The only specification offered is volunteered by Mr. Fillmore in his Albany speech.  His charge is that if we elect a President and Vice-President both from the free States, it will dissolve the Union.  This is open folly.  The Constitution provides that the President and Vice-President of the United States shall be of different States, but says nothing as to the latitude and longitude of those States.  In 1828 Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, were elected President and Vice-President, both from slave States; but no one thought of dissolving the Union then on that account.  In 1840 Harrison, of Ohio, and Tyler, of Virginia, were elected.  In 1841 Harrison died and John Tyler succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King, of Alabama, was elected acting Vice-President by the Senate; but no one supposed that the Union was in danger.  In fact, at the very time Mr. Fillmore uttered this idle charge, the state of things in the United States disproved it.  Mr. Pierce, of New Hampshire, and Mr. Bright, of Indiana, both from free States, are President and Vice-President, and the Union stands and will stand.  You do not pretend that it ought to dissolve the Union, and the facts show that it won’t; therefore the charge may be dismissed without further consideration.

No other specification is made, and the only one that could be made is that the restoration of the restriction of 1820, making the United States territory free territory, would dissolve the Union.  Gentlemen, it will require a decided majority to pass such an act.  We, the majority, being able constitutionally to do all that we purpose, would have no desire to dissolve the Union.  Do you say that such restriction of slavery would be unconstitutional, and that some of the States would not submit to its enforcement?  I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I do not ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter.  Will you?  If not, who are the disunionists—­you or we?  We, the majority, would not strive to dissolve the Union; and if any attempt is made, it must be by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as disunionists.  But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved.  We don’t want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won’t let you.  With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it.  This government would be very weak indeed if a majority with a disciplined army and navy and a well-filled treasury could not preserve itself when attacked by an unarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority.  All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug, nothing but folly.  We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.

ON THE DANGER OF THIRD-PARTIES