Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1860-11-20


lew word of his own, Wis compact, as I'M
porting the principal idea. aud designed 10
play the PRINCIPAL part, aud degrades eo'isti-
tation into an insignificant, idle epithet, at
tached to compact. The Whole then stands as
a constitutional compact : And in this way
he hopes to pass off a plausible gloss. as sat
isfying the words of the instrument. But he
will find himself disappointed. Sir, 1 must
say to the honorable gentleman. that. in our
American political grammar. CONSTITUTION
is a noun substantive; It imports clear and
distinct idea ss-itseii: and it is not TO lose
its Importance CT dignity. it is not to be
turned into :, pooE ambiguous senseless, an
meaning adj active. TOP The purpose of accom-
modating any new set OF political notions
Sir. we reject his new rules of syntax alto
geiher We will not give up our forms oil
political speech to the grammarians OF the
school of nullihcation. BY the constitution,
we mean, not constitutional compact; but
simply and directly, the constitution, the
fundamental law: and if there be one word
in the language which the peopl.. of the Uni
ted States understand, this is that word. We
know no more of a constitutional compact
between sovereign powers, than we know oil
u Constitutional indcnture of eopartncrship, a
Constitutional deed of conveyance, or c0nstitu-
don1E bill of exchange. But we know what
the Constitution is; we know what the plainly
written, fundamental law is; We know what
the bond of our Union and the security OF
our liberties Is; and we mean to maintain
and defend it, in its plain sense and unso-
phisticated meaning.
The sense of the genlleman's proposition,
therefore, is not at all affected, one way or
the other, by the use ef this word. That
proposition still is that our system OF gov
eminent is but a compact between the people
of separate and sovereign States
Was it Mirabeau, Mr. President, or some
other master of The human passions, who has
told us that words are things? They are in
deed things. and things of mighty influence,
not only in addresses to the passions aud
bigb-wrought feelings of mankind, but in the
discussion of legal and political questions
al-O; because a just conclusion is often
avoided, or false one reached, by the adroit
substitution of one phrase, or one word. for
another OF this we have, think, another
example in the resolutions before us.
"The first resolution declares that the people
of the several States 'Qcceded' TO the Constitu-
ton, or 10 the constitutional compact, as it Is
call,d. This word .acccde,' not found either
81. it-alf in the ratIfIpn-
rion Of il by any one of the States, has been
chosen for use here, doubtless, not without a
well considered purpose. The natural con-
verse of accession is secession and. therefore,
when il is stated that the people of the States
acced, to the Union, it may be more plausi-
big argued that they may secede from 1t. IL,
in adopting the Constitution, nothing was
done but acceding to a compact, nothing
would be necessary, in order to break 1t up,
but 10 secede from the same compact. But
the term is wholly out Of place. accession,
as word applied TO political associations,
implies coming into league, treaty or con-
f deracy, by one hitherto a stranger 10 it /;
and secession implies departing from such
league or confedeFacy. The people of the
United States have used no such form of ex
preston in establishing the present govern
mont They do not say that they 0cceds 10
league but they declare that they Ordain and
establish a Constitution. Such are the very
words of the instrument itself; and in all the
States. without an exception, the language
used by the constitutions was that they 'rdfi-
fed the C5ns,alti0n;' some Of them employing
the additional words assented to" and
81 adopted" but all Of them IRA flying"
Therefore. sir. since any State, before she
can prove her right TO dissolve the Union,
must show her authority TO undo what has been
done, no State is at liberty to secsde, on the
ground that she and other States have done
nothing but aoceds. She must show that she
has a right to TererSe what has been Oriaihed,
to ttnseftle and OuerffToiC what has been estab-
Iished, to r9ect what the people have adopted,
aud TO break up what they have ratified be-
cause these are the terms which express the
transactions which have actually taken place
In other words, she must show her right to
make a revolution"
The great expounder theu preceded to
show that the second proposition is an infer
ence or conclusion from the first, which falls
with the explosion OF The first. He utterly
aunihilated both the doctrine and the argu-
mont of the metaphysical South Carolinian,
and arrayed the true logic sustaining the
grounds on which Gen. JACKSON based his
Proclamation. so as to be perfectly impregna-
BILE. The argument stands to-day in all its
vigor and with a living application to trans
piring events. 1t was sustained then, and we
trust it will be sustained now.
Yet Mr.. WEBSTER did not deny the right of
revolution, but expressly aud directly admit
ted it. Of this right we will speak hereafter