There are other members as well as Delegates of that Congress, of whom the writer could and should make special and honorable mention. In the memorabilia connected with these incidents one thing is apparent. It cannot be obliterated. It is this: the great body of the men who gave their votes in that Congress to secession indorsed them by martial courage. Many fell defending them upon the field of battle. Those who survive bear honorable scars in personal justification of their opinions. That Congress gave also to the Union cause many who won imperishable renown on the field of battle. Those who remained in the succeeding Congress were engaged in a no less arduous field of duty. The physical strife was not more fierce than the encounters in the legislative halls over issues which shook the whole structure of our political system to its very foundations. On a gloomy day in March, 1861, the Thirty-sixth Congress adjourns sine die. There are many sad and last farewells-for the pall of impending wrath hangs over all the land. Black clouds of war loom up all around, surcharged with the elements of death and devastation. Abraham Lincoln takes the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. For the first time in the Republic a Chief Magistrate is installed under the protection of artillery charged with grape and canister. He makes his fealty amid no holiday array of plumed horsemen and martial music, with gaudy surroundings of fluttering banners and streaming pennons. The pomp and circumstance of civic and martial display have no place to-day in the Federal capital. No loud huzzas greet the escorting squadron as it advances along the avenue with tightened rein and clanking scabbard, and sabres drawn, all ready for the charge! This small but disciplined array, the cold line of infantry with bayonets fixed, the champing of troop horses, the tramp of armed men, the rumbling of cannons, the hoarse command of general officers, the unlimbering of guns trained to sweep the streets; what mean these dreadful preparations? Surely this is a vision of the wrath of war! At last, in the culmination of the events which presaged it, the supreme moment has come. There is a short truce. Then, hark! the peace is broken. South Carolina begins the conflict. The tempest is upon us! The lightnings of Moultrie are launched against the Union standard. For days it proudly waves over the volcano of Sumter, until, at last, it falls into the extinct crater. Before the evening zephyrs have dispersed the sulphurous smoke of the bombarding guns or hushed the bellowing mortars, the "fall of Sumter" is flashed to every hamlet in the land—and the whole Nation springs to arms! Now, indeed, is war in its most terrible form. The fields of strife are red for the reaper. The abyss of the grave yawns for the embattled hosts who are to fall in the conflict. Weep now, ye mothers, for the sons to whom ye give the last embrace on earth; how unspeakable is your portion of the sorrow and desolation that is to come. THE DOCTRINE --- THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF SECESSION - MR. CALHOUN'S EXPOSITION OF M R. CALHOUN is regarded as the expounder, if not the author, of the theory that the several states have the sovereign right to withdraw from the Union whenever a majority of their people decide that their liberties have been invaded, or are unsafe within its control. This opinion, however, has no foundation in his speeches and writings on the principles and powers of the Constitution. He expressly disclaimed the theory. In a letter from the late Reverdy Johnson to Edward Everett, no doubt is left in regard to Mr. Calhoun's views on secession. The letter bears date June 24, 1861. Mr. Johnson states in it that it was his good fortune to be a member of the United States Senate for four years, from 1845, with Mr. Calhoun; that during two sessions they resided in the same house; and he thus sets forth Mr. Calhoun's doctrine: “He did me the honor to give me much of his confidence, and frequently his nullification doctrine was the subject of conversation. Time and time again have I heard him, and with ever-increased surprise at his wonderful acuteness, defend it on constitutional grounds, and distinguish it, in that respect, from the doctrine of secession. This last he never, with me, placed on any other ground than that of revolution. This, he said, was to destroy the government; and no constitution, the work of sane men, ever provided for its own destruction. The other was to preserve it,—was, practically, but to amend it, and in a constitutional mode. As you know, and he was ever told, I never took that view. I could see no more constitutional warrant for this than for the other, which, I repeat, he ever in all our interviews repudiated, as wholly indefensible as a constitutional remedy." The doctrine of secession is sometimes traced to the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The original draft of these resolutions was written by Mr. Jefferson. But a careful analysis of this manifesto shows, that while it seems to give countenance to the idea that a state may declare an act of Congress null and void, it cannot be cited as authority for the more radical measure of a dissolution of the Union. At least, it was not so understood at the time of its appearance. The first resolution denies that the states are united on the principle of unlimited submission to the general government. It declares that by compact they constituted a general government for special purposes, with delegated powers, while reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to its own self-government. It adds, "that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." By "each party," Mr. Jefferson refers to the states on the one hand, and the general government on the other; and his meaning, therefore, would be that the states as one party and not a single state, have an equal right with the general government, to judge of infractions. It is true that this was not a strictly accurate way of speaking, since the Constitution and Federal Government, which were created by the states and people, cannot be regarded as a party to the compact. They are the creatures of the compact. But the context shows that Mr. Jefferson used the term, parties, in this sense; and hence, he could not mean that a single state could decide finally upon the constitutionality of the laws of Congress. The remaining resolutions show that the Alien and Sedition acts of Congress were unconstitutional usurpations, unjust and oppressive. The last of the series appeals to the co-states to unite with Kentucky "in requesting KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS. 103 their repeal at the next session of Congress." Such was "the mode and measure of redress" proposed by Kentucky. The House of Representatives of the State of Kentucky, in November, 1799, resumed the consideration of the subject. Mr. Desha was in the chair. After some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Desha reported that the committee had taken under consideration sundry resolutions passed by several state legislatures, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, and had come to a resolution thereupon. The preamble to this report says: "To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended, be as unnecessary as unavailing. We cannot, however, but lament, that in the discussion of those interesting subjects by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions and uncandid insinuations, derogatory to the true character and principles of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Faithful to the true principles of the Federal Union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation." The resolution was adopted. It declares, "unequivocally," the attachment of Kentucky to the Union: "She adheres to that compact, agreeably to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution." She asserts “that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy." The Kentucky Resolutions, therefore, claimed the right of the states -not of one state-to nullify unconstitutional laws; and they expressly repelled the charge that their import and purpose was to destroy the Union. The Virginia Resolutions, prepared by Mr. Madison, and adopted Dec. 24, 1798, are still further renhoved in language and spirit, from the doctrine of secession. They declare that the General Assembly will maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States. They profess a warm attachment to the Union, "to maintain which it pledges its powers." The third resolution embodies the theory of the Constitution which gives character to the document. It is as follows: "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." This resolution contains the peculiar doctrine, or theory of constitutional construction, which the legislature meant to declare. Others follow in which the particular grievances complained of-the Alien and Sedition acts are set forth. The series concludes with protesting the truest anxiety of the people of the Commonwealth for "establishing and perpetuating the Union." "The General Assembly appeal to the like disposition in the other states, in confidence that they will concur with their commonwealth in declaring that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional; and, that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each for co-operating with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people." In an elaborate paper, prepared by Mr. Madison many years after the events to which these resolutions relate, he defends them with great force of logic. He repels the inferences that have been drawn from them, that they give sanction to either nullification or secession. He calls attention to the fact that the resolutions claim for the "states,"— meaning all the states,— the authority to interpose for arresting the evil, and for protecting their reserved rights. He rejects the idea that one state may do this; but that the states, in council or convention, which framed the compact, or have become parties to it, may do so. It follows, of course, that Congress would promptly repeal an obnoxious act which had been declared null and void by a majority of the states, and the remedy proposed would be at once effectual and peaceful. This masterly paper, with other selections from the writings of Mr. Madison, was published in 1853, "exclusively for private distribution," and has therefore been seen and read by few. In another able paper Mr. Madison combats the secession theory that sovereignty is indivisible. He points to its inconsistency with the fact that the Constitution confers sovereign and exclusive powers upon the general government, accompanied by the means of enforcing them, while other sovereign powers are reserved to the states. Mr. Madison incidentally refers to the Kentucky Resolutions of Mr. Jefferson. He denies that they give countenance to the theory of secession and nullification by a single state. It is curious to note, in this connection, that while the responses from the states under the control of the Federal party concur in condemning the Virginia Resolutions, none of them make the charge of a deliberate purpose to break up the Union. They deny the right of the states to pronounce an act of Congress unconstitutional, null, and void, and declare that the tendency of such proceedings is to produce anarchy or revolution; but the purpose of revolution is not charged. |