The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-06-04
. NEVER MURMUR. BUT NEVER FOR
GETv

tending the reifterfnent VI A"'' "'
that n was our duty never TO murmur-
I'M, never to forget" This perfectly
.xrresses the sentiments and opinions
NJ ALI the people of the South. We ac-
-, mo results of the war In perfect
,aith and shall live up TO the terms OF
our surrender without one thought OF
evasion. But we would not forget the
record that we have made. IL we could
and ~ we could forget II, we never could
have made II. This Southland contains
To- ,,ssIf more Of those elements Of con-
servatism. which are to perpetuate our
free institutions and preserve this as
tho land OF liberty, then all the rest OF
the Union put together. Those very
qualities which make her people the
hone OF good government In time TO
come make them linger over their he
roic past with tender and loving memo
ries. and he is no wise ruler who would
have them forget that past. Being the
part Of the best OF citizens while It was
enacted. 1t is the guarantee OF the best
performance I'M the years that are to
follow. Let them cling 20 their past
II hurts no one. and brings up the
young men 20 be what the old ones were.
In very sensible editorial article on
the display made by the whole South on
this occasion, the New York sun said
that even in the North the best thought
was beginning now to admit that the
South had the right Of the case on the
ouestion of secession. To an unbiased
mind. familiar with the history OF the
Government, 1t seems marvellous how an
unpreiudiced man could have any ques-
ton about IL.
When the Union was formed the States
had the option whether they would enter
into an indissoluble union, or whether
they would enter into one from which
they might withdraw at their pleasure
There was no sort Of obligation upon
them to do either. The country was at
peace with all the world, and the states
and the people Of the States were at
liberty 10 form any new Government
they pleased, or TO form no new Gov
thing Of the history of the period, knows
that the people of each State were In
tensely attached to the idea OF their
separate Statehood, and jealous in the
extreme Of any exercise of sovereign
control over them by a central Govern
ment. The objection made in every
State 10 adopting the present Consttu
tlon was that IL established a perma-
nent hard and fast control over the
States by the central Government and
its advocates were able to get the States
to adopt 1t only by insisting that II did
nothing Of the sort. No man who has
the slightest regard for his reputation as
a person Of information would say he
believes It possible that Virginia's con-
sent could have been obtained 10 the
ratification Of the Constitution II that
instrument had contained an express
statement that she could never withdraw
from the Union about to be formed. The
Constitution would have received such
a beggarly support here. II that pro-
vision had been set out on its face, that
no vote would ever have been taken on
IT. All students of history know this
10 be fact. 1t was the same in all
the other States With the public mind
in such a frame as it Is known then TO
have been, II is plainly incumbent for
those who say that the Constitution
made an unbreakable Union. TO point 10
language in it which expressly states
this idea.
in his celebrated debate in the Senate
Of the United States with Mr.. Hayne, of
South Carolina, Mr.. Webster felt the
force Of this argument, and met It thus:
He referred 10 the fact that the Con-
stitution opens with the declaration: I'VE,
the people OF the United States. I'm order
to form a more perfect Union" &c,
and he argued from this language that
the Constitution was an act Of all the
people that dwelt in the original States,
working together TO make a perpetual
Union. This is ell that anti-secession
rested on. The excitement OF the day,
and the frenzy Of politics, made the
public deaf and blind TO thu fact that
this argument was in direct antagonism
10 the facts Of the case. Men who knew
ANYTHING about It knew that every act
| connected with the formation and adop-
| ton OF the Constitution was an act OF the
| States, and not an act even OF the people
OF the States acting separately, as peo-
| pie. The journal OF the convention that
framed the Constitution showed also that
this language had been substituted in
the convention for other language ex-
pressing the Constitution to be the work
1 Of the States, for special reason. and
| not 70 indicate the idea that the Union
was to be the act Of the people at large
| OF all the States. AS the Constitution was
originally framed. it was I'VE the peo-
| pie Of the States of Virginia, New YORK.
&c. But 1t was pointed out that It
provided that 1t should be binding on
those States that ratified it, II as many
as nine did So AS it could not be said
beforehand which nine would rs,ifv.
and which would refuse. and which par
ticular ones would. therefore, be bound
in Difference to this suggestion, the lam
guage was changed SO as TO read: 1--WE.
the people Of the United States"
The trainers Of the Constitution recog-
nized that they We're representing The
States in their State capacity. and made
their language express that fact They
changed their language not "a warrant
| the rnOnsfrOug intarpret-tfov, ,,-i,s.l ~