Newspapers / Daily State Journal (Raleigh, … / Jan. 9, 1861, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of Daily State Journal (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
h "l RALEIQH, N. C, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY, 1861. : NQ. 12. 11 MM VI. i- ii1- V s - SPBBCH OF JT. P. Benjamin, OF LOUISIANA, ' j r J n n ' r. rt n t h x ' v . w i si. 'V - -r. - ; Jvf m rt' &-afe of the United States, on Mon '1 Ww'W 2lst 1"860 awF inrrey to Senators 'fyoffflirfaitdJitinson of Tennessee. :. i i s! V,riiE-JAMiJf said. ppsidct)t, when I .took the floor at our !r L.lvrinuent I stated that I expected to ad 's ! i ". ..U n'-A-n in rpfprpTirtfi to thft criti- l -4 i: kV ft.rn tWrniintrv - I had sunnosed ;jsti;rtuv uw y, y. . re liv tliiS tinie there ;woukl have been some of- i . isfunnication to the p tact now .uwim w ? . -. ': ,. l..,-.fti fn oil nf fhA nnditinn ot Kteallremurks , that J ; have to make, M WMfO, Kavelbee'ti ;o&cialiy fcommuni- i Irs'invself to them; I And Mr. J Prfcdent; prooubly Jnever has -a deliberative as- en a more solemn sense of re- libilSty thfn those, that.now; address the iJto f csMeration., We are brought them- at i. 8 direeuy iurccu, v 4--. .rr.-y . . . I T-mluced by an irresistible course oi events . it;-7 ' v:;.: f,,0tuct hairA ffl -wilful ntff ll F fP'n &r yurs. or,sir, have we iafie'i in our 'ilu'c.f. warning-. ine,Xit'puoiiauSi-vu j--. H-ivinrr us;t a point where the very instincts (ll:,;lf.j,reserV?itinn wouia impose up'"' up crlfiu n'(ic"eiwi!ty; ; Jof J separation. We repeated tK,fe .wifriiings! :with a' depth of conviction. 'with Wrireipess of assertion that inspired the hope 4i, lvi' f.tmi Weeed in imparting at least some I Ii:iifat4urnc0 of our sincerity to those by! whose J aifalotJe could; tlie -crisis oe averieu. xui,.Bir, Anir 1 1 loci - mi t" -nrfrlifflfa wrn at; vail "our1 honest aud patriotic efforts to; fel'iS thc'oiistution;'andf the Union sneered at KrV'1'11'1 Pt'y love of country If l"-i.ipi? ambition for place and. ower. j ; j - '-.y.i ijf 'Cil.ri'1'rsi'4e'tr it li'as peen justly; said that this i"'-'fm inw1'0'.. and, sir, it is in no iciliinallVi-s -.a nublie'.'-sevant': from all re- I'jipisHiilily ;tbr:le p'reseni condition of affairs,:' I -I tfvfjtire' to recall; to(the Senate (ome remarks i ii'ym; iii; .:de;Wte motQ jthan four years' ago, f , m IvbttU I predicted the -precise state of public I'lfo'ti L :.v;tjf :s. t-pai were --ceriaiu. i pruuuue ;, mai . bwuj. fiTy.lirst !was (lie incessant" -attack 'of the" Rep ub- I; ; -fifiii; not simply, on me miyrests, uui uu iue "ijis .a!nd''nsiilit.ics'9f a high spirited people: m '.,i)e: ..nios't insulting; language, and the most ofi' l: 'I "f;-hke i oifhets; the;bth?r-was their fatal success iftf r Suadi n g the! r followers , that these constant ressiatis could be coh iin udd and kept jap with lat ofp length, J safd ; 'v , ; ' ;.. :'-1?vtvr, MrV .I-'residpnt, 'weu wi re see these two in- " jiiila'hgcr; that therSouth iwas' toi? weak'arid too :H'.:if jpelioiii blvweaUnesS.to ditre resistance'.. Sir, on l:i:tL:I'2U if Mnyili6; after "reviewing this subject 5 Wniiratj?dftlje; ; 'f(rtlii struggling for the pos- ff y. ; ii; . 'ft!:-iflii pawe)-i;tiS :Av3nch: sfic has; no legitimate; iuo'icr, ttie- u.mHriH:nor,; i-r tno soip purpose oi nil tUit iOver---ftie Siiuth strumlin for.prop- felckif 'the 'Bui it ?; Tb' yjt.nperaHirl they oppose lm. Rasi'ii, lo-jmcnaiys - ana tnreats oi vioiince. I 'iniuR mg'iK4iriiptiphs 'of .superiority, they 'disdain jjv.;' Tn direct attacks cm their riilits or their hon- lcv'aniicnl (ft t1ic.:'giinrahtees of the 'Constitution : p i!;;VTi(!it flVostvgiiaravtees shall fail, arid not .till then, '4u tHiijurei, outraged South throw-her swordinto llki ' f'f herifights, and appeal to the God of bat ' .-rllj'lt 6 her justice, f I say her sword, because tarn W. hi' iijo.f ;'thi m who believe- in the possibility of a irjitjdjsriip;iji:n:f the-. Union;" - It "cannot come un I loViible nivalis 'bf Conciliation 'have been exhaust .t'Annot.' rtirnef until every angry passion shall vst'tlnt'ii rcttsed: lfc'caryiot come until brotherly feel- .t!tul iiiiye 'Oeen i convcrtea into uea4iy nate; ana t.isir, .:itn.i(MHnigs empueerea oy toe consciousness. !(iisticij, of j passions, high-wrought ant.1 inflamed, iul ii- 11 lo the in'ternirjne war that must ensue. ' Mr. tresideivtlj among- what, I Consider to. be tlie pproiiii-neirtiitaiigers that now exist, is the tact that ;H'liler4 of He llepublican' .party attbe North have jUHj.-n persuauiug tne masses ortne i-sortn pat ;s. n dingier.'' They have fyiaUy so wTought upon .fliiion of their own people at home by the constant ufu of the' sju'ne-' false statements and the same M '?i''i'ivH''u r''-.saU'tyijU that.is dear to man tell me b'-fl'. IlVai&'ft rv nf the svbrld exhibits an examble of; a i'I'i'lS u pvifi. ii Mrc8',NincbHn2. attitude than the ;'jg& i i;!; jtriniples, tliat ihr peole; of the -North cannot iiMjf -'iile"Jbv believe ttiat the Snitli'is in. earnest J not- .-liuitung hs scaim ajia resoiutCi aciermuiauon 14 ploducei the quiet so ominous of evil if f ever fud;4vshati bitrst. ; 1 he. people of the xsorth are to laugh alt: "the danger' of dissolution. - Due' kvlavs '.The si ive holders, m spite of all their threats, are iidf.to it vtne same nonas, ana t lie v are nouna to j'bya iHnd pentluirihj their own- that' of. - de- ie$$e. 'p'atfofi :. titeir ' .'omv:mfety. j 'Three million JK: f '.-!'1 r-;pAfj 8tnatorT , is ; -reported to have said, with ex i4 apunttjV, tjfiit the South coulii not be " kicked; luf fchi"f If uioli. i:t-'The I hbiibrable Seiiator'.frohi New! ;oi .V. - r.ni-ii Hp;''' jwjpr very yasf.( . The "servile war is always the .Sni.-f..?arful nirirvof iwar. .The icorhl without sympa l Iff ; "': ii.th:- serrile e'nemy'. , Against that war. the ;. rff eric.hiii.-iUxii'-iW. t.h' only, '.defense '.of . the slaveholJr i; i 'T "Ftleirofi; protection. vlfever tliey shall, in a 'i sop.ot madness, recede Irm that .union, and pro- f-:--that war i'they 'will -so)n come back again. ' ': aKIo ht'tiorable IStiajor, from Massachusetts fMr.. :lsm indulges in the grenotition of 'a figure of rhe- u m anat seeins necu uariiv to. please ins ear 'ami tickle WW'V lie. t Represents : the Southern: mother as : d; h. 1). ' - v rjifiig iter intant with convulsive and closer embrace,- ife the black nvcnjrer; with uplifted daflarer. would frtti tlie door, and be tells ns that isa bond of Union inn we uare-not violate.: h ; . ; ". dar Mr: ..President, p3 ' man pah "denv that the wirjs-uttered'' four vears' and a half asra form a thTul picture of 'the stsate of things that we -see 'tm'd.us how.' Would to God, sir, that I could ari fve that jthe'apnrehen'sions of civil war, then viyiy expresscu, were out ine vq,in imaginiiions a! tiniorous spirit. .'- Alas,- sir, tho feelings and iihirients expressbd since the commencement of l! a d issession oh; thi: opposite side of this floor, liOit iorcoj tne- neiiet tnat a civil war is tneir "il'i t- ' - ; T .-1 - -1 f .1 .'-- ' " ! 'i fire ; and jtbat the day is full near when Amer- "tn: citizens are to meet each other in hostile ar- F1y'i ' ami- when ' the hands of brothers- will be rl jened wtilth the blood of i brothers. ; - r.iretdent,, t!ie State of- South Carolina,; ij a unanimity scarceiywitn parallel in History,, dissblvecl the union which connects , her with: e;other States of the confederacv. and declarel 0 diieelf independentli - We, the j representatives I 't;; -' jlQse- r4mainiiig; States,vtau!d here to-day,f .'iaux eitncr to recognize tnat independence, or; t"tqerthrp it either to permit her peaceful ? ;cjssidn frpm I therconfe)deracy,: j or to put her fofce of 'arms. ) Th at is the issue. That Mbe-'sole issue; - No artifice can conceal it. i oattemptfi bv ' men to -disguise it from their own :1 cqnsciences, and from an excited or alarmed pub lij can suffice to conceal it. Those attempt are equally futile and disingenu6us. As for the at tempted distinction between coercing a State, and forcing all tfie people of the State, by arras, toj yield obedience to an authority repudiated by the sovereign will of the State,: expressed in its most authentic form, it is as unsound in princi ple asl it jis j impossible of practical application. Upon that pdint, however, I shall hav e something to say a little further on. ' ! I If we elevate ourselves, Mr. President, to the height from jwhich'we are bound to look in order tci embrace 11 the vast consequences that must result from jur decision, we are not permitted to ignore the fact that our determination does not involve the tatc of South Carolina alone. Next week, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, will hive declared themselves independent ; the week after, Georgia and a little later, Louisiana f goon, very soonl fp be followed by Texas and Arkan sas. I confine myself purposely to these eight States, because 1 wish to speak only oi those j whose action! we know with positive certainty, anriWWciL:PCiuaa;Can ior moment - pretemi to coiutrovert. J I designedly exclude others, about wtiose action I feel equally confident, ' although others may raise a cavil. M ni " :nQ u,L ,onnina a ;nii ,nont Stato P "T- w-w r V ,i ' I' shall we wasc war asainfet her f And nrst'as to uer rignc. i no. not agree wan inose who uhuk it jiaie to aiscuss tnat rignt. in a great crisis use this, 'whan t ic right asserted by a sovereign State is'questioneq, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind at least requires that those who maintain thjat right, aind mean to act upon- it, should state the reasons upon which they miintaiu it. If in tlje . discussion, of this question, I shall refer to falnnliar priiciple.svit is not that I deem it at all , Recessary to call the attention- of members here toj them ; but because tney naturally r-ii wit inn the scope ofj my argument, which might other wise prove unintelligible. ' i ; From the time that this people declared its in- dependence of Great f "Britain,- ihe ; right of the f-government in its fullest and .broad-- est extent has been a cardinal principle of Ameri can liberty.' t None deny it. And in that right, tci use the language of the, Declaration itself, ;is ii eluded the "right whenever a form of govern ii cut beco'ii les -destructive of their interests or iheir safety, -f to alter or to abolish it, and to ins titute a ne vt government,' laying its foundation bti such principles and organizing its powers in. .such form' as to them shall seem most likely to :eFect their safety and happiness.''- I admit that tfere is a jirincip that modifies this power, to jWjhich I shu II presently advert ; , but leaving that, principle tor a moment out of view, I say that t&ere is no other modification , which, consistently jWith our lit erty, 'we can admit, and that the'right of the people of one generation in convention duly -assembled,- to alter the institutions be 'ueathed by their fathers is inherent, inalieuabl, qot susceptible of restriction ; that by the same' power, under, which oLe Legislature can repeal the act of ajformer Legislature, so can one conven tion of the ieople duly assembled,; repeal the acts df a former Convention' of the people duly . assem- J.j .j ii.Li j l i j.-j eu ciuii infiu it hs iu mi ici auu logical ueuucuuu om this lundamentai principle ot-j American llbertv. tha South Carolina has adopted the form ih which slie has declared her independence,. 1 She Has in convention duly assembled in 18G0, repeal ed an ordin ince passed by her people in convention Iquly assembled in 1788. If no interests of third parties wer j concerned v if no question of compact intervened, all must! admit the inherent power the same ii herent power, which authorizes a Le gislature to repeal ay law, subject to the same modifying principle, that where the rights of cjrhers thai the people who passed the law are; cjoncerhed, those rights must be-respected and cjanrtot be jintringed . by those who descend from the first.Legislature or whOjSucceed them. If a law He passed by a Legislature4 impairing a contract, : tjhat - law is void, not because the Legislature tender ordinary circumstances would not have the power to repeal a lawof its predecessor 'but: lecause by repealing a law ofits predecessors in volving a contract, it exercises rights in which third persctas are interested, and over which they , re entitled to have an equal,: control. So in the ; ease of a convention of the people, assuming; ;to ciijiu repeal oi an omiiiauee wuieu eiiowcu nieir dherence to the Constitution of the United tates, this power is inherently in them, subject nly to this modification : that they' are bound o exercisej it with duo regard to the obligations m posed upon them by the compact -with others. Authorities, On noints like this, are perfectly die ; but B ; fear that I may not have expressed he ideas which' 1 entertain so well as I find them xpressed byMr. Webster in his celebrated ar- ument iq the lthode Island case. He savs : "First and chief, no man makes a question' that ' the. eople are the. source of all political pmver. Govern- !npnt is instituted for their good, and its members ;)ire heir agents and servants. He who would argue against his, must argue without an adversary. Aud who thinks there is any peculiar merit in asserting a doc trine nke this in the midst of twenty million, people, .when, nineteen million nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand 'nine hundred and ninety-nine of them bold it, as wel its himself? There is no other doctrine I of government here ; and no man imputes to another, and no majri should claim for himself, any particular merit for aissertina what evervbodv know-s to be true. and nobitli' denies "-Works of Daniel Webster, vol. ix, p.2ll"'. ' : : ; . '- l-j..... But he says in this particular case an attempt is made to establish the validity of the action of the petipl? organized in convention, without their having been called into convention by the. exer cise ot any constituted authority of the State j and against the exercise of such a right of the people as that he protests. ' He say's : j : "It is not obvious enough that njen cannot get to gether auc count themselves, and say they are so many hundreds and so many thousands, and judge of their own qualifications, and call themselves the people, and set up a government ? " V hy, another set of men forty miles pit, on the same day, with the same, propriety, with ag gcod qualifications, and in as large numbers, may meet and set, up another government ; one may meet at Newport and another at Chepachet, and both may call tjhemselves the people; Ibid., p. 226. . ! . Therefore, he says it is not a mere assemblage of the people, gathered together sua sponte, that forms that meeting of the people authorized to' act in bejalf of the people: but he says that "A notlipr American principle growing out ' of this, and just as important and well settled as is' the truth that the people are the .source of power, is, that - when in the course of events it becomes necessary to isk certain the will of the people on a new .exigency of a neW stale of things or of opinion, the legislative pow er provide for that ascertainment by an ordinary act of legislation." . ' " I "All thit is necessary here is, that the will of the leople should be ascertained by. some regular rule I of proceeding prescribed by '.previous law. But .when ascertained, that will is as sovefeign as the s will of a despotic prince, or the Czar of Muscovy , or the ' Em jeror of Austria himself, though not quite so easily made known. A ukase or an edict signifies at once the will of a despotic prince but that will of the peo ple, wbichf is here as sovereign as the 'will of such, a prince, is not so quickly ascertained or known: and hence arises the necessity for suffrage, which is the mode whereby each man's power is made to tell upon ' the Constitution of the Government, and in the, enact ment of laws." - He concludes ''We sec, therefore, from the commencement of the" Government under which we live, down to this late act of the State of New York." ; , To which he had just referred " one uniform current of law, of precedent; and of prac tice, all going to establish the point that" changes in government are to be brought about by the will of the people, assembled under such .legislative provisions as may be necessary to ascertain that will truly and au thentically.", pp. 227, 229. We have then, sir, in the case of South Caro lina, so far as the duly organized convention is concerned, theipnly oqdy that .could : speak-the will of this generation in repeal of the ordinance" passed by their fathers in 1788 ; and I say again, if no third interests intervened by a. compact binding upon their faith, their power to do so is inherent and complete. But, sir, there is a com pact, and no man pretends that the generation of to-day is not bound by the compacts of the fath ers j butj to use the language of Mr'.- Webster, a bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken ou all ; and the compact is binding upon the gen eraiion of to-day only if the other parties to the compact have kept their faith. , ! ! T . This i$ no hew theory nor is practice upon it without precedent. . I say that it -was precisely upon this principle that this Constitution was formed, j I say that the old Articles of Confed eracy provided in express terms that they should be perpetual ; that the v should never be amended or altered without the consent of all the States. I say that the delegates of State? unwilling that, that Confederation should be altered or 'amended,; appealed to that provision in .the convention which formed the Constitution, and said : If you dp not satisfy us by the new provisions, we will prevent your forming your new government, because Vour faith is plighted, because you have agreed that there shall be no change in it unless with thej consent of all.? This was the argument of lut'ier Martin, it was the argument of Pater son, ,of" New Jersey, and of large numbers of other distinguished members of the convention. Mr Madison answered it. Mr,. Madison Baid, in reply to that : " It has been alleged that the Confederation having been formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous consent' only. Does this doctrine re sult from the nature of compacts? DtX)s it arise from any particular stipulation in the Articles of Confede ration ? If we consider the Federal Union . as analo gous to. the fundamentiil compact by which' individuals compose'one, society, and which niist,. in its theoretic origin at leasthave been the -unanimous act of the component members, it cannot be said that no dissolu tion of the compact can be effected without unanimous, consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact, by a part of the society, would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it." s a . o . ' o o 'o a If we consider the Federal Union as analogous.'not to the social compacts, among individual meu, but to tie conventions among individual States, what is the doctrine resulting froni these conventions? . Clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations,' that a bleach of any one article., by any one party, leaves all the other parties.' at lilxjrty to consoler the whole convention as dissolved, unless they clvose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach. In sotoe treaties,1 indeed, it is expressly stipulated that a violation of particular articles shall not have this con sequence, and even that particular articles shall remain in force during war, which is, in general, understood to dissolve all subsisting treaties.' But are there any: ex ceptions of this sort to the Articles, of Confederation ? So far from. it. -that there is not even an express stipu lation that force shall be used to compel an offending member of the Union to discharge its duty." Madi son Papers of Debates in the Federal Concent ion, vol. 5, pp. 206,207. . ,, s ; I need scarcely ask, Mr. President, if anybody j has found in the Constitution of the United States any article providing, by express stipulation, that force .sh?all be used to compel an offendinor mem- , ber of the Union to discharge its duty: Acting on that principle, nine States of the Confederation seceded .from the Confederationj and formed a new Government. -They formed it upon the ex press ground that some of the' States had violated their compact. Immediately after, two other J States seceded and joined them. They, left two alone, Rhode Island and North Carolina; and here ; is my answer to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr Doolittle, who asked me the other day, if thirty three States could expel one, inasmuch as one had the right to leave thirty-three : I point him to the history of our country, to the acts of the fathers, as a full answer upon that subj ct. After this Government had been organized; after every department had been in full operation for some time; after you had; framed your navigation laws, and provided what should be considered as ships and vessels of the United States, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were still foreign nations, and so treated by you, so treated by ydudn your laws; and in September, 1789, Congress passed an act authorizing the citizens of the States of North Carolina and Rhode Island to enjoy all the bene fits "attached to owners of ships and vessels of the United States up to the 1st of the following Jan uarygave them that much more time to come into the new Unionj if they thought proper; if not. they were to remain as foreign nations. Here is the history of the formation of this Constitution, so far as it involves the power of the States to se ceue'from a Confederatioii, and to form-new con federacies to suit themselves. Now, Mr. President, there isadifficulty in this matter, which was not overlooked by the framers of the Coustitution. One State may allege that the compact has been broken-, and others may de ny it : who is to judge ? When pecuniary inter ests are involved, so that a case can be brought up before courts of justice, the Constitution has provided a remedy within itself. It bias declared that no act of a State, either in convention or by Legislature - or in any other manner. shall violate, the Constitution of the United States, and it has provided for a supreme judhiary to determine xases arising- in law or equity which mav involve the construction of the Constitution or the con struction of such laws. ! ; t i .But, sir, suppose infringements on the Consti tution in political matters, which from their very nature cannot be brought before the court? That was. a difficulty not unforeseen ; it was debated upon propositions that ; were made to meet it. Attempts were made to give power to this Fed eral Government in all its departments, one after the other, to meet that precise case, and the con- -i to adi vent ion sternly refused to admit anv. It proposed to enable the I Federal G overnment. was 'through the action ; of Congress) to use force. j.uai. was reiusea. it was proposed to give to the President of the United iS tates the nomina tion of State Governors, and to giv them a veto on State7 Iaws so as to preserve the supremacy . of the Federal Government, j That was refused. It was proposed to make the Senate the judge of difficulties! that might arise between States and the. General Government. That was refused. It was finally proposed tot give Congress a nega tive on State lagislatioh, interfering with the pow ers of the! Federal Government: That was re fused. At last, at the very last moment, it was proposed to give that: power, to Congress by a vote of two thirds of each branch ; and that, tod, was denied. , ' V : v I ' ' Now, sir, I wish to show, with some little de tail as briafly as I possibly' can and do justice to the subject what was said by the leading members of the cohyeniion on these prppbsitioas- to subject the States,4 in their political action, "to t any power of the General Government, whether , f of Congress, of the judiciary, or of the Execn- uve anai ny- any majorities wharever.. xne first proposition was made by; Mr. Randolph, on the 29th of,May, 1787; and it was, that power should be given to Congress -i ' ! ""' " To negative all laws parsed by the- several States contravening, in the opinion of thefNational Legisla ture, the articles of Union, ot- anyj treaty subsisting un .der the authority of the' Union ;: and to, call forth the .force of,the! Union against any member of the Union failing' jto fulfill its duty under .the articles thereof." To negative all laws viQlativelbf the articles of Union, and to employ force to constrain a State to perform its duty. , Mr. Pinckney's proposi tion an the same day was : j fj : And to render these' probitions effectual, the Leg lature of the United States 'shall have the power to re vise the laws of the several, States that may he sup posed to infringe the powerf exclusively delegated by this Constitution to Congress, andj to negative and an nul suchas do." :: V 'I' T .- The proposition giving a bower to negative the laws of. the States, passeq at first hurriedly,, without .Qonsideration ; but upon furtberexami- ' nation, full justice wasjdohej to it, Upon the subfect of! forcejMr. Madison.; said, moving to postpone the proposition to authorize force : - , " Mr. Madison observed, that the more he reflected on the use pf force, the more he. oubted the practica bility, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively and not individually. A union" of the States containing such an ngredient, seemed to provide fof its : own idestruction. The use" of - force against a State would ! look more j like a declaration of war than ah infliction pf punishment, and would pro bably be considered by the, party attacked as a dissor lution of all previous compacts by which it might be bdund. 'lie hoped that such a system would be framed as '-might render this resource fs unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postpoijed." Madison Ta persDebates in the Federal Coni'eiitiony vol. 5, page HO. -. 1 :. y.;- ;:,-:-:; . ' f Mr. Mason, the s ancestor of; our own distin guished colleague froin Virginia, said : - " The most jarring elements of mature, fire and water, ; themselves,, are not niore incompatiVie than such a mixture of. civil liberty and military execution. Will ! the milita march from one State finto another in order to collect the arrears: .of taxe's from the., delinquent .members of -the- Republic ? Wil they maintain an "" army for this purpose ? Will nof;;the citizens of the invaded State assist pile another j;ill they rise as one man, and shake off the'Union altogether -? Relellion is the oiily case in rWhic,h. the military force of the State. can be propery exerted against its citizens. -In-one point of view, he was struck with horror at the prospect of recurring .to this;; expedient. To punish the non-payment of taxes; with jdeath was a severity not yet adapted by despotims itself ; yet this unexam pled cruelty would be imercy cohiparei to a military collection of revenue; in which thti;bayonet could make . no discrimination between the innocent and the guilty. He took tliis occasion to repeat, that,: notwithstanding his solicitude : to establish a national Government, he never'. wo.uld agree to! .rtboUsh'thd State " governments, or render them absolutely insignificant. They were as necessary as the general Government, and -he would be equally careful to preserve them" -A-Madixon Papers Debates in the Federal Convention, vol. 5, p. 217. Mr. Ellsworth, upon the sapjie subject, said: . " Hence we see how necessary for theTJnion is a coercive psinciple. ' No' man- pretends the contrary : we all see and feel this hecessityfjf The only question, is, shall it'be a coercion of law St a coercion of arms? There is.h6;other: possible alferpative. .Where will those who Oppose a doercidh o law come out ? jWhere will they end ? A , necessary consequence ot their principles lis a war o the States one against the' other. I am for coercion by law4-thiat coercion which acts onlyjipon- delinquent individuals! ; This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, in their p&itical- capacityl-r''No;'ecefpion is applicable to such bodies ; but that of an armed force. ' It we should attempt toj execufe the i lays of the Union by sending an armed j- force against ;a jdelin quent , State, it would involve thte good an4 badj thd; iniiocent and guilty, in the same calamity."--Elliof s Debates, o 2, p. 197 'Alexander Hamilton isaid : f . , ..... i - - . . . . ! " It has heen observed, to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that ivas ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This leing the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil, war ? Suppose: Massachusetts, or . any "large State, should refuse, and Congrebs should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from thosef. States which are in the same situation as themselves What picture does this idea present to our View ? ', A complying State at war with a non-complying Statef; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bsom of another ; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal headf Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any' reasonable man be well dis- posed toward a Government . which makes war and carnage the only .means of supporting itself-r-a Gov ernment that can exist only by the sword ? Every such war must involve - the innocent with the guilty. This single'Consideration. should be sufficient todispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government." FUurfs Debates, vol. 2, p. 233. ; ? - . ; But; sir, strong ; as thesW gentlemen were against giving the power- to exert armed force f against the States, some ot the best and ablest members or the convention were in iavor oi giving Congress control over State action by a negative. Mr. Madison himself was strongly in favor of that ; and if that power had been granted, the first of the personal liberty bills that were passed would haye been the last,, for Congress would at once have anuulled it, and the.other States would have taken warning .by that example. Mr. Pinckney's proposition was; jbrought up, that Uhe national Legislature should have authority to negative all Iaw3 which they should judge to be improper' He urged ! it strongly. Mr Madison said : X , ' f . "A negative was the mildest expedient that, could be devised for preventing these mischiefs. The exis tence of such a check would prevent attempts to com mit them; ; Should no such precaution be engrafted, the only remedy would be in an: jappeal to coercion. Was such a remedy eligible 1 Was it practicable ? Could the national resources, if exerted to the utmost, enforce a national decree against Massachusetts, abet- ted, perhaps j by several of her neighbors? It would not be possible. A small proportion of the commu nity, in a conipait situation, acting on -the defensive, and at one of its extremities, misrht k anv Hm hi.l j fiance to the national authority. ; Any government for umroi ouilw, lurmwi ou ine iSiipposea practica bility of using force against the unconstitutional pro ceedings of the States, would prove as" ' visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress. Debates of Convention, jMadison Papers, o 6, p. 171. ; That is, of the Congress of the Confederation. Well, 8ir, Ir. Butler said to that, he was fVe henient against the negative in the proposed ex tent as cutting off all hope of equal justice to the distant States.: The people there would not, he was sure, give' it'a hearing yVjand oil the vote, Mr. Madison, aided by Mr. Pinckney, got - but three States for it, and of these three States one was Virginia' and he got Virginia only by a vote of three tb two, General. Washington in the chair not voting.! The proposition j therefore, was di rectly put dqwn, but it was not killed , forever. On the 17th of July it . was renewed, and Mr. Madison again urged the convention to give some power to the Federal Government over State action: ' ' "'' -' :'.'- .' . . ' ' "f .:' "Mr. Madison considered the negative on the laws of the States as essential to the efficacy and security of tne ijenerai ijovernment, i The necessity of a General Government" proceeds from thje propensity of the States to pursue their particular; interests, in opposition to the general interest. The propensity will continue to dis-r turb the system unless effectually controlled. Nothing short of a negative on their laws will control it. , They will pass lay s which will - accomplish their injurious -objects before they can be repealed by the General Legislature or set aside by the national tribunals." ; f - , "Aj.power of negativing the improper laws of the States ,js at on.ee the most mild and certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. .Its utility isisufficiently displaj-ed in the British system"', &c. This Wj s again negatived i;n July by tha same vote. Finally, on the 3rd St August, for the last time, an attempt was made to give the nega tive with a check uponlit; iud it was in these words : ' -' j :i: ' ' : : ''Mr. Cl aries- Pinckney moved to add,- as an addi tional powdr to be vested' in the Legislature of the ! United States : ; - f "' ; . "To negative i all laws passed by the several States, interferiiig, in the oiuion:of the Legislature, with the general interests and harmony of the Union, provided that two-thirds of the members of each House assent to the sami !." . :. . , ' ' I ' r' i - '- "'. ' Mr Mndisoh wanted' it committed. Mr. Hut ledge said : . .,: '. ' 4, i - . -'If notling else, this alone would damn, and ought to. damn, the Constitution "Will any State ever agree to be bound hand and foot ih this manner ? It is Worse, than making mere corporations of them, whose by-, laws wouljl not be subjecli td this shackle." And tjiereupon Mr Pinckney withdrew his propositiclii, and ;, all .cotiol :. vas abandoned. There was then, to be ho control on the part of the General Government over ' State legislation, otherwisejthau'in the action of the Federal judi ciary up oh such pecuniary cpntroversiesas might be property .brotigh tbejfore them. . .- Notwithstanding all; this j jealousy,! when this. Constitution came to be discussed in the, conven tions of the States, it met formidable opposition, upon the ground that :thc States were, not suffi ciently sep u re. Its advocates by every possible means ejtdeavored to quiet the al trms of the frien 's ofj State rights! Mr. Madison, in Virgi nia, against Patrick Hfenry Mr. Hamilton aud Chief Justice Jay, in New York, against the op ponents tjfierej in all the (States, eminent men ustid every, exertion in their power to induce the adoption the Constitution. They failed, urfil !hoy proposed to accompany "their ratifications with amendments that should prevent its mean ing froni being perverted,) and prevent it -from being falsely construed; and in two of the States especially the States of , Virginia and New York thb ratification was - preceded by a state ment of what their opinion of its trQe meani-g was, and a statement that, :on that construction, land under that impression, jthey ratified it. So:ne of 4he members of the Convention were1 for ask ing for these amendments ;in advance o1' ratifica tion; But! they were (old it was unnecessary. In the Virginia convention,, ! Mr. Randolph, who was fjeueral Washington's Attorney General, and Judge Nicholas, ' both expressed the opinion -that it was not necessary, arid that the ratification would be conditional uoou that construction, m r Randolph said . y "If it be not considered too earlv, as ratification has not vet been sooken of. I 1kT to speak of it. If I did believe, with the honorable gentleman, that all power not expressly retained was: given up by the people, I would detest this Government! . - . ''' v "But I never thought so; nor do I now. If, in the ratification,: we put words to this purpose, " And that all authority not given; is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perjv'efted to their oppression ; and' that no right can 'be: cancelled, abridged or re strained, by the Congress, or any officer of the United 'States,' I say if we do thisl conceive that, as this style of ratification would manifest.. the principles on which Yirginia adopted it' we should be at liberty to consider as a violation of the Constitution every ex ercise of a power not expressly delegated therein. I see no objection to this. ; i ; -' : And Mr. Nicholas sai the same thing : "Mr. Nicholas contended that the language of the proposed ratification .would j secure everything which p-entlemen desired, as it declared that all powers vested in the Constitution were derjved from the people, and might be resumed, by them whensoever they should be pervertecl to their injury ahd;oppression; and that every power hot granted thereby remained at their will. No danger whatever could arise; for says be these ex pressions will become a part1 of the contract. The Con stitution cahnot be binding on Yirginia but with these conditions, j If thirteen individuals-are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the" same time declares that -he understands: its meaning, signification, and intent to be ( wha the words of the contract plain ly and obviously denote) that it is not to be coastrued so as to impose any supplementary condition on him,1 and that he is to be exinerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, I ask whether, in this case, these conditions on which he has assented to it would not be. binding on the other twelve ? In like manner these conditions will be binding on Cmgress. They can exercise no po" J that is not expressly grant ed them." ';-;;., '. :.( ;. : '':' '-- ;-- ' :.,-' - So, sir, we find that hot alone in these two con ventions, but by the common action of the States, there was an important addition made to the Con stitution by which it was expressly provided that it should not be construed to be a General Gov ernment over all the ; people, but that it was a Government of States,! which delegated powers to the Gleneral ' Government. The language of the ninh and tenth amendments to the Constitu tion is susceptible of no other construction : ! . "The enumeration in ; the Constitution of eertain righta shall not be construed .to deny or disparage others retained by the people." ' . - "The powers not delegated to the United htates. Gentlemen are fond of using the words "sur reLdenl" abandyocd, ! given op. That j the constant language ohs-the other de n, guage of the amendment intended to fix the mean ing of the Constitution says that these powers were not abandoned by the Stater not surrendered, not given up, but "j (delegated," and therefore subject to resumption: ! The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to people." jiiur prviuoiteu oy u io tne State, jthe States respectively, or to tlie NowL Mr. Presideht, if we admit, u we must. bat there are c'prbiin,'nn1W!n1 ?.;I,fa n.un:,y to the States of this Union by the terms of the !--: Constitution itself rights political in their char-: acter, and not susceptible of judicial decision if any-'Siate is deprived of any of those rights, what itfthe remedy? for it is idle to talk to us at ' this da in' a lapguage which shall tell us we have rights and no remedies. Fojr the purpose of illus- iraung tne argument upon this subject, let us -suppose a'cieari palpable case of violation of the , i Constitution. . Let us suppose that the State of ; ! South-Carolina having sent two Senators to sit -f upon this floor, had been met by a resolution of ' j. the majority here that, according to her, just v weight in the Coufederacy, one was enough; and j " that we had directed our Secretary to swear in - j but one, and toj call but one name on our roll as the yeas and nays are called for voting. The i Constitution says that each State shall be entitled : , to two Senators, and each . Senator shall have one vote. What power is there to 'force the domi- " nant majority to repair that wrong? Any court ? Any tribunal ? lias the Constitution- provided V any recourse whatever ? Has it uot remained de- ; . signedly silent on the subject of that recourse ? ; And yet, what man will 'stand up in this Senate I and pretend that if, Under theso circumstances, the Sjate of South-Carolina had declared, I er- i tered into a Confederacy jor a compact by whiew I wasjto have hiy rights guarantied by the con- slant presence of two Senators upon.your floor'; ' you atlow me j but one; y -u refuse to repair the . injustice ; withdraw what man would dare ; say that that was a violation of the Constitution . on the part of South-Carolina ? . Who would say that. It hat was a revo'utiouary remedy ? Vho would; deny the plain and palpable proposition J that i was the: exercise of a right inherent in her - ' u'ndcrj the ver3r,.principIesof tlie Coustitution, and i , necessarily so inherent for self-defence ? . j . . . Why, feir, tlie North if it has not a majority here tj -day wijl have . it very sn' Suppose these ; gentleinen' from the North with the majority think that ii is no more than fair, inasmuch as wo rep- .'.-! resent here States in which there are large" nunir bers of slaves, that the northern States should have seach three Senators, what are wo o. do ?. v i neyj swear them in. iNo court lias the power of prohibition,! of mandiiinux. over this body in , the exercise -of its political powers', It is the ex elusive judge of the elections, the qualifications, ; aud the returns of its own members, a judjje, withojut appeal. Shall the whole fifteen south ern States submit to that, and be told that they are guilty of rpvolut onary excess if they say we will not remain with you. on these terms ; we nev er agtecd to it?. Is that revolution, , or is it the exercise of clear constitutional rights ? , Suppose this violation occurs under. 'circum stances where! it does not appear so'plain to you, . but where it does app2ar equally plain- to South Caroliina; theh-yx)u are again brought feack, to tne n;icvocaD;e point who is Carolina says,! you forced me to decide f nouth, mc to the expenditure of my treasure, you forced, me to th ! sheIding of the b ood of my people, by a niajcrity vbte and with my aid you acquired territory ; now l.mive a coukitutional right to go into that .territory with my property, and to be there secured by your laws against its loss. 1 u. say, no, sue has not. Now there is this to be said : that riffht.is n't -to be put down in the Con.stiiiit-on in quite so clear ' toruis1 as tbe right to have two Senators ; but it is a right which she asserts with the coneurrtut ., opinion of the entire South; It is a right whi-li-she averts with the concurrent opinion of one . thirdj or two fifths of your own people interested in refusing it.j It is a right that she 'asserts, at , all e'ent.s, if hot: in accordance with tha decis- . iou as you may say no decision was rendered in accordance wi'h the opinion expressed: by the : Supreme Court of the United S ate; butyct there is no tribunal for the assertion of that po litica right. is she without a'remedy nder the Constitution t K not, then what tribunal ? Jf : none is provided, then naturaldaw ami the law of nations tellsyou that she! and she alone, from the very necess;ty of the case, must be the judge of the infractiou and of the mode and 'measure of redress. ;- . :i' - . . :' .,.'' ,-- ' . This is no 'novel doctrine ; but it, is as old as the law of nations, ; coeval in pur system with the fouudition of the Constitution ; clearlyanuounced over and over again in our political .'history;' A very valued friend from New York did ine the favor to send me an extract,- which he has writ- ten out, from an address delivered by John Quincy Adams before the New York Historical , . Society in 1839, at the jubilee of the Coustitu- ; tiori. His language is this : . , ' ' " 7" Nations' ackno'wleilge no judge between them upon . . " earthj and their Governments, from nece.ity, muct m , their intercourse with' each other, decide when the failure of one! party to a contract to perform it ob- ' liatifns absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfil.f ment of his own. But this last oi eartniy powers not necessary t) the freedom or independence of States, . connected together bv the . immediate action, of the -, -people, of whom they' consist. To the people alone.u ; there reserved as well the dissolving as the coastituent . . powr, and that power can be exercised by them only . undfr the tie; of conscience, binding them to the re- , tributive justice of heaven. . ' " With these qualification's, we may admit the same j ri"ht as vestl in the people of every State m the ;. jnlm, with reference to the General' Government, ;; -which was exercised by the people of tle,Unito(i Colonies with reference to tbe supreme head of the K British Empire, of which they formed a part ; and, , umler these limitations, have the people of each State in the Union a right to secedefrom the confederated ; Union itself ?j ; . ,: - " Tims sUmls the right. But the mduwoluble link; v, of union between the people of the severat States of thisiconfaleratcd nation is, after, all, not m the rujht, but in the herert: If the day shild ever come (may Heaven avert lit) when the affections of; the peopWof these States sfcall be alienated from each other ; wtwn ,: the fraternal spirit shaU give way to cold inference, or Elisions of-interest shall fester mto haUred. the r bands of political association will not. long hold to gether parities! no longer attracted by the magnetism I v ; conciliated interests and'kindly Kympathies ; and far ; better wilHt be for the people of the disunited SUtw . to hart in friendship from each other, than to be hld . toother by constraint. Then will be the time fur re verting to the precedent, which- occurred at the foj ; mation aifd arJoption of the CnHtitutim., to form again j. a iriore perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated, parts to le reunited by tbe law of political gravitation, to the center. . .. . - : ; '' . r - :', . ' -; . '.- (OOSCLUDED ON FOUkTH PACK.) " v i i1 -1 .' '-i1 4 j ; -.- i-r 'I , ! 'ii it
Daily State Journal (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Jan. 9, 1861, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75