Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-12-08

semblies would il they could invest a territorial
legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of
| property. This power Congress is expressly for
| hidden by the Federal Constitution to EXERCISE
Every State Legislature in the Union is forbidden
by its own constitution to exercise it. 1t cannot he
exercised IN any State except by the people in their
highest sovereign capacity when framing or amend
ing their State constitution. In like manner, 1t can
only be exercised by the people of Territory rep
resented in convention of delegates tor the pur-
! posc of framing constitution preparatory 20 adj
mission as a State into the Union. Then, ana not
until then are they invested with power TO decide
the question whether slavery shall orshai not exist
within their limits. This is an act oil sovereign au-
thoritv and not of subordinate territorial Legislation
! ere 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
I the Guarantees of the Constitution, but upon the
shifting maiorities of an irresponsible territorial leg
| islature Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic un-
soundness cannot long influence any considerable
portion of our people, much less can it afford good
! reason for dissolution of the Union.
The most papable violations Of constitutional
duty which have vet been committed consist in the
acts of different State legislatures to defeat the eX
ecution of the fugitive slave law 1t ought to be re-
membered, however, that for these acts, neither
! Congress nor any President justly be held re-
! sponsibe Having been passed in violation of the
| Federal Constitution, they therefore null and
void All the courts, both State and national, be-
| fore whom the question has arisen, have from the
beginning declared the fugitive slave law to be con-
stitutional The single exception is that OF State
! court in Wisconsin; and this has not only been re-
yersed by the proper appellate tribunal but has met
| with such universal Reproduction that there can be
| no danger from it as a precedent The validity OF
| this law has been established over and over again
! by the Supreme Court of the United States with
| perfect unanimty 1t is founded upon an express
provision of the Constitution, requiring that iugi-
tiyac Irho from service State to
another shall be delivered up to their masters
Without this provision it is well known historical
fact that the Constitution itself could never have
| been adopted by the Convention. In one form or
! other under the acts of 1898 and 1850 both being
! substantially the same, the fugtive-Slave law has
been the law of the land from the days of Washing
| ton until the present moment Here, them 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 con-
fcting enactments of State legislatures Should he
fail in the performance of this high duty, he will
then have manifested disregard of the ConSt;tu
ton and laws to the great injury of the people Of
nearly onehalf of the States of the Union But
are we to presume in advance that ne will thus vio
late his duty? This would be at war with every
principle of Justice and of Christian charity, Let
us wait for the act. The fugitive-save law has
been carried into execution in every contested
since the commencement of the present administra
ton: though often it is to be regretted with great
loss and inconvenience 10 the master and with
siderable expense to the government Let us trust
that the State legislatures will repeal their uncon
sttution and obnoxious enactments. Unless this
shall be done without unnecessary delay, it is i'm
possible for any human power to save the Union.
The Southern States, standing on the basis of the
Constitution have right to demand this act of JUS
tice from the States of the North. Should it be
fused then the Constitution to which all the States
are parties, will have been wilfny violated by
IL al l.
nestle security and happiness of the remainder
In that event. the injured States after having first
used all peaceful and constitutional to obtain
redress, would be justified in revolutionary resist
to the Government of the Union.
| have purpoSely confined my remarks TO revoiu-
tonary resistance because it has been claimed with
in the last few years that any State, whenever this
shall be its sovereign will and pleasure may seccde
from the UniOn in accordance with the Constitu-
ton, ard without any violation of the constitutional
rights of the other members of the Confederacy.-
That each became parties to the Union by the
vote of its own people assembled in Convention
any one OF them may retire from the Union in SIM
| liar manner by the vote Of such convention
| In order to justify secession constitutional
remedy it must be the principle that the Federal
Government is voluntary ASSOCIATION of
States TO be dissolved at pleasure by of the
contracting parties. II this be so, the Confederacy
is rope OF sand to be penetrated and dissolved by
the first adverse Of public opinion in any of the
States. In this manner thirty three States may
resolve themselves into as many petty. arring and
hostile republics, each retiring from the Union,
without responsibility, whenever any sudden excite
/ ment night npe them to such course By this
process Union mil ht be entirely broken into frag-
ments in few weeks which cost our iorefatherS
many years Of toll, privation, and blood to cs-
ta6lish.
Such principle is wholly inconsistent with the
history well the character Of the Federal Con-
"a Al
deiberation and care, it was submitted to conven-
tons of the people of the several States for ratica-
ton. Its provisions discussed at length in
these bodies composed of the first men of the coun-
try. Its opponents cOntended that it conferred pow
ers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the
rights of the States whilst its advocates maintained
that under fair construction Of the instrument
there was no foundation for such apprehensions In
that mighty struggle between the first intellects of
this or any other country it never occurred to any
individual either among its opponents advocates
to assert 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 a crushing argument would this have
proved against those who dreaded that the rights of
the States would be endangered by the Constitution.
The truth is that it was not until many years after
Che origin of the Federal Government that such
proposition first advanced 1t was then met
and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General
jackson, who in his message of 10th January 1888,
transmitting the multiplying ordinance of South Caro-
lima to Congress, employs the following language:
The right of the people of single State to absolve
themselves at will, and without the consent of the
other States, from their most solemn obligations,
and hazard the liberty and happiness of the millions
composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged
Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant
both to the principles upon which the General Gov
eminent is constituted and to the objects which it
was expressly formed to attain"
1t is not pretended that any clause in the Consti
tuition gives countenance to such theory. 1t is
altogether founded upon inference not from any
language contained in the instrument ITSELF but from
the sovereign people Of the several States by which it
was ratified But is it beyond the power of State
like individual to yield portion of its sovereign