But we are told by well-meaning but simpleminded people that admit your wrongs, your remedies are not justifiable. Senators, I have little care to dispute remedies with you, unless you propose to redress my wrongs. If you propose that in good faith, I will listen with respectful deference; but when the objectors to my remedies propose no adequate ones of their own, I know what they mean by the objection. They mean submission. I tell them, if I have good sight, perhaps the musket will improve my defective remedy. But still, I will as yet argue it with them.

These thirteen colonies originally had no bond of union whatever; no more than Jamaica and Australia have to-day. They were wholly separate communities, independent of each other, and dependent on the Crown of Great Britain. All the union between them that was ever made is in writing. They made two written compacts. One was known as the Articles of Confederation, which declared that the Union thereby formed should be perpetual—an argument very much relied upon by "the friends of the Union" now. Those Articles of Confederation in terms declared that they should be perpetual. I believe that expression is used in our last treaty with Billy Bowlegs, the chief of the Seminoles. I know it is a phrase used in treaties with all nations, civilized and savage. Those that are not declared eternal are the exceptions; but usually treaties profess to be for "perpetual friendship and amity," according to their terms. So was that treaty between the States. After a while, though, the politicians said it did not work well. It carried us through the Revolution. The difficulty was, that after the war there were troubles about the regulation of commerce, about navigation, but above all, about financial matters. The Government had no means of getting at the pockets of the people; and but for that one difficulty, this present Government would never had been made. The country is deluded with the nonsense that this bond of Union was cemented by the blood of brave men in the Revolution. Sir, it is false. It never cost a drop of blood. A large portion of the best men of the Revolution voted against it. It was carried in the convention of Virginia by but ten majority, and among its opponents were Monroe and Henry, and other men who had fought the war, who recorded their judgment that it was not a good bond; and I am satisfied to-day that they were the wiser men. This talk about the blood of patriots is intended to humbug the country, to scare the old women. Why, sir, it never cost a drop of blood. It was carried in some of the States by treachery, by men betraying their constituents. That is the history of the times. Five votes would have tied it in Virginia. It passed New York by but three majority. Out of nearly four hundred in the convention of Massachusetts, it passed by nineteen. That is the history of the action of the three greatest States of the Union at that time. Some of the bravest and the boldest and the best men of the Revolution, who fought from its beginning to its end, were opposed to the plan of union; and among them was the illustrious author of the Declaration of Independence himself. Are we to be deterred by the cry, that we are laying our unhallowed hands on this holy altar? Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that a very large portion of the people of Georgia, whom I represent, prefer to remain in this Union with their constitutional rights—I would say ninety per cent of them—believing it to be a good Government. They have lived and prospered in it. Shallowpated fools have told them this Government was the cause of their prosperity, and they have never troubled themselves to inquire whether or not this were true. I think it had but little to do with their prosperity beyond securing their peace with other nations, and that boon has been paid for at a price that no freeman ought to submit to. These are my own opinions; they have been announced to my constituents, and I announce them here. Had I lived in that day, I should have voted with the majority in Virginia, with Monroe, Henry, and the illustrious patriots who composed the seventy-nine votes against the adoption of the present plan of Government. In my opinion, if they had prevailed to-day, the men of the South would have the greatest and most powerful nation of the earth. Let this judgment stand for future ages.

It was the blood and the money of the whole people (says the learned Grotius, and say all the publicists) which acquired the public property, and therefore it is not the property of the sovereign. This right of equality being, then, according justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all States, when did we give it up? You say Congress has a right to pass rules and regulations concerning the Territory and other property of the United States. Very well. Does that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it? Does "dispose of" mean to rob the rightful owners? You must show a better title than that, or a better sword than we have.

But, you say, try the right. I agree to it. But how? By our judgment? No, not until the last resort. What then; by yours? No, not until the same time. How then try it? The South has always said, by the Supreme Court. But that is in our favor, and Lincoln says he will not stand that judgment. Then each must judge for himself of the mode and manner of redress. But you deny us that privilege, and finally reduce us to accepting your judgment. We decline it. You say you will enforce it by executing laws; that means your judgment of what the laws ought to be. Perhaps you will have a good time of executing your judgment. The Senator from Kentucky comes to your aid, and says he can find no constitutional right of secession. Perhaps not; but the Constitution is not the place to look for State Rights. If that right belongs to the independent States, and they did not cede it to the Federal Government, it is reserved to the States, or to the people. Ask your new commentator where he gets your right to judge for us. Is it in the bond?

What, then, will you take? You will take nothing but your own judgment; that is, you will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the court, discard our construction, discard the practice of the Government, but you will drive us out, simply because you will it. Come and do it! You have sapped the foundations of society; you have destroyed almost all hope of peace. In a compact where there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the real, if not the constitutional, arbiter. Your party says that you will not take the decision of the Supreme Court. You said so at Chicago; you said so in committee; every man of you in both houses says so. What are you going to do? You say we shall submit to your construction. We shall do it, if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other manner. That is settled. You may call it secession, or you may call it revolution; but there is a big fact standing before you, ready to oppose you—that fact is, freemen with arms in their hands. The cry of the Union will not disperse them; we have passed that point; they demand equal rights: you had better heed the demand.

But no matter what may be our grievances, the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] says we cannot secede. Well, what can we do? We cannot revolutionize; he will say that is treason. What can we do? Submit? They say they are the strongest, and they will hang us. Very well, I suppose we are to be thankful for that boon. We will take that risk. We will stand by the right; we will take the Constitution; we will defend it by the sword with the halter around our necks. Will that satisfy the honorable Senator from Kentucky? You cannot intimidate my constituents by talking to them about treason. They are ready to fight for the right with the rope around their necks, and meet the Black Republicans and their allies upon whatever ground they may select. Treason; bah!