The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1910-07-05

statesmen on both sides. and with all
my genuine pride in a restored Uniop,
l am bound to say that the southern
position was never shaken, and that
the overwhelming weight Of argument
was on the side of John c. Calhoun.
and Jefferson Davis. And further, it
was by ~surrendering the constitutional
argument and resorung 10 what was
denonlnated the higher law" Of DO
liucal q and conscience. that
the North found apology or defense
for its attitude oward the inalienable
rights Of the Southern States,
| quote a few sentences from what
seems to me absolutely unanswerable
argument by John c. Calhoun. the
greatest iogician and p~rofoundest poll
ucal philosopher in the nation:
In that character they formed the old
Confederation and when it was proposed
10 supercede the Article of Confederation
by the present Constitution, they met in
convention as States. acted and voted as
states. and the Constitution when formed,
was submitted for ratification to the PEG
pie Of the several States. 1t was ratified
Itself; each, by its ratification, binding
its own citizens: the parts thus separately
binding themselves. and not the whole
the parts; and it is declared in the pre-
amble of the Constitution, to he ordained
by the people of the United states, and
in the article of ratification. when rati-
fled, to be binding between the States SO
ratifying. The conclusion is inevitable
that the Constitution is the work Of
Ait Nopit y L me NlticS. coUSIleTCu rs
separate and independently political com
munities: that they are its authors-theIr
power created it, their voice clothed it
with authority: that the government form
ed is in reality their agent. and that the
Union, of which the Constitution is the
bond. is a Union of States and not OF in
dividuals.
And it is an interesting and sug-
gestiye fact that the latest historians
and writer's on constitution govern
ment sustain the fundamental conten-
ton of Southern statesmen.
The Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, the
accomplished scholar and distinguish
ed Senator Of Massachusetts. in his
Life of Daniel Webster. makes his
candid statement:
When the Constitution was adopted by
the votes of the States at Philadelphia
and accepted by the votes Of the States
in popular conventions, it Is safe to say
there was not q man in the country, from
Washington and Hamilton on one side, to
George Clinton and George Mason on the
other. who regarded the new system as
anything but an experiment entered, upon
by the States, and from which each and
every State had the right to peacefully
Withdraw right that is very likely to
be exercised.
And, in a recent illuminating ad-
dress, the Hon. Francis Adams abun-
dainty and absolutely vindicates the
contention Of Mr.. Davis and other
Southern leaders, in this noble utter
anCe:
ITO which side did the weight of argu-
ment 1nci1nP during the great DEBATE
which eliminated in our Civil War: The
answer necessarily turns on the abstract
right of what we term a sovereign State
to secede from the Union at such time
and for such cause as may seem to that
State proper and sufficient. The issue Is
settled -irrevocably and for all time de-
cided it was not settled forty years ago.
and the settlement. since reached, has been
the result not Of reason based on histori-
cal evidence but of events ana OF foreea
1.-THE principles enunciated by South
Carolina on the goth of December,
1860, was ~enunciated by the Kentucky
resolutions, November 10th, 1898"
The position of Jefferson Davis,
though by his enemies often denied
n persistently ~obscured, was this:
that while consistently and unan-
swerably defending the righ of a
State to secede, he never urged it as
a policy, and deplored it as a possible
necessity. Or to use the language Of
the resolution adopted by the States
Rights Convention of Mississippi in
June, 1851, drawn by his own hand:
Secession was the last alternative,
the final remedy. and should not De
resorted to under existing circum-
Stances
1t may be interesting in this con-
nection to inquire where the exercise
of a States right to secede had It's
first and most threatening assertion
Alexander H. Stephens afirms that
the right of q State to withdraw from
the Union was never denied or queS-
toned by any jurist, publicist, or
statesman or character and standing
until Kent's Commentaries appeared
in 1926, nearly forty years after the
eoyernment had gone into operation
And it is historic truth to state that
the first threat to exercise this right,
universally recognized in the early
DAYS Of the republic, was not heard
in the South-'it first sprang up IN
~ Nr@< an1v CO hJf from
17e5 TO 1915. and again in 1845, there
was an influential party in New Eng
land who favored and threatened the
formation of a Northern Confederacy
Roger Griswold, a representative IN
Con-eec from the State Of Connecti-
emf in 1870. declared that he was in
favor of the New England States
forming a republic by themselves and