New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1860-10-24

Der Of that Convention, proposed the following as
an amendment: Crowded that no act or acts done
by one or more of the States against the United
States, or by a citizen of any one of the United
States, shall be deemed treason or punished as
such but in case of war being levied by one or
more States against the United States, the conduct
Of each party toward the other, and their adhe-
rents respectively, shall be regulated by the laws
of war and OF nations.n
Even had this proposed amendment been adopted,
there would have been no foundation for the as
suned right Of peaceable secession. On the con.
trary, it would only have avoided the penalty of
Treason. Each and every one opposing with force
the authority of the General Government would
still be liable to be treated according to the law of
nations and the rules of war.
i But this amendment OF Mr.. Martins was voted
down in very decided MANNER and the above
section, declaring it treason to levy war against
the United States, or to adhere to their enemies
! giving them aid and comfort, was adopted after
full discussion, and on mature deliberation.
/ All opposition, then, by force, rs well as all
banding together with an assembling to oppose
the authority Of the United States, or to prevent
the execution of any law of the United States,
is Treason, and punishable with death.
How idle, then, to talk Of right of peaceable
secession! And how culpable to attempt to de-
ceive the people by holding out such false lights
to mislead and deceive, The Government can
only be changed in accordance with the require
ments of the Constitution, or by Revolution and
force of arms. --.4.-a--..=,. ..a
When the Constitution was submitted to the
Convention in New York for ratification, it was
proposed to ratify it condtonally, but this propo
sition was voted down.
In July 1888 Mr.. Madison, in reply to Mr.. Hamil-
ton, on the subject Of conditional ratification and
| the right Of State to Withdraw, says:
The Constitution requires an adoption In toto
and forever. 1t has been so adopted by the other
States. An adoption for limited time would be
as defective as an adoption of some of the articles
only. In short, any condition whatever must
vitiate the ratification tsThe idea of re-
serving the right to withdraw was started at Rich.
mond, and considered o conditional ratification,
which was itself abandoned as worse than rejec-
I ton t& 4..ss-s za. .gauu ..s
| Here, then, we have the authority of Mr.. Madi-
son the great author Of the Constitution, that the
Constitution was not only designed and intended
TO be adopted unqualiedly and foreee, but that it
was so understood at the time by those who adopt
ed it. 1t also well understood, as fully appears
| from the above language of Mr.. Madison, that no
1
of the Constitution. 49,
Nor do the celebrated resolutions of Virginia and
| Kentucky respectively in $500, at all initiate
with this position. On 1.-THE contrary, they look only
| TO an opposition n,the Union and under the forms
of the Constitution for purpose of consolidat.
| ing public opinion so as to obtain repeal of an
obnoxious law or to the procurement Of an amend
| ment to the Constitution.
In ,rIn,, eto,,FI, T,onoI;rc
of secession and threatened to defy the authority
of the laws Of the United States that great states
man and patriot, General Jackson, In his justly
celebrated proclamation of that year, in speaking
of the question to the right of secession, well
says: Every man of plain, unaophi5ticated un-
derstanding, who hears the question, will give such
an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphys-
cal subtlety, in pursuit of an impraeteable theory
could alone have devised one that is calculated to
destroy it.
Iconsider, then, the power to annul law Of
the United States assumed by one State, incom-
patible with the existence Of the Union, contra
dieted expressly by the letter of the Constitution,
unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every
principle which it was founded, and destructive
of the great object for W hich it was formed.''
And to vindicate the correctness of the above
is necessary let us refer to the language of the
Supreme Court of the United States, in a case
which was decided in 1858.
In the case of Ableman Us. Booth, III How R.,
524-5) that enlightened Court, through Chief JUS
tice fancy, unanimously says: @@ .--
Nor is there anything in this supremacy Of the
General Government the jurisdiction of its judi
cial tribunals to awaken the jealousy or offend the
natural and just pride of Stale sovereignty.
Neither this Government nor the powers Of which
we are speaking were forced upon the States.
The Constitution of the United States, with all tile
powers conferred by it on the General Govern
ment and surrendered by the States, deliberately
done for their own protection aud safety against
injustice from one another. And their anxiety TO
preserve it in full force in all its powers, and to
guard against resistance to evasion Of its author
ity Oh the part of State, is proved by the clause
which requires that the members Of the State Leg
islatures and all Executive and Judicial officers of
the sovereign States Gas well those Of the Gene
raj Government shall be bound, by oath or affirm
aton to support this Constitution This is The last
and closing clause of the Constitution, and inserted
when the whole frame of Government, with the
powers hereinbefore specified, had been adopted
by the Convention; and it was in that FORM and
with these powers, that the Constitution was sub
mtted to the people Of the several States for their
consideration and decision.
Now, it certainly can be no humiliation to the
citizen Of a republic to yield ready obedience
to the laws as administered by the constituted
authorities. On the contrary, it is among his first
and highest duties as citizen, because free gov
ernment cannot exist without it. Nor can it be
inconsistent with the dignity of sovereign State
to observe faithfully and in the spirit of sincerity
| and truth, the compact into which it voluntary
! entered when it became a State of this Union.
On the contrary, the highest honor of sovereignty
| is untarnshed faith. And certainly no faith could
be more deliberately and solemny pledged than
that which every State has plighted to the other
States to support the Constitution as is in all its
provisions, until they shall be altered in the man.
ner which the Constitution itself prescribes. IN
the emphatic language Of the pledge required, it is
to supportthis Constitution. And nopower is more
clearly conferred by the Constitution and laws
of the United States than the power Of this Court
to decide, ultimately and finally, all cases arising
under such Constitution and laws; and for that
purpose to bring here for revision, by writ of
error, the Judgment of State Court, where such
nnestinns have arisen and the ripht claimed under