Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-02
ESTABLISHED 1910.

rendered their sovereign character. The
fact which has given plausibility to this
theory is that there was a party In the
convention of which Hamilton was the
leader. which desired to substitute a
4 National Sovereignty for a Federal
Union of Sovereign States and that,
the ConstituIOn being the result of a
compromise between the two parties
some of the favorite phrases of the Ma
tionalists weTe retained. But Mr.
Stephens is surely right in saying that
sovereignty cannot be resigned by impli-
cation. And further, while some phrases
that might bear such meaning were re-
tanned, others, which distinctly expressed
it, were carefully struck out. Thus
resolution in favor of national govern
ment, passed before the purpose of
Hamilton and his friends was under
stood, was afterwards rescinded; and
throughout the Constitution the word
" National" was Systematically struck
out wherever it occurred in the first
draft, and United States substituted.
The preamble is the great reliance of
the Federalists of to-day. On the
strength of the words I'VE, the people
of the United States" they assert that
the Constitution was established, not by
the States severally, but by the people
of the Union over the States But the
history of the phrase breaks down this
argument. . 1t stood at first, " We. the
people of New Hampshire, Massachu-
sets. \ X X and Georgia"
But it was expected that some of these
States might as for a while they did
refuse to ratify the Constitution and it
was accordingly provided by Article
VII that, on being ratified by nine
States, it should come into force as be-
tween the States so ratifying." 1t would
be absurd to say, We, the people of
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New
York, x : and Georgia do
establish if Rhode Island and New
York should happen to reject the Con-
stitutiOn, and stand out of the Union.
And for this reason only Z" the United
States" was substituted for an enumera-
ton of the States which would have
expressly excluded the present Federal
ist theory. But in fact how was the
Constitution enacted? As it came from
the Convention, it was nothing more
thSn a proposal, or draft of bill
wv at gave it force or made it law? The
I" by the States" which Mr..
Motley declares it never received, but
which the Constitution itself, in Article
VII, declares that it must receive.
How was it ratified By the sovereign
power aud authority of each State, exer-
cised by the sovereign people of the |
State, in the manner by State law pro-
yided as the only mode in which such |
supreme act Of soveignty could be done
namely, through Convention called /
ad hoe under khe direction of the State
n what character was it |
ratified 1t speaks for itself As a
compact " betloeeH the Safes" not as |
superior law over them. And Virginia |
and New York, in ratifying, expressly |
the right Of Withdrawing, in |
case of need, the powers they had dele
gated to the Federal Government and |
Legislature in short, the right of seees-
sion.
liz all the State Conventions the |
Federalists we're careful to repudiate |
the construction which is now put upon |
The Constitution. Hamilton himself |
was anxious to explain that the phrase |
which termed the Constitution the |
u supreme law of the land" meant moth
ing whatever save that it was to be |
obeyed, and in no way conferred any
power or authority on the Federal Gov |
srnment beyond the express limits of the
Constitution.
Mr. Stephens interlocutors here quote
1 speech of Webster's, in which that
great party leader for the purposes of a
particular occasion, repudiated and
denounced the term compact" EN-
Dloyed by Calhoun to designate the
The dispute was not
merely verbal, the matter really in con-
rOversy being nothing less than the
great issue between Federal and State
Sovereignty. Mr.. Stephens retorts by
'eading Calhoun's reply, in which his
opponent is overwhelmed by quotations
rom every great authority, judicial and
In which the word compact"
S used as Calhoun had used it, and with
he same idea involved in its use, finish
ng with several such citations from
Webster himself After this-the only
attempt at a rhetorical advantage or
mere controversial victory in the volume
Mr.. Stephens proceeds to cite
7ariety Of authorities asserting the
sovereign character of the States under
he Constitution OF 1887. Thus Judge
Washington of the Supreme Court,
.ays They are, in their separate
political capacities, sovereign and indie
pendent, except so far as they have
Inited for their common defense and for
national purposes. They have each
Constitution and form of Government,
cith all the attributes of sorereignty'
Webster, writing to the Barings, and
ipeaking as lawyer in answer to a legal
question, says the same thing In words
IS strong or stronger. The Senate, in
1887 and in 1860, formally resolved
that in adopting the Constitution the
States acted severally as free, sovereign,
md Independent States" Livingston
exposes and ridieules the false inference
irawn from We, the people" and
lsserts the prior existence and independ-
,nce Of the States, anteeedent 20 and
capable of surviving the I" Federal Com
pact. And Gen. Jackson in explain
ng the famous Proclamation in which
le had denounced Nullifcation,. and in
Ehich certain expression had given
;reat alarm by their apparently FEEDER
list tendency, carefully aseribes the
Constitution to "a compact among the
everal States" as " Independent com
nunities. Again, he spoke of them as
sovereign members Of our Union, and
a his farewell address solemnly adlures
he people to maintain "the rights and
Overeignty Of the State"
A sovereign can have no Judge; aud
he Federal Constitution provided no