The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-10-15

forever the Union Il designed % uphold. Mad.
Papera, 76l m
But could you re uni the eonfedaTaey by
the sword : What would be the marriage ar
ticle Would you dye the wedding garment
with the blood of your bride, and lead her to the
aacndcial altar Of yonr glorious reunion, the
bleeding, trembling victim of your brutal viola.
ton.
Never You may enforce your terms OF
peace upon foreign government; you may
wade through seas Of blood TO the heart OF your
alien foe you may dictate your stern decree in
the capitol of your enemy, ringing with The
shouts Of your victory but you can never
gather around the hearthstone Of Il common
union, or mingle in tie delights of noble
brotherhood, States, estranged by your wrongs,
crushed by your armies, and to be bound to you
in a union, cemented with their blood.
Bat | am not left to maintain this view with
out authority. la the federal convention, pro.
position was early introduced to give Congress
the power Nto call forth the force of the Union
against any member of the Union failing to ful.
I'll its duty under the articles thereof Mad.
Pap, 1872 This was no new proposition, AS
we have seen, that il WAS suggested as early as
1871.
Subsequently, upon The discussion of this
proposition, Mr. Madison moved its postpone
ment, which, for the reasons alledged by him,
was done mem. con.
These reasons were that it would be found
impracticable, inefhcacious and unjust, to use
70. against q people collectively; that the
Union based on such principle, "seenaed 10 pro
ride for its o,on destruction" He said that "the
use of force against State would look more
like declaration of war;" and that 1t ewould
probably be considered by the party attacked as
dissolution Of all previous compacts by iohieh
il might be bound" lie hoped that the system
might be so framed as to render this proposition
unnecessary" Mad Pap, 76l
1t was postponed, and never suggested after
wards. system was established in which it
was not deemed necessary TO incorporate this
revolving principle; and thus by its rejection is
the inference made inevitable. that as the Union
can only be formed by the flee consent of the
parties to the compact, ii can never be held to
gether against that consent by the force of arms.
should feel less confidence in these conclu
sions, were it not for the express reservation of
the right in question made by the State Of Vir.
ginia in her ratification of the federal Consttu-
ton.
la that act she declared shat the powers
granted under tn, Constitution being derived
from the people of the United States, may be
resumed by them whensoever the same shall be
perverted to their injury or oppression, and that
every power not granted thereby remains with
them and at their will" Journal Of Fed. Con,
4l6.l
Now what did Virginia mean by this Ian
guage? The reservation of the ri Int to resume,
necessarily involves tie idea OF previous dele.
CATION; nor can power be resumed, except by the
delegating authority. This is the natural and
inevitable construction from the relation of these
terms. IT, then, the question be asked, to whom
is the right Of resumption under the terms OF
the ratification Of Virginia, the answer will be
found by asking who delegated the powers to be
resumed
The answer to this question has been already
given. Each Sicte has for itself delegated the
exercise of It's powers to the federal govern
ment 1t is proved, as before shown, by incon-
te5tible facts, and is virtually asserted in the act
Of ratification itself
IT, then, each State delegated powers, by whom,
bat by each, shall or may they be resumed Can
they be resumed by those who never delegated
them? Clearly not.
If it rs asked, why was the term, "the people
of the United States See previous comment
on the meaning of this term, historically con-
sidered, used in this act of ratification, an
swer that it was designed to assert the same
right In the people OF every other State which
Virginia claimed for herself The obvions mean
ing of the act is this, therefore: that the pow
ers granted by the Constitution were derived
from the people of each of the United States,
by its own separate action; that all the powers
not granted by each State remain with each, and
that such as they have been delegated, when
perverted to the injury or oppression of any
granting State may be resumed by it.
This view is distinctly main aimed by the re-
marks of Mr.. Madison respecting the granting
parties TO the Constitution, and of Mr.. Nicholas
upon the ratification itself; both delivered in
the Virginia convention 1888. [Elliots Debates
ia, ll5, 564-5.
This right TO resume the delegated powers, s
asserted in terms equally emphatic by New York
in her act of ratification, and as it was subse-
quent TO, and obviously substantially borrowed
from that Of Virginia, from its direct and reflex
bearing upon the question under discussion, it is
important. After declaring that its delegates
represented the people Of NsD York, it proceeds
TO assert {" that the powers Of government may
be re assumed by the people, whatsoever it shall
become necessary to their happiness" that ali
powers not delegated remain with the people
of the several States, or to their respective State
governments" &c. Jour. of Fed. Con. 4
26-7.
Subsequently Rhode Island adopted the Con-
stitution by form of ratification in which the
precise language above cited from that of New
York is copied ID. 456
1t seems, then, beyond doubt, that this hon
ored commonwealth with two others, did, at the
moment of becoming parties TO the compact, as
sert the right of re-assuming their delegated
powers under certain circumstances; an asser-
ton which, upon plain principles, in the language
of Mr. Nicholas already referred TO, became "a
part of The contract" " The Constitution" said
he, cannot be binding on Virginia, bm wih
these condiiiqns" What conditions? One of
them was this very right TO resume which is the
right Of secession. And it is right, by the
very terms of reservation, resting for it's ex-
ercss only upon the discretion Of the Site
itself, and not subject TO be overruled by the
judgment of the others or of the government
The same views were subsequently main
tanned 10 the celebrated resolutions and report
of 1889, from the pen Of Mr.. Madison and in
the resolutions of Kentucky, at the same period,
from the pen of Mr.. Jefferson. lElliotts De
bates, $40, $40 1t Is with conf ience, great
iy increased by these celebrate papers, that
mai tain, In the language of one of them, tina
the government, created by this compact, was
not made the exclusive or final Judge Of the ex
O.. e Al I 4 - IL