Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-02-14

dience to the law.
That the power Of annexing Louisiana to this
Union. had not been delegated TO Congress, by
the Constitution of the United States was INV own
opinion; and II Is recorded upon the journals of
the Senate. oil which WAS then member. But
far from thinking the act itself justifying cause
Tor secession from the Union. regarded il as one
OF tine happiest events, which had occurred since
the adoption OF the Constitution. I regretted that
an accidental illness in my family, which detained
| inc on my way to w ashington, to take nv seat in
the Senate, deprived me OF the power of voting
for the ratification OF the treaties, by which the
! cession was secured. arrived at Washington on
| the fourth day Of the session of Congress- and on
entering the city, passed by the Secretary Of the
senate, who was going from the capitol to tho
| Presidents house, with the advice and consent of
that body 10 the ratification.
took my seat in the Senate the next day. Bills
were immediately brought into Congress, making
appropriations to the amount Of fifteen millions
dollars for carrying the Conve ntion into effect and
for enabling the President, to take possession Of the
coded territory. These measures were opposed
| by all the members of the Senate. who had voted
against the notifications Of the Conventions. They
| were warmly and cordially supported by me- I
had no doubt OF the constitutional power to make
the treaties. Ii Is expressly delegated in the Con-
stitu'ion The power oil making the stipulated
payment Tor the cession, and Of taking possession
Of the coded territory, was equally unquestoned
| by me: they were constructive powers, but 1
| thought them fairly incidental, and necessarily
consequent upon the power to make the treaty.
but the power OF anneKing the inhabitants OF
Louisiana to the Union, Of comforting upon them,
ia mass. all the rights. and requiring OF them all
the Duties OF citizens Of the e. States il appea,
to me had not been delegated to Congress by tho
people Oh the Unon and could not have been dele
gated by them, without the consen, of the people
| OF Louisiana themselves. thought they requir-
ed IN amendment OF the Constitution and vote of
| IL people Of Louisiana; and offered to the Sc
nate resolutions for carrying both those measures
in'o effect, which were rejected
IL has been recently ascertained, by letter from
NJ, Jefferson to Mr. Dunbar, written in July,
isoo, alter he had received the treaties, and
vehed Congress to consider them, that in his opin
lon the treaties could be carried into effe CT
wihout IN amendment to the Constitutions: and
mat the proposal for such an amendment would be
the hrst measure adopted by them, at their meet
ing Yet. MIR. jefferson, Precedent of the United
States did approve the acts of Congress, assuming
! me power which he had so recently thought not
| delegated to them, and, the Executive Of the
Union. carried them into execution.
Thus, Mr.. Jefferson, President of the u. States,
| the federal members of Congress, who opposed
| ana voted against the ratification Of the treaties,
and myself, all concurred in the opinion, that the
LOUISIANA cesson treaties transcribed the cOnst-
! tutionai poveSHOf the government of the United
| states but 1t was, after all, question of con
strucive power. The power of making the trea-
" was expressly given without Limitation. The
| sweeping clause, by which all powers, necessary
ana proper Tor Carrying effect those expressly
delegated, may be understood as unlimited. 1T is
10 be presumed. that when Mr.. Jefferson approved
| and executed the acts of Congress, assuming the
doubtful power, he had brought his mind to ac-
quiesce In this somewhat Authoritarian construc-
tion L opposed it as long aud as far as nv oppos-
'ion could avail. acQuiesced in it. after il had
received the sanction OF all the organized authori-
~ oil the Union, and the tacit acquescence of the
| people Of the u. States and of Louisiana Since
"hich lime, 40 far as this precedent goes, and no
farther, have considered the question as irr-yo-
| cabiy settled.
But, in reverting to the fundamental principle
Oh all our constitutions that obedience is not due
10 an unconstitutional law. and that its execution
may be lawfully resisted, you must admit, that
| hau the laws OF Congress for annexing Louisiana
TO The Union been resisted, by the authority of one
! or more States OF the then existing confederacy
| as t'conSlfuf,o3l1t, that resistance might have
been carried to the extent Of dissoving the Uuion,
and OF forming new confederacy; and that if the
! consequences Of the cession had been so oppres-
sive upon New England and the North, as was
apprehended by the federal leaders, TO whose con-
duct at that time, all these observations refer the
project which they did then form of severing the
| Union, and establishing Northern Confederacy,
would, IN their application OF the abstract principle
70 the existing state OF things have been justia-
ole. In fheir views, therefore, | impute to them
I nothing which IL could be necessary for them to
disavow; and, accordingly, these principles were
distinctly and explicitly avowed, eight years after
wards by my excellent friend, MIR. Quincy in his
speech upon the admission of Louisiana az a State
into the Union. Whether he had any knowledge
oil The practical project of 1903 and A. l know not;
put Tie argument OF his speech, in which he re-
ieTred TO my recorded opinions upon the constitu-
ionai power, was an eloquent exposition OF the
| lusii'ying causes of that project, as had heard
| thein detailed at the fime That project, repeat,
mad gone TO the length of fixing npon military
| ieader Tor ITS execution; and although the cir
cuinstances oil the times admitted of its ex-
ecuuon, nor even OF its full deveIopement had
yet no doubt, in 1908 and 1902 and have no
DOUBT at this time. that il is the key to all the
great movements of these leaders of the federal
party in New England, from that time forward
tiii us fina catastrophe in the Hartford Convention
"ehtiemen,-l observe among the signers OF
your letter, the names Of two members of that
convention, together with that of the son of its
president You will not understand me as affirm
ing, that either OF you was privy to this plan of
military execution, in 1904. That may be known
10 yourselves and not TO letter of your first
signer, recently published, has disclosed the fact
mat he altho the putatve was not the real father
OF the Hartford Convention. As he, who has
MtFetto enjoyed unrivalled the Lonors i nov dis
posed 10 0es!oW upon others the shame OF its pa.
terni!y, may not the ostensibie and the real char
acter oil other incidents attending it, be alike diver
Eed, 40 that the main and ultimate object OF that
assembly, though beaming in splendor from its
acts was yet in din eclipse TO the vision of its most
distinguished members,
However this may be- IL was this project of
l9O5 and ., which, from the time when first
took my seat in the Senate of the United States
ahcnated me from the secret councils of those
'eadcFs oil the federal party. | was never initiated
In them. approved and supported the acauisi-
uon OF LOUISIANA; and from the first moment that
tue PROJECT of separation made known 10 me
opposed to IL determined and infie xible resis.
lance.
Ii is well known TO some of YOU, gentlemen
that the cession of Louisiana was moi the first