat with the seceded States, and absolute necessity requires at this time the exercise of that power. The simple question, I repeat, is, whether now, in this, the very crisis of our fate, when at any moment war may be in this land, from one end of it to the other, Virginia in Convention, shall solemnly say that neither the States nor Federal Government have the power in any form to deal with this question.

Here the Chairman's hammer fell.

Of course it is impossible, Mr. Chairman, to answer, within the space of ten minutes the acute and able argument delivered just now, and which is an addendum to an argument delivered the other day by my friend from Charlotte. I will, however, endeavor briefly to answer his points. But, first, I am requested by the gentleman from Princess Anne to state that he does not concur in the.Page389 proposition which I make, although my inference was that the amendment which he offered the other day looked that way.

Now, sir, I would first call the attention of the Convention to the fact that the rights of peace and war, in the Federal authorities, must be corelative.

If, under the treaty making power, as alleged, the President of the United States has a right to make a treaty with the seceded States, acknowledging their independence, he must have the corelative right of making war. Therefore, the necessity of asserting this proposition of constitutional law.

The gentleman asks whether it is possible that the Federal Government does not possess the sovereign power of making treaties? Unquestionably it does, but under express grant. But I hold that all these powers—war power, treaty power, commercial power—looked only to the foreign relations of the government.

This is an answer to the argument of the gentleman from Charlotte, in regard to the provision that nine of the States under the old Confederation might set the new government in motion; and he asks emphatically, could they not treat with the States refusing to come in? Unquestionably they could, because the States connected under the old Confederation were not States within one government. It never has been pretended that the old Confederacy was a Constitutional Government. It was merely a league between the States; and, therefore, notwithstanding the Confederacy which was formed for the purpose of the Revolutionary war, the States remained foreign to each other. The nine States, then, would have had the same right to deal with the States which refused to come under the Federal Constitution, as they had to deal with foreign nations. But the question is materially altered when the States have come in. They are then connected under one and the same government, and the question is, does the government agent possess the power to deal with the question of a disruption of that government? I say the Constitution contains not one word looking to that object.

The gentleman has adduced as another reason, the admission of Texas into the Union; but does not my friend from Charlotte know that there is in the Constitution an express power to admit States into the Union, without any power to allow States, by treaty, or in any other mode, to sever themselves from the Union, and that is a strong proof of my position that it was a casus omissus? That it never entered into the contemplation of the framers of the government to provide for the case of departure of any State from the Union, is proved by the .Page390 fact, that while they provided expressly for the admission of new States—which new States need not be formed out of any previous territory of the United States—no provision, whatever, is made for the departure of any State out of the Union.

Now, the only serious difficulty urged in a practical point of view, to this position, was urged the other day by the gentleman from Princess Anne, which I had no opportunity of answering. He pressed with great force, and, as I apprehend, with considerable effect, the difficulty that might arise in conferring this power. He urged that it squinted at the necessity of a National Convention to amend the Constitution of the United States. Now, in my apprehension, no such necessity exists. The terms of our resolution are amply sufficient, in my view, to confer this very power so far as the State of Virginia is concerned. I believe it may be conferred by joint resolution of the Legislatures of the different States. Nay, more ; I believe it can be conferred by simple acquiescence. Where is the necessity for any amendment of the Constitution in order to confer a power on the Federal authority to deal with this subject? It is not a permanent power. There is no necessity to incorporate it in the Constitution of the United States, because it is to act only on this present emergency. It is analogous to the case of the purchase of Louisiana. There was some talk of amending the Constitution at that time, but it was considered that the mere tacit acquiescence of the people of the U. States in that purchase had confirmed its legality. And so it ought to be here. The expression of opinion by the constitutional authorities of a State would, so far as that State is concerned, confer on the Federal authority the power to act—with a limit that it should be a power to act peaceably, not forcibly. We take the position that now the Federal authority has no right to deal with this question in either aspect—either of war or of peace. We propose, so far as Virginia is concerned, by a resolution of this Convention, to confer on the Federal authority the power to deal peaceably with it, and to recognize the independence of the seceded States. We can then go to the Federal authorities and say, "You have no authority or right to deal otherwise with this subject. You have a power under the Constitution to make war upon and use coercion towards these seceded States. If you do so, you put yourselves in the attitude of mere usurpers of power." We will then have the right, without violating a single constitutional obligation of Virginia, without the slightest breach of our plighted faith, to make war upon the Federal Executive, because it would not be acting under its constitutional authority, but on a gross usurpation of power.

The question will be upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] .

I ask that the latter clause of the 9th resolution shall be read, so that it may be seen what opinion it is that we are concurring in.

I will ask the indulgence of the Committee. I see the point of the proposition of the gentleman from Princess Anne, and I find that the amendment I proposed does not express my full idea. I will ask the indulgence of the Committee to detain it one single moment, in order that I may change the form of the amendment, not the substance. My object is merely to carry out the idea suggested by the gentleman from Princess Anne.

I suppose if this is a new proposition, it will be open to debate.

The Chair thinks so.

I object to the amendment, for I see it is going to lead to debate.

I hope the Committee will permit the amendment to be made. I hope the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , will make no objection.

I shall make no objection. I think, however, the proposition is open to debate.

Will the gentleman indicate the change which he proposes to make in order that the Chair may see whether any change is proposed in the substance of the proposition before the Committee.

I propose to strike out the first part of the 10th resolution to the word "authorities" in the 3d line, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "believing that the Federal authorities have no power to deal with this subject in any way."

That is a new proposition.

Entirely, sir, and the Chair must take the question on the pending amendment, unless leave be given to the gentleman from Frederick, to withdraw it. The CHAIR will now read the latter clause of the 9th resolution, the reading of which was called for by the gentleman from Princess Anne a few minutes ago.

"But the Federal authorities, under the Constitution as it is, disclaim power to recognize the withdrawal of any State from the Union, and consequently to deal with these questions, holding that it is reserved only to the States as parties to the Government compact to take lawful action touching them."

The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. CONRAD and decided in the negative.

I now submit the amendment to which I referred a few minutes ago, which is, to strike out the first part of the 10th resolution, down to the word "authorities," which reads, "Without expressing an opinion as to the question of power, but in deference to the opinion of the Federal authorities," &c., and to insert the following:

"Believing that the Federal authorities have no power to deal with this subject in any way," &c.

I hope it will not be the pleasure of the Committee to make the amendment which has been suggested.

The object of these 9th and 10th sections, as I understand, is simply to state the opinion of the Committee, that the Federal Government has constitutional difficulties in regard to the solution of the question which are presented by the secession of the Confederate States, and to express their willingness, if such be the fact, to remove all difficulties out of the way as far as the consent of Virginia can do so. I understand the opinion of the Committee, as gathered from their report, to be this : that they are not prepared to determine whether the General Government has now constitutional power to recognize the independence of the seceded States. That is a question of extreme novelty, difficulty and delicacy. We wish to steer clear of committing ourselves in any way upon that question. But as a doubt has been expressed, on the score of constitutional power, we desire, if any difficulty of that sort is in the way, that it shall be removed out of the way. That I understand to be the report of the committee, and I think it is the proper ground. I suppose there is no member of this committee who would hesitate to declare, that if the Government has power to part peaceably with these Confederate States, that that power ought to be exercised, in preference to any attempt whatever to seek collision with them, or enforce authority over them. I suppose there is no difficulty upon that subject—that all power which the Government possesses, ought to be exercised in favor of a peaceable solution of our difficulties. So far, there is no difference among us; and the report even goes farther than that; it proposes to confer upon the Government this power, if it does not now possess it. That I understand to be the report of the committee.

Now, the proposition to amend here, is a proposition to declare, as the opinion of this Convention, that the Government of the United States has no authority to deal with the subject at all. I am not .Page393 willing to declare that opinion, because, if the Government of the United States can exercise no discretion upon this subject, we are rushed at once, as it seems to me, directly into the jaws of civil war; and I am not willing to recognize the obligation of the Government to take any such step. I do not wish this Convention to express any opinion which will furnish the occasion to anybody, hereafter, to quote us as authority for the necessity for war. I don't want to express any opinion which might be perverted by any one, hereafter, to the injury of the cause that I have so much at heart—the cause of peace; and I think it was an exercise of wise discretion and prudence on the part of the committee, to abstain altogether from the expression of any opinion upon these questions. Let us confine our duty to the mere declaration that, if the Government has the power, we want it, in God's name, to exercise all it has in favor of peace. If it has not the power, we are ready to give to them all the power that is necessary to maintain the peace. That I understand to be your construction of the committee's report, and I hope it will be the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the report, and declare this view of it.

I don't purpose to trouble the Convention again, sir, with a repetition of the views which I endeavored briefly to state before; and this is no time to go into an extended argument on this question. It is true, and I should perhaps have so stated when I was up before, that this proposition is made by me, not as representing the opinions of the Committee, but upon my own individual responsibility as a member of the Convention; nor do I understand that there is anything in the report of the Committee adverse at all to the view which I present. I am still more at a loss to imagine how, by any possibility this position, taken by the Convention, would lead directly or indirectly to civil war. My object concurs fully with that, doubtless, of every member of the Convention, to preserve peace if possible; and my opinion is, that the very best mode for preserving peace is the assumption of this position by this Convention. We deny to the President of the United States any power to deal with this question at all. What is the consequence? That his arm is paralyzed; all he can do is to preserve the question in the condition in which it stands, until those who have a right to deal with it have settled it. That is to be the result. He has no right to make war upon these seceded States; he has no right to assume any attitude of hostility towards them, because he has no right to make peace; he can neither acknowledge nor deny their independence. But it remains for the co-States of the Union—those with whom the.Page394 seceded States entered into the compact—to determine what course it becomes them to take in consequence of the action of the seceded States. And I hold that these seceded States are fully responsible to them. They may confer upon this Federal Government, which is their agent, power to deal with this subject—they may confer the power to deal with it in either aspect—either peaceably or forcibly; and we propose here to assert that it shall be dealt with peaceably and that the independence of these States shall be acknowledged. I suppose, sir, that we have no right to make a demand upon the Federal authority unless we can establish it upon the basis of right; upon the mere ground of forbearance (especially as we are disposed to view the disposition of the present Federal Executive) , it may prove insufficient, and would, at last, be a mere favor granted to us, and not because the Federal Government is bound to take the course which we indicate and approve.

I prefer, and I trust this Convention will prefer, to put it upon the ground of a denial to the Federal authorities of power to deal with the subject at all.

I call for the yeas and nays upon the amendment.

The call was sustained, and the vote being taken resulted—yeas 12, nays 114, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Armstrong, Brown, Carter, R. Y. Conrad, Early, Gillespie, Marshall, Osburn, Pugh, Sharp, C. J. Stuart, White-12.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Ambler, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, James Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blakey, Blow, Boggess, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Burdett, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, Couch, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Gregory, Goggin, Jno. Goode, T. F. Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Hunton, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Lawson, Leake, Lewis, McComas, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Masters, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Richardson, Rives, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Wickham, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Wise-114.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. MILLER paired off with Mr. CLEMENS.

Mr. R. H. COX stated when Mr. ISBELL'S name was called, that that gentleman was absent from illness.

Mr. WYSOR, when his name was called, said that he had paired .Page395 off with the gentleman from Marshall [Mr. BURLEY] , who was detained in his room on account of sickness and the inclemency of the weather, otherwise he would have voted in the negative.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Richmond, stated, when the name of Mr. Cox, of Chesterfield, was called, that that gentleman was absent on account of illness.

I move to strike out the 10th section and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"The people of Virginia hereby declare their consent to the recognition of the separate independence of the seceded States; that they shall be treated with as independent powers and that the proper laws shall be passed to effectuate their separation."

I had not the opportunity of getting the floor upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . Now, that the whole subject is open to us, I do not pretend to say that this body is to exercise the power of recognizing the separate independence of these States. All I propose is to express our consent to the recognition of their independence, and that is the true position in which I think that a late confederate of the seceded States should stand—to say to the agent, and to the principal parties, that as far as we are concerned, we consent to the separation. Now, what does the resolution of the Committee propose?

They say, "without expressing an opinion as to the question of power"—and very prudently they have carried out that intention. But do they express no opinion? They do express an opinion, indeed, "without expressing an opinion as to the question of power," but in deference to the opinion of the Federal authorities, the people of Virginia hereby declare their desire to confer upon the Government of the United States, which, still in deference to the opinion of the Federal authority, is the opinion on our part that there is a necessity to confer the power, and that believing the necessity of the power to be conferred, we admit, out of deference to the opinion of the Federal authorities, that there is no such power already existing—for if there is such power already existing, there is no necessity for the declaration that the power ought to be conferred. This resolution goes on further to say:

"The powers necessary to enable its proper authorities to deal peaceably with these questions, and if it shall become necessary, to recognize the separate independence of the seceding States, and to make such treaties with them, and to pass such laws as the separation may make proper."

What would it take, under this resolution, to confer the power? You have to confer the power by an amendment of the Constitution. How would matters stand, admitting that the power does not already exist? You would have to amend the Constitution by calling a National Convention, and the real effect of this resolution is, to make the necessity for a National Convention.

Now, what does my friend from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , mean by the status quo. He says that under power of holding forts in statu quo, they may hold on to those that they have in possession at the time of the withdrawal. I presume he will agree, if the principle applies to the forts, that it applies to every other subject matter. Am I right in that, that the status quo, if it is to be preserved in one respect, must be preserved in all? Now let me call the attention of my friend from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , to what would be the result of this status quo at the time of the withdrawal? Was it a fact that these States were States of the Union? According to the Constitution of the United States, "no State shall enter into any alliance, treaty or confederation." If the status quo is to be preserved, does not the gentleman perceive that the Federal Government will be bound to array itself against the Confederated Southern States, against their making any alliance with foreign powers, against their emitting bills of credit, against their making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of duties, against their power to pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, or against their granting any title of nobility? Does he not see further, that no State, without the consent of Congress, can lay any impost or duties upon imports or exports? Would not the status quo compel us to war upon that power of levying duties, as well as the power to occupy the forts?

Again, sir, no State, without the consent of Congress, can lay any duty of tonnage, or keep troops. Would not the status quo operate to disband the troops that they have raised? Would not the status quo forbid them to keep ships of war in time of peace? Would not the status quo forbid them to enter into any agreement or compact with another State? Does he not see that this doctrine of status quo, by the very terms of the Constitution of the United States, would necessarily bring on a conflict between the Federal Government, that is sworn to execute these laws, and the States that have withdrawn? Sir, the doctrine of status quo would nullify the mission of peace upon which our messengers are now departing from this capital. Suppose when they get to Washington, and they approach the President, upon this .Page397 subject, he shall tell them : "Why, gentlemen, as I have not the power to recognize the withdrawal of these States, I am left necessarily to execute the powers of this constitution; I am to see that no treaty of alliance or confederation is entered into by these States as well as to hold the forts belonging to the United States; I am compelled to see that they emit no bills of credit, that they raise no money by any such means to resist the Federal Government." Does not the gentleman see to what the doctrine of status quo would lead him? How can he distinguish and say that the status quo shall be preserved in relation to the forts, but in relation to nothing else?

Mr. Chairman, let me call your attention and the attention of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , to the broad distinction that the constitution of the United States, even in respect to States remaining in the Union without a withdrawal, without a separation, takes between treaty and alliance on the one part and a compact and agreement on the other. Under no circumstances, unequivocally, unconditionally is a State remaining in this Union forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. Is that the fact in relation to compact or agreement? No, sir! The 3d section of the constitution says

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on 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."

Then, if these States deemed themselves in such imminent danger as would not admit of delay, they had a right, expressly, and without the consent of Congress, by the Constitution of the United States, to make a compact or agreement, though they have not the right, if they are still States of the Union, to make alliance, confederation or treaty proper; for compact and agreement are both distinguishable from treaty, alliance or confederation by the political law, and expressly by the Constitution of the United States. If they hold that these States are still in the Union, there is a power, in the midst of imminent danger, to make a compact or agreement with them. If they can make that compact or agreement with another State or with a foreign power, or actually engage in war—in such a condition will gentlemen tell me that they cannot make a compact or agreement with their own Government, simply to forbear hostilities until all the Government authorities can be called upon to act, and all the parties to the compact can be called upon to consent?

Sir, the proposition is too plain to admit of controversy with any gentleman who will compare these two or three sections. Our forefathers never committed such an error as to omit this power of compact in the midst of dissension and imminent danger, arising from dissension among the parties to the compact. They never were guilty of such gross, flagrant omission, of not allowing, in some form, that greatest of all powers on earth, the power of peace.

The gentleman from Princess Anne greatly misapprehends the position which I take. The status of which I spoke was the status of the federal authorities, not of the seceding States. And the term is not applicable, as I conceive, at all to questions of right or power, but simply to questions of condition or possession. The term is only used in reference to the actual position of parties at a particular moment. Now I say the status of the federal authorities for themselves, because they have no right to deal with these seceding States, and the gentleman answers that if the status is to be preserved, they are to exercise all the powers conferred upon them by the constitution. The term is not applicable to any question of power or right as it is originally used.

But I am somewhat surprised that the gentleman should have misunderstood my position, but I do not mean to trouble the Convention again by adverting to this question at all. The Committee have decided upon the amendment I proposed and I bow with cheerful submission to that decision. I have only to say in reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Princess Anne, I shall vote for it, as at present advised. I think, as the Committee have refused to give to the section the character which I have endeavored to give it by the amendment I propose, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Princess Anne may well be substituted for it.

My friend does not alter the case at all. I know that his own mind, astute and subtle as it is, is capable of perceiving, upon a moment's reflection, that he has not altered his proposition at all. What does he say? He does not speak of the status of a State, but he speaks as to the status of the federal authority. Are they not convertible terms?

I say that the Federal Government has nothing to do with the status of the seceding States.

The Federal authorities—I take him as he last states his proposition—are not to regard their powers, but their condition and possession. Now, at the time of the withdrawal of these States, did .Page399 they not possess the power to prohibit the State from forming a treaty of alliance or confederation as well as possessing forts?

Not after the secession.

Why not after the secession? If a State has power, by withdrawal, to absolve herself from this obligation not to make a treaty—grant that and you grant all she wants—to hold forts. How can the gentleman escape that logic? She has got the right to make a treaty, to make alliance, even to grant titles of nobility, to emit bills of credit and do anything else that is forbidden by the Constitution to be done, and yet has not the right to take possession of her own forts. Will that hold water in the mind of any man that compares one idea with another? My friend, I know is not uncandid, and if he perceived this, he would acknowledge it; but it shows me that he is somewhat blindly wedded to the conclusion that the Federal Government has a right to hold on to these forts. And he asserts this as his opinion. I say to him, that if the Federal Government assumes the power, exercises and enforces the power to hold on to these forts, that it is just as dangerous to the peace of his people and of my people as if they assailed the Confederation formed by these seven States; to form which requires a power, requires a right to be acknowledged, requires the exercise of a sovereignty, which is all that is required to take forts themselves from the Federal Government.

Sir, let me say to the gentleman, that the Fort on the Tortugas Isles is within the limits of Florida. Let me say to him that Fort Pickens is within the limits of Florida. The State of Florida, like the State of Virginia, holds all the islands within the marine league on her coast. To hold the fort upon the Tortugas is just as much an invasion of her sovereignty as an aggressive war; if she be sovereign enough after a withdrawal from the Confederacy, to emit bills of credit, to make a treaty or alliance, she is sovereign enough to hold the forts within her limits; and the attempt to take these forts, or to continue the occupation of them will threaten war, and produce a war, as fearfully, as certainly, as for the General Government at once to attack the Southern Confederacy itself ; for to hold the forts, is, in fact, to deny their right of confederation. You deny all their powers by this 10th section. The denial of one upon the ground of status quo, is a denial of all ; and the denial of any power that is essential to maintain the condition of those Southern States, with regard to the condition and power, and position of the Federal Government, is war, inevitable war. This Administration is now holding on to these forts. The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , said yesterday, that he knew .Page400 of nothing that the Federal Government had done that indicated a purpose of war. I say, sir, that the holding of these forts—whether peace or war be their purpose—the holding on to these forts will inevitably bring on war, and they know it. Yet, knowing it, they are sending re-inforcements of men and supplies of provisions and strengthening and fortifying the forts with all the munitions and implements and muniments of war. The war steamer is on her path on the deep. Within ten days of their sailing from New York, when the attempt shall have been made to reinforce these forts, you may hear the echo of the booming of the cannon which proclaims that war, a flagrant war has begun. Yet, in the face of these facts, whilst war is on its march to the site of war, we find started this doctrine of status in quo that raises every dire issue that can grow out of the question of peace or war. I ask this committee, I implore them, not to commit themselves upon this tenth resolution. It is unwise to pass these propositions to wait until a National Convention, or until Congress shall confer the power to amend the Federal Constitution ; for, whilst in the midst of waiting we may hear the clash of the arms of war.

Sir, I have been accused of being belligerent. I say, as I said to a friend who asked me privately on the floor yesterday my opinion—a gentleman for whose own opinion I have great respect—when he asked me to answer him in a moment, "were you President what would you do in respect to these forts?" I said to him, without hesitation, "It would depend upon my construction of my powers. With my opinions, I should forbear. With the opinions of gentlemen who believe that the Federal Government is bound to hold on to those forts, with the opinions of those gentlemen, who believe that the Federal Executive is sworn to execute the laws, and is bound to enforce them at all hazards, I suppose I should be bound to execute them." He replied to me, "and I concur in the sentiment." "Sir," he said, "my opinions would require me to evacuate those forts at once, as a matter of peace, as a matter of policy, as a matter of patriotism, for the purpose of restoring the peace and harmony of the Union." I could not but assent to the wisdom as well as the pacification of the maxim. They ought to be evacuated ; and we ought to consent to the recognition of the independence of those Southern States.

I ask for a division of the question, for I want to say a few words upon the question of striking out.

I wish to hear the substitute reported.

The Clerk reported the substitute.

The question was then taken on the motion to strike out, which was carried in the affirmative, a call for a division of the House having been made by Mr. SHEFFEY and the count given up.

The question recurs upon amending the tenth resolution, by inserting the proposition of the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] .

I call for the ayes and noes.

The call was sustained.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment, that the word "consent" be stricken out, and the word "desire" be inserted in lieu thereof.

The CHAIRMAN stated the question.

My mind never was clearer, Mr. Chairman, upon any proposition, than that it is in the power of the Federal Government to acknowledge the independence of the seceded States. I admit that this is a government of limited powers; that the Federal Government possesses no powers that have not been conferred upon it by the Constitution. But the power to make treaties has been conferred upon it. It has been said by some that this treaty-making power was only intended to apply to treaties with foreign nations. The words "foreign nations" do not appear in the Constitution in connection with the treaty-making power. But even if they did, that would make no difference. Who would be the judge, in respect to the question who the foreign nations were? Would not the Federal Government have the authority to judge? Would it not be the judge of the question who were foreign nations, and who were not foreign nations? Have not the proper authorities of the Federal Government the power to acknowledge the independence of revolted States, or of revolted people of other countries? Did not the proper authorities of the Federal Government acknowledge the independence of several of the South American States? Did they not acknowledge the independence of Greece? Were they not the first to acknowledge the independence of Texas? And if the Federal Government does possess the power to acknowledge the independence of one people who have revolted, why have they not the same power to acknowledge the independence of three millions of people—put upon them what terms you please—call it a revolution or not? They have the power to recognize Greece, to recognize Texas, to recognize the people of the Southern Republics, and why have they not the power to recognize the independence of the seceded States?

Sir, those seceded States are either sovereign States, or they are .Page402 not sovereign States. If they are sovereign States, who have withdrawn from this Union, they are foreign nations now, because they have withdrawn; and the Federal Government can make a treaty with them upon the ground of their being foreign nations. But if they are not sovereign States, if this Government is partly consolidated and partly Federal, I consider that they have been in a state of revolution.

Suppose, sir, that this were a consolidated Government, to all intents and purposes. I say, when three millions of people have revolted and established a government of their own, and are in a condition to maintain their independence by force of arms, that there is power in the Federal Government to acknowledge their independence. If it did not possess that power what would be the consequence? Suppose fifteen States of this Union were to withdraw, and to rise up in opposition to the authorities of the Federal Government, and suppose that they should overcome the powers of the Federal Government, can it be said that the Federal Government would have no power to make any treaty with them? Sir, it is a principle of the law of nations, that every government has the power to treat with any portion of its people who are in a state of revolt ; and unless you can acknowledge the independence of these people, it seems to me that there is power on the part of the Federal Government to execute the laws of the United States within the limits of the seceded States upon the people within them. The President of the United States has, in my opinion, the power to execute the laws of the United States within the limits of any State that is not independent; and if these people have not acquired their independence, are not strong enough to maintain their independence, the President of the United States has the Constitutional right to execute the laws of the United States upon them. But, sir, believing as I do, that when three millions of the people of this country have revolted, if you choose, and are in a state of revolution, if you choose, have formed a government and are able to maintain their independence, I do hold that there is power in the Federal Government, that there is power in the President and Senate, to make a treaty with them, and that that treaty ought to be made. Mr. President, I will now withdraw my amendment.

The question recurs upon the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Princess Anne, and upon this question the ayes and nays are called.

The roll was then called and the question, upon inserting the amendment, was decided in the affirmative—ayes 106, noes 20, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, James Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Brent, Bruce, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, A. Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Hubbard, Hull, Hunton, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Lawson, Leake, McComas, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Masters, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Price, Pugh, Richardson, R. E. Scott, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Sitlington, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Wickham, Williams, Wilson, Wise-106.

NAYS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Carlile, Carter, Early, E. B. Hall, Hughes, Jackson, Lewis, McGrew, Moore, Porter, Rives, Sharp, Summers, Tarr, White, Willey-20.

The Clerk will proceed to report the 11th resolution.

The CLERK then read the 11th resolution, as follows :

"11. This Convention, composed of delegates elected by the people in districts, for the purpose of considering the existing difficulties in our Federal relations, represents the desire and earnest request of the people of Virginia, to meet as directly as possible the people of her sister States, and to them appeal for satisfactory adjustment. Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote, or in Convention similar to her own, to respond, at their earliest convenience, to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions, and the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States hereunto appended. And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

I propose to amend the 11th resolution by striking out all after the word "relations" in the third line, and inserting the following :

"Declares that the people of Virginia, confiding in the justice of the people of the other States, appeal to them for a satisfactory adjustment of those difficulties by the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, hereto appended; they, therefore, invite the people of the several States, either by popular vote, or in State Conventions similar to their own, to respond, at their earliest .Page404 convenience, to the propositions in regard to those amendments. And they declare that a refusal on the part of the non-slaveholding States to accede to such amendments should and would result in the total and final disruption of the Union."

Mr. Chairman, I have two objects in offering this amendment. The first is to avoid that portion of the present resolution which provides that the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions shall be responded to by the Northern States. My opinion is, that as we ourselves differ materially upon some of the points embraced in those resolutions, it would be unwise in us to demand that the Northern people should respond affirmatively to all of them, for I suppose that they must respond affirmatively to respond satisfactorily. I do not think it wise to require them to respond affirmatively to all the abstract questions laid down in this report. I, therefore, have sought in the amendment I have offered to meet that difficulty, by providing that the Northern people shall respond only to the articles of amendment to the Constitution which the people of Virginia consider as affording a sufficient adjustment of these difficulties.

The other point I desire to gain is that we should make our application in such a form as to leave it to be endorsed by the action of the other slaveholding States now remaining within the limits of the present Union, before making it decisive as regards Virginia. I for one am unwilling to take any action in regard to this matter, without having a free and full consultation with the Border slave States of this Union. I think we ought to be unwilling to take action, such as will deeply affect their interests, without at least going through the form of consulting them in the matter. I am satisfied that the position assumed by Virginia in this Convention, will be cheerfully and cordially ratified by the other slaveholding States remaining in the Union, and I believe that if these slaveholding States, including ourselves, go before the country united upon these propositions, there is no question whatever, that a favorable response to the application will be received from the Northern States of the Union. Does not every gentleman see that we stand a far better chance in presenting these propositions to the people of the North, backed by the voice of all the other border slave States, than by standing alone upon our own propositions? I think every gentleman must be satisfied that it would be a far better course for us to pursue than to act upon our own individual responsibility. Already, intimations are being thrown out that Virginia is assuming a position of arrogance in demanding as an ultimatum of the North, that her requests shall be acceded to without .Page405 consultation with any of the other States concerned in the response of the North, equally with ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I have presented these two points in the amendment I have offered and I trust it will be the pleasure of this body to concur with me in the opinion that it is far wiser thus to consult with these border States upon these questions before taking our final action, than to declare the position to be finally assumed by us without consultation with the other border slave States.

It is obviously the purpose of this amendment to exclude the latter clause of the 11th section. It does it in express terms, and I presume of course the intention is to strike out that clause which provides that "in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

Now, sir, the language used in that latter clause, is the language expressly used in the ratification of the constitution of the United States, by this State. Not that we shall arrogantly undertake to say, what the gentleman proposes to us to say, that in the event that a "definite" response is not returned to us upon these propositions of adjustment there shall be a "total" and "final" disruption of the Union. If the gentleman would avoid arrogance in a proposition to this Committee, I ask him what could be more arrogant than his assuming to speak for all the United States by the words "final" and "total." He would not undertake, he says, to say as an original proposition, that in case our requests are not acceded to, Virginia shall resume her granted powers, that she will, in that contingency, "throw herself upon her reserved rights ;" but he asks us to say, more decidedly, that in case she does not receive a "definite" answer to her requests, there must be and there "ought to be"—ought to be is the language—a "final" and "total" disruption of the Union. I can only say that I prefer the language of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, to this language. I can only say that I regard the language of the resolution, as it stands, as less arrogant, as more modest in undertaking to speak for ourselves alone, than for everybody else, by saying that the disruption shall be "total" and "final."

Now, sir, I would ask the gentleman what he means by "definite," response? It will be very hard to define the word "definite," in that connexion. Is the purpose here to propose that the answer .Page406 shall be so known, so distinctly known, so definitely known, that there can be no mistake about it; that it must be so definitely in the negative as to compel us to disrupt, totally and finally, the whole Union? Does he mean by that expression, "definite" response, a mental reservation, that if they should not say exactly "no," but only something sort o' so and sort o' not so, and a little more sort o' so than sort o' not so, that then he will have another opportunity for another trial, thus putting off any definite action for an indefinite time? Is that the use he would make of the word "definite" ?

Again, sir, why does he make the response to be definite, when he leaves the time indefinite? What time does he provide in which this response is to be made? Why, at the convenience of those States. Suppose they find it convenient in one, two or three years, the time proposed by Seward, or in five or ten years. Again, I make this point not only as to time, but the gentleman says, "if they should neglect or fail to answer." Neglect for how long? Fail for how long? The gentleman is very particular about the response being "definite." Would it not be well at the same time to be particular also as to the period of response, or in which they may neglect or fail to respond?

Again, sir, if the gentleman wants to avoid secession or the acknowledgement that at some time or another we shall come to the point that we shall be compelled in necessity and in honor to secede, I submit to the gentleman that his proposition would grant secession, even before this 11 th resolution, as it stands, would.

The CHAIRMAN announced that the speaker's time had expired.

In response to the gentleman from Princess Anne, I will say, that he has totally mistaken the point of my declaration and of my amendment, if he supposes there is more arrogance in the declaration I propose in my amendment than there is in the declaration that Virginia will resume her sovereignty and reserved rights. I merely express the opinion that if these amendments to the Constitution are not acceded to the result would be, and should be, a total disruption of the Union. I stand here, sir, maintaining the position, as I did before my constituency in the canvass, and as I shall do till the end of time, that unless these difficulties which now exist are satisfactorily adjusted by amendments to the Constitution, I for one, will go for breaking up this government, not by secession but by revolution; taking all the responsibility which shall attach to my position in that regard. Therefore I wish here to express the opinion which I have always expressed, that it is necessary that .Page407 we should have these amendments to the constitution to preserve this Union, and that it is my belief it will be broken, and entirely broken, unless we obtain these amendments. So far as the expression of such an opinion is arrogance, there is arrogance in this amendment I propose, and not unless the expression of such an opinion is arrogance.

In regard to the use of the word "definite," I mean, by the use of that word, to indicate unmistakably that I, for one, must be clearly satisfied that it is the intention of the Northern States persistently to refuse this adjustment before I give my consent to break up this Union. I do not desire to obtain the opinion of the politicians of the North. I am satisfied that if we can reach the minds of the people they will eject their politicians and will give us these amendments and this adjustment to which we are entitled.

How will you do it?

I propose to do it by the popular vote, or by conventions similar to our own. I presume the people of the Northern States, if they do not intend to grant this adjustment, will say that they do not, in their response to us by the popular vote, or by conventions similar to this. If the people cannot defeat the politicians, then the Union will have to go ; but I believe if this question is ever brought fairly before them, they will defeat the politicians.

In regard to the time which they shall have for their response, it will be for this Convention and the people of Virginia to decide. The very next of the series of resolutions now under consideration, provides that there shall be a reasonable time. I take it for granted that that resolution will be adopted in connexion with this, if the Committee should accept my amendment; and I therefore reply to the gentleman from Princess Anne, that I propose to wait a reasonable time. I am not prepared to specify the precise time which will be required. I think there is a difference of opinion among those who act with the gentleman himself, as to the time we should wait. I think they are not prepared to fix upon the time he has mentioned in his proposition, and if they themselves cannot agree as to the time required for the settlement of these matters, it is not for them to complain that we have not fixed an exact period.

As I said before, my chief object in offering this amendment is, that we should not make an affirmatory answer to all these abstract propositions by the Northern people, the condition on which we propose to separate from them, and, also, that before we fix any ultimatum, we should have a consultation and some concert of action with our sister slave States upon the border. That, sir, is a plan .Page408 which has commended itself favorably to my humble judgment, and I trust it is a plan that shall commend itself favorably to the judgment of this Convention, for I am satisfied that under it we may have some hope of the preservation and restoration of this Union.

Will it be in order to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Henrico, if it shall be adopted?

It would not then be in order.

I propose, then, at this time to amend the gentleman's amendment by striking out the words "popular vote," and inserting "their proper authorities."

I understand the amendment of the gentleman provides that the people of the Northern States shall respond to Virginia either by popular vote or by Conventions constituted as ours is. I propose to strike out "popular vote" and to require that they shall respond by "their proper authorities" or by Conventions similar to this.

I understand that if it is desirable to get responses from the free States to the application of Virginia, these responses should come in an authoritative form, and they can only come in that form when they come through the proper State authorities or through sovereign Conventions. A mere response of the people in a popular mass meeting, or for them to go to the polls without the authority of law, would not be worth anything more than the paper on which it is written. It would be nothing more than the re-enactment of the Dorr scenes of Rhode Island, and I trust that this Convention will not put Virginia in such a position.

I think the gentleman from Middlesex, mistakes the object of that phrase which is in the original as well as in the amendment. The object, in which I supposed we all agreed, was to have a response from the people as contra-distinguished from the politicians. And the proposition there is that they shall respond either by popular vote or by Conventions, similar to our own. Now, sir, that does not import, as the gentleman seems to suppose, that this popular vote is not to come through the regular constituted authorities of the State.

Then why not put it in the resolution?

I have no objection, if the gentleman will change his amendment, leaving in the words "by popular vote," and adding "through their regular authorities," if he considers such a provision necessary. It certainly was not in the contemplation of any one that the popular vote here referred to should be the vote of mere mass meetings of assemblages voluntarily formed in those States, but that .Page409 their constituted authorities should recognize it as the popular vote, as the vote of the people, and that it should be sent to us through them. We believed that while the Legislatures of the Northern States might be disposed to give a negative response to our propositions—nearly all of them being in the hands of this Republican party—they might still be disposed to refer the matter to the people in their own States. It is the people we want to reach, and not the politicians. The gentleman's amendment would authorize a negative response to be given by the constituted authorities of the Northern people directly. It, in fact, invites such a response, for it places the alternative before them, to answer either by their regular authorities or by Convention, striking out the popular vote, which is the main feature of the proposition. I trust, that the amendment will not be adopted, as it would defeat the main object of the section.

I desire to say just a word or two in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Frederick. As I before remarked, if we get any response from these Northern States, it ought to be such a response as will be satisfactory. How can that response be satisfactory unless it comes from the legally constituted authorities of the land? Is it worth anything unless it comes in the form of amendments to the Constitution? Is it worth more than the paper upon which it is written unless it comes in that form? And can it come in that form unless the popular vote be expressed in accordance with the forms of the Constitution? The Constitution prescribes its own forms of amendment. I will not stop to specify what they are, you all know what are the only modes by which the Constitution can be amended. Then, if this amendment means anything it ought to mean that which gives a satisfactory response; and how can any response be satisfactory, unless it comes in such a shape as to give binding effect, by the popular vote, upon the States in which that vote occurred. Otherwise, as I remarked before, the effect of your popular vote will be simply to repeat the Dorr scenes of Rhode Island, which occurred several years ago. I think the amendment which I have proposed ought to be adopted, and I hope it will be the pleasure of the Committee to accept it.

The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to.

I propose to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Henrico, by adding to it these words, "and in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain affirmative responses to her requests from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and throw herself upon her reserved rights."

Mr. Chairman, I will only say a word or two in support of this amendment. It will be observed that I have taken a clause from the section itself, changing, simply, the word "satisfactory" to "affirmative." As I understand it, there is a very marked distinction between these two words in this connection. An affirmative response upon the part of the nonslaveholding States to the amendments proposed by this Convention to be adopted as part of the Constitution, would necessarily imply the acceptance of these amendments, but a satisfactory response would not necessarily imply their acceptance on the part of the non-slaveholding States. Now, sir, suppose that some of the non-slaveholding States should respond, and others should refuse to respond, would that be satisfactory to gentlemen? Suppose that the non-slaveholding States adopt some of the amendments proposed, and reject others, would that be satisfactory? Suppose the non-slaveholding States, a majority, or all of them, if you please, should respond to the amendments proposed by this Convention, that "they seem to be fair and just, but without giving a definite response at this time we propose to consider them through the medium of a National Convention ;" would that be satisfactory to this Convention? I understand, sir, that it is proposed here to submit an ultimatum to the non-slaveholding States. We have had a great deal of discussion in this body about an ultimatum. If that is the purpose of the body, I wish to place it beyond doubt or misconstruction for the future. I wish an ultimatum that is an ultimatum in truth and in fact. I wish it understood by the non slaveholding States and by the country, that these amendments of ours are indeed the ultimatum of the State of Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, according to my apprehension the amendment, as offered, will not present such an ultimatum. And in order to test the sense of the Convention, as to whether we are to have such an ultimatum, I have proposed this amendment. I may say, that if anything upon earth has been fixed and agreed upon by the whole people of Virginia, it is that this Convention must either take some definite or decisive action now, or adopt some line of policy which must lead to a definite and decided action in the future; and I ask gentlemen if they intend to propose an ultimatum to the Northern States to say so in clear, decided, unequivocal terms so there can be no mistake in the future. Why, sir, suppose we adjourn over, as is contemplated, to await the responses to our propositions, and suppose when we reassemble one response shall be given by the people of one State, and another by another; will gentlemen, when we come back in the fall, ask that we shall still wait? Sir, as this Convention has decided that the .Page411 time has not yet come for a separation, I ask them to indicate the point, the alternative which in their judgment will lead to a separation. And if we are to have an ultimatum which is to be understood by the State of Virginia and by the country, as such, I hope it will be so framed that there will be no doubt or misconstruction in the future.

I cannot undertake to speak for the people of Virginia, but I can speak for myself and for the people I have the honor to represent upon this floor; and I say that they did not contemplate that this Convention should lay down any ultimatum. Sir, I am opposed to all ultimata, and I shall so vote. I shall not here, by my vote, countenance any proposition having for its purpose secession or disunion. I would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Henrico [Mr. WICKHAM] , provided he would agree to strike from it the latter clause, which is the ultimatum of his amendment. But, sir, I cannot better express the reasons which influence me and the constituents I represent, to oppose any ultimatum on the part of this Convention, than by reading an extract from the last great speech made by Henry Clay in the Senate of the United States, upon the compromise measures of 1850, and made, sir, at the cost of the remaining days of his life. On that occasion he said :

"Such is the Union, and such are its glorious fruits. We are told now, and it is rung throughout this entire country, that the Union is threatened with subversion and destruction. Well, the first question which naturally arises is, supposing the Union to be dissolved—having all the causes of grievances which are complained of—how far will a dissolution furnish a remedy for these grievances? If the Union is to be dissolved for any existing causes, it will be dissolved because slavery is interdicted or not allowed to be introduced into the ceded Territories ; because slavery is threatened to be abolished in the District of Columbia, and because fugitive slaves are not returned, as in my opinion they ought to be, restored to their master. These, I believe, will be the causes, if there be any causes, which can lead to the direful event to which I have referred.

"Well, now, let us suppose that the Union has been dissolved. What remedy does it furnish for the grievances complained of in its united condition? Will you be able to push slavery into the ceded Territories? How are you to do it, supposing the North—all the States north of the Potomac, and which are opposed to it—in possession of the navy and army of the United States? Can you expect, if there is a dissolution of the Union, that you can carry slavery into California and New Mexico? You cannot dream of such a purpose. If it were .Page412 abolished in the District of Columbia, and the Union was dissolved, would the dissolution of the Union restore slavery in the District of Columbia? Are you safer in the recovery of your fugitive slaves in a state of dissolution or of severance of the Union, than you are in the Union itself? Why, what is the state of the fact in the Union? You lose some slaves. You recover some others. Let me advert to a fact which I ought to have introduced before, because it is highly creditable to the courts and juries of the Free States. In every case, so far as my information extends, where an appeal has been made to the courts of justice for the recovery of fugitives, or for the recovery of penalties inflicted upon persons who have assisted in decoying slaves from their masters, and aiding them in escaping from their masters—as far as I am informed, the courts have asserted the rights of the owner, and the juries have promptly returned adequate verdicts in favor of the owner. Well, this is some remedy. What would you have if the Union was dissevered? Why, sir, then the several parts would be independent of each other—foreign countries! Slaves taken from the one into the other would be there like slaves now escaping from the United States into Canada. There would be no right of extradition—no right to demand your slaves—no right to appeal to the courts of justice to demand your slaves which escape, or the penalties for decoying them. Where one slave escapes now by running away from his owner, hundreds and thousands would escape if the Union were severed in parts —I care not where or how you run the line, if independent sovereignties were established.

"Well, finally, will you, in a state of dissolution of the Union, be safer with your slaves within the bosom of the States than you are now? Mr. President, that they will escape much more frequently from the border States no one will doubt.

"But, I must take occasion to say that, in my opinion, there is no right on the part of one or more of the States to secede from the Union. War and the dissolution of the Union are identical and inseparable. There can be no dissolution of the Union except by consent or by war. No one can expect, in the existing state of things, that that consent would be given, and war is the only alternative by which a dissolution could be accomplished. And, Mr. President, if consent were given—if possibly we were to separate by mutual agreement and by a given line, in less than sixty days after such an agreement had been executed, war would break out between the free and slave-holding portions of the Union—between the two independent portions into which it would be erected in virtue of the act of separation.

Yes, sir, sixty days—in less than sixty days, I believe, our slaves from Kentucky would be fleeing over in numbers to the other side of the river, would be pursued by their owners, and the excitable and ardent spirits who would engage in the pursuit would be restrained by no sense of the rights which appertain to the independence of the other side of the river, supposing it, then, to be a line of separation. They would pursue their slaves ; they would be repelled, and war would break out. In less than sixty days war would be blazing forth in every part of the now happy and peaceable land.

"But how are you going to separate them? In my humble opinion, Mr. President, we should begin at least with three Confederacies—the Confederacy of the North, the Confederacy of the Atlantic Southern States (the slaveholding States) , and the Confederacy of the Valley of the Mississippi. My life upon it, sir, that vast population that has already concentrated, and will concentrate upon the head-waters and tributaries of the Mississippi, will never consent that the mouth of that river shall be held subject to the power of any foreign State whatever. Such I believe would be the consequences of a dissolution of the Union. But other Confederacies would spring up, from time to time, as dissatisfaction and discontent were disseminated over the country. There would be the Confederacy of the Lakes, perhaps the Confederacy of New England, and of the Middle States.

"But, sir, the veil which covers these sad and disastrous events that lie beyond a possible rupture of this Union, is too thick to be penetrated or lifted by any mortal eye or hand.

"Mr. President, I am directly opposed to any purpose of secession or separation. I am for staying within the Union, and defying any portion of this Union to expel or drive me out of the Union. I am for staying within the Union, and fighting for my rights—if necessary, with the sword—within the bounds under the safeguard of the Union. I am for vindicating these rights, but not by being driven out of the Union rashly and unceremoniously by any portion of this Confederacy. Here I am within it, and here I mean to stand and die; as far as my individual purposes or wishes can go—within it to protect myself, and to defy all the power upon earth to expel me or drive me from the situation in which I am placed. Will there not be more safety in fighting within the Union than without it?

"Suppose your rights to be violated; suppose wrongs to be done you, aggressions to be perpetrated upon you—cannot you better fight and vindicate them, if you have occasion to resort to that last necessity of the sword within the Union, and with the sympathies of a large portion .Page414 of the population of the Union of these States differently constituted from you, than you can fight and vindicate your rights, expelled from the Union, and driven from it without ceremony and without authority?

"I said that I thought that there was no right on the part of one or more of the States to secede from this Union. I think that the Constitution of the thirteen States was made, not merely for the generation which then existed, but for posterity, undefined, unlimited, permanent and perpetual—for their posterity, and for every subsequent State which might come into the Union, binding themselves by that indissoluble bond. It is to remain for that posterity now and forever. Like another of the great relations of private life, it was a marriage that no human authority can dissolve or divorce the parties from; and, if I may be allowed to refer to this same example in private life, let us say what man and wife say to each other: 'We have mutual fault; nothing in the form of human beings can be perfect; let us then be kind to each other, forbearing, conceding; let us live in happiness and peace.'

"Mr. President, I have said what I solemnly believe—that the dissolution of the Union and war are identical and inseparable; that they are convertible terms.

"Such a war too as that would be following the dissolution of the Union! Sir, we may search the pages of history, and none so furious, so bloody, so implacable, so exterminating, from the wars of Greece down, including those of the Commonwealth of England and the revolution of France, none, none of them raged with such violence, or was ever conducted with such bloodshed and enormities as will that war which shall follow that disastrous event—if that event ever happens—of dissolution.

"And what would be its termination? Standing armies and navies, to an extent draining the revenues of each portion of the dissevered empire, would be created; extermination wars would follow—not a war of two or three years, but of interminable duration—an exterminating war would follow, until some Philip or Alexander, some Caesar or Napoleon, would rise to cut the Gordian knot, and solve the problem of the capacity of man for self-government, and crush the liberties of both the dissevered sections of this Union. Can you doubt it? Look at history—consult the pages of all history, ancient or modern; look at human nature—look at the character of the contest in which you would be engaged in the supposition of a war following the dissolution of the Union, such as I have suggested—and I ask you if it is possible .Page415 for you to doubt that the final but perhaps distant termination of the whole will be some despot treading down the liberties of the people?— that the final result will be the extinction of this last and glorious light which is leading all mankind, who are gazing upon it, to cherish hope and anxious expectation that the liberty which prevails here will sooner or later be advanced throughout the civilized world.

"Can you, Mr. President, lightly contemplate the consequences? Can you yield yourself to a torrent of passion, amidst dangers which I have depicted in colors far short of what would be the reality, if the event should ever happen? I conjure gentlemen—whether from the South or the North, by all they hold dear in this world—by all their love of liberty—by all their veneration for their ancestors—by all their regard for posterity—by all their gratitude to Him who has bestowed upon them such unnumbered blessings—by all the duties which they owe to mankind, and all the duties they owe to themselves—by all these considerations I implore them to pause—solemnly to pause—at the edge of the precipice, before the fearful and disastrous leap is taken in the yawning abyss below, which will inevitably lead to certain and irretrievable destruction.

"And, finally, Mr. President, I implore, as the best blessing which Heaven can bestow upon me upon earth, that if the direful and sad event of the dissolution of the Union shall happen, I may not survive to behold the sad and heart rending spectacle."

There are other extracts which I could read to the same effect, but I will not detain the Committee. Now, sir, this Convention has by a nearly unanimous vote—only twenty voices dissenting—agreed to use an expression of the gentleman from Princess Anne—to "slough off" or to consent to the sloughing off of the seceded States. My voice was among the twenty dissenting voices, and I am proud of it. I presume it is a foregone conclusion that an ultimatum is to be laid down by this body, and that the question is merely one of time, and so far as Virginia is concerned, it is to be a very short time. I understand it is intended to be effected by October; such is the proposition of the gentleman from Princess Anne in the amendment he proposes to this report. I fear many of our friends have unadvisedly committed themselves to the report of the committee of twenty-one, and in their effort to compromise with those who believe in the right of secession have allowed themselves to be recorded in favor of propositions which votes they will regret in the future.

Here the hammer fell.

The gentleman from Harrison informs us .Page416 that he is unalterably opposed to any ultimatum. Sir, why has he come to this Convention? For what purpose are we now here? Will the gentleman tell us, speaking here for his constituents, that if the amendments proposed by this Convention be deliberately rejected by the Northern States, he is then in favor of acquiescing? Is that the deliberate opinion of the gentleman and of those whom he represents?

Is the gentleman putting an interrogatory to me?

Yes, sir.

What is it?

I wish to know whether, if the amendment contemplated by this Convention shall be deliberately rejected by the Northern States, you and yours are in favor of acquiescing in that determination?

I can answer the gentleman. Ours are a people who act on the maximum "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." As that question was not before them when I was last with them, I cannot say what their views would be. I can say this much, that it was contemplated by the people whom I represent that this Convention would do no act, and pass no resolution looking, on any condition to the present or future change of the relations that we sustain to the Federal Government, without first submitting their action to that people, as well as to the people of the other portions of the State, to be passed on at the ballot box.

The gentleman has not met my inquiry; but so much for that. I undertake to say that, no matter what the deliberate judgment of the Northern mind may be, that gentleman will be opposed to any resistance, and will favor the continuance of the State of Virginia in the Northern Confederacy. I have a right to infer that much from the votes he has given during the pendency of these discussions. He is opposed to any ultimatum. Is that the sentiment of the people of Virginia? Sir, I had thought that if the sentiment of Virginia was made up on any subject on earth it was on this that the time had now come when this matter should be settled finally and forever.

Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question. Does he suppose that the adoption of an ultimatum which is, in fact, an impending threat to this people from whom these guarantees are demanded, is likely to obtain their consent, is it likely they will yield to the demand?

I cannot undertake to say what they would be likely to do; but I do undertake to say that we would be derelict .Page417 in our duty, recreant to our trust, and would fail to meet the just expectation of our constituents, if we failed to say to the Northern people, not in the language of menace, but clearly, distinctly and unequivocally, "this is the sine qua non on which Virginia will remain longer in connection with you." It is on that that I propose to test the sense of the Convention. We have heard of ultimata from the time of our assembling, down to the present hour. I desire to know if we are to have an ultimatum, and if such is the understanding of the country?

Now, Mr. Chairman, as to the residue of the reply made by the gentleman from Harrison, it is unnecessary for me to follow it. I am not here to reply to the speech of Henry Clay. I hope I have too much modesty to undertake the task. But I beg the gentleman from Harrison, if he has not yet waked up from the Rip Van Winkle sleep which seems to have overcome him, to bear in mind that the Union spoken of by Henry Clay in the paragraphs read by him, is no longer in existence. If Henry Clay were now alive, he would not undertake to speak of this Union as if it were unbroken. Does not the gentleman know that the Union is already dissolved? Does not he recognize the fact that the Federal Union of our fathers is no longer existing? The gentleman shakes his head. In his estimation, in the language of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address, the Union is unbroken, altogether unbroken. Those seven seceded States that have retired from the Union and assumed a separate and independent position for themselves, are still integral members of the Union. Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for me to reply to such an argument as that. I know it is not the sentiment of this Convention. He talks about the right of secession. I will not now discuss that question with him ; but I will remind the gentleman that five millions of freemen, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, have asserted the right of secession, and stand to-day, with arms in their hands, to maintain it. In offering my amendment I desire to test the sense of the body as to whether or not we are to have an ultimatum.

The question being on Mr. GOODE'S amendment to the amendment, Mr. JNO. GOODE, Jr., called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

I ask to be excused from voting on either the amendment to the amendment or the amendment itself. I did not come here to lay down an ultimatum.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 54, nays 69; as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Cabell, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Echols, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, Jr., Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., Hale, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Kent. Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Williams, Wilson, Wise-54.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Marshall, Masters. Moffett, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Spurlock, Staples, C. J. Stuart. Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey-69.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

I desire to make a more verbal alteration in my amendment. It now reads, that the States shall respond at their earliest convenience "to the proposition in regard to those amendments." I proposed to alter that verbiage so as to make it read, "the said propositions of amendments."

The amendment was so modified.

I propose to amend the amendment by striking out the words : "should and would result in the total and final disruption of the Union." I offer the amendment because this language does not, in this connection, meet with the sober convictions of my judgment, nor, as I believe, with the judgment of those whom I represent here.

I dislike exceedingly to differ with a gentleman whose views generally upon these questions concur with my own. I cannot, however, agree to this amendment. I think it is very well understood that the sense of this Convention is in conformity with the policy set down in the language proposed to be stricken out. I shall resist the adoption of that amendment, and I trust it will be the pleasure of the Committee to reject it.

I suppose I can call for a division of the question, and ask that a vote be first taken on striking out.

The question is not divisible. The proposition is to strike out. There is no motion to insert.

Oh! this is the amendment to the amendment?

Yes, sir.

I call for the yeas and nays.

The call was not sustained. The question was then put on the .Page419, and was decided in the negative.

The question then recurred upon agreeing to the amendment.

I now call for a division of the question. My object is to get clearly to this doctrine of the resumption of power, and I want a test vote upon this question. I call for the yeas and nays.

The call was sustained.

The question was then taken on striking out so much of the resolution as has been referred to, and the roll being called, resulted—yeas 57, nays 68—as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Deskins, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, White, Wickham, Willey-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Cabell, Caperton, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Dorman, Echols, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gregory, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, A. Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Marmaduke Johnson, Kent, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Orrick, Parks, Richardson, Sea-well, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Williams, Wilson, Wise-68,

I move to amend the 11 th resolution by striking out all after the words "United States" in the fifteenth line. The portion I wish to strike out is in these words "and throw herself upon her reserved rights." It is the natural and necessary consequence of what precedes it from the word "and" in the 11th line. I therefore think it is unnecessary.

The section represents the desire of Virginia to meet, as directly as possible, the people of her sister States and to adjust our existing difficulties. If this cannot be done and Virginia cannot obtain her just rights, she will resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States.

This, I believe, fully meets the views of my constituents.

My colleague [Mr. CARLILE] , in giving his understanding of the views of our constituents, differs widely from me, if I understood him correctly in saying they did not wish either an ultimatum laid down, or guarantees demanded. I understand they are in favor of .Page420 demanding the full measure of all their constitutional rights; and should the General Government, or the Northern States that now have the control of that Government, refuse to award them those rights, and refuse to recognize the equality of the States, they will, as I understand, at all hazards and at every risk, sever their connection with that Government.

They are not willing, sir, to yield their reserved powers to any Government State or Federal, or to call any people masters, and if they continue to remain in the Union it must be on terms of exact equality with all sections.

If the time ever does come, and I hope it never will, when it may become necessary for us to vindicate our rights of equality by a resort to arms, it will be found that the people who I, in part, represent on this floor, will be as prompt as any other part of the State to vindicate them and to sever their connection with this Union, and to sever it forever.

But, sir, they hope to avoid this necessity. They wish to resort to all constitutional and proper means to avoid it. They wish to appeal earnestly and affectionately to their Northern sisters to do them justice. If this fails they will be ready for the last resort.

These are the views of the constituency whom I, in part, represent as I understand them, and I am satisfied they will sustain me.

My own individual opinion—which of course, is not worth much—is, that it would have been better if we could agree upon our proposed Constitutional amendment, without any resolutions, enunciating mere abstract principles. The object I have in proposing this amendment

is to disembarrass our propositions of Constitutional amendment to be presented to the other States, of all considerations not exactly germane to the matter. What we desire for Virginia and for the protection and the guarantee of her rights, are amendments of the Federal Constitution, to which we can command the assent of all the States of the Union. But a submission of these abstract principles in the form of resolutions to the Northern people or to the other States, will, in my humble estimation, simply tend to embarrass the consideration of the amendments to the Constitution which we propose. We are anxious that these amendments should have a candid and fair consideration. It is these amendments, if adopted, that are to secure to us the benefits we desire and the guarantees of our rights which we desire, and not the adoption of the resolutions. I hope, therefore, it will be the pleasure of this Committee to allow these propositions to go to the Northern people, disembarrassed of all .Page421 extraneous matter of consideration, so that we may get at the sentiments of the North upon the amendments to the Constitution alone. It is in that respect that we are really interested, and in no other, so far as the other States are concerned; and these are the reasons which have influenced me to move this amendment.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and announced by the Chairman as carried in the affirmative.

I call for a division.

The amendment has been agreed to, and it is now too late to call for a division.

I called for a division immediately upon the Chair's announcing his opinion that the ayes had it.

The Chair cannot now entertain a call for a division. If the gentleman called for a division, the Chair did not hear the call.

I ask, sir, whether, when the Chair announces upon a viva voce vote, that a question is carried, or the contrary, he is to be regarded as infallible. I had some doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Chair, as to the result of this vote, and, as is known to many gentlemen around me, I called for a division the moment the Chair announced the result of the vote, according to his estimate.

The Chair assures the gentleman that he did not hear the call, and in view of this misunderstanding, the Chair will, by general consent, take the vote again.

There being no objection, the question was again taken by a count, and decided in the affirmative—ayes 76, noes 37.

Mr. TARR moved to strike out of the 11th section that portion of the section which reads as follows :

"And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

Mr. WISE demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question was then taken and the amendment was not agreed to —yeas 37, nays 81, as follows :2The Journal omits Maslin from this list of negative votes.

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Couch, Early, Fugate, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hubbard, Jackson, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Marshall, Masters, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Ro. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Wickham, Willey-37

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, James Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Byrne, Cabell, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dulany, Flournoy, French, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gregory, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Thomas F. Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, L. S. Hall. Hammond, Harvie, Hoge, Holcombe, Hull, Hunton, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Maslin, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Pugh, Richardson, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Wilson, and Wise-81.

The Committee then took a recess until 4 o'clock.

1.7.10. EVENING SESSION

The Committee of the Whole resumed its session at 4 o'clock, P.M. Mr. MONTAGUE in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the eleventh section was still open for amendment.

I understand that the eleventh section is still open for amendment. I desire to suggest an amendment, which I thin:: obviates an objection well taken by yourself to the construction which may be put upon this eleventh section, but in regard to which I do not think the amendment suggested by you affords a remedy.

It was apprehended, as I understood, by you—and the apprehension was concurred in by others—that the directness of the appeal proposed in the 11th section, "Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States" may be construed into an appeal to the people in the sense of antagonism and insubordination to regular constituted authority. I do not suppose that there is any one who desires that we shall attempt to institute in any part of the country any irregularity in the expression of the popular will. I would suggest this amendment, which I think obviates the difficulty and places us in the position of calling for nothing more than the expression of the popular will according to its legitimate mode of expression. Beginning at the sixth line, which now reads :

"Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote, or in Conventions similar to her own, to respond," &c

I propose to amend it, so that it would read :

"Virginia, therefore, desires that the people of the several States be called upon to respond either by popular vote or in Convention similar to her own."

The question was then taken upon the amendment, and it was agreed to—ayes 45, noes 32.

I propose to strike out, in the 12th line, the word "satisfactory," and insert the word "affirmative;" so that the clause would read :

"And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain affirmative responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

I do not desire to trouble the Convention, but I offer this Amendment from a sense of duty. The constituency whom I have the honor, in part, to represent upon this floor, were divided at the time of the election and are divided now, upon the great question of immediate secession. But there was one question, and there is one question, now upon which there was no division, upon which all were agreed, and that was, that this Convention should adopt some definite, decided and final action ; and I undertake to say, without the fear of successful contradiction, that it was the almost universal sentiment of the Commonwealth that this Convention, when we assembled, would either adopt some final action, or adopt some measures which would lead to final action within some fixed and definite period. Now, sir, I cannot be mistaken upon that proposition. I desire particularly to direct the attention of members to this point. I put it to them to say if they are prepared to meet their constituents and say to them that they have reached no definite result and have adopted no measures which will bring about a definite and final result in the future. Why do gentlemen wish to keep up this uncertainty in the public mind? Our people are in a state of anxiety and suspense. All the great interests of the State are suffering; its business is paralysed, and the energies of our people are this day completely prostrated.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I expect in the future, so far as I am concerned, to derive much satisfaction from a recollection of the fact, if my feeble voice could have been heard, and my poor counsels could have prevailed, that Virginia would have been this day cut loose from our membership in a Northern Black Republican Government, and that our people would not be in a condition which renders them liable to be called upon to-morrow to take up arms against their brethren of the South ; because, while I now speak, the storm cloud of war may be ready to burst in all its fury upon our heads, and in the .Page424 language of the immortal HENRY, "the very next gale that sweeps from the South may bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms." Sir, I have been overruled in this by the majority. My counsels could not prevail. I desire now to ask that majority—I do it respectfully and in all kindness; I think I have the right to ask it in the name of my constituents—if they are not prepared to adopt such measures as will lead to some definite, decided, final action within a fixed and definite period?

This resolution, sir, as it now reads, does not meet that requirement, and I wish to test it. Suppose the word "satisfactory" is retained in the place of the word "affirmative" which I desire to substitute for it, and suppose your propositions are rejected by the people of the North. Would that be satisfactory? If it would not be satisfactory, then why do gentlemen object to striking out the word "satisfactory," and insert the word "affirmative"?

I had supposed, Mr. Chairman—I had indulged the hope, that the Convention would be prepared to take either final, decided action now, or such action as would point with certainty to some decided action in the future. I repeat, if these propositions are not responded to affirmatively, it may be contended, and I predict it will be contended in the future, notwithstanding they have been rejected in whole or in part, that the response is satisfactory. I trust that this uncertainty may terminate ; I trust that our people may be relieved from this anxiety and suspense, and if we are to be kept in this alliance with the Northern Black Republicans, I beg that I may be able to say to my constituents when I return home, if the ultimatum of Virginia is not adopted, that then Virginia, with one voice, will be prepared for action.

I trust it will not be the pleasure of this Committee to adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Bedford [Mr. GoODE] , and I had hoped that the gentleman would have been content with the test which he submitted to the Convention this morning. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what tomorrow's news may bring. I do not know what the sensation spirit of the hour may occasion. I do not know whether the language of Patrick Henry, uttered as to the plains of Boston, is appropriate now to the harbor of Charleston, nor do I care, so far as this question is concerned. The question is, which is the preferable term? The question is, which would better represent the object of the resolutions "satisfactory" or "affirmative" ? Now, I submit to this Convention, that there is no more appropriate word than that which is .Page425 embodied in the resolution. Who are to judge whether this action is satisfactory or not? The people of Virginia. My friend shakes his head. If this Convention adjourns, as I understand is proposed, this Convention is to decide upon it, and by the action of the people in electing this Convention, the action of this body is to be referred back to them. So that the people of this State must decide, and are bound to decide by their own voice, whether or not this action is satisfactory. Now, sir, why put in the word "affirmative?" Why, by any word—why, by any technical word—why, by any restrictive word, hamper the action of either the Northern or the Southern people? Sir, as I understand the present position of Virginia, it is this : She is here, a representative people, for the purpose of considering what terms they will submit to the Northern people as terms upon which they are willing to live together; and if to the proposition of Virginia they give a satisfactory answer, of which we ourselves are the judges, then we will say, "we will not part with you unless other circumstances necessitate us to do so." But if, on the other hand, they do not give a satisfactory answer, then we say, "This is an uncongenial association, and we will part from you."

Now, why introduce the word "affirmative?" Is it that they shall say "yes" to everything? Is it that, when we ourselves are the judges of their own answer, there shall be a rigidly, strictly affirmative response to everything from everybody? Is it not enough for us to reserve to ourselves final adjudication upon these answers? Can we require more, as Southern people? Ought we to require more as Southern people? It does seem to me, sir—and I am sure my friend will take it in good part—that there is on his part, and on the part of those who co-operate with him, too much of a disposition to prevent co-operation on the part of Virginia and her sister border States. We are surrounded by them; they are our immediate neighbors; and to take any final, ultimate action, without consultation with them, is a proposition to which I do unequivocally say, I am unalterably opposed. We are bounded by those States in the North, the South, the East and the West; and I say, both as a matter of interest and as a matter of brotherly or of sisterly relation, it is our duty to enter into a hearty and cordial consultation with them. And it is not compatible with this policy or principle, that we ourselves should require a distinct affirmative answer to every proposition we may lay down, when, at the very time that that answer may come to us, we will probably be in consultation with our sister border States, whose voice is entitled to be heard. I say, not a voice to control the action of.Page426 Virginia, but a voice that ought to be heard by Virginia before she acts. Therefore it does seem to me that it is a restrictive word in substitution of one which is the most comprehensive, and altogether the most appropriate and satisfactory. I trust, therefore, it will not be the pleasure of the Convention to impair, as it would be in my opinion, the character of the resolution, by substituting the word "affirmative" in place of the word "satisfactory."

I have but a word to say, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the gentleman from Richmond city. I think, sir, that his own argument has furnished to this house a most conclusive reason why the word "satisfactory" should be stricken out and the word "affirmative" substituted in its stead. What does the gentleman say, sir? He says that we are now engaged in deciding upon what terms we are willing to live with our confederates of the North. And, sir, if that is the work in which we are now engaged ; if we are now deciding the terms upon which we will be willing to continue our alliance with this Black Republic of the North, I ask if the door is to be left open to some distant day in the future to decide upon the terms which the gentleman says engage our attention at this hour?

What are we here for? I suppose our constituents have commissioned us for some purpose, to decide upon something; and yet the gentleman tells you that after we are to decide we are to wait. Wait for what? Wait for a Border State Conference. Why, sir, did his constituents, or did mine, send him or me here to determine the ultimatum of Virginia, or to hand Virginia, over to the Border States of this Confederacy? Did they send me here to determine the terms upon which my constituents would be willing to keep this connection longer, or to refer it to Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina and other Border States to determine? We are now fixing the terms, and yet we are to wait for a Border State Conference. The gentleman has thought proper to refer to me and those with whom I am co-operating. I will reply in the same spirit, and tell him that upon the re-assembling of the last Congress, he and those who co-operate with him, asked us to wait for the Committee of Thirty-three. We did wait. They then asked us to wait for the Committee of Thirteen in the Senate. We did wait. They then asked us to wait for the Peace Conference at Washington. We did wait. And when that proved to be a notorious and signal failure, we were asked to wait for the Inaugural of our President, Mr. Abraham Lincoln. And now, sir—

If the gentleman will allow me, without taking up a moment of his time—

My time is nearly out now.

I merely wish to say while it may represent the position of those with whom I co-operate, I beg leave to say that is not the position which I assume.

Well, let that matter go. But, now, the gentlemen, notwithstanding the universal sentiment in the Virginia heart, that something must be done, and done now, gentlemen ask us to wait and consult the border States of this Confederacy. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that such is not the deliberate purpose of this Convention. I hope, if we are not yet prepared to sever the connection of Virginia with this Northern Confederacy, that we are prepared to fix some day in the future when we will be prepared to do so, unless our terms, in the language of my friend, shall be acceded to. I think it must be obvious to every member of the committee that the amendment I propose is a suitable and proper amendment. If this Convention mean to do anything, if we are not going through the solemn forms of mockery, if we intend to fix the destiny of this people, then, sir, it ought to be understood by our constituencies, and by the Northern people, that we are in earnest.

You talk about your ultimatum. It is proposed to send this to the Northern people; and yet, if this amendment is voted down, you send it to that people with the distinct declaration : "If you change it, if you adopt some of the amendments to the Constitution, and reject others, why we are not in earnest about this ultimatum, we will consider it next fall, and we will take terms different from those laid down in this ultimatum." The gentleman says, we can do nothing except what shall be passed upon by the people. As I understand the act calling this Convention, it provides that this Convention shall take no action severing the connection of Virginia with the Southern Confederacy, or changing her organic law, without submitting that action to the people. But it is contemplated that these amendments to the Constitution shall be voted upon by the people before they are sent to our Northern confederates? I apprehend no popular vote is needed before these amendments are to be responded to; and I insist upon it, if gentlemen are in earnest when they talk about an ultimatum, that it will be understood by the Northern people that we mean an ultimatum, and that it will be expressed in clear, distinct and unequivocal terms, so that he who runs may read.

The question is upon the adoption of the amendment.

I call for the yeas and nays.

The roll was then called and the amendment was rejected by a vote of yeas 44, nays 74—as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Bruce, Cabell, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Echols, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Kent, Lawson, Leake, Marr, Marye, Sr., Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Williams, Wise-44.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Boggess, Branch, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, Coffman, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, Moore, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, Wm. C. Scott, Sitlington, Slaughter, Spurlock, Staples, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-74.

As I understand the question, sir, the 11th resolution has been amended upon the motion of the gentleman from Augusta. I presume, sir, that the whole resolution, as amended, can be amended again?

Certainly, sir.

I move to strike out all after the word "relations" in the third line, to the word "appended," in the 1 1 th line, inclusive, and to insert in place of that portion which I move to strike out, the following : "respectfully requests the people of the Northern States, as speedily as possible, by majority votes in all of their Congressional districts, to instruct their Representatives in Congress to propose as soon as it [Congress] can be assembled, the amendments to the Constitution, declared to be necessary by this Convention, to be ratified in one of the modes provided in the 5th article of the Constitution of the United States."

So that the section as amended will read :

"11. This Convention, composed of delegates elected by the people in districts, for the purpose of considering the existing difficulties in our Federal relations, respectfully requests the people of the Northern States, as speedily as possible, by majority votes in all of their Congressional districts, to instruct their representatives in Congress to propose as soon as it [Congress] can be assembled, the amendments to the constitution declared to be necessary by this Convention to be ratified in one of the modes provided in the 5th article of the .Page429 constitution of the United States. And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

I am free to confess, Mr. Chairman, that the only part of the resolution under consideration which I approve, is the latter clause, which says, "that in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and throw herself upon her reserved rights." The preceding part of the section carries on its face the objection of a carte blanche to the North, to delay indefinitely a response to the Constitutional amendments which will be proposed by this Convention. It says : "Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote, or in Convention similar to her own, to respond at their earliest convenience to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions, and the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States hereunto appended." No time is fixed within, or mode indicated, by which the Northern States are to respond. It is left to them to answer in any election, or in none at all; when they vote for Magistrates and Constables, or for Judges, or for members of the Legislature, or for Congressmen, or for President, or never. They shall not, with my consent, have this opportunity for unlimited delay. So far as my voice goes, I demand that they come to the point, and decide at once. Now, sir, the amendment I have proposed is distinct and definite. It requires them to say, as speedily as possible, whether or not they will accede to the propositions of this Convention, and if they do not respond, as soon as the response can properly be made, it declares that the State will resume the powers delegated by her to the General Government. Let me not be misunderstood. I expect to vote for the resolution under consideration in some form, because the latter clause contains what, in my judgment, is an endorsement of the right of secession. Without that I would repudiate it utterly, as delaying the action of the State longer than I am willing to wait. Neither would I touch my own amendment as an original proposition. I know that the resolution under consideration will pass in some form, and I offer my amendment as an improvement to it, though the amendment, itself, is bad enough—it is a mere choice of evils—it is better than that part of the resolution it proposes to strike out, because it destroys as much of its vagueness as the .Page430 nature of the case admits of ; as vi termini, it excludes the idea of a National Convention, because it aims to instruct Congress to propose the amendments at once ; and where Congress proposes amendments, they are referred by the very terms of the fifth article of the Constitution not to a National Convention, but to the Legislatures or a Convention of three-fourths of the States. The resolution of the Committee requests the Northern people to respond—this response, unless through their Representatives in Congress or through their Legislatures, will amount to nothing. No clause in the Constitution gives them the right to amend that instrument by popular vote. The 5th article thereof says, Congress shall propose amendments by a two-thirds vote, or shall call a Convention to amend the Constitution on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States. My resolution ignores the latter mode and adopts the former as the most direct and speeedy mode. It is a foregone conclusion that the appeal is to be made to the Northern people, and as this is going to be done by the Convention, my object is to obtain the speediest action in the Constitutional mode. Though if I had my way no more proposals should be made by Virginia alone to the North at all.

If I understand the resolution of my friend from Hanover it proposes directly that this Convention shall address itself not to the State authority, not to the people in their organized capacity in their States, but to the people in primary assembly in their Congressional Districts.

Yes, sir; but it requests them to act constitutionally through their representatives.

Well, sir, I cannot consent to that.

I will say to my friend from Princess Anne, my proposition is that the people meet in their Congressional Districts and instruct their representatives. The resolution under consideration proposes an appeal to the Northern people—they must speak in response through their representatives in Congress or through their legislatures. I prefer the former as the speediest and most direct mode.

I understand the gentleman's proposition. Can we, as a State, go outside of our own limits, to instruct other constituent authorities? Why, sir, it would be an example worse than anything I have seen yet proposed. It is what the Committee have expressly intended to avoid in their resolution. The idea of a sovereignty appealing directly to the people of other States is one not to be tolerated. We would certainly not tolerate it for another State to come here and appeal to the people in primary meetings to instruct us. My friend .Page431 from Hanover, I am sure, would not tolerate for an instant that the sovereign authorities of Massachusetts or Pennsylvania should come down here and appeal to the people of Hanover to instruct him. If an agent were to come down to the county of Princess Anne, with a resolution from Pennsylvania appealing to the people to instruct me, I will not undertake to predict what his fate would be. He certainly would be required to remove out of the county. Sir, we have no right to appeal to the people in the other States to instruct their Congressmen to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We would not tolerate such interference from the people of the other States and I take it for granted that the people of other States would not tolerate it from us.

What I mean by my amendment is perfectly plain. This resolution under discussion, and which I presume will be voted for by the gentleman from Princess Anne, and adopted by the Committee, says that, "Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote or in Conventions similar to her own, to respond at their earliest convenience to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions and the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States hereunto appended."

Well, now, sir, supposing that resolution is adopted, when are the people to vote in response? When is the election to be called under which they are to vote? By what authority is it to be called? Cannot their vote be postponed for years, or forever? As I before stated, the vote of the people sanctioning the constitutional amendments proposed by this Convention will amount to nothing, unless that vote be sanctioned in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States for its own amendment. That Constitution provides that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the constitution; or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which in either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes, when ratified by three-fourths of the Legislatures or Conventions of the several States. Well, sir, what is the most direct mode by which the vote of the people is to sanction these amendments? Is it not to instruct their representatives in Congress to propose them? Unquestionably; because if they do not speak at once through their representatives in Congress, they must speak through their Legislatures, which Legislatures must then apply to Congress to call a Convention to propose amendments, which amendments are to be ratified in precisely the same way as if they were .Page432 proposed by Congress. The proceeding beginning with the Legislatures, is three times as long as that brought about by a direct instruction to Congress, and it is in order that these amendments may be sanctioned by the people in such form as to be authoritative and binding, that I propose this resolution; they must be proposed by two-thirds of Congress, or by the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States. My distinguished friend from Princess Anne objects to an amendment requesting the Northern people to instruct their representatives. I admit that this is objectionable, but there is no other way of getting over the difficulty. If we have a right to request them to respond at all, surely we have the right to request them to make a response which will be of some value, and not a mere farce. It is no act or fault of mine that such an appeal is to be made to the Northern people. Could my counsels prevail it should not be done at all—but it will be done—and in God's name let it be so done, that it will be responded to, if at all, at once, and will amount to something. I desire that the most direct mode of obtaining that expression shall be adopted. I desire that they shall not have the privilege of delaying their action forever. The object, then, of my amendment is so to alter the resolution as to require at once, through a Constitutional mode, an authoritative response from the people of the Northern States. If a mode can be adopted by which they are required to decide the matter speedily and in a constitutional way, then the resolution will be improved, though even then it will be bad enough.

The amendment was disagreed to.

I move to strike out the whole of the 11th section and insert in lieu thereof, as follows :

"This Convention is of the opinion that the extraordinary condition of the country resulting from our national difficulties renders it proper and necessary that amendments should be made to the Federal Constitution; and it is also of the opinion that the proposed amendments to said Federal Constitution hereunto appended, if adopted, will be satisfactory to the people of Virginia, and ought to be so to all the other slave States."

Mr. Chairman, I am not to be affected in my course in regard to this report by any telegraphic dispatches. I have witnessed too many stampedes, caused by false rumors, to be now frightened from my propriety in that way. It seems to me that gentlemen on this floor who talk about laying down an ultimatum, forget utterly the powers with which this Convention is invested. The bill under which we are called provides that the question should be submitted to the people, .Page433 whether in the event of our adopting an ordinance of secession, our action should be referred back to them, and by a majority of over 60,000 they decided that we should pass no ordinance or other act severing our connection with the Federal Government without submitting it to their ratification or rejection at the polls. Gentlemen whose constituents voted against referring, may feel themselves authorized to lay down an ultimatum, but my constituents voted, by a majority of over 1,200, that the action of this Convention should be referred back to them. How can this Convention lay down, on behalf of the people of Virginia, an ultimatum that they will, in certain contingencies, feel compelled to resume the powers delegated under the Federal Constitution? If we do so, may we not be placed in this position—that our ultimatum, not being accepted by the North, we will have to pass an ordinance of secession, and the people will refuse to ratify it?

But, sir, we have not only not a right to pass an ordinance of secession without submitting it, but we have no power to lay down an ultimatum without also submitting it. But, besides, the 14th resolution contemplates a consultation with the border slave States. Where is the necessity of consulting with the border slave States if we are first to lay down our ultimatum and declare that if not acceded to Virginia will go out of the Union? Would it not be an insult to those border slave States to invite them to a conference after having laid down an ultimatum? I have, therefore, submitted my substitute for the 1 1 th resolution which deprives it of the character of an ultimatum. When we shall have made every effort to procure the desired amendments, it will be time enough for us to decide what Virginia ought to do, and to submit that action to the legal voters at the polls.

Mr. E. B. HALL called for a division of the question.

Mr. SPEED called for the yeas and nays on striking out the eleventh section.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The question was taken, and the Committee refused to strike out the eleventh section.

The Chairman ' [Mr. MONTAGUE in the Chair] stated that that vote adopted the eleventh section.

Do I understand the Chair to decide that on a motion to strike out and insert, the failure to strike out is the adoption of the resolution?

That is the opinion of the Chair, and the Chair understands it has been so decided by the former occupant.

Is there not a special rule on the subject?

The Chair will see whether there is a special rule. The Chair only decided on the general proposition.

I think the decision of the Chair has been that a simple motion to strike out a section being rejected, adopts the section; but a motion to strike out and insert being rejected, is not an adoption of the section.

On reference to the Rule, the Chair sees that the gentleman is right. The question is on the 11th resolution.

I move to strike out the following words, after the word "will" in the 14th line of the 11th resolution : "feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights," and insert in lieu thereof the words "take such action as she may deem necessary for the maintenance of her honor and the protection of her interests."

I take it, Mr. Chairman, that a majority of this Convention are in favor of taking such a course as will be adequate to the protection of the interests of Virginia. I think that a majority are in favor of Virginia remaining in the Union, and I think there are no members of the Convention who regard dealing in threats as necessary to the honor of Virginia. I conceive that the amendment which I have offered should satisfy all views. If an ultimatum is made and rejected. then the question of secession will still have to be submitted to the people; and, as the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. EARLY] remarked. it would place us in a very awkward position for the people to refuse then to ratify our action.

I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 39, nays 78, as follows : 3The Journal adds Ambler and Blakey to this list of negative votes.

YEAS-Messrs. John Janney [President] , Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, Early, French, Fugate, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hubbard, Jackson, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Masters, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sitlington, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-39.

NAYS-Messrs. Armstrong, J. Barbour, Blow, Jr., Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Flournoy, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, A. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Hoge, Holcombe, Hughes, Hunton, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Lawson, Leake, C. K. .Page435 Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Price, Pugh, Richardson, W. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Waller, Williams, Wise-78.

So Mr. TARR'S amendment was rejected.

I desire to move an amendment to strike out the words "at their earliest convenience," and insert in lieu thereof the words "by the first day of August next."

That is too soon.

It is nearly four months.

I suggest to the gentleman that it is better to withdraw his amendment and let the vote be taken on the resolution.

Very well, I withdraw it.

The yeas and nays were called for and ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the affirmative yeas 79, nays 41, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, Blakey, Blow, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Byrne, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Flournoy, French, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gregory, Goggin, Jno. Goode, T. F. Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Hoge, Holcombe, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Moore, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Pugh, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Waller, White, Wickham, Wilson, Wise-79.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, James Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Boisseau, Brown, Burdett, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Couch, Dent, Early, Fugate, Gravely, Ephraim B. Hall, Haymond, Hubbard, Hughes, Hunton, Jackson, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Masters, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Sitlington, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Tarr, Willey-41.

So the resolution was adopted.

During the vote,

Mr. MORRIS stated that in voting "aye" he did not intend to be committed to anything, except the latter clause of the resolution.

Similar explanations were made by Messrs. RICHARDSON, MONTAGUE, andR. H. Cox.

I desire to say that I do not regard this resolution as in any way recognizing the right of secession. If I did, I should not vote for it. I vote "aye."

The vote was announced as above recorded.

The 12th resolution was then taken up for consideration. It reads as follows :

"12. The people of Virginia will await any reasonable time to obtain answers from the other States, to these propositions, aware of the embarrassments that may produce delay, but they will expect, as an indispensable condition, that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, and that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority, nor to reinforce the forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States, nor recapture the forts, arsenals or other property of the United States within their limits, nor to exact the payment of imposts upon their commerce ; nor any measure resorted to, justly calculated to provoke hostile collision."

I move to amend the second line of the 12th resolution, by striking out the words "these propositions" and inserting the words "the amendments hereunto appended." This is merely to make this resolution conform to the previous one as amended by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

I desire to call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that I think, in looking at it again, he will discover, that the language, as it stands now in the section is entirely pertinent to the amendment previously made. That amendment only leads the proposition referred to in this section. The amendments are in fact now this proposition.

I do not so understand the effect of the amendment.

It so strikes me; but I have no objection to the amendment.

The eleventh section, as it originally stood, reads, from the sixth to the eleventh lines :

"Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote or in Conventions similar to her own, to respond at their earliest convenience to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions and the proposed amendments to the Constitution hereunto appended."

This reads now :

"To respond at their earliest convenience, to the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States," &c.

Now, in the twelfth resolution, which reads at present :

"The people of Virginia will await any reasonable time to obtain answers from the other States to these propositions," &c.

Now, to carry out the idea set forth in the foregoing resolution this part of the resolution should read :

"The people of Virginia will await any reasonable time to obtain answers from the other States to the amendments hereunto appended," &c.

Now, the effect of my amendment will be, in all deference to the gentleman's superior judgment, to make this part of the resolution conform to the foregoing resolution as amended by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

If the gentleman instead of striking out will insert the words "of amendments" after the word "propositions" he will accomplish his object.

Mr. CRITCHER was understood to accept this modification, and the amendment was agreed to.

I propose to amend this 12th section by striking out after the word "authority" in the 6th line, to the word "commerce" in the 10th line.. If that amendment prevails, it will read :

"The people of Virginia will await any reasonable time to obtain answers from the other States to these propositions of amendments, aware of the embarrassments that may produce delay, but they expect, as an indispensable condition, that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, and that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority nor any measure resorted to justly calculated to provoke hostile collision."

Mr. Chairman, I presume that I but speak the wish and the desire of every member of this Committee, when I say, that the great object and the great purpose to be now attained, is to preserve peace between the present government of the United States and the Confederated States? And I have no doubt that the object of this resolution, as it now stands, contemplates, and only contemplates, that this peace shall be preserved. But, sir, you will observe that after going on and stating in strong language as "an indispensable condition" "that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, and that no attempt shall be made to subject them to the Federal authority;" they go on then to enumerate certain acts which they would consider as interrupting this peace, and one of these recited causes in this indispensable condition is that the General Government of the United States should not "re-inforce the forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States."

Now, sir, I suppose that there are certain forts in the possession .Page438 of the military forces of the United States, which we would all be glad to see vacated and given up to the authorities of the Confederated States—Fort Sumter for instance, and probably some others. But there are certain other forts held by the military forces of the United States from which I, at least, am not prepared to say—however other gentlemen may feel—that it would be proper and right to withdraw the military forces of the United States. One of these is the Tortugas, which, I understand, was built not so much for the protection of the State of Florida as it was for the protection of the commerce of the Gulf of Mexico; and if we adopt this resolution as it now stands, any attempt by the authorities of the Federal Government to throw forces, provisions or munitions into that fort would be a violation of one of these "indispensable conditions" which we lay down in this resolution.

I am not prepared to vote for that, but I am prepared to vote that they shall observe all possible forbearance towards the Confederate States; that they shall perform no act which shall look in any way to their subjugation, and I am willing to vote that their commerce shall not be interfered with, and that Fort Sumter shall be given up, and, in fact every other fort within the Confederate States; but I am not willing to vote that we should lay down here, as "an indispensable condition" that all the forts now held by the military forces of the United States shall be given up to the authorities of the Confederate States.

This is a very curious doctrine of peace that is given to us by my friend from Loudoun [Mr. CARTER] .

I ask my friend if he talked that way to his people when he told them that he was for peace ; that he was for a pacific policy, and opposed to the subjugation of these people to the Federal authority? I ask him whether he distinctly told them, at the same time, that he did not think it an act of hostility for the Federal Government to hold these forts; that he did not think it hostile to the seceded States for the Federal Government to wield their own guns in their own territory? Now he begins to elucidate what the idea of some of his friends is about peace.

Happy to hear it.

Happy to hear it! I am unhappy to hear it, because these doctrines of peace are the doctrines that really open the gates of the temple of Janus. It seems that our temple of Janus has one gate thrown open for peace, and one for war. I tell the gentleman, that his gate is the gate of war alone. The gate which the gentleman .Page439 opens is the gate of hostility. Will he please tell me what difference he can make; what distinction he can make between the Tortugas in Florida which has seceded and the Forts of South Carolina within the bay of Charleston harbor? Where is the distinction in international law? where is the authority any more to hold the Tortugas than to hold the Forts at Charleston—Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie, for instance? The gentleman tells us that he is not for interfering with the commerce of the seceded States, and yet he moves to strike out all frcm the word "authority" in the 6th line down to the word "commerce" in the 10th line, when the language of the last part of this section which he proposes to strike out proposes to prevent the Federal Government from exacting "the payment of imposts" upon the commerce of the Confederate States. Let me tell my friend that that very phrase gave us more difficulty before the Committee of Twenty-One than almost any other phrase in the Report—some gentlemen contending that we have a right, as some contend now, to defend our revenue by turning the ships while set upon the high seas, away from the port of Charleston to the port of New York. The question was asked, how are we to defend our revenue unless we can divert the ships bound to the Confederate ports from their port to our port on the ground of self-preservation and self defence? It was thought that they had a right to turn a ship before she reached that port. How can you take her upon the high seas if she sails under a foreign flag? If you take a ship sailing under the English or French flag, you will be guilty of piracy, and England and France will hold you responsible. Take her when she has passed the boundary line of the high seas and entered up the Eastern line of the marine league, and then you raise the question of jurisdiction. To whom does the marine league belong—to the Federal Government or the State? Is, there, a gentleman here who will say that the jurisdiction of Virginia does not cover the marine league? There is not a man in Northampton, in Accomac or in Princess Anne who will not pursue a fugitive out that distance and arrest him, with a full conviction that he is acting within the jurisdiction of Virginia. Let a man commit murder of his fellow within that marine league, and what court is it that will not decide that it is within the jurisdiction of Virginia? To whom does the marine league belong? Upon national grounds, and while we are a confederate people it belongs to the United States; but how came the United States in possession of the marine league? Will the gentleman say, as an international lawyer, that the Tortugas didn't belong to the United States, before the secession, in right of the State of Florida?

Florida was indeed created a State after the United States were established—she was purchased from Spain; but after the purchase, she was created a State upon an equal footing with the original States. Will the gentleman tell me that the original States had not the power of eminent domain three leagues out at sea? Where do these three leagues commence? They commence in limine4A correction (April 16) notes that the Latin phrase should read in littore.upon the cut of the surf at low water mark; and it is well settled that they extend beyond the low water mark from peninsula, or head land, or island. All those difficult questions are to be swallowed up and submerged in pacification. The seceded States, forsooth, shall yield all, in order that no attempt shall be made at subjecting them to Federal authority. Is it not subjugating them, when the Federal Government continues to hold the forts within their territory? How was it with the United States themselves, when Great Britain took and meant to hold, under the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, a fort upon our border? Negotiation and correspondence were resorted to in vain ; and at last the threat was made, if the British lion did not take his invading paw from off that fort, it would be taken, at the hazard of another war. What proud sovereignty, claiming to be sovereign, will allow the army of an enemy—for such is the relation in which the Confederate States view the Federal Government—to remain within her limits? Not one. If you mean peace, say so; and say, specifically, what you understand to be peace. Don't delude your people, I appeal to you, and say peace, peace to them, when there is no peace.

Sir, I said this morning, if this administration would only pursue the line of a magnanimous policy, it would evacuate every one of these forts immediately. But if the amendment of the gentleman shall not prevail, I propose to add here, what the resolution does not embrace, the declaration that it is their duty, for the sake of peace, to evacuate at once all the forts, and relieve us from this apprehension of war. Let the question of adjustment go on. In the name of God, do not allow the attempts at adjustment to be conducted at the cannon's mouth.

I regret that I am not better able to meet in debate the gentleman from Princess Anne, but still I have very distinct ideas upon this subject, of what I think would be right, and therefore I still insist upon my proposed amendment to strike out the words I have indicated, and I will endeavor, so far as my time will allow me, to make myself understood.

The Committee will observe that this resolution proposes to keep the peace, as between the Confederated States and the Government of .Page441 the United States, and it will observe that in laying down the proposition, it lays down no indispensable condition as to what the Confederated States shall or shall not do. According to this resolution, they are left free to act at will; to accumulate forces, to make attacks, and the whole force of the resolution goes to prevent the United States from taking any steps to make war, or even to reinforce the forts they now hold. It does seem to me if perfect equality was contemplated by this resolution, that it should have also provided that the Confederated States should not perform any hostile acts towards the General Government. The whole idea, as I understand it, is that so far as the territory now occupied by the Confederate States, and by the Government of the United States is concerned, whilst these peace negotiations of Virginia are going on, it shall remain as it now is.

A question much mooted here has been how the status quo should be preserved. And yet, the effect of this phrase is, if you make it "an indispensable condition" that the General Government of the United States should not throw reinforcements into their forts, and you yet have the Confederated States to gather around those forts whatever forces for attack they may choose and even make an attack, we in point of fact tell the General Government that it is an "indispensable condition" that they should give up those forts. Yes, sir, all of them; for it seems to me that, if they are not to be re-inforced, if the other party is left free to gather around them what forces they choose and even to make an attack, what is it but to say to the United States you must surrender them up?

I would ask the gentleman now, upon the supposition that this invading force that has gone down the coast—where we know not—does attempt to re-inforce Fort Sumter, and that fort is attacked by South Carolina, would he consider that the General Government, if it thus brings on a war, as establishing pacific policy?

I would consider the General Government as pursuing a very bad policy, if it was to make an attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter; I think it is pursuing a very bad policy not to evacuate it at once; but the difference between this Fort Tortugas, which I am not prepared to say ought to be given up, and the other State forts, is, that they are within the harbors of these different Confederated States. The peculiarity of this Fort Tortugas is that it was built for the protection of the commerce of the Gulf, and if the General Government were to give it up to Florida, she could not protect the commerce of the Gulf. Therefore, there is a very clear and wide .Page442 marked distinction between Fort Sumter and Fort Tortugas. But the Committee will please observe that I do not propose to amend the resolution so as to require that the General Government shall not give up this fort, if it should be deemed the best policy. The resolution as amended does not prevent the government from giving it up, it only prevents it being considered an "indispensable condition," that it should not be re-inforced. That is all it does. The very fact that you say it is an "indispensable condition" that no re-inforcement should be sent to Tortugas, is tantamount to saying that you make it an "indispensable condition" that the government should give it up, because if it is held, it must be re-inforced. I want the Committee to bear in mind this marked and clear difference between the forts within the particular harbors of the Confederated States and this Fort Tortugas. It does not afford any protection to Florida; but it barely occupies a barren rock on a sand island sixty or seventy miles from the main land, and is only needed for the protection of the commerce of the Gulf ; and if we give it up to Florida to-morrow, Florida cannot protect the commerce of the Gulf—not even her own commerce. I think it better for Florida and the United States both that it should be in the hands of the government that can protect the commerce of the Gulf.

Mr. MORTON called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question was then taken upon Mr. CARTER'S amendment, and it was rejected yeas 36, nays 85, as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Baldwin, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Byrne, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Couch, Dent, Early, Gravely, Ephraim B. Hall, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, Lewis, McGrew, Masters, Moore, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Rives, Sitlington, Spurlock, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, White, Willey-36.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, A. M. Barbour, James Barbour, Baylor, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Cabell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, James H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gregory, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, Cyrus Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Holcombe, Hunton, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kent, Lawson. Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Moffett, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Parks, Price, Pugh, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, Tredway, Waller, Wickham, Williams, Wilson, Wise-85.

On motion of Mr. STAPLES, the Committee then rose and the .Page443 President having resumed the Chair, the Chairman [Mr. MONTAGUE] reported progress.

On motion, the Convention then adjourned, at 20 minutes past 6 o'clock, till 10, A. M., to-morrow.

1.8.1. PROCEEDINGS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN KING AND QUEEN

Mr. RICHARD H. COX, presented the following proceedings of a public meeting in King and Queen, which were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.8.2. TAXATION QUESTION

The resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , with the amendments attached thereto, are now in order.

The amendment of the gentleman from Gloucester [Mr. SEAWELL] , it seems to me, is vague in its terms, and if adopted would amount to nothing. It is an amendment to an amendment offered by the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] , is evidently incomplete on its face. By its own terms it has reference only to the 23d section of Article four of the Constitution, and if adopted would certainly fail of accomplishing the purpose which the mover of it had in view, no doubt. The 22d section provides "that taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and all property other than slaves, shall be taxed in proportion to its value."

Now, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] , has reference only to the 23d section, and if adopted would leave the inhibition which I have referred to in the 22d wholly untouched. Therefore, as between the competing propositions, I, of course, would decidedly prefer the adoption of the amendment to the amendment; but that in its terms is, as I have already remarked, very vague, and if adopted would amount to nothing. It provides simply that a Committee shall be appointed to inquire into the expediency of certain objects not very well defined. Now, the original proposition asks the sense of the Convention upon the principle itself, and then if adopted, that a Committee shall be appointed at once to provide an amendment of these two sections in Article four of the Constitution, which shall conform to the organic law, and to the principle enunciated in the first resolution which I offered.

Mr. President, this matter has been before the Convention for nearly a month, and has been discussed on both sides. Gentlemen have had ample time to reflect upon it, and I do trust it will be the pleasure of the Convention to vote down these amendments at once, and give us the sense of the Convention upon the principle itself, and then give us a Committee to conform the Constitution according to the principle. I shall not re-open the discussion at all, but I have deemed this explanation necessary for a fair understanding of the propositions as they now stand before the Convention.

I had the pleasure to move that amendment to the resolutions presented by the gentleman from Monongalia. I think it proper that I should state, by way of explanation, and in reply to the .Page446 remarks which have fallen from the gentleman [Mr. WILLEY] , that I believe the proper course for this Convention to take is to make an inquiry as to the propriety of this movement. I am not very well versed in the proceedings of legislative and deliberative bodies; but I am under the impression that upon a question of primary importance, such as this is, it is eminently proper, and is the usual practice, to refer the subject to a Committee to enquire into it, in the first instance. The report which that Committee would make does not necessarily bind the action of this body; but it is necessary that the subject should be more fully investigated in all its bearings by a Committee than it can possibly be before the entire body itself. It is proper that an inquiry should first be made.

The gentleman says that the subject has been fully discussed. Discussed by whom? It has been very fully and very ably discussed by the gentleman and his friends who are in favor of establishing the principle upon which he asks that the vote shall now be taken ; but within my hearing it has not been very fully discussed on the other side. Not one that I recollect of—and my recollection is confirmed by the gentleman near me—has discussed the subject to any extent on the other side. I suppose one reason why other gentlemen have not discussed the subject was that they were actuated by the same motive which has influenced me, namely, that I did not desire at this time to discuss the merits of the question, but wished first to have a report upon it by an investigating Committee, and when the subject should have been thus fully laid before this body, then to have an opportunity of discussing the merits of the question according to the report of the Committee.

With regard to the objection to the first amendment, that it does not cover all the ground, I do not think, with all deference to the gentleman from Monongalia, that that objection applies to the second amendment, because that does expressly demand an enquiry into the twenty-second and twenty-third sections. I will not now go into a discussion of the subject; but I will simply reiterate that it seems eminently proper that the question should go through the ordeal of a Committee of enquiry, and in that manner come before this body for discussion and settlement. My amendment, I believe, embraces everything that is included in the original proposition.

I fear, sir, that the amendment to the amendment will only prevent a fair expression of the opinion of the Convention upon the subject before it. I am unwilling to dispose of it in that way. My people are very unwilling to have it postponed in that way, and .Page447 I trust it will be the pleasure of the Convention to meet the question raised in the original resolution. If the sentiment of this Convention should be against the questions there raised, why vote them down and let us know that such is the case. I think that is the fair and manly course to pursue. It is the course I have always pursued myself ; and I trust the Convention will take some decisive course at once, so that we may understand what the sentiment is. Then we will cease our struggles and know our fate. But to get rid of the question by indirection is not the course, in my opinion, which this Convention should pursue.

-Mr. President, it is well known that the constituency whom I have the honor to represent upon this floor are as deeply interested in the question of the taxation of slaves as any other constituency represented here. At the same time that they are as deeply interested in this question, it certainly was not their expectation that at the meeting of this Convention the question would be discussed. I wish to say to my friends from the West, that when the proper time comes for the discussion of this question of taxation, the slaveholders of Eastern Virginia will be ready to deal fairly and equitably and justly with it. While they own a vast amount of this property, they are generous, and are always willing to contribute to the public treasury whatever is right and proper.

Therefore, I would request the gentlemen to postpone, for the present, the discussion of this interesting question. I think I may answer for the slaveholders of Eastern Virginia, and say, that we will meet them at the proper time, in a proper spirit; and if the present taxation of slaves is wrong, if it is necessary not only to tax the productions of the slaves, but also to tax them as property and not as a laboring portion of Virginia, if you settle that that is right as a principle of taxation, we will meet you on that issue fairly and justly. But I beg gentlemen of the West to let us settle this all-absorbing question in which we have been engaged, first. Let us settle all these agitating questions which are now disturbing the country from one end of the Union to the other. Let Virginia first settle that, and when she has found what is to become of her, and where she is to go, all portions of the Commonwealth will be ready to contribute whatever may be necessary to the public treasury for her protection and defence. I think I have some right to address myself to Western gentlemen upon this subject. Never, anywhere, or upon any occasion, either publicly or privately, have I ever attributed to those people any other feeling than that of just, true, and proper loyalty to .Page448 Virginia, and to all her institutions. I never intend to impugn the motives of any people. If a gentleman tells me that he is a Virginian, prima facie, his heart is in the right place. He must give me evidence of his want of loyalty strong and conclusive, before I will entertain or harbor an unkind thought towards him.

Let me then, gentlemen from the Western part of Virginia, entreat you, to let this question sleep for the present. I do not think you are guilty of any violation of plighted faith, for introducing it. Whatever might have been the inference of Eastern gentlemen in the last Convention, having been a member of it myself, I can say that no man believed that he considered himself obliged not to disturb the question whenever he had an opportunity of doing so. If we shall re-assemble here—as it seems to be considered on all hands that we will—in October or some time during the Fall of the present year, if we have settled this subject, which is of so much greater interest than that of taxation, then we will meet you upon the question of taxation in all fairness.

I am informed that in my absence a test vote was taken in this house upon laying these resolutions on the table. If it is the determination of Western gentlemen to have this investigation initiated, then the amendment of my friend from Gloucester [Mr. SEAWELL] , should prevail. We are not disposed now to take any final action. Let the committee enquire into the subject as suggested in the amendment of my friend from Gloucester. Let a committee be appointed to enquire whether any change be necessary at all on the subject of taxation of slaves; to investigate whether the principle is right or not; because if this principle is to be established that all slaves under twelve years of age are to be taxed ; if the principle which has been indicated by one of the gentlemen on this subject is the true principle ; that you will value the slaves; you will deduct the expense of their maintenance; you will collect the interest upon the value and deduct the expense from the amount of the interest upon the value and then tax the remainder. If you make the estimate in that way, I should not be surprised that you will collect less revenue upon slaves than you do now. I am not going to discuss this question at this time. It is one which, when it does come up for discussion, representing that large slave interest which I do represent, I shall feel myself compelled to discuss it in all its bearings. But for the present I again ask that it may be postponed until these mightier and overwhelming questions have been disposed of to the satisfaction of this Convention, and I hope to the satisfaction of the people of Virginia.

Mr. President, I do not rise to discuss the merits of the question now before the Convention. I have already discussed the merits of the question to some extent, as far as I thought it necessary in the form in which it is at present before this body. I wish to say, Mr. President, on this occasion, that, so far as I am concerned as an individual, as an humble member of this Convention, and as a citizen of this Commonwealth, I shall make no further declaration of loyalty to Virginia. I have done so heretofore. I have done it in good faith; I have expressed the honest feelings of my heart. But I desire gentlemen to understand that Virginia is composed of more than one part or more than one section; and that when gentlemen from the Western portion of this State are expected to be loyal to the interest of Eastern Virginia, it is reasonable and just to expect that Eastern citizens will be just and true to them. I desire to have it understood by this Convention, and from this Convention, whether, or not we are to be denied this principle of justice which we are demanding? It is immaterial to me whether that principle of justice is to be acknowledged to day, this week or this month; I do not desire to encumber the important question of Federal Relations any more than I conceive justice demands; but I merely wish an expression upon the part of this Convention now, whether they intend to give us this relief. I tell gentlemen who entertain the opinion of my friend from Greenesville [Mr. CHAMBLISS] , upon the subject of our Federal relations, that Virginia ought to be prepared to settle that question upon the principle upon which he asks it to be settled, until this question is first settled. I rose, sir, for the purpose of demanding the previous question, and I now make that demand.

The pending question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Gloucester to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jackson, and upon this the previous question is called.

I demand the yeas and nays upon that question.

May I enquire whether, if the previous question is sustained and this amendment is voted down, that will preclude the offering of another amendment?

No, sir.

I withdraw the motion for the yeas and nays.

At the request of several members the original resolution and the amendment were reported.

1.8.3. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The hour has arrived for going into Committee of the Whole.

The hour of half-past ten having arrived, the Convention, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the 12th section as amended being under consideration, as follows :

"The people of Virginia will wait any reasonable time to obtain answers from other States, to these propositions, of amendment, aware of the embarrassments that may produce delay, but they will expect as an indispensable condition, that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, and that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority, nor to reinforce the forts now in the possession of the military forces of the United States, nor re-capture the forts, arsenals or other property of the United States, within their limits, nor to exact the payment of imposts upon their commerce, nor any measure resorted to justly calculated to provoke hostile collision."

I move to amend the 12th section in the 8th line, by inserting after the words "United States" the words "within the jurisdiction of the seceded States."1This wording does not agree with that of the amended clause quoted below, nor with the Journal, which reads "within their jurisdiction."

The clause as amended would read :

"Nor to reinforce the forts now in the possession of the military forces of the United States, within the limits of the seceded States."

I would suggest to the gentleman over the way, that in the 9th line of the section, he will find the words, "within their limits." It seems to me, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary.

The gentleman will observe that I mean by my amendment, not to include the forts at Tortugas and Barrancas, which, according to my understanding, I do not regard as attaching to the seceded States.

The amendment was not agreed to.

I move to strike out the word "nor," in the 8th line of the section. The amendment, as I understand it, will leave the phraseology of the section perfectly intelligible. These words, "within their limits," I think, properly apply to all the clause preceding, which now reads : "nor to reinforce the forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States, nor to re-capture the forts, arsenals, or other property of the United States, within their limits." I think the amendment should be adopted in order to make the language express clearly and distinctly what the Committee intends to express.

The amendment was agreed to.

I had determined that I would not trouble the Committee any further, with any efforts to amend this report. But, sir, I will make one more attempt, and then I think I shall subside. [Laughter.] I arise, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of ascertaining, if I can, what is the intention of this body; whether it be to give aid and comfort to secession, and to commit Virginia, ultimately, to secession, or whether it be the intention of this Committee to use all the power Virginia may possess, in the Union, to preserve the Union, and to restore peace to every part of it. I move to strike out all that part of the section after the word "States," in the fifth line, as follows :

"And that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority nor to re-inforce the forts now in the possession of the military forces of the United States nor re-capture the forts, arsenals or other property of the United States within their limits, nor to exact the payment of imposts upon their commerce ; nor any measure resorted to justly calculated to provoke hostile collision."

What will then remain of the section, will declare that Virginia's purpose is that a pacific policy shall be pursued towards the seceded States. Now, sir, I cannot believe until I see it, that this committee, after what has been said here, particularly in relation to those forts upon the Gulf coasts, which are known to every member here as being designed especially to protect the commerce and trade of the whole country, Virginia included—I cannot believe that it is the intention of this Committee to abandon those forts so necessary to that protection. It will not do for members of this Committee to say that they are not of the opinion that Tortugas, for instance, is situated within the jurisdiction of Florida. If it is not within the jurisdiction of Florida, tell me what State it is in? Is it beyond all State boundary, and beyond all territory boundary? It is, in my humble judgment, as much the territory of Florida as any inch of her soil. But, sir, you will, by retaining this provision as it is in this report, declare it to be your deliberate purpose to force the Federal Government, if it be within your power, to abandon all effort to protect your commerce, and all the commerce of the world, in that quarter. If we have deliberately come to that conclusion, sir, there is but one thing left for us to do. What is the Government worth, if you so weaken its arm that it is unable to afford to you the protection necessary to make it what a Government should be? If you have come to that conclusion, I say there is but one step further for you to take, and that is to unite .Page452 our fortunes with the seceded States. If you are prepared to do that, then vote to retain the provision which I have moved to strike out. But if you are not prepared to give up this Union, as was beautifully expressed in the prayer to which we listened this morning, "around which cluster so many glorious memories," then strike out this clause from the section. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion to strike out.

The yeas and nays were ordered, the question was taken, and it was decided in the negative, yeas 17, nays 104, as follows :2The Journal also indicates that there were 104 negative votes, although it lists the 106 names given here.

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Burdett, Burley, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Dent, Early, Hubbard, Hughes, Lewis, Moore, Patrick, Porter, Sharp, C. J. Stuart, Tarr-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, J. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Caperton, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Flournoy, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Gregory, Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, Addison Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Hunton. Isbell, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kent, Kilby, Lawson, Leake, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Moffett, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Price, Pugh, Richardson, Rives, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey. Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Waller, White, Wickham, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Wysor-104.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware I have paired off with the gentleman from Barbour, "on the report on Federal Relations," when I can do so conscientiously, though I have the privilege of voting with the gentleman from Middlesex, and I waited to hear him vote; as I did not hear him, I presume I will be following in the line of "safe precedents," if I vote with my friend from Louisa, I vote no.

I move further to amend the section, by adding the following words :

"And the forts, arsenals, magazines and other places ceded to the United States within the limits of the seceded States ought to be evacuated by the authorities of the Federal Government."

I merely wish to say that that involves the whole point under discussion. If we allow the Federal authorities to hold on or entertain .Page453 the opinion that they have the right to hold on, or that it is our duty to say nothing about the right of the Federal Government to hold on to these forts, it leaves us at once exposed to all the hazards of war; I am afraid, I may say, to all the certainties of war; for I suppose there is no doubt in the mind of any member of this committee that the Confederate States, if these forts are not evacuated, will take them, whenever they have the means. That will bring on the war which is now the rumor of the hour.

I submit to gentlemen whether it is not better, for the sake of peace, to evacuate these places at once and let Congress decide upon the question afterwards.

Will the gentleman permit me to read the fifth resolution which has been adopted?

"The sites of the federal forts, arsenals, &c., within the limits of the States of this Union, were acquired by the Federal Government, and jurisdiction over them ceded by the States, as trusts, for the common purposes of the Union, during its continuance; and upon the separation of the States, such jurisdiction reverts of right to the States, respectively, by which the jurisdiction was ceded. Whilst a State remains in the Union, the legitimate use of such forts, &c., is to protect the country against foreign force, and to aid in suppressing domestic insurrection. To use, or prepare them to be used to intimidate a State, or constrain its free action, is a perversion of the purposes for which they were obtained; they were not intended to be used against the States, in whose limits they are found, in the event of civil war. In a time of profound peace with foreign nations, and when no symptoms of domestic insurrection appear—but whilst irritating questions of the deepest importance are pending between the States—to accumulate within the limits of a State, interested in such questions, an unusual amount of troops and munitions of war, not required for any legitimate purpose, is unwise, impolitic and offensive."

It seems to me that that accomplishes the gentleman's object.

Instead of accomplishing it, sir, it only renders my amendment necessary. That resolution declares that the forts in the seceded States, revert of right, to the States, respectively, by which the jurisdiction was ceded. After making that declaration, I call upon you to assert its sequence, that they ought to be evacuated. But, instead of that, we had the opinion uttered yesterday by the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, that the General Government ought to hold on to some of those forts. Now, I submit, whether it is consistent to say, by the fifth resolution, that after the withdrawal .Page454 of a State, its forts revert to the State, and then to say that you will not demand evacuation, but, that on the contrary, the General Government ought to hold on to them.

I think, therefore, that the fifth resolution, instead of satisfying our minds, calls for my resolution. I was very well aware that this Committee, when it adopted the fifth resolution, did not exactly see to what they were tending. They were, however, tending to the end which I desired to accomplish. I hope the Committee will adhere to the fifth resolution, and carry it out by avowing in a manly spirit, the really pacific policy of evacuation—not yielding the right, but simply evacuating for the sake of peace.

I regard the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Princess Anne, as one of very great significance and importance—possibly of immediate, practical importance. It touches the evacuation of the Forts belonging to the United States within the limits of the seceded States. If the gentleman would so frame his amendment as to restrict it to the local Forts, I should be very much gratified, because, in my mind, it would receive a support characterized by almost entire unanimity. I, for one, am clear that, bound as we are to regard the seven States that have passed ordinances of secession, as having left the Union, we must treat them according to the exigencies which their action has brought about. I am free to say so far as I am concerned, that the policy which should be pursued by the Federal authorities in regard to these Forts, is that those which are only necessary for local defence should be evacuated. I am very sure there would be a general expression of opinion favorable to that proposition. The difficulty in my mind, is this: The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Princess Anne embraces all forts, magazines, arsenals and other public property, ceded by those States, wherever situated and whether necessary for the protection of those States or not. Fort Sumter, for instance, is necessary for the defence of Charleston, and is no longer necessary for purposes of national defence. Fort Pickens commands the approaches to Pensacola and the Navy Yard.

I am ready to join with the gentleman from Princess Anne, most heartily, as I have been throughout, in recommending the evacuation of these forts.

In relation, however, to the fortifications to which the gentleman from Princess Anne has addressed himself, and to which he has called the attention of the Committee so frequently—I mean the Tortugas and Key West—I am not so well satisfied. I am prone to coincide .Page455 in opinion with the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations [Mr. CONRAD] , that these are points which need not be, and are not, necessarily embraced within the purview of policy which should be announced. I am not certain whether these fortifications, or either of them, had their commencement prior to the erection of Florida into a State. Perhaps the gentleman from Princess Anne can inform us. I presume that the Dry Tortugas, on which Fort Jefferson is situated, was acquired by the treaty of cession with Spain.

They were all acquired under the treaty of St. Ildefonso.

Whether those fortifications were commenced by the United States Government previous to the erection of Florida into a State, or whether these points were reserved to the United States, or afterwards ceded by Florida to the General Government, I have not been able to ascertain. We know that the Dry Tortugas, on which Fort Jefferson is situated, is out at sea, some hundred miles distant from the mainland of Florida.

Key West, on which Fort Taylor is situated where you have an Admiralty Court, a marine hospital and a complete wrecking organization, is some 30 or 40 miles distant from the mainland of Florida. These points have been always regarded not as belonging or pertaining to Florida particularly, but as points of national importance connected with our Gulf commerce, connected with the suppression of piracy, connected with the dangerous navigation on the Florida coast. In any state of things these points may remain necessary to national commerce. Fort Jefferson, on the Tortugas island, commands not only the trade and commerce floating between that island and Florida, but also all the commerce passing on the other side between that island and Cuba. If you look on the map you will see that Tortugas island has relations not confined to Florida, not to the States that have become confederate, but are of essential importance to our national commerce, essential to us, essential to Maryland, essential to all the States remaining within the Union.

Now, Mr. Chairman, while I am not willing to express any opinion adverse to the withdrawal of troops from those points I am not, on the other hand, prepared to say, in the language of the amendment, that the withdrawal of troops from Key West and Tortugas should be made an indispensable condition of our waiting till those amendments proposed to the Constitution be acted upon. I am not prepared to go that length. I make a distinction between points of national defence and those of local character. I am for giving up at once to the Confederate States all those points necessary to their local interests.

I would yield them. They ought to be given up. But, in regard to those other points, I think we should not now be called upon to declare that the withdrawal of troops from them should be made an indispensable condition of our effort here for reconciliation and reconstruction.

It will be. found, Mr. Chairman, that whatever appropriations have been asked for any of these points, either Key West or Tortugas, by the Senators or Representatives from Florida, the demand has always been made on the ground of their national importance. They have never been asked as Florida improvements; they have been uniformly asked and advocated on the ground that those works were of national importance, for the protection of the commerce of the whole country.

That, Mr. Chairman, was the reason why I voted for the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Loudoun [Mr. CARTER] . It left in the resolution a full expression of denunciation on our part, of the retention of troops within those States, or of any purpose of subjugating them. Not a sentiment has been uttered here, in regard to a policy of this kind, in which I do not concur. But certainly there is a distinction between the two characters of forts adverted to. I understood the gentleman from Princess Anne as stating that the Tortugas and Key West were both within the limits of the State of Florida. If they are, then they fall within the purview of the fifth resolution; and the withdrawal of troops from Fort Jefferson and Fort Taylor, the abolition of the Court of Admiralty, and the naval depot and coaling station at Key West, which is a great naval rendezvous necessary for our Gulf commerce, would be made by the resolution an absolutely essential condition to our waiting at all, just as much as the withdrawal from Sumter and Pickens. I am not now prepared to say that.

If the distinction which the gentleman from Kanawha takes were not a distinction without a difference, I might at once agree to his exception to the rule which I proposed. But the distinction which he makes is a factitious one. I never before heard of local forts as contra distinguished from other forts. In one sense, and the same sense, they are all local; and that is the only sense in which any can be called local.

I called them local forts in contradistinction to national ones.

I know the gentleman has made that distinction. But it does not exist in the constitution of the United States. It does not exist in the laws of the United States. It does not exist in the laws of nations. The places ceded for forts and arsenals are all put, by the .Page457 constitution of the United States, on precisely the same footing. "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings." The constitution of the United States makes all these forts, arsenals, magazines and dock yards national.

There is no such thing in the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States, as a difference between one fort and another. They are all purchased and ceded for national purposes, for Federal uses. There is no such thing as a local fort as contra-distinguished from a national fort. Then the question is whether there is any distinction between Sumter and Pickens on the one hand, and Key West and the Tortugas on the other. Does any one here need to be sent to a primary school to learn from Mitchell's Geography, that Key West is in Florida and that the Tortugas is in Florida? I am just told by a friend that Senator Mallory, of Florida, lives at Key West; that it is in the county of Monroe in the State of Florida. Now, will the gentleman say that the fort there is more national than Fort Pickens?

There is no such difference between the national and the local forts, and I address myself to him as a lawyer to ask what matters it whether the United States had occupied the sites for the forts before Florida was a State, or whether Florida became a State first and ceded it to the United States afterwards?

I call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that they are all placed exactly upon the same footing; whether they be held by reservation or by cession, they are under Federal jurisdiction, simply for national purposes. Will he please tell me, how commerce, going into Charleston, is not as national as commerce entering the Gulf? Here comes a ship from abroad—from Liverpool, suppose, or from Havre, under the French or English flag she is bound to Charleston is it not just as much national commerce as if she sailed around the reefs of Florida, bound for New Orleans? Now, will the gentleman show me the difference, after this ship enters the Gulf and passes the Tortugas, and when she enters the bay where Fort Pickens is? I ask the gentleman to say whether this ship, after she enters the Tortugas, is to be regarded as engaged in national commerce, and the same ship entering at the bay where Fort Pickens is located, is to be regarded .Page458 as engaged in local commerce? Does not the gentleman see the absurdity to which he reduces himself in the identical case? Why is it that he will not evacuate Tortugas? Because, he says, the commerce of the Gulf is national commerce? Is not the same commerce entering Mobile harbor or the mouth of the Mississippi as much national commerce as when passing the Tortugas?

Does he call this commerce which passes within Mobile harbor, local; and that passing within the Tortugas, national? Certainly, this logic and these views will not endure examination. All your forts are national; and if, upon the ground of nationality, you hold one, you are bound to hold all, upon the same ground. If, upon the ground of its being local—that it is within the limits of the State—you evacuate Fort Sumter, for instance, then you are bound, by the same rule, to evacuate all. There is no difference; there is no distinction.

I never heard of any Island in the Gulf of Mexico3A correction (April 18) reads "I never heard of any island on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, within the marine league," instead of "I never heard of any island in the Gulf of Mexico." that did not belong either to Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas, as far as the coast of the United States is concerned. I have examined, with a great deal of particularity, these treaties, with a view to trace back. I have examined with great care the treaty of St. Ildefonso in regard to the boundary line of Florida; and I find that this boundary embraces all East Florida—every foot of ground in that part of the territory; that the United States acquired from Spain. Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, together embrace all of the territory which we acquired from France and Spain under two separate treaties with these two powers. When a State is made a State, the reservations of the United States for Forts may exist; but when a State comes in, she comes in exactly as one of the original States, and she has not less power over her Forts than the old thirteen States have over theirs. That is embraced in the general recognition of the State and in the admission of the State into the Union. Her rights of jurisdiction are the same. They had forts in Key West before Florida became a State at all. The United States required no cession by the States of these forts. Why? Because they had the State already laid off, and when the State was admitted into the Union, it was necessary only in the act of admission, that they should resume the right over them. But the reservations in the case of the admission of new States, are placed, after their admission, precisely on the same footing as if the cession were made when the State is a State, and not a territory. There is no manner of distinction, then, in the sense in which he would make Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens local. In the .Page459 same sense, the Tortugas and Key West are local; and as they are both alike within the jurisdiction of the State, they both alike revert to the State when she withdraws from the Union, precisely as the marine league itself, beyond the shores of all our islands, would revert to the State; so that I do not see that my friend is gaining anything by this distinction he makes without a difference ; and, let me tell him, that if he claims that the Tortugas and Key West forts are for national purposes, the Confederate States will claim them for their national purposes; and thus nationality and jurisdiction will be brought into conflict with nationality and jurisdiction, and at once you invite a war.

One word more, sir. I would say to gentlemen, if you are going to deal amicably and peaceably, do it in a manly, open and sincere way at once; that will be the most graceful form in which you can do it.

I propose to amend that amendment by inserting after the word "ought" the words "in the interests of peace."

I understand the gentleman from Princess Anne, in moving his amendment, not to desire to express any opinion in regard to the matter of right; but simply to express an earnest desire for the sake of peace, that this step should be taken, and I concur very heartily in that desire.

There are differences of opinion, as we all know, in regard to the question which underlies all these resolutions—the right of secession and the question growing of the attempt to exercise that right. But I suppose, if the question is fairly and distinctly presented to this body, there will be no difference of opinion upon the question whether sound policy, and a just regard to the interests of humanity and peace do not require that the Federal Government shall withdraw its troops, which can serve no purpose, so far as I can see, but that of unnecessary irritation.

Sir, while upon this subject I will state, that I think the distinction taken by the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] is sound and legitimate when regarded in the light of a peace measure. The Tortugas is one hundred miles, as I understand, from Florida. Key West is a considerable distance from Florida, and the holding of these two places, as I have been informed, is regarded as essential to the protection of the commerce of the Gulf. The holding of neither one of them can, so far as I understand, be considered a menace towards the seceded States; nor can it be regarded as a step in the direction of subjugating the seceded States to Federal authority. The same may .Page460 be said, I think, of Fort Sumter in one sense. I suppose the seventy men that are in Fort Sumter are not regarded by the seceded States as subjecting them to any danger. I suppose the anxiety to get rid of them is upon the mere point of honor that they regard it as insulting to them to have such a force within the harbor of Charleston.

Now, sir, I am willing, for the sake of peace, that the concession shall be made to the seceded States, even upon this point of honor; but sir, I think that our neighbors of the Confederate States ought to be careful how they undertake to make war upon the point of honor involved in the mere holding of an almost empty fort, when the fact stands out this day, that the Federal Government is exercising jurisdiction and authority in every county in the seceded States—is this day transporting its mails as an act of Federal jurisdiction—claiming the right to do it as part of the powers of the United States—appointing officers, removing officers, employing contractors, and having work done, not under a treaty with these States, but as the exercise of a legitimate Constitutional power, on the part of the Federal Government, within the limits of the seceded States, and within the limits of every county in these States. Sir, until the Confederate States feel the point of honor press upon them sufficiently to demand that this jurisdiction, that this authority shall be withdrawn from them as a matter of insult, I think they ought to be a little particular how they under take to make the point of order in regard to this miserable handful of soldiers that are occupying Fort Sumter, and who certainly do not threaten any more danger to the people of South Carolina, than the mail-carriers who carry their letters to them.

If the gentleman will alter the phraseology of his amendment, and instead of saying, "in the interests of peace," put it "for the purpose of pacification," I will accept it.

Mr. BALDWIN, as the reporter understood, agreed so to change his amendment.

Now, the gentleman says that there is a difference in regard to the character of these forts, and supports his friend from Kanawha, on the ground that there is a difference between the nationality of one fort and the nationality of the other. I ask both gentlemen, if these forts were not created for national uses, and if all are not alike? If one fort is constructed at Charleston harbor, and another at Hampton Roads, why, neither is local to South Carolina, or local to Virginia. Each is built and maintained for the protection of all the commerce of the United States, registered tonnage or licensed tonnage. Your licensed tonnage embraces your coastwise .Page461 tonnage. Your registered tonnage embraces your foreign shipments. Both Fort Sumter and Fort Monroe, as well as those at the Tortugas, are national in their purposes and objects; and let me ask my friend from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , to beware and think well upon the doctrine that he is proclaiming. Why would he protect and refuse to evacuate the forts on the Tortugas? He says, because its guns cover more commerce than enters at Charleston. But there happens to be a fort here at the mouth of the Chesapeake that covers all the commerce that enters from abroad into Baltimore—all the licensed tonnage of Virginia and of the surrounding States, and that hereafter may be involved precisely in the same point with the fort on the Tortugas. As I said the other day, all the commerce rolling down from the lips of the lakes may claim that this fort is common to them. Any State bordering the Susquehanna river may say that it is common to her. Pennsylvania may say it is common to her, and Maryland may claim that it is also common to her, precisely as all the Northwestern States say that the Mississippi is common to them. The same principle is involved. The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , should beware lest upon this principle Fort Monroe should be caught in this trap and claimed as a national fort, despite the right of Virginia to hold it, should she secede. And if she shall secede, is there a man in the State, I ask the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , and the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , after all these attempts at negotiations fail, and the Federal Government shall attempt to hold Fort Monroe after we do secede ; I ask is there a man in Virginia who would not, at the cannon's mouth, at the point of the sabre, at the steel of the bayonet, force the evacuation of that fort?

If we would do this in respect to Fortress Monroe, how can you expect Florida will not do it with respect to Tortugas? Gentlemen say that Tortugas is one hundred miles from Florida. I deny it. Florida extends beyond Tortugas. The jurisdiction of Florida extends three miles in the channel towards Cuba. Tortugas is in Florida as much as Fortress Monroe is in Virginia. Take care, gentlemen, that you do not lay traps for yourselves. While we are protecting the peace of Florida; while we are protecting the peace of all the United States in respect to the forts in the South, let us remember that we have the strongest fortifications, not only in the country, but anywhere upon the globe. Two of them with the cannon's mouth fronting each other. The Rip-Raps not yet finished, no casemates, not yet bomb proof and it cannot be held thirty minutes under the guns of Fortress Monroe. The United States would leave you to finish it, and how would you .Page462 finish it? With Fortress Monroe in their hands, you could not do it. You cannot hold it twenty minutes by the watch under the columbiads of Fortress Monroe, and you could not put up a casemate that would be bomb-proof before they would blow every stone that caps the Rip-Raps, down rolling into the gulf of Hampton Roads. And yet gentlemen here are drawing these distinctions that would swallow up Fortress Monroe just as decisively as they could swallow up Tortugas. Gentlemen, you had better settle all these questions at once. I agree with my friend from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , in decisively expressing the idea that if we obtain this evacuation, it will be no concession, it will be yielding nothing, but simply and generously evacuating the points in dispute, for the sake of peace pro terra pore, or until the war commences, and when that comes, whether we or they claim them or whether we or they occupy them, war will take them by the red right hand, if war can take them. Florida cannot now take Tortugas; but the timber grows upon the Tombigbee and grows upon the mighty Mississippi—that can be brought down, not in the form of rafts, but in the form of marine batteries that can take it, and if you hold on to it, they will take it just as a spirited people would take Fortress Monroe, if it costs you ten thousand lives. I know the power of the United States. I know the power of the North. I know that there is no contest to go on between the North and the South, like that which was carried on between Great Britain and the United States, when Great Britain had to transport armaments, ordnance and troops for three thousand miles across the Atlantic. I know that the North is now but one-tenth of that distance from the capes of Florida. I know that the North now has steam for transportation, but in spite of the diminution of distance, in spite of steam, those forts can be taken, and they will be taken unless they are evacuated.

This Convention, some days ago, by a vote of two to one, declared the unwillingness of Virginia to withdraw from the Government of the United States—from the present Union. Recognizing myself as being yet a citizen of Virginia, and a citizen of the United States, I am addressing myself, as far as I can, earnestly to the policy which I believe to be the true policy of the Government under which we live the policy of maintaining peace with the States that have passed ordinances of secession. I wish to avoid committing this State, in any way whatever, to doubtful points of future controversy, which may be availed of as means of irritation by any party whatever. I wish to assert no doubtful points of jurisdictional right. I wish to assert no point of policy which may hereafter embarrass us in our intercourse .Page463 with our own Government, or embarrass our Government in its intercourse with these seceded States. I have no hesitation at all, in perfect frankness and good faith, to declare that I am in favor of the Government of the United States at once adopting the policy of withdrawing from the limits of the seceded States every appearance of armed force which can in any sense be regarded by those people as a menace of subjection by force to the federal authority. As I regard Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens as both occupying such an internal position in respect to the States within whose limits they are found as naturally to be causes of constant irritation to the people of those States, in the policy of peace which I advocate, I desire that these forts shall be evacuated. But, sir, believing, as I do, that neither Key West nor the Tortugas occupy any such position or are in any wise calculated to produce upon the minds of any part of the Southern people the idea of intimidation or subjection by force, as a citizen of the United States, I am unwilling to recommend to my Government the giving up of property which is necessary for the protection of our commerce in the Gulf. Sir, why should we hand them over to those seceded States? If they were to get them, they would be pretty much in the condition of the man who drew the elephant in a raffle—they would not know what to do with them. They have neither the land nor the naval force necessary to maintain them against hostilities by other nations. They would be liable to be seized upon by hostile nations at any moment, if they were entrusted to the custody of these seceded States, without any naval force to sustain them. They not only are not prepared to keep them with any advantage, but they have no need for them, because they have no commerce whatever that it is necessary to protect, and no naval force that it is necessary to rendezvous at that place. If they attempt to take them from our government, they do it by going out of their way to pick a quarrel. They do it by going beyond the necessities of their position to force a quarrel upon our people. And, sir, with that movement, with that disposition, I have no sympathy whatever. I want our government, as long as it remains our government, to keep itself within the clear line of right. I want it to maintain a pacific policy towards this people. But, sir, I, for one, do not sympathise with any disposition on the part of those people who have set themselves up as a foreign government to force a quarrel on the government, which is, as yet, my government, and I do not look forward with any pleasurable anticipations to see the flag, which is our flag, trail before any assault by any hostile force whatever. I want our government to pursue .Page464 a pacific policy, and I do not want to see it surrender valuable property and valuable interests to any demand which is made for the mere purpose of picking a quarrel.

I accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] .

The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. WISE, as amended, and it was rejected—yeas 60, nays 67—as follows :

YEAS-Messrs. Ambler, James Barbour, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Bouldin, Branch, Bruce, Cabell, Cecil, Chambliss, Chapman, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Critcher, Echols, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Gray, Gregory, Jr., Goggin, J. Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Hale, A. Hall, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe. Hunton, Isbell, Kent, Kilby, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marr, Marye, Sr., Moffett, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Parks, Richardson, Seawell, Sheffey, Southall, Speed, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, Williams, Wise, Wysor-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Janney [President] , Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Jr., Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Campbell, Caperton, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Dent, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, Macfarland, Marshall, Moore, Orrick, Osburn, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Spurlock, Staples, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, White, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-67.

I propose to strike out after the word "reinforce," in the 7th line, the following words: "The forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States," and insert in lieu thereof these words : "Any forts situated upon the main land or within the borders of any of the seceded States," so that the clause would read : "And that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority nor to reinforce any forts situated upon the main land or within the harbors of any of the seceded States," &c.