New Orleans daily crescent., 1860-12-08

that leach State has parted with W many power
as I'd constitute jointly with the other States sir
gle nation;n and " cannot seccde, because such
secession does not break league, but destroys -
unity Of q nation;n and .. to call secession cor
stitutional right is confounding the meaning 6
!. terms ~ and e disunion is treason"
I Letany of these positions be compared with tn
! above quotations from Jefferson and Madison, an
with the whole scope and inevitable principles an
nferences necessarily resulting from the Virgini
and Kentucky resolutions of 1888 and 1893, an
how fragrant and palpahle is the contradiction i
! every one Of them. Every Democrat who ha
studied the Constitution In the school of Jeferso
and Madison, rs Interpreted by those resolutions
sees and understands their suicidal contradiction
and every statesman and every lawyer, and ever
scholar knows that it is not only an Ipossibility
its nature, but an ntter absurdity Ger Vi temin1
declare that sovereign State can commit treaso
at all, much less against 9 mere agency appointe
to attend to war and commerce, and nothing else
4 and every such student knows that, by the powe
of attorney, called the Constitution, the sovereg
States did not LAS Edward Livingston declares
part with or give away one single right or powe
whatever, bat only delegated Tor entrusted} Ger
tainp for certain specified purposes the wore
delegated being the only one used in that instru
ment and the tenth amendment expressly decar
ing that 9 the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectfully
4 or TO the people, JusTINIAN.
accorded to me, twice, the favor of publishing d
brief statement of the grounds and authorities (of
4 Jefferson and Madison in 1913 and '99l on which
/ the sovereign right of State secession has been
j founded, without my having added any argument
ia defense OF that right against the very lengthy,
! labored, and well conducted attacks and argu-
ments of that journal and the editors having also
expressed to me desire no further to prolong the
discussion, must ask permission to insert in your
/ journal my argument in reply to their many ex-
tended essays: at the same time proolaiming to
those gentlemen that, il they should not accord
me the favor Of publishing at least the sub
lcfa klt,sv
own, shall claim the honor of having over
| thrown and demolished their utmost efforts (be-
yond their ability to reply in behalf of their an
cenf federal doctrine that this Union, or Federal
Government, is not an alliance. or league, or COM
pact of sovereign States, but consolidated gov
ernment of .the people OF United America Ito
use the very words, quoted by themselves, of one
amongst their many fayorte federalists of 1873 and
| '99.)
In order to abhreyiate as much as possible the
proposed argument in opposition to the doctrine
of consolidated government and in favor Of State
sovereignty, will first quote from the Inteliigencer
their own statement of my proposition and will
then condense my views in the shape of a series
| of interrogateries propounded to that journal.
My proposition was thus stated by the Intelli-
geneer: "Our intelligent correspondent argues
partnership, league of States, necessarily re-
salts from the nature of all eopartnerships, and
81 fortiori belongs essentially to sovereign copart
/ ners so that each partner may have the same
L.
alliance, union, league, or compact The editors
then proceed to say. The question is not whether
| d league OF partnership of States, acting by a
power of Attorney called Constitution neces-
sariy implies the resulting right of each partner to
withdraw from the agency bnt whether the Gov
eminent under which we live is in fact such an
agency as 1t is assumed to be by those who de-
duce from its very nature the indefeasible right
reserved to each eopartner Of breaking up the firm
at his will and pleasure. We deny that the Gov
ernmeat created under the auspices of the Con-
stintion OF the United States bears any analogy to
the authority Of an agent acting for certain Co
partners under "a power of attorney and hence
we deny, ID like manner, the rights assumed as
resulting from such pretended compact OF po-
litical association and in support Of our opinions
We shall proceed to establish the following propo-
siEions.
/. That this il government of the people, and
not alone of the States.
q. That however true it may be Gas contended by
I. Justinian'9 that g every lawyer every states
man, every scholar knows that sovereign State |
cannot commit treason at all, much less against
mere agent or attorney appointed to attend to
and commerce, and nothing else whatever. it |
appears from the awards Of history 10 be none the
less true that in point Of fact our fathers did form
government against which it is possible for soy
ereign State to commit treason.
g. That in the formation of the Constitution the /
government established under it was understood at |
the time to be incompatible with the right of seces
sion. as inhering in or aeorning to any member of
the Union.
4. L
17s8 and 1899, are themselves misinterpreted to |
sustain the false Interpretation of the Constitution
to which they lend neither countenanee nor snp-
port. The editors proceed to say: g There is no.
where found upon the face of our great charter,
any clause intimatlng it to. be compact, or in
any wise providing for its Interpretation as such
on the contrary, the preamble emphatieally speaks
Of il rs an ordinance, and establishment OF govern
ment in the name and by authority of the people
Of the United States. Thelanguage is: We, the
people of the United States, do ordain and estab-
ish this Constitution for the United States of
America The people (not the sovereign States)
10 ordain and establish (not contract and stpulate)
thiR Constitution, (not this ageney3 for the United
States of America, u etc.
In reply to these consolidation views of the Intel
igencer. would, in the first place. lay down the
proposition that all argument may be regarded as
aeaTly, If not entirely hopeless. where the funda-
mental and elementary principles Of any two par
les (snch as the Wing and Democratie1 are SO
essentially different-so diametrically opposite;
ind here the ancient maxim is most specially /
applicable, : contra aegafte,s priacpia non est
lisputdssdum' where primary and elementary
principles are denied arguments possible. In such
,ase all that remains Is to show that the elementary
principles of the other of the parties are I'M
onnded and incorrect. This | will endeavor to
Eject inregard to the primary aud fundamental |
principles Of the Whig or Federalist party, by re-
sorting to the true and obvious signifcation of
Words and to the facts of history aud drawing just
and necessary conclusions therefrom, without iol
owing hlindly tile authority of distinguished men,
except where they confirm the conclusions of rea-
ION. In doing this will adopt the form of inter-
.ogatories, the only rational replies to which,
contend, involve complete and utter refutatien of
hose leading dogmas on which alone their party is
lependent for support
l. What is the Specification of the word Union;
Fhick is not only the universal denomination of
,nr form and condition OF government, and coeyal
With its original establishment, but Is most es-
,eeally the worshipped idol and symbol of the
cardinal Whig or Federal party. and elevated by
hem, in the ferVor of their idolatry far above the
Constitution which created it, and which on the
1ther hand, in its pure Interpretation, is the
cherished symbol of the Democratic creed? Does
not this word Union tunder the sanctitied inspira-
tion Of which, together with the word liberty,
exclusive Of the werd Constitution The Intelli
gencer daily contends for consolidation, as did
Daniel Webster, the author of chat favorite motto)
does not this word union signify simply and
"a joining together of two or more
separate bodies or things y Cans n consolidated
government of a collective people, in any rational |
sense whatever, be denominated g Union?p Does
a0t the very word itself imply er Ui tefnsfsi, and
inevitably q league, alliance or partnership Of
;wo or more parties? Is it not. therefore, d pal
1able contradiction in those in whose daily utter
lnce this cherished and adoEed word exists and
ives. to declare that our form of government il
not in any sense whatever a g compact or "a CO.
league or alliance?
2. What is the sole Specification of the term
federal, which s, equally with the word ennon, %
The original and universal epithet bestowed npnn
and appertaining to our General Government to
it from the governments of tho States RI
Does not this title or denomination, in which both