NOES-Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Foster, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Leeper, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McFerran, Meyer, Orr, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Tindall, and Turner.

The question next being on the adoption of Mr. Shackelford's amendment, the following explanations were given:

Mr. Busн. Mr. President, I desire to make a few remarks in explanation of my vote; I deem it due to myself and the thousands of German citizens whom I have the honor to represent, and who have been assailed again and again as coercionists. I have to ask your indulgence, as I am quite unaccustomed to speak, and to speak in a language that is not the idiom of my native country. But, sir, while I confess myself wanting in oratory, nay even in correct pronunciation, I am not wanting in love of peace; I am not wanting in anxiety for the peace and welfare of Missouri. And more than this, while you, Mr. President, and all the members of this Convention, I believe, only imagine the horrors of war and fancy the evils of revolution, I know them; my eyes have seen what you cannot imagine, what I cannot describe-the terrors of civil war, of bloodshed and revolution. But while I know all this, I still cannot, for the sake of peace, go any further than is expressed in this fifth resolution. I can earnestly entreat the Federal Government, and may ask, in brotherly spirit, our erring sister States to withhold, to stay the arm of military power; but I cannot go any further, and must oppose the amendment. I consider it not only the duty of the Government to maintain itself in those forts, and that it has no right to give up the property of the United States to the seceding States; but even if the President had the right, and should consider it his policy to do so, it would not secure peace. I go so far as to say, that if the Federal Government should even choose to waive the collection of revenue in those ports, as ports, as was proposed by the gentleman from Buchanan, (Mr. Donnell,) it would be far from securing peace. I ask him, as a merchant and a banker, (as I perceive he is, from the list before me,) does he believe that New York could peacefully look on? Are her great commercial interests less dear to her than the cotton interest is to the South? You know, better than I do, that, at the time of the first confederation, a war nearly ensued between Massachusetts and Rhode Island, on account of unequal duties of import; and what was that trade then to the magnitude of the commerce of our day? I cannot, therefore, look on this amendment as a peace measure, and have to vote against it. I hope, however,

that the present administration is for peace, and will not bring war upon us. I trust the seceding States will reflect and return-but should a conflict be inevitable, I pledge myself that your German fellow citizens will stand by the Government and the Union. They love peace. While they have left their native land, sweet home, to enjoy the blessings of peace and of liberty, the history of their own thirty-four confederate States of distracted Germany teaches them that there is no peace and no liberty without union; and this Convention, composed as it is to a large extent of sons of Kentucky, will certainly forgive them if they think with Kentucky's greatest son, Henry Clay, that "we owe a paramount allegiance to the whole Union-a subordinate one to our own State." I, therefore, vote against the amendment.

Mr, HENDRICK. I merely desire to say, in giving my vote on this question, that I consider the language of the original resolution sufficiently explicit to cover the whole ground of conciliation which we have taken in this body. I vote aye on this amendment, but when the question comes on the original resolution, I shall prefer to have it go unamended.

Mr. HUDGINS. I gave my vote in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Buchanan (Mr. Donnell,) preferring it to the amendment of Mr. Shackelford, because there is more in it. Inasmuch, however, as that resolution failed, I am willing to vote for this amendment. I am in favor of any measure that is proposed in this Convention for the purpose of restoring peace to the country. In the fifth resolution we have said that we are opposed to coercion; that any attempt to coerce a seceding State would bring the horrors of civil war upon

us.

There is not a member, I apprehend, in this Convention, but who will at once see that all hope of conciliation is lost, and all efforts to effect a compromise are frustrated, so soon as coercion is attempted. I do not want to see that time come, and I would do anything in my power to avert it. I shall therefore vote for this amendment. As I have said before, it does not go so far as the amendment for which it was substituted, but it is still a step in the right direction, and should receive the support of this Convention.

Mr, IRWIN. I am as much opposed to coercion as any man could possibly be, but believing that the sense of this Convention upon that subject has been fully and clearly, and explicitly set forth in the original resolution, I shall vote no.

Mr. McCORMACK. Perhaps there is not a gentleman upon this floor who is more opposed to coercion than myself, and if I believed that, with the adoption of this amendment, the voice of Missouri would be more potent for a reconciliation than by the simple adoption of the fifth resolution, I should vote for it; but, sir, I believe

that the fifth resolution itself contains all that can be available. It is the strongest language of entreaty, and beseeches the Government of the United States, upon no pretext whatever, to bring about war. I do not see, on reading the resolution, that any language of entreaty could be used stronger than that. I look upon this amendment as carrying out almost the identical objects which the resolutlon proposes to accomplish, and do not, therefore, deem it necessary. I shall vote no.

Mr. REDD. I cordially indorse the resolution as it stands, but as it stands I think it is in the shape of resolutions which we ordinarily pass at mass meetings. My view is, that this Convention was called, not so much to express sentiments, as to act-to do something for the preservation of the Union. While the resolution expresses a proper sentiment, it don't do anything, nor does it tell anybody else to do anything. I think, taking into consideration the President's message, that there is no danger of any resort to military power, except in the collection of revenue. This amendment goes further than the resolution in this, that it requests Mr. LINCOLN to withdraw the troops from the forts within the limits of the seceding States. If that is done, it removes all cause or probability of hostile collision. I preferred the other amendment because it went one" step further; but I am willing to vote for this amendment, because it requests the Government to do an act, the doing of which will tend materially to save the Union. I will vote for any measure which is calculated to restore peace and save the Union.

Mr. WOOLFOLK. Mr. President, I shall vote for this amendment, because it is in coincidence with my own feelings, and I am satisfied it reflects the sentiments of my constituents. Seven of the cotton States have passed ordinances of secession. Whether they had the Constitutional right to pass such ordinances, or whether they were justified in revolution, is not the question. The fact is, they have passed the ordinances; they have adopted a constitution and formed a government. The Federal Government may have the right to enforce the laws and to retain the forts, but it is not always policy to assert our rights. The question is, What policy will preserve and restore the Union? My anwer ispeace. War will break the last tie that binds the seceding States to the Union, and an ocean of blood will roll between us forever. It is true that many of these forts are important for national purposes. It is a national misfortune to be forced to abandon them-but the present crisis is also a national misfortune. The secession of seven States is the greatest national misfortune-and we are simply to decide whether we will add war to our other calamities. If the seceding States re

main as they are, we cannot expect to retain the forts in their midst, in peace-besides, they are of no value to the Federal Government, unless those States remain a part of the government. If they return to the Union, they will bring the forts with them-if they do not return, the Federal Government may as well abandon the forts, unless it expects to coerce them. This would be madnessa conflict between the Federal Government and the seceded States would only render the citizens of those States a unit in their hostility to the government-at present, they are divided. In some of these States, large minorities-in others, silent majorities, are opposed to this secession movement. But, if these forts are retained, and a conflict ensues, every drop of Southern blood that is shed will make a thousand rebels. If those States return to the Union, their own citizens must make the effort to return. The fight must be made within their own limits. No foreign influence beyond their limits can ever coerce them back. Should the day come when a burdened people desire to shake off their revolutionary masters and return again to the Union, it would then be the duty of the Federal Government to prevent oppression by an armed minority, and enable the majority to fairly express their desires. In my opinion the Federal Government should never act upon those States except through the agency of the conservative element within their own limits. If time is necessary for the action of that element, let us wait. Compromise may restore the Union, but the sword can never preserve it.

Mr. Shackelford's amendment was then adopted by the following vote:

AYES Messrs. Allen, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Douglass, Eitzen, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Turner, Wilson, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman and Mr. President.

NOES-Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Brown, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Matson, Moss, Norton, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre, Sheeley, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Woodson and Woolfolk.

Mr. HENDERSON moved to adjourn. [Cries of "No, no!"]

The motion to adjourn was put and rejected. The question next being on the adoption of Mr. Shackelford's amendment as an amendment to

the original resolution, it was answered affirmatively by the following vote:

AYES-Messrs. Bartlett, Bass, Bogy, Brown, CrawCayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, ford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Flood, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Harbin, Hatcher, Hill, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Kidd, Knott, Marmaduke, Matson, McDowell, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Phillips, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Sheeley, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Vanbuskirk and Mr. President.

NOES-Messrs. Allen, Birch, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Calhoun, Eitzen, Frayser, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Henderson, Hendrick, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Leeper, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Orr, Pomeroy, Rowland, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Wright and Zimmerman.

The fifth resolution, as amended, was then adopted by the following vote:

AYES-Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Bridge, Breckinridge, Brown, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Hatcher, Hendrick, Holmes, Holt, Hough, Howell, Hudgins, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Knott, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Matson, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, McFerran, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr,Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Ray, Redd, Ritchey, Ross, Rowland, Sawyer, Sayre, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman, and Mr. President.

NOES Broadhead, Bridge, Bush, Eitzen, Hill, Hitchcock, How.

Mr. HITCHCOCK, in explaining his vote, said that he heartily concurred in the spirit of the resolution as reported from the committee, and would have liked to see it adopted by the Convention. He could not, however, see the propriety of this Convention dictating to the President of the United States what course he ought to pursue, and would therefore vote no on the resolution as amended.

The Secretary read the sixth resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns its session in the city of St. Louis, it will adjourn to meet in the Hall of the House of Representa

tives at Jefferson City, on the third Monday of December, 1861.

Mr. HALL called the previous question, which was sustained.

Mr. REDD. I should like to know if the adoption of the sixth resolution will in any way interfere with the resolution before the House in regard to the Border State Convention. The CHAIR. Not at all.

The question being on the adoption of the sixth resolution, the following explanation of votes were given:

Mr. GRAVELLY. I have no desire to be placed conspicuously upon the record. I never held office in the State, and do not expect to be a candidate for any office; but, as a member of this Convention, I intend, so far as I am able, to represent the wishes of my constituents upon all questions before this body? I am satisfied, sir, that I represent a district which is opposed to the sixth resolution; and although, for myself, so far as any aspirations, or the gratification of desires in the future for office are concerned, I might be in favor of the resolution; still, in casting my vote, I expect to act in obedience to what I believe to be the wishes of the people of the Seventeenth Senatorial District. I am satisfied they are opposed to so many extra sessions of the Legislature, and that they would be opposed to a session of this Convention to convene in Jefferson City on the third Monday in December. They would be opposed to it, because they were opposed to this Convention meeting at all. They did not consider it necessary, and I am satisfied that if I reflect their wishes here, I must vote against an adjourned session. They desire the preservation of the Union, and as they know that the only way by which Missouri can get out of the Union is by the action of State conventions, they would have voted by a very large majority against this Convention, if permitted to vote upon the question. I am satisfied they would be glad if this Convention would adjourn sine die to-day. They would have been glad if the Convention had adjourned sine die on the first day in Jefferson city. I therefore feel bound, in obedience to their wishes, to vote against this resolution.

I will say this, however, that in casting this vote, I do not wish to indicate that the people of my District are dissatisfied with this Convention, on account of its being a Union Convention. Far from it. They are satisfied with it, and will be satisfied with its action here. But being a Union loving people they desire an adjournment sine die, and I shall vote accordingly.

Mr. ORR. Mr. President, I had intended to have offered an amendment to the sixth resolution to the effect that we would not be called together in December if the difficulties now dividing the people were amicably settled previous to that time, as it would cost the State a considera

ble amount of money, and we have not much to spare; but the gentleman has called for the previous question. I don't want us ever to meet again unnecessarily, but am satisfied we are elected for life.

Mr. REDD. It was my desire first to dispose of the resolution in regard to the Border State Convention before taking up this resolution. My action in regard to this resolution in that case would have been somewhat dependent upon the action which the Convention would take in regard to the resolution calling a Border State Convention. If the proposition for such a Convention had been voted down, I should have been in favor of adjourning sine die. I have such a resolution prepared to offer as a substitute to this, but the gentleman knowing that fact, moved the adoption of this resolution and the previous question in the same breath, to cut me off from presenting the substitute, and to avoid voting on it.

As it is, I must conform

to the tactics, unfair though they may be, of the majority; and being compelled to vote, I vote no. The sixth resolution was thereupon adopted by the following vote:

AYES-Allen, Bartlett, Bass, Birch, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Brown, Bush, Calhoun, Cayce, Collier, Douglass, Drake, Dunn, Eitzen, Frayser, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Hatcher, Henderson, Hendricks, Hill, Hitchcock, Holmes, Holt, Hough, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Long, Marmaduke, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McFerran, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Orr, Phillips, Pipkin, Rankin, Ray, Ross, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of Howard, Shackelford of St. Louis, Sheeley, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Tindall, Turner, Waller, Watkins, Welch, Wilson, Woodson, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, Zimmerman, Mr. President-78.

NOES.-Chenault, Comingo, Crawford, Doniphan, Donnell, Givens, Gorin, Gravelly, Harbin, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Matson, McDowell, Norton, Redd, Ritchey, Sawyer, Sayre-19.

Mr. PHILLIPS moved to adjourn. Disagreed to by 46 ayes to 48 noes.

The Secretary read the seventh resolution, as follows:

be elected

Resolved, That a committee of by this Convention, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together at such time prior to the third Monday of December, and at such place as they may think the public exigencies require, and the survivors or the survivor of said committee shall have power to fill any vacancies that may happen in said committee by death, resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of this Convention.

Mr. BROWN offered the following substitute: Resolved, That a committee of seven be elected by this Convention, consisting of one from each

Congressional District, a majority of which shall have power to call this Convention together prior to the third Monday in December, as public exigencies may require; and in case any vacancy occurs in said committee, the survivor or survivors shall have power to fill it.

Mr. HALL of Buchanan, offered the following amendment to the substitute: Strike out all after the word "require," and insert as follows: In case any vacancies shall occur, by resignation or otherwise, the remaining member or members of said commitee shall have power to fill the same.

Mr. DUNN offered the following amendment to the original resolution, which was read for information: Fill the blank with the word "seven," and after the word seven the words in each Congressional District.

Mr. BROWN withdrew his substitute. The amendment of Mr. Dunn to the original resolution was thereupon adopted.

Mr. HALL, of Buchanan, moved to further amend, by striking out all after the word "and," which immediately precedes the words "the survivors," and inserting: "in case any vacancies shall occur, by resignation or otherwise, the remaining members or member of said committee shall have power to fill the same." The amendment was adopted.

Mr. REDD offered the following amendment: Strike out the words, "at such place as they may think the public exigency requires," and insert the words, “at the city of Jefferson," in place thereof.

Objected to on the ground that the Legislature might be in session at the time set in the resolution, and lost-ayes 37; noes 45.

Mr. BIRCH offered an amendment, which, being subsequently modified by the mover, is as follows: Amend by adding "and if the said committee shall be of opinion hereafter that there is no longer a necessity for a reassembling of the Convention, and shall so declare by proper public communication, then the Convention shall not reassemble the third Monday in December, but may be called together by a majority of said committee at any subsequent period."

Mr. WILSON offered the following amendment to the amendment: "If it be the request of a majority of all the members of the Convention in writing, delivered to said committee prior to the third Monday in December, the said committee shall on that day adjourn this Convention sine die."

Mr. SHACKELFORD, of Howard, offered the following amendment, which was read for information: "Provided, that if the Convention does not assemble on the third Monday in December, it shall stand adjourned sine die."

Upon the above amendments, a running debate ensued, in which Messrs. Welch, Birch, Wilson, Redd and others participated, and pending which the Convention adjourned.

EIGHTEENTH DAY.

ST. LOUIS, MARCH 21st, 1861.

Mr. PRESIDENT in the Chair. Prayer by the Chaplain. Journal read and approved.

Mr. HENDERSON, from the committee to whom was referred the communication from the Georgia Commissioner, presented the following

REPORT.

Mr. PRESIDENT: Your committee, to whom was referred the communication of the Honorable Luther J. Glenn, who appeared before the Convention as a Commissioner from Georgia, and having presented the ordinance of secession adopted by said State, was pleased to "invite the cooperation of Missouri with Georgia and the other seceding States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy," have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report as follows:

The Committee sincerely regret that the commission under which Mr. Glenn was accredited to our State, was limited in its scope to a mere invitation to withdraw from the Government of our fathers and form a distinct confederacy with the Gulf States. His mission seems to contemplate no plan of reconciliation-no measure of redress for alleged grievances, which, being adopted, would prove satisfactory to Georgia. Having chosen secession as the only remedy for existing ills, Georgia, through her Commissioner, supposes that similar interests, connected with the exigency precipitated upon us by the action of the cotton States, will impel Missouri to withdraw from the Union and cast her lot with them.

The reasons assigned by Mr. Glenn for this action on the part of his State are: First, that the laws of Congress imposing duties on imports have been so framed as to discriminate very injuriously against Southern interests; Second, that & great sectional party, chiefly confined to the Northern States of the Union, whose leading idea is animosity to the institution of negro slavery, has gradually become so strong as to obtain the chief executive power of the nation, which is regarded as a present insult to the South; and, Third, that the ultimate object of this party is the total extinction of slavery in the States where it now exists by law, and the placing upon terms of political equality, at least, the white and black races; and to prevent evils of such magnitude, as well as to preserve the honor and safety of the South, Georgia and some of her sister States have deliberately resolved to withdraw from the Union, never to return.

Your Committee trust that they duly appreciate the gravity of the communication thus made to the people of Missouri.

Missouri entered the Union at the close of an angry contest on the subject of slavery. Her geographical position, the variety of the branches of industry to which her resources point, her past growth and future prospects, combine to demand that all her counsels be taken in the spirit of sobriety and conciliation.

Your Committee waive for the moment the consideration of the moral aspect of what they conceive to be the heresy of secession, because if they entered, in the first instance, upon this examination, its results would preclude any inquiry into the material consequences of the action to which Missouri is solicited.

The peculiar position of our State is different from that of Georgia, or any other of the cottongrowing States. If it be true, as represented, that the revenue laws of the country operate oppressively upon them-and this objection is now heard for the first time after an interval of nearly thirty years-it cannot be pretended that any part of this particular grievance touches Missouri.

Acknowledging as we do the power of Congress to impose such duties for revenue purposes at least, and trusting to the wisdom and justice of that body for impartial legislation, we are unwilling to seek, in a step promising nothing but the most unequivocal calamities, a refuge from imaginary evils.

In reference to the more important matter presented as a reason for the action of Georgia, your committee would say, that Missouri has watched, with painful anxiety, the progress of a great sectional party in the North, based upon the exclusion of slavery from the Territories, which are the common property of the whole Union. Doing the Republican party the justice to believe that it means to carry out the articles of its political creed, as stated in its platform and indicated by its recent votes in Congress, we deem it incorrect to declare that it cherishes any present intention to interfere with slavery in the States of the Union. Any such attempt would justly arouse the highest exasperation in every slaveholding State; but it is considered unwise to go out of our way to denounce hypothetically a design which, so far from being threatened, is disavowed by that party.

We are aware that individual members of the Republican party have at times enunciated most dangerous heresies, and that some of its extremists have, with apparent deliberation, embodied in the form of resolutions, and published to the world, sentiments which would fully authorize, if regarded as the views of the whole organization, the condemnation due to principles at war with the security of rights of property in nearly half the States of the Union; but we must guard ourselves against the double error of imagining that all the bad rhetoric and uncharitable speech of orators whose highest aim is to produce a sen