Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-11-22

From the New York Commercial Advertiser
We commented the other day upon some
in sermon preached last Sun
day evening by the Rev. DR.. Bellows, of
this city, in which the right to dissolve this
Union was clearly and unequiyocaily affirm
ed. The election was then in prospect,
and some readers would probably suspect !
MS of political motive for calling their at
tention to the doctrine promulgatedin that
discourse We were Of course DESTROYS that
the public should see to what results the
Republican doctrine of the day tended; but
there is that Importance in the subject that
gives permanent interest to the discus
sion We therefore again recur to it, now
that it is Invested of all immediate political
bearing, and that mems minds are better
fitted to give it the consideration it merits.
DR.. Bellows, as the reader will remember,
took the position boldly that "the dissolu-
ton of the Union is not primarily and OBJ
vionsly question Of conscience, but OF
policy" that 'it is not primarily question
of right and wrong, but of expectancy"
that 1--WE made the Union, and we have
right to unmake it if we chooses" that 1--WE
should violate no moral principle by abro-
eating the contract with the consent of
the parties to it," &c
The preachers argument was plausible,
but not sound and we deem it in the high
est degree dangerous and injurious. If
mems minds are led to regard the question
of dissolution as simply one of erpedlency,
there must be an end to that veneration
for the Union as sacred obligation and
trust which is the surest if not the only Sc
curity for its perpetuity. II, because we
made the Union, we have right to un-
make it at our whm or option, what be-
comes of the sacredness of the Union? On
this question of the right to dissolve the
Union we must take direct issue with the
distinguished preacher. We deny the
right. National suicide is wrong and
an immortality as well as an Individual sui
eide
Men who have taken broader views OF
this subject than Dr. Bellows, who have
looked at it in the clear broad light of con
stitutional principles have reached very
different conclusions from that to which
this divine's earnest pursuit of one thought
leads him. The Hon. WIN. A. DUER, in
his able Lectures on the Constitutional
Jurisprudence of the United States" holds
the following language:
at has been contended that State has righ'
under the present onstitutiOn-independentl Q ,
the natural right of selpreserVaton and resistance
to intolerabe oppression-to secede, at its own
will and discretion, from the Union. But if the
Federal Constitution be government owing pro
faotinn m indiuiduala and entitled n their Ohpii
ence, whether formed by the people of the United
States in the aggregate or by the same people as
citizens of the respective States State authority
can dissolve the relations subsistng between that
Government and the individuals subjected, in eth
mode, to its authority. From the nature of those
relations nothing dissolve them but revolution;
and there can therefore be no such thing seces>
sion without revolution. The Constitution estab,
fishes union between the people of the several
States, intended to be perpetual. 1t contains nu-
merous provisions founded that suppositiOn, and
among them one for It's own amendment, none FIR
its abandonment. It declares that new States may
be admitted into the Union, but not that old States
may withdraw from it.
The Union is not, like the Confederation, redu-
chile even to perpetual alliance between the
States, much less 30 a temporary one but it il as
association of The people of the several States
in one mass, under permanent and paramount
as individuals, crested and assented to by that
power in each State which alone bad authority to
abrogate its particular constitution, or so far to
modify it as to surrender powers TO the General
Government which had previously been delegated
to the State governments. No State, therefore,
can undo what the people have done, nor absolve
its citizens from their obligations to obey the laws
of the Union. 1t cannot diVest them of their past
moral rights as citizens of the United States; nor
A. 7
their own oaths to support the Federal Constitu-
ton as the supreme law of the land; neither can
any convention of the people of any State any
more than the people themselves, collectively or
Individually dispense with their obligations or dis
solve their allegiance to the United States, unless
they respectively possess the constitutional power
Of settling for themselves the construction Of this
supreme law in all doubtful cases.
'But the Constitution has not left this point
without full and explicit provision. If any case
arise depending on the construction of the Federal
Constitution, the individual power of the Union
attends TO it in whatever court it may originate.
OF all great the Supreme Court of the United
States has appellate jurisdiction and its judgments
are final aud conclusive"
The learned author of the lectures thus sums up
his arguments:
a. That all the powers requisite to secure the
objects of the National Union are vested in the
Federal Government, while those only which are
not essential to that object reserved to the
States or to the people. g That this National
Government, though limited in its powers to ma
tional objects, is supreme in the czerciss of those
powsrs, whether exclusive or concurrent, express
or implied; and that, whenever any Of these pow
ers come into collision with the concurrent or in
dependent powers OF the States, the State author.
ity which is subordinate, must yield to that of the
nation, which is supreme. 3. That this Oonstitu-
tion the laws made 10 pursuance oft, and treaties
made under the authority of the United States,
whether before or after the adoption of the FEEDER
al Constitution, are TIE supreme idu Of The land
and that both from the nature of the case and the
provisions of the Constitution the National Legsla
ture must judge OF and interpret the supreme law,
as often it exercises its legislative functions that
the Chief Executive Magistrate Of the Union, 10
like manner, possesses the right OF judging OF tie
nature and extent Of his political authority; and
that IN all cases assuming the character Of suit
in law equity, the supreme Judicial tribunal Of
the Union is the final interpreter Of the Constitus
ton 4. That no State authority has power to dis
solve the relation between the Government OF the
United States and the people of the several States
and that consequently, no State has right to SCI
cede from the Union except under such crcuu.s
stances as would justify a revolution.
ain this exposition it has, trust been rendered
also manifest that unless such were the nature and
principles of that Constitution il would never have
accomplished-Rs il has most effectually and hap
pily-the great ends for which ii was advanced,
nor delivered the people Of this country from the
evils they had experienced under the Coufedera-
ton. / trust, too, that in reviewing this system
Of Government in It's practical operation and results
you will have perceived that we have abundant
cause Of gratitude 10 heaven, not only for defending
US from those former evils which must necessarily
have increased under mere alliance between the
States, but for bestowing us in their stead those
blessings of liberty law, ORDER peace, and prosper.
ity which, under Providence, the Federal Consti.
tuition has secured to the present generation and