The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-23 00:00:00

rican right of revolution. But then it should be

called revolution.

" Secession, as a revolutionary

right," said Daniel Webster in the Senate, newly
30 years ago, in words that now sound prophet c

"Is intelligible. As a right to be proclaimed ii the
midst of civil commotion and asserted at the head of arnies,
I can understand it. But as a practical right, exiling

under the Constitution, and in conformity with its povi-
sions, it seems to be nothing but an absurdity, for it sup •
poses resistance to Government under authority of Go-ern-
ment itself; it supposes dismemberment without violating
the principles of Union ; it supposes opposition to law vith-
. _

out crime ; it supposes the violation of oaths withott re.
sponsibility ; it supposes the total overthrow of Governnenl

without revolution."

The men who had conducted the American people
;hrough a long and fearful revolution were the

Founders of the new commonwealth which perma•

nently superseded the subverted authority of the

Crown. They placed the foundations on the un-
biassed, untrammelled, consent of the people. They
were sick of leagues, of petty sovereignties, of
Governments which could not govern a single indi-

vidnal. The framers of the Constitution, which has
now endured three-quarters of a century, and under

which the nation has made a material and intel-
lectual progress never surpstased in history, were
not such triflers as to be ignorant of the consequences
of their own acts. The Constitution which they
offered, and which the people adopted as its own,
talked not of Sovereign States—spoke not the word
confederacy. In the very preamble to the instru-

ment are inserted the vital words which show its
character, " We, the people of the United States, to
ensure a more perfect union, and to secure the bless-
ings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution." Sic volo, sic
jubeo. It is the language of a Sovereign solemnly
speaking to the world. It is the promulgation of a
great law, the norms agendi of a new common-

wealth. It is no compact.
" A compact (says Blackstone) is a promise proceeding
from us. Law is a command directed to us. The language
of a compact is, We will or will not do this; that of a law
is, Thou shalt er shalt not do it." (1 B. 38, 44, 45.)
And this is throughout the language of the Con-
stitution. Congress shall do this ; the President
shall do that; the States shall not exercise this or
that power. Witness, for example, the important
clauses by which the " Sovereign" States are shorn
of all the great attributes of sovereignty—no State
shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit, nor pass
ex post facto laws, nor laws impairing the obliga-
tions of contracts, nor maintain armies and navies,
nor grant letters of marque, nor make compacts
with other States, nor hold intercourse with foreign
Powers, nor grant titles of nobility ; and that most
significant phrase, " this Constitution, and the laws
made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme
law of the land."
Could language be more Imperial ? Could the
claim to State " sovereignty" be more completely
disposed of at a word ? How can that be sove-
reign, acknowledging no superior, supreme, which
has voluntarily accepted a supreme law from some-
thing which it acknowledges as superior?
The Constitution is perpetual, not provisional or
temporary. It is made for all time—" for ourselves
and our posterity." It is absolute within its sphere.
" This Constitution shall be the supreme law of
the land, anything in the Constitution or laws
of a State to the contrary notwithstanding." Of
what value, then, is the law of a State declaring its
connection with the Union dissolved ? The Con-
stitution remains supreme, and is bound to assert
its supremacy until overpowered by force. The use
of force—of armies and navies of whatever strength
—in order to compel obedience to the civil and cons
stitutional authority, is not " wicked war," is not
civil war, is not war at all. So long as it exists the
Government is obliged to put forth its strength
when assailed. The President, who has taken an
oath before God and man to maintain the Constitu-
tion and low., is r oijiirpa if 12 0 j-icia. the Constitu-
tion and laws to armed rebellion without a struggle.
He knows nothing of States. Within the sphere of
the United States Government he deals with indi-
viduals only, citizens of the great Republic, in what-
ever portion of it they may happen to live. He has
no choice but to enforce the laws of the Republic
wherever they may be resisted. When he is over-
powered the Government ceases to exist. The Union
is gone, and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Ohio
are as much separated from each other as they are
from Georgia or Louisiana. Anarchy has returned
upon us. The dismemberment of the Commonwealth
is complete. We are again in the chaos of 178-5.
But it is sometimes asked why the Constitutiot
did not make a special provision against the right
of secession. How could it do so ? The people
created a Constitution over the whole land, with
certain defined, accurately enumerated powers, and
among these were all the chief attributes of sove-
reignty. It was forbidden to a State to coin money,
to keep armies and navies, to make compacts with
other States, to hold intercourse with foreign na-
tions, to oppose the authority of the Government.
To do any one of these things is to secede, for it
would be physically impossible to do any one of
them without secession. It would have been
puerile for the Constitution to say formally to each
State, "Thou shalt not secede." The Constitu-
tion, being the supreme law, being perpetual,
and having expressly forbidden to the States
those acts without which secession is an impos -
sibility, would have been wanting in dignity
had it used such superfluous phraseology. This
Constitution is supreme, whatever laws a State may
enact, says the organic law. Was it necessary to
add, " and no State shall enact a law of secession ?"
To add to a great statute, in which the sovereign
authority of the land declares its will, a phrase
such as " and be it further enacted that the said law
shall not be violated," would scarcely seem to
strengthen the statute.
It was accordingly enacted that new States might
be admitted ; but no permission was given for a
State to secede.
Provisions were made for the amendment of the
Constitution from time to time, and it was intended
that those provisions should be stringent. A two-
thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, and a rati-
fication in three-quarters of the whole number of
States, are conditions only to be complied with in
grave emergencies. But the Constitution made no
provision for its own dissolution, and, if it had so
done, it would have been a proceeding quite with-
out example in history. A constitution can only be
subverted by revolution, or by foreign conquest of
the land. The revolution may be the result of a
successful rebellion. A peaceful revolution is also
conceivable in the case of the United States. The
same power which established the Constitution may
justly destroy it. The people of the whole land may
meet, by delegates, in a great national convention,
as they did in 1787, and declare that the Constitu-
tion no longer answers the purpose for which it was
ordained ; that it no longer can secure the blessings
of liberty fer ihe people in present and future gene-
rations, and that it is therefore for ever abolished.
When that project has been submitted again to the
people voting in their primary assemblies, not in-
i fluenced by fraud or force, the revolution is law-
fully accomplished, and the Union is no more.
Such a proceeding is conceivable, although at-
tended with innumerable difficulties and dangers.
But these are not so great as those of the civil war
into which the action of the seceding States has
plunged the country. The division of the national
domain tad other property the navigation mid