Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-10-20

one moi mon States but upon the citizens
of the limited States D Why did he not tell as, that
as the old Constitution was almost Whotg FsderdLn
ohere could be no radical change but in national
direction? Why, simply because an admission OF
these plain and palpable truths would have oeeh W
surrender the whole question in controversy =, 81
1t was this departure, in great degree, from the
Federal principle that caused the Convention 70
change the title of the instrument and call it
CONSTITUTION" It 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 tices Of Confed.
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 q radical
change from the Federal principle in the new Con-
stitutiOn, and as Marion has made an immense num-
Der of quotations., or rather citations hope may
be pardoned for making few Four plans of govern
ment were presented to the Convention by Gov. RAN
dolph ofVrginia, Charles Pinckney ofSouth- 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 str0ag national
| government strong consolidated TRi0n. Mr.. Pink
ney declared that the object of his plan was the
same as that of Gov. Randolph [sSs Yates minutes
of the debates in the FEDERAL Convention in Eietfs
debates on the FEDERAL Constitution, vol 1, p. S9l)
Mr. Ham&ons plan was the highest toned of any.
Mr. Patters9n's 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
| porGed Randolph's-known as the Virginia plan
which was much the highest toned of any, except
! Mr.. Hamiltons. He declared that unless we radi-
cdHy departed from the Federal plan would share
| the fate of ancient and modern Confederacies. He
then pointed out the great defects in that form OF
government as shown in the history Of the ancient
| Grecan and more modern Coniedcraces.
| 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-
| ventlOn of Pennsy lvanIa: 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
lShed by gentlemen in opposition Their State
ereignteS wish to be represented. But far other
were the ideas of the Conception, and far other
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 author ty-' We, the people,
ordain and establish From their ratification alone
it takes its Constitutional authority; without that
it is no more than td5uLG rdSd." In the Virginia |
Convention il was vehemently opposed by Patrick !
Henry, and many other eminent men as forming |
consolidated government In the New York Con- |
vention, by lansing Yates the Clintons, Smith, |
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
ventive 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 a 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 He
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 extent
that in the event Of a 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 ITO save the citizens of the respective States
from this disgraceful dilemma, and to secure them
from being punishable traitors TO the United
States, when acting expressly in obedience to the
authority Of their own State wished to have OBJ
tanned as amendment to the third section Of this
article the following clause: Pr0sided 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
moro of the said States, shall be deemed treason or
punished as such but in case of war being levied
by one 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 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 make a few more. Gen. jackson
in his proclamation against South Carolina in 1885,
said: "To 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 a nation might dissolve its
connection with the other parts to their injury and
ruin, without committing any offence. Secession
ike any otner TecoGuttondfy ACT may De reasonably
justified by the extremity of the oppression; but
to call it constiEztiOnI right is confounding the
meaning of terms, and can only be done through
gross to deceive those who are willing to as
sert right but would pause before they made
revolution, or incurred the penalties consequent on
a failure"
Many of the leading secessionists rely upon the
Virginia resolutions Of 1898 as authority for their
doctrine, but Mr. Madison in letter ad dressed to
Mr.. Nichols P Trist in 1885, in which he avows
himself to be the author Of said resolutions says
that he never intended to sanction any such doc
trine in them, that he used the word Estates, in
stead Of the word State" expressly to preclude
any such construction from being placed upon them,
and that he was at loss to conceive how any body
could so construe them.