government, as the terms upon which the South should remain in the Union. I would hold our 'right' in one hand and 'separation' in the other, and leave the North to choose between them. If you would do us justice, I would live with you in peace; if you denied us justice, I would not live with you another day."
Now, sir, I want to know when the North has denied us justice? and I want to know whether words spoken are to be taken for acts done? Is it to be a cause of quarrel between the North and South that a number of intemperate individuals at the North express ultra notions, about which the masses in the North do not agree themselves? Is the language of such individuals to be set down to the charge of the North as meriting the reprobation and condemnation of the whole community? and are they, for that reason, to be declared aliens and to be ostracised? Can we control the expressions of persons in the North? There is no constitutional prohibition, that I know of, against the expression of opinion; every man has a right to express his opinions in this country; and, much as I may be at variance with gentlemen in regard to their views, I do not consider the expression of them an act of treason to the South. The South very freely exercises the same privilege; and if the North had the same disposition which is evinced by some portions of the South, they could with good reason complain of the constant talk of dissolution, and use that as a pretext for sloping off themselves. I do not believe that the expression of opinions is a violation of the Constitution; I do not think it is sufficient ground to keep up an eternal quarrel. An overt act of encroachment on our rights would place us in a different position. I can see no use in presenting hypothetical cases continually, and saying that if such and such things were done that never have been contemplated or thought of, they would be good ground for separation. When those things occur it will be time enough to examine the point; we shall be as well prepared then as we are now; but to make preparation for an event that is not at all probable, may be the means of precipitating us into difficulties from which nothing would ever extricate us. When an act is done there may be something in it; but gentlemen may express themselves as they please.
I was censured, and it was brought up as a cause of challenge against me in a canvass through which I passed, that I had said that if John C. Fremont, or any other citizen under the Constitution of the Union, were elected President, I would not deem it cause for going into revolution or division. That was the sentiment I declared, and it was brought up in judgment against me. I repeat the sentiment—I would judge the tree by its fruit. The American people have the right to select any citizen who is qualified under the Constitution for President of the United States; and whilst he discharges his duties under the Constitution, I would render him allegiance as faithfully as if he had been the man of my own choice, however adverse he might be to me. So long as he discharged his duties by executing the laws of the country and supporting the Constitution, I would sustain him. The gentleman feels ground of felicitation in the fact that I was beaten; he rejoices at that result. I can join him in that feeling, and say to him that, if he should happen to be beaten in Georgia, we can talk over both events in Texas in perfect tranquillity; and I am sure he will learn from me
