Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1860-12-08

manner, it car only be exercised by the people
of the Territory represented in a convention of
delegates for the purpose of framing Consti-
tuition, prefatcry to admission as State into
the Union. Then, and not until then, are they
| invested with power TO decide the question
whether slavery shall or shall not exist within
/ their limits. This is an act of sovereign au-
thority, and not of subordinate territorial legis-
lation. Were it otherwise, then indeed would
the equality of the States in the Territories be
destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves
would depend not upon the guarantees ofthe con
stitution, but upon the shifting majorities Of an
irresponsible territorial Legislature e.
Such doctrine, from its intrinsic unsound-
ness, cannot long influence any portion of our
people, much less can it afford good reason
for dissolution of the Union. The most pal
pable violations of constitutional duty which
have vet been committed consist in the acts oi
different State Legislatures to defeat the exc
cution of the Fugitive Slave Law. 1t ought
to be remembered, however that for these act:
neither Congress nor any President can be
Justly held responsible, having been past in vi
olation of the Federal Constitution, they arr
therefore null and void. All the Courts, bott
State and National, before whom the question
has arisen, have, from the beginning, declared
the Fugitive Slave Law to be unconstitutional
The single exception is that Of a State Court
in Wisconsin, and this has not only been re-
versed by the proper appellate tribunal, but
has met with such universal reprobation that
there can be no danger from it as precedent
The validity of this law has been established
over and over again by the Supreme Court Of
the United States with perfect unanimity. II
is founded upon an express provision Of the
Constitution, requiring that the fugitive slaves
who. escape from service in one State TO anoth-
er shall be delivered up TO their masters.
! Without this provision, it is a well-known his
tOrical fact that the Constitution itself could
never have been adopted by the Convention.
In one form or another under the acts of 1898
or 1859, both being substantially the same the
Fugitive Slave Law has been the law Of the
land from the days of Washington until the
present moment. Here, then, clear case is
! presented in which it will be the duty of the
next President, as it has been my own, to act
with vigor in executing this supreme law
against the conflicting enactments of State leg
islatures. Should be fail in the performance
of this high duty, he VIII then have manifested
disregard of the Constitution and laws to the
great injury of the people of nearly one-half
the States of the Union. But are we 10 pre-
sumo in advance that be viii thus violate his
duty? This would be at war with every prin-
! ciple of justice--of christian charity. Let US
wait for the overt act.
! The Fugitive Slave Law has been carried in
to execution in every contested case since the
commencement of the present administration,
though often, it is to be regretted, with great
10th and inconvenience and with considerable
expense to the Government. Let us trust that
the State Legislatures will repeal their uncon-
stitutiOnal and obnoxious enacunents; unless
this shall be done without unnecessary delay it
is impossible for any human power to save the
Union. The Southern States standing on the
basis of the Constitution, have a right to de-
mand this act of justice from the States of the
North. Should it be refused them, the Con-
stitution, to which all the States are parties,
will have been wilfully violated by one portion
of them, in provision essential to the do
mestic security and happiness of the remand
er In that event the injured States, after
having first used all peaceful and Constitution
al means to obtain redress, would be justified
in revolutionary resistance to the government
of the Union.
! have purposeIy confined my remarks to
revolutionary resistance, because it has been
claimed within the last few years, that any
State, whenever it shall be her sovereign will
and pleasure may secede from the Union in
accordance with the Constitution, and without
any violation Of the constitutional rights ofthe
other members of the Confedoracy; that as
each became parties to the Union by The vote
of its own people assembled in Convention, so
any one of them may retire from the Union in
q similar manner, by the vote of such Con-
vention. In order to justify secession as a con-
stitutional remedy, it must be on the principle
that the Federal Government is a mere vOlun-
tary association of States, to be dissolved at
pleasure by one of the contracting parties. If
this be so, the COnfederacy is a rope of sand,
and to be penetrated and dissolved by the first
adverse wave of public opinion in any of the
States. In this manner our thirty-three States
may resolve themselves into as many petty,
iarring and hostile republics, each one retiring
from the Union without responsibility, when
ever any sudden excitement might impel them
to such a course; by this process a Union
might be entirely broken into fragments in a
few weeks, which cost our forefathers many
years of toll, privation and blood to establish.
Such principle is wholly inconsistent with the
history, as it was framed with the greatest de-
liberation and care, it was submitted to con-
ventions of the people of the several States for
ratification, its provisions were discussed at
length in these bodies, composed of the first
men of the country. Its opponents cOntended
that it conferred power upon the Federal Gov
emment, dangerous to the rights of the States,
whilst its advocates maintained that under
fair construction of the instrument, there was
no foundation for such apprehensOns. In that
mighty struggle between the first intellects of
20,
any individual, either among its opponents or
advocates, to assert or even to intimate that
their efforts were all vain labor, because the
moment that any State felt herself aggrieved,
she might secede from the Union. What
crushing argument would this have proved
against those who dreaded that the rights of
the States would be endangered by the Con-
sttution? The truth is, that it was not until
many years after the origin of the Federal Gov
ernment, that such a proposition was first ad-
vanccd. 1t was then met and reiuted by the
conclusive arguments of General jackson, who,
in his message of the 10th of January, 1888,
transmitting the nulliiying ordinance of South
Carolina 10 Congress, employs the following
language:
''The right of the people of single State
to absolve themselves at will without the con-
StUl tl tlCI s7tdAto, llhAll lllCAl lAtNb SUI
emnEobligations, hazards the liberty and happi-
ness of millions composing this Union, and can
not be acknowledged Such authority is be-
lieved TO be utterly repugnant, bo.h to the
principles upon which the General Government
Is constituted, and to the objects which it was
expressly formed to attain. 1t is not pretend
cd that any clause in the Constitution gives
counteEance to such a theory, it is altogether
founded upon inference, not from any language
contained in the instrument itself, but from the
sovereign character of the several States by
which il was ratified: but it Is beyond the pow
er of State, like an individual, to yield
portion of its sovereign rights to secure the
remaindcrl' In the language Of Mr.. Mad-
son, who has been called the Father Of the
Constitution. it was formed by the States, that
is bv the people in each Of the States, acting in
their highest sovereign capacity and formed
consequently by the same authority which /
formed the State Constitutions nor is the gov
crnmcnt of the United States, created 10y the F.
Constitution, less a government, in the strict |
est sense of the term, within the sphere Of its ,
powers, than the governments created by the |
Constitution of the States are within their sew I
era spheres. IL is, like them, organized into /
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary depart /
mcnts. 1t operates like them directly on per-
sons and things, and like them, it has at COM
mand physical force for executing the powers .
committed 70 il; was intended TO be perpetual, /
and not TO be annued at the pleasure OF any
one of the contracting parties of the COnfed
Grafton. a perpetual union between the States,
and by the 18th article, 1t Is expressly declared