have free
transit over all the other States; and under the Union it was
designed to make this more perfect. Is it enjoyed? Is it not
denied? Do we not have mere speculative question of what is
property raised in defiance of the clear intent of the
Constitution, offending as well against its letter as against
its whole spirit? This must be reformed, or the Government our
fathers instituted is destroyed. I say, then, shall we cling to
the mere forms or idolize the name of Union, when its blessings
are lost, after its spirit has fled? Who would keep a flower,
which had lost its beauty and its fragrance, and in their stead
had formed a seed-vessel containing the deadliest poison? Or, to
drop the figure, who would consent to remain in alliance with
States which used the power thus acquired to invade his
tranquillity, to impair his defense, to destroy his peace and
security? Any community would be stronger standing in an
isolated position, and using its revenues to maintain its own
physical force, than if allied with those who would thus war
upon its prosperity and domestic peace; and reason, pride,
self-interest, and the apprehension of secret, constant danger
would impel to separation.

"I do not comprehend the policy of a Southern Senator who would
seek to change the whole form of our Government, and substitute
Federal force for State obligation and authority. Do we want a
new Government that is to overthrow the old? Do we wish to erect
a central Colossus, wielding at discretion the military arm, and
exercising military force over the people and the States? This
is not the Union to which we were invited; and so carefully was
this guarded that, when our fathers provided for using force to
put down insurrection, they required that the fact of the
insurrection should be communicated by the authorities of the
State before the President could interpose. When it was proposed
to give to Congress power to execute the laws against a
delinquent State, it was refused on the ground that that would
be making war on the States; and, though I know the good purpose
of my honorable friend from Missouri is only to give protection
to constitutional rights, I fear his proposition is to rear a
monster, which will break the feeble chain provided, and destroy
rights it was intended to guard. T