The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-10-20
BLEDS0E'S BOOK
UNDER REVIEW
An Able Work, but Not Dis
passionate Summary Of the
-. Arguments Pro and Con.
ON THE RIGHT OF SECESSION
IAN Epitome Of the Views OF Web
ster, Calhoun and Other
Famous Statesmen.
ON THE RIGHT OF SECESSION
PART L
BY FREDERICK WILMER SINS.

PART L
by FREDERICK WILMER SIMS.
us Davis a Traitor. or Was Seces-
Mon a Constitutional Right. Previous
TO the War OF 1917 By Albert Tay-
lor Bledsoe. A. NJ, LII D.. late pro-
lessor OF mathematics In the Univer-
sity OF Virginia. Republished by Mary
Barksdale Newton. in memory OF her
husband, virginius Newton. OF Rich
mond Va. The Hermitage Press. Inc.
1907, Richmond. Va.
AS expressed in Its preface:
TT Is not the design OF this book
to open the subject of secession" (but
merely to discuss that subject from
the standpoint Of abstract right. IN
order to vindicate tie character OF the
South for loyalty, and TO wipe off the
charges of treason and rebellion from
the names and memories Of Jefferson
Davis. "Stonewall" jackson, Albert
sydney Johnston. Robert Il. Lee and
all who have fought and suffered In
the great war of coercion
The recent Confederate Reunion at
Richmond. Va. where gathered once
again the survivors Of the historic
struggle of 1875, makes timely the
republication OF the work under re-
view; and. as valuable contribution
10 the history OF this subject, this
work should be included In all public
libraries and generally read.
IL is true that 1t cannot be elaine
!or this work that 1t is a dispassionate
summary of the arguments which have
Slen advanced on both sides OF the
great question which IL discusses. II
".as written too close to the culmina-
zion In the deadly strife In arms for
this to be expected. It does not con-
tain altogether complete statement
of the arguments which have been
advanced In support OF the position
taken by the author: and 1t falls to
bring out the full force Of the OPP
posing arguments. 1t. however, pre-
sents many of such arguments. pro
End con, In now and forceful way,
and no student OF the subject should
lose the benefit OF the reasoning and
Of the historic research displayed in
This work.
Preamble to the Consultation.
The history OF the authorship of the
initial clause of our Federal Consti-
tuition. I'VE. the people OF the United
States. in order to form a more per-
feet Union do ordain and es-
tablish this Constitution for the United
States of America: and of the writing
OF 1t by Gouverneur Morris. the drafts.
man OF the COMMITTEE on style: and
OF its adoption by the whole con
ventlon In absolute silence; is pecu.
1iarly instructive and interesting read
Ing.
In this connection viii be remember
ed Mr.. Calhoun's suggestion, in his de.
bate with Mr.. Webster in 1888. tina,
this hraseology-.We the people,
etc.--was used as expressing only the
condition of the people under the old
Contederacy and before the adoption
OF the Federal Constitution. as II
speaks Of a time before such adoption
and was not Intended to express the
condition in which the people would
exist after the adoption OF such consti.
tuition. The historical explanation OF
the use OF this language, disclosed By
the work under review, Is much more
satisfactory.
The reasoning OF the author based
on the Federalist. tina Madison papers
tho debates OF the convention and OF
what was at the time OF such con
vention known Of the history com,
pacts between. and considerations of
sovereign States seems conclusive s
the proposition that the Federal Con
stitution was formed by compac
between the original acceding States
IN their capacity as sovereign States
acting for themselves END for the peo
PIE OF the several States, respectiyelv
and that such Constitution was no
FORMED by tho people OF the Unite,
states as whole, acting indiytduall,
and nationally. with respect 70 tl,a = =
tlonal powers delegated,
II vii be remembered that Mr.. Gal
houn brought all the weight OF M
great character and fervid eloouenc
TO maintain the affirmative Of tina
propositions; and that Mr.. webste
combatted such affirmative In tina
epoch making speech OF his in 1888
svene more memorable and able tina,
Z that delivered by him in his perhap
more famous debate with Mr. FIayne
Indeed. 1t seems to have been assume
by Mr.. Calhoun, as an elemental an,
unassailable proposition. and concede
by Mr., Webster (strange as 1t ma,
seem now, reviewing the question fror
his standpoint), that 1t would inevi
tahly result from this that, whnteve
sovereign States may have hound to
Eether. they could put asunder.
But did this conclusion NECESSARILY
follow? y
Yiewings the question In the ltgh
of past history alone, 1t would seer
that 1t did, Assigning to soyereig
States the attributes theretofore con
sidered as inhering In the very natur
Of sovereignty, " would seem that til
States Of 1857 could not, Nm order Il
FORM more perfect union, u Y or "a