The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-10-22

-
authority or color TO the right of secession Of a
State once admitted into the Union.
The partzans OF this novel and strange doe
trine, attempt to support il on two grounds :
First, they contend, that by an express amend
ment of the Constitution, as all powers not
granted to the government OF the Uni cd States
IRE reserved to the States, or TO the people, the
power or right of secession is not granted, and
that il is therefore retained by the States and the
people, aud may be exercised at their pleasure
This argument is refuted by either of two suf
fcient answers The contested power cannot
be retained, if its reservation be incompatible
with the obligations OF the constitutional COM
pact But the Constitution was Intended TO be
perpetual, or which ia the same thing, to be of
unlimited existence, subject only, from time to
time, to such amendments as might be made, in
the mode which it specifies. 1t created more
perfect Union which was TO secure the blessings
of liberty to the generation which formed II, and
to their posterty The obligation which each
State voluntarily assumed to the other States,
by being admitted into the Union, was, that it
would remain perpetually bound TO the other
States to preserve that Union, Tor their own
benefit, and to inure to the benefit OF posterlty
To assert in the face Of that Obligation, that
State may retire from the Union whenever 1t
pleases, is to assert that party, bound by a
solemn compact to other parties, may cancel or
violate the compact whenever it thinks proper,
without their consent In order TO secure re-
spect and submission to the Union, the Consul
tuition expressly provides that THIS ConstIln-
ton, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all trea
ties made, or which shall be made, under the au-
thorty of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the constitution or laws of any State to the con-
trary notwithstanding"
Thus each and every one of the States has
agreed, not only that its ordinary legislation, but
that its constitution, the higher law made by
the people Themselves in convention, shall, In
any cases of conflict, be subordinate to the para
mount authority of the Constitution. laws made
in pursuance thereof, and treaties of the United
States. If, therefore, any State were, either in
its legislature or in convention OF delegates OF
the people, to declare, by the most formal act,
that it had seeded from the Union, such act
would be nugatory and an absolute nulity; and
the people of that State would remain bound by
the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Uni ed
States, rs fully and perfectly AS if the act had
never been proclaimed.
But there is another view also, conclusive
against the pretension of secession being a
power reserved to the States under the amend
ment of the Constitution referred to. The
reservation Of power implies its existence in
the party reserving it, prior to such reservation.
But when State existed in its Independent,
separate and unas ociated character, it would
have no right OF secession, there being no confed
eracy or other party from which to secede. Sc
cessionis incident to union or confederacy, with
out which it can h We no existence, and unless it
is clearly provided for in the compact of Union,
out of which it springs, and still more, If 1t be
terly irreconcilable with that compact it can
/ We no constitutional or Legitimate foundation
1t is commended, however, in the second place,
that the right of secession appertans to the
States, under and in virtue of their sovereignty
This argument scorns any reliance upon the
reservation Of powers in the Constitution, cuts
loose from all the obligations in that instrument,
defles the power and authority of the general
government, and finds solution of the authority
for secession in the sovereignty of the States,
What that sovereignty ID, it does not deign to
define or explain, nor to show how one if its at
tributes is to disregard and violate grave CON-
pacts.
The sovereignty of the States, prior to the
adoption of the present Constitution, was lin.
ton. They had agreed among themselves to
create perpetual Union. When, therefore, the
thirteen original States passed from under those
articles, to the Constitution they passed from
less to more perfect Union, and agreed to fur
ther limitations upon their sovereignty.
Under the present Constitution, among the
limitations and prohibitions upon the sovereign.
ty of the States, it is expressly provided that
no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation, grant letters of marque and re-
prisa, coin money, emit bills of credit, make
any thing but gold and silver coin tender in
payment of debts :" and no State shall, without
the consent of Congress- lay any duty of ton
mage, keep troops or ships Of war in time of
peace enter into any agreeT ent or compact with
another State, or with foreign power, or en-.
gage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent danger as will admit of no delay" 1t
may be affirmed with entire truth, that all the
attributes of sovereignty which relate to pea =
and war, commerce, navigation, friendship ard
intercourse with, and in short, all that relate TO
foreign powers, and several of these attributes
which relate to the internal administration of
the States themselves, are voluntarily surren-
dered to the general government, and cannot be
exercised by the States The performance of
any of the forbidden acts would be null and
void, no matter in what solemn and authentic
form, nor by what State authority, the legisla-
ture, convention, or the people themselves Of
the State in an aggregate mass it might be per
formed. The Constitution of the United States
would instantly intervene, vacate the act, and
proclaim the overriding, supreme and paramount
authority of the Constitution, laws and treaties
of the United States.
It is clear, therefore, that no State can do any
thing repugnant TO the Constitution, laws, and
treaties of the United States. What it might
do, if it we're in possession of all its absolute
sovereignty, and had never entered into this
Union, is a different question. But if we sup
pose, contrary to the historical fact that the
S,ais' were absolutely sovereign, when the exist
ing Constitution was adopted, could they cir
cumscribs and contract their attributes Of SOW
ereignty, by the stpuations and provisions
which are contained in it d? All history is full Of
examples of the total humiliation Of sovereignty,
or nationality, oftener by the power of the sword
and conquest, but sometimes by the voluntary
act of one nation merging itself into another, OF
which we have striking instance in the case of
Texas, in our own country. Assuming that the
Constitution is mere compact between indie
4