Southern planter., 1832-11-17

whole otthe pats; to which, IL be- added al, il se,s
e u1 pssnoe ol The Constitution 10 be ordained hy ihe
o ~ tue United -hos, and iu he article Of faiifcs.
uui when tauhod IL declared "to he bnd,nr bct,,ss
~. ~ s'l's so muying" the conclusion il Inevitable h,t
m sus constitution IS i work Of The pcoplr ofhe State.
considered as separate aud independent noitie, rnnuri
ues-hat they as ahlnrs-tboir .,o,er cre,i,ii !,
met voice elehcd with authorty-that the & arnment
" o,msd, Is "a reality their agcnt- and that the Union.
~ Michh u Is the bond, an Uuon Of States and not Of
'NuNas No one who rcesls bis character iof intel
senee and truth, has ever ycniuod 10 DENY tact. 10 cen.
Ilpi bu' while they too certain fur denial they are
ao TOO conclusive n favor Of tie rets Of be States r
admission The usual cotise has beer ,d,,.J ~ ei,d
Mhai can neither bo denied nor admitted aud never ias
w "'Flee neen more successfully pfHtsed Dt ron.onf-
..s Mlln state 1oyemments, q NE people OF the
a'es WIN he Ame lean People collectively things as Il
iegafds The subject Of this communications totally dsmi
1-as much % as nangle and square; acts Of them
I pc'i'e'y certain and plain, and which, when well
nndesioo must lead 10 correct conception II the sub.
liect-haee been involved Ia obscutity and mystery
Wil next proceed TO state some Of the results which
necessarily oow from the facts which have been esiab.
lhe hrsi and in reference the subject Of s commu.
oauoi the 1st Important, IS that there no direct and
connection between the individual citizens Of
otaie and The General Government. The relation b..
tweeh Them is through the state The Union h IN IN,
lo OF states, rs communities and not an Union Of ndi
Nuuas As members Of State, her cidzens " ere origin
any SUBJECT TO no control hui that uf the Sate and could
be subject tOno Other exrept by e at Of be STATE sof
he Constitution was accordingly sutmitted 10 the States
.heir separate racation and il was only BY the auf-
N" " 'Nhtet mat ifs became subject
control OF the General Government The raiihcaton Of
any other, or al the other States without its own could
create no connection between th and the General Gov
eminent nor impose on them the slightest ollisat,nu
"l'nout the ratification Of their own State they wou
stand IN the same relation the General Go eminent as
~ ,e eiu1ens o. subjects OF any lfogn tate, aud we
'u u'1 elukens OF North Carolina ynd Rhode Island, ac
ula " bearing tat relation to the Government for some
ume after u went into operation these States havin In
the INST instance declined 20 fatiy ho had tho Act of
any individual The least influence ia ubieeng him TO the
Il
luence the routcation Of th Constitution by a. own
Stale whether subject to is control or not depended
Whony on the act OF tc State Ills dissent had not the
east weight against the assent Of his State nor his assent
agn.t ils dissent Il follows as necessary consequences
mat the act Of ratification bouud the State as connuni
" as expr ssy declared IN the article Of ranic,tion
anoVe quoted and not the eitzens oi the States as iu.
uduas the latter being bound through their state sod
~ consequence Of the ratification o the former Another
ana highy important consequence il regards the sub
Ject under investigation follows with cuua uertintv; that
on question, whether particular power exc cised bv the
General Government be granted ~ the Constitution it
belongs 70 state, member Of the Union IN her SOW
efelgn apaciy "a Convention 10 determine defniiyey
s ar as her czes are eoncosned the extent % the oh
CATION which she contracted and IT, her opnion the act
exercising the power be Unconstitutional, to declare it
nun and VOID, which docafauon would be Obligatory on
her citizens In coming 10 This conclusion il may be pro
per To remark TO prevent msepi iesentaton that do not
lain for STATE the right abrogate act Of the Gcner
a. Government Ii sthe Constitution that annuls an un-
constitutional act Such act is of Itself void and Of no
elect What claim Is, the right Of State, far its
citizens nre concerned to declare the extent Of the obga
ton. q that such declaration sbuding on them-a right
when limited 70 its citizens flowing directly from tho rea-
ton Of the State TO the General Government on 'he one
side, and its tizcns the other already explained,
and resting on The most plain and solid reasons
Passing over, what OF itself might be con.idered
clusiye the obvious principle that belongs the author
ity which imposed the obgat TO declare is extent, as
far those concerned whom the obligation Is placed
sha present single gument which, OF ITSELF deci-
sive have already shown that there is immediate
connection between the citizens Of state and the Geuer-
Il a..
through the state. have also shown that whatever Oh
legations imposed on the citizens imposed by
the declaration Of the state dtiyng the Constitution.
similar deca alton, by the authority, made with
qual sOemnity declaring the extent Of the obligation
must. Far as they concerned, be Of equal authority
speak, of course, the suppositon that the right has mol
been transfer ed It win hereafter be shown that il ha
not. citizen would have more hight to question tho
one than he would have the other, declaration They
the same authority and as he was huundby tho de
claratiOn OF his State asserting 10 the Constitution wheth
he assented dssented, would lac be equally bount
by deela aon.declarng the extent Of that assent, whe
ther opposed TO or IN favor Of such declIat n Ia this
conclusion am supported by analogy The case Of trea
ty between soyeregns, strictly analogous There
this case, the state contracts for the citizen, subject
there, this, the obligation imposed by the State
and Is independent of his will; and there, this, th
declaration Of the State determining the extent Of the oh
legation contracted, is obligatory on him, as much a
the treaty itself
point that the declaration Of State, to the ent
tae power granted, is obligatory on its citizens, shal
proceed 10 consider the eects q such doclatons ref
erence 10 the General Government; question which ne
cessarly nyove> the consideration Of the relation betwee
il aud the States Il has been shown that the people @
the States acting distinct aud independent comnuni
ties are tie authors Of the Constitution and that the Grn
eral Government was oganzed aud ordained ~ them
cute its powers The Government, then, with all IL
departments s in fact the agent Of the States, cons
ted to execute their joint will expressed in the Cons
I, tuition.
. In using the term agent, do not intend to derogae,
+ any degree from its character Government II Is
truly and properly Cove nment, the state Govern
IS ments themselves. have applied il, simply because
strictly belongs the relation between the General Gov
eminent and the states 10 fact It does also to hi
Q between State and is Government Indeed, aeco
ding 10 our theory Governments are in their nalue b,
il trusts and those appointed to administer he trustees
agents to execute the trust powers. The sovereignty -
sides elsewhere; ia the people, not in the Sovenment
And with us the people the people OF The sever
Estates originally formed into trtoen distinct and ind'
IA pendent communities, and now INTO twcniylour Foht
,r caly speaking in reference SYSTEM there az
\. 40 other people The General Government, as well
those Of the States is but the orgahoi their power u
litter that Of their respectiv States through which az
exercised separately that portion Of power not delegate
e by the Constitution, and q the exercise OF which eac
m State has local and particular interest, the iormer,
n Joint organ Of All the States conicdeatcd into one gener
"A community aud through which they jointly and coneu
v uglv exercise the delegated powers ~ which an have
lcommon interest Thus viewed, the Constitution OF u
H. limited Sates with the Government II created tu
n and strictly the Cons uon Of each state; as much so
n iis own particular Constitution and government, H