SOVEREIGNTY AND SECESSION
CONTINUED.

In the last chapter we saw Lincoln, a self-proclaimed Secessionist and Revolutionist. We saw Congress endorsing the minority decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chisolm vs. the State of Georgia, not waiting even one day before taking steps to submit the Eleventh Amendment to the States for their ratification; that this was done to put at rest forever the question of State Sovereignty. We saw the States adopting this amendment, thus declaring both by word and act that they were free and independent Sovereign States. We saw Mr. Thorpe, the chosen historian of the North, confessing that the object of the Eleventh Amendment was to declare constitutional the sovereignty of the States, but denying that it was effective. We also saw Mr. Thorpe declaring that Hayne and Calhoun in debate "appealed to the letter of the Constitution," while Mr. Webster, abandoning the Constitution, the one standard of right among the States, "appealed to the sentiments of the whole people." We thus saw who was true to the Constitution and who was not. The Constitution is the backbone of the Government. Break this, and the Government is a cripple forever. Abandon this, and we are in the woods of doubt, confusion and error. We saw Mr. Verplanck introducing the Administration's compromise measure and both Clay and Calhoun supporting it, and Webster opposing it. We saw five States in sympathy with South Carolina while opposing her method of redress. We saw thirteen States of this Union nullifying the Fugitive Slave clause in the Constitution and yet in the act of heaping abuse on South Carolina for doing what they had done. We saw Clay introducing his celebrated compromise measure, and heard his eloquent plea for peace and harmony. When he took his seat, we saw that other great Southerner rise in his place in the midst of the wildest enthusiasm, and declare his purpose to support the measure. We heard him declare he could do this without yielding the great principle for which he contended. We saw Webster opposing this measure. We saw President Jackson in his

first message declaring the States sovereign and independent political bodies. We saw him in his last message, after eight eventful years in the White House declaring: "It is well known that there have been those always among us who wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government. Every attempt to exercise powers beyond these limits (prescribed by the Constitution) should be promptly and firmly opposed." We saw Judge Bibb of Kentucky, asking in the United States Senate without receiving an answer, "If it was possible that the people of the States in adopting this Constitution, could have intended to surrender absolutely and forever the right which they had obtained by a Revolution? So well did they understand the difficulty of shaking off the powers which once enchained us, and so jealous were they of their newly acquired freedom, that they took care to say in the Constitution that the powers not delegated by them, were reserved for themselves."

Have we seen, in this statement of facts, Andrew Jackson, by a show of force, putting down Nullification in South Carolina? Have we seen him, by his "firmness and decision," crushing out "incipient rebellion" in that State? Have we seen Calhoun's logic silenced by force, and his stately form bending to the stern will of Jackson? Rather, have we not seen that Nullification in South Carolina was intended to be a peaceable mode of obtaining redress through the civil tribunals? Have we not seen Congress redressing the grievances of South Carolina, first by the Administration's measure, and then by Clay's compromise bill? In short, have we not seen that the yielding was on the part of the Federal Government, not on the part of the State of South Carolina?

It may be a debatable question, how a State could remain in the Union, and yet refuse obedience to the laws of the General Government, not declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But what shall be said of these thirteen States that remained in the Union, and yet refused to obey the fundamental law of the land? South Carolina annulled an act of Congress to test its constitutionality in the civil courts. These States annulled the Constitution, and persisted in annulling it after the

Supreme Court had declared their ordinance unconstitutional. Which committed the greater sin against the Constitution, South Carolina or the thirteen Northern States?

In 1798, Jefferson drew up a set of resolutions for the Kentucky Legislature at their request. In these resolutions he set forth the true nature of the United States Government. The first of these resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own Self-Government; and, that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthorized, void, and of no force; that to this Compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-state forming as to itself the other 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. (Randall's Life of Jefferson, Vol. 2, p. 449).

These are the words of a statesman, perhaps the best informed as to the nature of this Government, Madison alone excepted, that ever lived under its rule. He says the States "are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government," but "are united by a compact under the style and title of the Constitution and its amendments; that it is a "Government for special purposes;" that it has definite powers, not unlimited; that its powers are delegated, not inherent; that each State is sovereign, having reserved "the residuary mass of right to its own Govrnment; that "when the General Government as

sumes undelegated powers its acts are unauthorized, void, and of no effect;" that each State acceded to this compact as a State, and is an integral party, the co-State forming, as to itself, the other party; that this compact (the Constitution) created the Government, and did not make the General Government the exclusive or final judge of the extent of its delegated powers; that had the General Government been made the exclusive and final judge of the extent of its delegated powers its own discretion, and not the Constitution, would have been made the measure of its powers; and that, as in the cases of all compacts in which the parties have no common judge each party has an equal right to judge for itself, both as to infraction and the mode and measure of redress.

This version of the Government met with such an overwhelming approbation by the people that John Adams, at the head of the so-called Federalists, was swept from power, and Jefferson himself, upon a great wave of popular enthusiasm, was ushered into power, as the Chief Magistrate of the Government. Nor is that all, every president from John Adams to Lincoln was elected upon the principles of these resolutions. Do these facts teach nothing as to the nature of our Government? Their voice was the one acclaim of the sentiments of the people of this country from 1798 to 1860.

On the 21st day of December, 1789, the General Assembly of Virginia adopted a set of resolutions concerning the “Alien and Sedition Laws." Madison was the head of the committee to whom the communications of the various States, relative to these resolutions, were referred. As the report of that Committee is acknowledged to be the report of Madison on these resolutions we shall treat it as the views of Madison on the true nature of the Federal Government. That report in part is as follows:

"The first resolution is an expression of the State's sincere and firm adherence in maintaining and defining the Constitution of the United States, and of their own State, against every aggression, both foreign and domestic, and in supporting the

United States Government in all measures warranted by the Constitution.

"In the next resolution 'the General Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that, for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles, which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance can alone secure its existence and the public happiness.'

"No question can arise among enlightened friends of the Union, as to the duty of watching over and opposing every infraction of those principles which constitute its basis, and a faithful observance of which can secure its existence, and the public happiness thereon depending.

"The third resolution is in the words following: "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.” "On this resolution the Committee have bestowed all the attention which its importance merits; they have scanned it not merely with a strict, but with a severe eye; and they feel confidence in pronouncing that, in its just and fair construction, it is unexceptionally true in its several positions, as well as Constitutional and conclusive in its references

"The resolution declares: first, that it 'views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, in other words, that the Federal powers are derived from the Constitution; that the Constitution is a compact to which the States are parties.