The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-16

themselves TINS rlgnt OF secession IN Otnor
words that secession is not a granted right
found in the Constitution. When, Dir. Presi-
dent, has the doctrine obtained that the States
have to look into the Constitution to find out
what rights and powers are granted to them
The States were 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. 1t
is the most monstrous doctrine of federalism |
have ever heard announced, that the States have
to- look into the Constitution of the United
States to find what powers are granted to them
in that instrument. Why, the Constitution it,
self says that the powers not granted to- the
government of the United States, nor prohibited
to the States, are expressly reserved to the
States or the people respectively, showing that
the Constitution was grant Of powers 10 the
federal government and simply prohibition in
some instances OF certain powers to the States.
The Constitution never makes grant of power
to the States. That would have been granting
things to themselves. Therefore, it is entirely
reasonable that this right of secession should
not he found in the Constitution AZ a granted
right to. the States, because there were no
granted rights to the States in the Constitution
Nobody 6tor pretended that this was constitu-
tOnal right, meaning by that right expressly
granted in the Constitution. No man in his
senses ever took such position as that.
But, sir, as the Constitution says that the
powers not granted to the federal government,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the
States or the people respectively, then if this
power is not found to be prohibited in the Con-
stitution to the States, and if it was an original
power Of the States, it remains to them under
the reserved powers. That is the true position
in reference to this right.
No one denies, as ! have said before, that the
States were originally sovereign; that they were
declared separately sovereign aud indepe
by the treaty with Great Britain, and that before
they entered into the compact of union they were
sovereign Then this right to resume sover'
eighty is one of the reserved rights. 1t is
right reserved under that clause of the 'Consti
tuition which says: "The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people"
This is the only way in which it has ever been
commended that this right of secession is a con-
stitutional right and in this sense it is as much
constitutional right as any other reserved right.
think that all the reserved rights of the States
are recognized by the Constitution in the same
way, and in this respect may be called constitu-
tional rights. should like some gentleman to
point out where this right, if there ever was an
original right Of sovereignty in the States is pro-
hbited to the States in the Constitution. To
be properly understood, this right of secession
must b. considered in three points of view--as
an act,a right, and remedy. Most persons are
led into error on this subject by confounding the
act Of secession with the right Of secession. The
act is only the means by which the right is So.
cured The right itself is the right of State
to resume its original sovereignty whenever that
State decides that the compact is broken, or that
the acts 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 one or not, is another question If
1t ~ remedy, however, growing out Of an actual
right which the State has, then it ought to be
peaceable one; and it would be peaceable we're
it not that the federal government, the party OPP
posing it, but having no right to oppose it by
force, might, from motives of interest or power,
or for other purposes, prevent its peaceable ex-
ercise As, then, the remedy would rightfully
be q peaceable one, so also is the right. In
strictness, sir, in the exercise of the right of &C.
cession there would be really no act of seces
sion, because the exercise of the right goes upon
the assumption that the federal government has
already destroyed the compact that the Consti-
tuition no longer exists in its binding form upon
the parties and that, therefore, there is really
no act of secession, by withdrawal on the part
of State; but as some Of the other States
would doubtless still remain together, even if
usurpation were exercised by the federal govern.
ment to an extent not to be borne by others, it
would be regarded as the State performing the
act of secession by the exercise of the right, in
resuming her original sovereignty Then, as
have said, whether it would be a peaceable
remedy or not would depend upon the federal
government, influenced by its interest in de-
terfnining whether it would compel State to
be subjected by force of arms, because it had
the power, but not the right to do 80.
1t has been commended that no such right ex-
lists, because under the articles of confederation
it was said the Union was to be perpetual, and
because in the preamble of the Constitution it
is said the object is to form "a more perfect
Union" 1t is n common cns tom in all treaties
made between one nation an another, to say
that they shall be perpetuu aud there is nothing
in this But, sir, the main point to which wish
to draw your attention, in connection with the
idea that this right cannot exist, for the reason
that it is said that the object of the Constitution
is to create "a more perfect Union" and that that
Union is, therefore, to be perpetual" ia, that
the Union was to be a more perfect Union, and
a perpetual Union for certain purpose. And
what was that purpose? 1t is laid down in the
preamble to the Constitution itself, that it was
to be more perfect Union, +" to establish
Justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide
for the common Defence to promote the general
welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity." So sir, if the
Union in the beginning was to be perpetual
Union, it was to be a more perfect Union for
these great purposes; and whenever it fails to
accomplish these purposes, then the object for
which it was declared more perfect Union has
ceased, and the reason why it was to be per-
petual, no longer exists. Do gentlemen mean to
say that this is to bea perpetual and more perfect
Union" whether it sutserves the ends for which
it was established or not! Do they mean to say
that this is to be perpetual and more perfect
Union in proportion rs il becomes a Union of
more power, graspng with a stronger and
a tighter hand, rights which belong to the States,
and centraliziug them in the federal government,
until the whole is merged in despotism? That