The daily union., 1852-02-14

usurps other powers not delegated 10 such
as 10 destroy the objects for which the government was
created II that be the correct definition, in my judg
menl il is, who to be the Judge OF this abuse OF power
or OF this usurpaiion OF poweri That the only qnes-
lion involved in determining this right because whoever
takes the position that this government may exercise
powerspoliiica powers-not subject 10 the supervision
OF The Supreme Court of the United States and who says
that the government has right 10 Judge OF the extent OF
It's powers, say he takes the position that this is not
limited constitutional government, but that II Is govern
men OF the majority, whose mere will is the Limitation
oil the powers OF the government ITSELF and that II be-
comes government OF unlimited powers Whoever
takes the other position that when the government
usups power not delegated TO it, abuses powers which
are delegated to such extent that the States cannot
bear the takes the position that the
States have right TO determine Tor themselves whether
those powers have been abused usurped, must admit
the night Of secession That is the only question in-
volyed in The determination OF this right.
II said that the word sovereignty" is not found in
the constitution Why, sir there Is very plain reason
for that, and that is this II intended
by the States, when they made the federal government
and adopted the constitution OF the United States to cre
ate the federal government sovereignty; therefore
constitution in connexion with the powers OF the federal
government Ii never was intended by the States when
they created the federal government under the consltu
ton, TO yield up their sovereignty except so far as they
gave some portions of il conditions and limitations
specified in the constitution therefore it not
say their to place the word Sovereignty in
the constitution to show that what they parted
with reserved 10 them will not be denied that the
States originally sovereign. Everybody knows that
with Great Britain, and each State stood then an
independent sovereign State. When they created the
federal government by the compact OF the constitution,
did those States by that act place themselves in posi-
ton, if the constitution was violated by the federal
government in such way to become too oppressive
to be bone that they could be restored back again
States created the federal government by the constitution,
did they by that act commit political suicide, and not
only commit political suicide by which they then became
dead but by which, after DEATH they were to become
annhila,ed, if the government itself failed TO accomplish
the purposes for which il was created! Certainly not
II said that in the formation OF the federal constitu
ton the States have not secured TO themselves this right
of secession in other words, that secession is not
granted right found in the constitution. When, Mr..
President, has the doctrine obtained that the States have
10 look into the constitution to find out what rights and
powers granted 10 them The States originally
sovereign They had all the powers of sovereignty
they made the federal government and conferred upon
that government all the powers which it has. Ii is the
most monsrous doctrine of federalism | ever heard
announced that the States have TO look into the const
tuition oi the United States to nd what powers are granted
says that the powers not granted 10 the government OF
the United States, nor prohibited to the States ex
pressy reserved to the States the people respectively
showing that the constitution was grant of powers 10
the federal government, and simply prohibition in some
instances OF certain powers 10 the States The consttu
ion never makes grant OF power TO the States. That
would have been granting things 10 themselves There
fore it is entirely reasonable that this right OF secession
should not be found in the constitution as granted right
the Saes because there granted rights TO the
States in the consultation. Nobody pretended that
this constitutional right, meaning by that right
expressly granted in the constitution. No man in his
senses took such position as that.
But, sir the constitution says that the powers not
granted TO the federal government prohibited 10 the
States reserved TO the States the people respect
lively, then il this power not found TO be prohibited in
the constitution to the States and ii II was original
power OF the States II remains 10 them under the re-
served powers That is the true position in reference 10
this right
No one Denies as have said before, that the States
originally sovereign; that they were declared sep
aa1 ap1an htff
Great Britain and that before they entered into the
pact OF union they were sovereign. Then this right
10 resume sovereignty is one OF the reserved nights IL
rs right reserved under that clause OF the constitution
which say The powers not delegated 10 the United
States by the constitution prohibited by 1t to the
States reserved to the States respectively, to The
people"
This is the only way in which il has ever been son-
tended that this right OF secession is constitutional
right; and in this sense is as much constitutional
right as any other reserved right think that all the re-
served rights OF the States recognised by the consl
tuition in the same way and IN this respect may be called
constitutional rights. | should like some gentleman TO
point ont where this rght-if there original
right OF sovereignty in the Saiesis prohibited TO the
States in the constitution. To be properly understood,
this right OF secession must be considered in three points
OF view-as act right, and remedy. Most persons
led into this subject by conoundng the act OF
with the right OF secession. The act IS only the
means by which the right secured The right itself is
the right of State to its original sovereignty
whenever that State decides that the compact broken,
that the OF the federal government have become
too oppressive TO be borne; the remedy Is, the relief
which the State has from oppression by the exercise OF
this right Whether this remedy may, in all cases, be
practicable not, is another question. II il is
remedy, however, growing out o an actual right which
the State has, then il ought TO be peaceable one and
would be peaceable IL not that the federal govern
ment the party opposing il, but having right TO OPP
pose il by force, might, from motives OF interest pow
er for other purposes prevent It's pcaceabe exercise
As, then, the remedy would righ,iuy be a peaceable
one, so, also, is the right In strcness in the
else OF the right oil secession there would be really
Af Tho anf he rfrht
upon the assumption that the federal government has al
ready destroyed the compact that the constitution no
longer exists IN its binding form upon the parties and
that therefore there is really acto secession by with
drawa The part OF State but some OF the other
States would doubtless still remain together even il
exercised by the federal government 10
an extent TO be borne by others, IL would be regard
ed as the State performing the OF secession by the
exercise OF the right in resumng her original sovereignty
Then, have said, whether IL would be peaceable
remedy or would depend upon the federal govern
ment Influenced by IFS interest determining whether
il would compel State TO be subjected by force OF
arms because had the power, but not the right 10 do
so.
Il has been coniended that such right exists because
under the articles of confederation II said the Union
was to be perpetual and because in the preamble OF the
constitution is said the object is TO form perfect
Union" IL is custom IN all treaties made be-
tween nation and another 10 say that they shall be
perpetual and there is nothing in this But sir, the
main point which wish TO draw your attention. in
with the idea that this right exist for
the that il is said that the object OF the constitu
Union is, therefore, be perpetual" is, that the Union
was TO be a perfect Union and perpetual Union
for certain purpose And what that purposes II s
laid down IN the preamble 10 the constitution ITSELF that