TO THE VOTERS OF THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Fellow Citizens: Through the late session of Congress I maintained, on the floor of the House, a sedulous silence, doing all in my power privately to allay agitation, and induce the majority, by conciliation and compromise, to restore peace and tranquility to the country. I felt that in no way could I advance the public interests by participating in the heated discussions of that body. The startling drama which has been in progress for over four months did not take me by surprise. Throughout the late presidential canvass I predicted, in my speeches, all of the events that have transpired. For years I had been an attentive observer of the growth and development of the anti-slavery party, and when I saw its final culmination into a great sectional organization, striving for the mastery of the Government, all doubt as to the effect of its triumph vanished from my mind. Hence, I predicted on every hustings in my district, last fall, that the election of Mr. Lincoln necessarily dissolved the Union, and that though the Republicans might triumph, it would be a victory purchased at the expense of a dismembered Government. What was prophecy then, is history now. Seven States have expelled the Federal authorities from their limits-have confederated into an independent nationality, organized a complete governmental machinery, raised an army, and now stand prepared for the alternative of peace or war. It is idle and fruitless to speculate on the [*2*] causes that have impelled these States to take this attitude, or discuss the right of secession, under the forms of which they have assumed their revolutionary position. They have not only demolished, but constructed, for not only have the Federal authorities been forced to vacate their trusts, but fresh officials have taken their places, and are discharging their duties in the interest and service of the new Government. Hence, why waste words on a metaphysical discussion as to the right of secession, when the great fact of successful revolution stares us in the face and presses for solution? Our illustrious Senator, under whose lead we all rallied in the last campaign to arrest the great catastrophe which has overtaken the country, was right, the other day, when he announced from his place in the Senate that there were only three horns to the dilemma which the present complication had reduced us to. “I repeat, it is time that the line of policy was adopted, and that the country knew it. In my opinion we must choose, and that promptly, between one of three lines of policy : “1. THE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE UNION by such amendments to the Constitution as will insure the domestic tranquility, safety, and equality of all the States, and thus restore peace, unity, and fraternity to the whole country. “2. A PEACEFUL DISSOLUTION of the Union by recognizing the independence of such States as refuse to remain in the Union without such constitutional amendments, and the establishment of a liberal system of commercial and social intercourse with them by treaties of commerce and amity. “3. WAR, with a view to the subjugation and military occupation of those States which have seceded or may secede from the Union.” The analytical wit of man is incapable of presenting another alternative proposition to these. They constitute all the positions into which the question can be resolved. I quite as readily agree with him that of the three propositions the first is the best, and the last is worst. And while on this [*3*] point, let me say that never, in my judgment, have the Democracy of Illinois had more occasion to be proud of their great Senator than through the trying scenes of this sad drama. In all his career heretofore he has never exhibited the same ability, the same forgetfulness of self, the same exalted patriotism that has distinguished his course during the late session of Congress. To Illinoisians this is indeed high praise, but not higher than deserved. Forgetting the past- abandoning all the acerbities growing out of the late heated canvass-announcing at the threshold of the session that in the face of the disasters that had overtaken us and were now impending over his country an unwillingness to permit his personal consistency to stand in the way of a patriotic duty, Stephen A. Douglas has built for himself an enduring monument in the hearts of all who love their country or can appreciate lofty disinterested patriotism. Of these three alternatives I, of course, prefer the first- viz: Such amendments to the Constitution as will insure the safety of the slaveholding States, and restore the Union in its integrity. If, in the early part of the late session of Congress, the dominant party had come forward and laid as a sacrifice on the altar of their country a portion of their obnoxious creed, no secession would have occurred, and at this day the whole land would have been prosperous, united, and happy. But in a spirit of fatuity and worse than blindness, they permitted matters to be aggravated from bad to worse, until we are brought face to face with the three propositions, a choice among which must be speedily made. Some of the Republicans saw and appreciated the alarming exigencies of the crisis, and were willing to contribute their aid to some form of adjustment which would bring peace to the country, but not enough of them were disposed to pursue this course to effect any practical result. Amongst those who distinguished themselves by a patriotic appreciation of the perilous condition of the country, was the Hon. William Kellogg, of our own State, whose labors in behalf of the Union are worthy of all praise. There are disunionists North as well as South. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that those of the North are the most [*8791*] [*4*] dangerous, because the more subtle and specious. Under the pretence of devotion to the Union, many of them who thus pretend are its most violent enemies. Of this class, I do not hesitate to denominate all those who oppose making such amendments to the Constitution as will put the Union on a safe and permanent basis. The plausible plea of the "disunionists North," that the "Constitution, as it is, is good enough," is a delusive snare, set to catch the unwary, by those who shelter themselves under the pretext, with the purpose really of destroying that sacred instrument. Nothing can be more disingenuous than to pretend that the Constitution, which has been already amended twelve times, should not be amended again when the necessities and interests of the Union demand it-aye, as in this case, when the very existence of the Union depends on it. Because the Constitution "as it is" has served us well for seventy years, it does not necessarily follow that no changes are required to meet the changed condition of the country, whose organic law it was intended to be. The idea is illusory, and fallacious and contrary to the intentions of the wise men who framed our form of Government. At the late session of Congress the Republicans, after having struggled for fifteen years for the "Wilmot proviso," came forward and abandoned its application to all the new Territories recently organized. It is a fact worthy of note that all the Territories of the United States have governments based on the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The great Shibboleth of Non-intervention and "Popular Sovereignty," against which, for years, the whole Republican phalanx has been arrayed in bitter hostility, is now the organic law of all the Territories of the United States. Nay, more-all the territory south of the 37th parallel is, during Republican administration, open to the settlement of slaveholders under territorial laws recognizing and protecting the institution of slavery. At the late session of Congress, though the Republicans had the control in both branches, no attempt was made to interfere with this "equitable division" of the Territories, an no bill introduced in either branch of Congress to abolish the slave code in New Mexico, about which so much was [*5*] said during the last Presidential contest. I repeat these facts touching the course of the Republicans with pleasure. It shows a disposition on their part to abandon the fanatical views that they have heretofore adhered to, and which have caused the dissolution of the Union, and is an advance step in the right direction. What is now asked of them-what is now demanded as necessary to restore the Union, is only to incorporate as an amendment to the Constitution what they have been willing to permit under the legislation of Congress. In the early part of the session, had they but agreed to this, there would have been no secession, and we should all now have been a united and prosperous people. Amendments to the Constitution, guaranteeing the slave States in their rights and safety, have to be made, or we must make up our minds to a dissolution of the Union. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the dominant party will agree to none that are satisfactory, the question arises whether this separation shall be peaceable or accompanied with bloodshed and war. For one, I unhesitatingly avow myself against "coercion" in any manner or form. Neither section can conquer the other. I take it as a fixed fact that war must end sometime or other in a treaty of peace, arranging the terms of a final and perpetual separation. I prefer that this arrangement, if it must be made, should be made before war, instead of after war. The horrors of civil strife cannot be too vividly portrayed. A bare contemplation of such a struggle sickens the soul. I shall not dwell on its details. The Union of the States was made in the affections and reciprocal interests of its people, and its preservation depends on the same. It was the offspring of kindness, conciliation, compromise, and mutual advantage. It can exist only by a cultivation of these parent principles. A Union of force and blood is a Union of war and carnage, ending in a perpetually divided country, with both sections of it transformed into military despotisms. The day that begins sectional strife and bloodshed in this once happy land sets back the clock of freedom three hundred years, and loses to liberty all her priceless victories in that period. May God spare us the advent of that day is my fervent prayer. [*8792*] [*6*] Horrible and sickening as the prospect of civil strife is, the danger is immediate that we shall be drifted into it, and nothing but decisive steps on the part of the President can avert it. The evacuation of Fort Sumter is a good beginning, and no time should be lost in adopting a similar step with Fort Pickens. With its abandonment ends all danger of collision and war. President Lincoln is a man of too much sense, and I cannot but think of too much patriotism, not to pursue this policy at once. These posts are of no advantage to the Government of the United States. They are in States that claim to be independent, and are a source of useless irritation. The President ought not, and I believe will not, hesitate to evacuate them without delay. If he inaugurates this policy, which I think was indicated by his inaugural, he will endear himself to every American heart, and save this once powerful Republic; if, on the contrary, he yields to the councils of the disunionists of the North, his name will be recorded in history as the last of the American Presidents. He has much in his power-he can do much toward restoring good feeling between the two sections, especially in quelling the secession feeling now so rife in the border States. Let him appoint men to office in the slave States still in the Union only on the recommendation of their members of Congress, and thus give assurance that he meditates no purpose of setting up a party in their midst, by the use of his patronage, unfriendly to their constituents, and disposed to tamper with their slaves. By steps of this sort he will rapidly advance the interests of peace and forward a speedy restoration of fraternal feeling between the North and South, and all patriots will applaud his course. He was elevated to his present position under the forms of the Constitution, and should be sustained in all efforts to preserve the Union and to evade war and bloodshed. He should, however, remember that he was elected by a minority of nearly a million of votes. He should also remember that there is not a dissenting voice in the slaveholding States in favor of peace and against coercion. He should also remember, that the voice of the people, like the voice of many waters, in the St. Louis and Cincinnati municipal elections, and, in Connecticut, in the State elec- [*7*] tion, calls loudly for such concessions as will reconstruct this now shattered Government. That a million and a half of freemen in the non-slaveholding States, who voted for Mr. Douglas, are in favor of peace and amendments to the Constitution; also a very respectable number of the Republican party, are equally earnest in their demands for a peaceful settlement of the impending difficulties. Commerce demands it; every branch of industry demands it; Patriotism demands it. It is not, then, unreasonable to suppose he will hearken to the voice of reason and humanity, and use the power confided to him under such circumstances for the restoration of peace and tranquility to a distracted country. As to myself I am for that man, or set of men, or party who are against war and bloodshed, and in favor of the preservation of this Union by judicious amendments to the Constitution, which will expel the slavery question from the Halls of Congress, and banish it forever from the arena of Federal politics. With the hope that divine Providence will strengthen every true patriot and lover of his country in this resolve, I remain, as ever, Your sincere friend and Most obedient servant, PHILIP B. FOUKE. WASHINGTON CITY, D. C., April 5, 1861. [*8792*] Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.