The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-05-30

NOIlu SdlOlAhdt Win hiiS 'NOO~A ORu1NHp
which subsequent events have so well Justlti-
ed, in 1888 passed this resolution:
ResolUed, That declaration Of rights, as
serting and securing from encroachments the
great principles of civil and religious liberty
and the inalienable rights of the people, to-
gether with amendments to the most ambigu-
Gus and exceptonabe parts of the said consti-
tuition Of Government ought to be laid before
Congress and the convention Of the States
that shall or may be called for the purpose of
amending the said constitution for their con-
sderation, previous to the ratification of the
constitution aforesaid on the part Of the State
of North Carolina
And in keeping with this North Carolina
withheld her ratification she allowed the
Government to be formed with the number Of
States which was required to put it in opera
ton, and still she remained out of the I'm
ion. asserting and recognizing the indepen-
dencc which she had maintained against Great
Britain, and which she had no idea of surren-
dering to any other power; and the last State
which ratified the constitution after it had in
fact gone into effect Rhode Island, in the
third Of her resolutions says:
''lII. That the powers of Government may
be reassumed by the people whatsoever it
hidl DCCoHC HcCSsStiy " tItSu iAdppiiicSS-
That the rights of the States respectively to
nominate and appoint all State officers and
every other power, jurisdiction, and right,
which is not by the said constitution clearly
delegated to the Congress of the United State,
or to the departments of Government thereof
remain to the people of the several States, or
their respective State governments to whom
they may have granted the same"
hn. a,Nffl .N,fr aTf1-
ments" shows how utterly unwaTrantable the
construction has been to say that the refer
ence here was to the whole people of the
States--to the people of all the States-and
not to the people of each Of the States sew
orally.
Spoke, however, Mr.. President, but a
moment ago, Of the difference of policies, pro-
ducts, population, constituting the great mo-
tive for the union. It, indeed, was its neces-
sity. Had all the people been alike-had
their Institutions all been the same-there
would have been no interest to bring them to-
gether; there would have been no cause or
necessity for any restraint being imposed up
on them. It was the fact that they differed,
which rendered it necessary to have some law
governing their intercourse. 1t was the fact
that their products were opposite that their
pursuits were various-that rendered it the
great interest OF the people that they should
have free trade existing among each other,
that free trade which Franklin characterized
as being between the States, such as existed
between the countries of England.
Since that era, however, fibre then un-
known in the United States, has come to be
cultivated in such amounts, to enter so into
the wearing apparel of the world, so greatly
to add to the comfort of the poor, that it may
be said to-day that that little FIBRE cotton,
wraps the commercial world and binds it to
the United States in bonds to keep the peace
with us which no Government dare break
1t has built up the Northern States. 1t is
their great manufacturing interest to day
1t supports their shipping abroad. 1t enables
them to purchase i'll the market of China,
when the high premium to be paid on the
mllled dollar would otherwise exclude them
from that market. These are part of the
blessings resulting from that increase and
variety of product which cculd not have exis-
ted if We had all been alike, which would
have been lost to-day unless free trade be-
tween the United States was still preserved.
And here it strikes me as somew hat strange
that Il bt OK recently issued has received the
commendation OF a large.namher of the repre-
sentatives of the manufacturing and CONNER
cial States, though, apart from its falsehood
and low abuse of Southern States, institutions
and interests, the great feature which stands
prominently out from it is the arraignment of
the South for using their surplus money in
buying the manufactures of the North How
a manufacturing and commercial people can
be truly represented by those who would in
culcate such doctrines as these, is to me pas
sing strange. Is it vain boasting which rem
ders you anxious to proclaim to the world
that we buy our buckets, our rakes, and our
shovels from you ? No, there is too much
good sense in the people for that and there
fore am left at loss to understand the mo-
tive, unless it be that deep rooted hate which
make you blind to your own interest when
that interest is weighed in the balance with
the denunciation and detraction of your breth-
ren of the South.
The great principle which lay at the foun-
dation of this fixed standard, the constitution
of the United States, was the equality ofrights
between the States. This was essential it
was uecessary 1t was step which had to be
taken flrst before any progress could be made.
1t was the essential requisite of the very idea
of sovereignty in the State of a compact VOL
unfairly entered into between sovereigns and
it is that equality of right which we assert un-
der the constitution to-day. But more, when
the States united they transferred their forts,
their armies, their right to maintain armies
and navies, to the Federal Government. 1t
was the disarmament of the States under the
operation of league which made the warlike
operations, the powers of defence, common to
them all. Then, with this equality of the
States, with this disarmament of the States,
if there had been nothing in the constitution
to warrant It, say the protection of every
constitutional right would follow as a neces-
saTy incident, and could not be denied by anv
enc who could understand the theory Of such
Government.
We claim protection, first, because it is our
right; secondly, because it is the duty of the
General Government and, thirdly, because
we have entered into compact together,
which depriyes each State of the power Of us
ing all the means which it might employ for
its own defence. This is the general theory
of the right ofprotection. What is the excep-
ton to it Is there an exception If SO.
who has right to make it Does the con
stitution discriminate between different kinds
Of property Did the constitution attempt to
assimilate the institutions of the different
States confederated together? Was there a
single State in this Union that would have
been so uniaithful to the principles which had
prompted them in their colonial position, and
| which had prompted them at a still earlier
period, to seek and try the temptations of the
wilderncss-is there one which would have
consented to allow the Fedora. Government
| to attempt to discriminate between her insti-
tutions and those of her confederate States
ID, = L., Al Il
and that you need authority, happen to draw
it from the very fountain from the spring be-
fore it had been polluted before from the de
| bates in the formation of the constitution by
those who at least, it will be admitted to-day,
understood what they were doing Mr..
Randolph, it will be recollected, introduced a
project for q Government consisting OF series
ofresolutions. Among them was one which
proposed to give Congress the power ito call
forth the force of the Union against any mem
Der Of the Union failing to fulfill its duty
under the articles thereof" That was to give
Congress the power to coerce the States to
bring the States into subjecton to the Federal
Government Now, sir let me see how that
was treated and first | will refer to one
whose wisdom, as We take retrospective view
seems to me marvellous. Not CONSPICUOUS ir
ueDate, at least not among tne names WhlCl
first occurred, he was the man who above al
others, laid his finger upon every danger, ant
indicated the course which that danger wa
to take. Mr.. Mason | refer to-
"Mr. Mason observed, not only that the pre-
sent Confederation was deficient in not proyi
ding for coercion and punishment against de
linquent States, but argued very cogently tina
punishment could not, in the nature of thing
be executed on the States collectively; and
therefore, that such Government was ne
cessary as could directly operate on individu
ais, and would punish those only who's
guilt required it.-EHiiotts Debates, vol. 5, pag
1885,
Mr.. Mason who has been called sometime
the father Of the constitution, upon the sam
question said:
"a union of the States containing such a
ingredient seemed TO provide for its own d.
r struction. The use of force against a Stat
would look more like declaration Of WI
, than an infiietion of punishment, and woul
/ probably DO considered by the party attacke
as dissolution of all previous compacts b
! which It might be bound'
Nh HoYntIta,, xr,ho &c xxrarr a. o,,~.on-