Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1863-10-21

show in what respect they differed IN the derlvaton
of their powers, and in the operation OF them!
Why did he not tell US that the old one was merely
Confederation, operating not upon sndscaduatA put
upon States? Why did he not tell US that the new
one operated not upon States but upon the citizens
of the United States Why did he not tell U.S. that
the old Constitution was almost sohoIty FsdeTat
there could be no radical change but in national
direction? Why, simply because IN admission OF
these plain and papable truths would have been to
surrender the whole question in controversy.
1t was this departure, in a great degree from the
Federal principle that caused the Convention to
change the title of the instrument and call it
"CoNsrIrUTIoN" 1t was this that caused them to
alter the preamble and say, 1--WE, the people" &C.,
instead of an enumeration of the several States as
was made in the preamble to the ar tices OF Coned-
Grafton. 1t was this that caused the Convention to
recommend to the legislatures Of the several States
to submit the Constitution to Conventions Of the
people in each State, chosen for that especial pur-
pose.
But wish to produce higher authority than my,
self or Marion, to prove that there was radical
change from the Federal principle in the new Con-
sttution and as Marion has made an immense mum.
Der of quotations, or rather citations, Ihope may
be pardoned for making few. Four plans OF govern
ment were presented to the Convention by Gov. Ran.
dolph, ofVrginia Charles Pinckney, fSouth Carroll.
ma, Mr.. Hamilton, of New York. and Mr. Patterson, OF
New Jersey. Mr.. Randolph openly avowed that the
intention OF his plan was to form strong national
government, strong consolidated Union. Mr.. Pink
ney declared that the object Of his plan was the
same as that Of Gov. Randolph, (see Yates minutes
of the debates in the Federal Convention, in Eotts
debates on the Federal Constitution, vol l, p. 39l
Mr. Hamiltons plan was the highest toned of any.
Mr.. Pattersons plan was the only one offered which
was strictly Federal Mr.. Patterson's plan was re-
jected in Convention by the committee Of the whole,
and the Constitution finally adopted was made up
from the other three. Madison strenuously sup
ported Randolp h's-known as the Virginia plan
which was much the highest toned of any, except
Mr.. Hamton's He declared that unless we rddi-
cally departed from the Federal plan would share
then pointed out the great defects in that form of
government as shown in the history Of the ancient
Grecian and more modern Confederacies.
James Wilson, one of the most able and learned
members of the Federal Convention, said IN the de-
bates on the new Constitution, in the State Con-
vention of Pennsylvania: "There can be no COM
pact unless there be more parties than one. know
Of no bargains that were made there. am unable
to conceive who the parties could be. The State
governments make bargain with one another -
That is the doctrine that is endeavored to be estab
lished by gentlemen in opposition. Their State SOW
cregntes wish to be represented. But far other
the ideas of the Convention, and fur other are
those conveyed in the system ITSELF This is not a
government founded upon compact. 1t is founded
upon the power of the people They express in
their name and their authority-'We, the people,
ordan and establish From their ratification alone
it takes its Constitutional authority; without that
it is no more than tabula rasa." In the Virginia
Convention it was vehemently opposed by Patrick
Henry, and many other eminent men as forming a
consolidated government In the New York Con-
hv 7 Vote fI,o
and many other able men on the same grounds, and
SO in every State Convention this was made the
chief ground of opposition to it.
But among the many able opponents of the new
Constitution, there was no more bold, daring or in
ventiye genius than Luther Martin, Attorney Gen.
eral Of the State of Maryland and member Of the
Federal Convention. He was the most ardent ad-
vocate of purely Federal system among all the
members of that body and because of the departure
in great degree from that system by the Conven-
ton, he refused to sign the new Constitution. He
wished to form government in which the States
would retain their sovereignty in full force. lie
did not, indeed, contend for the right of secession
for in speech in the Federal Convention the "Vir
ginia PLAN" he said: 81 would rather confederate
with any single State than submit to the Virginia
plan. But we are already Confederated, and no
power on earth can dissolve it but the consent of
all the contracting powers "-unquestionably the
true doctrine. What he desired was that the States
should retain their sovereignty to such an extens
that in the event of war between them and their
Federal head that the States or their citizens who
acted by their authority, should not be liable to the
penalties of treason under the municipal law, but
should be subject only to the law of nations as was
the case in the Germanic Confederation. In his
celebrated letter to the Legislature Of Maryland he
says: "To the citizens Of the respective States
from this disgsaceful dilemma, and to secure them
from being punishable as traitors to the United
States, when acting expressly in obedience to the
authority of their own State, wished tc have OBJ
tanned amendment to the third section of this
article the following clause: PIocided That no act
or acts done by one or more of the States against
the United States, or by any citizen of any one of
the United States, under the authority of one or
more of the said States, shall be deemed treason or
punished as such; but in case of war being levied
by one or more of the States against the United
States, the conduct of each party towards the other
and their adherents respectively shall be regulated
by the laws of war and of nations"
"But this provision was not adopted, being too
much opposed to the great object of many Of the
leading members of the Convention, which was by
all means to leave the States at the mercy of the
general government; since they could not succeed
in their immediate and entire abolition" Now if
this action of the Federal Convention, does not
prove beyond all question that they intended to
form national government, restricting the sover.
eighty of the States-if that had not already been
'done-and utterly repudiating the right of seces
sion, then there is an end to all reasoning from facts
and circumstances. My list of quotations has al
ready become long, but hope the reader will bear
with me while fmake few more Gen. jackson
in his proclamation against South Carolina in 1899
said: ITO say that State may at pleasure secede
from the Union, is to say these United States are
not nation because it would be solecism to con-
tend that any part of nation might dissolve its
connection with tho e.Ao- r.-s- :. tie1r injury and
rurn without committing any offence. Secession,
like any other revolutionary act may be reasonably
justified by the extremity Of the oppression; : but
to call it a constitutional rights confoundine the
meaning Of terms, and can only be done through
gross to deceive those who are willing to as
sert a right but would pause before they made q
revolution, or incurred the penalties consequent on
failure"
Many of the leading secessionists rely upon the
Virginia resolutions Of 1898 as authority for their
doctrine, but Mr. Madison in letter addressed to
Mr.. Nichols P. Trist in 1888, in which he ayows