Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-03-15

]
hidden by her plighted faith
comes in collision and is shattered
Besides, by the jurisdiction given the
Il Supreme Court Of the United States, the
State agreed that if any law she might
enact should be alleged to be not her act,
because tIne0nstitUtional, in any suit
where the determination Of private
rights might depend upon it, she would
not claim the right to decide for herseh
in the last resort That the act in question
D was her act and valid, but would, jointly
with her sister States, sit in the supreme
Court, by the judges duly appointed, ana
the decision there given should be to all
} intents and purposes, in law and in fact,
} her decision as to the reality and validity
I of the Legislative act in question. 80
she reconsiders judicisily, what she has
done Iegislatively.
Rut there is no provision in the con-
, stitution that forbids the withdrawal or
a state from the Union. A provision IN
the articles Of Confederation provided
that they should be perpetual; ana yet
twelve Of the States made new consul
tuition and went on under 10 TO act as
new nation, uneeremonlousiy ieeVi4g
J, Rhode Island outstanding by herself In
The constitution there is no such proFls-
ion. but the government established
p Was evidently Intended to be permanent,
and might be perpetual, since nstion
was created, and there was no term o.
! limitation. II q State was not always fef
, liberty to Withdraw at her pleasureSr
; without assigning any reason for SO dor
ing. IL could only have been so disabled
nv virtue of an implied promise, im-
piled from the general intent or speclsi
!, provisions Of the constitution and rom
considerations Of the injury that
.Ah Gfafag bU
sIIeh withdrawal, in consequence OF the
growth of Joint interests, always tending
to become inseparable and to make the
! Union insfissoluble But nothing IN the
I Constitution bound State TO submit the
question of her right 10 withdraw, TO
I the Supreme Court, or gave That court
/ iurisdietiou Of such a controversy, any
more than Of q salt by one or more States
to compel other States TO comply with
their constitutional obligations, or, u tne
Court could not compel that, to snonals
to a decree dissOlving the compact ~
the State had not the right TO seceds ana
vet claimed it and exercised the power,
I there was no tribunal competent 10 adJu-
dicate on the validity OF nudity Of her
set. and she was NECESSARILY the judge IN
her own case, constrained to decide Tor
herself; the other states, IL they denied
the right, being at liberty te stcsort 10
var, as the only means OF vindicaung
theirright t TO compel her to continue ID the
{ Union. Her act, therefore, even If IN ylo-
{ lation of her implied promise, not selpg
null, because She had never agreed
I iudicially to reconsider it in the supreme
/ Court, and there to reverse het Getloh II
l it were found unconstitutional was the
I act of all her citizens, who could not act
/ individually, but only through tAe
I al FL final !
/ because the State could not act further
on the question, though her own judiei- |
/ ary, to whom heF legislative or conven- |
/ tional actien on such a subject gas fnaIi
nor through the national Judiciary, /
/ because she had never agreed TO submit
such a question to i, and would not II /
law be present there, cOncurring with |
the other States, or a party to their ac-
ton, II Che Supreme Court should |
assume to decide it. and because a /
decision of the Supreme Court binds : |
State, only because she is, in contempla-
ton of law, there in the Court, concur
ring in aud giving the decision.
Therefore the act of State, withdraW-
ing from the Union, binds all her citi-
zens, and it is the act of all and each |
one of them, as much of those voting
against it, as Of those voting for it,,
Treaties between nations and States are
often ia their terms perpetual; that IS,
are not to continue in force for limited
time only; but it was never imagined
that there was, in case Of such Treaty, /
any such implied promise on the part OF
either nation, not to abrOgaie the treaty,
that upon her doing so without cause or
even pretext, any Of her citizens could
claim the right still to consider the
Treaty as standing unrevoked, on tne
ground that hef act was void, because IN
violation of her promise. The violation
of national promises does not avoid
national acts Unfortunately, it IS one
of the prerogatives of sovereignty TO
break its promises and still not Tor
felt the allegiance Of citizens or subjects.
If the nations have agreed to sit, by DEL
egstes or Judges, in national arelopagos
and there reconsider ludiciaily what
thev have done in the exercise OF soVer-
eign lJOlOer when il is alleged to be con-
trary to their solemn promises, the acts
of power may there be, by the erring
nation, jointly with the others, ludleialIy
undOne. But if the nation in the wrong
refuses to sit in the areiopagos, war Is
the only MEANS reason falling, Of en-
forcing the keeping of her promises. III
her own citizens take sides against her
they are guilty Of Treason.
As the citizen of the State, in reality,
Arrays owed his allegiance to his state,
owing it either to her separately, or, so far
as she had agreed he should do 50, to her
and all the other States Jointly, united 1
as a single person in the nation; so
Treason was, in reality, always an Of
tense against the State; either against |
her alone, or, so far as she had agreed .
it should be, against her and the other |
States jointly, united into single per-
Il. N ]
conflict, in the matters Of allegiance ana /
treason, than in the matter Of citizen |
ship. A citizen of Virginia was, there |
fore, a citizen of the United States; a /
citizen of one Of them, entitled 10 the |
privileges and immunities Of citizen ID |
all. Thus a citizen of the United States |
and only thus, he thus and thus only
owed allegiance to the United States, |
and could commit treason against them. /
For allegiance is the fruit and cense- |
quence of citizenship; and treason is
the greatest violation, by a citizen, OF
the duties created by or flowing from
citizenship.
Wherever the States have agreed that /
a particular offense shall ee regarded as /
committed against the nation, that is
against them jointly, and be punishable /
in the national Courts, an agreement is
also involved, precise aud positive, that I
the State will not separately try the party /
guilty. of that offense or exercise the l
power rofpunishment. Her Courts, there
fore, in that case, have no jurisdiction.
Il belongs to the National Courts. That |
is the compact.
II any one levies war against his State !
Jointly with the others, that is, against
the Nation, or, when the Nation Is at
war, adberes to its public enemies, CIV
IA u 1 - H. rrf5N4 Tfsff
Treason against the United States, II
he levies war against the State alone, as
by endeavoring by arms to subyeFt her |
government. he is guilty of Treason
against the State. II the State were en-
gagged in a war by herself, the other
states not being parties TO ii, 1t not being I
a national war, which cannot be under |
the constitution, except in the case al
ready mentioned, since a state cannot Il
by herself make war against foreign /
State or Nation, to adhere TO her ene-
mics, giving them aid and comfort,
would be treason sgsinstsher alone.
Treason, accordingly, is in reality |
always against the State either against
her alone, or against her and the other |
States ioinly, as a Nation. As it is only /
through his State, and as citizen Of 1t,
that any one owes allegiance to the ma
ton: so IL Is only as citizen OF his |
State that he can commit Treason I,
against the United States, because he Is |
then no longer citizen Of the United |
States, and owes them nc allegiance.
We have thus seen that the citizen is, \
In anv event, bound by and a party to |
the act Of his State, when she seeedes. |
This is demonstrated 70 be the case, &c
gsecessitdte rel. 1t remains to inquire AS !
to the riqht to secede, under the eOnsti- |
tuition itself, or as right underlying the |
constitution. And this bas been proven 10 |
be of the grsvest practical impOrtance,b be- /
cause the opinion on the part Of many of
our own citizens, that there was no con- |
stitutional right of secession, but only
right of revolution and rebellion, its
exercise to be justified only by success,
mas done much TO divide the people
M the STATE, and has led no inconsid |
erable number of them to adhere to
her enemies and give them aid and
comfort, under the conviction on the