The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-06-04
ROlIE NEW BOOKG
nanerofes History OF the Consultation,
YIgsr ARTICLE

Wo Opino that the Thought apporinOst IN
the mind Of those who road with the attention IL
deserves Mr. BANzoFr's History 81 L.e FbrDia-
ton Of Me Chpzttnrttota Q voe. tADplotonsl
with DO profound regret TINT 1t WINS
not written earlier. 1t Ia. indeed, astopish-
ing that q cou,try whose organic law IL
embodied in o written instrument should
have waited web nigh n century for n renson-
ably full minute and trustworthy account OF
tho circumstances under which IL was adopted,
md OF the motives. predileottpns, dcclarations.
and avowals OF its trainers and advocates.
Here 10 law tho most trarseundent In scope
and moment that was ever Inscribed on paper,
but which like every other attempt to regulate
human action by the written word, Ia in
eyitaby subjected TO the same rulos OF inter
probation which govern tho exposition OF other
legal documcnts yet unto tho publication OF
this history. tho materials for investigation
and for the application OF those ruIos were
grossly and notoriously defective. Commenta-
rice no doubt. we had; indeed tho proceedings
In Congress- from the adoption OF tho Missouri
Compromise to the repeal Of that measure may
be said to have been one long commentary on
the purport OF the Constitution. one strenuous.
persistent effort To elicit the meaning OF that
instrument There was no lack Of the powers
OF logic and Of persuasion in the controversy of
which Webster and Calhoun were the protag
onists; what was wanting was a sufficiently
exhaustive and authentic array Of facts
Tho Constitution Is q document which was
drafted by Federal Convention. and which
acquired validity when ii was ratified by u GER
tain number OF States. so much is plain
enough and the fact itself suggests tho princi-
pies TO no followed in the construction Of the
text. There is not u sentence of that instru
ment which was not an object of sharp scrutiny
and animated discussion in the body which
finally determined to give 1t tho present
verbal form; and every phrase was after
ward submitted to an equally rigorous in
spection by the parties in interest. to wit.
the thirteen independent States sevcrally
assembled in conventions. 1t ought, there
fore. TO have been exceptionally easy rs it
was Of unparalleled Importance, to ascertain
the precise intention Of the Federal Conven-
ton in the use of particular words and the
sense In which those words were under
stood by the State Conventions which gave to
them legal sanction; yet it WAS Just such evil
dence relating to the purpose Of the authors
and the understanding Of the adoptcrs Of the
American Constitution that has been depor-
ably detective and it is this deficiency which
rendered possible the widely divergent and
finally irreconeilable theories Of the funda
mental relation of tho constituent States
TO the Union. Had Mr.. Bancrofts naI-
ratve been published half O century
ago the facts which it sets forth. and tho sup
Elemental facts to whose collection anu ap-
probation 1t would have given impetus would
probably have demonstrated that one view
and one view only. of the Constitution is COM
patible with the intentions Of it's trainers.
We think, too. that had this book been pub
lished before the civil war. it would have been
more complete and satisfactory than with all its
merits it can now be pronounced. For while
MIR. Bancroft has collected in these volumes
with diligence and success the testimony
bearing on all secondary questions of con-
struction. he has left unstated and almost
unnoticed the paramount inquiry touching
the right OF the constituent States to seeede
and the power Of the Federal Government to
eoeree. We have looked in vain through these
PAGES for any explicit reference to the great de-
bate which for half a century shook the ceun-
try to the centre. and which was ultimately set
tied by the memorable verdict Of war. The
motive for this strange reticenee on tho part of
the historian Is sufficiently intelligible. He
manifestly holds that the supreme inquiry
touching the dissolubility of the Union has
NO longer any place among pertinent and
practical Investigations; that 1t has been
answered once for ALL and that only
minor questions Of construction need the
light resulting from q knowledge of Grcum-
stances and intentions. Mr.. Bancroft has
therefore. placed himself, in the composition
OF this history of the conditions under which
our organic law was framed at the point of
view Of a contemporary observer in whose
mind the need Of union was acutcly felt. and
from whom the temptation to secession and
the woes it would entail were mercifu!ly hidden
behind the curtain Of futurity. We repeat that
we appreciate Mr. Bancrofts motive for per-
which the student specially desires to be en-
heightened, and perhaps the time has not
yet come for q non-partisan. disposition
ate. uninvidious discussion of it. But
meanwhile we must point out that by
his refusal to examine this fundamental ques
ton Mr.. Bancroft foregoes q claim to COM
pleteness and nnality for his book. and con-
tents himself with Offering rather an imDortant
contribution to the materials OF historical in
quiry into the origin and significance OF our
Constitution, than searching. exhaustive.
unimprovable exposition OF the theme. In
short. an account OF the formation OF the Amer
lean Constitution which discovers, in tho pro-
cecdings Of the Federal and State con
Ventions or in the correspondence OF
public men, not word which is explicitly
declared to throw light upon tho cap
ital question Of secession would have been
looked upon, had 1t been published before our
civil war, performance OF the play Of
Hamlet with tho title part omitted. We find
1t hard to believe that IN all tho documentary
evidence examined by Mr., Bancroft there WAS
not line bearing on this topic; and il not
Lhon the 81 ence WAS itself significant. And
whatever may BIO the reasons which have led
the author 20 waive discussion OF this subject
We are constrained TO remind him that just so
lar as hi supprcsses or avoids particular
aspect Of his theme. he permits himself TO be
detected from the essential end and true func-
ton Of the historian.
In some other respects besides the studiOus
avoidance OF the question Of secession, we are
inclined to think this book would have been
somewhat different from what it now is had it
been published some years before the civil war.
The authors point Of view has been materially
altered in the interval; and it is natural. nay.
inevitable. that the present history should
show signs Of the change When, during the
fourth decade Of this century. Mr. Bancroft was
made Collector OF Boston. and when. not long
afterward. he became n member of the Cabinet,
I.,r la, tnl