read to those gentlemen a few ideas of that
very obsolete old teacher, George Washing
ton. He says in his farewell address: "The
unity of Government which constitutes you
now "—What? The people of several indi-
pendent and sovereign States? Is that the
teaching of the Father of His Country? No ;
he knew better than that; he knew more of
true principles upon which alone free Gov-
ernment cam securely rest. He said: "The
unity of Government which constitutes you
one people is very dear to you. It is justly
so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of
your real independence." Now, gentlemen
talk about the independence of the States—
the sovereignty of the States. And yet. they
would rest the independence and the sover-
eignty of the States upon a doctrine which
has tottered your Federal Government almost
into ruin, involving the ruin of every State
" Of your tranquility at home, your peace
abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity
of that very liberty which you so highly
prize."
Now we have the authority of George
Washington upon this point of our unity as
apeople; and upon the farther point that
upon the preservation of that unity depends
our peace at home our honor abroad and the
very liberties which we so dearly and justly
prize. And there are other readings here
I saw one of my friends taking notes
when I used that horrible word " empire" a
few moments ago, as if he supposed it was
some new thing, as was asserted about some
fact I stated here some days ago. Here is
what George Washington said ;
"It may not impossibly be found that the
spirit of party, the machinations of foreign
powers, the corruption and ambition of indi-
vidual citizens are more formidable adversaries
to the unity of our empire than any
inherent difficulties in the scheme."
George Washington called it "empire,'
and I guess the good old man knew what be
was talking about, if some of us do not
Again, he says, " to the efficacy and perma-
nency of your nation, a government for the
whole is indispensable." Not for the thirteen
or the twenty six, or any other number of
independent State sovereignties; the language
of the great father of his country was not
that; it was any thing but that. "A gov-
ernment for the whole is indispensable"—
looking directly to this mischievous doctrine
of independent State sovereignty,
Now, gentlemen must not confound things
When we say that a State is not an independ
ent sovereignty, they must not proceed will
their arguments as though we had said that
a State was not sovereign in her sphere, sub
ordinate to that government which is para
mount; not at all. But they must remember
that looking to these States' rights doctrine
and their consequences, the good man said:
"to the efficacy and permanency of your |
nation, a government for the whole is indis-
pensable; no alliance, however strict, be-
tween the parts can be an adequate substi-
tute." Not a compact, as some gentlemen
term what is not a compact but a Constitu-
tion. The father of his country recognized
clearly the distinction which the great Justice
Story so admirably makes between a compact
and a Constitution. They are two very dif-
ferent things. And when gentlemen declare
that they cannot detect the difference between
a compact and a Constitution, they but make
us think of what Mr. Clay once told that very
class of men.
And I will just read what that great and
good man Henry Clay said about those peo-
ple. And I will preface it with the assertion
that there has not been one attack made upon
the integrity of the government from 1820—
the time to which my friend from Calvert
(Mr. Briscoe) just now alluded—until this
time, that it has not been done under the
pretext of the Constitution. And I advise
gentlemen here to read the speech made by
Henry Clay in 1850, in the Senate of the
United States, in which he declared that the
Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a Southern
Compromise, that cannon were fired, bells
were rung and bonfires kindled on every hill-
top through the South over the victory they
had won, while northern men who had voted
for it, were ashamed to go home to their con-
stituents. And so were the compromises of
1850 southern triumphs.
But there came a lime when these great
constitutional Gamalie's, who know more in
their opinion about these things than any-
body else overdid or ever will, found out that
these compacts were unconstitutional. Why?
Because they wanted to get these compacts
out of the way of their wild race for complete
political supremacy; and they knew there
was only one way to do that, and that was to
set up the doctrine that these compacts were
unconstitutional.
When the Missouri Compromise was passed
by Congress, Mr. Monroe was President of
the United States, and I guess he was as good
a judge of the Constitution as some modern
gentlemen, and he load in his Cabinet men
who were known, as the best constitutional
lawyers of the country. When this Missouri
Compromise was passed, and presented to
him for his sanction, he addressed two ques-
tions in writing to each member of his Cabi-
net—1st, Has Congress the power to pass this
bill? 2d, Is this bill constitutional? and in
the archives at Washington will be found re-
corded the answers to those questions.
Now, what was the result of the action of
this—no, not this, but the late—Democratic
party, in repealing that Missouri Compro-
mise? In less than two years after they
wiped out the Missouri Compromise line, there
was civil war in this land, where before there
had been peace and prosperity, and growth |
