to be friends

Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell,) and I am utterly opposed to the substitute offered by the other gentleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall.) I concur in the sentiments so well expressed by my friend from Clay, (Mr. Moss.) All true friends of the Union-and I claim to be one of that number-are exerting themselves to the utmost to bring about an amicable adjustment of all our troubles. The gentleman from St. Louis, (Mr. Wright,) remarked, truly, in his speech a few days ago, that there must be an adjustment of our troubles, and that it must be such an adjustment as would secure our constitutional rights; and that, without an adjustment by which our rights would be secured, there would be no hope of preserving the Union. We must have an adjustment. All true friends of the Union are laboring to bring about an adjustment; and it is this, as I remarked the other day, which constitutes a man a true friend of the Union. I have no sort of faith in the profession of a man's devotion to the Union who folds his arms and proposes to do nothing for the Union. I know some gentlemen claim of the Union, who make no efforts to save it from destruction. I claim to be a better friend of the Union than any man who occupies such a position; and I claim that the only means of saving the Union is to bring about an amicable adjustment, and I claim, in behalf of myself and those who act with me, that we are truly friends of this Union. But, as has been stated by others, this requires time. We cannot expect that a matter of this magnitude will be adjusted in a day, or a year. It requires time. Time is what we want, and I am confident that if time is allowed, these matters will be adjusted in a manner that will secure our rights. But all hope of adjustment will be lost by the inauguration of civil war. Hence the true friends of the Union keep in view the policy of preserving the peace of the country, as a matter of vital importance, while they work for such an amicable adjustment as will secure to us our constitutional rights. It is a matter then of the first importance and prime necessity that the peace of the country should be preserved long enough to give us an opportunity to adjust our national troubles. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Buchanan (Mr. Donnell) looks to the preservation of peace. It looks to the removal of the only things likely to endanger the peace of the country, and which, if not removed, may result in civil war. You know with what apprehension we have looked at a possible collision at some of the Government forts. The amendment, if adopted, will remove all apprehension in regard to a collision between the Government of the United States and the Government of the seceding States. Hence we

ought to raise our voice in reference to the removal of the cause of collision. The voice of Missouri should go up in favor of this proposition, which I regard as a peace measure. We ought to advise the Government to withdraw the troops from the seceded States. The gentleman from Buchanan (Mr. Hall) is opposed to the withdrawal of the troops of the Government from the seceding States lest the Camanche

Mr. HALL, I did not say I was opposed to it, but I said I was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts to advise Mr. Lincoln in regard to it.

Mr. DUNN. Well, I have a higher opinion of the gentleman's ability and information than he seems to entertain himself. Years ago I voted for the gentleman for Congress. I was one of the many thousand who voted for him again and again, and sent him to Congress as often as he was a candidate.

The CHAIR. The gentleman is certainly out of order. He is not debating the question at all.

Mr. DUNN. I will come to the point, then. The gentleman (Mr. Hall) was disclaiming that he took any position in regard to the withdrawal of these troops. I understood the gentleman to be opposed to the resolution because he did not know but that the Camanche Indians might slaughter the Texans. Now I am sure, Mr. President, that every member of this Convention ought to be willing to pursue such a course as to avoid civil war, which would drench the whole country in blood; and I do not think any gentleman ought to be willing to vote down this peace proposition under the vague apprehension that the Camanche Indians might make an attack upon the inhabitants of Texas. The inhabitants of Texas have in times past been able to protect themselves from the Camanche Indians, and I doubt not they will do it now; and I doubt not also that if they are unable to protect themselves, the people will rally to their rescue with as much promptness as has been heretofore exhibited. I doubt not all will go to the rescue whenever they are in peril. Then let us not vote down this peace measure upon any vague apprehension of this sort. I cannot understand why we shall hesitate to abandon at once these forts; I cannot understand why the keeping of the government troops, or such of them as are there, should be insisted upon. It may be that some gentlemen want to get a large army into the seceded States, under one pretext or another, and after getting it there, use it to coerce the Southern people. I cannot countenance any such plan. If the seceding States are to be coerced into subjection, let us do it boldly, and like men. I am utterly opposed to coercion in any form, whether under the pretext of holding the government forts, or under the other pretext of collecting the revenue. But, my friend from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall,) if I understand

him correctly, he contends that we ought not to withdraw the troops of the Federal Government; that we ought to hold the key to the gulf. Upon that, I have this to say: first, seven States have withdrawn from the Union; second, those States have organized a government of their own, and are, in point of fact, a separate government; although under the Constitution, it is still claimed that they are part and parcel of the United States. This necessarily results from our denial of the constitutional right of secession. Unless they had the constitutional right to secede— which we deny-they are yet, in contemplation of the Constitution, part and parcel of the United States; although in point of fact they are a separate and distinct government. We must deal with the facts as they are. Is it compatible with the honor and dignity of the Government of the United States, to resort to the collection of revenue in any other government? Is it compatible with the position which the Government of the United States occupies at home and abroad, to resort to the collection of revenue elsewhere than in her own limits? I speak now in reference to the government of the Confederated States, and I put this question to the gentleman from Buchanan; and I hope I shall not be considered out of order when I say that he is one of the best lawyers in the State. Suppose a gentleman comes to Mr. Hall with his title papers, and says: "Mr Hall, "I have a piece of land, and here is the evidence "of my title; but a man has taken possession of "it and claims it as his; he has occupied it, "cultivated and raised a crop on it; now, Mr. "Hall, I want you to tell me what remedy there "is for me." After Mr. Hall has examined the title papers, and pronounced the title goodfor I assume that the title is good-I desire to ask him what his advice, as a lawyer, would be? Would he advise his client to take his wagon and team and servants, and go upon the premises and take a part of the crop in the field, or the fruit in the orchard, and haul them off the premises? Would he advise this as a lawyer? If he would, I should change my opinion of him as a lawyer very suddenly. But I know he would not give any such advice; but his advice would be, to bring a suit of ejectment, and in that way recover possession of the land. Now I say, all this thing of holding the Government forts and collecting the revenue of the States that have seceded, collecting a little at Charleston, a little at Mobile and a little at New Orleans-in view of the facts of the case as they now stand, those States having a separate government of their own-I say all this would be analagous to the petty annoyances to which Mr. Hall would subject the adverse party, by advising his client to go with his team and haul a part of the fruit and crops

from the premises which he owns, but which are occupied by another party. It is utterly unbecoming great Government like ours to resort to any such annoyance. There is another objection: for however we might consider it, yet the holding of the forts or retaking the Government forts in any of the seceding States, or collecting the revenue-though we might call it enforcing the law or what we please, the government of the seceded States would call it an act of war, and would treat it accordingly. Every man who knows the facts of the case, knows that the government over which Jefferson Davis presides would treat all these things as acts of war, and, of course, the same consequences would grow out of it, as would grow out of war actually declared on our part. So the case is reduced to this simple question, whether we shall organize an army for the purpose of conquering the seceding States, or whether we shall withdraw the troops from the forts of the seceded States and wait until this matter can be amicably adjusted. It is reduced to the question, whether we shall make war for the purpose of subjugating and conquering them. I am opposed to it, and especially to doing it in a covert manner. If it must be done at all, either one way or another; if we must bring on a war, let us do it avowedly and not covertly. I am not aware that history informs us that the British government, when our forefathers first revolted, took any such position as this-that they would send troops here to hold the forts; but they took a bolder position; they came here with the avowed purpose of making a of making a war. Between the two I prefer an open and manly policy, rather than one which seeks to do a thing covertly. I say we must look at this matter in its true light. The British, I know, were utterly unjustifiable, as every man descended from revolutionary stock must say, in regard to the course they pursued towards our forefathers, and especially do we condemn them for employing foreign mercenaries and Indians to assist them; but they did not seek to cover up their purpose by a pretext. They came openly and avowedly; and if it is to be the policy of the United States to reconquer the seceded States, let us show as much manliness and magnanimity as our mother country exhibited toward our fathers in the Rev olution. Let us not send an army into the seceded States under a pretext. I do not believe in that system of preserving the Union. I agree with every word Major Wright said in condemnation of this force policy. It is subversive of every principle on which our government rests, and would result in the overthrow of our liberty, and blast the hopes of freemen throughout the world. I look towards an adjustment of our dif

ficulties in an amicable way; let us meet as brothers, and adjust our difficulties and secure our rights under the Constitution, and thus by securing their rights and ours we may hope to win back our seceded sisters. If ever we get them back it must be in this way. We can never get them back by coercion. Concurring, therefore, fully in the amendment offered by Mr. Donnell, I shall give it my cordial support.

I have another objection to the substitute offered by my friend from Buchanan, (Mr. Hall,) and it is this: It avoids the expression of any opinion, and takes the ground that we are not sufficiently advised to give an opinion. The President of the United States in his Inaugural Address has invited an expression of opinion, as shown by the gentleman from Platte, (Mr. Norton,) the other day; and it is proper we should give an expression of opinion whether we should hold on to the Government forts in the seceded States. I am not disposed to take the position that we are not sufficiently informed in relation to the facts to offer any opinion. I think we are informed, and it must be apparent to every member of the Convention, who will reflect, that it would be our true policy to withdraw the Government troops from the seceded States, to abstain from the collection of the revenue, and help to preserve the peace of the country, with the hope of a final adjustment of our difficulties upon a basis that will secure to us our constitutional rights-trusting not only that we shall save the Union from overthrow and destruction, but that the movement will result in bringing back into the Union the States that have withdrawn.

As the gentleman from St. Louis made the motion to lay the amendment upon the table in order that it might be printed and made a special order, and then withdrew it, I now renew it, if he insists upon it.

Mr. HALL, of Buchanan, moved the previous question, but withdrew at the suggestion of Mr. Wilson, in order to enable Mr. Shackelford to renew his amendment.

Mr. SHACKELFORD, thereupon, renewed his amendment.

Mr. HALL then renewed his call for the previvious question, which was sustained by the following vote:

AYES-Messrs. Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchock, Holmes, Holt, How, Howell, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmanke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow,

Moss, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President-78.

NAYS-Messrs. Crawford, Gamble, Gravelly, Hill, Hough, Hudgins, Knott, Norton, Pomeroy, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Turner and Welch-14.

The question next occurring on the adoption of Mr. SHACKELFORD'S substitute to the amendment, the following gentlemen rose to explain their votes:

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I shall vote no on this question. As I stated the other day in my little speech, this fifth resolution reported by the Committee on Federal Relations seems to me to express all that is intended by the amendments and substitutes offered by gentlemen on this floor. It seems to me that the language in this resolution is definite enough; and having taken a posìtion for the series of resolutions as they come from the committee, I shall vote against all amendments and substitutes that may be offered.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President: Called to vote upon this question, I desire to say, in explanation of that vote, that whilst I have no serious objection to the abstract principle involved in the amendment, I can discover no existing necessity for its adoption. Without entering into a lengthy discussion on the merits or demerits of the amendment, I will only say that its adoption may have a deleterious effect upon the original resolutions. And whilst I would have preferred a slight alteration in the wording of some of the resolutions, I was satisfied of the impropriety of demanding it. And as I could no. forego my honest convictions of right to favor the individual wishes of other gentlemen, I could not ask the sacrifice of their opinions to suit mine. This feeling, sir, more than any other, has prompted me to vote against all amendments that have been yet offered. Sir, if this were the only amendment to be offered, it would, perhaps, effect no great harm; but amend this resolution now to suit a few members-to-morrow other alterations would be suggested-the next day, still others; and, sir, is not the ruinous result, in such event, perceptible to all Union men on this floor. And further, sir, when this series of resolutions shall have passed through a multiplicity of amendments, alterations, erasures and interlineations, to meet the views of the ninety and nine different minds in this body, I fear the majority report will have been reduced from its lofty character as a great state paper, full of truths, wisdom and intelligence, to a heterogeneous mass of pretended facts, imaginary grievances and bombastic threats to remedy ghost-like evils.

The Committee on Federal Relations is composed of wise and able men-men of large and

liberal views-patriotic and Union-loving gentlemen. And, by the way, they were judiciously and impartially selected by our able presiding officer. And now, sir, having implicit confidence in their fidelity to the Union, their watchful care of the honor and future welfare of my native State, I feel that I am reflecting the will of my constituents by endorsing the action of their united counsels, and to carry out this settled plan of my own, I shall vote against all amendments calculated to clog the passage of the majority report, including the original resolutions. I vote no.

Mr. ORR. In explanation of my vote, I will say that I heartily indorse the fifth resolution, which implores the Federal Government to use no hostile force for the purpose of collecting the revenue. But I am unwilling to say that it shall not do it peaceably if it can. I therefore vote

no.

Mr. SOL SMITH. If President Lincoln wants our advice in this matter, we give it to him in very good words in the original resolution. I consider the wording of that resolution to be sufficiently plain and explicit. If there was a resolution here to instruct our Representatives in Congress on this subject, I should be ready to vote on it; but for us here to undertake to give advice to President Lincoln, I think is out of place.

It may be remembered that President Monroe, in a dispatch through the Secretary of State to some foreign government, used in substance this language:

"We will not view with indifference the colonization of any foreign power upon this continent." This, it will be owned was mild language; but I suppose it has had as great an effect as any sentence ever written. In acting here for the State, we say, by the wording of the resolution, that "we earnestly entreat the Federal Government to preserve the peace." Now, that is as far as at present I am willing to go, and I therefore vote

no.

Mr. GAMBLE. I desire to say a few words in explanation of my vote on this occasion. By comparing the original resolution with the substitute and the amendment now pending, it will be seen that, while the former addresses itself to both the Government of the United States, and the government of the seceded States, the amendment and the substitute only address themselves to the Government of the United States. The original resolution says to both, we pray you to abstain from the exercise of military power, and it purposes to put this State in the same position with regard to both sides. But by the adoption of either the amendment or the substitute, after we have said that we entreat both sides to abstain from the use of military power, we address ourselves emphatically to one of the parties, and recommend the course to be pursued by that one party. We recommend to the Gov

ernment of the United States, the withdrawal of all military force from the forts in the seceded States, but we do not, at the same time, profess to address ourselves to the armed body of men that are now surrounding those forts. Fort Sumter, if accounts be true, is now surrounded by thousands and thousands of armed men, with batteries erected, and their cannon bearing upon the fort.

Mr. REDD. I rise to a point of order. It seems to me that the gentleman is going out of the range of the subject. I thought that, after the previous question, all debate was cut off.

The CHAIR. The gentleman has the right to explain his vote, nevertheless.

Mr. GAMBLE. I claim the right to explain the reason why I shall vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Howard. I intend to vote for that substitute, although, after it may have been adopted by the house, and it is proposed to take place of the original resolution, I shall vote against it. I think that all its force is already comprehended in the fifth resolution. I prefer it to the amendment now pending, because, in some measure, it carries out the spirit of the fifth resolution; but I shall, nevertheless, vote against it whenever the issue is made directly between it and the original resolution. I hold that the original resolution is right in its spirit, when it proposes to ask both parties to abstain from violence to abstain from the attempt, on the part of the people of South Carolina, to assail Fort Sumter; and, as far as the General Government is concerned, to abstain from any violence upon the troops of South Carolina. So, also, in regard to Fort Pickens, which is surrounded by large bands of soldiers, acting under State authority, with afl the implements of war, all the machinery of destruction, all that is necessary to bring on this country civil war. It is essential that both parties should abstain from hostilities.

We suppose by this resolution that our counsel might be received by the Government of the United States-at least this amendment is offered on the supposition that our counsel would be so received, and while we have entreated the Government of the United States not to use military force, and while we have entreated the seceded States not to use military force, we are asked to proclaim it to be the duty of the Government of the United States to withdraw all military forces from a seceded State. That is the proposition in the amendment. It says nothing of the withdrawal of military forces by the seceded States. Now, it seems to me, Mr. President, that if our views are to be respected by both parties, it is material that we should address ourselves to both parties, and do it, too, in the language of entreaty. It was with this view that the Committee prepared the fifth resolution. By that resolution, we do not undertake to prescribe the duty of one of the