The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-11-13

''est of every true American, the consolidation of
''our Union, in which is involved our prosperity,
'felicity, safety, and, perhaps, our national exist
''ence" 1t is evident, then, that the Constitution
was thought by those who drafted it to provide for
limited but national Government, which, when
acting in its legitimate sphere, the States them.
selves were bound to respect and obey. This also
was the view of the public at large; for, in order
10 prevent the ratification of the Constitution, it
was made, the leading objection that "the scheme
''of Government was radically wrong because II
twas not confederation of the States; but Gov
''ernment over individuals" 1t was said "that
'the Federal form, which regards the Union as
"a confederation Of sovereign States, ought TO
'have been preserved; instead OF which the Con-
"yention had framed q national Government
(Which regards the Union as consolidation OF
Estates" But although it was the known pur-
pose and effect of the Constitution to withdraw
from the States a larger portion of power than
they had previously surrendered, and to establish
throughout the land national but limited Gov
eminent over individuals irrespective of State
lines, it was nevertheless approved by the people.
Mr. PATTERSON and the State-rights' party were
voted down in the Convention, and the Constitu-
ton constructed on the theory of their opponents.
Congress endorsed it as it was explained by the
letter of the Convention; and it was, in spite of
the objection above mentioned, finally ratified,
and ratified not by the Legislatures of the
States, but by Conventions especially elected to
that end by the people of each State. We do not
pretend, in this brief and imperfect sketch,
Al. II
the Constitution conclusvely proves. We con-
tent ourselves with presenting merely an outline
of the views that we think must naturally sug-
gest and commend themselves to all who study
with any care the history of the period to which
we refer. 1t cannot be then that at the time OF
the formation of the Constitution, the right Of
secession or notification was supposed to be re-
tanned by the States, whatever may be the infer
ences which were subsequently drawn from the
phraseology of the Constitution itself. Butwe are
not left 10 conjecture this point, for Mr.
MADISON distinctly urged the adoption Of the
Constitution, on the ground that it would set at
rest that enormous doctrine" He even went so
far as 10 deny that any State had right to Sc
cede under the old Confederation. Before the
Constitution was ratified, he wrote as follows -
'resting on no better foundation than the consent
'of the State Legislatures, it (the Confederation)
''has been exposed 10 frequent and intricate ques
stions concerning the validity of its powers; and
"has, in some instances, given birth to the enor-
'tmous doctrine of a right of Legislative repeal
"Owing its ratification 10 law of State, it has
ssbeen commended that the same authority might
''repeal the law, by which it was ratified. How
fever gross heresy it may be to maintain that a
"party 10 a compact has right TO revoke that
Compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable
"advocates The possibility of question of this
'nature, proves the necessity Of laying the foun
Citations Of our National Government deeper,
ethan in the mere sanction of delegated authority.
f'The fabric of American empire ought TO rest on
s'the solid basis of the consent Of the people. -
And on that basis it was placed by the men who
established it, and the legality of secession was,
in their Judgment thereby decided forever. As
MADISON and HAMILTON thought so have thought
WEBSTER and STORY, and the great majority of
the ustrous patriots who have lived and died
in the last half century. We cannot to-day, as
we have said, discuss this question as perhaps it
ought to be discussed, to carry conviction to mems
minds? But we are satisfied that there is no re-
served right of secession which can be exercised
now or hereafter by any of the States which gave
in their adhesion to the Constitution. If South
Carolina, therefore, goes out of the Union, her
justification must be that the path of peace and
safety lay only through revolution. Is she pre-
pared 10 maintain the validity of that plea to the
satisfaction of her sister States