Now, sir, was the power ever given to the
Federal Government to coerce a State, to
carry the sword and slaughter, flame and
ruin and the devastation incident to war
against a recusant State? You cannot fine
it in the grant. You may look through it,
but it is not there. Not only is there an ab-
sence of any such grant, but here is a case
where we are enabled to prove a negative
The power to do this very thing was asked
for in the Convention and it was denied, it
was refused to be given. Therefore we are
not left to wild conjecture on this subject
because being asked for and refused, it can
not by any possibility be implied. Now, upon
the subject of coercing a State by physical
force, Alexander Hamilton said :
"It has been observed, to coerce the States
is one of the saddest projects that was ever
devised. A failure of compliance will never
beconfined to a single State; this being the
case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil.
war? Suppose Massachusetts or any larger
State should refuse and Congress should at-
tempt to compel them, would they not have
influence to procure assistance, especially
from those States that are in the same situa-
tion as themselves? What a picture does
this idea present to our view? A comply-
ing State at war with a non-complying
State; Congress marching the troops of one
State into the bosom of another; the State
collecting auxiliaries and forming perhaps
a majority against its federal head. Here is
a nation at war with itself. Cain any reason-
able man be well disposed towards a government
which makes war and carnage the only
means of supporting itself?—a government
that can exist only by the sword? Every
such war must involve the innocent with
the guilty. This single consideration should
be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citi-
zen against such a government."
George Mason, of Virginia, said :
" The most jarring elements of nature, sin
and malice, are not more incompatible than
such a mixture of civil liberty and military
execution. Will the militia march from one
State into another in order to collect the
arrears of taxes from the delinquent members
of the republic? Will they main tain an army
for this purpose? Will not the citizens of
the invaded States assist one another till they
rise and shake off the Union altogether."
The PRESIDENT here announced that the
hour had expired.
On motion of Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's,
the member was allowed fifteen minutes fur-
ther time.
Mr. DENNIS, I thank the Convention for
their courtesy, and will endeavor not to tres-
pass upon their attention over the time now
allowed me
I will quote one other authority. The
present minister for this country in Great
Britain, Charles Francis Adams, in the House |
of Representatives, January 31st, 1861, used
the following language:
"Now, for one, I am not ready yet to take
the responsibility of absolutely closing the
door of reconciliation. I cannot persuade
myself to forget the warnings that have de-
scended to us from many of the wisest and
best statesmen of all time against this rigid
and haughty mode of treating great discon-
tents. I cannot overlook the fact that in the
days of our fathers, the imperious spirit of
Chatham did not feel itself as Sacrificing any
of his proud dignity by proposing to listen to
their grievances, and even to concede every
reasonable demand long after they had placed
themselves in armed resistance to all the
power of Great Britain. Had George the
Third listened to his words of wisdom, he
might have saved the brightest jewel of his
crown. He took the opposite course. He
denied the existence of grievances. He re-
jected the olive branch. History records its
verdict in favor of Chatham and against the
king."
Mr. President; the doctrine that I am en-
deavoring to maintain has been styled and
denounced a democratic doctrine. I am one
of those who never advocated democracy in
my life until the last gubernatorial election.
My life, so far as it has lasted, has been whig
first, whig last, whig all the time, until the
whig party ceased to exist. And I say here
now, that I am no democrat in the old party
sense of the word. I act with them now,
because in my conscience, before high heaven,
I believe they are the only party in this land
true to the Constitution and the Union. I have
none of that spirit about me which leads me
to take a course opposite to that. which I
would go, simply because somebody else
chooses to travel the same road.
Four years ago I had the honor to beplaced
upon an electoral ticket for this State. To
the best of my ability I bore aloft the stand-
ard of Bell and Everett, inscribed with the
words "Constitution, Union." Where now
are those two men? One of them, in charity
I am bound to believe, battling under the
starry flag he loved so well. The other, a
refugee from his home, and kindred, and
everything that makes life dear, in vindica-
tion of principles, which I am equally bound
to believe, touch the very innermost cords of
his heart. In that canvass I took the ground,
and I avowed it publicly in Worcester, and
Somerset, and Prince George's, in Allegany,
and Harford, and wherever I went, that if I
was chosen one of the electors of this State, I
would vote for Breckinridge or Douglas, or
anybody else that would insure the defeat of
Lincoln. I did it because I believed then, and
believe now, that his nomination and election
or the nomination and election of any man
upon a purely sectional basis, not looking
for, not asking for, not expecting a vote in
the other States of this Union, simply be- |
