The southern press., 1850-10-09

~
cs,li !. l. Z ls9I @ ts: t ~ \ i - M -
It FIR y ~ nhaAady III sasss.f41 n ~ tsw
Conutituton. that tie ratikssisea of nins States
should BE- sufficient for il establishment between
the States 30 ratiying it. and therefore for their
secession and sepAuAlon from the rest If the
lattsr preferred The Uhiou already existing
Now il the right Of secession be denied, the
trainers Of the present Constitution were all
traitors-tsaitors not 10 the British Government,
but to their own Government Ifit be said that
the night Of q people TO change or alter their
form of government, istthe right only Of the
whole people living under common govern
meut, OF Of a maiosity OF them only, then was
the act of forming the Constitution reasonable.
For it regarded no such majority Of people, but
provided only for the consent Of States, and At
that time nine States might have contained mi-
nority of the people. Bat it will be observed
that in every step Of our political history we
have acted by States, and have never done any
thing politically by . majority Of the whole Peo
pie, or pretended to do it. The reservation,
therefore, Of the right Of the people, as made in
the acts Of ratification, to amend change their
government, meant the people Of the States re-
spectjvciy, and could not have meant a majority
of the whole people Of the Union, for that is
expressly excluded in the provision made for
amending the Constitution in that instrument
itself. That provides for amendments by the
votes of three -foorths of the States.
1t may b. said that the provision in the Con
stitnton requiring three-fourths of the States to
concur in amendments excludes all other modes
But If that were 80, why did not the thirteenth
article of Confederation, which required the as
sent of every State to all amendments, prevent
the formation Of the present Constitution with
clause that the assent of nine States would
establish it between the States so ratifying it !?
Hence, it would seem that the concurrence OF
three-fourths of the States, according to our
present system, binds all the Suites within the
system But the reservation Of the right of Sc
cession, leaves the States the same power they
exercised in forming the present Constitution,
to form another system, to be in force among
those only which acccde to it.
There is another provision of the present
Constitution n, which is incompatible with the
doctrine that State can be forced to remain
within the Union. 1t is that which guarantees
to every State republican form Of government
If the people Of State were to renounce the
existing Union, they could not be compelled 70
remain member, and yet have republican
government. AS to them it would be despotic.
The Legislatures Of any of the Ststes may,
now as under the Confederation, send delegates
or commissioners to Congress, to form diff
ferert system of Government and if when
formed and submitted to the people Of those
States it is ratified, it is their Government, as
rightfully as the present Government came into
being. And any attempt to interfere with a Gov
ernment thus formed would be a wrong-would
be violation of the fundamental principles Of
the American system of political rights.
If such movement were made, and better
system than the present were produced, the love
of Union as well Of progress, which abounds in
NIL our States might be relied on to secure its
general adoption.
The present Government originated in diih-
culties not half so great as those now existing.
The regulation Of commerce was the main OBJ
iect Of the change made from the old Confedcra-
ton. The protection Of property and the main
.tainance of equalty-the very existence OF =
vast system of society and civilization would be
the objects now-objects incalculably greater
than then. Let us then enuat, the example
of the great sagcs and statesmen, who founded
the present Constitution. Let us follow the
precedents they have established, let us modify
the system they founded, to preserve the prnci-
pies for which they contended.