Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-06-05
dEM2HES APPEAL.
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES

We conclude the review OF Judge
Hunters pamphlet on Sovereignty, AL
legiance and Secession.
After full statement of the defects OF
the Articles of Confederation, and very
detective and imperfect one Of the vari-
Gus measures, steps and occurrences that
led to the sembling OF the Convention
of 1857, Judge Hunter, the author,
broadly states that there were two par
ties in the Convention, one in favour Of
State Sovereignty, citizenship of States
only, and allegiance to the States, and 8
Confederacy Of independent States and
the other in favour of a central, CONSOLE
dated Government, that should embody
in itself all the attributes of sovereign
independent nation, with citizenship OF
the nation and allegiance to the central
federal power. he truly states that the
theories of the delegates were not az
fected by the latitude, North or South,
from which they came, nor by any con.
siderations connected with slavery and
that it was contest between the large
and small States.
The questions of citizenship and ale
glance were little discussed, and that Of
State sovereignty only as reason for in
sisting on equal representation in Con-
gress.
Mr.. Randolph of Virginia, as Judge
Hunter states, proposed a plan for a
National Government, almost as soon as
the Convention assembled. Mr.. Pinck-
ney of South Carolina proposed another,
but abandoned it and supported Ran
dolph's, which was that q National Gov
ernment ought to be established, con-
sisting OF Supreme Legislature, Judi
ciary and Executive the Legislature to
consist of two Houses, one elected by
the people Of the respective States, and
the other by the House 60 elected by the
people: the States to be uRequally rep
resented, that is, according to the popu-
lation Of each State, in each branch.
Judge Hunter does not state that the
plan also proposed that the Executive
should be elected by the Legislature, and
the Judges by the Upper House; and
that the Legislature should have the
power to veto laws injurious TO the gen-
eral interest, enacted by thel States, and
powers Of legislation much more impe-
rial than were finally conceded by the
Constitution.
This plan was supported by Washing
ton and Madison. Its purpose was to
give all the powers of the Government
to the large States, Massachusetts, Yir-
ginia and Pennsylvania. North and
South Carolins and Georgia, to secure
the continuance Of the slave-trade,
voted with these three States; and the
struggle was between these and the
smaller States, Maryland, Delaware,
Connecticut, New Jersey and New
Hampshire, with which New York
sided.
The large States prevailed. The Con-
vention determined on inequality OF
representation in both Houses, and the
small States determined TO withdraw
from the Convention. This led, after
the matter had been referred and re-re-
ferred, to committees of the whole and
special committees, to a compromise, by
which the equality Of the States was re-
cogDized, by the provision that the States
should be equally represented in the
Senate. The word National was then
struck out, as no longer appropriate, be-
cause those in favor of federal, fede-
rate or confederate government had
prevailed, and the Virginia plan had
been defeated.
Judge Hunter quotesSAt length from
the report of Luther Martin, made to the
Maryland Legislature, who naturally ex-
sggersted the national features Of the
Constitution, and still more those OF the
plan, which he had opposed, and which,
he declared, was intended to destroy
State sovereignty altogether, He had
proposed to declare that the people Of
State making war against the United
States should net be deemed guilty of
treason; but the Convention refused to
adopt the provision. The victory of the
small States was incomplete, because al
though the original plan was essentially
changed by giving each State an equal
voice in the Senate, all the details and
accommodated to, or made TO be harmo-
nious with the changed nature of the
plan. The defeated States conceded moth
ing that they could with success refuse,
and endeavoured, Of course, to make the
victory of the small States of as small
value as possible: but the abandonment
of the word National shows the extent
Of their defeat.
Mr.. Martin argued that the compact |
between the States, entered into by the |
Articles Of Confederation, could only be
dissolved by the consent Of eveTy State
but the Convention acted without any
regard to Rhode Island. The Confed-
Grafton was to be perpetual, also, but
that too was disregarded.
Notwithstanding the concessions thus
wrung from the large States, and the
abandonment Of the word National |
Luther Martin, Patrick Henry and |
others, who were opposed to the adop.
ton of the Constitution, represented it
as establishing q consolidated Govern |
ment and destroying State Sovereignty. |
Judge Hunter quotes from the speech of
Mr.. Henry ia which he insisted that the |
Constitution was net q compact between |
the States, on account Of the phrase
" We, the People Of the United States" |
in the preamble. We should suppose
that Judge Hunter had heard arguments
of counsel enough to know that the OBJ
jections 30 taken, and the arguments of
those who opposed the Constitution, do
not at all prove that it was what they
asserted it to be.
He says that these arguments and
statements Of Luther Martin and Patrick