open, and if open their process would be unimpeded.  Crimes against the United States can be prevented or punished by the proper judicial authorities in a manner entirely practicable and legal.  There is therefore no reason why the Constitution should not be obeyed, unless those who exercise its powers have determined that it shall be disregarded and violated.  The mere naked will of this Government, or of some one or more of its branches, is the only obstacle that can exist to a perfect union of all the States.

On this momentous question and some of the measures growing out of it I have had the misfortune to differ from Congress, and have expressed my convictions without reserve, though with becoming deference to the opinion of the legislative department.  Those convictions are not only unchanged, but strengthened by subsequent events and further reflection.  The transcendent importance of the subject will be a sufficient excuse for calling your attention to some of the reasons which have so strongly influenced my own judgment.  The hope that we may all finally concur in a mode of settlement consistent at once with our true interests and with our sworn duties to the Constitution is too natural and too just to be easily relinquished.

It is clear to my apprehension that the States lately in rebellion are still members of the National Union.  When did they cease to be so?  The “ordinances of secession” adopted by a portion (in most of them a very small portion) of their citizens were mere nullities.  If we admit now that they were valid and effectual for the purpose intended by their authors, we sweep from under our feet the whole ground upon which we justified the war.  Were those States afterwards expelled from the Union by the war?  The direct contrary was averred by this Government to be its purpose, and was so understood by all those who gave their blood and treasure to aid in its prosecution.  It can not be that a successful war, waged for the preservation of the Union, had the legal effect of dissolving it.  The victory of the nation’s arms was not the disgrace of her policy; the defeat of secession on the battlefield was not the triumph of its lawless principle.  Nor could Congress, with or without the consent of the Executive, do anything which would have the effect, directly or indirectly, of separating the States from each other.  To dissolve the Union is to repeal the Constitution which holds it together, and that is a power which does not belong to any department of this Government, or to all of them united.

This is so plain that it has been acknowledged by all branches of the Federal Government.  The Executive (my predecessor as well as myself) and the heads of all the Departments have uniformly acted upon the principle that the Union is not only undissolved, but indissoluble.  Congress submitted an amendment of the Constitution to be ratified by the Southern States, and accepted their acts of ratification as a necessary and lawful