Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1864-04-14

nature Of the compact, or the relation Of
the parties, 10 do this as Of constitutional
right, but only that cause which exists in
all governments, the ultiD,o rotto JoDuE
the right Of the people TO alter and abolish
their Government when in their Judgment
it has proved destructive Of its ends. Nul- !
liiication and secession are therefore, in my
view, alike without warrant in the Consti- |
tuition.
The South has been consistent since 1873 /
in adhcrng 10 the doctrine Of State rights |
When the Constitution first went into ope- /
ration the doctrine that the Constitution
was Il compact between political societies on
sovercignties received the consent Of many
of the greatest and best minds Of the North |
1t was asserted as distinctly and emphatic |
ally by Morris, by Sherman, johnson, and
! Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice !
Of the United States, of the North as it |
was by Madison and Jefferson. Nor did
the doctrine rest merely on constitutional
| history and fact or abstract theory with the
/ North. Repeatedly before this was done
by any part of the South was the theory Of
State rights resorted to by New England as
q Justification for breaking up the Union.-l
The first of these was during tho Admins
tration of Washington, when the New
England representatives declared that those
States would secede unless the debts Of the
States should be assumed by the General
Government. The second was upon the
occasion Of the embargo act, passed De
ccmbcr %, 1907, as a rctaliatOry measure
to meet the Berlin and Milan decrces of
Napoleon and the British orders in council
The embargo being, in the view Of the
Eastern States, designed as blow at their
commerce for the benefit of other sections
of the country, open resistance was threat
encd in case the embargo was enforced -
The violence Of this outcry secured the
repeal Of the embargo in 1909. \ similar
disposition was manifested III New ENGLAND
again on the purchase of Louisiana. The
proposition of a measure which has added
so incidentally to the greatness and prosper
ity of the country was met with similar
threats Of dissolvimg the Union.
But fourth time and with still louder
and more unsatisfied camor did New Eng
land threaten rebellion to the Government,
and throw herself upon the doctrine of State
sovereignty as authorizing dissolution of
the Union. This was during the admins
| tration Of Mr.. Madison, and from dissatis-
faction with its measures, the last Of which
, was the declaration Of war in 1872 Slavery
l then, as now, was held up to odium as
| - the rotten part of the Constitution :"
= which must be amputatcd 1t mattered
, not then, as it has not in more recent times,
. that it was a part Of the Constitution.
= This opposition took an organized form of
expression in the Hartford Convention OF
2 December lj, 1914, i'll which Massachusetts,
5 was represented by twelve delegates, Con
necticut by seven, Rhode Island four, New
! Hampshire by three, and Vermont by one
! \ dissolution of the Union and formation
5 Of a new Confedcracy was the remedy to
which that Convention looked unless their
9 terms should be complied WITH and ulterior
= measures for an actual separation Of the
= States were to be taken by subsequent
: convention to be held in June following
Like South Carolina before the final act OF
d separations the States OF Massachusetts, ant
IS Connecticut sent commissioners to Wash
&c ington to present their demands to the Ad
l. ministration. Among these was the higl
:, name of Harrison Gray Otis The stimuli
l. of the peace Of Ghent no doubt alone savel
J. New England the honor of anticipating tn
e Southern States in separating from tn
Is Union.
II 1t thus appears that in the heresy o
g secession and notification as constitutional
IS remedies for real or imaginary grievances
ii the North and the South were alike partici
It pants. While l have expressed my owl
n disapprobation ofthe consequences dcduceC
/ from those doctrines it is impossible to de-
e ny that their full justification is found il
: the teachings and practice of the North -
. In my Judgment both were wrong. Allegi
c ance was in both instances equally due tC
e the General Government within the sphere
d OF the granted powers, as to the States
/ within the reserved ; and | do not think
= that in either case the grievance was suffi
d cicnt to Justify revolution.
~ \ = IN thp rio uht ot tbp ,pnnrnl Government
c to coerce a State, in such circumstances
y the preponderance of authority may bt
: said to have been adverse. 1t is well know
If that a proposition to confer the power o
t. coercing State was made in the Constitu
IS tional Convention by Edmund Randolph
If and was decisively rejected. 1t is also clea
70 that it is not among the specially granted
20 powers, and if it be found there at all, it i
o among those which are necessary to carry th
II granted powers into effect. 1t was tn
ID opinion of johnson and Ellsworth, tn
- delegates in the Constitutional Conventio
IF from Connecticut, and Of Mr.. Madison
j. from Virginia, that the Constitution doe
s. not attempt to cocrce sovereign States i
v their political capacities ; that the powe
id which is to enforce the laws is to be Il lega
e power, vested in the magistrates. Th
l. force to be employed is the energy of lat
E. and this is to be eXerted only upon indiyid
IF uals. Hamilton, if he did not expressl
1t deny the existence of the right of the Gen
m eral Government to coerce, certainly di
j. not at least contemplate its exercise, II
approved of the proceedings by Massachu
% sctts, calling in aid the power of the Gen
l. cral Government to suppress the Shay in
ct surrcction, but he remarked in that con
lie nection:
le But how can this force be eXerted on the state
nj collectively? II is impossible. 1t amounts To
9" u declaration of war between the parties, Foreig
1 powers also will not be idle spectators. The
W will interfere; the confusion Will increase, an
i a dissolution of the Union will ensuc.
rv 1t is apparent from the history of tn
ed State rights doctrine that in framing
n National Government there were many an
ne great divcrsitieS to be reconciled betwee
of the independent States. Though speakin
" common language, and possessing tn
of common law as common Inheritance, tn
IN colonies of the different sections wer
ld marked by radical and striking peculiarltie'
| The Puritans of New England differed ne
in more from the Cavaliers of Virginia tha
tie the Hugenots Of the Carolinas from tn
no Ouakers of Pennsylvania and the Roma
he Catholics of Maryland from the Dutch {
Die New York. The preiudices of opinion an
tie antipathics which the settlers broug hit wit
,at them from Europe were still actively che
or ished in their new abode, There were ais
nv wide differences of interest. The interes
ed of the Northern States were chiefly con
le- mercia, their wealth consisting in the shiI
ENGAGED in the carving trade and in I'll