perfectly suppressed, would
be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section; while
fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be
surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking we cannot separate--we cannot remove our respective
sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A
husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond
the reach of each other, but the different sections of our country
cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse,
either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible,
then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory
after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than
friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between
aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot
fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on
either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of
intercourse are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can
exercise their constitutional right of amending, or their revolutionary
right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact
that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the
national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of
amendment, I fully recognize the full authority of the people over the
whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the
instrument itself, and I should, under existing circumstances, favor,
rather than oppose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act
upon it.

I will venture to add, that to me the convention mode seems preferable,
in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves,
instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions
originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which
might not be precisely such as they would wish either to accept or
refuse. I understand that a proposed amendment to the Constitution
(which amendment, however, I have not seen) has passed Congress, to the
effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the
domestic institutions of States, including that of persons held to
service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my