Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest

Farewell Address to the U.S. Senate

by C. Ellen Connally, JD, Aaron Gulyas, MA

Date: 1861

Author: Jefferson Davis

Genre: Speech

Summary Overview

Jefferson Davis’s Farewell Address to the U.S. Senate was delivered on January 21, 1861, less than two weeks after the Mississippi legislature voted to secede from the Union. To fully understand Davis and his importance during the critical period of the American Civil War, it is important to place him in the context of the time in which he lived and understand what led him and millions of other Americans to support the Confederate cause. For most of the 1850s Davis was the spokesperson for the southern cause in the Senate and a strong supporter of states’ rights.

The resolution he offered the Senate on February 20, 1860, represents a last-ditch effort on his part to unequivocally assert the southern cause, articulating positions from which the South would not retreat. These demands marked the death knell of Democratic unity, setting forth demands that were unacceptable to northern Democrats. Upon notification of the vote of the Mississippi legislature that the state formally seceded from the Union, Davis had to make a choice between his state and the Union. He also realized that any hope of an amicable solution was over. His resignation speech demonstrates why he chose to side with his state.

Defining Moment

The sectional conflicts that faced the nation for much of the 1850s culminated in the election of Abraham Lincoln as president on November 6, 1860. The clouds of dissent that gathered over the North and the South as a result of slavery, its expansion, and states’ rights cast a long shadow that portended secession and civil war. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina formally seceded from the Union. Although Davis, a moderate on the issue of secession, hoped to test it in the courts or through some constitutional means, on January 5, 1861, he joined senators from other slaveholding states in a resolution stating that as soon as possible their states should set up the necessary convention to organize a confederacy of the seceding states. On January 9, 1861, the Mississippi legislature voted to secede from the Union. Davis received notice of the act of secession while he was on his sickbed suffering from dyspepsia and neuralgia. His condition was so serious that doctors thought that he would be unable to speak.

On his final walk to the Senate, Davis knew that he was entering for the last time the chamber that he loved and had worked in for more than a decade. With the effects of his illness clearly visible to the crowded Senate gallery, Davis bid farewell to the U.S. Senate. The act of the Mississippi legislature had forced him to make a choice between loyalty to his state and loyalty to the Union. To Davis the choice was plain. Holding back tears, Davis made it clear that he was not hostile or bitter. In choosing his state, he recognized that his desire to preserve the Union was no longer viable, that reconciliation between North and South was impossible.

Author Biography

Davis was born on June 3, 1808, in Christian County (now Todd County) Kentucky; he moved with his parents to southwestern Mississippi in 1810. In 1824 he entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, but resigned from the army in 1835. In 1845 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, his first political office.

In 1846 Davis resigned his seat in the House to lead a Mississippi unit in the Mexican-American War, during which he won recognition for heroism. Upon his return to civilian life, he was elected to the U.S. Senate and served until 1853, when he became secretary of war. In January 1856 Davis was again elected to the Senate, where he became the primary spokesperson in Congress for states’ rights and the southern cause. He served in the Senate until his resignation on January 21, 1861, twelve days after Mississippi seceded from the Union.

After he was officially notified that the Mississippi legislature had voted to secede from the Union, Davis resigned from the Senate. Davis was a leading choice for president of the new Confederate States of America. As president of the Confederacy, he faced the daunting task of forming a central government from a group of states that had left the Union asserting their states’ rights; at the same time he had to finance and fight a war against an enemy with superior industrial and military strength.

After the surrender of General Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865, Davis attempted to maintain his government while on the run, hoping to reestablish it west of the Mississippi. On May 10, 1865, he was arrested by federal troops. He was taken to Fortress Monroe, Virginia, and was ultimately charged with treason, a charge that the U.S. government never successfully prosecuted. In response, Davis sought a trial, holding that secession was not treason—a position that he would maintain for the rest of his life. Davis died on December 6, 1889, in New Orleans.

Historical Document

I rise, Mr. President [John C. Breckinridge], for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this.

It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. [John C.] Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

I therefore say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which I wish on this last occasion to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man, whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded State. The phrase “to execute the laws,” was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented. The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a State which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State. If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded State. A State finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits, (and they are known to be many,) deprives herself of the advantages, (they are known to be great,) severs all the ties of affection, (and they are close and enduring,) which have bound her to the Union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits.

I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States.

It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do—to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three fifths.

Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God and in our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.

In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains to me to bid you a final adieu.

Glossary

adieu: French for “farewell”

arraignment: formal or legal accusation

a great man who now reposes with his fathers: a reference to John C. Calhoun, vice president and senator, who had died in 1860

John C. Breckenridge: vice president to James Buchanan, southern Democratic candidate for the presidency (1860), general and later secretary of war under the Confederacy

lion…bear: a reference to the British and the U.S. government, respectively

nullification: refusal by a U.S. state to enforce the laws of the federal government

ordinance of her people in convention assembled: a formal and legal statement by the people of Mississippi, speaking through their elected representatives

unshorn: without being reduced

a want of fealty: a lack of loyalty

Document Analysis

Davis begins by announcing the Mississippi has seceded from the United States and declaring that, as such, his service in the Senate is at an end. While he does not want to engage in a debate on the issue, he wishes to speak on behalf of Mississippi. He reminds his Senate colleagues that he has been an advocate of individual states’ rights to secede from the union. He also asserts that even if he thought Mississippi was mistake in seceding, he would still be “bound by her action.” That, however, is not the case. Davis argues that Mississippi is right to secede and that he supports the state’s decision.

He then goes on to explain that he believes secession to be fundamentally “antagonistic” to the notion of nullification—the theory that a state has the right to cancel out federal laws which it believes to (in Davis’s words) have “violated…constitutional obligation.” Nullification, Davis explains, is a method of appealing federal acts. Secession, on the other hand, is necessary when other states and their people “will not regard” the “constitutional rights” of another state.

The “great man” Davis discusses in the fourth paragraph, as revealed later, is South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, one of the key advocates of nullification. In 1832 and 1833, Calhoun supported the South Carolina legislature’s decision to nullify a federal tariff and to prohibit federal officials from enforcing it. Davis, nearly three decades later, uses Calhoun’s ideas about nullification to further explain how it is distinct from secession, arguing that Calhoun saw nullification as a means to preserve the union by providing a means for states to seek a “peaceful” remedy to unjust actions by the federal government. The relevance of the nullification crisis of 1832-1833 to the secession crisis of 1860-1861 lies in the way in which then-President Andrew Jackson handled the former crisis. Jackson, with the support of Congress, sent troops to “execute the laws,” repudiating the notion of nullification. Opponents of secession, Davis explains, use this precedent to “justify coercion against a seceded state.” This is a false precedent, he argues, because in the case of nullification, Jackson was attempting to enforce a law in an existing state of the union. In the case of secession, however, there is no law for the Union to enforce because the seceded states are no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government. To attack a seceded state, he argues, would be an act of war.

Davis then provides an example of his long-standing support for secession, recalling that when Massachusetts had protested the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, he supported the right of a state to secede, saying, “it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back.” It is that attitude, he implies, that northern states should have toward states such as Mississippi.

Davis, having discussed his vision of the legality of secession, turns to the specific reasons Mississippi is justified in leaving the Union. He asserts that the notion that “all men are created equal,” as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence has been taken out of its original context and used as “the basis of an attack upon her social institutions”—a euphemism for slavery. Davis argues that “all men” referred to “men of the political community” and that the declaration “has no reference to the slave.” He alleges that the north was attempting to incite violent insurrection among slaves, just as the Declaration accused King George III of doing.

Davis, having argued that the Declaration of Independence did not reject the notion of slavery, turns to the Constitution of the United States, arguing that the document contains” provision made for that very class of persons as property.” He uses the three-fifths clause (which stipulated that, for the purposes of determining the number of Representatives and Presidential Electors from each state, only three fifths of slaves were to be counted) as evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended there to be inequalities built into the American system. The implication is that attempts to eliminate slavery are contrary to the will of the founders.

Davis concludes his farewell address by assuring his colleagues that he feels “no hostility” towards northern Senators and wishes them well—and asserts that the people of Mississippi likely feel the same toward the citizens of northern states. He expresses his hope for a peaceful future between their peoples, prediction that “the reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country “and asks forgiveness for any offense he might have inflicted on his colleagues.

Essential Themes

There are two main strands to Davis’s farewell address to his fellow Senators. The first is a legal justification for a state’s secession from the United States. Davis invokes the “compact” theory of the relationship between the states and the federal government, which asserts that the union is an agreement between sovereign states. Thus, if states agree to join the United States, they can also agree to leave. This is an extreme step, but one than cannot be reversed by the federal government except by making war on the seceded state (since that state would, by definition, now be a foreign nation). Thus, in addition to justifying the legal basis for secession, Davis preemptively positions the northern states as the aggressors in the upcoming Civil War.

The other strand is a justification of Mississippi’s reasons for secession which are, for Davis, closely tied to what he perceives as northern efforts to strip the rights from his fellow southerners—in particular, the right to own slaves. Davis compares the northerners who support slave insurrections (such as Ohio’s John Brown, executed in 1859 for attempting to seize the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry for the purposes of a slave rebellion) to the British at the time of the American Revolution and argues that slavery was enshrined in the Constitution via the three fifths clause.

Bibliography and Additional Reading

1 

Nichols, Roy F. “United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865–1869.” American Historical Review 31(January 1926): 266–284.

2 

Cashin, Joan E. First Lady of the Confederacy: Varina Davis’s Civil War. Cambridge, Mass. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006.

3 

Cooper, William J., Jr. Jefferson Davis, American. New York: Knopf, 2000.

4 

———. Jefferson Davis and the Civil War Era. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009.

5 

Davis, Varina. Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America—A Memoir by His Wife. 1890. Reprinted with an introduction by Craig L. Symonds. Baltimore: Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1990.

6 

Davis, William C. Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

7 

Hattaway, Herman, and Richard E. Beringer. Jefferson Davis: Confederate President. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002.

Citation Types

MLA 9th
Connally, C. Ellen, and Aaron Gulyas. "Farewell Address To The U.S. Senate." Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest, edited by Aaron Gulyas, Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=DDProtest_0041.
APA 7th
Connally, C. E., & Gulyas, A. (2017). Farewell Address to the U.S. Senate. In A. Gulyas (Ed.), Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Connally, C. Ellen and Gulyas, Aaron. "Farewell Address To The U.S. Senate." Edited by Aaron Gulyas. Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2026. online.salempress.com.